>Blacks were slowly integrating into society peacefully in the 1960's
>Along comes black nationalism and fucks it all up, leading to the divide we have today
>Black Nationalism was lead by the Nation of Islam (Malcolm X)
>Nation of Islam was primarily funded by Libya
>Libya was recently taken over from US hands by a military coup, so they hated the US
Is the Nation of Islam the cause of divide between blacks and whites in the US?
Did the USSR motivate Libya into funding the Nation of Islam in order to destabilize the US?
No, it was a symptom. Blacks were massively treated like shit at the time, and every single aspect of the NoI was basically a backlash against white racism. Like, off the top of my head, the whole thing about Yakub making white people out of monkeys was because of whites, including academics and preachers, at the time were constantly comparing black people to monkeys.
Really, I find the NoI really sad. It's dumb as balls, but I can't even really be mad at it or anyone who started following it. It was an absurd, racist cult, but it came about and gained whatever influence it had because of absurd, racist circumstances.
>Is the Nation of Islam the cause of divide between blacks and whites in the US?
No, the cause of the divide has roots far more ancient than some 20th century cult. You should know this.
>Did the USSR motivate Libya into funding the Nation of Islam in order to destabilize the US?
I have never heard this theory, but I do know that the USSR paid lip-service at least to the Civil Rights movement. You can probably attribute that to a combination of communism's opposition to racial hierarchy and just trying to take the piss out of the US.
>>Blacks were slowly integrating into society peacefully in the 1960's
>>Along comes black nationalism and fucks it all up, leading to the divide we have today
you are totally and utterly deluded if you believe this is true
Nation of Islam was an appalling, racist reaction to appalling levels of white racism. Blaming the USSR for it is a lazy way of exonerating the political failure of the USA at the time, and it is rather pathetic that you should use it in this manner
>Blacks were slowly integrating into society peacefully in the 1960's
Blacks were as violent if not more violent in the 1960s as they are today.
But yeah, the black nationalism of Malcolm X is quite cringy and hurtful.
>along came black nationalism
Black nationalism became popular after MLK was assassinated. Blacks gave up on the peaceful approach seeing it as a failure and went full kill whitey in revenge and anger for MLK's death.
>Are you implying black nationalism created the race divide in the united states
There are different levels of race divide, OP is implying that the level of race divide we have today wouldn't exist if it wasn't for outside intervention by Libya (and perhaps even the USSR).
Racism is inherently bad, whether done by whites or blacks or Asians.
You just need to use your head a bit and go above urge to discuss things at biological level.
Criticizing culture of some blacks is legitimate and not racist, but bringing biological arguments as to why are they like that is racism (and dumb).
But I believe this discussion belongs on >>/pol/
It needs to be deleted. If they aren't heavily modding the board, then "this is /pol/ 2" will become the boards identity. So if Jackie 4chan can't spare some extra modding, he needs to just delete the board.
No they were not integrating
Not like other immigrant groups at least
They were forming their own strong community during that time though
It slowly got degraded in the twenty year period after the civil rights era
Aint great society policies grand?
I dream of a day any group of non-white people can be discussed on this website without /pol/ ruining everthing
Nah that implies that blacks had it easier before the NoI. NoI was stupid and reactionary, but it's not hard to see why it'd appeal to an angry and oppressed people.
Nope. Just that we're going to go back and forth like we do. I'm confused. I was making an argument and not insulting you?
Oh, and stop calling anyone who disagrees with you a communist. That really gets old.
History is not based on your retarded politics, and this board sure as fuck doesn't need /pol/'s special brand of argumentaion, aka baseless insults, shouting "shill" or "sjw" and ad hominem.
Seriously. Fuck off. I've wanted this board since before your shit hole board existed, and If I wanted to go to your shithole board, I'd go there. Fuck off.
/his/ is not /pol/, and Global Rule #3 is in effect. Do not try to treat this board as /pol/ with dates. Blatant racism and trolling will not be tolerated, and a high level of discourse is expected. History can be examined from many different conflicting viewpoints; please treat other posters with respect and address the content of their post instead of attacking their character.
There is a difference between "maintaining a high level of discourse" and "censorship." IE running screaming into a thread discussing a historical event talking about "retarded libshit" or, as some others have been screaming "them filthy niggers," is "keeping conversation on the board on-track and civil," not censorship or "banning dissent."
>implying there is a big chasm in the south
The southern aristocracy and culture is fucking dead and it is impossible to distinguish white southerners and black southerners in most cases
1) you clearly didn't read my post, since I never denied that racial differences exist, I simply stated the biological fact of the matter, which is that interracial differences are vastly outweighed by intraracial ones
2) I don't know what you did with the video but you must have either not bothered watching it, or else not understood it, since it is Richard Dawkins explaining why Lewontins fallacy is fallacious, and highlighting the fact that there are genuine differences between races. However he then goes on to reiterate the point: that while interracial differences exist, they are minimal compared to intraracial ones
I chose that video since it is a fairly straightforward and easily accessible explanation of my point, frankly I am astonished that you somehow still managed to miss the point so spectacularly. Did you not watch the video or just not understand its extremely simple point?
maybe you should learn rudimentary biology before you embarrass yourself further in front of all these nice people
It's really sad how the Civil Rights movement and black consciousness are so intertwined with religious groups in today's popular imagination.
If you put aside Malcolm X and MLK, there were plenty of black union organizers and other secular figures who did most of the hard work. Then these religious clowns come in and take all the credit.
No one cares about the student organizations because well no one really likes college students
It makes sense that most of the black community would be inspired by someone like MLK desu senpai
gary webb's dark alliance my friend. Also recognizing aberrations in history lets you notice some things. If you look at incarceration rates in the United States, you'll find that they grow, more or less, with the population size and then when you hit the 1970s there is a GIGANTIC spike in incarceration, particularly black incarceration, which can be attributed to government and law enforcement policy that continues to this day.
I recommend reading the New Jim Crow, by Michelle Alexander for more on the subject.
Libya gave almost 10 million USD to the NoI in the 70's.
That's not a small amount of money, I think the theory of them doing it to hurt the US is a high possibility considering their anti-US agenda.
Saying that the NoI was a primary cause of black nationalism is a definite stretch though, unless you also manage to prove that MLK's assassination was done by NoI related people as well.
Honestly it has not been long enough for blacks to fully climatize to where whites currently are, another way to look at it is to examine social mobility of the poorest white people back in 1963 and to look at what social standing their descendants have today. This is not factoring in how inequality has increased, racism and the war on drugs which have almost certainly limited African American social mobility. I'm guessing OP is a /pol/ poster.
Drug prohibition would have ended by now, almost certainly. At the very least for marijuana. Other than that I can't say because I'm not a magician but if you want some totally baseless conjecture? Probably an even lower violent crime rate than the one we enjoy now, which I believe is still the lowest in the nation's history, but don't quote me on that.
To play devil's advocate, why did the Japanese Americans acclimate after internment? They were sharecroppers and lost everything except for two suitcases. I believe Japanese to US immigration was minimal as most emigrants went to Latin America until the 60s when large emigration stopped.
That's like saying if prohibition had never occurred
Mainly gangs/mobs would have been almost nonexistent
Then again nigs gonna nig and blacks have been given ample room to grow
I think part of the problem is that there's this culture in the black community that simply does not want to integrate into the white community mostly for historic reasons
It's why they still are seen as a whole other compared to many immigrant groups over the years
Isn't that the book based on articles that got torn apart by newspapers and eventually the original editor admitted that the evidence couldn't be corroborated and the articles didn't meet their journalistic standards?
I think the op is on to something.
When thinking about the enormous progress blacks had made, considering they were slaves. They were at point where real progress could be achieved through understanding the cultural climate, however as most societal issues, it was hijacked by extremists and the victim/racism/oppressive narrative was developed. Forever stuck we will be with this dynamic in place. Too many people enjoy and have developed an economic stake in this narrative and that is why tensions are high. Self centered brats who would rather shame and bully people, claiming moral superiority only to show themselves having a complete lack of understanding and critical thought when looking at history from a perspective set in reality.
Please, tell me when the black nationalist burned and hung people for 50 years while congress refused to pass anti-lynching laws. So many accessories to murder in every lynching photo, so many people that never got punished. I swear, the more I read, the more I think that Malcolm X was right.
So do you usually stumble into conversations regurgitating tired cliches and meaningless buzzwords or is this just a case of the mondays?
>Along comes black nationalism and fucks it all up, leading to the divide we have today
Yeah, before black nationalism the racial policies were fine. How dare people realize their communities shared by persecution based on nothing but the color of their skin!
Yeah, I'm no partisan of Dawkins, whose work on theology and philosophy and the history of science is pleb tier, but he *is* a biologist, which is precisely the area that I'd trust him to account for somewhat well.
Of course they weren't fine, but MLK was making progress without inciting violence.
If racial equality kept moving forward in a peaceful manner you wouldn't have the racial violence rates we have today.
Nice emotional fueled rant. Now try calming down and looking at things objectively and take into consideration the history between the two races. It's easy to get carried away with ignorant feeling based opinions that add no value other than show that you're upset and offended by history... Completely counter productive.
Racism is inherently normal. Lol miss enlightened things she's without any internal biases.
yeah, what with 88 percent of black homicides being intraracial and 84 percent of white crime being intraracial, it's a goddamn helter skelter out there.
Also remember that MLK was considered a crazed radical by his contemporaries. Read Letter From a Birmingham Jail, in which he responds to said critics, and bone up on the prevailing belief that he gave speeches that incited riots, including one in my beloved hometown of Cincinnati.
I think that is putting the cart before the horse, meaning that Asians would integrate because they were superior citizens. This is just an anecdote but I come from a family of machinists in California which experienced the waves of Asian immigration, notably Koreans and then Vietnamese after their respective wars. The Koreans were just the tops, apparently very good workers and people while the Vietnamese were problems. But now you wouldn't say that about the Vietnamese, you might even say they have become better citizens as they seem to have fully integrated instead of forming cliques. This is all personal experience though and not related to my Japanese question.
Honestly everything would be a whole lot better if MLK was never killed.
It is highly likely the ghetto hood rat culture with all of its destructive tendencies would never have appeared.
Think of all the problems that would be solved if Young black people stayed in school and made a serious effort.
It's easier to integrate when an entire population where you tend to live isn't scared as fuck of you, like Southern Americans sometimes are of blacks. After WWII nobody was concerned about the Japs.
Yes but reparations would do nothing to fix that. In fact it would make a racial divide worse by taking money from people who never did anything and giving to people who themselves were never wronged.
And by the way The vast majority of White people in this country are not descended from slave holders.
Yes, I'm aware, but MLK himself acknowledged that the economic/racial divide in the United States wasn't going to be resolved by anything less than full socialism and economic intervention on behalf of black Americans on a massive scale. The wound is just too deep.
>If racial equality kept moving forward in a peaceful manner you wouldn't have the racial violence rates we have today.
black homicide rates are still higher in canada and the uk, or any western european country for that matter than whites.
chimpin isn't easy
Black Nationalism was a logical conclusion when the black people realized that mellow integration was only creating a black middle class that partook in the exploitation of their fellows - rather than a liberation of all, there's a reason such "hard-liners" as the BPP saw their movement as primarily one of socialism.
"Elijah Muhammad preached his own version of Islam to his followers in the Nation. According to him, blacks were known as the 'original' human being, with 'evil' whites being an offshoot race that would go on to oppress black people for 6,000 years. He preached that the Nation of Islam's goal was to return the stolen hegemony of the inferior whites back to blacks across America."
ya, E. Muhammad was batshit. No wonder Malcolm X immediately abandoned him and the Nation of Islam as soon as he made contact with actual Muslims and realized that the NoI was FUCKING CRAZY.
I think the blacks were dumb for not fighting to keep separate, but equal. The separation was good, and they should have fought for the equality. Imagine how much less congestion there would be on like rides at theme parks, public parks, etc. They had a great deal. Equal amenities for only 15% of the populace. They were just too short term in their approach to freedom.
And the second Malcolm X wanted to stop inciting violence, E. Muhammad had him killed. A few years later, another black non-violence proponent was killed in a similar manner.
Coincidence? Did E. Muhammad organize the assassination of MLK?
The problem is that separate but equal generally wasn't equal, as the (white) people in charge had no reason to make it so. Things reserved for blacks got either no funding or as little funding as was legally possible, and little government support. Things were definitely separate (and a black person would be arrested if they tried using a white amenity; though I don't ever recall hearing of any white person during that era being arrested for using a black amenity, not that they'd have any reason to), but they were by no means equal.
MLK actually became more radical towards the end of his life. And it's pretty much unambiguous at this point that the MLK assassination was engineered by elements in the US government. Look up the civil court case of the King family v. Jowers.
addendum: by "more radical" i meant that he was pursuing issues of economic equality for all people and opposing the Vietnam War and generally branching out into issues that concerned more than just the black community.
reparations would do literally NOTHING, the only thing it would do is piss off white people even more because now we have to pay for something we never partook in. My great grandparents came here from Portugal and Canada, they had literally NOTHING to do with slavery, expecting my family and millions of others to pay for something we never did is asinine, and that is exactly what would happen if they decided to give reparations out.
that does not matter. blacs DESERVE reparations, we HAVE TO give them reparations
your parents benefited from a racist system. you would not even be literate if it were not for white privilege
I'm a three-generations deep Northerner myself pal(of Appalachian stock, a group of white people who were legally discriminated against to nearly the same extent as black Americans, up to and including forced sterilization).
The idea of reparations isn't about "punishment," it is about rectifying a mistake that has gripped at the nation for three hundred years, and ideally would be a first step towards socialism, or at least social democracy, in the United States. Interestingly, MLK's own discussion of the matter referred to economic justice for all peoples, not just black Americans btw:
Son, everyone loves escapism, especially when your life is in a shitty ghetto. It's funny that you say this amid a new heroin epidemic, but because it's hitting middle class, suburban whites, people are advocating for a softer "war on drugs" Already there is more support for treating addicts like victims instead of "thugs"
I don't care if its about rectifying a mistake, i'm not paying a single fucking dime for something my family was not responsible for
take it up with the government, not the average taxpayer
No one said it was about punishment. I did however say it would worsen the Racial devide to take money from people who never did anything wrong (and in most cases neither did their ancestors) and give it to people who were themselves never wronged.
This is reality.
I have wondered if MLK would have had the same lasting impact as he did if he weren't assassinated. I think the answer is yes, but maybe not. I was trying to find a similar figure, and the best I can come up with is Albert Lutuli, another nobel peace prize winner and president of the African National Congress in SA. He is of course overshadowed by Mandela, so maybe the same would have happened to King if he were able to live the rest of his life.
It's not about whether or not your family had slaves. The long racial divide in this nation has helped your family in it's endeavors. No matter how hard you have worked in your own life, a person who is of darker skin in your exact same position would have had to work harder. Reparations are the way of easing the burden that black families have had to suffer for so many generations
>people who were themselves never wronged.
Black Americans were wronged by being born where they were. You'll notice in the speech Doctor King gave he mentions how black families were denied access to western settlement and denied access to the government support programs that helped those settlers thrive.(Most) White Americans have been subsidized by the US government for billions of dollars, for many two centuries. Isn't it time the other native children of this nation reap the same rewards?
uuuuh no I don't think he was what he was doing for "publicity" man. It wasn't a fucking celebrity feud or a television show, he didn't have to do more "shocking" stuff to stay ahead in the ratings.
His increased radicalism wasn't even the advocacy of community self-defense or separatism or other NoI talking points, it was about economic justice.
>(Most) White Americans have been subsidized by the US government for billions of dollars
This is silly, if you are going to play racial politics, then where did those subsidies come from?
>bringing biological arguments as to why are they like that is racism (and dumb)
Except violence is a biological and cultural trait. Are you from Norway by chance?
>You can probably attribute that to a combination of communism's opposition to racial hierarchy and just trying to take the piss out of the US.
I think you're romanticizing it. It's far more likely they saw it as a weakening force as a nation fighting amongst itself is less able to defend itself from outside forces
The CIA guns and crack thing is true and it continued well through the 90s. There are documents from former agents that prove it which are easily accessible with a Google search and a few interviews on YouTube too. Freeway Rick Ross and other eventual drug lords got their shit flown in on the backs of Government planes. I guarantee you some nigga in the hood isn't just going to randomly start up a fucking nationwide drug empire, in the fucking 80s of all times, based in Compton of all places, on food stamps and WIC.
If the government wasn't involved then that means these drug lords were the most ingenious humans to ever grace mankind.
Southern Aristocracy is dead because there was an industrial boom and the wealthy moved up north after reconstruction to invest and build in industry. They made their money on the backs of slave labor, then multiplied it tenfold through solid investments in shit like banks, railroads, etc.
Only the retards stayed in the south for 'muh culture', and because they thought sharecropping would actually work.
Lynchings were a very rare occasion in the 1960's, what are you on about?
Progress was being made and violence was on a definite downturn. But then black nationalism and black power movements incited violence from within the black community.
Nation of Islam. Elijah knew that blacks and whites can't live together, cleaned up his people, and sought to make their own nation. Had certain powers at be not torn them apart Africa and the West would be pure and thriving -- or at least better off than things are now.
Civil Rights activists went missing, students were beaten in the streets and murder of blacks was a common occurrence. Sure, lynchings were down, but other types of violence were still running rampant. The "If only the blacks had been less radical, they would be fine today" narrative is such bullshit.
Following WWII and the great depression, many white families were given money to move to the suburbs and they actually received government assistance routinely. Blacks were denied such access, albeit indirectly. Common stipulations were that the unemployed, maids, and field workers were not allowed government assistance, but white collar workers actually did receive assistance. Any blacks that were financially savvy enough to move out of the slums and into the suburbs were usually told they couldn't live in the suburbs because of 'housing values', despite the fact that the suburbs were being filled with poor white workers. It was like reverse welfare, and on a massive scale, and it allowed whites to move out of the cities following the great depression, leaving them full of blacks still suffering from the depression, and creating the ghettos we know and love today. And let's not forget about them throwing crack into the mix in the 80s!
Because small groups anon. When you have big groups of migrants [or, in African American's cases, slaves] they don't assimilate into the population because they can just stay within their own culture. That's my theory, anyway.
Black people still had to pay taxes on the little bit they made to the government that was used to support poor whites. Then there was also that bit about slavery being a thing two generations back.
I'd like to point out here that [spoiler]from what I learned in History class about the civil rights movement in straya, so it might not be accurate[/spoiler] that Malcolm X was becoming less radical at the same time, and more sympathetic to MLK's viewpoint.
I got a friend who studied, I forget the actual subject, but it's basically human geography and there's a system to keep just this going. Sure the logical response would be "Well why don't they just move?" but the lack of education and constant reminder that black people suck kinda put a damper on willingly being homeless in a foreign city or state for awhile before trying to move up.
Even today, blacks will sit in shacks for homes and lap up food stamps instead of striving for a better life because they think it's the best thing and gubbuhment is giving them money so why bother.
US taxes have always been de facto progressive even before the income tax because the old tariff and excise taxes are based on consumption, so in effect any white prosperity you attribute to government subsidy is just shuffling around the white wealth. And with regard to slavery you can look at other groups life refugees or interned Japanese as in the discussion >>61809
>they don't assimilate into the population because they can just stay within their own culture.
I think this a common theory actually. I live in a big city, and people tend to stay in their own comfort zones. Nigerians live in 1 spot, Greeks live in another, Ukrainians have their own side, Chinese stick together, ect. Sure by day you can walk a busy street and see and hear all kinds of people and languages, but by night everyone's off in their own spot.
It doesn't matter if it's a majority shuffling around white wealth of its still taking a good amount of the little of what blacks have and giving it all to whites. De facto progressive is meaningless when poor blacks and poor whites fall in the same category of poor news by government qualifications and end up giving away the same amount. The poor white got more back in assistance.
That's like if you have a two pieces of candy and everyone else is complaining that they only have two pieces while I have 1000 to myself, more than i could ever eat, realistically. I play nice guy and take a piece of everyone's candy and redistribute it out. I give everyone except you two new pieces. They have three pieces now, and you have one piece. You just lost candy.
Now imagine you can work for candy. You're earning one piece of candy a day. But we keep redistributing every day, and I keep giving everyone except for you two new pieces, while taking one away from you.
>He was notably convinced Plato and Kant were white supremacists. I'm not joking.
Except they basically were. Read some of the shit Kant says about blacks, women and Jews. It's /pol/ tier.
>not fighting to keep separate, but equal
>implying blacks only schools stopped existing
Chances are all the "bad" schools around you are the ones that are over 96% black. Do you know what's the most effective method of improving a black kid's performance at one of these schools? Put him in a school where there's at least 30% non-black students. From childhood to adulthood integrating blacks gives them the best chance of success
It's the same reason Jews have done so shit as well.