I like that the light is shining on the racists.

[eleanorigby]

@mswas

How are Earthquakes like ethnic minorities?

They both drive down property values!

OOOHHHH!!!

Ok, this made me laugh.

[Indistinguishable]

Ah, I guess my memory must just be shoddy, then. That’s upsetting.

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Actually, it was built by black slaves. White people just watched.

Now, now, Dio. Not all the manual labor in this country’s history was done by my ancestors. Jackie Chan’s cousins also contributed.

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

@magellan01

It shouldn’t. Not when it is the answer to the question. Why is it that the first 43 Presidents were all white? Answer: it was basically a white country. For the vast majority of the time it was about 90% white. **Pretty much every thing of note that happened to any person was happening to a white person. This is unsurprising since the largest group that was not white was subjugated—first held in slavery and then held down through laws and policies that made it impossible for any one of them to have achieved such a high office.

How is that in any way racist?** Please be specific.

Or, you can further align with that nitwit OP and revert to the oh-so-dependable ad hominem.

(bolding mine)

I thought I did the insane posts. I really did. And yet I was not the author of the above. I am confused.

[Indistinguishable]

@Skald_the_Rhymer

Now, now, Dio. Not all the manual labor in this country’s history was done by my ancestors. Jackie Chan’s cousins also contributed.

Cousins, not ancestors?

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

@Indistinguishable

Cousins, not ancestors?

I believe, based on no evidence whatsodamnever as I don’t care enough to even check Wikipedia, that Brother Jackie was born in China (or maybe Hong Kong) of a family which had no American ties.

Of course, if I were going to be really picky I’d have said cousins for myself too. It’s not like we Rhymers personally did all the manual labor involved in the building of the American Empire.

[Indistinguishable]

@Skald_the_Rhymer

I believe, based on no evidence whatsodamnever as I don’t care enough to even check Wikipedia, that Brother Jackie was born in China (or maybe Hong Kong) of a family which had no American ties.

Fair enough. It was more the “same generation” vs. “many past generations” thing which was confusing me, but I guess you use the word “cousin” in a broader sense than I was used to. Anyway, whatever.

[Slithy_Tove]

Not Jackie Chan’s ancestors, but cousins. He is indeed 274 years old. Youtube link explains all

[magellan01]

@Biggirl

Nope, I mean mags. He’s the one who says:

1.Hispanics are predisposed to criminality.
2.Blacks disdain education and are generally the stupider race.
3.We should establish an American culture so that when those very few immigrants who we let migrate come in here, there will be an American culture that they can adopt and shed those other, not nearly as nice, cultures. Mostly by speaking English, motherfucker.

If need be, he would allow ten thousand or so Messicans into the US to pick our lettuce and do other menial jobs, just as long as they go back when we’re through with them. That’s our mags.

:rolleyes:You stopped taking your meds, didn’t you? Or did you find some super-duper stupid food to gorge yourself on?

1. I don’t believe that at all.
2. I don’t believe that at all.
3. I do believe in the benefits of a melting pot. Guilty. (Sob.)

As far as immigration, I think we should secure our borders and enforce our laws. I also think our immigration policy needs to be overhauled, making it easier for people to come here legally. As far as the numbers, I don’t know if the number should be set at 1,000 or 10,000,000. But we should take into account our labor pool here, particularly with the rising unemployment we have today. I’ll also point out that illegal immigration drives down wages and primarily displaces African-American workers. Not that you care about facts.

Now, as far as your intellectual failings, I suggest you stick a gerble up your ass to keep your head company and double your brain power, you anti-intellectual, anti-debate, anti-analysis, knee-jerk, ad-hominem throwing, ignorance loving, fallacy-fellating dumb-dumb.

And you’re still free to address any of the analysis I’ve provided, if the gerble can talk you into it.

[magellan01]

@Skald_the_Rhymer

(bolding mine)

I thought I did the insane posts. I really did. And yet I was not the author of the above. I am confused.

Since the post I offered makes perfect sense, you did, in fact, manage another insane post. You really did. You even managed to highlight the question, including the question mark, but somehow ignored it.

Well done, Champ.

[Freudian_Slit]

@magellan01

It shouldn’t. Not when it is the answer to the question. Why is it that the first 43 Presidents were all white? Answer: it was basically a white country. For the vast majority of the time it was about 90% white. Pretty much every thing of note that happened to any person was happening to a white person. This is unsurprising since the largest group that was not white was subjugated—first held in slavery and then held down through laws and policies that made it impossible for any one of them to have achieved such a high office.

How is that in any way racist? Please be specific.

But that’s just it. It wasn’t just a white country. Whites were the ones in power. They were the visible ones. You just didn’t matter if you weren’t in power. Stuff was happening to women and nonwhites, but they just couldn’t do anything about it. And I think a lot of the whole “wise Latina” stuff is about getting people who weren’t typically in power, who aren’t biased or blinded by taking privilege for granted, to be in public offices. Someone who’s probably more painfully aware of the really bad stuff that was going on when we were (supposedly) a white country.

[mswas]

Am I the only one who is confused as to why magellan01 is being called a racist?

[magellan01]

@Freudian_Slit

But that’s just it. It wasn’t just a white country. Whites were the ones in power. They were the visible ones. You just didn’t matter if you weren’t in power. Stuff was happening to women and nonwhites, but they just couldn’t do anything about it.

We agree. But I’d add that it also meant they were not going to make headlines with their accomplishments. That’s no fault of their own, but it is also fact. If the question is: “What is the American experience?”, you and I would be in sync. You could not accurately convey “America” without including talking about the buying and selling of slaves, the breaking up of families, lynching, Jim Crow, etc.

But the question here was why is it that virtually all SC justices have been white. and Buchanan’s answer is 100% correct—for all practical purposes, it was a white country. By dint of a vast white majority and also because blacks were subjugated, “discriminated against” to the point of being, as individuals, invisible.

[Zebra]

What really impressed me the most about Buchanan’s arguments, as the stupidest part, is that he felt the Republicans should have been fighting her so hard to get the support for the Republicans from white people who are feeling oppressed by affirmative action/minorities.
ummm… Don’t they have the support of those people already?

[magellan01]

@mswas

Am I the only one who is confused as to why magellan01 is being called a racist?

No. Though I venture to guess it has a lot to do Biggirl’s two-digit IQ.

[Miltonyz]

Am I the only one who is confused as to why magellan01 is being called a racist?

Nope I’m just as confused. His 2 points are

1. For much of US history whites where a large majority meaning that even in a perfect society they would hold the majority of the power positions.

2. It was not a perfect society and whites used their majority status to subjugate minorities and ensure that a white power structure was upheld.

I don’t see how either of the two points are racist or the least bit controversial.

[mswas]

@Miltonyz

Nope I’m just as confused. His 2 points are

1. For much of US history whites where a large majority meaning that even in a perfect society they would hold the majority of the power positions.

2. It was not a perfect society and whites used their majority status to subjugate minorities and ensure that a white power structure was upheld.

I don’t see how either of the two points are racist or the least bit controversial.

Yeah that’s about how I see it.

I guess Biggirl is a racist.

[Captain_Carrot]

magellan and Pat Buchanan are both contending that only white men were important during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, as well as much of the twentieth. I may have misread either one, but that’s what it seems like to me.

[Justin_Bailey]

@pepperlandgirl

Also, don’t forget it wasn’t just the Irish! There was a serious debate in the country over whether or not Italians were colored (the answer was “yes” for a good many years), and people didn’t really like the Eastern Europeans too much, either. Especially the Jewish ones.

My father, my aunts and uncle and my grandparents came over from Italy in 1959. Apparently, “Italians Need Not Apply” was still common in job listings for a good portion of the 60s.

That just blows my mind.

[magellan01]

@Captain_Carrot

magellan and Pat Buchanan are both contending that only white men were important during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, as well as much of the twentieth. I may have misread either one, but that’s what it seems like to me.

No. I would say that as a rule, only white men were able to achieve things that would be deemed important or noteworthy enough to be recorded in history books. Like being a SC justice.