I`m convinced it still does.

What a trenchant observation.  You're brilliant.

Of course racism still exists in the south, as well as the rest of the country.  And it always will.

The better question to ask is:  Is racism the largest impediment facing blacks in their quest for a better quality of life?  Is racism a significant impediment facing blacks in their quest for a better quality of life?

The answer to the first question is definitely no; the answer to the second question is maybe.

I think racism has declined, and that doctrinaire racism has been largely replaced with broad reservations about black culture and some of the negative effects of it in general.  That means that reservations and negative feelings about blacks can be changed, which is a good thing.

Progress on issues like this is slow, and takes a very long time.  I think it is largely up to blacks at this point to improve their position in society, and defeat racism.  Much of what was designed to help blacks has had the opposite impact, because it has encouraged the idea that other people are responsible for black progress and quality of life.  This is simply the flip side of the racism coin.

I'm convinced that racism is an obstacle that all of us must face and conquer as a nation in order to provide a healthy and peaceful community for our children and grandchildren to live in. It's not just something that blacks must deal with. Whites also must deal with it. The hate and tension that is sometimes apparent amonst the diversity of this nation needs to end.

How do you suggest we deal with it?  We've tried a number of things, and all have more or less failed to break the negative cycle in interaction between the races.

I think the first step is to drop political correctness.  We can't solve a problem if we can't say what it is.  Past "solutions" to the race issue failed because they often relied on a politically correct analysis of the problem, rather than reality.

When I say blacks must deal with the problem, I mean that they must rise above the negative influences in their own culture, rebuild their family structure, and take the steps that anybody would have to take to improve their quality of life.  It won't work to sit back and say that it's up to white people to solve their problems, especially since many white people have similar problems to some blacks.

That being said, whites must be willing to give blacks more of a chance before prejudging them or stereotyping them.  But without basic changes in family structure, attitude toward education, etc. among some blacks, nothing whites can do will really improve the black position in society.  Most whites sense this, which is why they are unwilling to risk or sacrifice much to help blacks.

By promoting tolerance. Teaching our children how to be tolerant of other cultures. Hip-hop isn't the center of black culture, it's a part of it. The ideas of Martin Luther King and Malcolm X are part of black culture.
There are legitimate black organizations that help to advance the literacy of impoverished blacks. I think most of the negative attitudes towards education comes from people of impoverished communities where they don't have the resources neccessary to attain an adequate education. Most rap artists come from those inner city communities where education is the last thing on their minds. That's probably why that sort of attitude is present in Rap music.

Now lets say we have an average black family who lives somewhere in the suburbs and makes a sufficient amout of money to provide for their family. I don't think they'll value education any less than any suburban white family, even if them and their children enjoy hip hop.

Illiteracy and education is connected more to social class then ethnicity and culture. Unfortunately a large number of blacks are poor and lack the resources neccessary to attain an adequate education like so many other poor americans. To say that the entire black community and culture devalues eduaction is just wrong. If more people understood the connection of education to social class they would be more willing to help the poor.

More poverty and class, but most black people are probably lower class, so there's a connection both ways. But it's not at all racist to have a literacy test. In fact, I wouldn't mind one, as long as everyone has to take it.

Are you talking about literacy tests for voting or requiring every U.S. citizen to take a literacy test just to assess how well they can read? I can see why some people may believe that people who vote should have a sufficient literacy level. I think you were refering to voting, otherwise what would be the point of requiring every body to take the test.

I`m convinced it still does.

What a trenchant observation.  You're brilliant.

Of course racism still exists in the south, as well as the rest of the country.  And it always will.

The better question to ask is:  Is racism the largest impediment facing blacks in their quest for a better quality of life?  Is racism a significant impediment facing blacks in their quest for a better quality of life?

The answer to the first question is definitely no; the answer to the second question is maybe.

I think racism has declined, and that doctrinaire racism has been largely replaced with broad reservations about black culture and some of the negative effects of it in general.  That means that reservations and negative feelings about blacks can be changed, which is a good thing.

Progress on issues like this is slow, and takes a very long time.  I think it is largely up to blacks at this point to improve their position in society, and defeat racism.  Much of what was designed to help blacks has had the opposite impact, because it has encouraged the idea that other people are responsible for black progress and quality of life.  This is simply the flip side of the racism coin.

I'm convinced that racism is an obstacle that all of us must face and conquer as a nation in order to provide a healthy and peaceful community for our children and grandchildren to live in. It's not just something that blacks must deal with. Whites also must deal with it. The hate and tension that is sometimes apparent amonst the diversity of this nation needs to end.

I would first like to state that I am impressed at how long the Lincoln debate went on for. I learned a lot from the perspective of southerners on this forum. Just a side a note: I am planning on taking a trip down south this summer, do any southerners have any suggestions on where I should go to learn more about "Southern Culture" to get rid of some of my apparent prejudices towards the south?

Race and illiteracy. Are they connected or is illiteracy attributed more to poverty and class than ethnicity and race? Your thoughts.

i also admire lbj's committment to civil rights. 

"I'm going to have them niggers voting Democratic for a century"- LBJ.

When was this?

A southern governor spoke with Johnson as the 1964 Civil Rights Act was before Congress. He questioned LBJ on his support of it , arguing that it would severely hurt the Democrats in the South. LBJ shrugged it off, and said what I quoted him on above.

At least he wanted them to vote.

JR Brown if you don't believe black culture doesn't encourage "stupidity" then listen to 90% of rap music.

You're right. Unfortunately, that aspect is the most apparent and is sad. What's really sad is when white suburban kids listen to that music and actually believe that they are gangstas.

I agree fully with you on this. I really do like black music..I listen to gospel and jazz and some r&b, it's really good stuff to be honest. I enjoy a lot of different music but something about rap doesn't sit right with me.

There are some rap songs that actually have a message. Like 2Pac's "Changes". That's a really good one. But most rap is crap. I listen to a lot of them like lil jon and ludacris just to make fun of them.

JR Brown if you don't believe black culture doesn't encourage "stupidity" then listen to 90% of rap music.

You're right. Unfortunately, that aspect is the most apparent and is sad. What's really sad is when white suburban kids listen to that music and actually believe that they are gangstas.

[Are you implying that whites are more intelligent than blacks.]

Cultures don't value and seek knowledge, individuals do.

Yes, they do. A culture is basically a way of behavior that many people collectively prescribe to - it's a group behavior. If the large majority of the individuals in a culture seek knowledge, the culture is one that seeks knowledge.

And it has nothing to do with genetics. There isn't an idiot gene that goes along with race selection. I think the DNA structure is identical in everything, just the order of genes in DNA molecules is what makes us black or white and male or female. Do you realize that you said the you knew smart blacks and that they act more like whites. Are you implying that whites are more intelligent than blacks. That's just...I don't want to be prejudice towards Southerners, so I won't say it. You Southerners are so oppressed by Northerners after all, and I don't want to deepen the problem.

NO, I'm not implying that we are naturally smarter(I said genes MIGHT factor in, but I think it is more other things than that). Your reading comprehension skills need improvment - I'm implying that as things stand, a greater ratio of whites are raised in a better environment, which I thought was pretty damn clear. Certain behaviors are better for attainment of knowledge and mental development - that's what I'm saying. If you look in a white neighborhood, and you look in a black neighborhood, you'll notice the people - kids included - will generally act differently and spend their time differently, as they have been raised different cultures. I'm not going to go into bullsh**t political correctness. The blacks I mentioned who were smarter and did better in school behave more along the lines of the general 'white' culture in the area I was in. I've also known blacks who I've seen who had great potential for learning and intelligence - they were clever and bright, the potential was clearly there - but they just didn't give a rat's ass and failed miserably, they acted as if school wasn't at all important and acted in their short term interests. And I saw that happen to a good many of them. I saw the same thing happen to whites, but the ratio was different.

By the way, just in case you didn't know, IQ tests don't actually test intelligence - they test what you know relative to other people in your age group. A score of 100 is absolutely average. So, thusly you are correct that education can have a good deal to do with scores.

Also, brush up on your genetics. Genetics has a large component in determining intelligence(more of a range of potential, rather than an absolute set - environment takes over after conception), though I don't think there's any proof either way about race being involved. And being male or female has to do with whether or not your daddy sends over an X or a Y chromosome, not the ordering of the DNA molecules.

I was basically trying to say that it's up to an individual whether or not he or she wants to use all of their potential to attain something better than what they are in. I don't think the black culture encourages stupidity either. A poor white community is just as likely to produce a low number of intelligent students as a poor black community. You probably see a lot more black communities down there because the black population is higher. That's why the ratio is higher. Pertaining to genetics, I was saying that your race and how intelligent you are aren't connected, not that intelligence isn't a factor in genetics. Race and intelligence are not connected at all genetically, not "could be", NOT AT ALL. No possibility what so ever.

JR Brown. Quit making simpleton arguments and I must say your stunning lack of knowledge is shocking yet not suprising. If you want to claim that all people who fly the CS Flag are KKK members go ahead..but you are dead wrong. Why don't you actually look at some of those rallies? You will actually see the US Flag more prominent in the marches then the "CS Naval Jack".

You caught me on that one. How I hate it when I get called on my bullsh**t.

I've noticed that there are a few southerners on this forum who have a grudge against Lincoln for invading the South and freeing the slaves. Why is that? Do you feel that slavery wasn't as oppressive as say, Saddam?

hmm.. let me think Lincoln was Cheif of the amry that burn down my great great uncle's plantion and left them droke and with out a house....

How many slaves did he own?

NONE!!!!!!!!!

Good for him.

F**k you, Jerk... how would you like it if some other country comes in your country and burn down you house?

You were part of our country. You left because, I don't know why. You broke America, so we brought you back and a lot of people died, on both sides. Don't you think for one second that the South were the only ones hurt by that war. By the way, we bombed the sh**t out of Baghdad in the so called "shock and awe" phase. How many innocents do you think were hurt in that. Some of those bombs missed. Do you support that. I still want to know why the South left. Was it because of slavery or what. Ya know the KKK still carries the confederate flag. Are you proud of your Confederacy? Do you support slavery and white suppremacy?

Cultures don't value and seek knowledge, individuals do.
And it has nothing to do with genetics. There isn't an idiot gene that goes along with race selection. I think the DNA structure is identical in everything, just the order of genes in DNA molecules is what makes us black or white and male or female. Do you realize that you said the you knew smart blacks and that they act more like whites. Are you implying that whites are more intelligent than blacks. That's just...I don't want to be prejudice towards Southerners, so I won't say it. You Southerners are so oppressed by Northerners after all, and I don't want to deepen the problem.

[average]

Don’t forget that the average IQ and education of people in the south is lower than those of  people in northern states.
See, for example, how the people who believe that Sadam is responsible for 9/11 are distributed among the states.

I'm just quoting this so that the bigotry of the post does not go unoticed.

Shira might also like to know that the South has more black people than the northern states, and that blacks have a lower average IQ than whites(about a 10-15 point difference). That would certainly make a difference in the statistics.

You should probably blaim public education for that and not the fact that those individuals just happen to have been born with black skin.

[average]

Don’t forget that the average IQ and education of people in the south is lower than those of  people in northern states.
See, for example, how the people who believe that Sadam is responsible for 9/11 are distributed among the states.

I'm just quoting this so that the bigotry of the post does not go unoticed.

You're right, that is pretty prejudicial.

I've noticed that there are a few southerners on this forum who have a grudge against Lincoln for invading the South and freeing the slaves. Why is that? Do you feel that slavery wasn't as oppressive as say, Saddam?

hmm.. let me think Lincoln was Cheif of the amry that burn down my great great uncle's plantion and left them droke and with out a house....

How many slaves did he own?

NONE!!!!!!!!!

Good for him.

I've noticed that there are a few southerners on this forum who have a grudge against Lincoln for invading the South and freeing the slaves. Why is that? Do you feel that slavery wasn't as oppressive as say, Saddam?

hmm.. let me think Lincoln was Cheif of the amry that burn down my great great uncle's plantion and left them droke and with out a house....

How many slaves did he own?

Clinton/Edwards

jr brown, you do realize that the *vast* majority of northerners at the time didnt favor an abolition to slavery.

they wanted to keep the negros down south.  the best way to do that was to continue the institution of slavery.

stop the south bashing.

What absolute garbage.

The southerners were the slavers, the northern states were free. 

Actually racism was and is all over this country. But the majority of Southerners favored slavery because they had larger farms and more slaves for those farms.

Mr. Brown,

You really appear to be grossly misinformed as to the facts of the situation.

First, the overwhelming majority of the white adult males in the south did NOT own slaves!

Second, the 'emancipation proclamation' carefully avoided abolition of slavery in Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri.

Third, the United States had taken a couple of the classic steps toward the road of abolition of slavery prior to Lincoln (prohibition of import of slaves into the United States and limitation on the spread of slavery).

Fourth, Lincoln did NOT campaign on a platform for abolition of slavery (he would have been massively defeated in the north had he done so).  The 'proclamation' was issued primarily to influence european powers to refrain from aiding the Confederacy.  In short, it was a tactic.

Finally, while for a small percentage of the combatants on both sides, slavery was a primary issue, for the overwhelming majority on both sides, slavery was a non-issue.

Let me clarify. The large plantations in the lower south (Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, etc.) owned hundreds of slaves, while the upper south (Tennessee, Kentucky, Maryland) would only have 20-30 slaves on each farm. If you haven't read the Narrative of Frederick Douglas, do so, he is an excellant example of American courage. Speaking of Douglas, in his book he talked about how being traded to the large plantations of the deep south was like being sentenced to death.

Answer this question. Would it have been morally right to allow slavery to exist in the Confederate States of America while the United States of America outlawed slavery?

So after the Union finished conquering the Confederacy, it should have invaded the slaveholding Empire of Brazil?

There’s plenty of blame on both sides as to who started the Civil War. However, Governor Pickens gets the most blame from me. If he hadn’t tried to euchre the Union, by having them continue to pay for the construction of Fort Sumter, and had instead promptly occuped it in December 1860, before Anderson moved his men from the indefensible Fort Moultrie, the flash point that started the Civil War would have been removed. There wasn't another such flashpoint available, so without it, I think the seven Confederate States would have been able to peaceably leave, altho Lincoln himself would never give official recognition to their departure.

If Bush invaded Iraq to "take out" an evil military dictator, shouldn't we have done the same to Kim Jong Il in North Korea? Wow, another war that butted into the business of another country. Those Republicans sure can't keep their noses out of the business of other countries.

Yeah and John Kennedy was killed by the CIA.

The United States government invaded a country that was oppressing a portion of it's people. Slavery is wrong now and it was wrong then.

I agree, but I would not say that they invaded a country.  Lincoln was putting down a rebellion within the United States, not a foreign country.

Let's not forget that the south instigated the civil war, because they felt the institution of slavery was threatened.  Yes, there were other issues, but slavery was the big issue.

Lincoln did what needed to be done, and I think that had he lived, the wounds of the civil war would have healed a lot better, and blacks would have received full citizenship a lot sooner.  It is one of history's great and far-reaching tragedies that he died when he did, and was replaced by somebody so bad.  In comparison, FDR's death had nothing like the long-term impact that Lincoln's death did.

I agree with you. Lincoln's death really messed things up.

The most recent post wasn't yours. It was the guy saying nothing in the Constitution said a state couldn't effectively abolish it.

Okay.

In regards to the most recent post, what kind of law says "you can't violate this!" ? The point to a law is that it can't be suspended but by proper legal means.

Question: Who the f**ck and what the f**ck are you talking about? If you were refering to me, I'm not talking about laws, I'm talking about the principles of the invasion. As in, you know, slavery, which is considered morally wrong in some parts of the world.

Well, let's see. I did say in regards to the MOST RECENT POST...

So, what kind of law says that you can't violate THIS? Go into more detail about the true nature of laws.

Oh yeah, the southerners destroyed the greatest idea of freedom and democracy in history, just so they could keep their g slaves. The slaves built the southern agricultural industry. The whites just killed, raped and tortured. By the way they never have stopped hating Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, and anyone who isn't white. I want to add that Northerners aren't exempt from this. Just because they complied with the federal government doesn't make them any less accountable for the atrocity of slavery. You're right, it wasn't the abolishment of slavery, it was the threat of abolishment that made the south leave the union. They knew it was coming and didn't want to have any part in it.

?

Don't you recognize a rant when you see one?

1) The Civil War was about a lot of things.  To try to pin it on one central cause is being simplistic.

2) The end result was it unified America and brought an end to slavery.  Without it North America would look like Europe AND the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany might very well be the dominant force in the world.

3) The South initiated the Civil War by firing on Fort Sumter.  It was a war of Southern aggression.

Yes.

jr brown, you do realize that the *vast* majority of northerners at the time didnt favor an abolition to slavery.

they wanted to keep the negros down south.  the best way to do that was to continue the institution of slavery.

stop the south bashing.

What absolute garbage.

The southerners were the slavers, the northern states were free. 

Actually racism was and is all over this country. But the majority of Southerners favored slavery because they had larger farms and more slaves for those farms.

wrong.

most southern whites OPPOSED slavery.

slaves were taking would-be jobs from poor southern whites.

the only southerners that supported slavery were the aristocrats.

Well the aristocrats were the ones who were obviously controlling the South, so it doesn't really matter what a majority of the poor folks said.

In regards to the most recent post, what kind of law says "you can't violate this!" ? The point to a law is that it can't be suspended but by proper legal means.

Question: Who the  and what the  are you talking about? If you were refering to me, I'm not talking about laws, I'm talking about the principles of the invasion. As in, you know, slavery, which is considered morally wrong in some parts of the world.