"Men -- the new second class citizens"

[CaptainHaplo]

Takeda - in this Garren is talking about what is known as the "1950's" lifestyle - where women worked inside the home and men worked outside it. That lifestyle is also seen as a "male led" dynamic. The man was king, the woman was queen.

While I personally enjoy that kind of thing, the reality is that the "women's liberation" movement started because of it. It is not, as Garren seems to think, a panacea or utopian way. Different people have different ways - and that one is one that works for some people, but not all.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Takeda - in this Garren is talking about what is known as the "1950's" lifestyle - where women worked inside the home and men worked outside it. That lifestyle is also seen as a "male led" dynamic. The man was king, the woman was queen.

While I personally enjoy that kind of thing, the reality is that the "women's liberation" movement started because of it. It is not, as Garren seems to think, a panacea or utopian way. Different people have different ways - and that one is one that works for some people, but not all.

That's cool. Just make sure that we roll back social mores for all groups, not just one. Fair is fair, right? This means minorities get reacquainted with Mr. Jim Crow, something that your buddy clearly hasn't thought through. If you don't like the argument, then don't make it. Easy-peasy.

[antikristuseke]

Garren, for someone against victim mentality you sure seem to harbor a lot of it. Just to make it clea,r I don't think this invalidates your arguments in any wayy, not trying to make a personal attack as such, you just seem to whine a lot.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

That's cool. Just make sure that we roll back social mores for all groups, not just one. Fair is fair, right? This means minorities get reacquainted with Mr. Jim Crow, something that your buddy clearly hasn't thought through. If you don't like the argument, then don't make it. Easy-peasy.

It is not about rolling back social mores, it is about - at least in the 1950's style dynamic, one that both parties should choose for themselves, not be mandated.

This is where I disagree with Garren - while it works great - it is not for everyone and should only be engaged in by freely consenting, informed adults. Thus no need to revert to racist standards.

[garren]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

That's cool. Just make sure that we roll back social mores for all groups, not just one. Fair is fair, right? This means minorities get reacquainted with Mr. Jim Crow, something that your buddy clearly hasn't thought through. If you don't like the argument, then don't make it. Easy-peasy.

Blacks were better off during Jim Crow than today. We weren't killing each other like we are today. We only had to worry about a few crazy whites killing us. Just look at the black music from the 1950s and how happy and upbeat it was compared to today. Now we rap out of anger and it's ugly music that comes from pint up rage and aggression and hate. Why were we so much happier in the 1950s and more positive in our music than we are today with all this supposed freedom? Again, every time the leftists help the black man - he's not helping him at all and just hurting him more but making himself out to be the hero when he's really the villain.

So sure, I think my race would be a lot better off back in the 1950s as well.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by garren

Blacks were better off during Jim Crow than today.

[frau kaleun]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Maybe he's confusing it with Jim Croce? He always seemed liked a mellow sort of dude.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by garren

So sure, I think my race would be a lot better off back in the 1950s as well.

You think you'd be better off during a time when, if you had a relationship with a white woman her father could just shoot you, and the judge would call it "justifiable homicide"?

Interesting.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

You think you'd be better off during a time when, if you had a relationship with a white woman her father could just shoot you, and the judge would call it "justifiable homicide"?

Interesting.

Better yet, let's take a look at Emmett Till for allegedly whistling at a white woman.

[garren]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Better yet, let's take a look at Emmett Till for allegedly whistling at a white woman.

Come into a black neighborhood as a white man and whistle at a black woman and you're gonna get shot or beat down.

Probably been more whites killed by blacks in the last 40 years than all the blacks white folks ever killed off in the entire history of the US. But this is the same America that armed Japan before WWII and armed Iraq before the Gulf war. You give your foes the tools to fight against you and they will.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by garren

Come into a black neighborhood as a white man and whistle at a black woman and you're gonna get shot or beat down.

This has little bearing on stating living in the 50's as a black man was much better.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by garren

Blacks were better off during Jim Crow than today. We weren't killing each other like we are today. We only had to worry about a few crazy whites killing us.

Ultimately this is comparing apples to oranges. Statistically your right, blacks were generally more likely to simply be able to keep living on a daily basis than they are today, given the intra-racial epidemic of murder and violence by young, black men. Still, that is only part of the story.

Just look at the black music from the 1950s and how happy and upbeat it was compared to today. Now we rap out of anger and it's ugly music that comes from pint up rage and aggression and hate.

Now I am a dumb white country boy without a racist bone in my body - so I have to ask - the pent up rage and hate - what is it really over?

Is it the economic injustice? The history of oppression that some see as continuing today? An effect of the society that has destroyed the "nuclear family" and left too many young, black youth without a "father figure" in their life showing them how to grow and be a successful and responsible member of society?

Why were we so much happier in the 1950s and more positive in our music than we are today with all this supposed freedom? Again, every time the leftists help the black man - he's not helping him at all and just hurting him more but making himself out to be the hero when he's really the villain.

That is because your average leftist doesn't want "the black man" (in this case, black society) to start standing on its own and changing what doesn't work. If black society rejected the "victim, you are owed" mentality that is sold it by the left, with its constant reminder of how bad it is out there in the "white man's world", then blacks as a voting block would go "off the plantation" and start realizing that conservatives (NOT republicans) are not out to get them.

So sure, I think my race would be a lot better off back in the 1950s as well.

What your aiming at is that when "free" blacks are still held down economically by a system designed to keep them undereducated and underserved, more die because of the results. The repeal of "jim crow" (who was never an actual person) did a lot to help the black community, but it also did a lot to harm it - because throwing together two unequal societies does not suddenly make them all equal.