Chris Rock: "White people need to own the actions of their ancestors"

Ranchu

All this is not relevant in this country. We're not American. It's great.

Precious flower

Ranchu wrote: »

All this is not relevant in this country. We're not American. It's great.

The discussion of racism is relevant in every country.

RDM_83 again

Precious flower wrote: »

It really bothers me that the knee-jerk reaction to any talk on race that a black person initiates by white people is "Oh hey look at this period in history white people suffered under slavery too. Black people sold white slaves/But look how the English/Americans treated us etc etc". As if this makes the discussion on race by people of any black ethnicity immediately diminished.

Let me ask you these questions: So, white people have been discriminated against and have suffered slavery at some time or another. But tell me do the majority of white people have to be worried about being discriminated against or racially targeted both inside and outside their own country. Who is the majority in charge globally? Who are the colonialists? Non-Caucasians were still viewed as quite inferior up until very recently and in many places that racism holds though people are not as vocal. How many white ethnicities have to be worried about being ill-treated globally? What is the marker of beauty in non-Caucasians? Is it a coincident is mirrors white ideals of beauty (Straight, sleek soft hair, pale skin, non-asian eyes etc)?

Yes, white people have been targeted and some ethnicities have been marked as inferior, but white people have not been deemed inferior overall and certainly those ethnicities have not been deemed inferior and singled out for the same length of time that black people of all ethnicities have. Yes, within black and Asians communities people are targeted depending on religious beliefs and where they come from, that happens in every race in every country, but that is not the issue that is being discussed. Racism by some white individuals against non-Caucasians is, I suppose African-Americans just tend to be more vocal about it in American given their history.

If you think of it this way, outside of Africa, in the majority of countires black people will be judged and marked out and seen as different because of their skin colour (a thing they cannot change like accent or finical situation). Even within Africa depending on the region you are from and the darkness of your skin colour you will be looked down upon by those of lighter skin colour like in North Africa because having a white skin colour due to colonialism is associated with power and beauty.

Now if you are a white person and you go to any country you will not be judged on the colour of your skin. In Africa though I am not saying that there may be discrimination against white people, more than likely you will be deemed to have wealth and power due to your skin colour and thus be afforded respect. Yes white people have been discriminated against in (Irish in England/America, Eastern European etc) but over time they have assimilated. And do you know why? Because they are the same colour as the majority who reside in that country. Then simply change the accent and your assimilated.

For people who have been marked as racially inferior across the world like Asians and blacks assimilation is not so easy. Therefore, while obviously Chris Rock was focused on race relations in the US, race is an issue world wide. Even being black and wealthy does not immediately shed away racist ideas. However I do believe it is wrong for Chris Rock to assume that all black Americans think that same way over an incident and that white Americans all share the same opinion over an incident. That just generalising. I think what Chris Rock was saying, (and just to be clear I am not a fan of Chris Rock's stand up I think he's a crap comedian so I am not standing up for him because I think he's great), is that we must recognise that the generations before us (and he said father not ancestors) had very different views on race and this was across the world (not every single white person but a significant majority). We must recognise this and while also recognising that while we have made great gains we still have some work to do. This is also not saying that black people for every ethnicity cannot be racist either but that we must understand the root of problems with race relations on both sides to over come them.

Just because black people sold black slaves/ Irish people were slaves too does not diminish slavery in America or racism against non-Caucasians. We are hardly still suffering discrimination by the English or Americans that we did given our status world wide and that fact that we are white. I have no doubt that some English and Americans may be racist towards us (a handful of individuals) and maybe some black persons, but that discrimination is not a global trend and does not follow in every country by a significant amount of people. Our skin colour gives us an advantage and that cannot be ignored.

An interesting post though I disagree with a lot of it.

Take the beauty aspect, its not simply that the "Caucasian" ideal is whats considered "best", I would argue that the ideal is a multi-ethnic composite that varies depending on context, look at the emulation of characteristics stereotypically associated with african-americans by Caucasian pop stars and celebs.
Also in the real world does this make an significant social difference, if I don't find Asian women particularly attractive as an example this doesn't oppress Asians no more than a preference for Brunettes over Blond's does. We can probably agree that prioritizing physical attractiveness isn't a great idea but race is such a general descriptive, I'm a tall(ish) white man in decent shape however I also have no hair I'd probably look better if I was a hell of a lot darker, if somebody considers themselves of less value because they have Asian eyes or Frizzy hair if they didn't have that characteristic they would probably still be concerned about a few extra pounds or being too short, its the internal attitude that has too change.

In relation to your point about general white privilige across the world, is that a truely global view point, I don't think being considered a Farang or a Gaijin is exactly a term of endearment.

In relation to Chris Rocks point about inherited wealth and race, I don't think the majority of the White American population would have benefited financially from institutional racism, if your descendants were Irish American for example they would have been in direct competition with African Americans in the labor market, and as a general point the working classes in general would have probably suffered a negative impact in terms of wage with the negative pressure of a population (african americans) working for lower wages and in poor conditions.

crockholm

While it does sound controversial,the fact is that Chris Rock Owes his vast wealth and comfortable Lifestyle to Slavery,the slaves,the slave-masters and so forth.

Without the unimaginable cruelty sufferred by his distant relatives,Mr. Rock would most likely be living in a West African country,worrying about Ebola,AIDS,Civil war,famine.Who knows perhaps,trying to jump over a high fence at Cueta or hopping on a glorified tub hoping to make land at Sicily or Lampedusa.

I would imagine Chris Rock,Jay Z,LeBron James and Oprah Winfrey don't Dream of the bountless opportunities that would await them in Liberia,but I can sure Imagine many Liberians wishing to get the chance to live free in the USA.

Just so there is no doubt,I do not condone slavery or see it as anything other than vile,nor do I see the slavers as some type of philantrophists-they sicken me,but what we have is a by-Product of history that has suited the descendents of the Unfortunates who came to America in shackles and their bound Children.

jimgoose

This isn't very funny. Now that little-known Republican senator from Alabammy who managed to get elected President in blackface minstrel makeup - that's funny.

Ranchu

Precious flower wrote: »

The discussion of racism is relevant in every country.

Not in this context though. Christ Rock is an extremist borne of extremists.
Some irish people have an unhealthy obsession with American issues. They should get over it.

qt3.14

crockholm wrote: »

While it does sound controversial,the fact is that Chris Rock Owes his vast wealth and comfortable Lifestyle to Slavery,the slaves,the slave-masters and so forth.

Without the unimaginable cruelty sufferred by his distant relatives,Mr. Rock would most likely be living in a West African country,worrying about Ebola,AIDS,Civil war,famine.Who knows perhaps,trying to jump over a high fence at Cueta or hopping on a glorified tub hoping to make land at Sicily or Lampedusa.

I would imagine Chris Rock,Jay Z,LeBron James and Oprah Winfrey don't Dream of the bountless opportunities that would await them in Liberia,but I can sure Imagine many Liberians wishing to get the chance to live free in the USA.

Just so there is no doubt,I do not condone slavery or see it as anything other than vile,nor do I see the slavers as some type of philantrophists-they sicken me,but what we have is a by-Product of history that has suited the descendents of the Unfortunates who came to America in shackles and their bound Children.

It goes further than that. Chris rock would almost certainly not exist if not for slavery. The casual chain of parents meeting and copukating at the right time for a particular egg to be fertilised by a particular sperm, then times that chance by two for the parents birth times four for grandparents etc etc, would almost certainly not be met it somewhere along the lines slavery occurred.

indioblack

twinytwo wrote: »

Well a lot of brits would like to have the empire back so..............

Really? How many is "a lot"?
How would it be accomplished - assuming it's correct that that is what they want?

Galwayguy35

Precious flower wrote: »

The discussion of racism is relevant in every country.

The thread is about slavery that ended after the American Civil War.

The people that did it to them are all long dead now and Rock wants people to pay up.

At least to me that is what the thread is about.

RWCNT

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

The thread is about slavery that ended after the American Civil War.

The people that did it to them are all long dead now and Rock wants people to pay up.

At least to me that is what the thread is about.

He doesnt want white people to pay any money, and if he does then he doesn't say so on that article, I know AH can get pretty nutty at times but this is mad. Do you and Monacle make homebrew together or something?

Precious flower

RWCNT wrote: »

He doesnt want white people to pay any money, and if he does then he doesn't say so on that article, I know AH can get pretty nutty at times but this is mad. Do you and Monacle make homebrew together or something?

I believe what he was referring to was people still benefiting from wealth that their families acquired during slavery?

Precious flower

crockholm wrote: »

While it does sound controversial,the fact is that Chris Rock Owes his vast wealth and comfortable Lifestyle to Slavery,the slaves,the slave-masters and so forth.

Without the unimaginable cruelty sufferred by his distant relatives,Mr. Rock would most likely be living in a West African country,worrying about Ebola,AIDS,Civil war,famine.Who knows perhaps,trying to jump over a high fence at Cueta or hopping on a glorified tub hoping to make land at Sicily or Lampedusa.

I would imagine Chris Rock,Jay Z,LeBron James and Oprah Winfrey don't Dream of the bountless opportunities that would await them in Liberia,but I can sure Imagine many Liberians wishing to get the chance to live free in the USA.

Just so there is no doubt,I do not condone slavery or see it as anything other than vile,nor do I see the slavers as some type of philantrophists-they sicken me,but what we have is a by-Product of history that has suited the descendents of the Unfortunates who came to America in shackles and their bound Children.

That is one ignorant post most, especially your ignorant comment about West Africa. So your suggesting he should be glad about his ancestors being sold off? Should you be glad of the Famine or the catholic church's power for the influence it had on your grandparents/great parents and thus your life? How can you say that it "suited the descendants"? Do you realise what black people suffered in America. Just people those black celebrities have made money on commenting on the social standing of black people does not mean that they should be grateful for what happened to their ancestors?

The Diabolical Monocle

RWCNT wrote: »

He doesnt want white people to pay any money, and if he does then he doesn't say so on that article, I know AH can get pretty nutty at times but this is mad. Do you and Monacle make homebrew together or something?

141 now.

just sayin.

Too Tough To Die

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

141 now.

just sayin.

Means nothing without the option to downvote. Just sayin.

RWCNT

Precious flower wrote: »

I believe what he was referring to was people still benefiting from wealth that their families acquired during slavery?

Would you mind quoting the specific bit you're talking about?

The talk of inheritance is just a comparison, people ask why they should accept blame when they've done nothing to earn it, Chris says that if that is their mentality then they shouldnt accept inheritance money either.

Precious flower

RDM_83 again wrote: »

An interesting post though I disagree with a lot of it.

Take the beauty aspect, its not simply that the "Caucasian" ideal is whats considered "best", I would argue that the ideal is a multi-ethnic composite that varies depending on context, look at the emulation of characteristics stereotypically associated with african-americans by Caucasian pop stars and celebs.

Firstly I would disagree with this. The idea of a Caucasian person having traditionally "black" body type of being "thick" has only come around in the last 5-10 years. Really Sir Mix-a-Lot's song helped spur that movement. Prior to this a black woman's body was always associated with aggressive sexuality or were considered an ugly body type to have. Also, isn't sunny that Nicki Minaj's A naconda video was deemed by a lot of people as being overtly sexual when many white artists had realised similarly provocative videos before.

Also in the real world does this make an significant social difference, if I don't find Asian women particularly attractive as an example this doesn't oppress Asians no more than a preference for Brunettes over Blond's does. We can probably agree that prioritizing physical attractiveness isn't a great idea but race is such a general descriptive, I'm a tall(ish) white man in decent shape however I also have no hair I'd probably look better if I was a hell of a lot darker, if somebody considers themselves of less value because they have Asian eyes or Frizzy hair if they didn't have that characteristic they would probably still be concerned about a few extra pounds or being too short, its the internal attitude that has too change.

It has nothing to do with your internal attitude. Why do you think Michelle Obama wears a weave as well as her two children. Have you ever come across a black woman in a significant position of power who wears her natural hair? Because that is not the accepted idea of beauty in western cultures and even in African cultures. Sleek, straight hair is what is seen as attractive. A lot of women practically burn their scalps trying to "relax" their hair. In america and other places that is across the board, not just one or two individuals who have internalised these thoughts. The example of beauty on tv and in magazines they are bombarded with on a daily basis is white idea of beauty. Why do you think skin bleaching exists in Asian and African ethnicities. Because being paler is seen as attractive. In fact a lot of Asian families are often very happy when their child has a less yellow complexion.

In relation to your point about general white privilige across the world, is that a truely global view point, I don't think being considered a Farang or a Gaijin is exactly a term of endearment.

While that is a fair point it is worth noting, and I am not suggesting that this makes it okay, but I believe it was a term used during the Vietnam War so I can understand why their view of westerns might not be so good. Regardless, I am sure if you ventured to Thailand your white skin would afford you respect as people would associate you with being wealthy. Do you think anyone Black or Asian would be immediately thought of that way if they ventured to a western country. I doubt it. As one ignorant poster already showed Africa is associated with poverty and disease which is far from the full picture of an entire continent.

In relation to Chris Rocks point about inherited wealth and race, I don't think the majority of the White American population would have benefited financially from institutional racism, if your descendants were Irish American for example they would have been in direct competition with African Americans in the labor market, and as a general point the working classes in general would have probably suffered a negative impact in terms of wage with the negative pressure of a population (african americans) working for lower wages and in poor conditions.

I will agree somewhat with that statement but overall those Irish Americans and their children would still have been given a better chance and legally have better standing than any African American including the right to vote which meant they could put an Irish man like them in charge in the areas that they lived thus bettering their chance of being heard and having their conditions and job opportunities improved.
Of course their descendants benefited from the colour of their skin. What about with regards to education or just simply being able to enter a shop without being followed, without being immediately profiled as aggressive, dangerous and poor? What about job opportunities. If your name "sounds white" you have much better chance of getting an interview over a person who has a "black name".

Really the ultimate victim is the African American women.

Precious flower

RWCNT wrote: »

Would you mind quoting the specific bit you're talking about?

The talk of inheritance is just a comparison, people ask why they should accept blame when they've done nothing to earn it, Chris says that if that is their mentality then they shouldnt accept inheritance money either.

Ah, my apologises you're right. I certainly don't agree with that part of the interview. However, the whole interview itself when I looked it over a second time looks fairly mashed together and looks like it was a sensationalist attempt by the interviewer. I get the sense that comments made by Chris Rock may have been warped. Maybe not but that the impression the interview gives you. Maybe it was an attempt for him to get a reaction in order to get noticed. I don't know. I am not a fan of Chris Rock. I find his stand up unfunny and centred completely on race. Not that he shouldn't be allowed talk about it but every single joke is a race joke.

GalwayGuitar

Ya'll crackers need to start paying reparations.

moneymad

Precious flower wrote: »

It has nothing to do with your internal attitude. Why do you think Michelle Obama wears a weave as well as her two children. Have you ever come across a black woman in a significant position of power who wears her natural hair? Because that is not the accepted idea of beauty in western cultures and even in African cultures. Sleek, straight hair is what is seen as attractive. A lot of women practically burn their scalps trying to "relax" their hair. In america and other places that is across the board, not just one or two individuals who have internalised these thoughts. The example of beauty on tv and in magazines they are bombarded with on a daily basis is white idea of beauty. Why do you think skin bleaching exists in Asian and African ethnicities. Because being paler is seen as attractive. In fact a lot of Asian families are often very happy when their child has a less yellow complexion.

Regarding whiteness in Oriental cultures. They have been doing that for thousands of years. Well before widespread contact with whites. Anyway, chris rock makes some valid points about inherited wealth. Everything else he said is pure sh!te. Basically the same situation as Ireland. Families inherited vast lands and money because of our own history with the brits.... They still have that today. And to be quite honest, it disgusts me.

Karl Stein

crockholm wrote: »

I would imagine Chris Rock,Jay Z,LeBron James and Oprah Winfrey don't Dream of the bountless opportunities that would await them in Liberia,but I can sure Imagine many Liberians wishing to get the chance to live free in the USA.

So you're saying that far from criticising the history of the slave trade and the vast wealth generated on the backs, literally, of slaves they should be thankful for it?

Seriously, get a grip.

You need to watch, or read, Guns Germs and Steel to get some sort of understanding of why Europeans gained an advantage over other peoples.

crockholm

Precious flower wrote: »

That is one ignorant post most, especially your ignorant comment about West Africa. So your suggesting he should be glad about his ancestors being sold off? Should you be glad of the Famine or the catholic church's power for the influence it had on your grandparents/great parents and thus your life? How can you say that it "suited the descendants"? Do you realise what black people suffered in America. Just people those black celebrities have made money on commenting on the social standing of black people does not mean that they should be grateful for what happened to their ancestors?

It is not ignorant,imo.It is a reality.Whether he should be glad or not on his ancestors slavery is up to him,I would imagine he feels sorrow for his forefathers plight-he Owes his being born in the USA,to a captured slave.

Without slavery,or without his direct descendents being captured,he would have been born a different name somewhere in west africa.then you can ask yourself-

Would he have been given the same access to education?
Would he have been given the same access to Healthcare?
Would he have had the same rights afforded to him?
Would he have had the same access to Clean water?
Would he have experienced civil war?

The opportunities that mr.Rock has had,are directly linked to his being born in the USA-if you are going to argue a Point coherently,at least argue against that Point.

With regards Ireland-yes,the ones who left,while they didn't know it at the time,often did a great service to their Children and grandchildren.
In 1880 a twelve year old Child and his older sisters leave Achill Island for America,the small farm goes to his eldest brother.His grandson became a police captain in Cleveland Ohio,He had a car,indoor plumbing in his house,a television all modern Contemporary cons.
He visits the house where his grand-father was born.It is1960.His cousin now lives in that house-there is no electricity,no running water,an outhouse for a toilet,a donkey and trap for transport.

Do you Think he envies his cousin?

Nodin

Karl Stein wrote: »

So you're saying that far from criticising the history of the slave trade and the vast wealth generated on the backs, literally, of slaves they should be thankful for it?

Seriously, get a grip.

You need to watch, or read, Guns Germs and Steel to get some sort of understanding of why Europeans gained an advantage over other peoples.

I remember Alf Garnett having a similar rant 'Where would Sammy Davis Jr be if somebody hadn't dragged his great great grandfather kicking and screaming up a gang plank'. Can't find the clip on-line unfortunately.

Karl Stein

crockholm wrote: »

Without slavery,or without his direct descendents being captured,he would have been born a different name somewhere in west africa.then you can ask yourself-

Would he have been given the same access to education?
Would he have been given the same access to Healthcare?
Would he have had the same rights afforded to him?
Would he have had the same access to Clean water?
Would he have experienced civil war?

This is a really bizarre rabbit-hole line you've taken. How would Africa look had Europeans not enacted the slave trade and subsequent colonization of Africa?

How would Africa look if Europeans hadn't become technologically advanced and instead developed at a similar rate to other regions?

Where do we stop with the 'what ifs'?

crockholm

Karl Stein wrote: »

So you're saying that far from criticising the history of the slave trade and the vast wealth generated on the backs, literally, of slaves they should be thankful for it?

Seriously, get a grip.

You need to watch, or read, Guns Germs and Steel to get some sort of understanding of why Europeans gained an advantage over other peoples.

No,Karl,you said that.The fact that you couldn't be arsed Reading the post says more about you.Please don't be so stupid when quoting me in future please.
The post has a paragraph within,where I clearly state how odious I find the Slave trade.
I made the Point,that without the slave trade,Chris Rock would not have been born in America,and therefore would not have been given the platform to air his veiws,nor would he likely had the opportunity to accrue his wealth.How can you possibly deny that?

Now if you can't understand that,then it's time for you to get a grip of something other than your penis when Writing such rambling weed-induced posts.

crockholm

Karl Stein wrote: »

This is a really bizarre rabbit-hole line you've taken. How would Africa look had Europeans not enacted the slave trade and subsequent colonization of Africa?

How would Africa look if Europeans hadn't become technologically advanced and instead developed at a similar rate to other regions?

Where do we stop with the 'what ifs'?

Again,it is a lot easier than you Think-do you Think you are offerred more opportunities being born in the USA or being born in Sierra Leone?

Karl Stein

crockholm wrote: »

I made the Point,that without the slave trade,Chris Rock would not have been born in America,and therefore would not have been given the platform to air his veiws,nor would he likely had the opportunity to accrue his wealth.How can you possibly deny that?

That's utterly meaningless counterfactual drivel and irrelevant to the discussion.

crockholm wrote: »

Again,it is a lot easier than you Think-do you Think you are offerred more opportunities being born in the USA or being born in Sierra Leone?

What has that got to do with this discussion? What point is it you're trying to make?

I can take unrelated 'what ifs' and use them too. Would Native Americans have been better off if Europeans hadn't colonized North America? Yes. See?

Focus.

crockholm

Karl Stein wrote: »

That's utterly meaningless counterfactual drivel and irrelevant to the discussion.

I disagree.It is his history that has lead him directly to here and now.

Karl Stein

crockholm wrote: »

I disagree.It is his history that has lead him directly to here and now.

So what? That doesn't make what happened any less immoral and has no bearing on what Chris Rock said.

None at all.

Karl Stein

cousin_nigel wrote: »

impossible to say

Precisely - it's all meaningless conjecture.

cousin_nigel wrote: »

legacy guilt is a toxic substance beloved of the pc left and so often used by feminists and socialists

Whatever.

crockholm

Karl Stein wrote: »

So what? That doesn't make what happened any less immoral and has no bearing on what Chris Rock said.

None at all.

At no stage have I said that slavery was anything other than immoral.It is one of the biggest blots against us humans as a species.I made that pretty clear in my first post on the subject.

I disagree with a call for reparations.