nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

Overheal

http://www.inquisitr.com/1647511/chris-rock-on-white-people-they-must-own-the-actions-of-their-racist-ancestors/

So I came across this because a family member made - colorful, vitriolic comments - in response to it, that they felt appropriate at 2 in the morning to post via facebook. Bourbon, most certainly. Either way I found their comments really vulgar and it bothered me a lot.

But it did get me thinking. Basically in Chris Rock's comments, he wants white people to take responsibility for the actions of their ancestors.

It's easy for Chris Rock and anyone else to see this distinction between white and black. Lets also throw east-asians, hispanics, and native americans into this mix. Because of strong genetic markers, some people can track ancestry better than others. But not so much caucasians, which make up vast swaths of Europe and North America. Anyway, it got me to think about who my ancestors were, and incidentally on my mothers side I'm a descendant of John Wesley of Methodist and Savannah Georgia fame, who was a known abolitionist. And on my father's side, our family lineage is french and french-canadian, and now predominately the name is found in new england and quebec. So in effect, my ancestors had not much ado about what Chris Rock is on about. Chris Rock who, ironically, has a comedy out in theatres with an almost all-black main cast (image). Pot calling the kettle - well, black?

His comments are stirring up plenty of controversy apparently though. The comments section in the link makes for interesting if not occasionally dumb reading. Half of it just boils down to "white people are crazy" and "black people are animals". Sigh.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Karl Stein

crockholm wrote: »

I disagree with a call for reparations.

I'm guessing you're not an African American. The Germans only finished paying off reparations for WWI in 2010. That's a few generations removed from the people who fought that war.

I wouldn't give a damn if corporations that benefited from the slave trade had to hand over reparations.

Good luck with that though. Property rights are highly developed to keep property with its owners. Human rights and the right not to be treated as a slave are a lot less so which is patently evident in our own country with the shit the RCC and state got away with. Afaic every single piece of RCC property should have been seized and sold off until every single person who suffered at its hands was handsomely remunerated.

crockholm

Karl Stein wrote: »

I'm guessing you're not an African American. The Germans only finished paying off reparations for WWI in 2010. That's a few generations removed from the people who fought that war.

I wouldn't give a damn if corporations that benefited from the slave trade had to hand over reparations.

Good luck with that though. Property rights are highly developed to keep property with its owners. Human rights and the right not to be treated as a slave are a lot less so which is patently evident in our own country with the shit the RCC and state got away with. Afaic every single piece of RCC property should have been seized and sold off until every single person who suffered at its hands was handsomely remunerated.

You guess correctly.

The germans had living people(the actual slaves) to pay off.There is no AA slave alive today,I would even be surprised if there is anyone alive today who had a grandparent that was a slave.

Now,how much responsibility should a Company have for events that happened 150 years ago have?Sins of the great-great-great grandfather shall be passed to the sons ?

Add the complication of black immigrants to the USA since abolition,the complication of states rights( slavery was never legal in about half of them).Some states (Vermont I Think)abolished it since 1799-what if the USA could say that slavery was residue from the British Colonial times,so sue the UK instead.I really don't Think it could(or should) be done in anyway other than a token gesture.

As an aside,about the RCC-I don't agree with you there either (quelle surprise) How do you value a Church? What can you realistically do with it? Also,I fear that if we handed them a bill for reparations-they would hand us back an even bigger bill for use of hospitals & schools

Karl Stein

crockholm wrote: »

Now,how much responsibility should a Company have for events that happened 150 years ago have?Sins of the great-great-great grandfather shall be passed to the sons ?

I guess that's up to civil society to decide.

How do you value a Church? What can you realistically do with it?

No Churches and graveyards would be exempt of course but everything else wouldn't be.

RobYourBuilder

Precious flower wrote: »

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

Did any Irish people, whose ancestors currently live in Ireland today, benefit from slavery? Perhaps there is a few. I don't know.

Would I be in favour of EU wide reparations for slavery and paying x percent higher taxes to fund said reparations? F*ck it. If it ended this White guilt bollix, especially in Irish people, then yeah, I would. But with certain stipulations.

● No more asylum.
● No more foreign aid(we spent €650 million on that this year).
● No more cultural relativism. If we can call out a knacker from Clondalkin, we can equally call out a knacker from Nigeria.
● No more White guilt.

And then we can look at how the well off in this island acquired their status and property. But I don't think that they will be too game ball for that.

Dirty Steve

Chris Rock has a film out.

Maybe he's trying to guilt people into going to see it; or just drumming up publicity with this sort of crap.

nullzero

Chris Rock makes over the top statement when he should just concentrate on being funny, something he hasn't been for a long time. Perhaps he should take responsibility for the terrible movies he's appeared in to make himself bucket loads of money so he can live in a huge house, kind of like the stereotypical white people he's so quick to call into question.

Donkey Oaty

crockholm wrote: »

I would even be surprised if there is anyone alive today who had a grandparent that was a slave.

Surprise!

As Joyce Dinkins herself says, "Most people are amazed."

nc19

He says at one point its not fair that white people inherit money they haven't earned! WTAF????

What is he going to do with all his money?? His kids wont be getting a penny by the sounds of it......

if hes not happy as a minority living in a majority of whites he should move back to wherever his ancestors came from and see how much he likes it there.

Overheal wrote: »

http://www.inquisitr.com/1647511/chris-rock-on-white-people-they-must-own-the-actions-of-their-racist-ancestors/

So I came across this because a family member made - colorful, vitriolic comments - in response to it, that they felt appropriate at 2 in the morning to post via facebook. Bourbon, most certainly. Either way I found their comments really vulgar and it bothered me a lot.

But it did get me thinking. Basically in Chris Rock's comments, he wants white people to take responsibility for the actions of their ancestors.

It's easy for Chris Rock and anyone else to see this distinction between white and black. Lets also throw east-asians, hispanics, and native americans into this mix. Because of strong genetic markers, some people can track ancestry better than others. But not so much caucasians, which make up vast swaths of Europe and North America. Anyway, it got me to think about who my ancestors were, and incidentally on my mothers side I'm a descendant of John Wesley of Methodist and Savannah Georgia fame, who was a known abolitionist. And on my father's side, our family lineage is french and french-canadian, and now predominately the name is found in new england and quebec. So in effect, my ancestors had not much ado about what Chris Rock is on about. Chris Rock who, ironically, has a comedy out in theatres with an almost all-black main cast (image). Pot calling the kettle - well, black?

His comments are stirring up plenty of controversy apparently though. The comments section in the link makes for interesting if not occasionally dumb reading. Half of it just boils down to "white people are crazy" and "black people are animals". Sigh.

crockholm

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Surprise!

As Joyce Dinkins herself says, "Most people are amazed."

Good find!

Her grandfather was 6 years old at the end of the civil war,7 when the 13th amendment was passed,so unfortunately he was born a slave.Glad to read that at least he had 73 years as a Freeman after the injustices of his birth.

RobYourBuilder

If you do your family history, you will find someone who's a wrong 'un by your great, great grandparent stage. The more you go back, the more that you find two ancestors fighting each other.

jmayo

Diego Simeone wrote: »

Clearly has aspirations to become the Una Mullaly of the race commentary sphere. Now it's slavery and rape that I'm apparently responsible for, what next?

Well you got David Beckham sent off in the world cup.

AngeGal wrote: »

Seems like pretty much nobody commenting here bothered reading the interview. He talks about how it's not black progress that Obama is president but white progress because there have always been black people qualified to be president. Then references how much progress has been made in race relations. Then is asked "It's about white people adjusting to a new reality?"

He says "Owning their actions. Not even their actions. The actions of your dad. Yeah, it’s unfair that you can get judged by something you didn’t do, but it’s also unfair that you can inherit money that you didn’t work for."

He's clearly not suggesting white people today should feel guilty about the slave trade but rather recognise the racism which existed far more commonly in America until recent times. He never mentions ancestors, only familial reference is to 'your dad', he's talking about how each generation needs to improve. Also this was an interview between two Americans for an american magazine so I highly doubt he was thinking of White Europeans at all.

Link in OP is sensationalist nonsense removing context and twisting words.

Well did anybody care to notice the location of the OP.
Oh and the fact they are a mod of the "Ranting and Raving" forum.

Saying that, in my opinion chris rock is an unfunny whiney eejit.

Potatoeman

enfant terrible wrote: »

Where did you read that?

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=31E1gHowYcA

He had a second one after a John Stewart or Bill Maher interview Ill try and dig out.

suicide_circus

I have a number of relatives who were in the Wehrmacht. I was born some 40 years later. In what way should I be "owning" this?

Molester Stallone II

suicide_circus wrote: »

I have a number of relatives who were in the Wehrmacht. I was born some 40 years later. In what way should I be "owning" this?

Wehrmacht were the regular army, not sure there is anything to be owned there

suicide_circus

Molester Stallone II wrote: »

Wehrmacht were the regular army, not sure there is anything to be owned there

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_of_the_Wehrmacht

The Corinthian

There are two factors at play; culpability and damages.

The first is extremely dubious in most cases; even where it comes to African Americans, placing responsibility and exacting recompense on the basis of ethnicity ignores the fact that many white Americans are depended from post slavery immigrants, who had no connection to the African slave trade.

It also ignores, as has been pointed out, the reality of culpability, that the slave trade was not purely a 'white man's trade' but also involved the active support and involvement of Africans themselves.

A similar parallel exists in Germany, who pays Israel annually in reparations for the Holocaust. Many German tax payers are in reality not German, but post-war immigrants - the 4m tax-paying German residents of Turkish origin, for example, have neither a direct nor 'inherited' connection to this event.

Either way, collective responsibility and punishment like this is actually illegal; it is contrary to both the laws of war and the Geneva Conventions.

As to damages, this would relate to what those, or those descendants, would be entitled to; that is what has the wrong done to them cost them. To begin with, as with the above ethnicity ignores the fact that many African Americans are not descended from slaves - Obama being a good example of such, and indeed more likely to have been descended from a slave owner (on either side of his family).

But more importantly, one should ask what have the descendants of African American slaves lost out on by the crime committed against their ancestors? What are the damages? Tellingly, what it meant is that they are now American citizens - had their ancestors not been enslaved, they would have been born in Africa.

Call me cynical, but while their ancestors may have suffered a terrible crime, their descendants are ironically probably better off for it.

Molester Stallone II

suicide_circus wrote: »

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_of_the_Wehrmacht

History of conflict is always written by the victors.
The American and British army's weren't snow white either

Molester Stallone II

Seems Chris has more to worry about than white peoples angst today.

jmayo

suicide_circus wrote: »

I have a number of relatives who were in the Wehrmacht. I was born some 40 years later. In what way should I be "owning" this?

Not all the massacres and Jewish deportations were carried out by the SS, Gestapo, Einsatzgruppen, etc.
Believing the Wehrmacht were somehow above that is like believing in fairy stories.

Chances are if your relatives were particularly on the Eastern Front or in the Balkans they either did, saw or damm well knew about some very unsavoury sh** being carried out by their colleagues.

The Corinthian wrote: »

...
A similar parallel exists in Germany, who pays Israel annually in reparations for the Holocaust. Many German tax payers are in reality not German, but post-war immigrants - the 4m tax-paying German residents of Turkish origin, for example, have neither a direct nor 'inherited' connection to this event...

Well since they are not makling reparations to the Armenians, then they might as well be paying towards the Jews.

Molester Stallone II wrote: »

History of conflict is always written by the victors.
The American and British army's weren't snow white either

Yeah right...
PS you forgot the Russians/Soviets.

BTW could you tell us how the history of WWII could be written to make the Germans look any better and the Western Allies look worse.

Scrub that I don't think I want to know your version of WWII. :rolleyes:

Molester Stallone II

jmayo wrote: »

Not all the massacres and Jewish deportations were carried out by the SS, Gestapo, Einsatzgruppen, etc.
Believing the Wehrmacht were somehow above that is like believing in fairy stories.

Chances are if your relatives were particularly on the Eastern Front or in the Balkans they either did, saw or damm well knew about some very unsavoury sh** being carried out by their colleagues.

Well since they are not makling reparations to the Armenians, then they might as well be paying towards the Jews.

Yeah right...
PS you forgot the Russians/Soviets.

BTW could you tell us how the history of WWII could be written to make the Germans look any better and the Western Allies look worse.

Scrub that I don't think I want to know your version of WWII. :rolleyes:

Ridiculous post

wandatowell

Those slave movies always do well. I think its down to white people feeling guilty.

Couldn't care less about something that happened so long ago.

Gyalist

The Corinthian wrote: »

Call me cynical, but while their ancestors may have suffered a terrible crime, their descendants are ironically probably better off for it.

So the thousands of Irish kids who were basically stolen from their parents and sold by the nuns to families in North America and Australia should just suck it up and not even expect an apology from the Irish state because they would have most likely ended up in the workhouses and industrial schools anyway?

The Corinthian

Gyalist wrote: »

So the thousands of Irish kids who were basically stolen from their parents and sold by the nuns to families in North America and Australia should just suck it up and not even expect an apology from the Irish state because they would have most likely ended up in the workhouses and industrial schools anyway?

Why are you applying an argument I used for the descendants of past wrongs to those who were themselves wronged?

The Corinthian

jmayo wrote: »

Yeah right...
PS you forgot the Russians/Soviets.

BTW could you tell us how the history of WWII could be written to make the Germans look any better and the Western Allies look worse.

Scrub that I don't think I want to know your version of WWII. :rolleyes:

This reminds me of a quote by the historian Donald Bloxham:

"[That the Dresden Bombings should legally be considered a war crime] should be a sobering thought. If, however it is also a startling one, this is probably less the result of widespread understanding of the nuance of international law and more because in the popular mind 'war criminal', like 'paedophile' or 'terrorist', has developed into a moral rather than a legal categorisation."

Your response is an excellent example of this.

Potatoeman

The Corinthian wrote: »

There are two factors at play; culpability and damages.

The first is extremely dubious in most cases; even where it comes to African Americans, placing responsibility and exacting recompense on the basis of ethnicity ignores the fact that many white Americans are depended from post slavery immigrants, who had no connection to the African slave trade.

It also ignores, as has been pointed out, the reality of culpability, that the slave trade was not purely a 'white man's trade' but also involved the active support and involvement of Africans themselves.

A similar parallel exists in Germany, who pays Israel annually in reparations for the Holocaust. Many German tax payers are in reality not German, but post-war immigrants - the 4m tax-paying German residents of Turkish origin, for example, have neither a direct nor 'inherited' connection to this event.

Either way, collective responsibility and punishment like this is actually illegal; it is contrary to both the laws of war and the Geneva Conventions.

As to damages, this would relate to what those, or those descendants, would be entitled to; that is what has the wrong done to them cost them. To begin with, as with the above ethnicity ignores the fact that many African Americans are not descended from slaves - Obama being a good example of such, and indeed more likely to have been descended from a slave owner (on either side of his family).

But more importantly, one should ask what have the descendants of African American slaves lost out on by the crime committed against their ancestors? What are the damages? Tellingly, what it meant is that they are now American citizens - had their ancestors not been enslaved, they would have been born in Africa.

Call me cynical, but while their ancestors may have suffered a terrible crime, their descendants are ironically probably better off for it.

A bigger question would be what happened all the slaves taken East and not West? I dont see huge ex slave populations there. I imagine making them eunuchs means they dont pay reparations.

crockholm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Why are you applying an argument I used for the descendants of past wrongs to those who were themselves wronged?

I had used a similar theme a few pages back and the responses I had gotten back were that what I said was Ignorant,somehow supporting or condoning slavery and one particular dullard managed to shoehorn something about Sammy Davis J.r. into it

I really wish people would read posts and let the content sink in for a while Before rushing to castigate someone for something they never said.

The Corinthian

Potatoeman wrote: »

A bigger question would be what happened all the slaves taken East and not West? I dont see huge ex slave populations there. I imagine making them eunuchs means they dont pay reparations.

AFAIR, most eastern slave trade was conducted by the Arabs (esp. the Ymeni's) and would have transported most slaves to their east African possessions. European slave trade to the east would have been limited as there was a plentiful supply of labour there.

The Americas were another story, as labour was required for the plantations there and having decimated the local population with disease, this necessitated importing new labour.

Mind you, that's off the top of my head, so hardly Gospel.

crockholm wrote: »

I really wish people would read posts and let the content sink in for a while Before rushing to castigate someone for something they never said.

As long as they pay the same attention to detail to warning labels, I'm OK with it.

Gyalist

The Corinthian wrote: »

Why are you applying an argument I used for the descendants of past wrongs to those who were themselves wronged?

So the people who were 'stolen' have no descendants?

Also your argument against collective responsibility ignores the precedent that the inhabitants of Haiti were forced to pay France 150 million gold francs (close to €20 billion in today's terms) for their temerity in overthrowing French colonial rule and slavery and becoming an independent republic. The victims of the crime having to pay twice.

RobYourBuilder

There are 20+ million slaves today. According to the UN. Would we not be better off pushing for their freedom?

The Corinthian

Gyalist wrote: »

So the people who were 'stolen' have no descendants?

Of course they do. What's your point and how does it relate to what I wrote?

Also your argument against collective responsibility ignores the precedent that the inhabitants of Haiti were forced to pay France 150 million gold francs (close to €20 billion in today's terms) for their temerity in overthrowing French colonial rule and slavery and becoming an independent republic. The victims of the crime having to pay twice.

How does it ignore it? Surely, if you apply the logic I supplied, it would in no way support the French position - where did you get that it did?

You appear to be having difficulty understanding the contents of my posts. How would you suggest I could make it easier for you to comprehend them?