CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
It's not what you say or think that's important, but only what you DO that really counts.
Due to the achievements of white people in all the major areas of industry, commerce and finance ''white power'' is a living reality whereas ''black power'' is only fanciful notion of a world which doesn't exist.
So, the term white power is simply an accurate description of the world in which we all live.
Black power is no more than a myth which is aggressively bellowed by those who live in the dream world of 'cloud cuckoo land'.
Life's non achievers usually dream of their greatness as a way to alleviate their feelings of inadequacy and then actually begin to believe their fantasies.
Many of the proponents of the use of the term "black power" would have once agreed with you, in part. Black activist groups understood that white culture was dominant, and commanded power. They blamed poverty and crime on black weakness in the face of white power. Shouting "black power" was like a call to their community to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and do better for themselves. The same call became a call to arms for one side of a race war that doesn't exist.
"White power" was shouted in response to "black power" by people who have nothing of substance to feel supreme about.
More specifically: Stokley Carmichael, the man who popularized the slogan, defined it pretty clearly in his speech at Berkeley. What Black Power ultimately represents is the capacity of blacks to act freely and of our own will within society, or to not require permission to perform x or y action.
To be honest I think little of both slogans, or for any collectivist slogan. Collectivist slogans based on such arbitrary characteristics as the color of ones skin are even less worth my consideration than most.
I think you are conflating race (White) with culture (Western/Euro-American).
The achievements of White people in all the major areas of industry, commerce and finance had nothing to do with being White, but rather with aspects of Western culture.
Given the same sets of ethics, values, and philosophies, and methods in both the European and American cultural and economic environments, people of all races have achieved meaningfully. I think we can safely say race is irrelevant, but environment and culture, and the behavior that grows out of it, is the basis of achievement.
Racism is when an Asian American with higher scores than an African American is passed over because the schools have too many Asians. We've now tortured the definition of equality. Those screaming equality don't actually want equality. They simply want their race to become the new "supremacists".
Words are ink on paper, pixels on a screen, or sound waves in the air.. In and of themselves, WORDS are not racist..
It's the people who utter them who're racist, or not.
Therefore, we need to know what they intend to DO with "power" once they GET it.
In MY view, the people behind "white power" want to ELIMINATE people who aren't white from the country.. And, the people behind "black power" want to live PEACEFULLY in a country that PROMISES peace, but has yet to deliver..
Under that definition, people who chant white power are racist, and people who chant black power aren't.
You are killing me! I swear you intentionally led me down one path just to pull a logical and ideological U-turn at the end.
You start off, and I am right with you, agreeing with sensible statements worthy of any person who hopes for peace and justice and sound logic:
In and of themselves, WORDS are not racist.
It's people who are racist, or not.
Absolutely true.
Sure, I set myself up by assuming you meant individual people. I carried this assumption with me into your next statement.
Therefore, in order to determine if the people who say those words are racist, we need to know what they intend to DO with "power" once they GET it.
Because only individuals say things, I took this to mean we need to know if the individuals who say "xx-power" intend to categorize people by race and treat people differently based on the racial category. I also took this to be you saying that it is actions and the intentions that precede them that matter.
I buy that. We agreed twice! (Or so I thought) But there was more, and I was predicting a hat trick.
Then you made an about face into double standards based on race.
In MY view, the people behind "white power" want to ELIMINATE people who aren't white from the country.. And, the people behind "black power" want to live PEACEFULLY in a country that PROMISES peace, but has yet to deliver..
Under that definition, people who chant white power are racist, and people who chant black power aren't.
OH THE HUMANITY!!!
Here you plainly say that WHICH WORDS are used indicates the race-based category that implies good or bad intentions. This indicates an underlying assumption some words automatically imply racism, REGARDLESS of any actual demonstration of what the individuals actually intend.
This sounds like a contradiction of your earlier statements.
Moreover, it grants one racial category the assumption of having one set of intentions, yet imposes a completely different assumption on a different racial category for making essentially the same statement ("my category has power.")
If I misunderstood what you mean, I apologize.
Truthfully, I am disappointed any time people commit the logical fallacies that conflate racial category with individual intention, privilege, or entitlement.
I am also disgusted when people assume rights, intentions, actions, or experiences are the province of any but individuals, and that the incidental and innate category of one individual has any reasonable bearing on expectations of belief, behavior, circumstance, or entitlement of another individual of that category.
I am allowed, partisan as it might be, to ascribe good motivations to those I support, and negative motives to those I don't.. I make no excuses for doing so..
I don't think all groups want power for the same reasons.
You said, I don't think all groups want power for the same reasons.
So why don't you apply the same principle to individuals within a racial group/category?
There is a word for ascribing motivations differently based on race, and for assuming people in the same race have the same intentions for power as each other. That word is...
-
Wait for it...
-
Racism.
Come over to the right (both meanings) side of the aisle where, unlike the left, the vast majority of us insist on dealing with people as individuals not identity groups.
Come over here where we don't make people drink any identity politics Kool-Aid.
We judge people by their characters and by their deeds, and we believe in the protections afforded by the rule of law.
You don't even have to like Trump. There are plenty of us on the right who don't.
C'mon, you are too smart to stay on the left. Otherwise you wouldn't agree with me so much. :)
There is a word for ascribing motivations differently based on race, and for assuming people in the same race have the same intentions for power as each other. That word is...
-
Wait for it...
-
Racism.
Hello marcus:
I've been thinking about that.. I DON'T ascribe negative motivations to Nazis or white supremacists because they're WHITE.. I ascribe them because of what they SAY...
I've been thinking about that.. I DON'T ascribe negative motivations to Nazis or white supremacists because they're WHITE.. I ascribe them because of what they SAY...
I figured you would think about it. Did you consider the following:
Nazis are not the only ones who could say "White power," but you assume they must be Nazis (or some similar group) with all the associate negative baggage because they say "White power."
You do not associate the negative baggage with the phrase "Black power."
The only difference between the phrases is which race is claiming the power. You judge Whites by a different standard than Blacks by assuming any desire for power (or to proclaim power) must intrinsically include nefarious intentions or not depending on nothing more than race.
What if we were to substitute wearing a hoodie for saying "xx power"? I might assume that a Black guy in a hoodie is going to mug me, but a White guy in a hoodie is not. I could insist that many Black guys in hoodies have mugged people previously. I could say that it has nothing to do with him being Black, but with the hoodie. (If he were in a business suit I would not make the assumption he would mug me.)
That would not be about the hoodie or the suit, but the race of the person wearing it.
The fact would remain that it is racist to make different assumptions about the character or intentions of a person making an [removed]saying "xx power" or wearing a hoodie) based on the race of the person making the expression.
The only difference between the phrases is which race is claiming the power.
Hello again, marcus:
Nahhh..
If you look at the words, you're right.. If you look at the HISTORY of WHO'S saying those words, you're wrong. History "matters".. I do NOT associate negative baggage with the phrase "Black Power" because I UNDERSTAND history.
WHITE people are NOT struggling.. Black people struggle BECAUSE they're black..
WHITE people are NOT struggling.. Black people struggle BECAUSE they're black..
Talk about a set of racist stereotypes!
Some in each race are struggling and some in each race are not. Hitler made similar statements by saying all the Jews were not struggling(were rich) while the "Germans" (goyam) were struggling. By purveying such racist stereotypes, Hitler was just plain lying in order to increase people's racism.
Likewise anybody trading in your statement is spreading falsity based on racist stereotypes, and playing to racist assumptions.
Dude, you know that assuming a Black person is poor (for an example of "struggling") and a White person is not is just as racist as assuming a Jew is rich. None of us is represented by the race category people ascribe to us.
I UNDERSTAND history.
-- -- Then you surely must understand that it does not matter which particular race, nation, etc. adopts a set of assumptions, attitudes and beliefs. Some assumptions, attitudes and beliefs lead inevitably to particular behaviors and outcomes. The difference between people saying "White power", or "Black power", or "Deutschland Ueber Alles" is functionally nil.
The only difference is incidental particulars about who is purveying and acting on the assumptions, attitudes and beliefs. "X power" leads to the same place regardless of the value of X.
You just don't see it because you have bought into the idea that race tells you something useful about what people will do. Why do you hold one group of racists to account, but give a pass to another group of racists?
-- -- Then you must also understand that the insistence that one race's own economic difficulties are the fault of some other race (not particular individuals or policies) is the historical precursor to committing racial violence or instituting racial oppression.
If you look at the words, you're right.. If you look at the HISTORY of WHO'S saying those words, you're wrong. History "matters"..
History does matter. What history demonstrates is that the words being right matters. (i.e., applying different standards and requirements based on race to individuals of different races constitutes racism). Identifying a logical fallacy that indicates a social evil is important if we want to avoid furtherance of that social evil within the society.
Moreover, history demonstrates that allowing people to think they deserve different treatment (or different interpretation of their statements) based on race, leads to oppression and injustice.
I know you mean well, but frankly, guys who think like you were the Nazis best apologists. "If you look at the word criticizing Nazis you are right.. If you look at the history of who is saying the words, you're wrong...."
You're dangerously close to suggesting that because I NOTICE racism, that I'm the racist.. That IS the right wing mantra, is it not??
In 1961 when I arrived in the south, I saw restaurants that wouldn't serve black people.. They had to ride in the back of the bus. They couldn't GO to a white school.. Those aren't stereotypes. That's history..
I saw WHITE people eating in those restaurants.. I saw WHITE people riding in the front of the bus. White people weren't struggling. Black people were, and they still are.. Those aren't stereotypes either..
To RECOGNIZE those set of facts, is NOT racist.. It's HISTORY..
Absolutely it is history. It is certainly reasonable to use the actions and circumstances of particular individuals to draw conclusions about those exact same individuals.
What is unreasonable and racist is to use the historical actions or circumstances of particular individuals to draw conclusions about completely different individuals.
You said, You're dangerously close to suggesting that because I NOTICE racism, that I'm the racist.
I am not close to that at all.
What I am EXACTLY saying is that you are indeed saying racist things and very well may be a racist because you say and seem to actually believe racist things, particularly by categorizing people by race for the purpose of extending a different set of standards to each based on race.
I DO NOT believe you intend to do any harm or injustice.
I truly believe that in your case this is a logical fault, and NOT indicative of a character flaw.
Just think about and deal with people as individuals, and apply standards equally and regardless of race, based only on individual actions and qualifications.
Let's wrap this up.. If BELIEVING that white supremacists have a beef with black people makes ME a racist, then I plead guilty.. I have no idea HOW you can conclude that, but I see that you do..
If BELIEVING that white supremacists have a beef with black people makes ME a racist, then I plead guilty.. I have no idea HOW you can conclude that, but I see that you do..
Please reread what I have written. That is not what constitutes the racism in your statements. It is having separate standards based on race.
You should not be surprised to know that there are significant numbers of Black Muslims in the US. Pew Research Center estimates 3.3 million Muslims in the US as of 2015. Some estimate that 75% of these are Black
Some are immigrants (or their kids) from North and East Africa (e.g., Algeria, Liberia, Somalia, Sudan, etc.) and some are African-Americans who are either Nation of Islam or some more traditional Muslim sect.
Polls of American Muslims indicate that a majority favor implementation of Sharia or at least some aspects thereof, most commonly blasphemy laws, as society-wide legal code.
So, yeah, there are doubtless Blacks in the US who want Sharia. It is possible that their numbers are larger than the numbers of White supremacists of various kinds (whose numbers are estimated at anywhere from less than 1 million to 2 million).
Even at the lower end of 51%, it is likely that there are more Muslims in the US (regardless of race) who favor implementation of Sharia than there are White Supremacists.
It is the depths of folly to think any categorization based on an incidental surface characteristic like race has any bearing on which individuals have or should have power.
In terms of logical fallacies:
- Race is a red herring, an irrelevant distraction from relevant factors.
- Assuming people in a category based solely on incidental characteristics share other characteristics is an overgeneralization.
Knowing people's race tells us nothing about intentions, actions, beliefs, values, education, socioeconomic circumstances, or even family history.
It does not tell us how hard they work, how others treat them, what jobs they do, or how they treat people.
It does not even tell us whether they can dance, like fried chicken, or listen to country music.
Certainly associating race, whether White or Black, with power is the sort of illogic termed racism.
-
Having a different standard for one race than for another is based on this racist concept, and it goes further. It is not merely the folly of racist thinking, but extends toward the injustice of applying different standards to people based on the racial category to which they are assigned or assign themselves.
-
Absolutely we should judge and be judged not on the color of our skin, but on the content of our characters.
Moreover, true power stems from our characters, and the actions that grow from our characters.
Knowing people's race tells us nothing about intentions, actions, beliefs, values, education, socioeconomic circumstances, or even family history.
Hello again, marcus:
How true that is! If your fellow conservatives had such a realistic viewpoint, everything would be hunky dory.. But, a quick glance around these very pages would tell you that they surly DON'T..
If your fellow conservatives had such a realistic viewpoint, everything would be hunky dory..
For that matter, if your fellow liberals had such a realistic viewpoint, everything would be hunky dory.
Actually, most conservatives DO have that viewpoint. It is just that the crazies on the fringe make the news. As for the "conservatives" on "these very pages," many of them are the crazies I am talking about. I have met very few people of any political stamp who would agree with some of them about anything.
Like you, I am here to counter THEM, and their analogs on the left.
Basic conservative thinking boils down to
-Individual responsibility,
-Personal accountability
-Law and order
-Self-reliance
-In general, government only doing things that individuals cannot do for ourselves (e.g., borders, military, disaster response, law enforcement, infrastructure)
How true that is! If your fellow conservatives had such a realistic viewpoint, everything would be hunky dory
Demonstrably false. Blacks in Compton don't particularly like whites or cops walking through their neighborhoods. Blacks in Somalia support genitile mutilation. Arabs/Persians in Iran support stoning adulterers. Chinese in China support Communism. North Koreans in North Korea support nuking the U.S. Arians in Nazi Germany kill Jews. Blah blah blah, etc etc etc. How do I know that and you can't? My darwinian survival instincts work because I've not brainwashed them away with progressivism. You've went anti science and decided that all tribes think alike. Really? So why don't more blacks vote Republican...
Ahh the racist term bandied about by those that really have no platform to run on which is the Democrats. Lacking a platform and reducing themselves to name calling is a tactic Democrats still believe will work for them.
First of all, I want to give a shout-out to my homies: Yo, White is outta sight, man. Muah!
That said, White power is just as valid and has equal footing with black power. If it's not racist to say the latter, it's not racist to say the former.