White abolition?

Author: fauxlaw ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 31
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 60
    Forum posts: 2,868
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    NY schools are sending the message of white abolition. The woke generation, which is transgenerational, unfortunately, is demonstrating that no generation [chronologically] is immune to ignorance and bigotry. They have distinguished "white" people [never saw anyone who is white in my life, not even an albino is white, nor are few Blacks actually black, which means all such labels are ignorance incarnate] into seven separate categories, demonstrating, once again, we are adept at segregating and criticising one another more than we are inclusive and celebratory of our differences.

    Does anyone comprehend the attempt by the 15A to collect ourselves together? Apparently, the Constitution is not woke, and, thank God. Maybe the Census ought to have the mentality that it began with in 1790, because there were damn few demographics, then. Maybe we should not have any at all. Does the road care what I am? Should it? As for the census, I am a nose. Count it, and the rest be damned.
  • oromagi
    oromagi avatar
    Debates: 99
    Forum posts: 4,638
    7
    9
    11
    oromagi avatar
    oromagi
    So Principal Federman sent a fairly racist pamphlet out to the kids parents.  How did we get from Federman to all "NY schools"  (state or city? who cares it is fiction anyway) which then transmogrifies into the whole trans-generational woke generation by the very next sentence?  Wow.  Is Federman really that influential?  Why not just demote Federman back to teaching shop and leave the unjustified generalizations at the door?
  • Theweakeredge
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Debates: 25
    Forum posts: 2,880
    4
    6
    10
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Theweakeredge
    --> @fauxlaw
    hmmm... well, the entire concept of "whiteness" was just a way of creating hierarchy by the fascists... you know, because the Irish used to not be considered "white", its defined by what it isn't, not by what it is. 
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 60
    Forum posts: 2,868
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @oromagi @Theweakeredge
    You're both missing the entire point: That there is no justification for such descriptive demographics, at all. That beneath the differentiations of skin, hair, feature shapes and whatnot, our DNA is virtually identical. In fact, but for the skull, if nothing else [no other tissue] is left of a dead human but skeleton, race cannot be determined. It is not by DNA, but by size and shape of the skull. https://medium.com/forensic-anthropology/what-can-be-read-in-bone-remains-a81fb7562fde. We share blood types, even.

    So, why are we so hung up on racial profile at all? Why can't we look at one another, celebrate our differences rather than discriminate by them. Is that so hard?

    After all, does any of our infrastructure really need to differentiate us other than by age and sex - and the latter only minimally? I repeat: does the road care what I am, racially? No. Neither should anyone or anything else. 
  • Theweakeredge
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Debates: 25
    Forum posts: 2,880
    4
    6
    10
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Theweakeredge
    --> @fauxlaw
    I agree with the point, unfortunately that would be A) Unrealistic, and B) Ignoring some basic facts - there is racism in the world, specifically against black and Hispanic people. Second, yes you are correct we are extremely similar genetically, in fact, there is more difference in black people then comparing black to white people, but stigmatization oppression, and racism has put implicit biases against these people.
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 60
    Forum posts: 2,868
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @Theweakeredge
    Yes, and this relates to the separate threaded discussion on defunding the police, that errant officers are not acting according to the system, but outside of it, because the system does not condone, nor document their chosen, disobedient behavior.
  • oromagi
    oromagi avatar
    Debates: 99
    Forum posts: 4,638
    7
    9
    11
    oromagi avatar
    oromagi
    --> @fauxlaw
    Friday Night

    The woke generation is demonstrating that no generation is immune to ignorance and bigotry.
    THESIS=the woke generation (and also, unconnectedly, all schools in New York) are ignorant and bigoted.

    Evidence: A guy named Federman mailed some racist pamphlets

    COUNTERARGUMENT=faulty generalization re: generation of people based on behavior of one person (who is not even established as a member of the set described)

    Saturday Morning

    You missed my point, race is a social construct.
  • Athias
    Athias avatar
    Debates: 13
    Forum posts: 1,367
    3
    3
    8
    Athias avatar
    Athias
    --> @oromagi
    You missed my point, race is a social construct.
    What do you mean when you state that "race is a social construct"?
  • SupaDudz
    SupaDudz avatar
    Debates: 30
    Forum posts: 12,561
    5
    8
    11
    SupaDudz avatar
    SupaDudz
    --> @fauxlaw
    My Greek ancestors: *slaves to the Ottoman Turks for 400 years*

    My grandparents: *first people from their country to move to America in 1932* *still were not treated well*

    Me: *exists*

    People: "You should feel sorry because your ancestors owned slaves."

    Me: *confused*
  • oromagi
    oromagi avatar
    Debates: 99
    Forum posts: 4,638
    7
    9
    11
    oromagi avatar
    oromagi
    --> @Athias
    Added 02.20.21 12:54PM
    --> @oromagi
    You missed my point, race is a social construct.
    What do you mean when you state that "race is a social construct"?
    Summary of fauxlaw's P4 in contrast to his P1: he says we missed his point but his apparent thesis has shifted radically overnight.
  • Intelligence_06
    Intelligence_06 avatar
    Debates: 61
    Forum posts: 1,893
    4
    7
    11
    Intelligence_06 avatar
    Intelligence_06
    What is wrong with separating whites into 7 categories?

    I am not “SJW”, I just don’t understand why just categorizing them is wrong. Aren’t Slavic people, Scandinavian people and Germanic people different? Did they categorize them in a derogatory method?
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 60
    Forum posts: 2,868
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @oromagi
    Summary of fauxlaw's P4 in contrast to his P1: he says we missed his point but his apparent thesis has shifted radically overnight.
    How has my argument shifted? Both #1 and #4 indicate my preference for eliminating racial distinction. I don't care if it is one principal or the entire school system, it is arguing for even greater racial segregation than we experience now. To what good does that point? That's why I say, census and demographic-wise, count me as a nose. Color of it be bloody well damned.
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 4,178
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @fauxlaw
    Nice again....Another pearl of wisdom.
  • oromagi
    oromagi avatar
    Debates: 99
    Forum posts: 4,638
    7
    9
    11
    oromagi avatar
    oromagi
    --> @fauxlaw
    I don't care if it is one principal or the entire school system, it is arguing for even greater racial segregation than we experience now.
    You should care though because you are unfairly characterizing the entire school system and then an entire generation of people based on the misguided pamphleteering of one individual.  I expect 99% of folks can agree that we should seek fewer racial distinctions in our civil accords but you can't claim that NY Schools or the Woke generation are promoting increased distinction based on something some guy named Federer did last Friday.  If your point was only that Federer's 8 types of white was non-inclusive, why make up the shit about school systems at all?  or the woke generation?  You've failed to show how Federer must be representative of the groups you've targeted.
  • Athias
    Athias avatar
    Debates: 13
    Forum posts: 1,367
    3
    3
    8
    Athias avatar
    Athias
    --> @oromagi
    Summary of fauxlaw's P4 in contrast to his P1: he says we missed his point but his apparent thesis has shifted radically overnight.
    Except fauxlaw hasn't argued that race is a "social construct." Fauxlaw has argued that the preoccupation with the labels used to identify demographics (i.e. "race") are at best shallow, and produce little--if any--significance. He has also argued that these labels are misused particularly in his mention that he has seen neither a "White" person, nor a "Black" person.

    But then again, I still do know what you mean when you state that race is a "social construct." Is it synonymous with "imaginary"?

    Furthermore, his position didn't change radically overnight. His thesis remained the same throughout both posts which expressed his claim that "we" are exercising futility in segregating ourselves rather than celebrating our differences.

    You should care though because you are unfairly characterizing the entire school system and then an entire generation of people based on the misguided pamphleteering of one individual.  I expect 99% of folks can agree that we should seek fewer racial distinctions in our civil accords but you can't claim that NY Schools or the Woke generation are promoting increased distinction based on something some guy named Federer did last Friday.
    Perhaps, he was using the individual's actions as an exemplar which helps delineate a trend. And I happen to know that he isn't far off in his characterization. 
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 60
    Forum posts: 2,868
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @Athias @oromagi
    Thank you, Athias. You have fairly and accurately defended my position.

    oromagi, you still don't get it. As I said, I don't care that it's one man with a mission. Talk like that is infectious, and he is dead wrong. I'm serious when I say, census-wise, I am a nose and it has no color. Society should not view us any differently. Too many people care what color I happen to be, as if I had anything to do with it as a choice. Or are we going to start the same nonsense we have with gender? I don 't get to choose that, either. That whole "social construct" is just as absurd. Mainly because, what does it matter? As Oscar Wilde once said, "Be yourself. Everyone else is taken." Racially, and by gender, these are not choices. They're mom and dad, and not even they really choose, do they? Imagine a cheetah choosing to have a purple and green coating of hair. Creative, perhaps, but to what purpose?
  • oromagi
    oromagi avatar
    Debates: 99
    Forum posts: 4,638
    7
    9
    11
    oromagi avatar
    oromagi
    --> @Athias
    Except fauxlaw hasn't argued that race is a "social construct."

    But then again, I still do [not] know what you mean when you state that race is a "social construct." Is it synonymous with "imaginary"?
    Your statements are contradictory. 

    • If it is true you don't know what "race is a social construct" means then you have no authority to argue that such a statement is not a fair summary of fauxlaw's P#4. 
    • If you do actually know what "race is a social construct" means then your insincerity undermines your argument. 
    Which is it?

    Wikipedia:

    Contrary to popular belief that the division of the human species based on physical variations is natural, there exists no clear, reliable distinctions that bind people to such groupings.  According to the American Anthropological Association, "Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes." While there is a biological basis for differences in human phenotypes, most notably in skin color, the genetic variability of humans is found not amongst, but rather within racial groups – meaning the perceived level of dissimilarity amongst the species has virtually no biological basis. Genetic diversity has characterized human survival, rendering the idea of a "pure" ancestry as obsolete.  Under this interpretation, race is conceptualized through a lens of artificiality, rather than through the skeleton of a scientific discovery. As a result, scholars have begun to broaden discourses of race by defining it as a social construct and exploring the historical contexts that led to its inception and persistence in contemporary society.

    Most historians, anthropologists, and sociologists describe human races as a social construct, preferring instead the term population or ancestry, which can be given a clear operational definition. Even those who reject the formal concept of race, however, still use the word race in day-to-day speech. This may either be a matter of semantics, or an effect of an underlying cultural significance of race in racist societies.
    Which is perfectly in accord with fauxlaw's P4 thesis:

    That beneath the differentiations of skin, hair, feature shapes and whatnot, our DNA is virtually identical.
    "race is a social construct" is an apt summary of fauxlaw's P4.

    Perhaps, he was using the individual's actions as an exemplar which helps delineate a trend.
    Precisely my complaint.  Delineating trends from the example of one individual's actions commits the fallacy of hasty generalization.

    Wikipedia:

    In logic and reasoning, a faulty generalization, similar to a proof by example in mathematics, is a conclusion made about all or many instances of a phenomenon, that has been reached on the basis of one or a few instances of that phenomenon.  It is an example of jumping to conclusions. For example, one may generalize about all people or all members of a group, based on what they know about just one or a few people:
    • If one meets an angry person from a given country X, they may suspect that most people in country X are often angry.
    • If one sees only white swans, they may suspect that all swans are white.
    Faulty generalizations may lead to further incorrect conclusions. One may, for example, conclude that citizens of country X are genetically inferior, or that poverty is the fault of the poor.

    Expressed in more precise philosophical language, a fallacy of defective induction is a conclusion that has been made on the basis of weak premises, or one which is not justified by sufficient or unbiased evidence. Unlike fallacies of relevance, in fallacies of defective induction, the premises are related to the conclusions, yet only weakly buttress the conclusions, hence a faulty generalization is produced. The essence of this inductive fallacy lies on the overestimation of an argument based on insufficiently-large samples under an implied margin or error.
    So let's look at fauxlaw's first premise:

    They have distinguished "white" people  into seven separate categories
    Who is THEY?  fauxlaw has failed to tether his pronoun specifically but we have two choices
    • "NY schools" (which includes state and city and private and public)
      • or
    • "The woke generation" which fauxlaw does not define and the term has no well defined common meaning.  If we assume that woke is being used in the sense of "a perceived awareness of issues that concern social justice and racial justice"then "the woke generation" is basically anybody who thinks they have a handle on the issues of social justice- which likely includes all debater on this site.
    Is it true that NY schools have distinguished white people into seven separate categories?  No, this statement is quite false.

    Is it true that everybody concerned abut social justice has distinguished white people into seven separate categories.  No, this statement is also false.

    So what is fauxlaw talking about?  fauxlaw still hasn't bothered to explain but his claim is based on a racist pamphlet that a high school principal mailed to his student's parents last week.  The graphic was  titled "The Eight White Identities" so fauxlaw's "seven identities" is also inaccurate.  All reporting indicates that the pamphlet represents the opinion of one man and that NY schools (public, private, state, and city) haven't yet had a chance to investigate much less issue a press statement, much much less indicate any measure of support for Federman's racism,  and much, much, much,  much less  representing the opinion of all people concerned with social justice.

    fauxlaw's generalization reveals an unjustified bigotry towards both of his unwarrented targets: NY schools and a whole generation  of people are racist because one example of racism happened this week.  Now contrast this to fauxlaw's P4 argument:

    Why can't we look at one another, celebrate our differences rather than discriminate by them. Is that so hard?
    I'm not saying that this sentiment is unworthy.  I am saying that after starting out with a couple of acts of casual bigotry visited upon NY schools and "woke" people, fauxlaw's P4 calls to celebrate difference reads as insincere.
  • Athias
    Athias avatar
    Debates: 13
    Forum posts: 1,367
    3
    3
    8
    Athias avatar
    Athias
    --> @fauxlaw @oromagi
    Your statements are contradictory. 

    • If it is true you don't know what "race is a social construct" means then you have no authority to argue that such a statement is not a fair summary of fauxlaw's P#4. 
    • If you do actually know what "race is a social construct" means then your insincerity undermines your argument. 

    Which is it?
    My statements aren't contradictory. And the reason is simple.

    I entertain the possibility that I haven't gauged your application of "social construct" when I stated this:

    But then again, I still do [not] know what you mean when you state that race is a "social construct." Is it synonymous with "imaginary"?
    (Thanks for the correction, by the way.) "But then again," is an idiom which, when applied, indicates a contrary possibility. That is, I'm letting you know that I've only assumed a meaning and proceeded with it absent of your clarification. And there's a bit of nuance which needs identification: I never stated that I didn't know what is meant by "race is a social construct;" I specifically asked you what you meant when you stated that race is a social construct. Furthermore, fauxlaw literally didn't argue that "race is a social construct."

    Wikipedia:

    Contrary to popular belief that the division of the human species based on physical variations is natural, there exists no clear, reliable distinctions that bind people to such groupings.  According to the American Anthropological Association, "Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes." While there is a biological basis for differences in human phenotypes, most notably in skin color, the genetic variability of humans is found not amongst, but rather within racial groups – meaning the perceived level of dissimilarity amongst the species has virtually no biological basis. Genetic diversity has characterized human survival, rendering the idea of a "pure" ancestry as obsolete.  Under this interpretation, race is conceptualized through a lens of artificiality, rather than through the skeleton of a scientific discovery. As a result, scholars have begun to broaden discourses of race by defining it as a social construct and exploring the historical contexts that led to its inception and persistence in contemporary society.

    Most historians, anthropologists, and sociologists describe human races as a social construct, preferring instead the term population or ancestry, which can be given a clear operational definition. Even those who reject the formal concept of race, however, still use the word race in day-to-day speech. This may either be a matter of semantics, or an effect of an underlying cultural significance of race in racist societies.
    Which is perfectly in accord with fauxlaw's P4 thesis:
    First let's define "social construct" using Wikipedia:

    A social construct or construction is the meaning, notion, or connotation placed on an object or event by a society, and adopted by the inhabitants of that society with respect to how they view or deal with the object or event. In that respect, a social construct as an idea would be widely accepted as natural by the society.
    Now your citation, also from Wikipedia, states this:

    Under this interpretation, race is conceptualized through a lens of artificiality, rather than through the skeleton of a scientific discovery. As a result, scholars have begun to broaden discourses of race by defining it as a social construct and exploring the historical contexts that led to its inception and persistence in contemporary society.
    "A lens of artificiality" which lacks the information of scientific discovery, correct? This doesn't necessarily align with the aforementioned description. Case in point: the genetic similarity between Humans and Chimpanzees is at 99%; therefore "Humans" and "Chimps" are "social constructs" despite the terms predating the discovery of the genetic code in 1961. The description itself (social construct) isn't contingent on the presence of scientific discovery at all.

    So then, does the latter description even correctly align with fauxlaw's statements? No. Read Fauxlaw's statements again: if anything he's arguing that race has no utility as a social construct since it doesn't produce anything a society would find significant. He isn't levying scientific criticism (for the most part) on the application of racial distinction, but more so it's application in the context of public goods--i.e. infrastructure, and education, the subject of this discussion.


    Who is THEY?  fauxlaw has failed to tether his pronoun specifically but we have two choices
    • "NY schools" (which includes state and city and private and public)
      • or
    • "The woke generation" which fauxlaw does not define and the term has no well defined common meaning.  If we assume that woke is being used in the sense of "a perceived awareness of issues that concern social justice and racial justice"then "the woke generation" is basically anybody who thinks they have a handle on the issues of social justice- which likely includes all debater on this site.
    Or "They" can be both. That is, it is entirely possible that the administrations of New York schools exhibit "wokeness."

    Is it true that NY schools have distinguished white people into seven separate categories?  No, this statement is quite false.
    Fair enough. "Eight" categories.

    Is it true that everybody concerned abut social justice has distinguished white people into seven separate categories.  No, this statement is also false.o
    You're declaring it false based on your assumption of fauxlaw's meaning. Where's your "But then again..."? Or why not ask fauxlaw what he meant before declaring what he stated was false?

    So what is fauxlaw talking about?  fauxlaw still hasn't bothered to explain but his claim is based on a racist pamphlet that a high school principal mailed to his student's parents last week.
    True, fauxlaw hasn't bothered to explicitly define what he meant by "woke generation." On the other hand, you haven't bothered to ask him what he meant. Instead, you extended your criticism on the assumption of what he meant. So let me put forward the same characterization you levied against my argument: if you do in fact understand what he meant by "woke generation" then isn't your "insincerity [undermining] your argument"? The difference between your extensions and my extensions, however, is that I have at least a couple of times entertained the notion that I might be misinterpreting your application of your terms; you've afforded fauxlaw no such courtesy. Instead, you've strawmanned him.

    All reporting indicates that the pamphlet represents the opinion of one man and that NY schools (public, private, state, and city) haven't yet had a chance to investigate much less issue a press statement, much much less indicate any measure of support for Federman's racism,  and much, much, much,  much less  representing the opinion of all people concerned with social justice.
    This is inaccurate. The origin of the graphic was reported to originate from Barnor Hesse who teaches at North Western University in Illinois.

    fauxlaw's generalization reveals an unjustified bigotry towards both of his unwarrented targets: NY schools and a whole generation  of people are racist because one example of racism happened this week. 
    Or his allusion to this event serves as an exemplar delineating a "woke" trend. It would have behooved you to extend this inquiry:

    How did we get from Federman to [all] "NY schools"  (state or city? who cares it is fiction anyway) which then transmogrifies into the whole trans-generational woke generation by the very next sentence?
    which would have compelled fauxlaw to explain himself. Furthermore, if we're going to indulge lexical semantics (an indulgence with which I take no issue) then we have to be meticulous. fauxlaw doesn't state AT ALL that his reference was to "ALL" New York schools. He just states, "New York Schools."  (You added the "ALL.") It's not a generalization; at best, it's an erroneous plurality since he doesn't qualify it with quantifiable descriptors.

    I'm not saying that this sentiment is unworthy.  I am saying that after starting out with a couple of acts of casual bigotry visited upon NY schools and "woke" people, fauxlaw's P4 calls to celebrate difference reads as insincere.
    The subject isn't whether your find it worthy; the subject is whether his subsequent statement reflects a radical "overnight" change. And it doesn't.

    fauxlaw (post #1):
    They have distinguished "white" people [never saw anyone who is white in my life, not even an albino is white, nor are few Blacks actually black, which means all such labels are ignorance incarnate] into seven separate categories, demonstrating, once again, we are adept at segregating and criticising one another more than we are inclusive and celebratory of our differences.
    fauxlaw (post #4):
    So, why are we so hung up on racial profile at all? Why can't we look at one another, celebrate our differences rather than discriminate by them. Is that so hard?


  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 60
    Forum posts: 2,868
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @Athias @oromagi
    To qualify my meaning, for oromagi's benefit, and to acknowledge Althias' defense of my position, of not just "woke generation" [which Athias correctly interpreted as not a age-related generation, but a general group of people who align to a particular label [being people of any age - and it is "their" label, furthermore] - my argument is that we should not look upon one another by any physical feature at all as a matter of segregation or discrimination, thinking that any feature exhibits some superiority on one over another. AS I have cited somewhere [don't recall where at present] according to Scientific American, the concept of race is not a scientific designation, but a social one. I would add that it is a errant designation. IMHO, it is dead wrong to engage such descriptives, and impose our infrastructure on that basis. Thus my belief that all demographics of that nature are useless, and worse, destructive. I am a 71-year-old male nose. Leave it at that; all other distinctions being societally and legally meaningless. I would have preferred the 15A, or any other Amendment, to say: 

    "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State" and completely strike the remainder: "... on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude..."  And I would further extend that right on the basis of any other civic activity besides voting, such as property ownership, use of infrastructure, education, health care, or any other legitimate activity to which we look to government to codify. Who bloody cares how we describe one another, other than as American citizens? Doing so might have dismissed the need for most of the Amendments that follow, and they did so only because we seem able to find news ways to parse ourselves when the parsing is completely unnecessary to accomplish the goal of "...in Order to form a more perfect Union..."

    Now THAT is "Woke" to me.
  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 9,031
    4
    7
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    --> @Theweakeredge
    hmmm... well, the entire concept of "whiteness" was just a way of creating hierarchy by the fascists...
    nope, whiteness is a term made up by anti-white people to portray whites negatively
  • Theweakeredge
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Debates: 25
    Forum posts: 2,880
    4
    6
    10
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Theweakeredge
    --> @Dr.Franklin
    No, not quite. 
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 4,178
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @Dr.Franklin
    No, not quite.

    Whiteness is a term adopted by anti-white people, to portray white people negatively.


    Originally Black and White was a representation of an obvious difference.


    And though the past is history, we move on slowly....Some people still like to drag their heels and demand that they are different.

    Greek and American or British and Asian........Welsh and Scottish for goodness sake.

    Homogenization is a slow process, dogged by culture and memories.


  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 9,031
    4
    7
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    --> @zedvictor4
    explain why it was adopted
  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 9,031
    4
    7
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    --> @Theweakeredge
    yes, quite.


    this term is invented

  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 60
    Forum posts: 2,868
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @Dr.Franklin @Theweakeredge @zedvictor4
    Contrary to the allegations of Black Lives Matter, the Constitution never raised a racial issue, and only mentions race at all in the 1868 15th amendment. Article I, Section 2, clause 3 speaks of representation of citizens, and a census, first conducted in 1790, which counted "the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons."  The Constitution never defines "three fifths" as being only Blacks [that term does not exist], nor "Whole persons" as only Whites [also a term that does not exist constitutionally]. "Three-fifths" were counted as slaves in the census, who were not exclusively, even though a majority were Black. Some were Indians, and there may have been Asians, although that is only suggested. I can find no factual source. [BLM does not acknowledge this fact, nor does the 1619 Project, either.]  "Whole persons" included free blacks in the North, less in number than were slaves, nevertheless, a portion were entirely free and counted as whole persons, a fact B:M ignores, as well, as does the 1619 project.