An Independence Day Message for Black Americans

[canceled.2021.2]

Yeah, it's been doomed since 1776. Ask any Euro.

how pithy

[Doc Dutch]

I'll get by without your rabbit pie, sweetiepie!

Cute rhyme. Is that Welsh Rabbit (cheese and bread) or real rabbit as Americans eat?

[Doc Dutch]

how pithy

Yes, you are:

It’s been doomed. I would rather we split amicably

Divide up the country and go our separate ways. We get the nukes

[StoneByStone]

And it rushes in to prove my point. The best potential part of you ran down your mothers leg.

And into your mother's mouth.

[Doc Dutch]

And into your mother's mouth.

Your mother's are Lesbo's? Any pix? I'm a collector of fine erotic art.

[domer76]

How so? Do you think the Constitution was just something a bunch of racists wrote?

Nope. But the Declaration was a lie before the ink was dry.

And the concept of Natural Rights that your author refers to is merely a pile of horse feces

[Dachshynddawg]

Recognizing shortcomings is fine, but without looking at other countries at the same time, you lose perspective.

Granted, the West has had this problem for a long time now. There's a reason why many non-Western countries are happier in general than many Western nations. It's because these people understand the value of a common culture and common values. They take pride in their identity.

Ironically, the same side that emphasizes identity politics doesn't want any part of focusing on national identity. That's "racist", apparently. Although it only seems to be racist when a majority white country does it. Few call the Chinese racist for their nationalism. Few call Pakistanis racist for their nationalism. Few call Indians racist for theirs, and so on.

(1)Historically speaking, America will cease to be a majority White (European) - Western - nation in the near future. By 2050 they will no longer constitute the Majority of the population in the US. By the end of the 21st century Black/African Americans together with Hispanic/Latinos will materially outnumber you (White European women have a flat-lining birth rate at present and I do not anticipate that will change any time soon). This means that your tradition native White Western culture, values Institutions, customs, moral mores, Religion and so on will be reduced to those of a minority group. Blacks/African-Americans have a radically different world-view to White Wester-European Americans, for instance they prefer collectivist social structuring as opposed to White (European) libertarian individualism and free mark capitalism is not in their DNA. Similarly, Hispanics/Latinos have a different worldview again; that is to say their culture, social manners and mores, moral norms, attitudes to work, language (Spanish) are quite dissimilar to those of White American. When you become a minority , you can kiss your Western culture good-bye - you will no longer be living in what was called America.



(2) Different racial/ethnic groups do NOT mix, they do not integrate. They do not assimilate harmoniously. They prefer to live with other members of their own race and naturally form insular enclaves to separate themselves from the "other". If you try to force them to live amongst each other in mixed neighbourhoods, you will find they are soon at each other's throats. "Diversity does NOT make us stronger" Diversity causes the communities where it exists to fragment and fracture, it can precipitate violent inter-racial conflict, and it has been proven to reduce levels of social capital (trust). Moreover, I have noticed that Blacks in America seem to harbour a seething hatred for whites? And I don't think that Hispanics/latinos have all that much affection for them either. So, as your percentage of the national population continues to dwindle as theirs rises, you might find yourself in quite an unenviable situation; namely surrounded and outnumber by hostile "tribes" that would love any excuse to give racist "Whitey" a good thumping.



(3) IQ. People argue about the value , meaning and significance of IQ scores all the time. So I will stick to what are known to be solid facts. The first is that the average IQ score of a native White American is 100 points; for Hispanics/Latinos their average IQ score is about 87 points; for African-Americans it is 85 points. These figure have been scientifically confirmed umpteen times. The second fact is that there is a strong positive correlation between life outcome and IQ score. The higher your IQ score is the more likely you are to experience success in your education (elementary, high school college) secure a good job, earn more money, have satisfying interpersonal relationships , not be divorced if you decide to get married, not come into contact with the criminal justice system, enjoy good health, live longer. In short, experience positive life outcomes. As a persons IQ score drops the converse applies... difficulties at school; more likely to working low skilled occupation; more likely to earn less; more likely to have to change jobs due to conflicts with employers, more likely to be unemployed and in receipt of welfare benefits more likely to experience social difficulties, if married less likely to stay married, more chance of running into trouble with the criminal justice system, less likely to maintain good health, less likely to live as long as people with higher IQs



Dachshund

[Dachshynddawg]

Your mother's are Lesbo's? Any pix? I'm a collector of fine erotic art.

I could send you a picture of my winkle if you want.

[Saudade]

IDIOT! Even the 5th graders are more advanced in their studies than you!

LOL... If your educators taught you to be a presentist, they did you a great disservice.

[Saudade]

Nope. But the Declaration was a lie before the ink was dry.

And the concept of Natural Rights that your author refers to is merely a pile of horse feces

So, what do you replace it with? If this country is based on a lie and natural rights don't exist, then are rights just a matter of whatever the state deems to be a right? With a system like that, you're completely at the whims of the people in power. There are several countries that operate like that, but I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want to live in any of them.

[Stretch]

This is well worth the read. Posted in its entirety.


An Independence Day Message for Black Americans
COMMENTARY
.
By Charles Love

Independence Day has largely become a day for barbecue and furniture sales. For many Americans, however, it remains an important day of reflection, a day to celebrate the founding of this great nation. This Independence Day may be more important than any in recent history, with protests continuing and historic symbols under attack. America’s past sins are being dredged up and reexamined. It is a good time, then, to look at the Declaration of Independence within its proper context.

I want to address my fellow black Americans: This country is as much ours as it is anyone else’s—and it has been since the beginning. Too many blacks believe that America is racist, that it does not foster equality, and that its founding principles do not include all citizens. This is evident in the common reply from some blacks to Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again,” which was, “When was America ever great?”

The answer to this question depends on one’s definition of “great.” If “great” means “perfect,” then former Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall’s judgment that our Constitution was “defective from the start” seems true. Yet when measured against other countries—all very far from perfect themselves—America was clearly unique. In the late 18th century, most of the world was ruled by tribal leaders who gained power through conquest or monarchs who inherited power through family lineage and treated citizens as subjects.

The Declaration of Independence was special in how it stated the requirement of a new form of government. It, and the Constitution that followed, turned history on its head. Before the Declaration, leaders created laws to guide how people should act and live. The Declaration argued, by contrast, that man was governed by natural law that comes from “nature’s God.” The primary goal of government should be to protect these natural rights, granted to man by God. The document further stated that the government’s power should be derived from the consent of the governed.

The argument detractors make—and that we hear so often today—is that the Founders were racists and slaveowners who did not believe that everyone should be included in the new nation’s mission statement. Applying such a crude blanket judgment to the Founders as a group is not very useful, since there were many differences among them; yet even if this judgment were true across the board, it would have no bearing on the greatness of the idea on which America was founded. No matter the Founders’ flaws, what they created was great and unique in history.

Besides, the best argument against slavery is the Declaration of Independence itself. If all men are created equal, then blacks cannot be excluded. If our rights are endowed by the Creator, they cannot be given or taken away by arbitrary leaders.

Because a younger America did not honor the freedoms afforded to all does not negate the fact that blacks still had these rights; they were, and are, innate. Frederick Douglass, former slave and abolitionist, said it best in 1864, at the height of the Civil War: “Abolish slavery tomorrow, and not a sentence or syllable of the Constitution need be altered.”

The same goes for the Declaration of Independence. Did it promote equality? The answer is clearly yes. If you’re unsure, here’s a test. What if government were limited to laws that solely secured natural rights? Would that promote or suppress equality? That depends on what one deems to be equality. Natural law would dictate that a black man is free to pursue, say, the role of NFL commissioner. It also suggests, though, that those responsible for selecting the commissioner would be afforded the same freedom of action, and choice.

In an effort to rectify past wrongs, our culture has become obsessed with “diversity” and “inclusion.” Are these demands consistent with the virtue of equality? Any honest assessment of this forced diversity movement would find it lacking. Phrases like “It’s time for a woman president” or “We need more black coaches” are as antithetical to the goal of equality as John C. Calhoun’s argument that slavery was a “positive good” or the Supreme Court’s reasoning in the Dred Scott case of 1857.

To the younger generation of Americans: You will inherit an undue burden. The new, unequal view of righting wrongs—best described as “justifiable inequality”—will change how you’re educated. This means that to get a full understanding of equality, and of human nature’s effect on it, you will likely have to study independently. Your studies will, no doubt, put heavy emphasis on slavery, Jim Crow, the treatment of Native Americans, unjust wars, gender inequalities, and countless other failures. You will almost certainly not be given insight into the world of the past; nor will you be told that the failures of the past are indictments of the choices of the men and women of that time—not of the principles that undergird our unique republic.

Without this perspective, one can’t help but have a skewed view of America. What Thomas Jefferson (its principal author) created in the Declaration is a document that would serve as the foundation for the greatest governing experiment in human history. Unfortunately, our country is at risk today because too many citizens know little, and appreciate less, of this history and its context.

Lastly, to my son: I cannot shield you from the world. You will, undoubtedly, be subjected to the noxious view of America described above—often with the inference that you have fewer opportunities because of your race. This is a lie. I will do everything in my power to ensure that you understand the significance of freedom, liberty, and equality. If I do my job well, when you read this, you will know that you were blessed to be born in America; and being black should strengthen, not weaken this belief. I hope that you will defend the tenets of the Declaration of Independence and stand up to maintain our republic. It needs you.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...ns_143612.html

Excellent, really puts everything in its proper perspective. History must remain well-documented and preserved for factual lessons
about how we and other nations came to be and evolved to the present.
I mentioned elsewhere, "I don't get obsession with PAST slavery? The majority of other nations engaged in slavery for hundreds of years
and not all based on skin color. This is HISTORY and documented. The key lesson is that MOST nations got past it, reformed and have moved on.
All but one. Africa still has the highest rate in the world."

[Saudade]

(1)Historically speaking, America will cease to be a majority White (European) - Western - nation in the near future. By 2050 they will no longer constitute the Majority of the population in the US. By the end of the 21st century Black/African Americans together with Hispanic/Latinos will materially outnumber you (White European women have a flat-lining birth rate at present and I do not anticipate that will change any time soon). This means that your tradition native White Western culture, values Institutions, customs, moral mores, Religion and so on will be reduced to those of a minority group. Blacks/African-Americans have a radically different world-view to White Wester-European Americans, for instance they prefer collectivist social structuring as opposed to White (European) libertarian individualism and free mark capitalism is not in their DNA. Similarly, Hispanics/Latinos have a different worldview again; that is to say their culture, social manners and mores, moral norms, attitudes to work, language (Spanish) are quite dissimilar to those of White American. When you become a minority , you can kiss your Western culture good-bye - you will no longer be living in what was called America.

(2) Different racial/ethnic groups do NOT mix, they do not integrate. They do not assimilate harmoniously. They prefer to live with other members of their own race and naturally form insular enclaves to separate themselves from the "other". If you try to force them to live amongst each other in mixed neighbourhoods, you will find they are soon at each other's throats. "Diversity does NOT make us stronger" Diversity causes the communities where it exists to fragment and fracture, it can precipitate violent inter-racial conflict, and it has been proven to reduce levels of social capital (trust). Moreover, I have noticed that Blacks in America seem to harbour a seething hatred for whites? And I don't think that Hispanics/latinos have all that much affection for them either. So, as your percentage of the national population continues to dwindle as theirs rises, you might find yourself in quite an unenviable situation; namely surrounded and outnumber by hostile "tribes" that would love any excuse to give racist "Whitey" a good thumping.

While it is true that many Western countries are learning the hard way that many cultures have no interest in assimilating, America did successfully assimilate various cultures for a long time. This is changing in more recent decades due to grievance politics, but it doesn't have to be like this. It's not an easy thing to do, but if enough Americans fought against identity politics and instead encouraged every citizen to identify with the nation as a whole rather than whatever subgroup they happen to be part of, we could go back to successful assimilation. That probably won't happen for various reasons, but again, it doesn't mean that assimilation isn't possible.

(3) IQ. People argue about the value , meaning and significance of IQ scores all the time. So I will stick to what are known to be solid facts. The first is that the average IQ score of a native White American is 100 points; for Hispanics/Latinos their average IQ score is about 87 points; for African-Americans it is 85 points. These figure have been scientifically confirmed umpteen times. The second fact is that there is a strong positive correlation between life outcome and IQ score. The higher your IQ score is the more likely you are to experience success in your education (elementary, high school college) secure a good job, earn more money, have satisfying interpersonal relationships , not be divorced if you decide to get married, not come into contact with the criminal justice system, enjoy good health, live longer. In short, experience positive life outcomes. As a persons IQ score drops the converse applies... difficulties at school; more likely to working low skilled occupation; more likely to earn less; more likely to have to change jobs due to conflicts with employers, more likely to be unemployed and in receipt of welfare benefits more likely to experience social difficulties, if married less likely to stay married, more chance of running into trouble with the criminal justice system, less likely to maintain good health, less likely to live as long as people with higher IQs



Dachshund

While IQ is likely to have genetic connections that can somewhat be distinguished by race, I don't think IQ is the end-all be-all factor. I tend to prefer the 8 Intelligences Theory, in which IQ is only one of the 8. There are various other forms of intelligence that apply to success in life, like interpersonal intelligence (what we commonly refer to as social skills). More than anything, I think culture is the most important aspect of an individual, because it has a higher bearing on someone's potential, even when compared to intelligence.

A person with moderate IQ and a culture that values hard work and education will usually go further in life than someone with high IQ but a culture that doesn't value these things. Look at how many selectively educated people with oftentimes high IQ become fanatics that don't accomplish much in life and instead participate in destructive "protests". There are plenty of low IQ people that engage in riots, but a significant portion of rioters aren't necessarily dumb so much as they are just brainwashed into a culture and worldview that renders their priorities in life destructive and self-defeating.

It's like how obsessing over victimhood can render even an otherwise intelligent person powerless or demented.

[domer76]

So, what do you replace it with? If this country is based on a lie and natural rights don't exist, then are rights just a matter of whatever the state deems to be a right? With a system like that, you're completely at the whims of the people in power. There are several countries that operate like that, but I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want to live in any of them.

Obviously, you are ignorant of how constitutional rights are enacted. Certainly, not by the whims of the state.

Rights, the Bill of Rights and their Amendments, are nothing more than a legislative matter. Nothing “natural” nor “endowed by a Creator” about it. And nothing about whims.

[Saudade]

Obviously, you are ignorant of how constitutional rights are enacted. Certainly, not by the whims of the state.

Rights, the Bill of Rights and their Amendments, are nothing more than a legislative matter. Nothing “natural” nor “endowed by a Creator” about it. And nothing about whims.

You do realize I was describing countries that operate without a concept of natural rights, right? My point was that your assumption that natural rights don't exist is incorrect, at least for the purpose of our system. It is specifically because of the system's recognition of natural rights that we don't have the whims situation I described.

If it really was just a matter of legislative procedure, you wouldn't see an appreciable difference between how our rights are interpreted by the courts vs. how the rights of other nations' citizens are interpreted by their courts.

For example, Canada's interpretation of rights is similar to our own, but there are many notable differences in what they consider a right vs. what we consider a right. The same goes for Europe.

Our constitutional rights directly relate to natural rights, which is part of why we don't consider healthcare a right (unlike many other nations). Rarely do we consider a service performed by another person to be a right. One of the few exceptions to this is the right to an attorney, but that's specifically because of the right of due process.

Other nations don't specifically base their rights on the concept of natural rights, which is why they sometimes have rights that are a bit unusual and can be connected to services performed by others rather than connected to things like freedom of choice or bodily autonomy.

[domer76]

You do realize I was describing countries that operate without a concept of natural rights, right? My point was that your assumption that natural rights don't exist is incorrect, at least for the purpose of our system. It is specifically because of the system's recognition of natural rights that we don't have the whims situation I described.

If it really was just a matter of legislative procedure, you wouldn't see an appreciable difference between how our rights are interpreted by the courts vs. how the rights of other nations' citizens are interpreted by their courts.

For example, Canada's interpretation of rights is similar to our own, but there are many notable differences in what they consider a right vs. what we consider a right. The same goes for Europe.

Our constitutional rights directly relate to natural rights, which is part of why we don't consider healthcare a right (unlike many other nations). Rarely do we consider a service performed by another person to be a right. One of the few exceptions to this is the right to an attorney, but that's specifically because of the right of due process.

Other nations don't specifically base their rights on the concept of natural rights, which is why they sometimes have rights that are a bit unusual and can be connected to services performed by others rather than connected to things like freedom of choice or bodily autonomy.

Natural rights need to be universal to exist. Name one and I’ll give you an exception. That blows your concept all to hell.

Your comparison to other countries is BS. They do not have the same process or a BofR