Charlie Wolf - The United States is Not Institutionally Racist
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 май 2015
- SUBSCRIBE for more speakers ► is.gd/OxfordUnion
Oxford Union on Facebook: / theoxfordunion
Oxford Union on Twitter: @OxfordUnion
Website: www.oxford-union.org/
The Motion: This House Believes the United States is Institutionally Racist.
Charlie Wolf is a British-based American radio talk-show host, disc jockey and political commentator, and formerly the Communications Director of Republicans Abroad UK. Wolf is best known for the TalkSport show he hosted on Saturdays and Sundays.
ABOUT THE OXFORD UNION SOCIETY: The Union is the world's most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. It has been established for 189 years, aiming to promote debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe.
That lady interrupts every speaker with the most ridiculous questions. She's not hearing a word.
Ands she's disrespectfully nodding her head like she's listening to music, while he speaks.
@@dustinbossmusic I thought she was having a seizure...
3:33 She is listening to music or something
She's trying to score points, but isn't as clever as she thinks she is !
Better to remain quiet and thought a fool, then to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.
I believe this woman has removed all doubt.
Someone tell Ms Special it’s not all about her
Biffalo Bull be careful, she’ll call u racist
You need to read the description in the video of this young lady's argument video. She is merely debating (like debate clubs do) and does not necessarily support the argument. Her job is to argue in favor despite personal beliefs. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt.
popcorn pop I didn’t realize it, but BLM says I’m inherently racist and may not know it. So, they beat her to it.
J. Clayton thanks
@@yesdniltrebor
You need to look at her bio. She actually does support her arguments..silly as they are.
Black families from mid twentieth-century America would be disappointed at how their communities have turned out. They would be disappointed at the lack of personal responsibility and the tendency to always blame other groups for the shortcomings of the individual.
@spot light That's a completely different argument that needs to be directed at those individuals and not the system.
spot light nobody claimed individual racism has left. Individual racism doesn’t oppress
@spot light Where exactly did Ultimate Dab claim that racism is gone? I can't find that assertion anywhere in their comment. So while your comment is FORCEFULLY made, with caps and all, and even has merit on its own, it has absolutely no relevance to the comment you chose to respond to.
@@davewade30 Nailed it.
@@leonardstone2716 He ain't nail shit.
who else came here just to see if that lady would ask another question
Sir...I watched the other two opposers and yes....wanted to see what she had to say this time haha
Dido!!!
i thought i was the only one😂
That girl is trying to be smart yet failed.
Kaspa King X I guess she’s a product of the ‘diversity quota unlike all those og scholars who worked hard
@@npcimknot958 'Positive Discrimination'
She got a point. You know prisoners who are black in majority are forced to work with no any protection law for a very low check
khairul bariyah because they are convicted felons.
I guarantee you she will be second generation African. Her parents would have come over from an African country for a better life, which has worked as their child is at oxford. She will be able to trace her heritage , her history. She will not be descended from slavery. She is a product of a successful non racist free society that has welcomed her family and helped her be the best person she can be. So many positives she could remark on that the UK has done for her. Yet, she jumps on the blm train solely for personal gain.
Does that black girl ever even listen to the speakers? Her questions are so pointless
ryanb no..she’s the girl that rolls eyes eyes and closes them when she talks to you, because she sees you’re below her..hmmmmm that sounds familiar to the definition of racism..hmmmm
I like how that girl that interrupts every single speaker stands up and looks into the crowd as if to say, "look at how brave and smart I am". The speaker didn't even finish stating his thesis before she already started asking "so what you're say is..." and "would you say... (insert some ridiculous assertion)" questions to the speaker. On second thought, she's exactly the kind of narcissistic personality that cable news channels look for.
Weren’t there blacks in the 1800s that owned slaves also?
@Grayson DuBose The first legalized American slave owner was black
@Grayson DuBose Anthony Johnson
Yes
red herring.
Yes! “The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano Or Gustavus Vassa, The African: Written by Himself”
This is a book written by a slave that has very interesting information that doesn’t at all reflect the narrative that people talk about today. Dude even married a white woman. It’s so crazy.
She really had the NERVE to stand up and ask a question during this man’s speech when she wouldn’t do the same for him.
That girl. Really?
The comments to this are interesting. Jewish guy says the same thing 2 black men on his side of the proposition said and he's accused of being racist, attacked for being jewish therefore anti-palistein so clearly he's wrong, and accused of having no authority to speak because of his skin color.
Rather interesting isnt it? The bullshit in full regalia....
Attacked for not being black.
Yet there were two black gentlemen, Mr. Joe R. Hicks and Mr. David Webb, who said essentially the same thing in two separate videos during the same lecture.
That being said, the people attacking others for who they are and their ethnic background are no better than the "racists" that they rail against. Sadly, in their misguided claims, such as the United States being "institutionally racist", they feel they can be hateful and racist in turn because they feel it's justified.
It's nonsense, and one shouldn't give those people clout. As we know, the best way to destroy racism and racists is to ignore them. Let them wallow in their hate and ignorance until they, and their hateful beliefs, dissolve into nothing.
I hope these SJWs realize someday that by dismissing the arguments of the other side BECAUSE of their race... that they themselves ARE the racist bigots in the conversation.
No matter how much they may try to redefine their crime in order to commit more of it.
Yeah pieshka, the point I make is no attack on a Jewish man, but an observation that the Zionist Israeli state has laws enshrined that make unfavourable discrimination against Palestinian people in rights to land ownership access to their cultural heritage,justice under occupation and martial law for their residents who are not Jewish and have secondary language and voting rights in the land of their forefathers.These conditions and limitations are locked into Israeli law-similar to how it used to be in South Africa.Not every opinion offered to a Jewish man that implies criticism of Israel is anti Semitic,( by the way I agree with him that the US is srictly speaking not institutionalised in its racism,even if Israel is)
As we watch intelligent people speak to angry children who believe life is a sorority
interesting that youtube has suppressed this to only 10,000 views when this channel regularly gets hundreds of thousands. should show you something that after 4 and a half years it is finally being shown for some unknown reason
RUclips has extensive left bias, unchecked and unaccountable.
Bruh she gotta think before she speaks
The claim of institutional racism doesnt need to be defended. It needs to be proven. Racism still exists, but thats a social problem, not an institutional one. We can better shape our insitutions to manage it better, but the institutions are not the cause; people are.
When racist people run the institutions they don't need to change the laws
Jordan Flores racist people?
I’m no american but if you watch the tech company burn, you’ll realize that there black people in the government position.
We have voted a black man into the most powerful office of government, twice consecutively, and a black attorney general at the same time, just before that chairman of the joint Chiefs of staff, Secretary of State... Non-stop fictional narrative of the system being racist.
@@verticalasymptote2880 did you forget about the people who were lynched a few months ago? That wasn't race related?
@@jordanflores6174 lynched by which branch of government?
Hey, Oxford! Why is this series of videos not presented in the order of the order in which they were presented?
for real. I wanna see the whole thing laid out in order. even if its 3 hours long, ill watch it
Seconded!
Lol! You already know the answer to the question. Also, Webb's "lets go to the root of the problem" (7:00 mark), please do. This country was founded on Slavery, racist ideology and inequality, however, we are just supposed to act like it had no long term negative consequences/impact and magically disappeared in 1964. This country then implemented legalized racism after abolishing slavery with the intention of paralyzing economic growth in the black community. This racism created a culture of poverty for black people that is disproportionate to all other races. Now you have many black people living the cycle of poverty and possessing all of the behaviors that accompany impoverished people, however, they are just supposed to make the same choices that their more affluent counterparts make, with poor education and poor social networks. Society stigmatizes blacks as "lazy, just looking for a government handout, undeserving affirmative action recipients, who just commit crime and raise havoc on society." to absolve themselves of any accountability, and pass it off as black people just don't want to achieve the American Dream. I love the covert racists ideology of white people just work hard and black people don't. Find a few black people who are willing to point the finger at 21st century black people and blame liberals for trying to get the government to right its wrong to be accepted in the white community. Same story different channel. Bottom line, black people are going to have to get out of the rut on their own, I do agree with that. No AA, no intervention, no nothing. Just do it. It takes exceptional people to just do it, but they do exist.
Does anyone have the full thing with both sides and all speakers? I can't really grasp why exactly they are speaking over across the pond
Charlie wolf looks like He's suffering the DT'S with his hands trembling. Myself as an alcoholic, I know precisely what he's going through. Poor man.
RUclips algorithm perfect timing
I disagree. Affirmative Action is a clear example of Institutional Racism.
I'd say something about the girl interrupting everyone, but I was always taught that if you can't say SOMETHING nice, don't say anything at all...
Such a great argument. All have suffered!
I would not mind this girl getting up to ask a question IF it was relevant to what the speaker was saying. This is a tactic known basically trying to derail and eat up the time of a speaker before they can actually say what they wanted to say. It's like me giving a speech on why I like Bacon and have 5 minutes, and someone asking me about lettuce, and I burn up 2 minutes responding.
Does anybody know the outcome of this debate?
Turns out that the Oxford University students declared America institutionally racist!
@@nephilimnameless9809 any idea where I can watch the full debate?
hopefully, that girl that interrupted every speaker, got shamed for being an idiot.
Beyond the perfection gaffe, this was a very good speech.
How did that girl get into Oxford?
Knowledge!
Interesting way to start an argument...there is no institutional racism because there are successful blacks sitting here
his hand do be shaking
i like how she interrupts everyone, but refused to allow anyone speak during her argument. stereotypical for that side.
The 3/5ths clause pre dated the Constitution. It was known as the "federal rule" and was a taxation matter in the Articles of Confederation. The anti-slave abolitionists insisted on the provision to limit the House representation of states with large slave populations. The Constitution also mandated that importing slaves from outside North America ended in 1808, another insistence of the abolitionists.
Watching these videos you can tell the black girl interrupting will never accept the facts these people have brought to her. She wants to be a victim and there’s no way of defeating that stupid mentality.
Has anyone had any good data to refute the black family part?
Jim Crow......
HOW DARE THEY BLASPHEME THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA?
While I disagree with the notion of institutional racism, I do believe we should reflect on our flaws 😂
And would they rather have had the southern states be able to count ALL their slaves and therefore have more power? I'm so tired of this stupid 3/5 attack.
And there lieth the rub. The North preferred slaves not be counted at all--at least in terms of representation. (I can't prove this, but) I suspect they would have just danced with glee, however, if slaves were counted 100% for taxation... The 3/5 compromise at least got the Constitution on the books... Otherwise, who knows what would have happened in 1787?
Well stated
spot on!
Which side won?
Not racist
This debate was a peewee team on the left versus a professional championship team on the right. I actually feel sorry for former.
After watching all the debates...I totally agree
HE's an older John Torturo.
I want to shake that guy's hand, but he beat me to it.
Ottam,
That is not nice of making fun of his Parkinson's Disease.
@@peacebe2u480 Well, I had no idea he had Parkinson's, so I couldn't be making fun of that. I was making fun of his shaking. There's a difference.
🤦♂️
🤦♂️
@@bigmike956 You hit the button twice. Are you the guy in the video?
Who let the little black girl in? She has to be like 15 or something.
@Bernier-Thibault edouard any award given to Bill Clinton is no badge of honour
Bernier-Thibault edouard *not a Rhodes Scholar, the gentleman to her left is.
Bernier-Thibault edouard she’s not a Rhodes scholar. A debate has rules. She acts like she’s 15; she’s rather impulsive and can’t seem to control herself.
Bernier-Thibault edouard 👍Nevertheless, any one who studies at Oxford is clearly very intelligent, even if her decorum suggests otherwise!
Just Relax how do you know she’s very intelligent? I’m not positive, but there is a chance she simply got in because she’s black.
Why does he spend so much time apologizing?
I do indeed think that penal labor is a form of slavery. Even if their wage is adjusted to take into account the lack of rent, food or clothing allowance, they should still be paid. Even if they do not receive all the money in a lump sum after they leave prison it should still be there maybe as some kind of pension to assist them when they leave prison. They could even be taxed in a such a way as to pay part of the money they "earn" to the family of any victim of theirs. When people leave prison they are going to have a hard enough time getting work as it is anyway. At least if they have credit they have earned while working in prison, it can give them something to keep them out of trouble. The real question though is who is financially benefiting from their labor! I doubt it would be flawless but it is a matter of ethics, regardless of whether they are a convict or not.
7:40 that part... intergration was our ultimate downfall post slavery
I'm here
The 3/5ths point was interesting, never heard that stance before. Does make sense as the south had a disproportionate majority of people. But still, saying blacks were 3/5ths a vote is F’d up no matter how you look at it.
People got the vote for specific reasons back then. Only land holding men at first and then all men, then blacks with special stipulations and then woman. Remember that the people voting was a new idea and it took a while to get it right.
Um...No. Black Slaves were not permitted to vote. The 3/5's compromise was created to KEEP the Southern slave-holding States from using their Slaves, whom the Constitution did recognize as persons and who were counted during the census as we all are, from getting more Congressional Representatives and consequently more power. If the Southern States had been able to count their Slaves to get more Congressional Representatives, the Union might have lost the war, been forced to split into two countries and it would have taken a lot longer to end Slavery in North America if it could have been ended at all. Since Slavery is still being practiced on the African Continent, in the Middle East, and other locations today, that is not beyond imagining - Horrific as that sounds.
Thanks y’all! Love the insight. I guess I need to stop looking at the 3/5ths from today’s 2020 view, with me not realizing the true reason back then.
" Black Lives Matter as long as the Police are involved"
-Black Lives Matter
Would that girlish speaker just let the other speaker make their arguments uninterrupted?
I'm not trying to sound inconsiderate or disrespectful, but does the speaker have Parkinson's Disease, or is he shaking from nervousness of public speaking?
I also get very nervous when on stage and mildly shake.
He definitely got something going on 😐
What's wrong with his hands?
True
Disagree
The industrial system in the US as modern day slavery? Seriously?!
It is Marx theory.
Overall agree with the speech, but disagree about slavery and the 13th Amendment. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery in the normal sense, but there is a clause that has birthed the US prison industrial complex.
Section 1 of the amendment states "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
Reiterating:
"...except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted..."
It's arguable whether the modern consequences of this law are institutionally racist. However, the US prison system heavily lobbies legislators and law enforcement institutions so that huge numbers of Americans of all races are incarcerated and put to work absurdly cheaply, i.e. enslaved.
That might be true if prisoners were used as workers which they are not. At most, some local/regional prisons use prisoners to clean-up roads; but that is in no way, shape, or form servitude. It is, though, punishment for their crimes and, in fact, should be used more often and to greater extent (i.e. 3-5x a crime's monetary worth, for example, so that the punishment is actually a true deterrent to the crime.)
@@Maxbps88 are you aware that prisoners make Mcdonald's uniforms, car parts, Victoria's Secret lingerie, furniture, and much more? For between $0.23 and $1.15 an hour? I'm not a proponent of the minimum wage, but this is so far below the market value for manufacturing labor that it may as well be slavery. And when prisons can get away with paying so little for labor and pocket the profits, do you really think they aren't going to lobby as hard as they can for a legal system that creates as many incarcerated people as possible? It's legal slavery, dude.
@@pecholsjones I was not aware of this. What is your source? I am fine with them being used for labor like keeping streets/hi-ways clean. Working for companies..? Not so much; unless, their money goes to their victims, victims rights, and to pay for policing that is required because of their actions.
@@Maxbps88 Sure. It used to be called the Federal Prison Industries, now the Unicor.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Prison_Industries
Under the the Criticism section, you'll find the quote, "Inmates earn from US$0.23 per hour up to a maximum of US$1.15 per hour, and all inmates with court-ordered financial obligations must use at least 50% of this UNICOR income to satisfy those debts.[14]" citation 14 is a 2007 Congressional report document and appears to link to a freely available PDF.
Of course they wandered by accident into jail, having done nothing to get themselves jailed? Further, there is only one race behind bars? Are these your points? Try again.
The statement that black people don't have a chance is an intellectual overreach with frightening dismissal of fact. J Edgar Hoover is a reminder of the loss of true acceptance of living fact of racism in America. Because you are afraid of fact doesn't mean that fact in untrue. People are the institutions and people are racist. You can speak for your people not the others who live the racism.
The black woman suffers from cognitive dissonance. She allows her emotions to override the ability recognize truth and facts.
Why dont I have recommendations of those speaking for the motion.
lool at how he keeps mentioning hes a jew and jews fought against jim crow lul like what does that have to do with the debate does he want a medal
He’s trying to point out that black people weren’t the only oppressed people
He's trying to insulate himself from the charge of being a white man and thus unqualified to speak on the matter.
A lot of blacks claim that they're still suffering from slavery, which was abolished 150 years ago, but somehow Jews that were slaughtered by the millions 80 years ago don't have the same problem.
He shouldn't have to clarify that he's Jewish because people should judge the content of his speech rather than judging him as a person, but so many people love to compare their level of victimhood and use it as a weapon these days that he probably thought it was necessary.
I’m italian Africans took over my country for a few years !
Bo Stephens I feel bad for you based off the words you just chose to display your pain ignorance doesn’t discriminate.
3:32 TAKE OFF YOUR HEADPHONES AND LISTEN TO OTHERS, YOUNG LADY
Good ideas but not eloquently put, for the most part
Profit prisons are not racist, it's capitalism's race to the bottom to create a new breed of slave wage worker regardless of ethnicity. It just so happens there are more blacks in prison ( and mostly due to not being able to make bail ). The argument could be made that progressive changes to laws to increase the likelihood of incarceration, on the surface appear race driven. However when you consider a prisoner, regardless of colour generates between 30 and 60 thousand dollars in tax revenue annually. Where as if these individuals remain on the streets, they draw funds out of the system via rehabilitation and other public assistance programs.
Profit prisons are the fault of perverse incentives, not capitalism. You give someone an incentive to keep people in prison they'll do it. You might better ask the question;
"Why don't you pay prisons based on the ongoing number of reformed prisoners they release?"
I'm guessing this side won the debate handily. I hope so at least.
The only speaker I ddint think spoke well really
"Slavery goes against Gods laws" Ahemm, allow me to quote your Bible Sir -
Ephesians 6:5: “Bondservants, obey your earthly masters.”
Colossians 3:22: “Bondservants, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters.”
1 Peter 2:18: “Servants, be subject to your masters.”
She's not even interrupting with the right questions. Like when he defined "Institutional" as a type of government involvement. There is no definition of it only involving government influence. Any organization, not just the government, can contribute to discomfort of any group.
There's a lot of accountability that the black community should take, such as acknowledging some problems but not actively trying to solve them. BUT those problems were heavily influenced by institutional racism to begin with. To ignore that and denying reparations for the only people on Earth that were oppressed and not compensated for that is CONTRIBUTING to a form of institutional racism.
This is a great debate though and I appreciate every scholar that weighed in with their perspective. Instead of internet trolls not adding to the topic but creating polarization, dividing us even further. Show your facts, show your sources, lets end this debate once and for all
You say in your second paragraph that black people were the only people on earth that were oppressed and not compensated for that & that is contributing to a form of institutional racism. Do you not know that the muslim world was one of the first slave traders and africans sold africans to the muslims. When the africans arrived as slaves in these muslim countries they were castrated (becoming Eunichs). The reason this was done was to make sure african men did not have relations with muslim women. I have read this account of the history of slavery and I am sure you would be able to find references to this historical information. This is the trouble with modern ideas. No one wants to look at the past because it doesn't fit the narrative that Black people are oppressed. In a modern world we all have a personal responsibility and the freedom to achieve what we want out of life. Remember that YOU MAKE A LIFE OF STUMBLING BLOCKS OR STEPPING STONES. Simple as that.
@@jodymckenzie3526 Unfortunately Muslims, just like Jews, are a religious community, if you have some way to measure the amount oppression to convert it into compensation, by all means let the UN know. But we can definitely target the US government.
Yes, Africans did sell Africans from enemy tribes, but how does that support the claim of systemic racism for the last few centuries not significantly impacting us?
I don't get it are you saying that the few ancestors that sold other dark skin people makes white Americans NOT responsible for creating organizations to terrorize blacks? Industries purposely passing up qualifying blacks (and now we got affirmative action, equality of outcome is horrible).
Are you saying whites are not responsible for red lining and the awful side effects it inflicted on the economy, which inevitably created ghettos. The hard working black conservatives white people like to preach a lot about were denied moving to better neighborhoods simply because they were black.
Are you saying whites are not responsible for Tulsa, OK? That statement doesn't add anything to the argument, and if there are other cultures that were oppressed and not compensated, they need to speak up on their own terms and not take away from someone else's movement.
Thanks to the internet, we have less excuses we can make since all this information is widely available now. But before then, black people were fucked with in so many ways, I'm pretty disappointed you would say "No one wants to look at the past", because man, there's still shit I'm finding out that only paperback books hold.
Stop trying to cherry pick info to win a youtube argument. It is not the time now
"denying reparations for the only people on Earth that were oppressed and not compensated"
You are mad.
@@mzza Well ya, what did I say that implies that I'm happy? What kind of a reply is that? It's useless to the entire topic.
@@King-yj2jx I wanted to ridicule your outright wrong claim that African Americans are supposedly the only people who have been oppressed without getting compensated.
What about Armenians, The Korean "comfort women"? What about people who were sent to gulags in the USSR? Native Americans got some reparations, but was what they got reasonable? Do you think China will stop oppressing Uyghurs and proceed to pay them reparations? Where are the reparations from England to India? India itself has a bit of a history and so does the whole middle east... and the rest of the world.
The further back you go in history, the more you are going to find atrocities being committed. And most of the time with victims being ones to pay the expenses.
Charlie I will accede one point in your argument, Lincoln was not at all interested in the status of the captive African refugees in the Southern States of America. His decision was based soley on the preservation of the Union, as is stated in the pre-amble of the U.S. Constitution. Lincoln's second wife came to the home they would share with her personal body slave and Lincoln was not bothered at all by this fact, it in no way served to dampen his ardure or spoil the reception of his wife's homecoming.
So if in keeping with his most peculiar moniker, let's be honest about ol'honest Abe, Abraham Lincoln was not then, nor should he be considered now, as a great anything. He was not a great liberator, he was not a great president, and by all accounts certainly not a great Soldier, a vocation to which he was particularly ill suited.
As to the institutionalized racism that is still as rampant today as it has ever been. Charlie, you said and I quote "The 13th Amendment freed the slaves and the 14 Amendment gave the former slaves equality", if as you now argue, there is no institutionalized racism, then my question is simply this why did we need an Act of Congress to enforce our equality? If the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the
Land, and Amendments are the part of that Supreme Law that defines for us our rights as citizens of this country then please answer my question, why was there a need for the Civil Rights Act, in addition to the 13th and 14th Amendments?
Without taking a deep dive into the extensive history involved, I think the answer to your question may be as follows : The 10th Amendment states : "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". I can't say for certain but I would guess that some States decided that since the Constitution didn't expressly prohibit laws against, say, blacks or women voting, that they were free to do so. Thus the Congress passed laws explicitly stating that these and other racist or sexist laws were now invalid and could not be enforced or maintained by the States. Since the dawn of time people have looked for loopholes to get around what they don't like. Similar to telling your kids they can't eat the brownies before dinner so they eat the Oreos instead. Why ? You didn't tell them they couldn't eat the Oreos, just the brownies. Simplistic I agree, but the underlying principle is the same. Sometimes people need to be told EXACTLY what they can and cannot do.
I wonder if Charley would think that Israel is institutionally racist,seeing that he included south africa(apartied) in his list of examples of racist governments: they are legally and deliberately racist against the Palestinian people(and militarily).
South Africa is a place where White people legislated racism. Racism was basically made legal. Israel is a giant refugee camp where Jews can find safety from a world full of Jew haters. The "Palestinians" are not "a people". It's like calling Canadians a people. Palestinians are Arab. There are only Arab Palestinians and Jewish Palestinians, those Arabs and Jews that lived in a land the Romans called Palestine. In fact before the Romans invaded it was occupied and ruled by Jews. Jews were the first Palestinians.
Federal prohibition marijuana was passed using racist propaganda, and that law still exists, which makes it a racist law.
Affirmative action may not be maliciously intended but still is a law based on race therefore too is a racist law.
Abolishing these racist laws would further us from being a racist country I believe, which I also believe this country to not be racist, but still furthers us from such
Nah we just used slaves for loving them
5:16 best part
The civil war or as the northern states called it "the war of rebellion" was not about slaves. It was about over taxation of the south to make back money lost on the railroad. Why would a poor man in the south fight and die so a slave can take a job he could have? It would be like a poor man today fighting the government to let illegal immigrants take his job.
Have you read the Declaration of Causes of Seceding States? Mississippi writes in part:
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.
Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina and Texas all issued Declarations of Causes of Secession along with their Articles of Secession, and they all list slavery as a reason for seceding. To try to say that the Civil War was not about slaves is a bit of revisionist history.
www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/reasons-secession
🤢🤢🤢🤮🤮
He did not need to point out his Jewish identity four (or five) times to make his case. I generally agree, but I find it in poor taste to base one 's argument on immutable characteristics. The case could be made on philosophical and historical grounds from a neutral speaker's perspective. Perhaps this crutch was utilized due to the short time span allotted to answering the question, but in my opinion, it's a weak tactic as far as intellectual argumentation goes due to the reliance on individual identity.
Empathy...
he's meeting the observers and guests precisely where they are, and some attempted to discredit his argument specifically because he is not black, so i found it very useful. your comment is weak - weak sauce. and lower the volume on your big words, doesn't make you sound any more coherent. individual identity is at the core of this argument. did you not hear him refer to personal responsibility? also, we all learned in speech 101 that personal stories can have the biggest influence on an audience. take a break champ.
Yes it is, against White people.
I loved hearing the argument and he is completely correct, but he lacked the same definition of institutional that most use today, and thus it truly did not answer the question he was trying to debate
The other speakers do a much better job than this man. His speech is discursive and he falls into the trap of his opponents by focusing his argument on the nascent 1800s American administration instead of the present. The typical strawman fallacy that many believers of "institutional racism" posit is mentioning slavery and the institutional racism of Amerca's past as an argument for them existing presently.
Funny thing is, a good proportion of slave owners and merchants of slave ships, were in fact Jewish.
as were blacks slave owners who sold us slaves. also not funny.
@@cwr8618 🙄🤔😳
And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
-Acts 16:31
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
-John 3:16
Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
-Matthew 3:2
He needs to use dictionary.com. Institutional doesn’t automatically mean federal government blah blah blah.
It's not a skin thing, it is a sin thing. I wanted to let you know that Jesus Christ loves you so much!
John 3:16- For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Jesus Christ, the Son of God, died on the cross to pay the price for our sins, was buried, and resurrected from the dead on the third day so that we could have eternal life if we believe in Him. This is the beautiful Gospel, which means "Good News."
Acts 20:21- “Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.”
We must repent (change our mind from originally rejecting Christ, to believing He truly is the Son of God, and that we are sinners in need of Him as our Savior to forgive and us of from our sins that eventually will lead us to hell. Acknowledging and believing that our sins are wrong),
and we need to place our trust and faith in Jesus Christ as our Lord (Master) and personal Savior, believing His Gospel to be true- and God gifts you eternal life!
This can be done through a sincere prayer from your heart, telling Jesus you believe and trust in Him as the Lord of your life, and your personal Savior. Proclaiming that He truly is the Son of God and you believe it, and asking for His forgiveness for your sins and that you give your life to Him. God bless you and have a marvelous evening!
Very weak rambling arguments.
ONLY READ THIS IF YOU ARE ACCEPTING TO YOUR VIEWPOINT BEING CHALLENGED
Something struck me very wrong with this video and after contemplation, I was able to reconcile my thoughts on the US in particular. I think that British people especially somewhere like Oxford (I am British and black) would not understand this issue because our system was never built with other races in mind and treats every person as an individual. When the British government was established, they never planned for immigration outside Europe (maybe due to our colonial roots but oh well) and the class struggle is a bigger issue than race in the UK particularly. (Not here to argue whether that’s right or wrong, just stating it how I see it) Meanwhile, in America, the black people class struggle is intimately connected to their race. The whole country was built on the premise that they are second class citizens even compared to the poor American(why the Dixie south are especially so keen to uphold white supremacy). This has lead to increased support from southern states for acts that unequally disenfranchised the black community such as the many crime acts that have a strong racial element. The intellectualism of racism is a strong components in this act (wanted to keep the dangerous blacks away) and economic studies and figures have been shown mass incarceration not to be effective at reducing crime since they create career criminal. Their communities and schools were built upon this proposition and have received less funding than other schools for the last 150 years and were built to be far away from the white economy not allowing them to integrate into society. It’s only 60 years since the civil rights bill, change does take time. Naming one black person who got a Rhodes scholarship is like drawing attention to one ripe apple of out of a bad bunch. I’m sure with time, they will be more, Each US state has its own institutions, the USA is similar to the EU in structure. I am sure that some states especially the Northern and Western states may not suffer from institutional racism to a degree but I have seriously doubts that Southern states have overcome lawmaking that disenfranchises black communities. To say that the US has no institutional racism for sure is a bold proposition that would require through analysis of the legal process and allocative efficiency over 52 states. It is easier to see the negative. It is a reductive argument that lacks sufficient evidence and is fine as starting point for an argument but not as a conclusion.
I agree with the sentiment that American black culture has a role to play in reducing outcomes for black people and it is black people’s responsibility to fix these problems to the best of their ability but as every ethnic groups does, they must also push for fairer treatment under the law because that is also their responsibility.
"Slavery goes against gods laws." Well, that depends on what god you're talking about.
The christian god is A-Okay with people owning slaves.
rainynight02 where bruh
@@doctorfish2775
I'm not your bruh.
It's been a long while so I don't remember exactly.
Old testament I believe, says how many you can have, how to treat them, you must allow them to rest on the sabbath as well, etc.
rainynight02 ok bruh
The north and south had slaves. The last 2 states to free slaves were new Jersey, and Delaware. From Lincoln's own writings "If I could bring the union back together without freeing one slave I would".
Source? EDIT: Found it and this as well:
Although this sounded noncommittal, Lincoln closed by stating, “I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.”
Apartheid South Africa got its racist laws directly from the Englishmen who came from this very university. So did Kenya, Tangenika, Zambia, Zimbiwe, Malawi, Lesotho, Swaziland, Botswana, Uganda, Sudan, Egypt, the massive country of India, Pakistan, Australia, New Zealand, the American South, Canada, Barbados, the Virgin Islands, the Caman Islands, and so the list goes on!!! Quite an inditement of the MEGA RACIST ENGLISH?????
Are you trying to suggest that all these countries are synonymous with South Africa? And BTW it was the Dutch who settled South Africa.
Nonsense talk.
So he says institutional racism does not exist because there are successful African Americans in the crowd. Okay, Madame CJ Walker was the first female millionaire and first African American millionaire in America during times of segregation, when racist laws were actually in place. So Basically, because there are successful people of said community does not mean that there isn’t institutionalized racism. So that basically rebukes that initial argument.
The entire argument states that there is institutional racism and this is what keeps Black people down. So sorry, wealthy successful Black people are a sign there is no institutional racism.
Hold on wtfffffff is he serious
Yes he is, Poor little victim you!
This guy needs to become familiar with African American and Native American History. Excerpt: "
“Most of us are familiar with Jim Crow laws, but these laws were only one small part of the
problem. Sadly, segregation was only one of the ways cultural racism had seeped
into the legal system. Taking a deeper look at history, we find that although
slavery had been abolished during the Civil War, it was far from dead. A new
legal system of slavery emerged after the war ended: convict leasing. In 1865,
before Reconstruction, Governor Benjamin Humphreys of Mississippi passed a series of laws known as
the Black Codes. Jim Crow and convict leasing were rooted in such laws. There
were many laws selectively targeted at blacks, but the vagrancy laws requiring
all blacks to have jobs proved most pernicious. At a time when jobs were scarce
any black person unable to prove employment, if stopped by law enforcement, was
convicted.7 Of the nine southern states that soon adopted these codes, eight
allowed these convicts to be hired out to plantations and private companies for
forced labor.8 Du Bois later trenchantly explained, “The Codes spoke for
themselves. . . . No open-minded student can read them without being convinced
they meant nothing more nor less than slavery in daily toil.”9 The codes were
repealed during Reconstruction, but Reconstruction soon crumbled as white
supremacist groups wielded organized terror and the federal government refused
to respond. Soon new laws were passed in southern states, notably reviving the
system of convict leasing. It would last for over sixty years across the South,
enslaving hundreds of thousands of African Americans and generating millions of
dollars for state governments, white-owned corporations, and wealthy
individuals. For example, in 1876 in Mississippi,
the new post-Reconstruction government quickly enacted a series of laws aimed
at blacks, including the Leasing Act, under which prisoners were “allowed” to
“work outside the penitentiary in building railroads, levees or in any private
labor or employment.”10 A system of subleasing developed whereby the state
would lease convicts to a middleman, who would then lease them out to business
owners. This allowed for more flexible labor and even worse conditions, as
convicts were now working to profit three separate parties, each wanting to
spend as little as possible in order to make as much as possible.11 The
majority of convicts had been arrested for minor infractions such as stealing
chickens, vagrancy, or gambling. In an 1898 convict-board report from Alabama, the column for
recording reasons that convicts were imprisoned mostly says “not given.”12
Sentence lengths varied. In some cases, convicts were fined. Unable to pay the
fines, they were leased for as few as twenty days to a private company.
However, often additional time was added to their sentence to cover fees owed
to law enforcement and others involved in their original prosecution.13 In
other cases, sentences of ten years or more were imposed. Tragically, the
system did not discriminate by age. In Mississippi
alone, hundreds of children were leased, and by 1880, 25 percent of convicts
leased out for forced labor were children. Records show that some were as young
as six.14 That’s unbelievable! Their grandchildren are the generation that
fought for civil rights in the 1950s, over half a century later. Doctors called
to care for convicts documented the practice in their reports. One such doctor
asked whether “a sovereign state can afford to send her citizens, for slight
offenses, to a prison where, in the nature of things, a large number are
condemned to die.”15 Similarly, in 1912 Governor George Donaghey of Arkansas called leasing
“legalized murder that sentenced thousands of faceless victims to a ‘death by
oppression’ for often trivial acts. Under no other system,” he believed, “did
the punishment so poorly fit the crime.”16 There were high mortality rates
among black convicts, indicative of deplorable work and living conditions. You
might think that because convict leasing wasn’t actual slavery, conditions
wouldn’t be so brutal. But in fact the opposite is true: because the business
owners did not actually own the convicts, as they had during slavery, they had
no incentive to keep them healthy; they could simply lease another convict at a
low cost when one died. A 1918 report on convict deaths in Alabama included the following causes:
“Killed by convict, Asphyxia from Explosion, Tuberculosis, Burned by Gas
Explosion, Pneumonia, Shot by Foreman, Gangrenous Appendicitis, Paralysis.”17
The mortality rate for convicts in Mississippi
ranged between 9 and 16 percent in the 1880s. In 1882 the mortality rate among
blacks leased out for hard labor was 17 percent, while the mortality rate for
white convicts was only 2 percent. Former Mississippi state attorney general Frank
Johnson called it an “epidemic death rate without the epidemic.”18 Mississippi abolished
the system of convict leasing in 1890, but the system remained in full force
across the rest of the South for decades.”
Wytsma, Ken. The Myth of Equality (pp. 52-53). InterVarsity
Press. Kindle Edition.
A 2 page quote from a wildly biased book... A waste of words
Did you know native Americans had black slaves and free blacks had black slaves as well
wtf was that ending???? reject this motion because its false. was he talking about his own ??
"... people are there [in prison] because they have been convicted, in law, in a court by their peers."
Except most (about 80% of them) have NOT! Prosecutors often bully people into "bargaining", threatening them with a more serious charge if they do not plead guilty to a lesser charge. Often these people are poor and uneducated (and black) and simply try to select the lesser of two evils.
What would YOU rather do, plead guilty to a false accusation and lose months of your life, or bet on a system you KNOW is corrupted and possibly lose YEARS of your life?
+Grubnar Yeah they are all innocent.
+Graham6762 No, not all, but many are.
What so they were all just arrested for walking down the street?
+Estryus Flemming exactly the core of problem is the family and values. I don't see a specific law that hinders a black student from succeeding... in fact with affirmative action they lower the scores for them to get admitted to colleges and many asians and whites, who have merit, are denied based on notion of diversity, now this is institutional racism. It's the bad choices people make that effect generations. What do you propose for a solution? Don't you think it should start with the family and values? Not everyone grows up in the hood, yet they end up becoming another statistic. People need to take responsibility for actions and not blame others for not succeeding.
@@Grubnar you cited 80%. Citation pls
Institutionally racist...NO.
Socially racist............YES.
And depending on where you are in America LIKE THE AMERICAN MIDWEST, social racism can cross into institutional racism.....so it depends on what part of America we're taking about.
Oh boy smfh
Mack Miz Facts do tend to bother slaves of ideology
I’ve watched these videos and these men are very intelligent but I still disagree. The foundation of their arguments are just the literal definition of “institutional racism.” And while on paper, the United States is not institutionally racist, that DOES NOT mean that it is not racist in practice. Statistics prove that, and you are lying to yourself if you deny that. And while it is true that the black family has been torn apart, it is completely irrelevant to the culture that these institutions perpetuate. To quote one man from another video “you cannot legislate the heart of men.”
But the question is, do the statistics of regarding blacks actually show racism or rather the results of the behaviors of groups of people?
Nicholas Lee That is a dumb question. Of course it does because the actions of groups of people, for example cops, do not hold people accountable or have any serious repercussions that prevent or even discourage police from acting that way.
@@LiAR17ps3 I did the research myself and payed for the Washington Post. According to the Washington Post, in 2019 15 unarmed black people were killed. Of those 15, 10 were justified, 2 had little or no details, and the last 3 which were not justified had two cops charged with murder and 1 cop who was black was not charged.
MISTER--CLEAN higher incarceration rates, arrests, harsher sentences for minorities than whites for the same crimes
@@user-mx9ue9ly6c And how many whites were killed by cops in the same time?
in the 1960s black families were strong but still poor and uneducated so how does the breakdown of the family structure really carry that much weight
Ask this guy about the validity of the state of Palestine and you'll see his true colours. From what I remember from his years as a DJ host on TalkSport radio, He thought that Palestine didn,t exist. For some reason George Galloway and Charlie Wolf never set foot in the same studio together.
John Smith Though George and I disagree strongly on most -not all- topics, we are friends. We have been in many the same studio over the years. Your description of my position on the Palestinian people is nowhere near what I think and lacks nuance and interpretation.
Charlie Wolf What is your position on Palestine? Also the racism you experience, as a white Jew is very different to racism non whites experience....
+John Smith palestine doesn't literally exist. it's not a literal nation. there's gaza and the west bank, and they're both run by different provisional governments. semantics, sure, but you're arguing a semantic point. "palestinian people" is also not a legitimate term. as a nationality it doesn't work, because palestine is not an actual nation. there is no nation called palestine. as a race it doesn't work either, because palestinians are composed of multiple races and religions. if "the palestinian race" was a real thing, then "the american race" would also be a real thing. "palestinian" is supposed to denote a nationality, but palestine is not a nation. i prefer to use the terms "gaza" and "west bank," for obvious reasons
Toxically Masculine Ohh fuck off. The people of Palestine have lived in Palestine in over a thousand years.
Toxically Masculine 17 December 2012, UN Chief of Protocol Yeocheol Yoon decided that "the designation of "State of Palestine" shall be used by the Secretariat in all official United Nations documents",[34] recognising the "State of Palestine" as the official name of the Palestinian nation.
Holy cow. This is the second member of the opposition that doesn't even understand the proposition. Institutional racism is *not* limited to the federal government or even government generally.
"The United States is not institutionally racist"
The United States is the institution they are talking about. That institution is a government.
Disagree. The United States is a lot of things (a location, a group of people, etc.). It makes for a much more worthwhile debate if we consider the US more broadly.
At any rate, the two sides were clearly talking past one another.
They were talking about the institution of the United States, not the location of the United States, or the people of the United States. The proposition was specifically about institutional racism. If you broaden the definition, then you'll no longer be talking about institutional racism.
Which is fine, but it's not the proposition. The misunderstanding would be on the part of those who would broaden the topic for whatever reason.
Conflation and equivocation being particularly suspect reasons...
> If you broaden the definition, then you'll no longer be talking about institutional racism.
Nah. You can talk about the bias of the institutions within the United States. But it's just not that important, really. Would have been productive to have a more relevant discussion, IMO.
That's fair. Which institutions?
Mr. Wolf did a very poor job responding to Teriba's argument. He seems to have made an argument that is quite confused. His weak argument has failed to address the other side's case and I am now much more convinced that the United States is institutionally racist.
His argument is mostly about how America isn’t institutionally racist because by law racism is banned from any and all government institutions, codified in the constitution itself. He’s saying that to call private prison a form of slavery would be to call the concept of imprisonment itself slavery
@@noahs9866 It doesn't seem that you properly characterized his argument, and, anyways, Mr. Wolf didn't at all respond to many strong points from the other side.
vKaran12 I’m sorry I don’t know what you mean by strongly characterized. To me at least that seemed like a pretty strong one-sentence sum up of his speech framework. I’m not sure what other points you may have that he didn’t respond to, but maybe I can fill in some holes
@David Anewman curious what you meant by "Slavery was not the result of racism" . just an explanation
@David Anewman you kinda went into the stratosphere, when all i asked was for an explanation of your comment. nowhere did i contradict or deny its validity. just wanted to hear an explanation. why would i explain how it's racist when i never made that claim?