Those things do exist, and they are the result of people who WANT there to be a black community. Doesn't mean their constructs dictate an entire racial group at large, though.sleeper;1536445 wrote:Right just like there are no black only organizations, churches, colleges, etc.
Just because those with more divisive views want to drive that wedge, it doesn't stand that they logically speak for everyone who bears a relevant physical similarity, nor does it mean they have the permission of the same to do so.
It's a nonsense term. "Community" has far more to do with a group's values, traditions, morals, and behaviors. It has almost nothing to do with skin color.sleeper;1536445 wrote:Black community means black people.
An example is a friend of mine of predominantly Irish heritage. He was born and raised in South Africa, where roughly 80% of the population identifies as "African black," and where under 9% identifies as "white." The "community" of which he grew up as a part was that of the South African urban community. His skin color had nothing to do with his community, as his community was based more on the people with whom he had frequent interaction, and whose non-tangibles were similar to his: passions, values, morals, traditions, etc.
Suggesting that someone is part of a "community" based on the color of his or her skin is as rational as suggesting that someone is a part of a community because of the shape of his or her nose, the lobe of his or her ear, his or her dominant hand, or any other genetically predetermined trait.
Again, it's not a black culture any more than a black community. There are urban subcultures/communities, suburban subcultures/communities, and rural subcultures/communities. There are FAR fewer outliers when gauging communities by THESE lines than there are by skin color, and in fact, if you compare using the two criteria (skin color and location), skin color almost always loses out to location.sleeper;1536445 wrote:When are black people going to do something about their broken culture?
People, black and white, who are raised in rural areas will, as a rule, act the same way. People, black and white, who are raised in urban areas will, as a rule, act the same way. People, raised in rural or urban areas, who are dark-skinned will, as a rule, NOT act the same way. People, raised in rural or urban areas, who are white-skinned will, as a rule, NOT act the same way.
It is for this reason that referring to a "black" community is nonsensical. There is no "black" community at large. There are black people who act and speak as though there is, but the actions of some does not necessitate agreement from others.
Ever speak to an urban-raised "down-on-their-luck" white person? Criteria might be different, but the blame game is the same. Black person might blame it on racial prejudice against blacks. A white person might blame it on affirmative action, reverse racism, or the like.sleeper;1536445 wrote:When are blacks going to stop blaming the color of their skin for their own fucking problems?
Doesn't matter. They both make excuses very much in a similar way. It's an urban problem. Not a racial one.
Theoretically, none of those were genuinely helpful in the long run.sleeper;1536445 wrote:It's not white people holding them down, hell white people have done more for blacks than blacks could ever do for themselves(affirmative action, lowering standards, voting for Obama).
However, it needs to be understood that nobody is holding anyone down. The white person who faults black people for blaming their bad luck on their skin color is a hypocrite if he also blames any of his misfortune on things like Affirmative Action, hate crime laws, etc.
