The Instigator
Adam2isback
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

Racism in America has always been white/non-white, not black/non-black or white

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
lannan13
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/13/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,642 times Debate No: 75225
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

Adam2isback

Pro

I will be arguing today that racism in America has always been white and non-white. Some of the biggest examples include the Trail of Tears, attacks on Japanese citizens because of their heritage, attacks on blacks, etc.
http://www.aboutnorthgeorgia.com...
http://www.gateschili.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
lannan13

Con

I accept, you may begin.
Debate Round No. 1
Adam2isback

Pro

The United States of America was built on white superiority, and as a result hatred of other ethnicities. In the USA alone, we saw the following: Westward expansion against Native Americans. The Trail of Tears is a well-known tragedy of history. Andrew Jackson implemented racist policy of forcing Native Americans on reservations, thus robbing them. Another case, which also shows Abraham Lincoln was a racist was the slaughter of 7 tribesman in Minnesota, who were denied a fair trial.




s://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...; alt="" />



As the pictures can indicate, the hatred was directed at any non-white.

http://en.wikipedia.org...;
lannan13

Con

Alright, let's start with a definition.

Always- every time; on every occasion; without exception (http://dictionary.reference.com...)

This means that all I have to do is prove a white/white or a black/black racism and that instance will disprove the entire resolution and thus winning me the debate.

In the north the Irish were discriminated against. Boss Tweed decided to help the Irish, but in return the Irish had to give up their vote/vote for Democrats in the New York elections. (http://www.fasttrackteaching.com...) There was also a political party known as the Know Nothings that came out of the northeast. Their main goal was to target and rid the US of the Irish and their Catholicism. (http://history1800s.about.com...) The KKK, which is most famously known for their anti-African American tactics have also targeted the Irish and the Catholic church. (http://www.thecatholicthing.org...)

s://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com...; alt="" />s://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...; alt="" />

More racism here is even found amongst our founding fathers. John Jay has even been quoted pushing for a creation of a "wall of brass" to exlcude the Catholics from the nation. (http://www.nytimes.com...)

With this we can see that the this White on White Racism is outside of the resolution and thus Con wins the debate.
Debate Round No. 2
Adam2isback

Pro

With this we can see that the this White on White Racism is outside of the resolution and thus Con wins the debate.
I think you read it wrong. I meant black/non-black or black/white. There's a reason the white was on the other side of the slash.
But to disprove your case: the Irish, Italians and Spanish were not always considered white either.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.africaresource.com...

Anyways, more examples of racism being directed at non-whites altogether not just blacks:

Mexicans lynched Santa Cruz, California

More pictures of Mexicans lynched
http://www.gateschili.org...
Japanese lynched
lannan13

Con

It's on both sides of the slash to show that it can be cross applied. So my argument still stands.

If we use the book that your source gives us, "How the Irish became White" we can see that this occured in the 1848, during the Mexican-American War. Boss Tweed was in the late 1880s. We can see that this discrimination crossed over into the 20th century. So we can see that there was still White on White discrimination. (http://academic.udayton.edu...) To further my argument you give us a great source in your second. It tells of the Blacks of Sicily, not all of Italy. So we can cross extend the Italians into the argument as well. Even when a wave of Southern Europeans hit the US the discrimination was high. Romanians, Bulgarians, Greeks, Turks, etc...



s://desertpeace.files.wordpress.com...; alt="" />


It even extended into pre9/11 America were even US senators were funding terrorism in Ireland on both sides. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) and (http://www.pbs.org...)
Debate Round No. 3
lannan13

Con

My opponent has conceded. Please vote Con!

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
Adam2isbacklannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession
Vote Placed by Cowboy0108 2 years ago
Cowboy0108
Adam2isbacklannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was less arrogant. Spelling and grammar had no serious flaws. Con was clearly more convincing and he got the source point because of his definition in r2.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
Adam2isbacklannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession. Pro could relaunch this under a refined resolution, but as is his stance was not defendable against basic scrutiny.
Vote Placed by Rhodesia79 2 years ago
Rhodesia79
Adam2isbacklannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded. Con had the facts and proved his point.