Who says they are? They are the product of 300 years of social, cultural and economic destruction. That's a fact.
Again, as an Irish American, I am a "victim" (by proxy, same as you) of much the same. Do you see me complaining?
Who cares? You're still not a member of a class of people who actually struggled much after being here.
You were never enslaved. You were never faced with segregation.
As a matter of fact, roughly half of the country's blacks were never faced with segregation even when it was in effect.
Within 50 years of Irish immigration into the US you were considered first class citizens.
Because we
made it happen.
Frankly, look beyond the Irish. Latinos and Asian Americans have only been a major factor on the American social scene for roughly 50 years or so, and they have faced a large degree of discrimination.
They are already rising to overcome it, while African Americans continue to languish in poverty, and even backslide.
I'm sorry man, but if there's a problem here, it's not "the system." It's African Americans.
Of course it does. It has made this debate far more easy to use than the catch phrases you use to get likes on this thread. Look, it's simple - America, white America, thrived off the free labor provided by blacks for 150 years. It destroyed our culture, told us we were worthless and then sold us off for 100 years. Then, after it told us were all free and equal men, it denied us property and lynched those of us who stood against injustice for another 100 years. By the time the 1900s rolled around, it gave us inferior learning institutions, voting tests and denied us access to what every other ethnic group in this country had: wealth. So now, 50 years away from the time when that was all legal, we're supposed to be doing just as well as the rest? Haha, you're being silly.
A) Blacks only "built" the South.
B)
Every new immigrant group to enter the United States has had to sacrifice its original culture. That is, quite frankly, what "America" is all about.
C) Plenty of other groups have faced that discrimination, and overcome it.
The excuses will only carry you so far, I'm afraid.
Only that's not true, the roaring 20s as they were called were a decade of prosperity for well, damn near everyone who lived in cities. So the Harlem Renaissance was not only natural but expected. At the time however, it was criticized for being a cheap copy of European culture. What's I think is far more interesting though is the fact that your own source cites poverty as the declining factor in this movement:
What's your point?