Are Blacks More Racist Than Whites? Most Americans Say Yes

[MizMolly]

Do you know the difference between past and present? Sure, the past affects the present, but thats life. Move on and quit whining. There is no macro or micro level when it comes to who should get compensated. You are jyst an angry man who hates white people

LOL! We are owed, Every group that's been wronged n his nation has gotten reparations except us.. If no one had ever got them we have no right to ask. But that's not what happened . So again you need to be quiet if you don't know what you are talking abut.

The Irish were not compensated, women were not compensated.

The iriish were eventually indoctrinated into the "white" club. White women gained favor as .AA beneficiaries when their white husbands saw value in having two good paychecks coming in.

Yes, eventually, so was the abolition of slavery,

Manumission was just a cosmetic superficial gesture by a relatively few whites. But it seems all whites, even the most virulent racists, want to take credit for it.

So, you are saying the slaves werent freed? What did the whites take credit for?

 

[MizMolly]

Do you know the difference between past and present? Sure, the past affects the present, but thats life. Move on and quit whining. There is no macro or micro level when it comes to who should get compensated. You are jyst an angry man who hates white people

LOL! We are owed, Every group that's been wronged n his nation has gotten reparations except us.. If no one had ever got them we have no right to ask. But that's not what happened . So again you need to be quiet if you don't know what you are talking abut.

The Irish were not compensated, women were not compensated.

The iriish were eventually indoctrinated into the "white" club. White women gained favor as .AA beneficiaries when their white husbands saw value in having two good paychecks coming in.

Lol whites werent the only beneficiaries of AA

What? OMG! You're kidding...right? Heh heh heh.

Omg your response was a joke right?

 

[JQPublic1]

LOL! We are owed, Every group that's been wronged n his nation has gotten reparations except us.. If no one had ever got them we have no right to ask. But that's not what happened . So again you need to be quiet if you don't know what you are talking abut.

The Irish were not compensated, women were not compensated.

The iriish were eventually indoctrinated into the "white" club. White women gained favor as .AA beneficiaries when their white husbands saw value in having two good paychecks coming in.

Lol whites werent the only beneficiaries of AA

What? OMG! You're kidding...right? Heh heh heh.

Omg your response was a joke right?

I took a light hearted stab at your feigned naivety.

 

[JQPublic1]

LOL! We are owed, Every group that's been wronged n his nation has gotten reparations except us.. If no one had ever got them we have no right to ask. But that's not what happened . So again you need to be quiet if you don't know what you are talking abut.

The Irish were not compensated, women were not compensated.

The iriish were eventually indoctrinated into the "white" club. White women gained favor as .AA beneficiaries when their white husbands saw value in having two good paychecks coming in.

Yes, eventually, so was the abolition of slavery,

Manumission was just a cosmetic superficial gesture by a relatively few whites. But it seems all whites, even the most virulent racists, want to take credit for it.

So, you are saying the slaves werent freed? What did the whites take credit for?

Is that what you think i said?

 

[katsteve2012]

BLM is the black KKK. But BLM = good, and KKK = bad. As per usual.

When have any bombings of predominately white churches or lynchings of white citizens been attributed to BLM?

 

[IM2]

All native born blacks faced racial discrimination and American Aparthied. A mixed race black was considered black. .I think if you are going to argue, you should know what you are arguing abut instead of seeking ways to discredit an argument based in not knowing any of the facts. I am quite sure we are capable of determining eligibility for reparations and the majority opinion seems to be that the money be put in funds for specific types of programs instead of paying individuals. If you thought about this with some common sense instead of race baited thinking, you would see this is the perfect solution. If blacks are awarded reparations and we piss it away with no improvements, we have nothing more to complain about as whites would have done all they could do to make up for the wrongs done..

Unless angry whites decide to burn down prosperous black communities and projects again.

You just want hand outs instead of working and earning your way. If you are successful, why do you need charity?

And you actually think what we have endured means we are asking for charity? Then you wondrr why you get called dumb? You can't read apparetly?

All native born blacks faced racial discrimination and American Aparthied. A mixed race black was considered black. .I think if you are going to argue, you should know what you are arguing abut instead of seeking ways to discredit an argument based in not knowing any of the facts. I am quite sure we are capable of determining eligibility for reparations and the majority opinion seems to be that the money be put in funds for specific types of programs instead of paying individuals. If you thought about this with some common sense instead of race baited thinking, you would see this is the perfect solution. If blacks are awarded reparations and we piss it away with no improvements, we have nothing more to complain about as whites would have done all they could do to make up for the wrongs done..

So I will not get any money unless I am developing a program or business in the black community to increase economic development and growth in that community.

So read this again and understand that you have no logical argument.

RACE - The Power of an Illusion


A Long History of Affirmative Action - For Whites

Many middle-class white people, especially those of us from the suburbs, like to think that we got to where we are today by virtue of our merit - hard work, intelligence, pluck, and maybe a little luck. And while we may be sympathetic to the plight of others, we close down when we hear the words "affirmative action" or "racial preferences." We worked hard, we made it on our own, the thinking goes, why don't 'they'? After all, the Civil Rights Act was enacted almost 40 years ago.

What we don't readily acknowledge is that racial preferences have a long, institutional history in this country - a white history. Here are a few ways in which government programs and practices have channeled wealth and opportunities to white people at the expense of others.

Let us continue....

Affirmative action in the American "workplace" first began in the late 17th century when European indentured servants - the original source of unfree labor on the new tobacco plantations of Virginia and Maryland - were replaced by African slaves. In exchange for their support and their policing of the growing slave population, lower-class Europeans won new rights, entitlements, and opportunities from the planter elite.

White Americans were also given a head start with the help of the U.S. Army. The 1830 Indian Removal Act, for example, forcibly relocated Cherokee, Creeks and other eastern Indians to west of the Mississippi River to make room for white settlers. The 1862 Homestead Act followed suit, giving away millions of acres of what had been Indian Territory west of the Mississippi. Ultimately, 270 million acres, or 10% of the total land area of the United States, was converted to private hands, overwhelmingly white, under Homestead Act provisions.

The 1790 Naturalization Act permitted only "free white persons" to become naturalized citizens, thus opening the doors to European immigrants but not others. Only citizens could vote, serve on juries, hold office, and in some cases, even hold property. In this century, Alien Land Laws passed in California and other states, reserved farm land for white growers by preventing Asian immigrants, ineligible to become citizens, from owning or leasing land. Immigration restrictions further limited opportunities for nonwhite groups. Racial barriers to naturalized U.S. citizenship weren't removed until the McCarran-Walter Act in 1952, and white racial preferences in immigration remained until 1965.

In the South, the federal government never followed through on General Sherman's Civil War plan to divide up plantations and give each freed slave "40 acres and a mule" as reparations. Only once was monetary compensation made for slavery, in Washington, D.C. There, government officials paid up to $300 per slave upon emancipation - not to the slaves, but to local slaveholders as compensation for loss of property.

When slavery ended, its legacy lived on not only in the impoverished condition of Black people but in the wealth and prosperity that accrued to white slaveowners and their descendents. Economists who try to place a dollar value on how much white Americans have profited from 200 years of unpaid slave labor, including interest, begin their estimates at $1 trillion.

Let us continue.....

Less known are more recent government racial preferences, first enacted during the New Deal, that directed wealth to white families and continue to shape life opportunities and chances.

The landmark Social Security Act of 1935 provided a safety net for millions of workers, guaranteeing them an income after retirement. But the act specifically excluded two occupations: agricultural workers and domestic servants, who were predominately African American, Mexican, and Asian. As low-income workers, they also had the least opportunity to save for their retirement. They couldn't pass wealth on to their children. Just the opposite. Their children had to support them.

Like Social Security, the 1935 Wagner Act helped establish an important new right for white people. By granting unions the power of collective bargaining, it helped millions of white workers gain entry into the middle class over the next 30 years. But the Wagner Act permitted unions to exclude non-whites and deny them access to better paid jobs and union protections and benefits such as health care, job security, and pensions. Many craft unions remained nearly all-white well into the 1970s. In 1972, for example, every single one of the 3,000 members of Los Angeles Steam Fitters Local #250 was still white.

But it was another racialized New Deal program, the Federal Housing Administration, that helped generate much of the wealth that so many white families enjoy today. These revolutionary programs made it possible for millions of average white Americans - but not others - to own a home for the first time. The government set up a national neighborhood appraisal system, explicitly tying mortgage eligibility to race. Integrated communities were ipso facto deemed a financial risk and made ineligible for home loans, a policy known today as "redlining." Between 1934 and 1962, the federal government backed $120 billion of home loans. More than 98% went to whites. Of the 350,000 new homes built with federal support in northern California between 1946 and 1960, fewer than 100 went to African Americans.

Let us continue....

Today, Black and Latino mortgage applicants are still 60% more likely than whites to be turned down for a loan, even after controlling for employment, financial, and neighborhood factors. According to the Census, whites are more likely to be segregated than any other group. As recently as 1993, 86% of suburban whites still lived in neighborhoods with a black population of less than 1%.

Let us continue....

One result of the generations of preferential treatment for whites is that a typical white family today has on average eight times the assets, or net worth, of a typical African American family, according to economist Edward Wolff. Even when families of the same income are compared, white families have more than twice the wealth of Black families. Much of that wealth difference can be attributed to the value of one's home, and how much one inherited from parents.

But a family's net worth is not simply the finish line, it's also the starting point for the next generation. Those with wealth pass their assets on to their children - by financing a college education, lending a hand during hard times, or assisting with the down payment for a home. Some economists estimate that up to 80 percent of lifetime wealth accumulation depends on these intergenerational transfers. White advantage is passed down, from parent to child to grand-child. As a result, the racial wealth gap - and the head start enjoyed by whites - appears to have grown since the civil rights days.

In 1865, just after Emancipation, it is not surprising that African Americans owned 0.5 percent of the total worth of the United States. But by 1990, a full 135 years after the abolition of slavery, Black Americans still possessed only a meager 1 percent of national wealth.

RACE - The Power of an Illusion | White Advantage

Of course you'll use the I did not get, I did not do argument. I doesn't exist at the macro level. WE do. And we are talking about a macro level situation. Do you know the difference between micro and macro level?

Do you know the difference between past and present? Sure, the past affects the present, but thats life. Move on and quit whining. There is no macro or micro level when it comes to who should get compensated. You are jyst an angry man who hates white people

LOL! We are owed, Every group that's been wronged n his nation has gotten reparations except us.. If no one had ever got them we have no right to ask. But that's not what happened . So again you need to be quiet if you don't know what you are talking abut.

The Irish were not compensated, women were not compensated.

You don't get to participate in the human rights violation the get reparations. Irish and White women did his. All women from groups wronged but ours have received reparations. Molly, I know more abut this than you do.

Debunking a Myth: The Irish Were Not Slaves, Too

It has shown up on Irish trivia Facebook pages, in Scientific American magazine, and on white nationalist message boards: the little-known story of the Irish slaves who built America, who are sometimes said to have outnumbered and been treated worse than slaves from Africa.

But it’s not true.

Historians say the idea of Irish slaves is based on a misreading of history and that the distortion is often politically motivated. Far-right memes have taken off online and are used as racist barbs against African-Americans. “The Irish were slaves, too,” the memes often say. “We got over it, so why can’t you?”

A small group of Irish and American scholars has spent years pushing back on the false history. In 2016, 82 Irish scholars and writers signed an open letter denouncing the Irish slave myth and asking publications to stop mentioning it. Some complied, removing or revising articles that referenced the false claims, but the letter’s impact was limited.

More.

The Irish slave narrative is based on the misinterpretation of the history of indentured servitude, which is how many poor Europeans migrated to North America and the Caribbean in the early colonial period, historians said.

Without a doubt, life was bad for indentured servants. They were often treated brutally. Not all of them entered servitude willingly. Some were political prisoners. Some were children.

“I’m not saying it was pleasant or anything — it was the opposite — but it was a completely different category from slavery,” said Liam Hogan, a research librarian in Ireland who has spearheaded the debunking effort. “It was a transitory state.”

The legal differences between indentured servitude and chattel slavery were profound, according to Matthew Reilly, an archaeologist who studies Barbados. Unlike slaves, servants were considered legally human. Their servitude was based on a contract that limited their service to a finite period of time, usually about seven years, in exchange for passage to the colonies. They did not pass their unfree status on to descendants.

Contemporary accounts in Ireland sometimes referred to these people as slaves, Mr. Hogan said. That was true in the sense that any form of coerced labor can be described as slavery, from Ancient Rome to modern-day human trafficking. But in colonial America and the Caribbean, the word “slavery” had a specific legal meaning. Europeans, by definition, were not included in it.

“An indenture implies two people have entered into a contract with each other but slavery is not a contract,” said Leslie Harris, a professor of African-American history at Northwestern University. “It is often about being a prisoner of war or being bought or sold bodily as part of a trade. That is a critical distinction.”

Debunking a Myth: The Irish Were Not Slaves, Too

Open letter to Irish Central, Irish Examiner and Scientific American about their “Irish slaves” disinformation

Open letter to Irish Central, Irish Examiner and Scientific American about their “Irish slaves”…

White Women and Racial Complicity

To be a white woman in America is to be precariously power-adjacent: Because of our skin, we carry unquestioned privilege in power systems. Because of our gender, that security has a shelf life—we are included only as long as we are able or willing to perform according to those who control the levers.

It’s a dangerous charade, one so deeply internalized it often goes unexamined. Our history indicates that when white women want agency, we often go to white men—even when they are the source of our exclusion, or even if we have to sell out others along the way. In the wake of the 15th Amendment granting black men the right to vote, suffragists including Carrie Chapman Catt, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Laura Clay made their case for the white woman vote by appealing to white supremacy. In January, a new book revealed that Carolyn Bryant, the white woman who accused Emmett Till of touching her in 1955, had lied.

White Women and Racial Complicity

#WhiteGirlsDoItBetter: Why White Women Remain One of Racism’s Most Slept On Weapons

From Jim Crow legislation, to Black castration, editor and journalist, Chloe Angyal, correctly acknowledged that blubbering white women have prompted untold incidents of white terror. But her assessment is incomplete. White women are equally proficient as weeping victims of alleged “negro” mischief or aggressive, violent ambassadors of white power. Contrary to the rubric of white patriarchy, white women are equal co-conspirators in the devaluation of Black life.

#WhiteGirlsDoItBetter: Why White Women Remain One of Racism's Most Slept On Weapons

 

[IM2]

Another use of the false equivalence by whites pertains to the issues of history and cultural identification. For example, whites have been whining for years about why they cannot have a white history month.

Did you dream that? Or do you work these notions out for convenience of continuity as you invent these concepts?

I am White. I am 81 years old. Never once in all that time did I ever hear (or read) a White person make the vaguest reference to the idea of a "White history month." Why would they? What would the point be?

If I am mistaken and if you are able to cite an example of what you've asserted, please do so -- and I will sincerely apologize and ask your forgiveness.

There gave been many examples of whites n this forum who have made mention of how they can't have a white history month. It's a staple of the white racist argument.

BLM is the black KKK. But BLM = good, and KKK = bad. As per usual.

Not even close.

Both promote their own race. But these days, whites aren't allowed to.

Stop lying. Who has stopped any white man from saying what ever the fuck he wants to say? Another white man? Who is this anonymous cretin that has your tongue in his hands...name him. It sure isn't big daddy Trump. I thought he set you free.

You all would cry RACISM!!! so fucking loud if someone tried to have a white history month. Like TOTALLY APESHIT!!!!!

 

[IM2]

Another use of the false equivalence by whites pertains to the issues of history and cultural identification. For example, whites have been whining for years about why they cannot have a white history month.

Did you dream that? Or do you work these notions out for convenience of continuity as you invent these concepts?

I am White. I am 81 years old. Never once in all that time did I ever hear (or read) a White person make the vaguest reference to the idea of a "White history month." Why would they? What would the point be?

If I am mistaken and if you are able to cite an example of what you've asserted, please do so -- and I will sincerely apologize and ask your forgiveness.

The only thing I have heard some whites say is that there is a Back History Month, but not a White History Month, not they want one. The response from some blacks is that every month is white history month, which is false, there is no celebration of anyone white just because of their race.

You are truly dumb. Explain to us why there is a month that is dedicated to not recognizing people only because they are black but to recognize historical accomplishment of people who are black? And every other month is white history month, but you dumb whites think that just because it doesn't say white history it's not so. You just ignore that for most of the year only white historical achievements are recognized, but that doesn't mean it's white hstory.

 

[IM2]

And you actually think what we have endured means we are asking for charity? Then you wondrr why you get called dumb? You can't read apparetly?

All native born blacks faced racial discrimination and American Aparthied. A mixed race black was considered black. .I think if you are going to argue, you should know what you are arguing abut instead of seeking ways to discredit an argument based in not knowing any of the facts. I am quite sure we are capable of determining eligibility for reparations and the majority opinion seems to be that the money be put in funds for specific types of programs instead of paying individuals. If you thought about this with some common sense instead of race baited thinking, you would see this is the perfect solution. If blacks are awarded reparations and we piss it away with no improvements, we have nothing more to complain about as whites would have done all they could do to make up for the wrongs done..

So I will not get any money unless I am developing a program or business in the black community to increase economic development and growth in that community.

So read this again and understand that you have no logical argument.

RACE - The Power of an Illusion


A Long History of Affirmative Action - For Whites

Many middle-class white people, especially those of us from the suburbs, like to think that we got to where we are today by virtue of our merit - hard work, intelligence, pluck, and maybe a little luck. And while we may be sympathetic to the plight of others, we close down when we hear the words "affirmative action" or "racial preferences." We worked hard, we made it on our own, the thinking goes, why don't 'they'? After all, the Civil Rights Act was enacted almost 40 years ago.

What we don't readily acknowledge is that racial preferences have a long, institutional history in this country - a white history. Here are a few ways in which government programs and practices have channeled wealth and opportunities to white people at the expense of others.

Let us continue....

Affirmative action in the American "workplace" first began in the late 17th century when European indentured servants - the original source of unfree labor on the new tobacco plantations of Virginia and Maryland - were replaced by African slaves. In exchange for their support and their policing of the growing slave population, lower-class Europeans won new rights, entitlements, and opportunities from the planter elite.

White Americans were also given a head start with the help of the U.S. Army. The 1830 Indian Removal Act, for example, forcibly relocated Cherokee, Creeks and other eastern Indians to west of the Mississippi River to make room for white settlers. The 1862 Homestead Act followed suit, giving away millions of acres of what had been Indian Territory west of the Mississippi. Ultimately, 270 million acres, or 10% of the total land area of the United States, was converted to private hands, overwhelmingly white, under Homestead Act provisions.

The 1790 Naturalization Act permitted only "free white persons" to become naturalized citizens, thus opening the doors to European immigrants but not others. Only citizens could vote, serve on juries, hold office, and in some cases, even hold property. In this century, Alien Land Laws passed in California and other states, reserved farm land for white growers by preventing Asian immigrants, ineligible to become citizens, from owning or leasing land. Immigration restrictions further limited opportunities for nonwhite groups. Racial barriers to naturalized U.S. citizenship weren't removed until the McCarran-Walter Act in 1952, and white racial preferences in immigration remained until 1965.

In the South, the federal government never followed through on General Sherman's Civil War plan to divide up plantations and give each freed slave "40 acres and a mule" as reparations. Only once was monetary compensation made for slavery, in Washington, D.C. There, government officials paid up to $300 per slave upon emancipation - not to the slaves, but to local slaveholders as compensation for loss of property.

When slavery ended, its legacy lived on not only in the impoverished condition of Black people but in the wealth and prosperity that accrued to white slaveowners and their descendents. Economists who try to place a dollar value on how much white Americans have profited from 200 years of unpaid slave labor, including interest, begin their estimates at $1 trillion.

Let us continue.....

Less known are more recent government racial preferences, first enacted during the New Deal, that directed wealth to white families and continue to shape life opportunities and chances.

The landmark Social Security Act of 1935 provided a safety net for millions of workers, guaranteeing them an income after retirement. But the act specifically excluded two occupations: agricultural workers and domestic servants, who were predominately African American, Mexican, and Asian. As low-income workers, they also had the least opportunity to save for their retirement. They couldn't pass wealth on to their children. Just the opposite. Their children had to support them.

Like Social Security, the 1935 Wagner Act helped establish an important new right for white people. By granting unions the power of collective bargaining, it helped millions of white workers gain entry into the middle class over the next 30 years. But the Wagner Act permitted unions to exclude non-whites and deny them access to better paid jobs and union protections and benefits such as health care, job security, and pensions. Many craft unions remained nearly all-white well into the 1970s. In 1972, for example, every single one of the 3,000 members of Los Angeles Steam Fitters Local #250 was still white.

But it was another racialized New Deal program, the Federal Housing Administration, that helped generate much of the wealth that so many white families enjoy today. These revolutionary programs made it possible for millions of average white Americans - but not others - to own a home for the first time. The government set up a national neighborhood appraisal system, explicitly tying mortgage eligibility to race. Integrated communities were ipso facto deemed a financial risk and made ineligible for home loans, a policy known today as "redlining." Between 1934 and 1962, the federal government backed $120 billion of home loans. More than 98% went to whites. Of the 350,000 new homes built with federal support in northern California between 1946 and 1960, fewer than 100 went to African Americans.

Let us continue....

Today, Black and Latino mortgage applicants are still 60% more likely than whites to be turned down for a loan, even after controlling for employment, financial, and neighborhood factors. According to the Census, whites are more likely to be segregated than any other group. As recently as 1993, 86% of suburban whites still lived in neighborhoods with a black population of less than 1%.

Let us continue....

One result of the generations of preferential treatment for whites is that a typical white family today has on average eight times the assets, or net worth, of a typical African American family, according to economist Edward Wolff. Even when families of the same income are compared, white families have more than twice the wealth of Black families. Much of that wealth difference can be attributed to the value of one's home, and how much one inherited from parents.

But a family's net worth is not simply the finish line, it's also the starting point for the next generation. Those with wealth pass their assets on to their children - by financing a college education, lending a hand during hard times, or assisting with the down payment for a home. Some economists estimate that up to 80 percent of lifetime wealth accumulation depends on these intergenerational transfers. White advantage is passed down, from parent to child to grand-child. As a result, the racial wealth gap - and the head start enjoyed by whites - appears to have grown since the civil rights days.

In 1865, just after Emancipation, it is not surprising that African Americans owned 0.5 percent of the total worth of the United States. But by 1990, a full 135 years after the abolition of slavery, Black Americans still possessed only a meager 1 percent of national wealth.

RACE - The Power of an Illusion | White Advantage

Of course you'll use the I did not get, I did not do argument. I doesn't exist at the macro level. WE do. And we are talking about a macro level situation. Do you know the difference between micro and macro level?

Do you know the difference between past and present? Sure, the past affects the present, but thats life. Move on and quit whining. There is no macro or micro level when it comes to who should get compensated. You are jyst an angry man who hates white people

LOL! We are owed, Every group that's been wronged n his nation has gotten reparations except us.. If no one had ever got them we have no right to ask. But that's not what happened . So again you need to be quiet if you don't know what you are talking abut.

The Irish were not compensated, women were not compensated.

The iriish were eventually indoctrinated into the "white" club. White women gained favor as .AA beneficiaries when their white husbands saw value in having two good paychecks coming in.

Lol whites werent the only beneficiaries of AA

But whites are the ones with a false perception of AA then claim how unfair it is even as they still benefit the most from the policy and that 188 years of whites only preferential treatment that occurred before the policy.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

It's not possible for blacks to be MORE racist than whites and if most Americans believe this (which I doubt) then that means that they are woefully ignorant of the history of the United States and it's racist roots and/or are being willfully ignorant or blatantly disingenuous just to pick a fight so they can then espouse their racist views.

It's amazing how the alleged "superior race" keeps failing at things such as basic reading comprehension and American history. Guess not so superior after all perhaps?

 

[Taz]

BLM is the black KKK. But BLM = good, and KKK = bad. As per usual.

When have any bombings of predominately white churches or lynchings of white citizens been attributed to BLM?

Would you feel better if I amended my statement and say that BLM is a budding KKK? KKK lite? KKK wannabes? Your choice.

 

[Taz]

Another use of the false equivalence by whites pertains to the issues of history and cultural identification. For example, whites have been whining for years about why they cannot have a white history month.

Did you dream that? Or do you work these notions out for convenience of continuity as you invent these concepts?

I am White. I am 81 years old. Never once in all that time did I ever hear (or read) a White person make the vaguest reference to the idea of a "White history month." Why would they? What would the point be?

If I am mistaken and if you are able to cite an example of what you've asserted, please do so -- and I will sincerely apologize and ask your forgiveness.

There gave been many examples of whites n this forum who have made mention of how they can't have a white history month. It's a staple of the white racist argument.

BLM is the black KKK. But BLM = good, and KKK = bad. As per usual.

Not even close.

Both promote their own race. But these days, whites aren't allowed to.

Stop lying. Who has stopped any white man from saying what ever the fuck he wants to say? Another white man? Who is this anonymous cretin that has your tongue in his hands...name him. It sure isn't big daddy Trump. I thought he set you free.

You all would cry RACISM!!! so fucking loud if someone tried to have a white history month. Like TOTALLY APESHIT!!!!!

So now it's racist to ask for a month for your own color/race?

 

[katsteve2012]

BLM is the black KKK. But BLM = good, and KKK = bad. As per usual.

When have any bombings of predominately white churches or lynchings of white citizens been attributed to BLM?

Would you feel better if I amended my statement and say that BLM is a budding KKK? KKK lite? KKK wannabes? Your choice.

Not really concerned if you do or not. The two are no where near comparable, so you were corrected.

The end.

 

[Taz]

BLM is the black KKK. But BLM = good, and KKK = bad. As per usual.

When have any bombings of predominately white churches or lynchings of white citizens been attributed to BLM?

Would you feel better if I amended my statement and say that BLM is a budding KKK? KKK lite? KKK wannabes? Your choice.

Not really concerned if you do or not. The two are no where near comparable, so you were corrected.

The end.

Actually they are comparable, they're both racist organizations.

 

[IM2]

BLM is the black KKK. But BLM = good, and KKK = bad. As per usual.

When have any bombings of predominately white churches or lynchings of white citizens been attributed to BLM?

Would you feel better if I amended my statement and say that BLM is a budding KKK? KKK lite? KKK wannabes? Your choice.

It's none of that. That's the choice.

 

[IM2]

Another use of the false equivalence by whites pertains to the issues of history and cultural identification. For example, whites have been whining for years about why they cannot have a white history month.

Did you dream that? Or do you work these notions out for convenience of continuity as you invent these concepts?

I am White. I am 81 years old. Never once in all that time did I ever hear (or read) a White person make the vaguest reference to the idea of a "White history month." Why would they? What would the point be?

If I am mistaken and if you are able to cite an example of what you've asserted, please do so -- and I will sincerely apologize and ask your forgiveness.

There gave been many examples of whites n this forum who have made mention of how they can't have a white history month. It's a staple of the white racist argument.

Not even close.

Both promote their own race. But these days, whites aren't allowed to.

Stop lying. Who has stopped any white man from saying what ever the fuck he wants to say? Another white man? Who is this anonymous cretin that has your tongue in his hands...name him. It sure isn't big daddy Trump. I thought he set you free.

You all would cry RACISM!!! so fucking loud if someone tried to have a white history month. Like TOTALLY APESHIT!!!!!

So now it's racist to ask for a month for your own color/race?

You have 11 months.

 

[IM2]

BLM is the black KKK. But BLM = good, and KKK = bad. As per usual.

When have any bombings of predominately white churches or lynchings of white citizens been attributed to BLM?

Would you feel better if I amended my statement and say that BLM is a budding KKK? KKK lite? KKK wannabes? Your choice.

Not really concerned if you do or not. The two are no where near comparable, so you were corrected.

The end.

Actually they are comparable, they're both racist organizations.

Only to a damn idiot.

 

[katsteve2012]

BLM is the black KKK. But BLM = good, and KKK = bad. As per usual.

When have any bombings of predominately white churches or lynchings of white citizens been attributed to BLM?

Would you feel better if I amended my statement and say that BLM is a budding KKK? KKK lite? KKK wannabes? Your choice.

Not really concerned if you do or not. The two are no where near comparable, so you were corrected.

The end.

Actually they are comparable, they're both racist organizations.

No. The Klan has been connected with lynchings and church bombings. That makes them a RACISTS AS WELL AS TERRORIST organization.

Read some history. It's bad form to appear to be so ignorant.

 

[ATL]

BLM is the black KKK. But BLM = good, and KKK = bad. As per usual.

When have any bombings of predominately white churches or lynchings of white citizens been attributed to BLM?

Would you feel better if I amended my statement and say that BLM is a budding KKK? KKK lite? KKK wannabes? Your choice.

Not really concerned if you do or not. The two are no where near comparable, so you were corrected.

The end.

Actually they are comparable, they're both racist organizations.

Really? That’s like saying an airplane is the same as a car because they both have wheels. Sorry, but a white nationalist that is unable to see the difference between both groups, is not the best source for qualifying what is racist. You have shown throughout this thread and in other threads, that even advocating for civil rights is racist in your eyes, especially considering how you made a banana reference to a black member. So your credibility is shot.

 

[Taz]

Another use of the false equivalence by whites pertains to the issues of history and cultural identification. For example, whites have been whining for years about why they cannot have a white history month.

Did you dream that? Or do you work these notions out for convenience of continuity as you invent these concepts?

I am White. I am 81 years old. Never once in all that time did I ever hear (or read) a White person make the vaguest reference to the idea of a "White history month." Why would they? What would the point be?

If I am mistaken and if you are able to cite an example of what you've asserted, please do so -- and I will sincerely apologize and ask your forgiveness.

There gave been many examples of whites n this forum who have made mention of how they can't have a white history month. It's a staple of the white racist argument.

Both promote their own race. But these days, whites aren't allowed to.

Stop lying. Who has stopped any white man from saying what ever the fuck he wants to say? Another white man? Who is this anonymous cretin that has your tongue in his hands...name him. It sure isn't big daddy Trump. I thought he set you free.

You all would cry RACISM!!! so fucking loud if someone tried to have a white history month. Like TOTALLY APESHIT!!!!!

So now it's racist to ask for a month for your own color/race?

You have 11 months.

So can we ask for a specific month? How about some White Music Awards? You down with that?