Are Whites Ashamed...

[Ghost of a Rider]

I asked IM2 this question in another thread and he refused to answer so I'll ask you: If the actions of the white colonizers is directly responsible and to be blamed for the hatred between the Hutus and Tutsis and the subsequent genocide, who is responsible for my racism?

The question is irrelevant and based on a false premise that whites are inherently more evil. Unless we're talking strictly about numbers for the sake of discussing generic information, the body counts mean nothing. However, if we're talking about the capability to do evil, Rwanda disproves your premise at one machete stroke. On top of that, the 1994 genocide was not the only one in that country. There was one in 1972 started by the Tutsis where at least 80,000 were killed. The Hutu armed response to this massacre resulted in thousands more killed. So not only are Rwandans guilty of genocide, they are twice guilty.

A quick look at some of the actions by the Hutu perpetrators: Hutus not only killed Tutsis, they slaughtered moderate members and Tutsi sympathizers within their own tribe; Hutu husbands killed their own Tutsi wives; Tutsis women were taken away as sex slaves; Children were clubbed and hacked to death along with adults; HIV-infected patients were formed into "rape squads" to rape and infect Tutsi women; Men and women both suffered sexual mutilation (some after having been raped) by having their genitalia hacked with machetes, knives, and sharp sticks and doused with acid.There's more but I think you get the idea.

So this raises another question: Does it require any more evil to put someone in a gas chamber than to hack a child to death with a machete?

A list of some of the worst African wars since the end of WWII and the Holocaust:

First Sudanese War, 1955 - 1972 - 500,000 dead.
Second Sudanese War, 1983 - 2005 - 1-2 million dead.
Lord's Resistance Army Insurgency, 1987 - present - 100,000+ dead so far.
War in Darfur, 2003 - present - 300,000 dead so far.
South Sudanese Civil War, 2013 - present - 10,000+ dead.
Chad/Libya Conflict, 1978 - 1987 - 8,500+ dead.
Libyan Civil War, 2014 - present - 10,000 dead.
Somali Civil War, 1980s - present - 300,00 - 500,000 dead.
Eritrean War of Independence, 1961 - 1991 - 145,000 dead.
Ethiopian Civil War, 1974 - 1991 - +/- 500,000 war dead plus 1,000,000 dead from famine.
Eritrean-Ethiopian War, 1998 - 2000 - 70,000 - 100,000 dead.
Congo Civil War, 1997 - 1999 - 14,000 - 25,000 dead.

So since WWII and the end of the Holocaust, blacks have slaughtered blacks to the tune of about 4 million killed just in the wars and conflicts listed here (there are many other recorded wars and conflicts on the African continent) and that's using the conservative estimates and doesn't even include the 800,000 from the Rwandan genocide. What's more, whites had nothing to do with any of them.

Yup and white man Joseph Stalin killed around 9 million way more than all the wars you mentioned in African combined and that 9 million is a conservative estimate. Many claim it's more like 20-25 mill.

Can you answer the question I posed to Asclepias? Namely, does it require more evil to put someone in a gas chamber than it does to hack a child to death with a machete?

I think everyone knows whites are not the only people who have done evil in history. So to keep bringing it up comes off as either some kind of weak “Everyone does it” excuse that eight-year-olds use or as a way to draw attention away from the evils of white history.

The past, present and future of Black Americans concern me most. And in that history whites are the main evil. That is just how it is. I did not create the world I find myself in. If I were Darfuri, no doubt I would write about the Arabic-speaking Sudanese. If I were Palestinian, it would be the Israelis.

This is not about whites thinking they are better than most, this is about blacks thinking whites are worse than most.

Your history as documented by those of your own race support this conclusion. I mean can you explain how it is that Blacks have gone to all the continents without creating the genocide, theft, and general mayhem that whites have done?

Wrong. White history only documents more killed, not that they are inherently more prone to violence. And whites killed more because they could. I.E., for whatever reason, black tribes in Africa never developed as fast as the rest of the world in terms of technology and science. Therefore, they didn't have the destructive weapons of war and ships to migrate and conquer other lands and peoples, much less the ambition to do so. Whites are not more prone to kill and conquer, they just did it first.

Violence is a human trait, not a white one.

 

[Asclepias]

Yup and white man Joseph Stalin killed around 9 million way more than all the wars you mentioned in African combined and that 9 million is a conservative estimate. Many claim it's more like 20-25 mill.

Can you answer the question I posed to Asclepias? Namely, does it require more evil to put someone in a gas chamber than it does to hack a child to death with a machete?

I think everyone knows whites are not the only people who have done evil in history. So to keep bringing it up comes off as either some kind of weak “Everyone does it” excuse that eight-year-olds use or as a way to draw attention away from the evils of white history.

The past, present and future of Black Americans concern me most. And in that history whites are the main evil. That is just how it is. I did not create the world I find myself in. If I were Darfuri, no doubt I would write about the Arabic-speaking Sudanese. If I were Palestinian, it would be the Israelis.

This is not about whites thinking they are better than most, this is about blacks thinking whites are worse than most.

Your history as documented by those of your own race support this conclusion. I mean can you explain how it is that Blacks have gone to all the continents without creating the genocide, theft, and general mayhem that whites have done?

Wrong. White history only documents more killed, not that they are inherently more prone to violence. And whites killed more because they could. I.E., for whatever reason, black tribes in Africa never developed as fast as the rest of the world in terms of technology and science. Therefore, they didn't have the destructive weapons of war and ships to migrate and conquer other lands and peoples, much less the ambition to do so. Whites are not more prone to kill and conquer, they just did it first.

Violence is a human trait, not a white one.

Nope White history not only documents more killed it pushes the doctrine of "manifest destiny." Should I provide you a link on what that is?

Without Black people in Africa you whites wouldnt even know what technology and science means.

 

[IM2]

When you used Rwanda you not only failed the described terms, you forgot that the Rwanda massacre was a direct result of white people fucking up in Africa.

I asked IM2 this question in another thread and he refused to answer so I'll ask you: If the actions of the white colonizers is directly responsible and to be blamed for the hatred between the Hutus and Tutsis and the subsequent genocide, who is responsible for my racism?

The question was to name one atrocity whites have not committed that was worse. Since whites have clearly killed (by a vast amount) more people at a single instance than any atrocity known to man your example fails.

The question is irrelevant and based on a false premise that whites are inherently more evil. Unless we're talking strictly about numbers for the sake of discussing generic information, the body counts mean nothing. However, if we're talking about the capability to do evil, Rwanda disproves your premise at one machete stroke. On top of that, the 1994 genocide was not the only one in that country. There was one in 1972 started by the Tutsis where at least 80,000 were killed. The Hutu armed response to this massacre resulted in thousands more killed. So not only are Rwandans guilty of genocide, they are twice guilty.

A quick look at some of the actions by the Hutu perpetrators: Hutus not only killed Tutsis, they slaughtered moderate members and Tutsi sympathizers within their own tribe; Hutu husbands killed their own Tutsi wives; Tutsis women were taken away as sex slaves; Children were clubbed and hacked to death along with adults; HIV-infected patients were formed into "rape squads" to rape and infect Tutsi women; Men and women both suffered sexual mutilation (some after having been raped) by having their genitalia hacked with machetes, knives, and sharp sticks and doused with acid.There's more but I think you get the idea.

So this raises another question: Does it require any more evil to put someone in a gas chamber than to hack a child to death with a machete?

I disagree. Whites as a group are more violent, more savage, more bellicose than any other race on the planet. Your history is littered with atrocities. These atrocities were not committed as a result of self defense. They were committed because whites felt they were superior. In effect the "manifest destiny" philosophy was at work when whites committed their atrocities.

A list of some of the worst African wars since the end of WWII and the Holocaust:

First Sudanese War, 1955 - 1972 - 500,000 dead.
Second Sudanese War, 1983 - 2005 - 1-2 million dead.
Lord's Resistance Army Insurgency, 1987 - present - 100,000+ dead so far.
War in Darfur, 2003 - present - 300,000 dead so far.
South Sudanese Civil War, 2013 - present - 10,000+ dead.
Chad/Libya Conflict, 1978 - 1987 - 8,500+ dead.
Libyan Civil War, 2014 - present - 10,000 dead.
Somali Civil War, 1980s - present - 300,00 - 500,000 dead.
Eritrean War of Independence, 1961 - 1991 - 145,000 dead.
Ethiopian Civil War, 1974 - 1991 - +/- 500,000 war dead plus 1,000,000 dead from famine.
Eritrean-Ethiopian War, 1998 - 2000 - 70,000 - 100,000 dead.
Congo Civil War, 1997 - 1999 - 14,000 - 25,000 dead.

So since WWII and the end of the Holocaust, blacks have slaughtered blacks to the tune of about 4 million killed just in the wars and conflicts listed here (there are many other recorded wars and conflicts on the African continent) and that's using the conservative estimates and doesn't even include the 800,000 from the Rwandan genocide. What's more, whites had nothing to do with any of them.

Yup and white man Joseph Stalin killed around 9 million way more than all the wars you mentioned in African combined and that 9 million is a conservative estimate. Many claim it's more like 20-25 mill.

Can you answer the question I posed to Asclepias? Namely, does it require more evil to put someone in a gas chamber than it does to hack a child to death with a machete?

I think everyone knows whites are not the only people who have done evil in history. So to keep bringing it up comes off as either some kind of weak “Everyone does it” excuse that eight-year-olds use or as a way to draw attention away from the evils of white history.

The past, present and future of Black Americans concern me most. And in that history whites are the main evil. That is just how it is. I did not create the world I find myself in. If I were Darfuri, no doubt I would write about the Arabic-speaking Sudanese. If I were Palestinian, it would be the Israelis.

Can you answer the question or not?

Look. White people need to get over this idea that they are somehow special. They are not.

Of course we're not. But if we're not special then we are also not unique in the capacity for evil.

They are just like everyone else. But by putting up this front that they are better than most, they make themselves worse than most – because it means they turn a blind eye to the evil they do.

This is not about whites thinking they are better than most, this is about blacks thinking whites are worse than most.

No, this is about what whites have done. I have known far too many very fine whites to allow you to tell this lie because you can't face the fact of the wrongs whites have actually done. White colonizers are respnsible for the struggles that continue going on in Africa. Most of the former colonies are still controlled by white business interests in the countries that colonized them. Until you study the colonization of Africa you are ignorant of things whites did to control the masses as a minority force. Divide and conquer as used by white colonizers created animosity between some tribes that never were hostile to each other and increased hostility between those who were. White colonizers set boundaries on the continent that did not exist, some of which split land into sections where opposing tribes were combined into to one region or territory.

Whites like you need to learn that we blacks here are very well educated. Your simplistic belief that we are just blaming whites for no reason amounts to a pile of rotting dung. You need to learn that in this case, you might b trying to argue with people who have greater knowledge of the subject you are trying to argue than you. Maybe it's wise that you spend the same amount of time we have studying these things before you come back again trying to argue the same denial based argument steeped in a lack of knowledge.

 

[IM2]

Yup and white man Joseph Stalin killed around 9 million way more than all the wars you mentioned in African combined and that 9 million is a conservative estimate. Many claim it's more like 20-25 mill.

Can you answer the question I posed to Asclepias? Namely, does it require more evil to put someone in a gas chamber than it does to hack a child to death with a machete?

I think everyone knows whites are not the only people who have done evil in history. So to keep bringing it up comes off as either some kind of weak “Everyone does it” excuse that eight-year-olds use or as a way to draw attention away from the evils of white history.

The past, present and future of Black Americans concern me most. And in that history whites are the main evil. That is just how it is. I did not create the world I find myself in. If I were Darfuri, no doubt I would write about the Arabic-speaking Sudanese. If I were Palestinian, it would be the Israelis.

This is not about whites thinking they are better than most, this is about blacks thinking whites are worse than most.

Your history as documented by those of your own race support this conclusion. I mean can you explain how it is that Blacks have gone to all the continents without creating the genocide, theft, and general mayhem that whites have done?

Wrong. White history only documents more killed, not that they are inherently more prone to violence. And whites killed more because they could. I.E., for whatever reason, black tribes in Africa never developed as fast as the rest of the world in terms of technology and science. Therefore, they didn't have the destructive weapons of war and ships to migrate and conquer other lands and peoples, much less the ambition to do so. Whites are not more prone to kill and conquer, they just did it first.

Violence is a human trait, not a white one.

Another lie created by white history.

 

[IM2]

No. Its not the same thinking at all. There is no assumption of inferiority in believing whites are genetically more violent. Its merely a theory propped up by the violent history of the white race.

If we use that standard, current evidence suggests that white people are not even close to the most violent race in America.

I don't like to condemn a person because of the allegedly inherent traits of his race. Each person is different and individual, standing alone, regardless of race.

Except that current evidence does show that whites are the most violent race in America.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Without Black people in Africa you whites wouldnt even EXIST.

Fixed.

 

[IM2]

I did nothing to deserve any shame. My ancestors were not here when the founders set up the U.S. so they had no part in it.

The only part my ancestors had in slavery was my Great (x3) Grandfather was forced to fight in the Louisiana Cavalry. He never owned any slaves and competed directly with plantations who did own slaves. He was a victim.

No guilt. No shame.

I would say I am white and proud of it, but doing so automatically makes me a skinhead or klansman.

Things didn't end with slavery. So if your ancestors came over here and did nothing to end things but lived free and garnered the benefits of whites only, they were part of it.

 

[Asclepias]

Even when they were ridiculed they were still considered to be less of a threat than Blacks.

So, which Whites are as violent of a threat as "Blacks"?

I mean Russia has the highest "White" murder rate in the World, and even though they live in a lot worse poverty than Black-Americans, the murder rate of Russia is a lot lower than Afro-Americans.

Pretty much all whites are violent. When I say "threat" I mean a threat to out succeed you whites which is what the topic is about. Are you embarrassed and angry your founding fathers and subsequent leadership thought so little of whites they had to develop systems to keep Blacks down so you could have a head start?

Are you as a man ashamed your type has had at least a 100,000 year head start on women? who have been kept under a mans thumb pretty much from the begining of time actually? how in the fuck are they ever going to catch up? Whats with the whole "head start" concept anyway? Are we running a race against each other? or should we simply be trying to live together as human beings? seems to me the point of this thread is like many on USMB. simply finding another way to be divisive. thats about it. I dont tell any man he needs to be ashamed simply for the color that he is born. Thats obviously your job around here though isnt it?. glad you have an important role to fill.

That may be true of the white race but its definitely not true of the Black race. The Black race has had woman leaders, all women armies, queens, teachers etc etc. We understand instinctively that we are equal parts in a circle. Very similar to my avatar.

Thats exactly what I want to know. Whats with the need for your founders and subsequent leaders to create a headstart for members of your race? What were they afraid of? Why didnt they feel that whites could succeed without holding back Blacks and other races? If whites wanted to simply live together in harmony they would not be such a bellicose race. If you think asking a question is being divisive then you must be caught up in your feelings. I simply wanted to know if white people were embarrassed by the legislated head start they were granted. If you have a problem with that then dont read the thread. If you chose to read it anyway then thats your issue. There was no part of my OP that told people how to feel. I simply asked a question.

"arent you kind of pissed off that your white leadership thought so very very little of your ability to succeed on a level playing field?"

On this point I will say no, because I doubt that thought even crossed their minds. This level playing field concept is a view that we now have today as we look back on history. Those people.. the Europeans and Colonists were not interested so much in keeping others down but THAT was a direct consequence of their Intense competition with other European Nations. The British and Spanish used slavery as just one more resource to aquire great wealth for their respective royalties. Were they greedy ? hell yes. Do I like that? No... greed for material wealth at the expense of someone else's soul is pretty shallow. do I like slavery? no way what so ever .... But I recognize your thread as just another way to put down America... at least that's the way I see it. Maybe I'm wrong.

Now Bear brought up a good point about early slavery in the US. when it first started, white and black slaves alike would earn their freedom after so many years. It was more like indentured servitude, and the British early on enslaved people if they were not Christian... it wasn't so much because of their color until things later changed.

In that respect, Early slavery in the colonies was much like the slavery in Africa and the middle east that you have seemed to accept as a higher form of slavery in your past threads. I mean, you hold no animosity for Arabs or Africans because you have stated in the past that they treated their slaves with respect ( though, that point can be argued in many cases)

What early slavery Devolved into... and the racism that developed as people were kept segregated by this slavery was something quite horrendous. But that devolvement was not some grand scheme by white people ... it was something that just happened incrementally one step at a time over years due to the circumstances.. and peoples greed.

Now, If earlier forms of slavery such as the ones in Africa and the ME ( which you seem to be cozy with) did not exist, there would have been no slavery in the US whatsoever because it would not have been the world norm. So trying to pin some sort of genetic guilt on whites as you normally do doesn't work for me.

Am I ashamed of The founding fathers? No, i have no direct lineage to them.. and no emotional link to them, so its pretty hard to be ashamed. I don't like the way a lot of history played out for so many people but it just is what it is.

I missed this.

Of course it crossed their minds. Thats why they did it. Are you claiming they had no thoughts on the other races? I am not putting down america. There are other races in america in case you havent noticed. I am asking if whites were upset.or embarrassed the founders and subsequent leaders thought so low of whites abilities they gave them a head start?

When Blacks and whites could earn their freedom that was before the institution of chattel slavery took hold.and it wasnt slavery. It was indentured servitude very similiar to what occurred in Africa. Why was chattel slavery only applied to Blacks? Your mention of indentured servitude stands as proof whites thought they had to grant other whites a head start. If they made a law that whites could not be enslaved then that means they were consciously thinking about it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If y'all wanna start some shit and stir the pot, go with the historical FACT:


Jesus....was black.


Oh, I did it now.



White dudes on here be like:

...giving all sorts of analysis and historical bullshit.

 

[IM2]

In 1899, Britain and Egypt reached an agreement under which Sudan was run by a governor-general appointed by Egypt with British consent. In reality Sudan was effectively administered as a Crown colony. The British were keen to reverse the process, started under Muhammad Ali Pasha, of uniting the Nile Valley under Egyptian leadership, and sought to frustrate all efforts aimed at further uniting the two countries.

Under the Delimitation, Sudan's border with Abyssinia was contested by raiding tribesmen trading slaves, breaching boundaries of law. In 1905 Local chieftain Sultan Yambio reluctant to the end gave up the struggle with British forces that had occupied the Kurdofan region, finally ending the lawlessness. The continued British administration of Sudan fuelled an increasingly strident nationalist backlash, with Egyptian nationalist leaders determined to force Britain to recognise a single independent union of Egypt and Sudan. With a formal end to Ottoman rule in 1914, Sir Reginald Wingate was sent that December to occupy Sudan as the new Military Governor. Hussein Kamel was declared Sultan of Egypt and Sudan, as was his brother and successor, Fuad I. They continued upon their insistence of a single Egyptian-Sudanese state even when the Sultanate of Egypt was retitled as the Kingdom of Egypt and Sudan, but it was Sa'd Zaghlul who continued to be frustrated in the ambitions until his death in 1927.

From 1924 until independence in 1956, the British had a policy of running Sudan as two essentially separate territories, the north and south.

Sudan - Wikipedia

First Sudanese Civil War

Origins of the conflict
Until 1946, the British government, in collaboration with the Egyptian government (under a condominium governing arrangement) administered south Sudan and north Sudan as separate regions. At this time, the two areas were merged into a single administrative region as part of British strategy in the Middle East.

This act was taken without consultation with southern leaders, who feared being subsumed by the political power of the larger north. Southern Sudan is inhabited primarily by Christians and animists and considers itself culturally sub-Saharan, while most of the north is inhabited by Muslims who were culturally Kushitic.

After the February 1953 agreement by the United Kingdom and Egypt to grant independence to Sudan, the internal tensions over the nature of the relationship of north to south were heightened. Matters reached a head as the 1 January 1956 independence day approached, as it appeared that northern leaders were backing away from commitments to create a federal government that would give the south substantial autonomy.

First Sudanese Civil War - Wikipedia

Now if you cannot see how whites created the problems leading to this conflict, it's because you don't want to.

 

[Asclepias]

In 1899, Britain and Egypt reached an agreement under which Sudan was run by a governor-general appointed by Egypt with British consent. In reality Sudan was effectively administered as a Crown colony. The British were keen to reverse the process, started under Muhammad Ali Pasha, of uniting the Nile Valley under Egyptian leadership, and sought to frustrate all efforts aimed at further uniting the two countries.

Under the Delimitation, Sudan's border with Abyssinia was contested by raiding tribesmen trading slaves, breaching boundaries of law. In 1905 Local chieftain Sultan Yambio reluctant to the end gave up the struggle with British forces that had occupied the Kurdofan region, finally ending the lawlessness. The continued British administration of Sudan fuelled an increasingly strident nationalist backlash, with Egyptian nationalist leaders determined to force Britain to recognise a single independent union of Egypt and Sudan. With a formal end to Ottoman rule in 1914, Sir Reginald Wingate was sent that December to occupy Sudan as the new Military Governor. Hussein Kamel was declared Sultan of Egypt and Sudan, as was his brother and successor, Fuad I. They continued upon their insistence of a single Egyptian-Sudanese state even when the Sultanate of Egypt was retitled as the Kingdom of Egypt and Sudan, but it was Sa'd Zaghlul who continued to be frustrated in the ambitions until his death in 1927.

From 1924 until independence in 1956, the British had a policy of running Sudan as two essentially separate territories, the north and south.

Sudan - Wikipedia

First Sudanese Civil War

Origins of the conflict
Until 1946, the British government, in collaboration with the Egyptian government (under a condominium governing arrangement) administered south Sudan and north Sudan as separate regions. At this time, the two areas were merged into a single administrative region as part of British strategy in the Middle East.

This act was taken without consultation with southern leaders, who feared being subsumed by the political power of the larger north. Southern Sudan is inhabited primarily by Christians and animists and considers itself culturally sub-Saharan, while most of the north is inhabited by Muslims who were culturally Kushitic.

After the February 1953 agreement by the United Kingdom and Egypt to grant independence to Sudan, the internal tensions over the nature of the relationship of north to south were heightened. Matters reached a head as the 1 January 1956 independence day approached, as it appeared that northern leaders were backing away from commitments to create a federal government that would give the south substantial autonomy.

First Sudanese Civil War - Wikipedia

Now if you cannot see how whites created the problems leading to this conflict, it's because you don't want to.

They dont want to. They are desperately tied to the belief that white people are just the victims of bad PR. It wont do any good to force them to look at the facts. I might add the facts that they themselves documented. They will just try to change the subject to something else. Its a genetic coping mechanism that whites have.

 

[Yarddog]

So, which Whites are as violent of a threat as "Blacks"?

I mean Russia has the highest "White" murder rate in the World, and even though they live in a lot worse poverty than Black-Americans, the murder rate of Russia is a lot lower than Afro-Americans.

Pretty much all whites are violent. When I say "threat" I mean a threat to out succeed you whites which is what the topic is about. Are you embarrassed and angry your founding fathers and subsequent leadership thought so little of whites they had to develop systems to keep Blacks down so you could have a head start?

Are you as a man ashamed your type has had at least a 100,000 year head start on women? who have been kept under a mans thumb pretty much from the begining of time actually? how in the fuck are they ever going to catch up? Whats with the whole "head start" concept anyway? Are we running a race against each other? or should we simply be trying to live together as human beings? seems to me the point of this thread is like many on USMB. simply finding another way to be divisive. thats about it. I dont tell any man he needs to be ashamed simply for the color that he is born. Thats obviously your job around here though isnt it?. glad you have an important role to fill.

That may be true of the white race but its definitely not true of the Black race. The Black race has had woman leaders, all women armies, queens, teachers etc etc. We understand instinctively that we are equal parts in a circle. Very similar to my avatar.

Thats exactly what I want to know. Whats with the need for your founders and subsequent leaders to create a headstart for members of your race? What were they afraid of? Why didnt they feel that whites could succeed without holding back Blacks and other races? If whites wanted to simply live together in harmony they would not be such a bellicose race. If you think asking a question is being divisive then you must be caught up in your feelings. I simply wanted to know if white people were embarrassed by the legislated head start they were granted. If you have a problem with that then dont read the thread. If you chose to read it anyway then thats your issue. There was no part of my OP that told people how to feel. I simply asked a question.

"arent you kind of pissed off that your white leadership thought so very very little of your ability to succeed on a level playing field?"

On this point I will say no, because I doubt that thought even crossed their minds. This level playing field concept is a view that we now have today as we look back on history. Those people.. the Europeans and Colonists were not interested so much in keeping others down but THAT was a direct consequence of their Intense competition with other European Nations. The British and Spanish used slavery as just one more resource to aquire great wealth for their respective royalties. Were they greedy ? hell yes. Do I like that? No... greed for material wealth at the expense of someone else's soul is pretty shallow. do I like slavery? no way what so ever .... But I recognize your thread as just another way to put down America... at least that's the way I see it. Maybe I'm wrong.

Now Bear brought up a good point about early slavery in the US. when it first started, white and black slaves alike would earn their freedom after so many years. It was more like indentured servitude, and the British early on enslaved people if they were not Christian... it wasn't so much because of their color until things later changed.

In that respect, Early slavery in the colonies was much like the slavery in Africa and the middle east that you have seemed to accept as a higher form of slavery in your past threads. I mean, you hold no animosity for Arabs or Africans because you have stated in the past that they treated their slaves with respect ( though, that point can be argued in many cases)

What early slavery Devolved into... and the racism that developed as people were kept segregated by this slavery was something quite horrendous. But that devolvement was not some grand scheme by white people ... it was something that just happened incrementally one step at a time over years due to the circumstances.. and peoples greed.

Now, If earlier forms of slavery such as the ones in Africa and the ME ( which you seem to be cozy with) did not exist, there would have been no slavery in the US whatsoever because it would not have been the world norm. So trying to pin some sort of genetic guilt on whites as you normally do doesn't work for me.

Am I ashamed of The founding fathers? No, i have no direct lineage to them.. and no emotional link to them, so its pretty hard to be ashamed. I don't like the way a lot of history played out for so many people but it just is what it is.

I missed this.

Of course it crossed their minds. Thats why they did it. Are you claiming they had no thoughts on the other races? I am not putting down america. There are other races in america in case you havent noticed. I am asking if whites were upset.or embarrassed the founders and subsequent leaders thought so low of whites abilities they gave them a head start?

When Blacks and whites could earn their freedom that was before the institution of chattel slavery took hold.and it wasnt slavery. It was indentured servitude very similiar to what occurred in Africa. Why was chattel slavery only applied to Blacks? Your mention of indentured servitude stands as proof whites thought they had to grant other whites a head start. If they made a law that whites could not be enslaved then that means they were consciously thinking about it.

When the British Crown had colonies all over the world including what is now the US, they were interested in getting a head start over the French and the Spanish and maybe the Dutch. They wanted their colonies to make them rich. Not defending that action, but they had two choices, either send their own people or enslaved Irish to do the labour needed, or enslave local indiginous people to do the work , or send Africans who had been enslaved for that purpose. They enslaved people often under the excuse that they were not Christian, just as Muslims enslaved non- muslims. People weren't enslaved just because because they were Black. There were black slaves around long before the British got involved. Why is it that Muslims had to travel to Africa to get slaves?

Slavery devolved for the worse later on and then it became very racial. Theres a lot of reasons for that including the fact that it was easier to keep slaves around who looked different than you did... probably easier to keep track of for slave holders and it would have become a conveinience probably. After a while that segregation would have heightened racism. But thats not the way it started out. So another question can be asked here. Are black people ashamed of other blacks who enslaved their own.. or ashamed of Muslims who sold black slaves and made this the normal condition around the world before white people got involved?
Actually I don't think they need be ashamed at all. thats just the history of what happened. Black people today have absolutely nothing to do with that. No reason to appologize

 

[IM2]

Pretty much all whites are violent. When I say "threat" I mean a threat to out succeed you whites which is what the topic is about. Are you embarrassed and angry your founding fathers and subsequent leadership thought so little of whites they had to develop systems to keep Blacks down so you could have a head start?

Are you as a man ashamed your type has had at least a 100,000 year head start on women? who have been kept under a mans thumb pretty much from the begining of time actually? how in the fuck are they ever going to catch up? Whats with the whole "head start" concept anyway? Are we running a race against each other? or should we simply be trying to live together as human beings? seems to me the point of this thread is like many on USMB. simply finding another way to be divisive. thats about it. I dont tell any man he needs to be ashamed simply for the color that he is born. Thats obviously your job around here though isnt it?. glad you have an important role to fill.

That may be true of the white race but its definitely not true of the Black race. The Black race has had woman leaders, all women armies, queens, teachers etc etc. We understand instinctively that we are equal parts in a circle. Very similar to my avatar.

Thats exactly what I want to know. Whats with the need for your founders and subsequent leaders to create a headstart for members of your race? What were they afraid of? Why didnt they feel that whites could succeed without holding back Blacks and other races? If whites wanted to simply live together in harmony they would not be such a bellicose race. If you think asking a question is being divisive then you must be caught up in your feelings. I simply wanted to know if white people were embarrassed by the legislated head start they were granted. If you have a problem with that then dont read the thread. If you chose to read it anyway then thats your issue. There was no part of my OP that told people how to feel. I simply asked a question.

"arent you kind of pissed off that your white leadership thought so very very little of your ability to succeed on a level playing field?"

On this point I will say no, because I doubt that thought even crossed their minds. This level playing field concept is a view that we now have today as we look back on history. Those people.. the Europeans and Colonists were not interested so much in keeping others down but THAT was a direct consequence of their Intense competition with other European Nations. The British and Spanish used slavery as just one more resource to aquire great wealth for their respective royalties. Were they greedy ? hell yes. Do I like that? No... greed for material wealth at the expense of someone else's soul is pretty shallow. do I like slavery? no way what so ever .... But I recognize your thread as just another way to put down America... at least that's the way I see it. Maybe I'm wrong.

Now Bear brought up a good point about early slavery in the US. when it first started, white and black slaves alike would earn their freedom after so many years. It was more like indentured servitude, and the British early on enslaved people if they were not Christian... it wasn't so much because of their color until things later changed.

In that respect, Early slavery in the colonies was much like the slavery in Africa and the middle east that you have seemed to accept as a higher form of slavery in your past threads. I mean, you hold no animosity for Arabs or Africans because you have stated in the past that they treated their slaves with respect ( though, that point can be argued in many cases)

What early slavery Devolved into... and the racism that developed as people were kept segregated by this slavery was something quite horrendous. But that devolvement was not some grand scheme by white people ... it was something that just happened incrementally one step at a time over years due to the circumstances.. and peoples greed.

Now, If earlier forms of slavery such as the ones in Africa and the ME ( which you seem to be cozy with) did not exist, there would have been no slavery in the US whatsoever because it would not have been the world norm. So trying to pin some sort of genetic guilt on whites as you normally do doesn't work for me.

Am I ashamed of The founding fathers? No, i have no direct lineage to them.. and no emotional link to them, so its pretty hard to be ashamed. I don't like the way a lot of history played out for so many people but it just is what it is.

I missed this.

Of course it crossed their minds. Thats why they did it. Are you claiming they had no thoughts on the other races? I am not putting down america. There are other races in america in case you havent noticed. I am asking if whites were upset.or embarrassed the founders and subsequent leaders thought so low of whites abilities they gave them a head start?

When Blacks and whites could earn their freedom that was before the institution of chattel slavery took hold.and it wasnt slavery. It was indentured servitude very similiar to what occurred in Africa. Why was chattel slavery only applied to Blacks? Your mention of indentured servitude stands as proof whites thought they had to grant other whites a head start. If they made a law that whites could not be enslaved then that means they were consciously thinking about it.

When the British Crown had colonies all over the world including what is now the US, they were interested in getting a head start over the French and the Spanish and maybe the Dutch. They wanted their colonies to make them rich. Not defending that action, but they had two choices, either send their own people or enslaved Irish to do the labour needed, or enslave local indiginous people to do the work , or send Africans who had been enslaved for that purpose. They enslaved people often under the excuse that they were not Christian, just as Muslims enslaved non- muslims. People weren't enslaved just because because they were Black. There were black slaves around long before the British got involved. Why is it that Muslims had to travel to Africa to get slaves?

Slavery devolved for the worse later on and then it became very racial. Theres a lot of reasons for that including the fact that it was easier to keep slaves around who looked different than you did... probably easier to keep track of for slave holders and it would have become a conveinience probably. After a while that segregation would have heightened racism. But thats not the way it started out. So another question can be asked here. Are black people ashamed of other blacks who enslaved their own.. or ashamed of Muslims who sold black slaves and made this the normal condition around the world before white people got involved?
Actually I don't think they need be ashamed at all. thats just the history of what happened. Black people today have absolutely nothing to do with that. No reason to appologize

Pure bullshit and an example of what A just pointed out.

 

[Asclepias]

Pretty much all whites are violent. When I say "threat" I mean a threat to out succeed you whites which is what the topic is about. Are you embarrassed and angry your founding fathers and subsequent leadership thought so little of whites they had to develop systems to keep Blacks down so you could have a head start?

Are you as a man ashamed your type has had at least a 100,000 year head start on women? who have been kept under a mans thumb pretty much from the begining of time actually? how in the fuck are they ever going to catch up? Whats with the whole "head start" concept anyway? Are we running a race against each other? or should we simply be trying to live together as human beings? seems to me the point of this thread is like many on USMB. simply finding another way to be divisive. thats about it. I dont tell any man he needs to be ashamed simply for the color that he is born. Thats obviously your job around here though isnt it?. glad you have an important role to fill.

That may be true of the white race but its definitely not true of the Black race. The Black race has had woman leaders, all women armies, queens, teachers etc etc. We understand instinctively that we are equal parts in a circle. Very similar to my avatar.

Thats exactly what I want to know. Whats with the need for your founders and subsequent leaders to create a headstart for members of your race? What were they afraid of? Why didnt they feel that whites could succeed without holding back Blacks and other races? If whites wanted to simply live together in harmony they would not be such a bellicose race. If you think asking a question is being divisive then you must be caught up in your feelings. I simply wanted to know if white people were embarrassed by the legislated head start they were granted. If you have a problem with that then dont read the thread. If you chose to read it anyway then thats your issue. There was no part of my OP that told people how to feel. I simply asked a question.

"arent you kind of pissed off that your white leadership thought so very very little of your ability to succeed on a level playing field?"

On this point I will say no, because I doubt that thought even crossed their minds. This level playing field concept is a view that we now have today as we look back on history. Those people.. the Europeans and Colonists were not interested so much in keeping others down but THAT was a direct consequence of their Intense competition with other European Nations. The British and Spanish used slavery as just one more resource to aquire great wealth for their respective royalties. Were they greedy ? hell yes. Do I like that? No... greed for material wealth at the expense of someone else's soul is pretty shallow. do I like slavery? no way what so ever .... But I recognize your thread as just another way to put down America... at least that's the way I see it. Maybe I'm wrong.

Now Bear brought up a good point about early slavery in the US. when it first started, white and black slaves alike would earn their freedom after so many years. It was more like indentured servitude, and the British early on enslaved people if they were not Christian... it wasn't so much because of their color until things later changed.

In that respect, Early slavery in the colonies was much like the slavery in Africa and the middle east that you have seemed to accept as a higher form of slavery in your past threads. I mean, you hold no animosity for Arabs or Africans because you have stated in the past that they treated their slaves with respect ( though, that point can be argued in many cases)

What early slavery Devolved into... and the racism that developed as people were kept segregated by this slavery was something quite horrendous. But that devolvement was not some grand scheme by white people ... it was something that just happened incrementally one step at a time over years due to the circumstances.. and peoples greed.

Now, If earlier forms of slavery such as the ones in Africa and the ME ( which you seem to be cozy with) did not exist, there would have been no slavery in the US whatsoever because it would not have been the world norm. So trying to pin some sort of genetic guilt on whites as you normally do doesn't work for me.

Am I ashamed of The founding fathers? No, i have no direct lineage to them.. and no emotional link to them, so its pretty hard to be ashamed. I don't like the way a lot of history played out for so many people but it just is what it is.

I missed this.

Of course it crossed their minds. Thats why they did it. Are you claiming they had no thoughts on the other races? I am not putting down america. There are other races in america in case you havent noticed. I am asking if whites were upset.or embarrassed the founders and subsequent leaders thought so low of whites abilities they gave them a head start?

When Blacks and whites could earn their freedom that was before the institution of chattel slavery took hold.and it wasnt slavery. It was indentured servitude very similiar to what occurred in Africa. Why was chattel slavery only applied to Blacks? Your mention of indentured servitude stands as proof whites thought they had to grant other whites a head start. If they made a law that whites could not be enslaved then that means they were consciously thinking about it.

When the British Crown had colonies all over the world including what is now the US, they were interested in getting a head start over the French and the Spanish and maybe the Dutch. They wanted their colonies to make them rich. Not defending that action, but they had two choices, either send their own people or enslaved Irish to do the labour needed, or enslave local indiginous people to do the work , or send Africans who had been enslaved for that purpose. They enslaved people often under the excuse that they were not Christian, just as Muslims enslaved non- muslims. People weren't enslaved just because because they were Black. There were black slaves around long before the British got involved. Why is it that Muslims had to travel to Africa to get slaves?

Slavery devolved for the worse later on and then it became very racial. Theres a lot of reasons for that including the fact that it was easier to keep slaves around who looked different than you did... probably easier to keep track of for slave holders and it would have become a conveinience probably. After a while that segregation would have heightened racism. But thats not the way it started out. So another question can be asked here. Are black people ashamed of other blacks who enslaved their own.. or ashamed of Muslims who sold black slaves and made this the normal condition around the world before white people got involved?
Actually I don't think they need be ashamed at all. thats just the history of what happened. Black people today have absolutely nothing to do with that. No reason to appologize

Whites were always involved. They enslaved other whites. Thats where the word slave comes from. Other than that you totally deflected from my post. Whites in the US instituted chattel slavery and excluded whites from it. If they werent thinking about granting whites a head start why didnt they include whites in chattel slavery?

 

[Asclepias]

Are you as a man ashamed your type has had at least a 100,000 year head start on women? who have been kept under a mans thumb pretty much from the begining of time actually? how in the fuck are they ever going to catch up? Whats with the whole "head start" concept anyway? Are we running a race against each other? or should we simply be trying to live together as human beings? seems to me the point of this thread is like many on USMB. simply finding another way to be divisive. thats about it. I dont tell any man he needs to be ashamed simply for the color that he is born. Thats obviously your job around here though isnt it?. glad you have an important role to fill.

That may be true of the white race but its definitely not true of the Black race. The Black race has had woman leaders, all women armies, queens, teachers etc etc. We understand instinctively that we are equal parts in a circle. Very similar to my avatar.

Thats exactly what I want to know. Whats with the need for your founders and subsequent leaders to create a headstart for members of your race? What were they afraid of? Why didnt they feel that whites could succeed without holding back Blacks and other races? If whites wanted to simply live together in harmony they would not be such a bellicose race. If you think asking a question is being divisive then you must be caught up in your feelings. I simply wanted to know if white people were embarrassed by the legislated head start they were granted. If you have a problem with that then dont read the thread. If you chose to read it anyway then thats your issue. There was no part of my OP that told people how to feel. I simply asked a question.

"arent you kind of pissed off that your white leadership thought so very very little of your ability to succeed on a level playing field?"

On this point I will say no, because I doubt that thought even crossed their minds. This level playing field concept is a view that we now have today as we look back on history. Those people.. the Europeans and Colonists were not interested so much in keeping others down but THAT was a direct consequence of their Intense competition with other European Nations. The British and Spanish used slavery as just one more resource to aquire great wealth for their respective royalties. Were they greedy ? hell yes. Do I like that? No... greed for material wealth at the expense of someone else's soul is pretty shallow. do I like slavery? no way what so ever .... But I recognize your thread as just another way to put down America... at least that's the way I see it. Maybe I'm wrong.

Now Bear brought up a good point about early slavery in the US. when it first started, white and black slaves alike would earn their freedom after so many years. It was more like indentured servitude, and the British early on enslaved people if they were not Christian... it wasn't so much because of their color until things later changed.

In that respect, Early slavery in the colonies was much like the slavery in Africa and the middle east that you have seemed to accept as a higher form of slavery in your past threads. I mean, you hold no animosity for Arabs or Africans because you have stated in the past that they treated their slaves with respect ( though, that point can be argued in many cases)

What early slavery Devolved into... and the racism that developed as people were kept segregated by this slavery was something quite horrendous. But that devolvement was not some grand scheme by white people ... it was something that just happened incrementally one step at a time over years due to the circumstances.. and peoples greed.

Now, If earlier forms of slavery such as the ones in Africa and the ME ( which you seem to be cozy with) did not exist, there would have been no slavery in the US whatsoever because it would not have been the world norm. So trying to pin some sort of genetic guilt on whites as you normally do doesn't work for me.

Am I ashamed of The founding fathers? No, i have no direct lineage to them.. and no emotional link to them, so its pretty hard to be ashamed. I don't like the way a lot of history played out for so many people but it just is what it is.

I missed this.

Of course it crossed their minds. Thats why they did it. Are you claiming they had no thoughts on the other races? I am not putting down america. There are other races in america in case you havent noticed. I am asking if whites were upset.or embarrassed the founders and subsequent leaders thought so low of whites abilities they gave them a head start?

When Blacks and whites could earn their freedom that was before the institution of chattel slavery took hold.and it wasnt slavery. It was indentured servitude very similiar to what occurred in Africa. Why was chattel slavery only applied to Blacks? Your mention of indentured servitude stands as proof whites thought they had to grant other whites a head start. If they made a law that whites could not be enslaved then that means they were consciously thinking about it.

When the British Crown had colonies all over the world including what is now the US, they were interested in getting a head start over the French and the Spanish and maybe the Dutch. They wanted their colonies to make them rich. Not defending that action, but they had two choices, either send their own people or enslaved Irish to do the labour needed, or enslave local indiginous people to do the work , or send Africans who had been enslaved for that purpose. They enslaved people often under the excuse that they were not Christian, just as Muslims enslaved non- muslims. People weren't enslaved just because because they were Black. There were black slaves around long before the British got involved. Why is it that Muslims had to travel to Africa to get slaves?

Slavery devolved for the worse later on and then it became very racial. Theres a lot of reasons for that including the fact that it was easier to keep slaves around who looked different than you did... probably easier to keep track of for slave holders and it would have become a conveinience probably. After a while that segregation would have heightened racism. But thats not the way it started out. So another question can be asked here. Are black people ashamed of other blacks who enslaved their own.. or ashamed of Muslims who sold black slaves and made this the normal condition around the world before white people got involved?
Actually I don't think they need be ashamed at all. thats just the history of what happened. Black people today have absolutely nothing to do with that. No reason to appologize

Pure bullshit and an example of what A just pointed out.

See wadda I mean?

 

[IM2]

"ORIGIN OF THE WORD 'SLAVE'"
[Middle English sclave, from Old French esclave, from Medieval Latin sclvus, from Sclvus, Slav (from the widespread enslavement of captured Slavs in the early Middle Ages); see Slav.]
Word History: The derivation of the word slave encapsulates a bit of European history and explains why the two words slaves and Slavs are so similar; they are, in fact, historically identical. The word slave first appears in English around 1290, spelled sclave. The spelling is based on Old French esclave from Medieval Latin sclavus, "Slav, slave," first recorded around 800. Sclavus comes from Byzantine Greek sklabos (pronounced sklävs) "Slav," which appears around 580. Sklavos approximates the Slavs' own name for themselves, the Slovnci, surviving in English Slovene and Slovenian. The spelling of English slave, closer to its original Slavic form, first appears in English in 1538. Slavs became slaves around the beginning of the ninth century when the Holy Roman Empire tried to stabilize a German-Slav frontier. By the 12th century stabilization had given way to wars of expansion and extermination that did not end until the Poles crushed the Teutonic Knights at Grunwald in 1410. · As far as the Slavs' own self-designation goes, its meaning is, understandably, better than "slave"; it comes from the Indo-European root *kleu-, whose basic meaning is "to hear" and occurs in many derivatives meaning "renown, fame." The Slavs are thus "the famous people." Slavic names ending in -slav incorporate the same word, such as Czech Bohu-slav, "God's fame," Russian Msti-slav, "vengeful fame," and Polish Stani-slaw, "famous for withstanding (enemies)."The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

WHERE DID THE ORIGIN OF THE WORD 'SLAVE' REALLY COME FROM??? (INTERESTING INFO)

And for you whites who want to doubt that, here is the word from a white sourcw.

- slave adjective
Word History In the Middle Ages, Germanic people fought and raided other peoples, especially the Slavic peoples to the east. They took a great many captives there and sold them as slaves throughout Europe. The Slavic people were so common as slaves that writers of the time used the Latin word for "Slav," Sclavus, to mean "a personal slave." The Latin word became sclave in Middle English and then slave in Modern English. Of course slavery and slaves had existed long before the Middle Ages. The ancient Romans used the Latin word servus for "slave." This Latin word is the ancestor of our word servant. In French, servus became serf and was used for a slave who belonged to a piece of land rather than to an individual. Serf has continued to mean this in both French and English, although serfs themselves no longer exist.

Definition of slave - Merriam-Webster's Student Dictionary

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Germanic people fought and raided other peoples

And we worshiped Thor and Odin and fought to the death in battle to secure our place in Valhalla!!!




White people rule the motherfucking world!!!




Being an Alabama football fan must be like being white.

 

[jillian]

Pretty much all whites are violent. When I say "threat" I mean a threat to out succeed you whites which is what the topic is about. Are you embarrassed and angry your founding fathers and subsequent leadership thought so little of whites they had to develop systems to keep Blacks down so you could have a head start?

All whites are violent? I would not think you would stoop that low to stereotype others. You don't know all whites. Most of the violent crimes committed anywhere I have ever lived have not been by whites.

Whites as a race are violent and no. There is no equal for violence when it comes to white people. They are the supreme masters of violence. Name one atrocity whites have not committed that is worse. Whites are the only race to wipe another race off the planet.

Rwanda, 1994.

Really? You do realize whites killed 6 million people that were white like them. How many died in Rwanda? Way less than that.

Hitler had E1b1b haplogroup which presumably comes from Africa, now why is that?

I’m not sure how anyone would know that. I will, however, point out that ashkinazi jews came through North Africa and hitler’s grandmother was Jewish

 

[jillian]

Germanic people fought and raided other peoples

And we worshiped Thor and Odin and fought to the death in battle to secure our place in Valhalla!!!




White people rule the motherfucking world!!!




Being an Alabama football fan must be like being white.

You sound pretty nuts. And who runs the world seems to ebb
And flow, doesn’t it now, silly boy?

 

[Yarddog]

Are you as a man ashamed your type has had at least a 100,000 year head start on women? who have been kept under a mans thumb pretty much from the begining of time actually? how in the fuck are they ever going to catch up? Whats with the whole "head start" concept anyway? Are we running a race against each other? or should we simply be trying to live together as human beings? seems to me the point of this thread is like many on USMB. simply finding another way to be divisive. thats about it. I dont tell any man he needs to be ashamed simply for the color that he is born. Thats obviously your job around here though isnt it?. glad you have an important role to fill.

That may be true of the white race but its definitely not true of the Black race. The Black race has had woman leaders, all women armies, queens, teachers etc etc. We understand instinctively that we are equal parts in a circle. Very similar to my avatar.

Thats exactly what I want to know. Whats with the need for your founders and subsequent leaders to create a headstart for members of your race? What were they afraid of? Why didnt they feel that whites could succeed without holding back Blacks and other races? If whites wanted to simply live together in harmony they would not be such a bellicose race. If you think asking a question is being divisive then you must be caught up in your feelings. I simply wanted to know if white people were embarrassed by the legislated head start they were granted. If you have a problem with that then dont read the thread. If you chose to read it anyway then thats your issue. There was no part of my OP that told people how to feel. I simply asked a question.

"arent you kind of pissed off that your white leadership thought so very very little of your ability to succeed on a level playing field?"

On this point I will say no, because I doubt that thought even crossed their minds. This level playing field concept is a view that we now have today as we look back on history. Those people.. the Europeans and Colonists were not interested so much in keeping others down but THAT was a direct consequence of their Intense competition with other European Nations. The British and Spanish used slavery as just one more resource to aquire great wealth for their respective royalties. Were they greedy ? hell yes. Do I like that? No... greed for material wealth at the expense of someone else's soul is pretty shallow. do I like slavery? no way what so ever .... But I recognize your thread as just another way to put down America... at least that's the way I see it. Maybe I'm wrong.

Now Bear brought up a good point about early slavery in the US. when it first started, white and black slaves alike would earn their freedom after so many years. It was more like indentured servitude, and the British early on enslaved people if they were not Christian... it wasn't so much because of their color until things later changed.

In that respect, Early slavery in the colonies was much like the slavery in Africa and the middle east that you have seemed to accept as a higher form of slavery in your past threads. I mean, you hold no animosity for Arabs or Africans because you have stated in the past that they treated their slaves with respect ( though, that point can be argued in many cases)

What early slavery Devolved into... and the racism that developed as people were kept segregated by this slavery was something quite horrendous. But that devolvement was not some grand scheme by white people ... it was something that just happened incrementally one step at a time over years due to the circumstances.. and peoples greed.

Now, If earlier forms of slavery such as the ones in Africa and the ME ( which you seem to be cozy with) did not exist, there would have been no slavery in the US whatsoever because it would not have been the world norm. So trying to pin some sort of genetic guilt on whites as you normally do doesn't work for me.

Am I ashamed of The founding fathers? No, i have no direct lineage to them.. and no emotional link to them, so its pretty hard to be ashamed. I don't like the way a lot of history played out for so many people but it just is what it is.

I missed this.

Of course it crossed their minds. Thats why they did it. Are you claiming they had no thoughts on the other races? I am not putting down america. There are other races in america in case you havent noticed. I am asking if whites were upset.or embarrassed the founders and subsequent leaders thought so low of whites abilities they gave them a head start?

When Blacks and whites could earn their freedom that was before the institution of chattel slavery took hold.and it wasnt slavery. It was indentured servitude very similiar to what occurred in Africa. Why was chattel slavery only applied to Blacks? Your mention of indentured servitude stands as proof whites thought they had to grant other whites a head start. If they made a law that whites could not be enslaved then that means they were consciously thinking about it.

When the British Crown had colonies all over the world including what is now the US, they were interested in getting a head start over the French and the Spanish and maybe the Dutch. They wanted their colonies to make them rich. Not defending that action, but they had two choices, either send their own people or enslaved Irish to do the labour needed, or enslave local indiginous people to do the work , or send Africans who had been enslaved for that purpose. They enslaved people often under the excuse that they were not Christian, just as Muslims enslaved non- muslims. People weren't enslaved just because because they were Black. There were black slaves around long before the British got involved. Why is it that Muslims had to travel to Africa to get slaves?

Slavery devolved for the worse later on and then it became very racial. Theres a lot of reasons for that including the fact that it was easier to keep slaves around who looked different than you did... probably easier to keep track of for slave holders and it would have become a conveinience probably. After a while that segregation would have heightened racism. But thats not the way it started out. So another question can be asked here. Are black people ashamed of other blacks who enslaved their own.. or ashamed of Muslims who sold black slaves and made this the normal condition around the world before white people got involved?
Actually I don't think they need be ashamed at all. thats just the history of what happened. Black people today have absolutely nothing to do with that. No reason to appologize

Pure bullshit and an example of what A just pointed out.

Absolutely NOT bullshit. Are you trying to say slavery in the US started out as Chattel slavery in year 1600? well, black slaves early on were given their freedom, so why was that then? You do realize much of colonialism was to make the British crown rich , right? or do you think that is bullshit?