Blacks and whites don't know each other well ... at all.

[MikeK]

I don't really think that in the human world conquest and dominance is such a natural thing.

Then why has it been happening throughout history? How do you think nations are formed?

Second you must have something of value to offer on order for someone to want to colonize your country. African nations did not need to colonize because resources were plentiful on the continent.

Yes. Like selling other Africans as slaves.

 

[MikeK]

Racism a global system of people who classify themselves as "White" and are dedicated to mistreating/subjugating everyone they classify as not "White" for their (White people's) benefit.

There was a time when Muslims (then called, Moslems) sought to dominate the Western world and did succeed to some extent, during which time their brutal cruelties, their total subjugation and mistreatment of the Western peoples they'd conquered, remain as historical legends and were the motivation for nine Holy Crusades. So dominance is by no means an exclusively White province. It is in fact as natural an occurrence as the changing influences of weather and it occurs within the purview of every animal species. One will always dominate.

While it may be said that slavery is the embodiment of subjugation and mistreatment it must be noted that slavery in America was not effected by White people, alone. The Black African slaves who arrived in America were brought here by mainly Arab (Muslim) traders who had purchased them from other Black African tribesmen who had captured and sold their fellow ("brother" and "sister") Blacks into slavery. But while this does not excuse the cruelty of those White Americans who brutally exploited their captive slaves it must be noted that the practice was limited to a specific region and was denounced by a substantial percentage of the total White American population.

At its core, White Supremacy is about the White collective's ability to function in an organized, codified manner for the benefit of the entire unit. White people are effective individually because they are effective collectively.

Can't argue with that.

In anthropological terms this kind of cooperative efficiency is the key to survival of and dominance by any animal species or sub-species. Right now, in the world of human animals, the White sub-species is being threatened by a non-White sub-species (Muslims, again). If the Muslims are successful there is sufficient evidence in history to assure you that the "subjugation" and "mistreatment" you've referred to will take on new meaning and will make White people seem like soft and gentle souls by comparison.

All this is wrong.

Really, Professor? Then how about correcting it point by point.

Or is it all wrong because you don't like it?

 

[beagle9]

Having read your messages I'm convinced you are intelligent. So I wonder if you will agree that the word, racism, is broadly over-used and that it means different things to different people. And I'd like you to tell me what that word means to you. I'm asking this question because I honestly don't know if those Blacks who call me a racist are right or not.

Thanks in advance for an honest reply..

Racism a global system of people who classify themselves as "White" and are dedicated to mistreating/subjugating everyone they classify as not "White" for their (White people's) benefit.

At its core, White Supremacy is about the White collective's ability to function in an organized, codified manner for the benefit of the entire unit. White people are effective individually because they are effective collectively.

. Do the blacks at their core want to replace so called white supremacy with black supremacy eventually ??? Do tell how you suppose this will be the case in your near future. Are you creating this supremacy Boogeyman for your way of getting ahead somehow in life by such means ? Was the federal government supposed to be your advocate and strong arm to muscle it all done ? Enough with the stupid racism talk, and tell us how you really feel.

 

[flacaltenn]

Paul was talking about the colonization of Africa and you knew exactly when that was. 250 years ago Africa had sovereign nations and were in charge of them. The place we call America had existing nations in it all with their own boundaries with people in charge. The same goes for South America. So your claim of power and control being concentrated in a few hands is historically incorrect.

Absolutely not. I AM historically correct. All that Colonization and indigenous abuse in the Caribbean and Africa happened under Monarchies. Which IS the ultimate form of Power and Authority. Wasn't until 250 years ago or so that MOST of that started to change.

It took awhile to dissipate. Some clinging on into the 20th Century. Like Zimbabwe, South Africa, etc. But the French, German, Spanish, Dutch, Portugese, British Monarchies started to DIE ----- only about 250 years ago..

WHITE people didn't control those Empires. MONARCHS did. And they did it for political and economic domination reasons. Had more to do with Global hegemony and balance of Euro Power, than it did about benefiting any one particular "white person".

Just like "white people" didn't BUILD the segregated govt housing post-war in the US. The Federal Govt made those calls. When you discuss what power any "white" person HAD in those episodes, any one or groups of them had VERY LITTLE influence on those outcomes.

So when you declare the guilt of EVERY White person, you need to realize WHAT POWER they were capable of exerting. AND WHEN they exerted that power.. The role of governments and the evolution of Democracy determined a very key role in systemic abuses that you RIGHTFULLY are angry about.

Lots of White folks decided to forcibly tear the USA from a Monarchy. For damn good reasons. Just like those Euro African colonies had to do. Same general trajectory of History for BOTH of us. The TIMELINE IS important.

 

[MikeK]

There was a time when whites could say anything to black people and they knew black people could not do anything about it.

Yes, there was such a time. But that time is past and the rules that enabled it have been changed -- largely by the efforts of White people.

The reason white people do not do it now is simply because the white supremacist is a coward. O sure, they are big and bad when the odds are in their favour.

Did you live through the slavery or Jim Crow eras? Have you ever been personally oppressed by a White person?

But yes, if you were or any white man was to get in my face. You have picked on the wrong black man. In Jujitsu, we have soft hand techniques such as joint locks, which are extremely painful and very effective.

These can be used as an effective way to stop a white boy who wants to cause trouble and this would happen with no/little residual damage. Since it is a defensive technique and no overt physical moves (like punches) are made, law enforcement would have a very difficult time proving any type of violence occurred.

I really don't know what you mean by, "get in my face," but the bitterness you've expressed here suggests that you spend a lot if time learning ways to hurt Whites without leaving any evidence. Have you been personally harmed by Whites sufficiently to justify this preoccupation with defensive violence? Or can it be your anger is vindictive in nature and is rooted in a hatred you harbor for White people because of their real or imagined social privileges?

Whatever the reason I can say you are the type of Black whom I do my best to avoid any contact with, social or otherwise, because your state of mind produces a subtle, deep, but perceptibly hostile vibe.

 

[beagle9]

Paul was talking about the colonization of Africa and you knew exactly when that was. 250 years ago Africa had sovereign nations and were in charge of them. The place we call America had existing nations in it all with their own boundaries with people in charge. The same goes for South America. So your claim of power and control being concentrated in a few hands is historically incorrect.

Absolutely not. I AM historically correct. All that Colonization and indigenous abuse in the Caribbean and Africa happened under Monarchies. Which IS the ultimate form of Power and Authority. Wasn't until 250 years ago or so that MOST of that started to change.

It took awhile to dissipate. Some clinging on into the 20th Century. Like Zimbabwe, South Africa, etc. But the French, German, Spanish, Dutch, Portugese, British Monarchies started to DIE ----- only about 250 years ago..

WHITE people didn't control those Empires. MONARCHS did. And they did it for political and economic domination reasons. Had more to do with Global hegemony and balance of Euro Power, than it did about benefiting any one particular "white person".

Just like "white people" didn't BUILD the segregated govt housing post-war in the US. The Federal Govt made those calls. When you discuss what power any "white" person HAD in those episodes, any one or groups of them had VERY LITTLE influence on those outcomes.

So when you declare the guilt of EVERY White person, you need to realize WHAT POWER they were capable of exerting. AND WHEN they exerted that power.. The role of governments and the evolution of Democracy determined a very key role in systemic abuses that you RIGHTFULLY are angry about.

Lots of White folks decided to forcibly tear the USA from a Monarchy. For damn good reasons. Just like those Euro African colonies had to do. Same general trajectory of History for BOTH of us. The TIMELINE IS important.

. Let's just hope that blacks like the poster you are talking with, don't make us regret the day we ever stood up for anyone like him (not knowing how he or anyone like him thinks). I have hope for black Americans progress over the years, but it is important to recognize those blacks who want to destroy that progress in lue of their black supremacy thinking, and their black supremacy agenda.

 

[beagle9]

There was a time when whites could say anything to black people and they knew black people could not do anything about it.

Yes, there was such a time. But that time is past and the rules that enabled it have been changed -- largely by the efforts of White people.

The reason white people do not do it now is simply because the white supremacist is a coward. O sure, they are big and bad when the odds are in their favour.

Did you live through the slavery or Jim Crow eras? Have you ever been personally oppressed by a White person?

But yes, if you were or any white man was to get in my face. You have picked on the wrong black man. In Jujitsu, we have soft hand techniques such as joint locks, which are extremely painful and very effective.

These can be used as an effective way to stop a white boy who wants to cause trouble and this would happen with no/little residual damage. Since it is a defensive technique and no overt physical moves (like punches) are made, law enforcement would have a very difficult time proving any type of violence occurred.

I really don't know what you mean by, "get in my face," but the bitterness you've expressed here suggests that you spend a lot if time learning ways to hurt Whites without leaving any evidence. Have you been personally harmed by Whites sufficiently to justify this preoccupation with defensive violence? Or can it be your anger is vindictive in nature and is rooted in a hatred you harbor for White people because of their real or imagined social privileges?

Whatever the reason I can say you are the type of Black whom I do my best to avoid any contact with, social or otherwise, because your state of mind produces a subtle, deep, but perceptibly hostile vibe.

. And if you were a business owner, and was looking to hire a good employee, would this person be a good candidate for the position ?? I'm guessing you would say no. Ok, so then if you said no, then would he inturn use your not hiring him (because of his hostile attitude towards whites), to then say that you have held him back for no good reason other than his skin color ?? This is how messed up this bullcrap can get, but then no one takes personal responsibility for their attitudes afterwards. Sad for everyone (all colors) that are trying hard, and are working together these days.

 

[MikeK]

And if you were a business owner, and was looking to hire a good employee, would this person be a good candidate for the position ?? I'm guessing you would say no. Ok, so then if you said no, then would he inturn use your not hiring him (because of his hostile attitude towards whites), to then say that you have held him back for no good reason other than his skin color ?? This is how messed up this bullcrap can get, but then no one takes personal responsibility for their attitudes afterwards. Sad for everyone (all colors) that are trying hard, and are working together these days.

A substantial percentage of contemporary Black Americans have increasingly managed to secure comfortable middle-class lifestyles for themselves. A smaller but significant number of American Blacks have acquired enviable wealth. Some have risen to corporate executive levels while others have become influential politicians, ranking as high as the Presidency. Still others have become doctors, lawyers, judges and police chiefs. In spite of this impressive level of achievement by a formerly oppressed class of Americans there remains an even greater percentage of Blacks who insist to themselves and to the world that their failure to achieve is the consequence of White privilege and continued oppression of Blacks by White society.

What concerns me is the level of intense hatred of White people by younger generations of Blacks which is manifest in the increasing number of brutal attacks on vulnerable Whites.






Us Crime in Black & White by YouPplAreNuts - Infogram

 

[IM2]

Paul was talking about the colonization of Africa and you knew exactly when that was. 250 years ago Africa had sovereign nations and were in charge of them. The place we call America had existing nations in it all with their own boundaries with people in charge. The same goes for South America. So your claim of power and control being concentrated in a few hands is historically incorrect.

Absolutely not. I AM historically correct. All that Colonization and indigenous abuse in the Caribbean and Africa happened under Monarchies. Which IS the ultimate form of Power and Authority. Wasn't until 250 years ago or so that MOST of that started to change.

It took awhile to dissipate. Some clinging on into the 20th Century. Like Zimbabwe, South Africa, etc. But the French, German, Spanish, Dutch, Portugese, British Monarchies started to DIE ----- only about 250 years ago..

WHITE people didn't control those Empires. MONARCHS did. And they did it for political and economic domination reasons. Had more to do with Global hegemony and balance of Euro Power, than it did about benefiting any one particular "white person".

Just like "white people" didn't BUILD the segregated govt housing post-war in the US. The Federal Govt made those calls. When you discuss what power any "white" person HAD in those episodes, any one or groups of them had VERY LITTLE influence on those outcomes.

So when you declare the guilt of EVERY White person, you need to realize WHAT POWER they were capable of exerting. AND WHEN they exerted that power.. The role of governments and the evolution of Democracy determined a very key role in systemic abuses that you RIGHTFULLY are angry about.

Lots of White folks decided to forcibly tear the USA from a Monarchy. For damn good reasons. Just like those Euro African colonies had to do. Same general trajectory of History for BOTH of us. The TIMELINE IS important.

Flacaltenn you need to stop making excuses. I know what I am saying. I know full well who had the authority, The Berlin Conference was not 250 years ago. And when I say whites I mean whites. I know exactly what power they were capable of exerting. And when they exerted that power. on a governmental and individual basis. The government did not kill Emmitt Till. for example. The government did not sanction the burning down of Rosewood Florida or Tulsa Oklahoma's black communities. These were acts carried out by individuals most of who had little money and those you would consider powerless.

All Whites.

 

[Paul Essien]

Click on the link in my Signature Line (below) and you'll see what I mean in brilliant color.

OK. So are you saying that Muslims are going to take over European nations ?

By any means necessary.

What does that mean ? If you're going talk tough then back it up. Be clear

So non-white immigrants to Europe should be rounded up and killed ?

Again, go to the link in my Signature Line. If what you see doesn't answer your question you've been living in a really bad ghetto for far too long.

I'm asking you to be a man and speak in your own words, not chicken and pass me on to some link on youtube

For one thing it is the culture which has provided the highest standard of living for Blacks compared with any other nation in the world. It's time you acknowledged that

What's black people go to do with it ?

I'm asking you what is white western culture, the fact that you can only answer that in regards to black people is telling and something that every white person who I have asked this question does the same.

I cam remember a few years ago they asked white folks and black and other people of color what they like about being black, white, or whatever they in fact may be.

For blk people the answers always have to do with the pride they feel, coming from families who have struggled against the odds, fought injustice, persevered, and maintained dignity in the face of great obstacles.

In other words, to be black has internal meaning, derived from the positive actions and experiences of black people themselves. Variations on the same theme tend to be expressed by Latinos, Asians and Indigenous peoples as well.

But for whites ? If they can come up with anything, it is typically something about how nice it is not to have to worry about being racially profiled by police, or how nice it is not to be presumed less competent by employers, or discriminated against when applying for a loan, or looking for a home.

In other words, for whites, your self-definition is wrapped up entirely in terms of what and who you aren’t.

What it means to be white is merely to not be black.

 

[Paul Essien]

There was a time when Muslims (then called, Moslems) sought to dominate the Western world and did succeed to some extent, during which time their brutal cruelties, their total subjugation and mistreatment of the Western peoples they'd conquered, remain as historical legends and were the motivation for nine Holy Crusades. So dominance is by no means an exclusively White province. It is in fact as natural an occurrence as the changing influences of weather and it occurs within the purview of every animal species. One will always dominate.

Being evil to a group of people and being racist are not necessarily the same thing.

But If racism is so natural in human nature as your like to point out. Why don’t we see animals behaving in a racist manner?

So if white cats went around fighting “other” black cats this would make sense to you ?

You haven’t really thought this through have you???

It may be natural for everyone to see and label “others” but is it natural to BELIEVE that you are BETTER or SUPERIOR to those “others” ???

You could just as well form the belief that you were INFERIOR to “others”.

Why not?

Racism is not built into human nature. If it were we would see it in the Bible, we would see it in the Greeks. Both the Jews and the Greeks divided the world into an us and a them, but neither used race to do it: the Jews used religion and the Greeks used language. The colour of your skin meant little to them.

Second, there is no reason for racism to be wired into our brains by evolution: coming across people of other races was rare till the last few thousand years. Not enough time to affect evolution. Europeans did not even think of themselves as “white” till about 1500: race as we know it is a side effect of ocean travel.

Even in America blacks were made into slaves at first because of religion: they were not Christians. Race as an excuse came later, not till the 1660s.

It was only when race became an excuse for keeping blacks as slaves and taking land from the American Indians, only when society was built on skin colour, that racism began to seem part of the “natural” order of things.

While it may be said that slavery is the embodiment of subjugation and mistreatment it must be noted that slavery in America was not effected by White people, alone. The Black African slaves who arrived in America were brought here by mainly Arab (Muslim) traders who had purchased them from other Black African tribesmen who had captured and sold their fellow ("brother" and "sister") Blacks into slavery. But while this does not excuse the cruelty of those White Americans who brutally exploited their captive slaves it must be noted that the practice was limited to a specific region and was denounced by a substantial percentage of the total White American population.

And here is the hypocrisy.

When whites do something good like inventions ?

History does not matter and you don’t look for black people who have done the same thing

When white people do something bad like slavery ?

History now matters and you look for black people who have done the same thing

You want to claim and take pride in the good things from what whites have done in the past (inventions made, battles won, rights fought for) but then act as if the bad things whites have done nothing to do with them, like slavery, genocide and rights not fought for. But you cannot have it both ways.

If the great inventions are proof of the intelligence of whites, then surely slavery and genocide are proof of the great evil of whites.

You cannot claim one without the other.

Or if slavery and genocide came about through the workings of human nature under a particular set of circumstances – if anyone else would have done the same thing – then the same goes for the inventions too.

In anthropological terms this kind of cooperative efficiency is the key to survival of and dominance by any animal species or sub-species. Right now, in the world of human animals, the White sub-species is being threatened by a non-White sub-species (Muslims, again).

What are you talking about sub species ?

There is only one species of human and that's Homo Sapiens

DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans. While different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair colour can be identified between individuals.

No consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another. It has never been a case of there not being differences between the way human beings look.

The trouble is in the imprecise taxonomy. How do you define a “race” and might there not be other equally valid ways of dividing humans into taxonomical groupings?

Many scientists worked hard (REAL HARD) on finding working definition of race as a biological fact.

They all failed.

They all failed not because genetic differences can’t be observed between various humans (after all, if there weren’t mDNA differences, we wouldn’t know much about human maternal ancestry).

They all failed because genetic differences do not support social races, races that divide people into (pardon my words) “black”, “white”, “yellow” and “red”.

The only living subspecies of the species Homo sapiens is Homo sapiens sapiens. That is current scientific knowledge. And it is very likely to remain the only one, unless Sasquatch or the Yeti decide to walk into a science lab for a DNA test one day.

There is a reason why blood transfusions and bone marrow transplants work. This is why a “black ” persons blood can save an white Irishman’s life with a transfusion and vice versa Some blood types have an affinity for certain groups of people…but the genes are the same.

If I can classify 100,000 humans as a race and then discover that the genetic diversity between any two of them is as great or greater than the diversity between any one of them and any other random human on the planet, then no, we don’t have a biological subspecies, no matter what those people look like.

And - NO - It's not because we are all the same.

There are persistent and real genetic differences that cluster within racial groups and more so than many believed.

Yet these differences still fall far short of indicating sub-speciation, which is the normal standard used by biologists to indicate different “races” or breeds of a larger species.

Now if you have amazing ground breaking evidence to show me and wack youtube historians don't count, then I'd like to see it.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[Mudda]

Whites know blacks for their generally inferior intellect, and their superior athletic skills. Blacks haven't figured that out yet.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

There was a time when Muslims (then called, Moslems) sought to dominate the Western world and did succeed to some extent, during which time their brutal cruelties, their total subjugation and mistreatment of the Western peoples they'd conquered, remain as historical legends and were the motivation for nine Holy Crusades. So dominance is by no means an exclusively White province. It is in fact as natural an occurrence as the changing influences of weather and it occurs within the purview of every animal species. One will always dominate.

But If racism is so natural in human nature as your like to point out. Why don’t we see animals behaving in a racist manner?

So if white cats went around fighting “other” black cats this would make sense to you ?

.

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

That's because those Cats live in people's houses, and don't have to fend for themselves.

There's similar Animals fighting in packs over resources, that is more along the lines of Racism.

Actually Nature can be more cruel than that, some Animals eat other Animals.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

w

There was a time when Muslims (then called, Moslems) sought to dominate the Western world and did succeed to some extent, during which time their brutal cruelties, their total subjugation and mistreatment of the Western peoples they'd conquered, remain as historical legends and were the motivation for nine Holy Crusades. So dominance is by no means an exclusively White province. It is in fact as natural an occurrence as the changing influences of weather and it occurs within the purview of every animal species. One will always dominate.

There is only one species of human and that's Homo Sapiens

DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans. While different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair colour can be identified between individuals.

No consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another. It has never been a case of there not being differences between the way human beings look.

The trouble is in the imprecise taxonomy. How do you define a “race” and might there not be other equally valid ways of dividing humans into taxonomical groupings?

Many scientists worked hard (REAL HARD) on finding working definition of race as a biological fact.

They all failed.

They all failed not because genetic differences can’t be observed between various humans (after all, if there weren’t mDNA differences, we wouldn’t know much about human maternal ancestry).

They all failed because genetic differences do not support social races, races that divide people into (pardon my words) “black”, “white”, “yellow” and “red”.

The only living subspecies of the species Homo sapiens is Homo sapiens sapiens. That is current scientific knowledge. And it is very likely to remain the only one, unless Sasquatch or the Yeti decide to walk into a science lab for a DNA test one day.

There is a reason why blood transfusions and bone marrow transplants work. This is why a “black ” persons blood can save an white Irishman’s life with a transfusion and vice versa Some blood types have an affinity for certain groups of people…but the genes are the same.

If I can classify 100,000 humans as a race and then discover that the genetic diversity between any two of them is as great or greater than the diversity between any one of them and any other random human on the planet, then no, we don’t have a biological subspecies, no matter what those people look like.

And - NO - It's not because we are all the same.

There are persistent and real genetic differences that cluster within racial groups and more so than many believed.

Yet these differences still fall far short of indicating sub-speciation, which is the normal standard used by biologists to indicate different “races” or breeds of a larger species.

Now if you have amazing ground breaking evidence to show me and wack youtube historians don't count, then I'd like to see it.

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

These scientists are hypocritical, and just plain odd when it comes to defining sub-species.

For example Plains Coyotes who moved out from the Middle of America around the mid 20th century, had already created separate sub-species by moving else where in the U.S.

 

[MikeK]

Being evil to a group of people and being racist are not necessarily the same thing.

You are using terms ("evil" and "racist") which have no place in scientific examination.

But If racism is so natural in human nature as your like to point out. Why don’t we see animals behaving in a racist manner?

Because the word, "race" has not been synonymously applied to any "lesser" animal sub-species. Its use is confined to the human species for the express purpose of distinguishing humans from "lesser" animals. Race (human categorization) - Wikipedia

So if white cats went around fighting “other” black cats this would make sense to you ?

There are many sub-species within the (feline) cat species. Color is by no means the singular characteristic in distinguishing the various sub-species. You are citing hair (fur) color as being a determinant, which it is not. E.g., my hair is (was) blond. My late wife's hair was jet black. Two of our three daughters' hair is blond while one has brown hair.

So the color of a cat's hair, alone, does not determine its sub-species anymore than skin color, alone, determines a human's sub-species ("race"). E.g., East-Indian people are the same (or closely similar) color as Africans but they are not Negroes. https://www.quora.com/What-race-do-Asian-Indians-belong-to

It may be natural for everyone to see and label “others” but is it natural to BELIEVE that you are BETTER or SUPERIOR to those “others” ???

You could just as well form the belief that you were INFERIOR to “others”.

How about just different?

But if you have a problem with the concepts of superior and inferior, some people are superior or inferior to others in either individual or collective ways. E.g., the Asian I.Q. is generally higher (superior to) that of the Caucasian I.Q. And Negroes are superior to Caucasians and Mongoloids (Asians) at basketball, track, and high-jumping.

 

[flacaltenn]

Paul was talking about the colonization of Africa and you knew exactly when that was. 250 years ago Africa had sovereign nations and were in charge of them. The place we call America had existing nations in it all with their own boundaries with people in charge. The same goes for South America. So your claim of power and control being concentrated in a few hands is historically incorrect.

Absolutely not. I AM historically correct. All that Colonization and indigenous abuse in the Caribbean and Africa happened under Monarchies. Which IS the ultimate form of Power and Authority. Wasn't until 250 years ago or so that MOST of that started to change.

It took awhile to dissipate. Some clinging on into the 20th Century. Like Zimbabwe, South Africa, etc. But the French, German, Spanish, Dutch, Portugese, British Monarchies started to DIE ----- only about 250 years ago..

WHITE people didn't control those Empires. MONARCHS did. And they did it for political and economic domination reasons. Had more to do with Global hegemony and balance of Euro Power, than it did about benefiting any one particular "white person".

Just like "white people" didn't BUILD the segregated govt housing post-war in the US. The Federal Govt made those calls. When you discuss what power any "white" person HAD in those episodes, any one or groups of them had VERY LITTLE influence on those outcomes.

So when you declare the guilt of EVERY White person, you need to realize WHAT POWER they were capable of exerting. AND WHEN they exerted that power.. The role of governments and the evolution of Democracy determined a very key role in systemic abuses that you RIGHTFULLY are angry about.

Lots of White folks decided to forcibly tear the USA from a Monarchy. For damn good reasons. Just like those Euro African colonies had to do. Same general trajectory of History for BOTH of us. The TIMELINE IS important.

Flacaltenn you need to stop making excuses. I know what I am saying. I know full well who had the authority, The Berlin Conference was not 250 years ago. And when I say whites I mean whites. I know exactly what power they were capable of exerting. And when they exerted that power. on a governmental and individual basis. The government did not kill Emmitt Till. for example. The government did not sanction the burning down of Rosewood Florida or Tulsa Oklahoma's black communities. These were acts carried out by individuals most of who had little money and those you would consider powerless.

All Whites.

But you're talking about mostly 20th Century events. And we're arguing about it being necessary to specify TIME periods in order to UNDERSTAND who is responsible for the damages. The damages in the 18th Century do not have the SAME perpetrators and the damages in the 20th Century. That's WHY i weighed in -- when you claimed for Paul --- that TIMELINE DIDN'T MATTER.. It does....

What you want to do is put it ALL in the same racism against ALL whites -- over ALL time.. And that's just a simpleton view of the DAMAGES and the lessons to be learned.

 

[Unkotare]

Paul was talking about the colonization of Africa and you knew exactly when that was. 250 years ago Africa had sovereign nations and were in charge of them. The place we call America had existing nations in it all with their own boundaries with people in charge. The same goes for South America. So your claim of power and control being concentrated in a few hands is historically incorrect.

Absolutely not. I AM historically correct. All that Colonization and indigenous abuse in the Caribbean and Africa happened under Monarchies. Which IS the ultimate form of Power and Authority. Wasn't until 250 years ago or so that MOST of that started to change.

It took awhile to dissipate. Some clinging on into the 20th Century. Like Zimbabwe, South Africa, etc. But the French, German, Spanish, Dutch, Portugese, British Monarchies started to DIE ----- only about 250 years ago..

WHITE people didn't control those Empires. MONARCHS did. And they did it for political and economic domination reasons. Had more to do with Global hegemony and balance of Euro Power, than it did about benefiting any one particular "white person".

Just like "white people" didn't BUILD the segregated govt housing post-war in the US. The Federal Govt made those calls. When you discuss what power any "white" person HAD in those episodes, any one or groups of them had VERY LITTLE influence on those outcomes.

So when you declare the guilt of EVERY White person, you need to realize WHAT POWER they were capable of exerting. AND WHEN they exerted that power.. The role of governments and the evolution of Democracy determined a very key role in systemic abuses that you RIGHTFULLY are angry about.

Lots of White folks decided to forcibly tear the USA from a Monarchy. For damn good reasons. Just like those Euro African colonies had to do. Same general trajectory of History for BOTH of us. The TIMELINE IS important.

Flacaltenn you need to stop making excuses. I know what I am saying. I know full well who had the authority, The Berlin Conference was not 250 years ago. And when I say whites I mean whites. I know exactly what power they were capable of exerting. And when they exerted that power. on a governmental and individual basis. The government did not kill Emmitt Till. for example. The government did not sanction the burning down of Rosewood Florida or Tulsa Oklahoma's black communities. These were acts carried out by individuals most of who had little money and those you would consider powerless.

All Whites.

But you're talking about mostly 20th Century events. And we're arguing about it being necessary to specify TIME periods in order to UNDERSTAND who is responsible for the damages. The damages in the 18th Century do not have the SAME perpetrators and the damages in the 20th Century. That's WHY i weighed in -- when you claimed for Paul --- that TIMELINE DIDN'T MATTER.. It does....

What you want to do is put it ALL in the same racism against ALL whites -- over ALL time.. And that's just a simpleton view of the DAMAGES and the lessons to be learned.

According to the apparent reasoning of the Platinum Victim Card holder, we may consider the following:

If a man robbed a treasury of a great store of gold in around the year 1500, he would have greatly enriched himself and his immediate family. This family may have used the gold to establish a thriving business, or several highly profitable enterprises that could, in theory, have enriched his ancestors considerably over all succeeding generations.

Considering how many descendants that thief would likely have since 1500, by the reasoning of our esteemed card holder's thinking, justice could not be served unless between 1 and 64 million people (more, depending on the calculation and fecundity of the family line) were imprisoned today and made to pay restitution.

 

[ptbw forever]

So if white cats went around fighting “other” black cats this would make sense to you ?

Are you seriously an idiot? How does fur(animal hair)compare to skin color, distinctive facial features and different skeletal structures?

Do you think blondes, brunettes and redhead have ever considered "fighting" each other in mass solely because of hair color?

You do realize that cats usually have a litter consisting of various fur colors, right?

Racism is not built into human nature. If it were we would see it in the Bible, we would see it in the Greeks. Both

the Jews and the Greeks divided the world into an us and a them, but neither used race to do it: the Jews used religion and the Greeks used language. The colour of your skin meant little to them

This is an extremely inaccurate statement about both the Greeks and the Jews.

Greeks considered Northern Europeans inferior to them and frequently mentioned the fact that Northern Europeans were lighter skinned while insulting them(this is when Greeks were much lighter than they are today)while Jews largely still consider every non-Jew as inferior to them.

 

[MikeK]

Racism is not built into human nature. If it were we would see it in the Bible, we would see it in the Greeks. Both the Jews and the Greeks divided the world into an us and a them, but neither used race to do it: the Jews used religion and the Greeks used language. The colour of your skin meant little to them.

Second, there is no reason for racism to be wired into our brains by evolution: coming across people of other races was rare till the last few thousand years. Not enough time to affect evolution. Europeans did not even think of themselves as “white” till about 1500: race as we know it is a side effect of ocean travel.

You persist in basing arguments on the vacuous concept of "racism," when you've never managed to substantively explain what you mean by that grossly over-used word. You also persist in referring to "skin color" as if it were the one and only distinguishing factor in identifying a sub-species, which it certainly is not.

E.g., this fellow's skin and hair color are the same as mine, but do you have any trouble identifying his sub-species ("race?")

 

[ptbw forever]

Racism is not built into human nature. If it were we would see it in the Bible, we would see it in the Greeks. Both the Jews and the Greeks divided the world into an us and a them, but neither used race to do it: the Jews used religion and the Greeks used language. The colour of your skin meant little to them.

Second, there is no reason for racism to be wired into our brains by evolution: coming across people of other races was rare till the last few thousand years. Not enough time to affect evolution. Europeans did not even think of themselves as “white” till about 1500: race as we know it is a side effect of ocean travel.

You persist in basing arguments on the vacuous concept of "racism," when you've never managed to substantively explain what you mean by that grossly over-used word. You also persist in referring to "skin color" as if it were the one and only distinguishing factor in identifying a sub-species, which it certainly is not.

E.g., this fellow's skin and hair color are the same as mine, but do you have any trouble identifying his sub-species ("race?")

I highly doubt you have the same skin color and hair color as an albino.

I know I certainly don't.