Is thinking a race is superior, racist?

[Asclepias]

You make a lot of mistakes. Think instead of being emotional.

What?

Thats right. I set out to make you consider the question. You had to consider the question in order to write a paragraph about it. After you did what I wanted you to do you were then free to do as you liked.

You know, I didn't even read the damn thing when you first posted it. After refusing to answer my question and then I read the words "Let me ask you a question...", I said to hell with that and didn't read any more of it. I didn't read it in its entirety until after about your second response to me.

Your question about the Papal Bull was in response to my questions about Rwanda, presumably because you wanted me to look at Rwanda from a different perspective or something. I read the question and the text of the bull and my opinion about Rwanda still stands and I say the Europeans were also responsible for their actions as well. In short, my position has not changed in the least so I don't know why you're gloating as if you won some kind of victory or something. You posted something on a discussion forum and somebody read it. Congratulations on your singular accomplishment.

Telling whites they are racist when they ask me a question or asking questions of whites to get their opinion doesnt mean I am bitching. Its called talking or discussion.

You refuse to answer my questions but you'll answer theirs to tell them they're racist. So tell me, have you ever responded to a question where the answer was not "You're racist" or "Whites are evil" or "Whites are the weakest race"?

Talking or discussing presumes some sort of back and forth and I've not seen that with you. You don't discuss, you preach, lecture, judge, berate and yes, bitch.

I didnt ask you when you read my question. I just said I wanted you to read it and consider it. You did that and more. Its not a bad thing.

No, it's not a bad thing but that wasn't the point. The point was that you were claiming to have "made" me read and consider the question before I had even read the entire post. My "emotional tirade", as you put it, was not in response to the question or the subject of the post but a response to the unmitigated gall of asking me a question when you refused answer mine.

My point in having you do that was to show you that people can be manipulated into doing stuff they wouldnt normally do. Europeans set those two ethinic groups against each other when history shows they got along fine prior to european invasion. They stoked the fires of resentment by creating a social order that elevated one group over the other. They poisoned their philosophies with european norms and created the Rwandan crisis.

Here's the thing, even if we could say that it wouldn't have happened without the Papal Bull, the principle of choice still applies, i.e. they chose to be manipulated. No one can be manipulated into doing anything of their own volition that goes against their better judgement and principles unless they choose to be. Also, the white colonizers in Rwanda only encouraged class division (that already existed there), not war. Even if we could lay some blame at the feet of the whites for encouraging class division, the Rwandans chose on their own to take it to the level of violence and genocide.

Whites ask a lot of dumb questions knowing full well the answer.

Speaking for myself, of course I ask questions knowing the answers. The idea is to see if you know the answer or if you are willing to more critically scrutinize your position. Your refusal to answer told me everything I needed to know about how and why you hold your viewpoints on Rwanda.

I dont like playing your games.

Let me borrow something you said and make the appropriate modifications for my personal use:

Asking questions of blacks to get their opinion or to urge them to look at their views from a more logical perspective doesn't mean I am playing games. Its called talking or discussion

So if I dont answer a question then you can safely assume its because I think youre deflecting of full of shit.

Nope, not buyin' it. There was only one way to answer the questions I posed to you. Any other answers would have made you look like a self-delusional nutball. That's why you didn't answer.

No I never made that claim. Thats something you just made up. I said I made you consider the question. You did me one better and answered it.

Isn't that what I said? The only difference is that I said "..read and consider..." Here is what you said in post #518: "No I meant to make you consider my question. Looks like you did what I wanted you to do."

*shrug*

No one makes a conscious choice to be manipulated. One can say that being manipulated means that choice is removed because the outcome is predetermined.

Choice is never removed and outcome is never predetermined. If choice can be removed and outcome can be predetermined then how do you account for those who refused to participate in the genocide? What about the story of Paul Rusesabagina in Hotel Rwanda? Rusesabagina is Hutu and his wife is Tutsi. Both of them had been taught to hate the other tribe and yet they chose not to and chose to get married and have children. Rusesabagina harbored over a thousand Tutsi refugees in the hotel during the genocide, people he was told to hate.

If two people can make the choice not to hate and not to kill then anyone and everyone can make that same choice.

Another thing, in a previous post I brought up the fact that the white colonizers did not create the class division, they only exploited the class division that was already there. Unless you can prove to me otherwise, the whites never encouraged them to kill each other.

Obviously you lack knowledge of what can be done. People are brainwashed all the time against their better judgement. Look at Drumpf supporters for example. Drumpf manipulates them with ease. Centuries of white brainwashing and overt white interference are the blame for the Rwandan crisis.

The same might be said of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton supporters. But be that as it may, there's no manipulation going on here. Trump supporters support him because they agree with his ideals and policies. A person can only be manipulated if they are already predisposed towards the doctrine or ideal or whatever. This is why the Tutsis went along with the class division exploited by the whites: they were already taught that Hutus were a lower class. Furthermore, it was in their own best interests to play along because it afforded them more power and influence.

You arent smart enough to see if I know the answer which is the reason I didnt answer it until I was sure I understood your motives. So as you see, I manipulated you into answering my question prior to answering yours.

You apparently are not smart enough to see that I never even answered your question. Your question was:

"Would europeans have poured forth from the european continent and committed genocide if the Pope had not issued the Papal Bull Dum Diversas?"

I never answered your question, I only said that Europeans who obeyed the Pope did so of their own freewill.

You dont have to buy it. There are a million ways to answer the questions. One being no answer at all for a weak or silly question.

Not answering the question is not an answer, it's just a type of response.

Like I said....You dont know what you know. People can be manipulated to do pretty much anything.

Actually whites did create the class division. I already pointed out that the two societies got along fine and respected each others borders.
European Colonialism Tied to the 1994 Rwandan Genocide | Spring 2016 | Washington State University


That was kind of a weak way to agree with me and then contradict yourself. Stay consistent.

Yes you answered my question. You even admitted you gave me this answer...."Europeans who obeyed the Pope did so of their own freewill."

I disagree. A non answer is still an answer.

 

[IM2]

What?

You know, I didn't even read the damn thing when you first posted it. After refusing to answer my question and then I read the words "Let me ask you a question...", I said to hell with that and didn't read any more of it. I didn't read it in its entirety until after about your second response to me.

Your question about the Papal Bull was in response to my questions about Rwanda, presumably because you wanted me to look at Rwanda from a different perspective or something. I read the question and the text of the bull and my opinion about Rwanda still stands and I say the Europeans were also responsible for their actions as well. In short, my position has not changed in the least so I don't know why you're gloating as if you won some kind of victory or something. You posted something on a discussion forum and somebody read it. Congratulations on your singular accomplishment.

You refuse to answer my questions but you'll answer theirs to tell them they're racist. So tell me, have you ever responded to a question where the answer was not "You're racist" or "Whites are evil" or "Whites are the weakest race"?

Talking or discussing presumes some sort of back and forth and I've not seen that with you. You don't discuss, you preach, lecture, judge, berate and yes, bitch.

I didnt ask you when you read my question. I just said I wanted you to read it and consider it. You did that and more. Its not a bad thing.

No, it's not a bad thing but that wasn't the point. The point was that you were claiming to have "made" me read and consider the question before I had even read the entire post. My "emotional tirade", as you put it, was not in response to the question or the subject of the post but a response to the unmitigated gall of asking me a question when you refused answer mine.

My point in having you do that was to show you that people can be manipulated into doing stuff they wouldnt normally do. Europeans set those two ethinic groups against each other when history shows they got along fine prior to european invasion. They stoked the fires of resentment by creating a social order that elevated one group over the other. They poisoned their philosophies with european norms and created the Rwandan crisis.

Here's the thing, even if we could say that it wouldn't have happened without the Papal Bull, the principle of choice still applies, i.e. they chose to be manipulated. No one can be manipulated into doing anything of their own volition that goes against their better judgement and principles unless they choose to be. Also, the white colonizers in Rwanda only encouraged class division (that already existed there), not war. Even if we could lay some blame at the feet of the whites for encouraging class division, the Rwandans chose on their own to take it to the level of violence and genocide.

Whites ask a lot of dumb questions knowing full well the answer.

Speaking for myself, of course I ask questions knowing the answers. The idea is to see if you know the answer or if you are willing to more critically scrutinize your position. Your refusal to answer told me everything I needed to know about how and why you hold your viewpoints on Rwanda.

I dont like playing your games.

Let me borrow something you said and make the appropriate modifications for my personal use:

Asking questions of blacks to get their opinion or to urge them to look at their views from a more logical perspective doesn't mean I am playing games. Its called talking or discussion

So if I dont answer a question then you can safely assume its because I think youre deflecting of full of shit.

Nope, not buyin' it. There was only one way to answer the questions I posed to you. Any other answers would have made you look like a self-delusional nutball. That's why you didn't answer.

No I never made that claim. Thats something you just made up. I said I made you consider the question. You did me one better and answered it.

Isn't that what I said? The only difference is that I said "..read and consider..." Here is what you said in post #518: "No I meant to make you consider my question. Looks like you did what I wanted you to do."

*shrug*

No one makes a conscious choice to be manipulated. One can say that being manipulated means that choice is removed because the outcome is predetermined.

Choice is never removed and outcome is never predetermined. If choice can be removed and outcome can be predetermined then how do you account for those who refused to participate in the genocide? What about the story of Paul Rusesabagina in Hotel Rwanda? Rusesabagina is Hutu and his wife is Tutsi. Both of them had been taught to hate the other tribe and yet they chose not to and chose to get married and have children. Rusesabagina harbored over a thousand Tutsi refugees in the hotel during the genocide, people he was told to hate.

If two people can make the choice not to hate and not to kill then anyone and everyone can make that same choice.

Another thing, in a previous post I brought up the fact that the white colonizers did not create the class division, they only exploited the class division that was already there. Unless you can prove to me otherwise, the whites never encouraged them to kill each other.

Obviously you lack knowledge of what can be done. People are brainwashed all the time against their better judgement. Look at Drumpf supporters for example. Drumpf manipulates them with ease. Centuries of white brainwashing and overt white interference are the blame for the Rwandan crisis.

The same might be said of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton supporters. But be that as it may, there's no manipulation going on here. Trump supporters support him because they agree with his ideals and policies. A person can only be manipulated if they are already predisposed towards the doctrine or ideal or whatever. This is why the Tutsis went along with the class division exploited by the whites: they were already taught that Hutus were a lower class. Furthermore, it was in their own best interests to play along because it afforded them more power and influence.

You arent smart enough to see if I know the answer which is the reason I didnt answer it until I was sure I understood your motives. So as you see, I manipulated you into answering my question prior to answering yours.

You apparently are not smart enough to see that I never even answered your question. Your question was:

"Would europeans have poured forth from the european continent and committed genocide if the Pope had not issued the Papal Bull Dum Diversas?"

I never answered your question, I only said that Europeans who obeyed the Pope did so of their own freewill.

You dont have to buy it. There are a million ways to answer the questions. One being no answer at all for a weak or silly question.

Not answering the question is not an answer, it's just a type of response.

Like I said....You dont know what you know. People can be manipulated to do pretty much anything.

Actually whites did create the class division. I already pointed out that the two societies got along fine and respected each others borders.
European Colonialism Tied to the 1994 Rwandan Genocide | Spring 2016 | Washington State University


That was kind of a weak way to agree with me and then contradict yourself. Stay consistent.

Yes you answered my question. You even admitted you gave me this answer...."Europeans who obeyed the Pope did so of their own freewill."

I disagree. A non answer is still an answer.

White people here want to argue issues they have not studied. And you just displayed another example of how this happens here all the time.

 

[Asclepias]

I didnt ask you when you read my question. I just said I wanted you to read it and consider it. You did that and more. Its not a bad thing.

No, it's not a bad thing but that wasn't the point. The point was that you were claiming to have "made" me read and consider the question before I had even read the entire post. My "emotional tirade", as you put it, was not in response to the question or the subject of the post but a response to the unmitigated gall of asking me a question when you refused answer mine.

My point in having you do that was to show you that people can be manipulated into doing stuff they wouldnt normally do. Europeans set those two ethinic groups against each other when history shows they got along fine prior to european invasion. They stoked the fires of resentment by creating a social order that elevated one group over the other. They poisoned their philosophies with european norms and created the Rwandan crisis.

Here's the thing, even if we could say that it wouldn't have happened without the Papal Bull, the principle of choice still applies, i.e. they chose to be manipulated. No one can be manipulated into doing anything of their own volition that goes against their better judgement and principles unless they choose to be. Also, the white colonizers in Rwanda only encouraged class division (that already existed there), not war. Even if we could lay some blame at the feet of the whites for encouraging class division, the Rwandans chose on their own to take it to the level of violence and genocide.

Whites ask a lot of dumb questions knowing full well the answer.

Speaking for myself, of course I ask questions knowing the answers. The idea is to see if you know the answer or if you are willing to more critically scrutinize your position. Your refusal to answer told me everything I needed to know about how and why you hold your viewpoints on Rwanda.

I dont like playing your games.

Let me borrow something you said and make the appropriate modifications for my personal use:

Asking questions of blacks to get their opinion or to urge them to look at their views from a more logical perspective doesn't mean I am playing games. Its called talking or discussion

So if I dont answer a question then you can safely assume its because I think youre deflecting of full of shit.

Nope, not buyin' it. There was only one way to answer the questions I posed to you. Any other answers would have made you look like a self-delusional nutball. That's why you didn't answer.

No I never made that claim. Thats something you just made up. I said I made you consider the question. You did me one better and answered it.

Isn't that what I said? The only difference is that I said "..read and consider..." Here is what you said in post #518: "No I meant to make you consider my question. Looks like you did what I wanted you to do."

*shrug*

No one makes a conscious choice to be manipulated. One can say that being manipulated means that choice is removed because the outcome is predetermined.

Choice is never removed and outcome is never predetermined. If choice can be removed and outcome can be predetermined then how do you account for those who refused to participate in the genocide? What about the story of Paul Rusesabagina in Hotel Rwanda? Rusesabagina is Hutu and his wife is Tutsi. Both of them had been taught to hate the other tribe and yet they chose not to and chose to get married and have children. Rusesabagina harbored over a thousand Tutsi refugees in the hotel during the genocide, people he was told to hate.

If two people can make the choice not to hate and not to kill then anyone and everyone can make that same choice.

Another thing, in a previous post I brought up the fact that the white colonizers did not create the class division, they only exploited the class division that was already there. Unless you can prove to me otherwise, the whites never encouraged them to kill each other.

Obviously you lack knowledge of what can be done. People are brainwashed all the time against their better judgement. Look at Drumpf supporters for example. Drumpf manipulates them with ease. Centuries of white brainwashing and overt white interference are the blame for the Rwandan crisis.

The same might be said of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton supporters. But be that as it may, there's no manipulation going on here. Trump supporters support him because they agree with his ideals and policies. A person can only be manipulated if they are already predisposed towards the doctrine or ideal or whatever. This is why the Tutsis went along with the class division exploited by the whites: they were already taught that Hutus were a lower class. Furthermore, it was in their own best interests to play along because it afforded them more power and influence.

You arent smart enough to see if I know the answer which is the reason I didnt answer it until I was sure I understood your motives. So as you see, I manipulated you into answering my question prior to answering yours.

You apparently are not smart enough to see that I never even answered your question. Your question was:

"Would europeans have poured forth from the european continent and committed genocide if the Pope had not issued the Papal Bull Dum Diversas?"

I never answered your question, I only said that Europeans who obeyed the Pope did so of their own freewill.

You dont have to buy it. There are a million ways to answer the questions. One being no answer at all for a weak or silly question.

Not answering the question is not an answer, it's just a type of response.

Like I said....You dont know what you know. People can be manipulated to do pretty much anything.

Actually whites did create the class division. I already pointed out that the two societies got along fine and respected each others borders.
European Colonialism Tied to the 1994 Rwandan Genocide | Spring 2016 | Washington State University


That was kind of a weak way to agree with me and then contradict yourself. Stay consistent.

Yes you answered my question. You even admitted you gave me this answer...."Europeans who obeyed the Pope did so of their own freewill."

I disagree. A non answer is still an answer.

White people here want to argue issues they have not studied. And you just displayed another example of how this happens here all the time.

How much money you want to bet he deflects or makes some excuse? I put the link out there really for others to read but if he even does read it I'm sure there will be an excuse as to why he cant accept the facts.

 

[IM2]

The same might be said of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton supporters.

No, the same can't be said. Because white racism is real and has a CONTINUING history. It isn't made up whereby people repeat it over and over until people believe it. That's what white victimization is.

 

[IM2]

No, it's not a bad thing but that wasn't the point. The point was that you were claiming to have "made" me read and consider the question before I had even read the entire post. My "emotional tirade", as you put it, was not in response to the question or the subject of the post but a response to the unmitigated gall of asking me a question when you refused answer mine.

Here's the thing, even if we could say that it wouldn't have happened without the Papal Bull, the principle of choice still applies, i.e. they chose to be manipulated. No one can be manipulated into doing anything of their own volition that goes against their better judgement and principles unless they choose to be. Also, the white colonizers in Rwanda only encouraged class division (that already existed there), not war. Even if we could lay some blame at the feet of the whites for encouraging class division, the Rwandans chose on their own to take it to the level of violence and genocide.

Speaking for myself, of course I ask questions knowing the answers. The idea is to see if you know the answer or if you are willing to more critically scrutinize your position. Your refusal to answer told me everything I needed to know about how and why you hold your viewpoints on Rwanda.

Let me borrow something you said and make the appropriate modifications for my personal use:

Asking questions of blacks to get their opinion or to urge them to look at their views from a more logical perspective doesn't mean I am playing games. Its called talking or discussion

Nope, not buyin' it. There was only one way to answer the questions I posed to you. Any other answers would have made you look like a self-delusional nutball. That's why you didn't answer.

No I never made that claim. Thats something you just made up. I said I made you consider the question. You did me one better and answered it.

Isn't that what I said? The only difference is that I said "..read and consider..." Here is what you said in post #518: "No I meant to make you consider my question. Looks like you did what I wanted you to do."

*shrug*

No one makes a conscious choice to be manipulated. One can say that being manipulated means that choice is removed because the outcome is predetermined.

Choice is never removed and outcome is never predetermined. If choice can be removed and outcome can be predetermined then how do you account for those who refused to participate in the genocide? What about the story of Paul Rusesabagina in Hotel Rwanda? Rusesabagina is Hutu and his wife is Tutsi. Both of them had been taught to hate the other tribe and yet they chose not to and chose to get married and have children. Rusesabagina harbored over a thousand Tutsi refugees in the hotel during the genocide, people he was told to hate.

If two people can make the choice not to hate and not to kill then anyone and everyone can make that same choice.

Another thing, in a previous post I brought up the fact that the white colonizers did not create the class division, they only exploited the class division that was already there. Unless you can prove to me otherwise, the whites never encouraged them to kill each other.

Obviously you lack knowledge of what can be done. People are brainwashed all the time against their better judgement. Look at Drumpf supporters for example. Drumpf manipulates them with ease. Centuries of white brainwashing and overt white interference are the blame for the Rwandan crisis.

The same might be said of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton supporters. But be that as it may, there's no manipulation going on here. Trump supporters support him because they agree with his ideals and policies. A person can only be manipulated if they are already predisposed towards the doctrine or ideal or whatever. This is why the Tutsis went along with the class division exploited by the whites: they were already taught that Hutus were a lower class. Furthermore, it was in their own best interests to play along because it afforded them more power and influence.

You arent smart enough to see if I know the answer which is the reason I didnt answer it until I was sure I understood your motives. So as you see, I manipulated you into answering my question prior to answering yours.

You apparently are not smart enough to see that I never even answered your question. Your question was:

"Would europeans have poured forth from the european continent and committed genocide if the Pope had not issued the Papal Bull Dum Diversas?"

I never answered your question, I only said that Europeans who obeyed the Pope did so of their own freewill.

You dont have to buy it. There are a million ways to answer the questions. One being no answer at all for a weak or silly question.

Not answering the question is not an answer, it's just a type of response.

Like I said....You dont know what you know. People can be manipulated to do pretty much anything.

Actually whites did create the class division. I already pointed out that the two societies got along fine and respected each others borders.
European Colonialism Tied to the 1994 Rwandan Genocide | Spring 2016 | Washington State University


That was kind of a weak way to agree with me and then contradict yourself. Stay consistent.

Yes you answered my question. You even admitted you gave me this answer...."Europeans who obeyed the Pope did so of their own freewill."

I disagree. A non answer is still an answer.

White people here want to argue issues they have not studied. And you just displayed another example of how this happens here all the time.

How much money you want to bet he deflects or makes some excuse? I put the link out there really for others to read but if he even does read it I'm sure there will be an excuse as to why he cant accept the facts.

It's guaranteed that he will do one or more of those things.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I didnt ask you when you read my question. I just said I wanted you to read it and consider it. You did that and more. Its not a bad thing.

No, it's not a bad thing but that wasn't the point. The point was that you were claiming to have "made" me read and consider the question before I had even read the entire post. My "emotional tirade", as you put it, was not in response to the question or the subject of the post but a response to the unmitigated gall of asking me a question when you refused answer mine.

My point in having you do that was to show you that people can be manipulated into doing stuff they wouldnt normally do. Europeans set those two ethinic groups against each other when history shows they got along fine prior to european invasion. They stoked the fires of resentment by creating a social order that elevated one group over the other. They poisoned their philosophies with european norms and created the Rwandan crisis.

Here's the thing, even if we could say that it wouldn't have happened without the Papal Bull, the principle of choice still applies, i.e. they chose to be manipulated. No one can be manipulated into doing anything of their own volition that goes against their better judgement and principles unless they choose to be. Also, the white colonizers in Rwanda only encouraged class division (that already existed there), not war. Even if we could lay some blame at the feet of the whites for encouraging class division, the Rwandans chose on their own to take it to the level of violence and genocide.

Whites ask a lot of dumb questions knowing full well the answer.

Speaking for myself, of course I ask questions knowing the answers. The idea is to see if you know the answer or if you are willing to more critically scrutinize your position. Your refusal to answer told me everything I needed to know about how and why you hold your viewpoints on Rwanda.

I dont like playing your games.

Let me borrow something you said and make the appropriate modifications for my personal use:

Asking questions of blacks to get their opinion or to urge them to look at their views from a more logical perspective doesn't mean I am playing games. Its called talking or discussion

So if I dont answer a question then you can safely assume its because I think youre deflecting of full of shit.

Nope, not buyin' it. There was only one way to answer the questions I posed to you. Any other answers would have made you look like a self-delusional nutball. That's why you didn't answer.

No I never made that claim. Thats something you just made up. I said I made you consider the question. You did me one better and answered it.

Isn't that what I said? The only difference is that I said "..read and consider..." Here is what you said in post #518: "No I meant to make you consider my question. Looks like you did what I wanted you to do."

*shrug*

No one makes a conscious choice to be manipulated. One can say that being manipulated means that choice is removed because the outcome is predetermined.

Choice is never removed and outcome is never predetermined. If choice can be removed and outcome can be predetermined then how do you account for those who refused to participate in the genocide? What about the story of Paul Rusesabagina in Hotel Rwanda? Rusesabagina is Hutu and his wife is Tutsi. Both of them had been taught to hate the other tribe and yet they chose not to and chose to get married and have children. Rusesabagina harbored over a thousand Tutsi refugees in the hotel during the genocide, people he was told to hate.

If two people can make the choice not to hate and not to kill then anyone and everyone can make that same choice.

Another thing, in a previous post I brought up the fact that the white colonizers did not create the class division, they only exploited the class division that was already there. Unless you can prove to me otherwise, the whites never encouraged them to kill each other.

Obviously you lack knowledge of what can be done. People are brainwashed all the time against their better judgement. Look at Drumpf supporters for example. Drumpf manipulates them with ease. Centuries of white brainwashing and overt white interference are the blame for the Rwandan crisis.

The same might be said of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton supporters. But be that as it may, there's no manipulation going on here. Trump supporters support him because they agree with his ideals and policies. A person can only be manipulated if they are already predisposed towards the doctrine or ideal or whatever. This is why the Tutsis went along with the class division exploited by the whites: they were already taught that Hutus were a lower class. Furthermore, it was in their own best interests to play along because it afforded them more power and influence.

You arent smart enough to see if I know the answer which is the reason I didnt answer it until I was sure I understood your motives. So as you see, I manipulated you into answering my question prior to answering yours.

You apparently are not smart enough to see that I never even answered your question. Your question was:

"Would europeans have poured forth from the european continent and committed genocide if the Pope had not issued the Papal Bull Dum Diversas?"

I never answered your question, I only said that Europeans who obeyed the Pope did so of their own freewill.

You dont have to buy it. There are a million ways to answer the questions. One being no answer at all for a weak or silly question.

Not answering the question is not an answer, it's just a type of response.

Like I said....You dont know what you know. People can be manipulated to do pretty much anything.

Actually whites did create the class division. I already pointed out that the two societies got along fine and respected each others borders.
European Colonialism Tied to the 1994 Rwandan Genocide | Spring 2016 | Washington State University


That was kind of a weak way to agree with me and then contradict yourself. Stay consistent.

Yes you answered my question. You even admitted you gave me this answer...."Europeans who obeyed the Pope did so of their own freewill."

I disagree. A non answer is still an answer.

White people here want to argue issues they have not studied. And you just displayed another example of how this happens here all the time.

Again with the intellectual shaming. You don't seem to grasp that this is not an intellectual debate over historical facts, it's a philosophical discussion as to who is ultimately responsible for the genocide. We both know what the whites did in Rwanda, that was never in doubt. What I'm saying is that the whites did not make the Hutus hate the Tutsis or vice versa and they were not the ones who picked up the weapons and used them against the Tutsis. It wouldn't matter if I was informed of every aspect and detail of the history leading up to the genocide, I would still say the Rwandans were responsible and the whites were gone thirty years at this point anyway.

I asked you this before and you refused to answer so I'll try again: At what point were (or will) the Rwandans be responsible for their own actions?

 

[Asclepias]

No, it's not a bad thing but that wasn't the point. The point was that you were claiming to have "made" me read and consider the question before I had even read the entire post. My "emotional tirade", as you put it, was not in response to the question or the subject of the post but a response to the unmitigated gall of asking me a question when you refused answer mine.

Here's the thing, even if we could say that it wouldn't have happened without the Papal Bull, the principle of choice still applies, i.e. they chose to be manipulated. No one can be manipulated into doing anything of their own volition that goes against their better judgement and principles unless they choose to be. Also, the white colonizers in Rwanda only encouraged class division (that already existed there), not war. Even if we could lay some blame at the feet of the whites for encouraging class division, the Rwandans chose on their own to take it to the level of violence and genocide.

Speaking for myself, of course I ask questions knowing the answers. The idea is to see if you know the answer or if you are willing to more critically scrutinize your position. Your refusal to answer told me everything I needed to know about how and why you hold your viewpoints on Rwanda.

Let me borrow something you said and make the appropriate modifications for my personal use:

Asking questions of blacks to get their opinion or to urge them to look at their views from a more logical perspective doesn't mean I am playing games. Its called talking or discussion

Nope, not buyin' it. There was only one way to answer the questions I posed to you. Any other answers would have made you look like a self-delusional nutball. That's why you didn't answer.

No I never made that claim. Thats something you just made up. I said I made you consider the question. You did me one better and answered it.

Isn't that what I said? The only difference is that I said "..read and consider..." Here is what you said in post #518: "No I meant to make you consider my question. Looks like you did what I wanted you to do."

*shrug*

No one makes a conscious choice to be manipulated. One can say that being manipulated means that choice is removed because the outcome is predetermined.

Choice is never removed and outcome is never predetermined. If choice can be removed and outcome can be predetermined then how do you account for those who refused to participate in the genocide? What about the story of Paul Rusesabagina in Hotel Rwanda? Rusesabagina is Hutu and his wife is Tutsi. Both of them had been taught to hate the other tribe and yet they chose not to and chose to get married and have children. Rusesabagina harbored over a thousand Tutsi refugees in the hotel during the genocide, people he was told to hate.

If two people can make the choice not to hate and not to kill then anyone and everyone can make that same choice.

Another thing, in a previous post I brought up the fact that the white colonizers did not create the class division, they only exploited the class division that was already there. Unless you can prove to me otherwise, the whites never encouraged them to kill each other.

Obviously you lack knowledge of what can be done. People are brainwashed all the time against their better judgement. Look at Drumpf supporters for example. Drumpf manipulates them with ease. Centuries of white brainwashing and overt white interference are the blame for the Rwandan crisis.

The same might be said of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton supporters. But be that as it may, there's no manipulation going on here. Trump supporters support him because they agree with his ideals and policies. A person can only be manipulated if they are already predisposed towards the doctrine or ideal or whatever. This is why the Tutsis went along with the class division exploited by the whites: they were already taught that Hutus were a lower class. Furthermore, it was in their own best interests to play along because it afforded them more power and influence.

You arent smart enough to see if I know the answer which is the reason I didnt answer it until I was sure I understood your motives. So as you see, I manipulated you into answering my question prior to answering yours.

You apparently are not smart enough to see that I never even answered your question. Your question was:

"Would europeans have poured forth from the european continent and committed genocide if the Pope had not issued the Papal Bull Dum Diversas?"

I never answered your question, I only said that Europeans who obeyed the Pope did so of their own freewill.

You dont have to buy it. There are a million ways to answer the questions. One being no answer at all for a weak or silly question.

Not answering the question is not an answer, it's just a type of response.

Like I said....You dont know what you know. People can be manipulated to do pretty much anything.

Actually whites did create the class division. I already pointed out that the two societies got along fine and respected each others borders.
European Colonialism Tied to the 1994 Rwandan Genocide | Spring 2016 | Washington State University


That was kind of a weak way to agree with me and then contradict yourself. Stay consistent.

Yes you answered my question. You even admitted you gave me this answer...."Europeans who obeyed the Pope did so of their own freewill."

I disagree. A non answer is still an answer.

White people here want to argue issues they have not studied. And you just displayed another example of how this happens here all the time.

Again with the intellectual shaming. You don't seem to grasp that this is not an intellectual debate over historical facts, it's a philosophical discussion as to who is ultimately responsible for the genocide. We both know what the whites did in Rwanda, that was never in doubt. What I'm saying is that the whites did not make the Hutus hate the Tutsis or vice versa and they were not the ones who picked up the weapons and used them against the Tutsis. It wouldn't matter if I was informed of every aspect and detail of the history leading up to the genocide, I would still say the Rwandans were responsible and the whites were gone thirty years at this point anyway.

I asked you this before and you refused to answer so I'll try again: At what point were (or will) the Rwandans be responsible for their own actions?

I'll answer. When whites didnt pit them against each other and provide arms and support for one side. We know this to be true because when there were no whites there was no malice between the two groups.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

The same might be said of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton supporters.

No, the same can't be said. Because white racism is real and has a CONTINUING history. It isn't made up whereby people repeat it over and over until people believe it. That's what white victimization is.

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton make every issue about race whether it is or not and his supporters swallow every bitter racist crumb of it.

 

[Asclepias]

The same might be said of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton supporters.

No, the same can't be said. Because white racism is real and has a CONTINUING history. It isn't made up whereby people repeat it over and over until people believe it. That's what white victimization is.

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton make every issue about race whether it is or not and his supporters swallow every bitter racist crumb of it.

You sound like youre stuck in the 80's Jesse and Sharpton arent even relevant anymore. Both have been bought by the dems.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

No I never made that claim. Thats something you just made up. I said I made you consider the question. You did me one better and answered it.

Isn't that what I said? The only difference is that I said "..read and consider..." Here is what you said in post #518: "No I meant to make you consider my question. Looks like you did what I wanted you to do."

*shrug*

No one makes a conscious choice to be manipulated. One can say that being manipulated means that choice is removed because the outcome is predetermined.

Choice is never removed and outcome is never predetermined. If choice can be removed and outcome can be predetermined then how do you account for those who refused to participate in the genocide? What about the story of Paul Rusesabagina in Hotel Rwanda? Rusesabagina is Hutu and his wife is Tutsi. Both of them had been taught to hate the other tribe and yet they chose not to and chose to get married and have children. Rusesabagina harbored over a thousand Tutsi refugees in the hotel during the genocide, people he was told to hate.

If two people can make the choice not to hate and not to kill then anyone and everyone can make that same choice.

Another thing, in a previous post I brought up the fact that the white colonizers did not create the class division, they only exploited the class division that was already there. Unless you can prove to me otherwise, the whites never encouraged them to kill each other.

Obviously you lack knowledge of what can be done. People are brainwashed all the time against their better judgement. Look at Drumpf supporters for example. Drumpf manipulates them with ease. Centuries of white brainwashing and overt white interference are the blame for the Rwandan crisis.

The same might be said of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton supporters. But be that as it may, there's no manipulation going on here. Trump supporters support him because they agree with his ideals and policies. A person can only be manipulated if they are already predisposed towards the doctrine or ideal or whatever. This is why the Tutsis went along with the class division exploited by the whites: they were already taught that Hutus were a lower class. Furthermore, it was in their own best interests to play along because it afforded them more power and influence.

You arent smart enough to see if I know the answer which is the reason I didnt answer it until I was sure I understood your motives. So as you see, I manipulated you into answering my question prior to answering yours.

You apparently are not smart enough to see that I never even answered your question. Your question was:

"Would europeans have poured forth from the european continent and committed genocide if the Pope had not issued the Papal Bull Dum Diversas?"

I never answered your question, I only said that Europeans who obeyed the Pope did so of their own freewill.

You dont have to buy it. There are a million ways to answer the questions. One being no answer at all for a weak or silly question.

Not answering the question is not an answer, it's just a type of response.

Like I said....You dont know what you know. People can be manipulated to do pretty much anything.

Actually whites did create the class division. I already pointed out that the two societies got along fine and respected each others borders.
European Colonialism Tied to the 1994 Rwandan Genocide | Spring 2016 | Washington State University


That was kind of a weak way to agree with me and then contradict yourself. Stay consistent.

Yes you answered my question. You even admitted you gave me this answer...."Europeans who obeyed the Pope did so of their own freewill."

I disagree. A non answer is still an answer.

White people here want to argue issues they have not studied. And you just displayed another example of how this happens here all the time.

Again with the intellectual shaming. You don't seem to grasp that this is not an intellectual debate over historical facts, it's a philosophical discussion as to who is ultimately responsible for the genocide. We both know what the whites did in Rwanda, that was never in doubt. What I'm saying is that the whites did not make the Hutus hate the Tutsis or vice versa and they were not the ones who picked up the weapons and used them against the Tutsis. It wouldn't matter if I was informed of every aspect and detail of the history leading up to the genocide, I would still say the Rwandans were responsible and the whites were gone thirty years at this point anyway.

I asked you this before and you refused to answer so I'll try again: At what point were (or will) the Rwandans be responsible for their own actions?

I'll answer. When whites didnt pit them against each other and provide arms and support for one side. We know this to be true because when there were no whites there was no malice between the two groups.

That doesn't answer the question, at least not fully. At some point Rwandans became, or will become, responsible for their own actions. When was this or when will it be? Were they responsible for their actions after the genocide? Or are they still not responsible for their actions?

The whites told the Tutsi they were better and the Tutsi believed it and took full advantage of the perks the whites gave them. Why did the Tutsis throw away hundreds of years of peaceful coexistence just like that? As the stronger race (according to you), how were they so easily swayed to look down on Hutus?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

The same might be said of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton supporters.

No, the same can't be said. Because white racism is real and has a CONTINUING history. It isn't made up whereby people repeat it over and over until people believe it. That's what white victimization is.

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton make every issue about race whether it is or not and his supporters swallow every bitter racist crumb of it.

You sound like youre stuck in the 80's Jesse and Sharpton arent even relevant anymore. Both have been bought by the dems.

So who is responsible for getting blacks lathered up about supposed racially motivated actions that really weren't?

 

[Asclepias]

Isn't that what I said? The only difference is that I said "..read and consider..." Here is what you said in post #518: "No I meant to make you consider my question. Looks like you did what I wanted you to do."

*shrug*

Choice is never removed and outcome is never predetermined. If choice can be removed and outcome can be predetermined then how do you account for those who refused to participate in the genocide? What about the story of Paul Rusesabagina in Hotel Rwanda? Rusesabagina is Hutu and his wife is Tutsi. Both of them had been taught to hate the other tribe and yet they chose not to and chose to get married and have children. Rusesabagina harbored over a thousand Tutsi refugees in the hotel during the genocide, people he was told to hate.

If two people can make the choice not to hate and not to kill then anyone and everyone can make that same choice.

Another thing, in a previous post I brought up the fact that the white colonizers did not create the class division, they only exploited the class division that was already there. Unless you can prove to me otherwise, the whites never encouraged them to kill each other.

The same might be said of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton supporters. But be that as it may, there's no manipulation going on here. Trump supporters support him because they agree with his ideals and policies. A person can only be manipulated if they are already predisposed towards the doctrine or ideal or whatever. This is why the Tutsis went along with the class division exploited by the whites: they were already taught that Hutus were a lower class. Furthermore, it was in their own best interests to play along because it afforded them more power and influence.

You apparently are not smart enough to see that I never even answered your question. Your question was:

"Would europeans have poured forth from the european continent and committed genocide if the Pope had not issued the Papal Bull Dum Diversas?"

I never answered your question, I only said that Europeans who obeyed the Pope did so of their own freewill.

Not answering the question is not an answer, it's just a type of response.

Like I said....You dont know what you know. People can be manipulated to do pretty much anything.

Actually whites did create the class division. I already pointed out that the two societies got along fine and respected each others borders.
European Colonialism Tied to the 1994 Rwandan Genocide | Spring 2016 | Washington State University


That was kind of a weak way to agree with me and then contradict yourself. Stay consistent.

Yes you answered my question. You even admitted you gave me this answer...."Europeans who obeyed the Pope did so of their own freewill."

I disagree. A non answer is still an answer.

White people here want to argue issues they have not studied. And you just displayed another example of how this happens here all the time.

Again with the intellectual shaming. You don't seem to grasp that this is not an intellectual debate over historical facts, it's a philosophical discussion as to who is ultimately responsible for the genocide. We both know what the whites did in Rwanda, that was never in doubt. What I'm saying is that the whites did not make the Hutus hate the Tutsis or vice versa and they were not the ones who picked up the weapons and used them against the Tutsis. It wouldn't matter if I was informed of every aspect and detail of the history leading up to the genocide, I would still say the Rwandans were responsible and the whites were gone thirty years at this point anyway.

I asked you this before and you refused to answer so I'll try again: At what point were (or will) the Rwandans be responsible for their own actions?

I'll answer. When whites didnt pit them against each other and provide arms and support for one side. We know this to be true because when there were no whites there was no malice between the two groups.

That doesn't answer the question, at least not fully. At some point Rwandans became, or will become, responsible for their own actions. When was this or when will it be? Were they responsible for their actions after the genocide? Or are they still not responsible for their actions?

The whites told the Tutsi they were better and the Tutsi believed it and took full advantage of the perks the whites gave them. Why did the Tutsis throw away hundreds of years of peaceful coexistence just like that? As the stronger race (according to you), how were they so easily swayed to look down on Hutus?

I disagree. It fully answers the question. Your question was about the Rwandan crisis not some event in the future. Now youre asking a new question which applies to shaking off the effects of white colonization, white brainwashing, and white interference. When you are subjected to trauma you dont just shake it off the next day. In this case we are talking about centuries of white induced trauma. When the Rwandans display in their culture a complete forsaking of white values and philosophy combined with a return to their pre white colonization behavior we can then safely say they are then fully responsible for their actions.

Because thats exactly the virulent effect white people have on other humans. They are like a poison...a virus with their ways.

 

[Asclepias]

The same might be said of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton supporters.

No, the same can't be said. Because white racism is real and has a CONTINUING history. It isn't made up whereby people repeat it over and over until people believe it. That's what white victimization is.

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton make every issue about race whether it is or not and his supporters swallow every bitter racist crumb of it.

You sound like youre stuck in the 80's Jesse and Sharpton arent even relevant anymore. Both have been bought by the dems.

So who is responsible for getting blacks lathered up about supposed racially motivated actions that really weren't?

Thats insider information. Youre white and I know what type of harm whites do to Black leaders. You killed the most peaceful leader so we know it behooves us to keep you ignorant on who are leaders are.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Like I said....You dont know what you know. People can be manipulated to do pretty much anything.

Actually whites did create the class division. I already pointed out that the two societies got along fine and respected each others borders.
European Colonialism Tied to the 1994 Rwandan Genocide | Spring 2016 | Washington State University


That was kind of a weak way to agree with me and then contradict yourself. Stay consistent.

Yes you answered my question. You even admitted you gave me this answer...."Europeans who obeyed the Pope did so of their own freewill."

I disagree. A non answer is still an answer.

White people here want to argue issues they have not studied. And you just displayed another example of how this happens here all the time.

Again with the intellectual shaming. You don't seem to grasp that this is not an intellectual debate over historical facts, it's a philosophical discussion as to who is ultimately responsible for the genocide. We both know what the whites did in Rwanda, that was never in doubt. What I'm saying is that the whites did not make the Hutus hate the Tutsis or vice versa and they were not the ones who picked up the weapons and used them against the Tutsis. It wouldn't matter if I was informed of every aspect and detail of the history leading up to the genocide, I would still say the Rwandans were responsible and the whites were gone thirty years at this point anyway.

I asked you this before and you refused to answer so I'll try again: At what point were (or will) the Rwandans be responsible for their own actions?

I'll answer. When whites didnt pit them against each other and provide arms and support for one side. We know this to be true because when there were no whites there was no malice between the two groups.

That doesn't answer the question, at least not fully. At some point Rwandans became, or will become, responsible for their own actions. When was this or when will it be? Were they responsible for their actions after the genocide? Or are they still not responsible for their actions?

The whites told the Tutsi they were better and the Tutsi believed it and took full advantage of the perks the whites gave them. Why did the Tutsis throw away hundreds of years of peaceful coexistence just like that? As the stronger race (according to you), how were they so easily swayed to look down on Hutus?

I disagree. It fully answers the question. Your question was about the Rwandan crisis not some event in the future.

I didn't say anything about a future event. What are you talking about?

Now youre asking a new question which applies to shaking off the effects of white colonization, white brainwashing, and white interference. When you are subjected to trauma you dont just shake it off the next day.

Did they ever shake it off? If so, when? If not, if they commit genocide tomorrow, do we blame that one on the whites too?

In this case we are talking about centuries of white induced trauma.

Um, no. It was only about 80 years.

When the Rwandans display in their culture a complete forsaking of white values and philosophy combined with a return to their pre white colonization behavior we can then safely say they are then fully responsible for their actions.

This is by far the most idiotic thing I've read on this forum.

Their pre-white colonization behavior consisted of wars of expansion and conquering nearby kingdoms and chiefdoms, much as the way things were in Europe and everywhere else. Rwanda as we know it today did not start out that way. This article is pretty extensive and has a lot of details you won't find anywhere else. Below are a couple of quotes:

"...but what is clear is that in the 1400s, through conquest of several smaller chiefdoms, a state was formed around the Mwami (or king) of Rwanda."

"In the 1600s Mwami Ruganzu II Ndori oversaw a second period of expansion and conquered several smaller kingdoms in and around the central parts of Rwanda"

So as you can see, today's Rwanda was created through war and expansion. They are not, and were not, the luckless innocent victims you make them out to be.

Because thats exactly the virulent effect white people have on other humans. They are like a poison...a virus with their ways.

I'll bet you tell people you're not racist.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

The same might be said of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton supporters.

No, the same can't be said. Because white racism is real and has a CONTINUING history. It isn't made up whereby people repeat it over and over until people believe it. That's what white victimization is.

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton make every issue about race whether it is or not and his supporters swallow every bitter racist crumb of it.

You sound like youre stuck in the 80's Jesse and Sharpton arent even relevant anymore. Both have been bought by the dems.

So who is responsible for getting blacks lathered up about supposed racially motivated actions that really weren't?

Thats insider information. Youre white and I know what type of harm whites do to Black leaders. You killed the most peaceful leader so we know it behooves us to keep you ignorant on who are leaders are.

Martin Luther King was killed fifty years ago, why didn't you keep Jackson and Sharpton under cover after that?

 

[Asclepias]

White people here want to argue issues they have not studied. And you just displayed another example of how this happens here all the time.

Again with the intellectual shaming. You don't seem to grasp that this is not an intellectual debate over historical facts, it's a philosophical discussion as to who is ultimately responsible for the genocide. We both know what the whites did in Rwanda, that was never in doubt. What I'm saying is that the whites did not make the Hutus hate the Tutsis or vice versa and they were not the ones who picked up the weapons and used them against the Tutsis. It wouldn't matter if I was informed of every aspect and detail of the history leading up to the genocide, I would still say the Rwandans were responsible and the whites were gone thirty years at this point anyway.

I asked you this before and you refused to answer so I'll try again: At what point were (or will) the Rwandans be responsible for their own actions?

I'll answer. When whites didnt pit them against each other and provide arms and support for one side. We know this to be true because when there were no whites there was no malice between the two groups.

That doesn't answer the question, at least not fully. At some point Rwandans became, or will become, responsible for their own actions. When was this or when will it be? Were they responsible for their actions after the genocide? Or are they still not responsible for their actions?

The whites told the Tutsi they were better and the Tutsi believed it and took full advantage of the perks the whites gave them. Why did the Tutsis throw away hundreds of years of peaceful coexistence just like that? As the stronger race (according to you), how were they so easily swayed to look down on Hutus?

I disagree. It fully answers the question. Your question was about the Rwandan crisis not some event in the future.

I didn't say anything about a future event. What are you talking about?

Now youre asking a new question which applies to shaking off the effects of white colonization, white brainwashing, and white interference. When you are subjected to trauma you dont just shake it off the next day.

Did they ever shake it off? If so, when? If not, if they commit genocide tomorrow, do we blame that one on the whites too?

In this case we are talking about centuries of white induced trauma.

Um, no. It was only about 80 years.

When the Rwandans display in their culture a complete forsaking of white values and philosophy combined with a return to their pre white colonization behavior we can then safely say they are then fully responsible for their actions.

This is by far the most idiotic thing I've read on this forum.

Their pre-white colonization behavior consisted of wars of expansion and conquering nearby kingdoms and chiefdoms, much as the way things were in Europe and everywhere else. Rwanda as we know it today did not start out that way. This article is pretty extensive and has a lot of details you won't find anywhere else. Below are a couple of quotes:

"...but what is clear is that in the 1400s, through conquest of several smaller chiefdoms, a state was formed around the Mwami (or king) of Rwanda."

"In the 1600s Mwami Ruganzu II Ndori oversaw a second period of expansion and conquered several smaller kingdoms in and around the central parts of Rwanda"

So as you can see, today's Rwanda was created through war and expansion. They are not, and were not, the luckless innocent victims you make them out to be.

Because thats exactly the virulent effect white people have on other humans. They are like a poison...a virus with their ways.

I'll bet you tell people you're not racist.

You know? If you are going to continually post without realizing what you say we cant have a discussion right?
"At some point Rwandans became, or will become, responsible for their own actions. When was this or when will it be?"

No they still havent shaken it off completely. No one has a timetable on when this will occur. white people say colonization started in 1884 so you want to subtract a few years which would put it at 1880 or so..

You must not have read some of your own posts then.

Who is the author of that article? If its a white person he lacks credibility.

No. I dont care if white boys think I'm racist or not. Sometimes I do ask them why to see if they know what "racist" means.

 

[Asclepias]

No, the same can't be said. Because white racism is real and has a CONTINUING history. It isn't made up whereby people repeat it over and over until people believe it. That's what white victimization is.

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton make every issue about race whether it is or not and his supporters swallow every bitter racist crumb of it.

You sound like youre stuck in the 80's Jesse and Sharpton arent even relevant anymore. Both have been bought by the dems.

So who is responsible for getting blacks lathered up about supposed racially motivated actions that really weren't?

Thats insider information. Youre white and I know what type of harm whites do to Black leaders. You killed the most peaceful leader so we know it behooves us to keep you ignorant on who are leaders are.

Martin Luther King was killed fifty years ago, why didn't you keep Jackson and Sharpton under cover after that?

You would have to ask the people that ever thought of them as relevant. I think you have been hoodwinked into believing they are Black leaders. I'm comfortable with you keeping that belief though.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Again with the intellectual shaming. You don't seem to grasp that this is not an intellectual debate over historical facts, it's a philosophical discussion as to who is ultimately responsible for the genocide. We both know what the whites did in Rwanda, that was never in doubt. What I'm saying is that the whites did not make the Hutus hate the Tutsis or vice versa and they were not the ones who picked up the weapons and used them against the Tutsis. It wouldn't matter if I was informed of every aspect and detail of the history leading up to the genocide, I would still say the Rwandans were responsible and the whites were gone thirty years at this point anyway.

I asked you this before and you refused to answer so I'll try again: At what point were (or will) the Rwandans be responsible for their own actions?

I'll answer. When whites didnt pit them against each other and provide arms and support for one side. We know this to be true because when there were no whites there was no malice between the two groups.

That doesn't answer the question, at least not fully. At some point Rwandans became, or will become, responsible for their own actions. When was this or when will it be? Were they responsible for their actions after the genocide? Or are they still not responsible for their actions?

The whites told the Tutsi they were better and the Tutsi believed it and took full advantage of the perks the whites gave them. Why did the Tutsis throw away hundreds of years of peaceful coexistence just like that? As the stronger race (according to you), how were they so easily swayed to look down on Hutus?

I disagree. It fully answers the question. Your question was about the Rwandan crisis not some event in the future.

I didn't say anything about a future event. What are you talking about?

Now youre asking a new question which applies to shaking off the effects of white colonization, white brainwashing, and white interference. When you are subjected to trauma you dont just shake it off the next day.

Did they ever shake it off? If so, when? If not, if they commit genocide tomorrow, do we blame that one on the whites too?

In this case we are talking about centuries of white induced trauma.

Um, no. It was only about 80 years.

When the Rwandans display in their culture a complete forsaking of white values and philosophy combined with a return to their pre white colonization behavior we can then safely say they are then fully responsible for their actions.

This is by far the most idiotic thing I've read on this forum.

Their pre-white colonization behavior consisted of wars of expansion and conquering nearby kingdoms and chiefdoms, much as the way things were in Europe and everywhere else. Rwanda as we know it today did not start out that way. This article is pretty extensive and has a lot of details you won't find anywhere else. Below are a couple of quotes:

"...but what is clear is that in the 1400s, through conquest of several smaller chiefdoms, a state was formed around the Mwami (or king) of Rwanda."

"In the 1600s Mwami Ruganzu II Ndori oversaw a second period of expansion and conquered several smaller kingdoms in and around the central parts of Rwanda"

So as you can see, today's Rwanda was created through war and expansion. They are not, and were not, the luckless innocent victims you make them out to be.

Because thats exactly the virulent effect white people have on other humans. They are like a poison...a virus with their ways.

I'll bet you tell people you're not racist.

You know? If you are going to continually post without realizing what you say we cant have a discussion right?
"At some point Rwandans became, or will become, responsible for their own actions. When was this or when will it be?"

What did I not realize?

No they still havent shaken it off completely. No one has a timetable on when this will occur.

How do you know this?

white people say colonization started in 1884 so you want to subtract a few years which would put it at 1880 or so..

You're going to quibble over a four year difference when you were the one who said "centuries"?

You must not have read some of your own posts then.

Who is the author of that article? If its a white person he lacks credibility.

If you had bothered to look you would know that it's a South African website. Jesus Christ you are hopeless.

Instead of actually looking at the article, your first instinct was to assume the author is white. Why? Because the very idea that black Africans had wars of conquest just like every other fucking culture on this planet was just too much for your tender black heart to take.

No. I dont care if white boys think I'm racist or not. Sometimes I do ask them why to see if they know what "racist" means.

I know you probably don't care but that's not what I said. I said I'll bet you say that.

 

[Asclepias]

I'll answer. When whites didnt pit them against each other and provide arms and support for one side. We know this to be true because when there were no whites there was no malice between the two groups.

That doesn't answer the question, at least not fully. At some point Rwandans became, or will become, responsible for their own actions. When was this or when will it be? Were they responsible for their actions after the genocide? Or are they still not responsible for their actions?

The whites told the Tutsi they were better and the Tutsi believed it and took full advantage of the perks the whites gave them. Why did the Tutsis throw away hundreds of years of peaceful coexistence just like that? As the stronger race (according to you), how were they so easily swayed to look down on Hutus?

I disagree. It fully answers the question. Your question was about the Rwandan crisis not some event in the future.

I didn't say anything about a future event. What are you talking about?

Now youre asking a new question which applies to shaking off the effects of white colonization, white brainwashing, and white interference. When you are subjected to trauma you dont just shake it off the next day.

Did they ever shake it off? If so, when? If not, if they commit genocide tomorrow, do we blame that one on the whites too?

In this case we are talking about centuries of white induced trauma.

Um, no. It was only about 80 years.

When the Rwandans display in their culture a complete forsaking of white values and philosophy combined with a return to their pre white colonization behavior we can then safely say they are then fully responsible for their actions.

This is by far the most idiotic thing I've read on this forum.

Their pre-white colonization behavior consisted of wars of expansion and conquering nearby kingdoms and chiefdoms, much as the way things were in Europe and everywhere else. Rwanda as we know it today did not start out that way. This article is pretty extensive and has a lot of details you won't find anywhere else. Below are a couple of quotes:

"...but what is clear is that in the 1400s, through conquest of several smaller chiefdoms, a state was formed around the Mwami (or king) of Rwanda."

"In the 1600s Mwami Ruganzu II Ndori oversaw a second period of expansion and conquered several smaller kingdoms in and around the central parts of Rwanda"

So as you can see, today's Rwanda was created through war and expansion. They are not, and were not, the luckless innocent victims you make them out to be.

Because thats exactly the virulent effect white people have on other humans. They are like a poison...a virus with their ways.

I'll bet you tell people you're not racist.

You know? If you are going to continually post without realizing what you say we cant have a discussion right?
"At some point Rwandans became, or will become, responsible for their own actions. When was this or when will it be?"

What did I not realize?

No they still havent shaken it off completely. No one has a timetable on when this will occur.

How do you know this?

white people say colonization started in 1884 so you want to subtract a few years which would put it at 1880 or so..

You're going to quibble over a four year difference when you were the one who said "centuries"?

You must not have read some of your own posts then.

Who is the author of that article? If its a white person he lacks credibility.

If you had bothered to look you would know that it's a South African website. Jesus Christ you are hopeless.

Instead of actually looking at the article, your first instinct was to assume the author is white. Why? Because the very idea that black Africans had wars of conquest just like every other fucking culture on this planet was just too much for your tender black heart to take.

No. I dont care if white boys think I'm racist or not. Sometimes I do ask them why to see if they know what "racist" means.

I know you probably don't care but that's not what I said. I said I'll bet you say that.

Its not important.

Because I am Black and I still see the effects of white colonization in their actions.

No. I am not quibbling

How was I supposed to look when there was no link? Are you really that much of an idiot?

I didnt ask you what you said. I said I dont care if white boys think I'm racist or not. From that you should infer that I dont deny anything. Why would I if I dont care?

 

[IM2]

No, the same can't be said. Because white racism is real and has a CONTINUING history. It isn't made up whereby people repeat it over and over until people believe it. That's what white victimization is.

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton make every issue about race whether it is or not and his supporters swallow every bitter racist crumb of it.

You sound like youre stuck in the 80's Jesse and Sharpton arent even relevant anymore. Both have been bought by the dems.

So who is responsible for getting blacks lathered up about supposed racially motivated actions that really weren't?

Thats insider information. Youre white and I know what type of harm whites do to Black leaders. You killed the most peaceful leader so we know it behooves us to keep you ignorant on who are leaders are.

Martin Luther King was killed fifty years ago, why didn't you keep Jackson and Sharpton under cover after that?

White boy who are you to tell us what to do? Why didn't you keep Trump under cover? Gingrich? Reagan? How many more do you want me to name?