No Country For White Children

[Asclepias]

I don't hate black people, but I do understand them

Like I said, idiot. Your comrades are only your temporary friends online who enjoy insulting blacks. Your are a JEW. Half of them want you DEAD. Do you realize they deny the holocaust. They CELEBRATE gassing your ancestors. THEY WANT TO GAS YOU BECAUSE YOU ARE JEWISH.

You are pathetic. LOL...You choose your friends well.

PUSSY.

Who here want's to gas me because I'm Jewish?

Probably Sunni and a couple of others rabid dogs. Other than that most people are decent and probably would settle for waterboarding you.

 

[guno]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-zttPCDqYU&feature=youtube_gdata_player&app=desktop

You claim you are Jewish?

did you know up until WWII most people in america didn't consider us Jews white

So If you were really Jewish you would know that

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Became-White-Folks-About-America/dp/081352590X]How Jews Became White Folks and What That Says About Race in America: Karen Brodkin: 9780813525907: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

 

[Againsheila]

Instead of personal insults, just tell me how I'm wrong

They first attempted to enslave the NA and other whites. When they were not up to the task, then and only then, did the turn to us strong Black people.

They tried to use Native Americans as slaves, but the cultures of Native Americans was such that they simply refused to work. They were mostly hunter gatherer cultures, not agricultural societies, so working in the fields and tending lifestock was not part of their mindset and was meaningless to them. Also, being a laborer day in and day out was also totally outside their cultural vision. So, making them slaves was a no go.

Tank is uneducated and extremely racist. Studies show that those who are most racist are on the lower end of the IQ scale and are poorly educated. That's where he fits. It isn't personal insults, it's reality.

Sounds like you had my racist 5th grade teacher.

Blacks were slaves because they were sold by their own people. Native Americans didn't sell slaves, they took slaves from the tribes they defeated but those slaves were able to earn their freedom.

In the beginning blacks too could earn their freedom up until a black guy decided he didn't want to let his slave go.

Anthony Johnson (colonist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Asclepias]

They first attempted to enslave the NA and other whites. When they were not up to the task, then and only then, did the turn to us strong Black people.

They tried to use Native Americans as slaves, but the cultures of Native Americans was such that they simply refused to work. They were mostly hunter gatherer cultures, not agricultural societies, so working in the fields and tending lifestock was not part of their mindset and was meaningless to them. Also, being a laborer day in and day out was also totally outside their cultural vision. So, making them slaves was a no go.

Tank is uneducated and extremely racist. Studies show that those who are most racist are on the lower end of the IQ scale and are poorly educated. That's where he fits. It isn't personal insults, it's reality.

Sounds like you had my racist 5th grade teacher.

Blacks were slaves because they were sold by their own people. Native Americans didn't sell slaves, they took slaves from the tribes they defeated but those slaves were able to earn their freedom.

In the beginning blacks too could earn their freedom up until a black guy decided he didn't want to let his slave go.

Anthony Johnson (colonist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Actually what set the precedent was this white guy named Hugh Gwyn but nice try.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Punch_(slave)

John Punch (fl. 1630s, living 1640) was an African indentured servant who lived in the Colony of Virginia during the seventeenth century. In July 1640, the Virginia Governor's Council sentenced him to remain a servant for the rest of his life as punishment for running away to Maryland. For this reason, historians consider Punch the first documented lifetime slave in the colony, and his case a key milestone in the development of slavery in the United States

 

[Againsheila]

They tried to use Native Americans as slaves, but the cultures of Native Americans was such that they simply refused to work. They were mostly hunter gatherer cultures, not agricultural societies, so working in the fields and tending lifestock was not part of their mindset and was meaningless to them. Also, being a laborer day in and day out was also totally outside their cultural vision. So, making them slaves was a no go.

Tank is uneducated and extremely racist. Studies show that those who are most racist are on the lower end of the IQ scale and are poorly educated. That's where he fits. It isn't personal insults, it's reality.

Sounds like you had my racist 5th grade teacher.

Blacks were slaves because they were sold by their own people. Native Americans didn't sell slaves, they took slaves from the tribes they defeated but those slaves were able to earn their freedom.

In the beginning blacks too could earn their freedom up until a black guy decided he didn't want to let his slave go.

Anthony Johnson (colonist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Actually what set the precedent was this white guy named Hugh Gwyn but nice try.

John Punch (slave) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

John Punch (fl. 1630s, living 1640) was an African indentured servant who lived in the Colony of Virginia during the seventeenth century. In July 1640, the Virginia Governor's Council sentenced him to remain a servant for the rest of his life as punishment for running away to Maryland. For this reason, historians consider Punch the first documented lifetime slave in the colony, and his case a key milestone in the development of slavery in the United States

Did you read the article?

"The Casor suit was also significant as an example of how difficult it was for Africans who were indentured servants to keep from being reduced to slavery. Most African immigrants could not read and had no knowledge of the English language. Slave owners found it easy to take advantage and force them into slavery by simply refusing to acknowledge the completion of their indentured contracts.[21] This is what happened in Johnson v. Parker. Even though Casor had two white planters confirming his claim to freedom from his indentured contract with Johnson, the court still ruled in Johnson's favor"

John Punch was made a lifetime slave as punishment for his crime (not good as his two white companions didn't face the same punishment.) Where as Anthony Johnson (black) fought to keep his indentured servant as his slave for life. Both are significant events in our history and both contributed to black slavery. But let's face it, Anthony Johnson fought to keep a black a slave in spite of two white planters who claimed that indentured servant didn't owe him any more time.

What was Casor's crime? There was none.

 

[Asclepias]

Sounds like you had my racist 5th grade teacher.

Blacks were slaves because they were sold by their own people. Native Americans didn't sell slaves, they took slaves from the tribes they defeated but those slaves were able to earn their freedom.

In the beginning blacks too could earn their freedom up until a black guy decided he didn't want to let his slave go.

Anthony Johnson (colonist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Actually what set the precedent was this white guy named Hugh Gwyn but nice try.

John Punch (slave) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

John Punch (fl. 1630s, living 1640) was an African indentured servant who lived in the Colony of Virginia during the seventeenth century. In July 1640, the Virginia Governor's Council sentenced him to remain a servant for the rest of his life as punishment for running away to Maryland. For this reason, historians consider Punch the first documented lifetime slave in the colony, and his case a key milestone in the development of slavery in the United States

Did you read the article?

"The Casor suit was also significant as an example of how difficult it was for Africans who were indentured servants to keep from being reduced to slavery. Most African immigrants could not read and had no knowledge of the English language. Slave owners found it easy to take advantage and force them into slavery by simply refusing to acknowledge the completion of their indentured contracts.[21] This is what happened in Johnson v. Parker. Even though Casor had two white planters confirming his claim to freedom from his indentured contract with Johnson, the court still ruled in Johnson's favor"

John Punch was made a lifetime slave as punishment for his crime (not good as his two white companions didn't face the same punishment.) Where as Anthony Johnson (black) fought to keep his indentured servant as his slave for life. Both are significant events in our history and both contributed to black slavery. But let's face it, Anthony Johnson fought to keep a black a slave in spite of two white planters who claimed that indentured servant didn't owe him any more time.

What was Casor's crime? There was none.

Yes I have read it several times before you brought it up. If you meant what you said in your reply then you would have included both cases since John Punch was actually the first. Instead I suspect you were trying to pull the old "a black man owned the first slave" routine.

 

[Meathead]

Yes I have read it several times before you brought it up. If you meant what you said in your reply then you would have included both cases since John Punch was actually the first. Instead I suspect you were trying to pull the old "a black man owned the first slave" routine.

I guess you've read it several times for the same reason most of us had to read a few things two or three times when we were 5. Don't give Tank any more ammunition, he's got already got enough.

 

[Asclepias]

Yes I have read it several times before you brought it up. If you meant what you said in your reply then you would have included both cases since John Punch was actually the first. Instead I suspect you were trying to pull the old "a black man owned the first slave" routine.

I guess you've read it several times for the same reason most of us had to read a few things two or three times when we were 5. Don't give Tank any more ammunition, he's got already got enough.

Dont let everyone know your educational level. Repetition is the mother of all learning. Haven't you ever heard the maxim you only remember of 10% what you have read? Maybe you read that once and forgot it because you never took the time to read it again?

 

[Meathead]

Yes I have read it several times before you brought it up. If you meant what you said in your reply then you would have included both cases since John Punch was actually the first. Instead I suspect you were trying to pull the old "a black man owned the first slave" routine.

I guess you've read it several times for the same reason most of us had to read a few things two or three times when we were 5. Don't give Tank any more ammunition, he's got already got enough.

Dont let everyone know your educational level. Repetition is the mother of all learning. Haven't you ever heard the maxim you only remember of 10% what you have read? Maybe you read that once and forgot it because you never took the time to read it again?

Ten percent, eh? Don't let Tank hear that. You've got enough to explain already. I suppose we should be impressed that you can read at all, even with 10% comprehension. I mean, all things being relative.

 

[Asclepias]

I guess you've read it several times for the same reason most of us had to read a few things two or three times when we were 5. Don't give Tank any more ammunition, he's got already got enough.

Dont let everyone know your educational level. Repetition is the mother of all learning. Haven't you ever heard the maxim you only remember of 10% what you have read? Maybe you read that once and forgot it because you never took the time to read it again?

Ten percent, eh? Don't let Tank hear that. You've got enough to explain already. I suppose we should be impressed that you can read at all, even with 10% comprehension. I mean, all things being relative.

I dont have anything to explain unless you are unclear about anything beyond your abc's. Are you afraid of Tank or something? I'm not.

 

[FJO]

That sounds exactly like what white people did to the NA's.

Yeah, like at the Little Big Horn?

Whites were almost always outnumbered by Amerindians, you fucking retarded ass hat.

The government was too cheap to adequately supply and fill the ranks. Lots of guns and food meant for the military got sold to Amerindians via the black market.

But you Nazis lie, lie and lie some more about just about everything.

White sucker punched the NA's. The NA's keep the whites alive when some of them were cannibalizing their dead. After they got established they tricked them out of their land and took the rest by force once they were down.

Native Americans, around the 15th century, decided that based on their superior technical knowledge, ship building skills, navigation excellence and their desire to better themselves, set out to explore possible lands East of them, loaded their ships and conquered the land now known as Europe.

Oh!.... Wait! .... That never happened, because ....

 

[Asclepias]

Yeah, like at the Little Big Horn?

Whites were almost always outnumbered by Amerindians, you fucking retarded ass hat.

The government was too cheap to adequately supply and fill the ranks. Lots of guns and food meant for the military got sold to Amerindians via the black market.

But you Nazis lie, lie and lie some more about just about everything.

White sucker punched the NA's. The NA's keep the whites alive when some of them were cannibalizing their dead. After they got established they tricked them out of their land and took the rest by force once they were down.

Native Americans, around the 15th century, decided that based on their superior technical knowledge, ship building skills, navigation excellence and their desire to better themselves, set out to explore possible lands East of them, loaded their ships and conquered the land now known as Europe.

Oh!.... Wait! .... That never happened, because ....

...because the NA's were not genocidal maniacs?

 

[Againsheila]

Actually what set the precedent was this white guy named Hugh Gwyn but nice try.

John Punch (slave) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you read the article?

"The Casor suit was also significant as an example of how difficult it was for Africans who were indentured servants to keep from being reduced to slavery. Most African immigrants could not read and had no knowledge of the English language. Slave owners found it easy to take advantage and force them into slavery by simply refusing to acknowledge the completion of their indentured contracts.[21] This is what happened in Johnson v. Parker. Even though Casor had two white planters confirming his claim to freedom from his indentured contract with Johnson, the court still ruled in Johnson's favor"

John Punch was made a lifetime slave as punishment for his crime (not good as his two white companions didn't face the same punishment.) Where as Anthony Johnson (black) fought to keep his indentured servant as his slave for life. Both are significant events in our history and both contributed to black slavery. But let's face it, Anthony Johnson fought to keep a black a slave in spite of two white planters who claimed that indentured servant didn't owe him any more time.

What was Casor's crime? There was none.

Yes I have read it several times before you brought it up. If you meant what you said in your reply then you would have included both cases since John Punch was actually the first. Instead I suspect you were trying to pull the old "a black man owned the first slave" routine.

If you go to the link I included <which you obviously didn't read or your would know this>, it also mentions John Punch. Again, John Punch was sentenced to a lifetime of indentured servitude for his crime of trying to run away. Castor committed no crime but still ended up serving his indentured servitude for life and it was due to his master, a black man. It also went against the claims of 2 white planters.

Read the link.

 

[Asclepias]

Did you read the article?

"The Casor suit was also significant as an example of how difficult it was for Africans who were indentured servants to keep from being reduced to slavery. Most African immigrants could not read and had no knowledge of the English language. Slave owners found it easy to take advantage and force them into slavery by simply refusing to acknowledge the completion of their indentured contracts.[21] This is what happened in Johnson v. Parker. Even though Casor had two white planters confirming his claim to freedom from his indentured contract with Johnson, the court still ruled in Johnson's favor"

John Punch was made a lifetime slave as punishment for his crime (not good as his two white companions didn't face the same punishment.) Where as Anthony Johnson (black) fought to keep his indentured servant as his slave for life. Both are significant events in our history and both contributed to black slavery. But let's face it, Anthony Johnson fought to keep a black a slave in spite of two white planters who claimed that indentured servant didn't owe him any more time.

What was Casor's crime? There was none.

Yes I have read it several times before you brought it up. If you meant what you said in your reply then you would have included both cases since John Punch was actually the first. Instead I suspect you were trying to pull the old "a black man owned the first slave" routine.

If you go to the link I included <which you obviously didn't read or your would know this>, it also mentions John Punch. Again, John Punch was sentenced to a lifetime of indentured servitude for his crime of trying to run away. Castor committed no crime but still ended up serving his indentured servitude for life and it was due to his master, a black man. It also went against the claims of 2 white planters.

Read the link.

I told you I read the link before several times. You neglected to mention John Punch intentionally. What does a life time of indentured servitude mean to you? Finally what does the below mean to you?

historians consider Punch the first documented lifetime slave in the colony, and his case a key milestone in the development of slavery in the United States

The Punch case was significant because it established the disparity between his sentence as a negro and that of the two European servants who escaped with him (one described as Dutch and one as a Scotchman). It is the first documented case of an African sentenced to lifetime servitude in Virginia and is considered one of the first legal cases to make a racial distinction between black and white indentured servants.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

This thread is such libtard racist bullshit! What a bunch of liberal racists spewing their racist hatred. Their entire agenda is to divide the nation so they can force their views on everyone! I can't believe what a liberal hack the OPer is! Go vote Obama in as lifetime, dictator, Tank, you liberal scum! Oh, wait, Tank's not liberal...

 

[Againsheila]

Yes I have read it several times before you brought it up. If you meant what you said in your reply then you would have included both cases since John Punch was actually the first. Instead I suspect you were trying to pull the old "a black man owned the first slave" routine.

If you go to the link I included <which you obviously didn't read or your would know this>, it also mentions John Punch. Again, John Punch was sentenced to a lifetime of indentured servitude for his crime of trying to run away. Castor committed no crime but still ended up serving his indentured servitude for life and it was due to his master, a black man. It also went against the claims of 2 white planters.

Read the link.

I told you I read the link before several times. You neglected to mention John Punch intentionally. What does a life time of indentured servitude mean to you? Finally what does the below mean to you?

historians consider Punch the first documented lifetime slave in the colony, and his case a key milestone in the development of slavery in the United States

The Punch case was significant because it established the disparity between his sentence as a negro and that of the two European servants who escaped with him (one described as Dutch and one as a Scotchman). It is the first documented case of an African sentenced to lifetime servitude in Virginia and is considered one of the first legal cases to make a racial distinction between black and white indentured servants.

I didn't mention it because I wasn't talking about the first "slave" which is actually the first lifetime prisoner. Not the same thing at all, though I'm sure you believe it is. I'm talking about the indentured servant that was forced into slavery through no fault of his own and because his master (a black man) objected to him working for a white man. 2 White planters spoke out in favor of Castor and were ignored. He was given back to the black man for a lifetime of slavery. And this from a man who himself had served as an indentured servant, along with his wife, and worked his way out of it. Face it, the man was scum. The White planters were not.

Yeah, the guy you call the first black slave was actually sentenced to it due to a crime, albeit unjustly. In the case of Castor, there was no crime. Just a greedy person who didn't want to give up his indentured servant. It's that greedy person I'm talking about.

 

[FJO]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-zttPCDqYU&feature=youtube_gdata_player&app=desktop

You claim you are Jewish?

did you know up until WWII most people in america didn't consider us Jews white

So If you were really Jewish you would know that

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Became-White-Folks-About-America/dp/081352590X]How Jews Became White Folks and What That Says About Race in America: Karen Brodkin: 9780813525907: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

Don't feel bad, some of those loving southern Baptists never considered Catholics as white. Not only that, but they considered Catholics the spawn of Satan.

In that regard they are no better than Muslims.

 

[Asclepias]

If you go to the link I included <which you obviously didn't read or your would know this>, it also mentions John Punch. Again, John Punch was sentenced to a lifetime of indentured servitude for his crime of trying to run away. Castor committed no crime but still ended up serving his indentured servitude for life and it was due to his master, a black man. It also went against the claims of 2 white planters.

Read the link.

I told you I read the link before several times. You neglected to mention John Punch intentionally. What does a life time of indentured servitude mean to you? Finally what does the below mean to you?

The Punch case was significant because it established the disparity between his sentence as a negro and that of the two European servants who escaped with him (one described as Dutch and one as a Scotchman). It is the first documented case of an African sentenced to lifetime servitude in Virginia and is considered one of the first legal cases to make a racial distinction between black and white indentured servants.

I didn't mention it because I wasn't talking about the first "slave" which is actually the first lifetime prisoner. Not the same thing at all, though I'm sure you believe it is. I'm talking about the indentured servant that was forced into slavery through no fault of his own and because his master (a black man) objected to him working for a white man. 2 White planters spoke out in favor of Castor and were ignored. He was given back to the black man for a lifetime of slavery. And this from a man who himself had served as an indentured servant, along with his wife, and worked his way out of it. Face it, the man was scum. The White planters were not.

Yeah, the guy you call the first black slave was actually sentenced to it due to a crime, albeit unjustly. In the case of Castor, there was no crime. Just a greedy person who didn't want to give up his indentured servant. It's that greedy person I'm talking about.

Where do you see him described as a lifetime prisoner? Why dont you just admit you left him out intentionally? You are not even sly about it. You specifically said this:

In the beginning blacks too could earn their freedom up until a black guy decided he didn't want to let his slave go.

Looks like you were talking about slaves to me. You werent talking about greedy or thats what you would have said. If the guy was a criminal why didnt he go to jail? The historians all say he was the first slave. His owner was a white guy. What is confusing you about that?

 

[Againsheila]

I told you I read the link before several times. You neglected to mention John Punch intentionally. What does a life time of indentured servitude mean to you? Finally what does the below mean to you?

I didn't mention it because I wasn't talking about the first "slave" which is actually the first lifetime prisoner. Not the same thing at all, though I'm sure you believe it is. I'm talking about the indentured servant that was forced into slavery through no fault of his own and because his master (a black man) objected to him working for a white man. 2 White planters spoke out in favor of Castor and were ignored. He was given back to the black man for a lifetime of slavery. And this from a man who himself had served as an indentured servant, along with his wife, and worked his way out of it. Face it, the man was scum. The White planters were not.

Yeah, the guy you call the first black slave was actually sentenced to it due to a crime, albeit unjustly. In the case of Castor, there was no crime. Just a greedy person who didn't want to give up his indentured servant. It's that greedy person I'm talking about.

Where do you see him described as a lifetime prisoner? Why dont you just admit you left him out intentionally? You are not even sly about it. You specifically said this:

In the beginning blacks too could earn their freedom up until a black guy decided he didn't want to let his slave go.

Looks like you were talking about slaves to me. You werent talking about greedy or thats what you would have said. If the guy was a criminal why didnt he go to jail? The historians all say he was the first slave. His owner was a white guy. What is confusing you about that?

I give up, believe what you want, you will anyway.

 

[Asclepias]

I didn't mention it because I wasn't talking about the first "slave" which is actually the first lifetime prisoner. Not the same thing at all, though I'm sure you believe it is. I'm talking about the indentured servant that was forced into slavery through no fault of his own and because his master (a black man) objected to him working for a white man. 2 White planters spoke out in favor of Castor and were ignored. He was given back to the black man for a lifetime of slavery. And this from a man who himself had served as an indentured servant, along with his wife, and worked his way out of it. Face it, the man was scum. The White planters were not.

Yeah, the guy you call the first black slave was actually sentenced to it due to a crime, albeit unjustly. In the case of Castor, there was no crime. Just a greedy person who didn't want to give up his indentured servant. It's that greedy person I'm talking about.

Where do you see him described as a lifetime prisoner? Why dont you just admit you left him out intentionally? You are not even sly about it. You specifically said this:

In the beginning blacks too could earn their freedom up until a black guy decided he didn't want to let his slave go.

Looks like you were talking about slaves to me. You werent talking about greedy or thats what you would have said. If the guy was a criminal why didnt he go to jail? The historians all say he was the first slave. His owner was a white guy. What is confusing you about that?

I give up, believe what you want, you will anyway.

I would give up too. I would just admit I got caught lying as well.