The Sickness Racism Breeds

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

/

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Do you see what I'm getting at? A lot of the stuff that IM2 and Asclepias spout on here is no different than rhetoric spouted by white racists. It's not raising awareness of racism or seeking justice or any noble idea such as that. It's just more of the same.

You ever heard the axiom "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction"?

Have you ever heard the axiom "Hate begets hate"? Or "Two wrongs don't make a right"?

You're viewing the reaction to being abused, exploited and subjugated to unspeakable indignities and human rights violations to whatever motivated the white racists to put this scheme into motion in the first place. They are not the same, nor are they equal.

I understand that I'm viewing the reaction and I'm not disputing the reasons behind them, I'm disputing your moral rationale behind perpetuating hate. Are you telling me that racism is the solution to racism? If that's what you're saying then where does it end?

I understand your position but the fact is you're wrong - about everything in your last comment.

I honestly have no idea how you arrived at the conclusion that I am perpetuating hate. I understand that people don't like it when you correct them, I guess it makes them feel as if they are being treated like a child. And I don't intervene in most situations online or off EXCEPT when there are people who are so blatently ignorant of history, law, civics, etc. attempting to justify their assholelyness towards black people as being deserved because of some mystical anti-white discrimination or white racism. Black people in America have never been the benefactors of racist and discriminatory laws against white people unlike white people therefore it's not the same thing, never has been, never will be no matter how much you all insist that they are.

Furthermore I have no control over other people hating me but nothing I have ever done in my lifetime justifies the types of crimes that have been committed against me and continue to this day. There is nothing I can do to stop them or change their minds or opinions about me so I don't bother even trying. My works speak for me, even though the idiots appear not to be able to read nor comprehend their meanings. You're attempting to imply that the only reason white racists exist is because of something that black people have done making us deserving of all of the derision and wickedness done to us as a race. The fact that you're attempting to defend and equate "hate begets hate" as a reason for the vitriol, animosity and evilness directed at people of African descent says that you honestly have no idea what is truly going on and that you don't understand the difference. And yes, the origin of the animosity is important. I'm sure if someone caused you or one of your loved ones harm or damaged your property or threatened you wth violence, you'd fully expect our law enforcement agencies to protect you, but what if they refuse because you're a member of the race that the Supreme court stated "the Negro has no rights that a white man need respect". <---- Again, RACE not CULTURE.

And it is a character flaw, a moral failing or whatever you want to call it, to do the things that were done to people of African descent in the U.S. but what made it particularly heinous is the fact that the white racists made this abuse the law of the land.

You're right, it is a character flaw. But it is a character flaw of human nature, not race. To expand on this, slavery and racism were/are a moral failure of culture, not race. If it was a character flaw of race then slavery would not have been outlawed and blacks would still not have the right to vote or the same civil liberties or equal employment opportunity and would still be widely viewed as inferior.

Race cannot be changed but culture can be. Whites will always be white and blacks will always be black but white culture has changed dramatically since then in the acceptance of the fundamental sameness of the two races. Is there a ways to go yet? Yes. But even you cannot deny that white culture has changed drastically in its attitude towards blacks from a hundred years ago.

Wrong again. The only reason things have improved (to a degree) is because the laws were changed. The white racists could no longer openly do the racist things that they had previously without risking harm to themselves, it's not like they suddenly evolved.

Black people were singled out by race not culture and what the white racists opposed was EVERYTHING that people of African descent were. How can you deny that this evilness was not based on race when they put in writing their thoughts and published them so that 200+ years later we could read about them

She [the state of Texas] was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.
...
We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.​

And what about those who did not participate in the abusive racist behavior?

as well.

Some of them are the ones who got the laws changed, helped shelter and protect the slaves in the underground railroad and others were just not wicked and didn't participate in the human rights violations against their fellow human beings of African descent. None of us have denied that there have been whites who were allies and who oftentimes suffered violence in retaliation

 

[Asclepias]

No that doesnt make them superior. That makes them decidedly inferior. If whites were superior they would have needed zero legislation or any kind of advantage to out succeed other races. Its like tying a handicapped kids show laces to the other shoe so you win a race. You dont hold back inferior competition. You just beat them.

So on your thinking since human beings need weapons to protect them against stronger animals, they are inferior? Superiority is an ability to secure your survival by whatever means. That is how the rich get richer and the poort get poorer. Or are you saying life is a kids' game and no one should cheat?

Correct. There is a reason we need guns and other weapons. We are inferior to a bear. You ever see what happens when a bear and a unarmed human meet? Nope. Securing your survival by any means is adaptation not superiority. Exactly. People that cheat are weak and need a crutch.

A crutch like, say, white people are the weaker race?

No that wouldnt be a crutch. That would be an explanation of the reason white people concentrated their energy on creating a system of racism. They couldnt compete and knew this instinctively so they had to cheat.

So whites that were exploring the world, inventing things like steam power, the telegraph, cement, electromagnet, the typewriter, internal combustion engine and building grand structures were intimidated by a people still living relatively primitively. Hokay.

Whites never invented shit without Black or brown people giving them the knowledge. The sciences were first taught by Black people. Whites benefited from that instruction so whites get zero credit for any invention. Besides most of the inventions were stolen from Blacks that were unable to get patents. This shows again the weakness of whites and their penchant for lying about who actually made the inventions.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Do you see what I'm getting at? A lot of the stuff that IM2 and Asclepias spout on here is no different than rhetoric spouted by white racists. It's not raising awareness of racism or seeking justice or any noble idea such as that. It's just more of the same.

You ever heard the axiom "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction"?

Have you ever heard the axiom "Hate begets hate"? Or "Two wrongs don't make a right"?

You're viewing the reaction to being abused, exploited and subjugated to unspeakable indignities and human rights violations to whatever motivated the white racists to put this scheme into motion in the first place. They are not the same, nor are they equal.

I understand that I'm viewing the reaction and I'm not disputing the reasons behind them, I'm disputing your moral rationale behind perpetuating hate. Are you telling me that racism is the solution to racism? If that's what you're saying then where does it end?

I understand your position but the fact is you're wrong - about everything in your last comment.

I honestly have no idea how you arrived at the conclusion that I am perpetuating hate.

Let's backtrack a little and see how we got to this point. Asclepias made the comment that whites are the weaker race and due to this, do not try to stop racism. I asked for clarification as to whether he meant some whites or all whites. He refused to answer and I thus I intimated that he was dodging the question. He responded with:

"I dont waste time answering questions you should already know the answer to by reading my statement."

To which I responded:

"I did know the answer to the question. The idea was to get you to realize that you are painting white people, as a race, as weaker mentally and morally which is exactly what whites used to say about blacks a hundred years ago."

When I told him this, I was of course referring to his remark about whites being the weaker race and not trying to stop racism.

This is where you stepped in and responded to my comments above with the diatribe about why whites thought blacks were inferior and the injustice of their racist actions in general. I assumed from your interjection that you knew I was confronting Asclepias on his refusal to answer the question and about his saying whites are the weaker race.

So, this means one of three things: 1.) You agree with Asclepias that whites are the weaker race and that (assuming he did indeed mean all whites) no whites try to stop racism. 2.) You didn't care one way or the other and that it was more important to you to impress upon me - for the thousandth time - that what whites did was wrong and immoral (something I am aware of already and never denied), than him clarifying whether he meant some or all whites in which case, if he meant all whites then all three of us know that's horseshit. 3.) You didn't bother to go back and check the train of dialog between myself and him and you had no idea what I was talking about.

So this is why I said "your" moral rationale. If I'm wrong and you do not agree with him on these two points then you have my apologies. Otherwise, my comment stands.

I understand that people don't like it when you correct them, I guess it makes them feel as if they are being treated like a child. And I don't intervene in most situations online or off EXCEPT when there are people who are so blatently ignorant of history, law, civics, etc. attempting to justify their assholelyness towards black people as being deserved because of some mystical anti-white discrimination or white racism. Black people in America have never been the benefactors of racist and discriminatory laws against white people unlike white people therefore it's not the same thing, never has been, never will be no matter how much you all insist that they are.

What exactly did you correct me on? All you told me is that it was a reaction to white racism. Problem is, I never said it wasn't and in fact, I didn't say anything about the motivation behind their rhetoric one way or the other. All I said is that their rhetoric is the same shit whites spouted a hundred years ago.

That they're angry and is a reaction to white racism is a given and was never in dispute. What is in dispute is whether or not saying things like whites are the weaker race is moral or true or contributes anything to the fight against racism.

Furthermore I have no control over other people hating me but nothing I have ever done in my lifetime justifies the types of crimes that have been committed against me and continue to this day. There is nothing I can do to stop them or change their minds or opinions about me so I don't bother even trying. My works speak for me, even though the idiots appear not to be able to read nor comprehend their meanings. You're attempting to imply that the only reason white racists exist is because of something that black people have done making us deserving of all of the derision and wickedness done to us as a race.

The fuck are you talking about? I confronted Asclepias on his remark that whites are the weaker race and said that saying such things is the same attitude whites had about blacks a hundred years ago. How the fuck do you get that I am implying that the only reason white racists exist is because of something that black people have done out of this?

The fact that you're attempting to defend and equate "hate begets hate" as a reason for the vitriol, animosity and evilness directed at people of African descent says that you honestly have no idea what is truly going on and that you don't understand the difference.

Again, the fuck are you talking about? Nowhere have I excused, justified or defended racism by whites. When I said "Hate begets hate", that was meant more or less as an admonishment to you not to respond to the hatred of whites with more hate. I didn't say it to excuse their hatred. Why the fuck would I do that? I would have no basis or justification for defending white racist vitriol.

Christ, haven't you learned anything about me yet?

And yes, the origin of the animosity is important. I'm sure if someone caused you or one of your loved ones harm or damaged your property or threatened you wth violence, you'd fully expect our law enforcement agencies to protect you, but what if they refuse because you're a member of the race that the Supreme court stated "the Negro has no rights that a white man need respect". <---- Again, RACE not CULTURE.

Correlation vs. causation. Look it up.

And it is a character flaw, a moral failing or whatever you want to call it, to do the things that were done to people of African descent in the U.S. but what made it particularly heinous is the fact that the white racists made this abuse the law of the land.

You're right, it is a character flaw. But it is a character flaw of human nature, not race. To expand on this, slavery and racism were/are a moral failure of culture, not race. If it was a character flaw of race then slavery would not have been outlawed and blacks would still not have the right to vote or the same civil liberties or equal employment opportunity and would still be widely viewed as inferior.

Race cannot be changed but culture can be. Whites will always be white and blacks will always be black but white culture has changed dramatically since then in the acceptance of the fundamental sameness of the two races. Is there a ways to go yet? Yes. But even you cannot deny that white culture has changed drastically in its attitude towards blacks from a hundred years ago.

Wrong again. The only reason things have improved (to a degree) is because the laws were changed. The white racists could no longer openly do the racist things that they had previously without risking harm to themselves, it's not like they suddenly evolved.

You say "The white racists could no longer..." Obviously white racists could no longer openly do the racist things they had done before. But that's not the entire story, is it? What you conveniently overlook is that the non-racist whites grew in number and became more vocal about the injustices that blacks lived and worked under.
Non-racist whites marched right alongside blacks in the march to Selma. Non-racist whites were right beside blacks at all the civil rights marches and protests. Non-racist whites were beaten, hosed and gassed right alongside blacks and in at least one case, died right alongside blacks.

Do you think for one minute that we would have had the kind of public outcry from whites about white racism and white privilege that we see today back in the 60s? Absolutely not. So don't tell me there hasn't been dramatic changes.

Black people were singled out by race not culture and what the white racists opposed was EVERYTHING that people of African descent were. How can you deny that this evilness was not based on race when they put in writing their thoughts and published them so that 200+ years later we could read about them

Once again, the fuck are you talking about? I didn't say the racism against blacks wasn't based on race, I said the racism itself is not an inherent white trait and that it was a moral failure at the cultural level.

Jesus how are you arriving at these ridiculous conclusions?

And what about those who did not participate in the abusive racist behavior?

as well.

Some of them are the ones who got the laws changed, helped shelter and protect the slaves in the underground railroad and others were just not wicked and didn't participate in the human rights violations against their fellow human beings of African descent. None of us have denied that there have been whites who were allies and who oftentimes suffered violence in retaliation

One would never know by listening to you guys rant against white people the way you do.

 

[Asclepias]

Do you see what I'm getting at? A lot of the stuff that IM2 and Asclepias spout on here is no different than rhetoric spouted by white racists. It's not raising awareness of racism or seeking justice or any noble idea such as that. It's just more of the same.

You ever heard the axiom "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction"?

Have you ever heard the axiom "Hate begets hate"? Or "Two wrongs don't make a right"?

You're viewing the reaction to being abused, exploited and subjugated to unspeakable indignities and human rights violations to whatever motivated the white racists to put this scheme into motion in the first place. They are not the same, nor are they equal.

I understand that I'm viewing the reaction and I'm not disputing the reasons behind them, I'm disputing your moral rationale behind perpetuating hate. Are you telling me that racism is the solution to racism? If that's what you're saying then where does it end?

I understand your position but the fact is you're wrong - about everything in your last comment.

I honestly have no idea how you arrived at the conclusion that I am perpetuating hate.

Let's backtrack a little and see how we got to this point. Asclepias made the comment that whites are the weaker race and due to this, do not try to stop racism. I asked for clarification as to whether he meant some whites or all whites. He refused to answer and I thus I intimated that he was dodging the question. He responded with:

"I dont waste time answering questions you should already know the answer to by reading my statement."

To which I responded:

"I did know the answer to the question. The idea was to get you to realize that you are painting white people, as a race, as weaker mentally and morally which is exactly what whites used to say about blacks a hundred years ago."

When I told him this, I was of course referring to his remark about whites being the weaker race and not trying to stop racism.

This is where you stepped in and responded to my comments above with the diatribe about why whites thought blacks were inferior and the injustice of their racist actions in general. I assumed from your interjection that you knew I was confronting Asclepias on his refusal to answer the question and about his saying whites are the weaker race.

So, this means one of three things: 1.) You agree with Asclepias that whites are the weaker race and that (assuming he did indeed mean all whites) no whites try to stop racism. 2.) You didn't care one way or the other and that it was more important to you to impress upon me - for the thousandth time - that what whites did was wrong and immoral (something I am aware of already and never denied), than him clarifying whether he meant some or all whites in which case, if he meant all whites then all three of us know that's horseshit. 3.) You didn't bother to go back and check the train of dialog between myself and him and you had no idea what I was talking about.

So this is why I said "your" moral rationale. If I'm wrong and you do not agree with him on these two points then you have my apologies. Otherwise, my comment stands.

I understand that people don't like it when you correct them, I guess it makes them feel as if they are being treated like a child. And I don't intervene in most situations online or off EXCEPT when there are people who are so blatently ignorant of history, law, civics, etc. attempting to justify their assholelyness towards black people as being deserved because of some mystical anti-white discrimination or white racism. Black people in America have never been the benefactors of racist and discriminatory laws against white people unlike white people therefore it's not the same thing, never has been, never will be no matter how much you all insist that they are.

What exactly did you correct me on? All you told me is that it was a reaction to white racism. Problem is, I never said it wasn't and in fact, I didn't say anything about the motivation behind their rhetoric one way or the other. All I said is that their rhetoric is the same shit whites spouted a hundred years ago.

That they're angry and is a reaction to white racism is a given and was never in dispute. What is in dispute is whether or not saying things like whites are the weaker race is moral or true or contributes anything to the fight against racism.

Furthermore I have no control over other people hating me but nothing I have ever done in my lifetime justifies the types of crimes that have been committed against me and continue to this day. There is nothing I can do to stop them or change their minds or opinions about me so I don't bother even trying. My works speak for me, even though the idiots appear not to be able to read nor comprehend their meanings. You're attempting to imply that the only reason white racists exist is because of something that black people have done making us deserving of all of the derision and wickedness done to us as a race.

The fuck are you talking about? I confronted Asclepias on his remark that whites are the weaker race and said that saying such things is the same attitude whites had about blacks a hundred years ago. How the fuck do you get that I am implying that the only reason white racists exist is because of something that black people have done out of this?

The fact that you're attempting to defend and equate "hate begets hate" as a reason for the vitriol, animosity and evilness directed at people of African descent says that you honestly have no idea what is truly going on and that you don't understand the difference.

Again, the fuck are you talking about? Nowhere have I excused, justified or defended racism by whites. When I said "Hate begets hate", that was meant more or less as an admonishment to you not to respond to the hatred of whites with more hate. I didn't say it to excuse their hatred. Why the fuck would I do that? I would have no basis or justification for defending white racist vitriol.

Christ, haven't you learned anything about me yet?

And yes, the origin of the animosity is important. I'm sure if someone caused you or one of your loved ones harm or damaged your property or threatened you wth violence, you'd fully expect our law enforcement agencies to protect you, but what if they refuse because you're a member of the race that the Supreme court stated "the Negro has no rights that a white man need respect". <---- Again, RACE not CULTURE.

Correlation vs. causation. Look it up.

And it is a character flaw, a moral failing or whatever you want to call it, to do the things that were done to people of African descent in the U.S. but what made it particularly heinous is the fact that the white racists made this abuse the law of the land.

You're right, it is a character flaw. But it is a character flaw of human nature, not race. To expand on this, slavery and racism were/are a moral failure of culture, not race. If it was a character flaw of race then slavery would not have been outlawed and blacks would still not have the right to vote or the same civil liberties or equal employment opportunity and would still be widely viewed as inferior.

Race cannot be changed but culture can be. Whites will always be white and blacks will always be black but white culture has changed dramatically since then in the acceptance of the fundamental sameness of the two races. Is there a ways to go yet? Yes. But even you cannot deny that white culture has changed drastically in its attitude towards blacks from a hundred years ago.

Wrong again. The only reason things have improved (to a degree) is because the laws were changed. The white racists could no longer openly do the racist things that they had previously without risking harm to themselves, it's not like they suddenly evolved.

You say "The white racists could no longer..." Obviously white racists could no longer openly do the racist things they had done before. But that's not the entire story, is it? What you conveniently overlook is that the non-racist whites grew in number and became more vocal about the injustices that blacks lived and worked under.
Non-racist whites marched right alongside blacks in the march to Selma. Non-racist whites were right beside blacks at all the civil rights marches and protests. Non-racist whites were beaten, hosed and gassed right alongside blacks and in at least one case, died right alongside blacks.

Do you think for one minute that we would have had the kind of public outcry from whites about white racism and white privilege that we see today back in the 60s? Absolutely not. So don't tell me there hasn't been dramatic changes.

Black people were singled out by race not culture and what the white racists opposed was EVERYTHING that people of African descent were. How can you deny that this evilness was not based on race when they put in writing their thoughts and published them so that 200+ years later we could read about them

Once again, the fuck are you talking about? I didn't say the racism against blacks wasn't based on race, I said the racism itself is not an inherent white trait and that it was a moral failure at the cultural level.

Jesus how are you arriving at these ridiculous conclusions?

And what about those who did not participate in the abusive racist behavior?

as well.

Some of them are the ones who got the laws changed, helped shelter and protect the slaves in the underground railroad and others were just not wicked and didn't participate in the human rights violations against their fellow human beings of African descent. None of us have denied that there have been whites who were allies and who oftentimes suffered violence in retaliation

One would never know by listening to you guys rant against white people the way you do.

I finally figured you out. You just have bad reading comprehension and lack the awareness to understand how it makes your questions look like something a rookie interrogator would ask.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

So on your thinking since human beings need weapons to protect them against stronger animals, they are inferior? Superiority is an ability to secure your survival by whatever means. That is how the rich get richer and the poort get poorer. Or are you saying life is a kids' game and no one should cheat?

Correct. There is a reason we need guns and other weapons. We are inferior to a bear. You ever see what happens when a bear and a unarmed human meet? Nope. Securing your survival by any means is adaptation not superiority. Exactly. People that cheat are weak and need a crutch.

A crutch like, say, white people are the weaker race?

No that wouldnt be a crutch. That would be an explanation of the reason white people concentrated their energy on creating a system of racism. They couldnt compete and knew this instinctively so they had to cheat.

So whites that were exploring the world, inventing things like steam power, the telegraph, cement, electromagnet, the typewriter, internal combustion engine and building grand structures were intimidated by a people still living relatively primitively. Hokay.

Whites never invented shit without Black or brown people giving them the knowledge. The sciences were first taught by Black people. Whites benefited from that instruction so whites get zero credit for any invention. Besides most of the inventions were stolen from Blacks that were unable to get patents. This shows again the weakness of whites and their penchant for lying about who actually made the inventions.

White people invented everything in my list.

 

[Asclepias]

Correct. There is a reason we need guns and other weapons. We are inferior to a bear. You ever see what happens when a bear and a unarmed human meet? Nope. Securing your survival by any means is adaptation not superiority. Exactly. People that cheat are weak and need a crutch.

A crutch like, say, white people are the weaker race?

No that wouldnt be a crutch. That would be an explanation of the reason white people concentrated their energy on creating a system of racism. They couldnt compete and knew this instinctively so they had to cheat.

So whites that were exploring the world, inventing things like steam power, the telegraph, cement, electromagnet, the typewriter, internal combustion engine and building grand structures were intimidated by a people still living relatively primitively. Hokay.

Whites never invented shit without Black or brown people giving them the knowledge. The sciences were first taught by Black people. Whites benefited from that instruction so whites get zero credit for any invention. Besides most of the inventions were stolen from Blacks that were unable to get patents. This shows again the weakness of whites and their penchant for lying about who actually made the inventions.

White people invented everything in my list.

Not without stealing the invention from a Black person or educated in the knowledge Black people provided.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Do you see what I'm getting at? A lot of the stuff that IM2 and Asclepias spout on here is no different than rhetoric spouted by white racists. It's not raising awareness of racism or seeking justice or any noble idea such as that. It's just more of the same.

You ever heard the axiom "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction"?

Have you ever heard the axiom "Hate begets hate"? Or "Two wrongs don't make a right"?

You're viewing the reaction to being abused, exploited and subjugated to unspeakable indignities and human rights violations to whatever motivated the white racists to put this scheme into motion in the first place. They are not the same, nor are they equal.

I understand that I'm viewing the reaction and I'm not disputing the reasons behind them, I'm disputing your moral rationale behind perpetuating hate. Are you telling me that racism is the solution to racism? If that's what you're saying then where does it end?

I understand your position but the fact is you're wrong - about everything in your last comment.

I honestly have no idea how you arrived at the conclusion that I am perpetuating hate.

Let's backtrack a little and see how we got to this point. Asclepias made the comment that whites are the weaker race and due to this, do not try to stop racism. I asked for clarification as to whether he meant some whites or all whites. He refused to answer and I thus I intimated that he was dodging the question. He responded with:

"I dont waste time answering questions you should already know the answer to by reading my statement."

To which I responded:

"I did know the answer to the question. The idea was to get you to realize that you are painting white people, as a race, as weaker mentally and morally which is exactly what whites used to say about blacks a hundred years ago."

When I told him this, I was of course referring to his remark about whites being the weaker race and not trying to stop racism.

This is where you stepped in and responded to my comments above with the diatribe about why whites thought blacks were inferior and the injustice of their racist actions in general. I assumed from your interjection that you knew I was confronting Asclepias on his refusal to answer the question and about his saying whites are the weaker race.

So, this means one of three things: 1.) You agree with Asclepias that whites are the weaker race and that (assuming he did indeed mean all whites) no whites try to stop racism. 2.) You didn't care one way or the other and that it was more important to you to impress upon me - for the thousandth time - that what whites did was wrong and immoral (something I am aware of already and never denied), than him clarifying whether he meant some or all whites in which case, if he meant all whites then all three of us know that's horseshit. 3.) You didn't bother to go back and check the train of dialog between myself and him and you had no idea what I was talking about.

So this is why I said "your" moral rationale. If I'm wrong and you do not agree with him on these two points then you have my apologies. Otherwise, my comment stands.

I understand that people don't like it when you correct them, I guess it makes them feel as if they are being treated like a child. And I don't intervene in most situations online or off EXCEPT when there are people who are so blatently ignorant of history, law, civics, etc. attempting to justify their assholelyness towards black people as being deserved because of some mystical anti-white discrimination or white racism. Black people in America have never been the benefactors of racist and discriminatory laws against white people unlike white people therefore it's not the same thing, never has been, never will be no matter how much you all insist that they are.

What exactly did you correct me on? All you told me is that it was a reaction to white racism. Problem is, I never said it wasn't and in fact, I didn't say anything about the motivation behind their rhetoric one way or the other. All I said is that their rhetoric is the same shit whites spouted a hundred years ago.

That they're angry and is a reaction to white racism is a given and was never in dispute. What is in dispute is whether or not saying things like whites are the weaker race is moral or true or contributes anything to the fight against racism.

Furthermore I have no control over other people hating me but nothing I have ever done in my lifetime justifies the types of crimes that have been committed against me and continue to this day. There is nothing I can do to stop them or change their minds or opinions about me so I don't bother even trying. My works speak for me, even though the idiots appear not to be able to read nor comprehend their meanings. You're attempting to imply that the only reason white racists exist is because of something that black people have done making us deserving of all of the derision and wickedness done to us as a race.

The fuck are you talking about? I confronted Asclepias on his remark that whites are the weaker race and said that saying such things is the same attitude whites had about blacks a hundred years ago. How the fuck do you get that I am implying that the only reason white racists exist is because of something that black people have done out of this?

The fact that you're attempting to defend and equate "hate begets hate" as a reason for the vitriol, animosity and evilness directed at people of African descent says that you honestly have no idea what is truly going on and that you don't understand the difference.

Again, the fuck are you talking about? Nowhere have I excused, justified or defended racism by whites. When I said "Hate begets hate", that was meant more or less as an admonishment to you not to respond to the hatred of whites with more hate. I didn't say it to excuse their hatred. Why the fuck would I do that? I would have no basis or justification for defending white racist vitriol.

Christ, haven't you learned anything about me yet?

And yes, the origin of the animosity is important. I'm sure if someone caused you or one of your loved ones harm or damaged your property or threatened you wth violence, you'd fully expect our law enforcement agencies to protect you, but what if they refuse because you're a member of the race that the Supreme court stated "the Negro has no rights that a white man need respect". <---- Again, RACE not CULTURE.

Correlation vs. causation. Look it up.

And it is a character flaw, a moral failing or whatever you want to call it, to do the things that were done to people of African descent in the U.S. but what made it particularly heinous is the fact that the white racists made this abuse the law of the land.

You're right, it is a character flaw. But it is a character flaw of human nature, not race. To expand on this, slavery and racism were/are a moral failure of culture, not race. If it was a character flaw of race then slavery would not have been outlawed and blacks would still not have the right to vote or the same civil liberties or equal employment opportunity and would still be widely viewed as inferior.

Race cannot be changed but culture can be. Whites will always be white and blacks will always be black but white culture has changed dramatically since then in the acceptance of the fundamental sameness of the two races. Is there a ways to go yet? Yes. But even you cannot deny that white culture has changed drastically in its attitude towards blacks from a hundred years ago.

Wrong again. The only reason things have improved (to a degree) is because the laws were changed. The white racists could no longer openly do the racist things that they had previously without risking harm to themselves, it's not like they suddenly evolved.

You say "The white racists could no longer..." Obviously white racists could no longer openly do the racist things they had done before. But that's not the entire story, is it? What you conveniently overlook is that the non-racist whites grew in number and became more vocal about the injustices that blacks lived and worked under.
Non-racist whites marched right alongside blacks in the march to Selma. Non-racist whites were right beside blacks at all the civil rights marches and protests. Non-racist whites were beaten, hosed and gassed right alongside blacks and in at least one case, died right alongside blacks.

Do you think for one minute that we would have had the kind of public outcry from whites about white racism and white privilege that we see today back in the 60s? Absolutely not. So don't tell me there hasn't been dramatic changes.

Black people were singled out by race not culture and what the white racists opposed was EVERYTHING that people of African descent were. How can you deny that this evilness was not based on race when they put in writing their thoughts and published them so that 200+ years later we could read about them

Once again, the fuck are you talking about? I didn't say the racism against blacks wasn't based on race, I said the racism itself is not an inherent white trait and that it was a moral failure at the cultural level.

Jesus how are you arriving at these ridiculous conclusions?

And what about those who did not participate in the abusive racist behavior?

as well.

Some of them are the ones who got the laws changed, helped shelter and protect the slaves in the underground railroad and others were just not wicked and didn't participate in the human rights violations against their fellow human beings of African descent. None of us have denied that there have been whites who were allies and who oftentimes suffered violence in retaliation

One would never know by listening to you guys rant against white people the way you do.

I finally figured you out. You just have bad reading comprehension and lack the awareness to understand how it makes your questions look like something a rookie interrogator would ask.

I asked the question because your idiotic pronouncements about white people cite no exceptions. In other words, reading your posts in this forum (and IM2's), one would think you believe no white person has any moral character or redeeming virtues at all. That's why I asked the question.

You're under the impression that I am particularly proud of the questions I ask as if it they are clever or intelligent. They are just simple questions but they are questions most people don't think to ask. They are petitions to address important distinctions in a discussion for clarification.

What's funny is, if I hadn't asked the question and just assumed you meant all whites when in fact you did not, you would have crucified me for making the assumption. But when I ask the question so as not to make an incorrect assumption, you crucify me for asking "stupid" questions. It's ridiculous.

So, I finally figured you out. Logic, distinctions, fact or truth are not important to you and are simply barriers to your main goal of vilifying whites.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

A crutch like, say, white people are the weaker race?

No that wouldnt be a crutch. That would be an explanation of the reason white people concentrated their energy on creating a system of racism. They couldnt compete and knew this instinctively so they had to cheat.

So whites that were exploring the world, inventing things like steam power, the telegraph, cement, electromagnet, the typewriter, internal combustion engine and building grand structures were intimidated by a people still living relatively primitively. Hokay.

Whites never invented shit without Black or brown people giving them the knowledge. The sciences were first taught by Black people. Whites benefited from that instruction so whites get zero credit for any invention. Besides most of the inventions were stolen from Blacks that were unable to get patents. This shows again the weakness of whites and their penchant for lying about who actually made the inventions.

White people invented everything in my list.

Not without stealing the invention from a Black person or educated in the knowledge Black people provided.

Even if some did, it is not true in every case.

 

[OldLady]

Being a predator has everything to do with it. It kills to eat. In human circles, that is kill to be in charge. Africans were not respecting each other's boundaries, A., they were into battles with their neighbors, taking slaves, booty, etc. long before white Europeans arrived.
A tribe of them even took over the Egyptian dynasty for a short while, didn't they?

As for fighting now, you know more about it than I do, but blaming the instinct to kill on white people alone? That's not right.

Africans respected the boundaries of other Africans before whites carved up Africa. Anything else is a lie told by white historians who wanted to use that as an excuse. They say the same thing about the NAs. What occurred in Egypt was in house. Brothers will fight among themselves in most cases. It wasnt a tribe. It was the Nubian empire that ruled Egypt for a while. This happened on several occasions simply because the Nubians were the first Egyptians.

Alright, if you are going to call anything in the historical record a lie, I guess there's no sense talking to you.
Believe what you will.

Old lady, this historical record of Africa includes colonization by whites which divided nations into borders that did not exist and put warring tribes next to each other, white rulers that used divide and conquer in order to maintain minority rule. Much of the strife in Africa today can be traced to colonization. You guys her are so busy arguing trying top make us racists rather than discussing the points being made. What A is saying is that what is going on now whites created. Most of you guys want to go way back to 100,000 BC in order to argue about issues to rationalize what whites have done until we start bringing up how the past benefitted whites today then for most of you guys here 100 years ago is too far in the past. Stop doing that please.

IM, A is the one who brought up pre-colonial Africa by saying that prior to whites invading Africa, Africans respected each others' boundaries and didn't war with each other.
I already said, in my reply to A, that you folks know more about current conflicts in Africa than I do, what caused them, etc. I was never speaking to current conflicts. I was speaking only to the ridiculous notion that as a race, Africans were peaceful until the bad white guys taught them to be aggressors. Sorry, that's bullshit.

I can see A being somewhat suspicious of white historians' account of what African empires were like pre white guys, but I think it is ludicrous to imagine that blacks are any more likely to be peaceniks, as a race, than any other. He mentioned Native Americans as being peaceable, too. But we know the Mayan and Aztec empires, to name two, didn't become tens of thousands strong by simply smiling at their neighbors. They sacrificed their prisoners of war; no white guy made that up--it is what archeologists have figured out.

All humans have the potential for violence; some cultures learn to control it. I'm not saying some black cultures weren't peaceful, but so were some white cultures. And probably over the course of time, they got gobbled up by aggressive neighbors. That's how history goes.
So, sorry, but I have no plans to "stop" making that point. Though there's no sense, I realize, trying to make any point here.

I'm not going to argue against the fact that we all have human flaws. But what gets sickening is that most whites here always want to make the argument a what about ism in order to divert from the topic. But you have one problem with the argument you are using, find us examples where a non white nation has invaded, colonized, and occupied a white one.

The Carthaginians.

 

[Asclepias]

No that wouldnt be a crutch. That would be an explanation of the reason white people concentrated their energy on creating a system of racism. They couldnt compete and knew this instinctively so they had to cheat.

So whites that were exploring the world, inventing things like steam power, the telegraph, cement, electromagnet, the typewriter, internal combustion engine and building grand structures were intimidated by a people still living relatively primitively. Hokay.

Whites never invented shit without Black or brown people giving them the knowledge. The sciences were first taught by Black people. Whites benefited from that instruction so whites get zero credit for any invention. Besides most of the inventions were stolen from Blacks that were unable to get patents. This shows again the weakness of whites and their penchant for lying about who actually made the inventions.

White people invented everything in my list.

Not without stealing the invention from a Black person or educated in the knowledge Black people provided.

Even if some did, it is not true in every case.

Its true in every case. Not one white person invented anything without stealing it from a Black person or using the foundational knowledge taught to europeans by Black people.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

So whites that were exploring the world, inventing things like steam power, the telegraph, cement, electromagnet, the typewriter, internal combustion engine and building grand structures were intimidated by a people still living relatively primitively. Hokay.

Whites never invented shit without Black or brown people giving them the knowledge. The sciences were first taught by Black people. Whites benefited from that instruction so whites get zero credit for any invention. Besides most of the inventions were stolen from Blacks that were unable to get patents. This shows again the weakness of whites and their penchant for lying about who actually made the inventions.

White people invented everything in my list.

Not without stealing the invention from a Black person or educated in the knowledge Black people provided.

Even if some did, it is not true in every case.

Its true in every case. Not one white person invented anything without stealing it from a Black person or using the foundational knowledge taught to europeans by Black people.

Uh huh.

 

[JoeMoma]

Not one white person invented anything without stealing it from a Black person or using the foundational knowledge taught to europeans by Black people.

Most every inventor uses some sort of "foundational knowledge" learned from someone else. That in no way minimizes the genius of the inventor. It would have been impossible for the hunter/gatherer of thousands of years ago to invent the microprocessor using the resources available in the wilderness. Most all inventions come about because the inventors are able to stand on the shoulders of the giants that came before them.

 

[JoeMoma]

Whites never invented shit without Black or brown people giving them the knowledge. The sciences were first taught by Black people. Whites benefited from that instruction so whites get zero credit for any invention. Besides most of the inventions were stolen from Blacks that were unable to get patents. This shows again the weakness of whites and their penchant for lying about who actually made the inventions.

White people invented everything in my list.

Not without stealing the invention from a Black person or educated in the knowledge Black people provided.

Even if some did, it is not true in every case.

Its true in every case. Not one white person invented anything without stealing it from a Black person or using the foundational knowledge taught to europeans by Black people.

Uh huh.

Thomas Edison stole the invention of the light bulb from a black person dontchaknow!

 

[Asclepias]

Not one white person invented anything without stealing it from a Black person or using the foundational knowledge taught to europeans by Black people.

Most every inventor uses some sort of "foundational knowledge" learned from someone else. That in no way minimizes the genius of the inventor. It would have been impossible for the hunter/gatherer of thousands of years ago to invent the microprocessor using the resources available in the wilderness. Most all inventions come about because the inventors are able to stand on the shoulders of the giants that came before them.

I agree. Which is my point.

 

[Asclepias]

White people invented everything in my list.

Not without stealing the invention from a Black person or educated in the knowledge Black people provided.

Even if some did, it is not true in every case.

Its true in every case. Not one white person invented anything without stealing it from a Black person or using the foundational knowledge taught to europeans by Black people.

Uh huh.

Thomas Edison stole the invention of the light bulb from a black person dontchaknow!

Warren de La Rue is white not Black. Thomas Edison stole a lot of his inventions though.

 

[JoeMoma]

Not one white person invented anything without stealing it from a Black person or using the foundational knowledge taught to europeans by Black people.

Most every inventor uses some sort of "foundational knowledge" learned from someone else. That in no way minimizes the genius of the inventor. It would have been impossible for the hunter/gatherer of thousands of years ago to invent the microprocessor using the resources available in the wilderness. Most all inventions come about because the inventors are able to stand on the shoulders of the giants that came before them.

I agree. Which is my point.

Well, your point seemed to be that white people should not get any credit for inventing anything and that all the credit should go to black people.

 

[Asclepias]

Not one white person invented anything without stealing it from a Black person or using the foundational knowledge taught to europeans by Black people.

Most every inventor uses some sort of "foundational knowledge" learned from someone else. That in no way minimizes the genius of the inventor. It would have been impossible for the hunter/gatherer of thousands of years ago to invent the microprocessor using the resources available in the wilderness. Most all inventions come about because the inventors are able to stand on the shoulders of the giants that came before them.

I agree. Which is my point.

Well, your point seemed to be that white people should not get any credit for inventing anything and that all the credit should go to black people.

Thats correct. What whites have done is the equivalent of putting a racing stripe on a car and even then a Black person or another person of color helped them invent the racing stripe.

 

[JoeMoma]

The UnMuseum - Who Invented the Lightbulb?

An interesting read about the invention of the light bulb. Edison was not the first, but he did invent the first light bulb practical for mass use it seems. Like many of his inventions, he improved on what already existed.

 

[JoeMoma]

Not one white person invented anything without stealing it from a Black person or using the foundational knowledge taught to europeans by Black people.

Most every inventor uses some sort of "foundational knowledge" learned from someone else. That in no way minimizes the genius of the inventor. It would have been impossible for the hunter/gatherer of thousands of years ago to invent the microprocessor using the resources available in the wilderness. Most all inventions come about because the inventors are able to stand on the shoulders of the giants that came before them.

I agree. Which is my point.

Well, your point seemed to be that white people should not get any credit for inventing anything and that all the credit should go to black people.

Thats correct. What whites have done is the equivalent of putting a racing stripe on a car and even then a Black person or another person of color helped them invent the racing stripe.