NationStates Jolt Archive

It has been proven on two major occaisions that widespread belief in the superiority of white people leads to the destruction of the society which holds such beliefs.


Example one is the american south, it was annihilated and put beneath the boot by the north in the american civil war.

Example two is Germany, which in world war two was bombed to rubble and defeated absolutely.


This in mind, anyone who promulgats racism could be considered as trying to push america down the slippery slope into absolute destruction.

Racism therefore should be opposed not merely on moral grounds but on the grounds of patriotism, and indeed national security.

Same goes for discrimination based on sexuality. The problem is that there are more non-whites than there are gays/lesbians/bisexuals who'd fight the prejudices of society.

The idea of white power maybe. But there is plenty of ethnic violence elsewhere that might work. The Balkans, Middle East, the Sudan all have problems with different ethnic groups. Tens of thousands are dying in Sudan without any intervention from the outside. Not white domination but still the domination of one group over another.

...Interesting point. I agree. Racism and various other forms of hatred eventually create political and moral chaos...I'm glad to have posted before "United White Front," does :rolleyes: ...

It has been proven on two major occaisions that widespread belief in the superiority of white people leads to the destruction of the society which holds such beliefs.


Example one is the american south, it was annihilated and put beneath the boot by the north in the american civil war.

Example two is Germany, which in world war two was bombed to rubble and defeated absolutely.


This in mind, anyone who promulgats racism could be considered as trying to push america down the slippery slope into absolute destruction.

Racism therefore should be opposed not merely on moral grounds but on the grounds of patriotism, and indeed national security.
the north saw its superiority to the negro's as well they also saw mixture was bad lincon pland on shiping all freed slaves back to africa
its just to damn bad he was shot :sniper:

...Interesting point. I agree. Racism and various other forms of hatred eventually create political and moral chaos...I'm glad to have posted before "United White Front," does :rolleyes: ...
now why's that???

now why's that???


maybe, just maybe, because everything that comes out of your mouth makes you sound like a racist bigoted horse-fucker, and postin after you do would invariably call for a reply instead of any other type of post. Asshole

It has been proven on two major occaisions that widespread belief in the superiority of white people leads to the destruction of the society which holds such beliefs.


Example one is the american south, it was annihilated and put beneath the boot by the north in the american civil war.

Example two is Germany, which in world war two was bombed to rubble and defeated absolutely.


This in mind, anyone who promulgats racism could be considered as trying to push america down the slippery slope into absolute destruction.

Racism therefore should be opposed not merely on moral grounds but on the grounds of patriotism, and indeed national security.

I think this doesn't go for Germany. Hitler's racist laws weren't the cause of World War II. In fact, the Allied powers didn't care that much about it. Before World War II, Germany had fairly normal diplomatic relations with the rest of Europe (British PM Chamberlain even visited Hitler in 1938 and agreed with him that Czechoslovakia was to be given to Germany). It was just that Hitler armed Germany very quickly and invaded Poland and Czechoslovakia in his quest for 'Lebensraum'.
If Hitler wouldn't have invaded Poland (i.e. hadn't started World War II) I think there wouldn't be as much a fuss about his racist politics.

maybe, just maybe, because everything that comes out of your mouth makes you sound like a racist bigoted horse-fucker, and postin after you do would invariably call for a reply instead of any other type of post. Asshole
The fact that someone's racist doesn't give you the right to flame them. Consider this a formal warning.

Unfree People
Forum Moderator

...Yes, but their post about slaves and calling them "negros," I would think is racist and rude...

"Slippery slope" is a logical fallacy.

...Yes, but their post about slaves and calling them "negros," I would think is racist and rude...
what would you like me to say how about mudd peoples, is that better
i'm sure if i used n*gg*r i would get a forum ban
so what may i ask would you like me to say

what would you like me to say how about mudd peoples, is that better
i'm sure if i used n*gg*r i would get a forum ban
so what may i ask would you like me to say

The PC term is "African-American", but the majority I know simply prefer "black".

It has been proven on two major occaisions that widespread belief in the superiority of white people leads to the destruction of the society which holds such beliefs.


Example one is the american south, it was annihilated and put beneath the boot by the north in the american civil war.

Example two is Germany, which in world war two was bombed to rubble and defeated absolutely.


This in mind, anyone who promulgats racism could be considered as trying to push america down the slippery slope into absolute destruction.

Racism therefore should be opposed not merely on moral grounds but on the grounds of patriotism, and indeed national security.

Example One: Who ever said the north wasnt racist? Sure they didnt want slavery but thats not the reason why they declared war on the south. The reason they went to war with the south was because the south wanted to become an independent nation which wasnt controlled by the current american government(if the south continued to be part of the union but still keep slaves then there wouldnt have been any conflict) besides I heard that even though President Lincoln didnt believe in slavery he was indeed racist and he even considered transporting all the black people in America back to Africa after the conflict was over(this never managed to occur because Lincoln died shortly after the war came to an end)

Example Two: Ok Germany and Fascist Italy were destroyed. But Fascism survived in nations like Nationalist Spain, Fascist Portugal, Even Croatia(it was defeated during ww2 but it managed to reappear as an independent nation after the serbian conflict) Germany fell simply because of basically trying to take on the whole world(which is ridiculous) it didnt fall because it was a racist nation, if the germans never invaded poland in 1939 perhap it would still be Nazi Germany today.

The problem is that in neither of those cases did the oppressed minority actualy manage to do anything to overcome their oppressors. The American South used the claim of racial superiority and was overcome by the North, but north and south used the claim of racial superiority to drive out the Native Americans. Does anyone plan on giving them the country back?

While Germany used racial grounds as a premise for German rule the rest of Europse used it as an excuse for White rule of Africa and Asia. It was only because they stood up against Germany that the rest of Europe lost their Empires. Even at that though they are still some of the richest countries in the world and hold great control over Africa. They hardly prove that widespread belief in the superiority of the White race leads to the destruction of that society.

Haiti would be a better case for your point. The slaves rose up against their White masters and today there is hardly a White person to be found there. Of course America still installs a new leader there whenever we feel like it.

Yes,racism is a danger to the world. Many people have died because of their race and religion. People are so stupid these days. :(

Example One: Who ever said the north wasnt racist? Sure they didnt want slavery but thats not the reason why they declared war on the south. The reason they went to war with the south was because the south wanted to become an independent nation which wasnt controlled by the current american government(if the south continued to be part of the union but still keep slaves then there wouldnt have been any conflict) besides I heard that even though President Lincoln didnt believe in slavery he was indeed racist and he even considered transporting all the black people in America back to Africa after the conflict was over(this never managed to occur because Lincoln died shortly after the war came to an end)
see post 5 this thread (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7364234&postcount=5)

what would you like me to say how about mudd peoples, is that better
i'm sure if i used n*gg*r i would get a forum ban
so what may i ask would you like me to say

Pitiful Humanoid Earthlings.

Example One: Who ever said the north wasnt racist? Sure they didnt want slavery but thats not the reason why they declared war on the south. The reason they went to war with the south was because the south wanted to become an independent nation which wasnt controlled by the current american government(if the south continued to be part of the union but still keep slaves then there wouldnt have been any conflict) besides I heard that even though President Lincoln didnt believe in slavery he was indeed racist and he even considered transporting all the black people in America back to Africa after the conflict was over(this never managed to occur because Lincoln died shortly after the war came to an end)

All true. That is why now when the Jim Crow laws were passed down south the racism was much more open. Since their repeal things are much better with the treatment though the racism has just been driven under the surface. Up north, there were no laws on the books, they were just "de facto" laws. I know Lincoln thought that transporting all the blacks back to Africa was the way to end the issue of slavery once and for all. His thought was simply to rid the country of the problem. The Emancipation Proclimation was simply a political move against the South to try to get them to surrender as the document said it only effected those states "in rebellion". That means the border states like Kentucky would be able to keep their slaves. Lincoln really wasn't some great guy in the fight against slavery.

Pitiful Humanoid Earthlings.
so you want me to use that??

so you want me to use that??
I don't see any reason you shouldn't use Negro. How's that any worse than "black", considering it's meaning is "Black"? It comes from a Latin term. (Of course, all "******" means is "black", too, but it's almost entirely used as a racial slur, unless it's in a rap song, or a Negro/Black/African-American says it) Just what is the problem?

It has been proven on two major occaisions that widespread belief in the superiority of white people leads to the destruction of the society which holds such beliefs.


Example one is the american south, it was annihilated and put beneath the boot by the north in the american civil war.

Example two is Germany, which in world war two was bombed to rubble and defeated absolutely.


This in mind, anyone who promulgats racism could be considered as trying to push america down the slippery slope into absolute destruction.

Racism therefore should be opposed not merely on moral grounds but on the grounds of patriotism, and indeed national security.

I believe here you have made the fatal error of confusing the causes of the destruction of these nations. You see, the Southwas not destroyed because it held slaves. The North had slave states too, and it wasn't destroyed. The South was attacked because it had left the Union, and the Northerners wanted to restore it. Also, they wanted to keep making money off the tariffs that were in effect, which averaged about 45% on goods.

Hitler's germany was destroyed because it waged an aggressive war on two fronts simultaneously, in a vast error of judgement. Also, Japan made the tactical error of "awakening the sleeping giant," which led to the intervention of the most powerful nation in existance at the time, that being America. Thus, Hitler succeeded in alienating and then attacking the wrong nations at the wrong times. He should have completed his war in Europe, and then turned his attention to Russia. Meanwhile, Japan should have attacked the US after Europe was conquered and Russia severely weakened from fighting Germany. The US would have only been able to turn its full attention to Japan, and when Germany finished with Russia it could have then aided Japan, crushing the US.

Basically, I'm afraid your understanding of these events is flawed, and I would suggest a deeper thought process before making such ridiculous claims as you have.

After all, those nations were brought down by exterior causes, not internal strife. Now, Athens was considerably weakened from the inside by its moral corruption and decadence, which led to its downfall. The same goes for Rome. Both were ruined by corruption and moral decay, which led to vast occurrences of homosexuality, paedophilia, bestiality, and further down a true slippery slope. Indeed, the difference between Rome and Athens is that when they were finally attacked by foreign armies, they had decayed to little more than a shade of their former selves, while the South and Germany were at the height of their power. The South, of course, was severely weakened by Sherman's infamous, cowardly, and devasting "march to the sea" which exclusively targeted civilians.

The US didn't become the most powerful nation on earth until after WWII. It was only after an enormous portion of the industrial infrastructure of europe was bombed, rebombed, carpet bombed, shot at, mined, gassed, and bombed again for good measure that the US came to be an unrivaled industrial-economic power. Japan was limited in resources by the very nature of being an island. It accumulated the industrial resources of the areas it absorbed as imperial japan's military might absorbed parts of china and the pacific rim, allying w/ the axis powers.

this isn't to say that the US had an insignificant industrial strength. Just that it was one among many powers. Its unique position compared to other nations was it's physical isolation of 2 oceans separating major industrial and military powers, leaving the industrial base unscathed throughout hte war.

Same goes for discrimination based on sexuality. The problem is that there are more non-whites than there are gays/lesbians/bisexuals who'd fight the prejudices of society.
Except assuming the following:
1) Ancient Greece embraced homosexuality
2) Rome embraced homosexuality
3) Neither exists today
Therefore, based on a sample size of two, embracing homosexuality led to the downfall of the two mightiest nations on earth at the time, and in the case of Rome, perhaps ever. The "white power leads to downfall idea" is one of the stupidest thread ideas ever. Not because white power is good, but just because the topic starter has no understanding of history.

How about racism should be opposed on the basis that it is destructive to your fellow humans. The human race is a single species. How does one morally legitimize treating other members as inferior on the basis of something as arbitrary as skin color? What makes the "white race" superior? What makes another inferior?

Whatever color you are, what makes you superior to another human being aside from your own individual experiences and collection of knowledge?

How about racism should be opposed on the basis that it is destructive to your fellow humans. The human race is a single species. How does one morally legitimize treating other members as inferior on the basis of something as arbitrary as skin color? What makes the "white race" superior? What makes another inferior?

Whatever color you are, what makes you superior to another human being aside from your own individual experiences and collection of knowledge?
Exactly. That would have been a far better premise for a thread, than one filled with no understanding of cause and effect and poor reasoning.

Except assuming the following:
1) Ancient Greece embraced homosexuality
2) Rome embraced homosexuality
3) Neither exists today
Therefore, based on a sample size of two, embracing homosexuality led to the downfall of the two mightiest nations on earth at the time, and in the case of Rome, perhaps ever. The "white power leads to downfall idea" is one of the stupidest thread ideas ever. Not because white power is good, but just because the topic starter has no understanding of history.

What formerly outlawed religious cult because accepted shortly before the fall of the Roman empire?

Well, it looks like United White Front has it under control.

Good day.

The South was not destroyed because it held slaves.

I have to disagree. The reason the South lost its rebellion against the Union forces is precisely because their economy was hobbled by slavery.

By 1860 a prime field hand sold for $1,800 (that is more than $35,000 in today's dollars). This price had quintupled from 1800. Slaves had become the primary investment in the South, drawing nearly all their venture capital ($2 billion). As a result Southern investment capital didn't go to education (most aristocratic Southerners sent their children to England or the North for schooling), manufacturing (only 8% of the nation's manufacturing value was to be found in the South), munitions (the South had only one armaments factory), or transportation (the North had 3/4s of the nation's railroads).

The South's decision to rely on a slave based plantation system doomed their struggle from the start and resulted in the southern states becoming virtual economic colonies of the industrial north until well into the 20th century.

Example one is the american south, it was annihilated and put beneath the boot by the north in the american civil war.

Example two is Germany, which in world war two was bombed to rubble and defeated absolutely.



What about South Afrika, fer garsh's sake?!

Except assuming the following:
1) Ancient Greece embraced homosexuality
2) Rome embraced homosexuality
3) Neither exists today


Both embraced unbrideled expansionism too...

(and a few other things I'm sure... take a logic course!)

Except assuming the following:
1) Ancient Greece embraced homosexuality
2) Rome embraced homosexuality
3) Neither exists today
Therefore, based on a sample size of two, embracing homosexuality led to the downfall of the two mightiest nations on earth at the time, and in the case of Rome, perhaps ever. The "white power leads to downfall idea" is one of the stupidest thread ideas ever. Not because white power is good, but just because the topic starter has no understanding of history.

I agree with your general statement, however, it was slavery (although not necessarily racism) that brought down the South (see my comment above). I believe a strong economic argument can be made that, ultimately, slavery doomed the economies of Sparta, Athens, and ancient Rome, as well.

However it wasn't racism that caused their respective downfalls, it was slavery itself as you said. Rome, for example, had Roman, Greek, Celtic, Negro, Arabic, etc slaves. Basically, if you got your butt whooped by the Legions, you were slave material.

The South collapsed due to slavery and, of course, overestimating the importance of their cotten trade to England. England had plenty of colonies that could produce virtually anything the South shipped.

I have to disagree. The reason the South lost its rebellion against the Union forces is precisely because their economy was hobbled by slavery.

By 1860 a prime field hand sold for $1,800 (that is more than $35,000 in today's dollars). This price had quintupled from 1800. Slaves had become the primary investment in the South, drawing nearly all their venture capital ($2 billion). As a result Southern investment capital didn't go to education (most aristocratic Southerners sent their children to England or the North for schooling), manufacturing (only 8% of the nation's manufacturing value was to be found in the South), munitions (the South had only one armaments factory), or transportation (the North had 3/4s of the nation's railroads).

The South's decision to rely on a slave based plantation system doomed their struggle from the start and resulted in the southern states becoming virtual economic colonies of the industrial north until well into the 20th century.

Well said.
The only thing I have to add to your analysis is that throughout the South during the Confederate era, there existed tremendous opposition to seccession from the Union -- as well as strong support for the abolition of slavery. Tennessee for example did not succeed from the Union. And if the votes were tabulated correctly Louisiana also would not have (officials voided all vote totals from most regions of the state save the Plantation / Bourbon-dominated area along the Mississippi River, inclusive of Baton Rouge and New Orleans).

America will forever be hobbled by its murderous / racist past if it does not begin to truly confront it and to provide appropriate reparations for its moral blindness.

Well said.
The only thing I have to add to your analysis is that throughout the South during the Confederate era, there existed tremendous opposition to seccession from the Union -- as well as strong support for the abolition of slavery. Tennessee for example did not succeed from the Union. And if the votes were tabulated correctly Louisiana also would not have (officials voided all vote totals from most regions of the state save the Plantation / Bourbon-dominated area along the Mississippi River, inclusive of Baton Rouge and New Orleans).

America will forever be hobbled by its murderous / racist past if it does not begin to truly confront it and to provide appropriate reparations for its moral blindness.
No one is responsible for anyone's actions but their own. If my father was Hitler, I would be no worse of a person than if my father was Ghandi. No one owes Blacks anything for slavery, the perpetrators of their crimes are dead, and besides, America is not solely guilty. I believe most of the blame should be placed on their countrymen who sold them into slavery in the first place.

No one is responsible for anyone's actions but their own. If my father was Hitler, I would be no worse of a person than if my father was Ghandi. No one owes Blacks anything for slavery, the perpetrators of their crimes are dead, and besides, America is not solely guilty. I believe most of the blame should be placed on their countrymen who sold them into slavery in the first place.

Highlighting these words is my emphasis.

Much as I agree that reparations should be paid for past acts of forebearers in this case and others, I do acknowledge the problem of determining such a burden of guilt and what that means for descendants unconnected. Indeed, the amount of reparations necessary to atone for the curse of slavery alone would be astronomical!

Having said that, the best intentions of The Reconstruction Era in part were to accomplish just that. Certainly some locales began to flourish (like New Orleans) with the advent of emancipation. Indeed, "Jim Crow" did not automatically begin after the Civil War. It would be almost thirty years before such a code really took hold -- in particular following the Plessy vs. Ferguson case regarding segregation of interstate transit.

My proposal / vision for reparations rather would focus on Jim Crow's victims.
The propogators and victims are still very much alive in societial institutions like a de-facto and de-funded public schools, for example. Though there has been some attempts (one I was involved with was the "Mardi Gras Parade Ordinance" in New Orleans to desegregate Carnival clubs following the electoral defeat of David Duke in the Louisiana Governor's race in 1991) there needs to be an honest attempt at addressing official complicity in upholding racism. The South African Truth Commission I think would be a good model to start with.