NationStates Jolt Archive

First of all, I am not racist. I have many African-American friends, I enjoy African-American culture. They do deserve rights, but they already have got them. But a bunch of demagouges are currently brain-washing the African-American youth to believing: "White evil, black good." and not telling them that there are both good white and black people and vice versa.

MARCUS FRANKLIN
NYC leaders support black girl who read white nationalism poem.
NEW YORK -- Autum Ashante, a 7-year-old black girl, caused a stir at two Westchester County schools by reciting a poem she wrote about white nationalism. But her words _ and her actions _ are earning high praise from some city leaders.

On Tuesday, Autum stood on the steps of City Hall with Councilman Charles Barron, who denounced what he described as attacks and harassment since Autum spoke last month at a middle and high school. Later, she appeared on the Rev. Al Sharpton's radio show.

At issue is a poem Autum delivered on Feb. 28 titled "White Nationalism Put U In Bondage," in which Christopher Columbus and Charles Darwin are likened to pirates and vampires. The young girl, who is homeschooled, also asked students to stand and recite the "Black Child's Pledge," an oath of responsibility and black pride.

When white students at the Peekskill High School assembly stood with black students, Autum told them to sit down, the school district's superintendent said. The Peekskill City School District then sent recorded messages to parents of its 3,000 students apologizing to anyone who was offended.

Mel Bolden, a Peekskill high school music teacher and black culture club adviser, invited Autum to speak, a school official said.

Barron said he couldn't understand why anyone would be offended. He characterized the girl as "brave" and "outspoken in telling the truth," and he defended her 162-word poem, praising it as evoking "peace, power and pride about her heritage."

"Someone decided to call parents and apologize," Barron, a former Black Panther, said at the news conference. "Some are talking about banning her from speaking in the school system. You don't have to agree with everything we say, but we have a right to say it. We are very, very proud of you, Autum."

Barron said he couldn't cite specific incidents of harassment of the girl since she read the poem. He said he planned to ask Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's office to look into whether the girl's free speech rights were violated.

Judith Johnson, the Peekskill superintendent, said Autum isn't banned from speaking in the district again.

"Never, ever would we do something like that," Johnson said. "But telling white kids you can't recite the pledge and to sit down _ in a multicultural district you can't do that."

The school district is about 40 percent black, 30 percent Hispanic and the rest mostly white and Asian. Johnson said "outsiders have interjected race into a town where it's not an issue."

Spitzer spokeswoman Juanita Scarlett said the attorney general doesn't investigate individual cases. "However, it is our understanding that the school district has not barred Autum Ashante from participating in further events," she said.

Autum is homeschooled with a curriculum by the Black Homeschoolers Association, said her father, Batin Ashante, of Mount Vernon. She also is an aspiring actress and soon-to-be poetry artist.

On the steps of City Hall, Autum recited the poem and pledge, drawing yelps of "Tell it!" and "Hallelujah!" from Barron's staff and others in the small crowd.

Then she took questions, cautioning a reporter to use the term "African" instead of "African-American."

Asked how she felt about some white students and parents being upset, Autum said, "I feel bad, but I know it was the right thing to do."

When asked how much help she received to write the poem, she replied, "My dad helped with spelling and pronunciation."

Autum said she is at work on another poem, "Two, Four, Six, Eight." Before she could explain what it's about, she was ushered away for her next public appearance.


Ugh, it makes me want to vomit. A girl as young as 7 has been brainwashed into thinking America is Hell and Africa is heaven. Africa is a nice place, but not as nice as America:

A comparsion:

America:
Freedom of religion, speech, press, etc.
UN Big 5 member
No genocide in history
Racism died out in 1960s

Africa:
Little to no freedom of anything.
Some are members, some aren't.
Horrible numbers of genocides throughout history
Racism still practiced there.

This is probably a case of people not supporting issues, but rather climbing atop issues to be higher than everyone else.

America:

No genocide in history
Racism died out in 1960s


?

No genocide in history
Racism died out in 1960s


You sure about that?

?

Apparently the settlement of the Western Frontiers and the massacres in the Phillipines can be swept under the carpet. Oh, and there's absolutely no racial discrimination in the US - it's all just liberal lies, especially in places like the District of Columbia and the sourthern states...

?
Why do you put the question mark? Genocide and racism, although related, are two different things. Genocide involves killing, whilst racism involves only hatred unless the hatred escalates enough into genocide, which has not happened in American history(Although I could see a point in the wrongs of the slave trade).

Nonetheless, the Afro-centrists are not looking at the facts.

Eh, this has been happening in public schools all across the country. If I had kids, they would go to a Catholic Private School.

Apparently the settlement of the Western Frontiers and the massacres in the Phillipines can be swept under the carpet. Oh, and there's absolutely no racial discrimination in the US - it's all just liberal lies, especially in places like the District of Columbia and the sourthern states...

You raise a valuable point. However, the problems here compared to Africa's are meek and pathetic.

Could you post a copy of the poem? I would like to see it for myself.

Why do you put the question mark?

I put the question mark because the treatment of the Native Americans throughout the history of settlement of North America certainly raises the question of genocide, and to indicate that I conside you statement that racism in the USA is a thing of the past to also be highly questionable.

First of all, I am not racist. I have many African-American friends, I enjoy African-American culture.

Black People Love Us! (http://www.blackpeopleloveus.com/)

I've read some of Autum's poetry. It's acually quite good.

And what's this about no genocide and rasism dying out in America? Sure, Africa has a whole host of bigger problems, but that's no reason to ignore the problems in America, too.

Is anyone concerned that the world looks like it's going to end up with rich "blacks" and poor "whites"?

You raise a valuable point. However, the problems here compared to Africa's are meek and pathetic.

That doesn't mean they don't exist.

Someone ought to remove her from her parents home and brainwash her. SHe's being turned into what she is preaching against. She's preaching against racism and yet, at the same time is becoming what she supposedly detests. Ah yes, a product of the Republican system; "do as I say, not as I do."

Black lands taken from your hands, by vampires with no remorse.
They took the gold, the wisdom and all the storytellers.
They took the black women, with the black man weak.
Made to watch as they changed the paradigm of our village.
Yeah white nationalism is what put you in bondage.
Pirates and vampires like Columbus, Morgan and Darwin.

Someone explain to me the crimes of Darwin, please.

In my opinion, the problem with the Afro-centrists is that they have become the new racists. If they want any credibility, they should fight for the rights of the Native Americans and Hawaiian peoples, who were indigneous to this land.

In my opinion, the problem with the Afro-centrists is that they have become the new racists. If they want any credibility, they should fight for the rights of the Native Americans and Hawaiian peoples, who were indigneous to this land.

Huh, I thought all racism died out in the USA during the 1960's, no?

Someone explain to me the crimes of Darwin, please.

A 7 year old knows what paradigm means? I smell more than spelling help there...

EDIT: Would she also know of Darwin and Morgan at that age? And who the hell is Morgan?

Someone explain to me the crimes of Darwin, please.
He believed monkeys became humans, and since the first humans were African, the Afro-centrists think Darwin is comparing Africans with monkeys.

See how insane and wacky their line of thinking is?

Someone explain to me the crimes of Darwin, please.

She is referring to Social Darwinism-a train of thought that many Europeans used to justify taking parts of Africa for thier own benifit.

He believed monkeys became humans, and since the first humans were African, the Afro-centrists think Darwin is comparing Africans with monkeys.

See how insane and wacky their line of thinking is?

Darwin believed that monkeys became humans? Nope. Do some research.

He believed monkeys became humans, and since the first humans were African, the Afro-centrists think Darwin is comparing Africans with monkeys.

See how insane and wacky their line of thinking is?

Da hell?

Never heard it explained like that.

In my opinion, the problem with the Afro-centrists is that they have become the new racists.

In my opinion, the greatest sign that white racism remains still is the incapability and unwillingness of most whites to view what blacks say as legitimate and not as the infantile mutterings of an inferior race.

Also, the whites do deserve some blame for the slave trade, but remember, the leaders of the African tribes were the ones that sold the African people into slavery, they deserve as much blame as the whites of the slave trade do.

Also, the whites do deserve some blame for the slave trade, but remember, the leaders of the African tribes were the ones that sold the African people into slavery, they deserve as much blame as the whites of the slave trade do.

Ignoring the fact that not all slaves were sold into slavery by their social superiors...

In my opinion, the greatest sign that white racism remains still is the incapability and unwillingness of most whites to view what blacks say as legitimate and not as the infantile mutterings of an inferior race.
I respect the majority of the African-Americans beliefs, but I am disgusted by the radicals. Same with any other race. White radicals: disgust me. Hispanic radicals: disgust me. (insert race here) radicals: disgust me...and so on. I respect the beliefs of people with logical, well-thoughtout views, but not the rants of a brainwashed 7 year old.

Ignoring the fact that not all slaves were sold into slavery by their social superiors...
I know that too. But as I said, both the whites and the African leaders deserve blame, not just whites.

Also, the whites do deserve some blame for the slave trade, but remember, the leaders of the African tribes were the ones that sold the African people into slavery, they deserve as much blame as the whites of the slave trade do.

White recive the biggest stigmatism from the Slave Trade because they were the ones who owned and mistreated the blacks, while Tribal Leaders could either make a profit by selling thier people into slavery or get killed and have thier people get taken as slaves anyway.

I know that too. But as I said, both the whites and the African leaders deserve blame, not just whites.

No, what you said was...

they deserve as much blame as the whites of the slave trade do.

You appear to be shifting positions faster than an hummingbird with a tapeworm.


EDIT: do you still claim that Darwin believed monkeys evolved into humans, or have you shifted position on that yet, too?

Da hell?

Never heard it explained like that.
I know, I'm just goofing around.

But still, Social Darwinism was related but not a creation of Darwin. He didn't expect people to use his beliefs for their own gain.

No, what you said was...



You appear to be shifting positions faster than an hummingbird with a tapeworm.

I apologize if my grammer was incorrect in the sentence explaing the slave trade. I meant that although the whites are the major antagonist in this attack upon the dignity of mankind, there were others, who, although not as much of a factor, did contribute to the slave trade.

White recive the biggest stigmatism from the Slave Trade because they were the ones who owned and mistreated the blacks, while Tribal Leaders could either make a profit by selling thier people into slavery or get killed and have thier people get taken as slaves anyway.

Hmm...I never thought about it that way. But I would give more respect to the leaders if they had stood up for their people at least instead of cowering.

I know, I'm just goofing around.

But still, Social Darwinism was related but not a creation of Darwin. He didn't expect people to use his beliefs for their own gain.

Yes, of course it was unintentional, and Darwin was long dead before he could have anticipated it. But, as you said, it's also related, causing Darwin's ideas to have a terrible and unanticapted aftereffect.

Black lands taken from your hands, by vampires with no remorse.
They took the gold, the wisdom and all the storytellers.
They took the black women, with the black man weak.
Made to watch as they changed the paradigm of our village.
Yeah white nationalism is what put you in bondage.
Pirates and vampires like Columbus, Morgan and Darwin.

White surrender titles to become equal again, but wit no sense,
Those who fought their cause now fight for more than's fair,
They fight and call themselves words we shun and despise,
And now we watch as the fixing of our mistakes is being toppled,
Yes, The Black's are who are disrupting what they once fougt for,
And the equality we gave, gone because of Malcom X, which most idolize.

And there is plenty more poetry to combat your views.

Yes, of course it was unintentional, and Darwin was long dead before he could have anticipated it. But, as you said, it's also related, causing Darwin's ideas to have a terrible and unanticapted aftereffect.
True, true. That is the problem with communications, then and now: Along the way someone might misinterpret or purposefully edit something to make it fit their need. Just look at the politicians of the world, liberal or conservative.

I respect the majority of the African-Americans beliefs, but I am disgusted by the radicals.

Yet "racism died out in 1960s," did it? How many African-Americans would agree with that statement?

White surrender titles to become equal again, but wit no sense,
Those who fought their cause now fight for more than's fair,
They fight and call themselves words we shun and despise,
And now we watch as the fixing of our mistakes is being toppled,
Yes, The Black's are who are disrupting what they once fougt for,
And the equality we gave, gone because of Malcom X, which most idolize.

And there is plenty more poetry to combat your views.

That was very good. I think if Martin Luther King Jr. were alive today, he would be appalled at how his fellow African-Americans have been twisting his ideals of peace and harmony.

And there is plenty more poetry to combat your views.

And what exactly are my views, again? You seem remarkably well informed on them.

And what exactly are my views, again? You seem remarkably well informed on them.
wasn't referring to you, I was indirectly speaking to he girl who wrote the poems. Hope I caused no offence.

Yet "racism died out in 1960s," did it? How many African-Americans would agree with that statement?
How many African-Americans are being brainwashed by men and women like Jesse Jackson?

Here's the thing: today, the modern African-American culture is the most popular one among all races. Second, African Americans and other minorities seem to have more rights than the majority: Affirmative Action. So you see, the idea that the African-Americans are being discriminated against on a wide scale is preposterous. The only places I could think of where racism is still alive is in places where they eat alligator on a stick.

Second, African Americans and other minorities seem to have more rights than the majority: Affirmative Action.

The only places I could think of where racism is still alive is in places where they eat alligator on a stick.

Ergo, they eat alligator on a stick in all areas where they practice affirmative action?

That was very good. I think if Martin Luther King Jr. were alive today, he would be appalled at how his fellow African-Americans have been twisting his ideals of peace and harmony.

Nonsense. Martin Luther King Jr. was a "black radical." He was a socialist, an advocate of direct action and self-liberation, and had a critique of the US system not merely limited to nominal legal rights.

He has been distorted by present propaganda, turned into some sort of ruling class figure with ruling class politics. That is an absurd depiction.

Ergo, they eat alligator on a stick in all areas where they practice affirmative action?
I am refering to extreme redneck areas such as rural Florida, no offense to anyone who lives there. Also, redneck is not the same as conservative. I am a conservative, but do I sound like a hick to you?

How many African-Americans are being brainwashed by men and women like Jesse Jackson?

Here's the thing: today, the modern African-American culture is the most popular one among all races. Second, African Americans and other minorities seem to have more rights than the majority: Affirmative Action. So you see, the idea that the African-Americans are being discriminated against on a wide scale is preposterous. The only places I could think of where racism is still alive is in places where they eat alligator on a stick.

Like I said: "In my opinion, the greatest sign that white racism remains still is the incapability and unwillingness of most whites to view what blacks say as legitimate and not as the infantile mutterings of an inferior race."

You are only proving my point.

Nonsense. Martin Luther King Jr. was a "black radical." He was a socialist, an advocate of direct action and self-liberation, and had a critique of the US system not merely limited to nominal legal rights.

He has been distorted by present propaganda, turned into some sort of ruling class figure with ruling class politics. That is an absurd depiction.
Interesting. I have never heard that idea before.

In my opinion, the greatest sign that white racism remains still is the incapability and unwillingness of most whites to view what blacks say as legitimate and not as the infantile mutterings of an inferior race.
What the afrocentrists say is not legitimate. For example, many afrocentrists, including professors at Temple university, claim that all the teachings of the ancient Greeks was actually stolen from sub-saharan Africa. Now they're not an inferior race, but the individuals who feel the need to steal other people's achievements to make themselves feel better are most certainly inferior people.

Let's not forget there are differences between African, Asian, Japanese, South American, women, gays, midgets, etc. How stupid is it not to notice these and take them into account in all situations.

I'm white British/English and if I am walking down the road and am confronted by 3 African guys, my reaction or caution will be different than if I see 3 midgets. We do sterotype within our own thoughts and make judgments thereon. It is the real world we live in.

I find these differences and distinctivenesses of different people fascinating and the world wouldn't be the same without these differences. Opinions from different groups differ and talking to different people has different results; I love it. It's a shame a minority of minorities exploit these issues for their own ends and others consider that people are less than they are because of differences.

Interesting. I have never heard that idea before.

You should read what he said, it's illuminating.

Start with Beyond Vietnam (http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkatimetobreaksilence.htm).

That was very good. I think if Martin Luther King Jr. were alive today, he would be appalled at how his fellow African-Americans have been twisting his ideals of peace and harmony.
Not to mention how the media is ignoring his message of justice for poor people in general.

Nonsense. Martin Luther King Jr. was a "black radical." He was a socialist, an advocate of direct action and self-liberation, and had a critique of the US system not merely limited to nominal legal rights.

He has been distorted by present propaganda, turned into some sort of ruling class figure with ruling class politics. That is an absurd depiction.
Right on.

What the afrocentrists say is not legitimate. For example, many afrocentrists, including professors at Temple university, claim that all the teachings of the ancient Greeks was actually stolen from sub-saharan Africa. Now they're not an inferior race, but the individuals who feel the need to steal other people's achievements to make themselves feel better are most certainly inferior people.

Okay, sometimes it descends into tribalistic idiocy, granted. Though considering the racism of the official history, less so today but considerably so just a few decades ago, the instinct is understandable.

Next thing you know there will be a BKKK.

Seriously, you musn't ignore that there are problems, but if you keep an 'them vs. us'-attitude, you aren't goin to solve much either.

What the afrocentrists say is not legitimate. For example, many afrocentrists, including professors at Temple university, claim that all the teachings of the ancient Greeks was actually stolen from sub-saharan Africa. Now they're not an inferior race, but the individuals who feel the need to steal other people's achievements to make themselves feel better are most certainly inferior people.
Indeed, the majority of African-Americans believe that all races are equal, not that their race deserves more credit for things they haven't done. You want to talk about a group of people who should have a problem with reparations? Let's look at the Jews:

The Jews, people who follow the religion of Judaism, have a history of both monumental accomplishment and horrifying persecution. The Jews were a great civilization in biblical times, look at the temple of Solomen. They, along with the Babylonians, were founders of codes of law(The Ten Commandments). Yet for all their success and power, they were hated by many. Their people were enslaved by the Egyptians around 1500-1000 BC. After the Exodus, they were again enslaved, this time by the Babylonians, around 500 BC. After they returned home from that, they were again faced with an enemy, the Romans, who destroyed their temple and persecuted them, like the Egyptians and the Babylonians. In the Middle Ages, they were persecuted by the European powers and by the Catholic Church. They continued to be persecuted harshly until the age of Enlightenment. They were still persecuted, but it wasn't as harsh as before. In the 1930s, however, the Jewish people were rounded up and mass murdered in the Holocaust by the Nazis. After this, the UN gave them a nation in the Middle East, where they are hated by the Arab nations, mostly because they are Jewish.

I am a conservative, but do I sound like a hick to you?

What does a hick sound like?

What does a hick sound like?
Extremely uneducated, a heavily accented southern twang in their voice.

First of all, I am not racist. I have many African-American friends, I enjoy African-American culture. They do deserve rights, but they already have got them. But a bunch of demagouges are currently brain-washing the African-American youth to believing: "White evil, black good." and not telling them that there are both good white and black people and vice versa.
Right, cause the KKK had to be disbanded before white folk stopped hating not-white folk.....oh, hang on the KKK have not disbanded. Oh I get it people who are not white are subject to brain washing, the lucky white folk can think for themselves...

Ugh, it makes me want to vomit. A girl as young as 7 has been brainwashed into thinking America is Hell and Africa is heaven. Africa is a nice place, but not as nice as America:
Has she? What are you privy to that you didnt post? Why not post so the rest of us can conclude as much ourselves, I dont usually go in for 'taking an internet stranger's word for it'....

A comparsion:

America:
Freedom of religion, speech, press, etc.
UN Big 5 member
No genocide in history
Racism died out in 1960s

Africa:
Little to no freedom of anything.
Some are members, some aren't.
Horrible numbers of genocides throughout history
Racism still practiced there.
Your comparison leads me to conclude that you dont know a lot about either Africa or the America...

Evidently I found the snippet of poem posted in post #16 rather...mmm, well frankly crappy, but hey, she's only 7 I guess, and besides I'm no poetry fan...

And who the hell is Morgan?
Off the top of my head I would gather she means the Lewis Henry Morgan (the anthropologist). He was into 'social evolution' aka social-darwinism.

She is referring to Social Darwinism-a train of thought that many Europeans used to justify taking parts of Africa for thier own benifit
Oh, I see, I was under the impression that Darwin didnt actually advocate social-Darwinism, perhaps I am mistaken?:confused:

In my opinion, the greatest sign that white racism remains still is the incapability and unwillingness of most whites to view what blacks say as legitimate and not as the infantile mutterings of an inferior race.

Black people are tecnically superior to white. There is no ovious mental difference, but they have naturally more musclular bodies and have a resistance to sun-burn. Just something to think about.

I do think this poem is appauling. Although I would protect her right to say those things, I think her parents need to be checked out because she is getting those extremely racist ideas fed to her, which isn't healthy. Also I do not support her telling the white children they could not stand, because that is trying to impinge on their freedoms.

Black People Love Us! (http://www.blackpeopleloveus.com/)
...

The hell? o__O

On the subject of the article: I don't know how to react. Certainly it's horrible that she's been raised the way she has, that she is not open-minded enough. (Stuff knows my little brother has the same problem with being brainwashed by my dad into an extremely far-left nutjob.) But on that same token, we shouldn't get too worked up about it. It is, after all, a case of freedom. Freedom is freedom. You can't limit it in some aspects just because you don't like those aspects and still call it freedom. It's sad, but if it happens, it happens. Let her be raised as her parents want to raise her.

A girl as young as 7 has been brainwashed into thinking America is Hell and Africa is heaven.
Yet no one would complain if the girl were brainwashed into thinking America is Heaven and Africa is Hell...

America:
Freedom of religion, speech, press, etc.
Yes, very nice.

UN Big 5 member
So? I fail to see how this has anything to do with the quality of life of the citizens. The USSR was a member, as is China, yet I suspect that you would not include them in your list of "heavenly" states.

No genocide in history
Riiiight... I guess the tens of millions of dead Native Americans don't count?

Racism died out in 1960s
Well, it's clear you are not interested in reality.

As for Africa, for starters you would have to be more specific.

First of all, I am not racist. I have many African-American friends, I enjoy African-American culture.
Just as I have many pobucker acquaintances, which I feel gives me insights into white trash culture...:rolleyes:

Extremely uneducated, a heavily accented southern twang in their voice.

So it is valid to judge people on the basis of the sound of their voice?

So it is valid to judge people on the basis of the sound of their voice?

It works for period dramas and Hollywood films.


In reality though...

Is anyone concerned that the world looks like it's going to end up with rich "blacks" and poor "whites"?

I believe the ship for indignation that the world will be split into rich and poor has already left

Someone ought to remove her from her parents home and brainwash her. SHe's being turned into what she is preaching against. She's preaching against racism and yet, at the same time is becoming what she supposedly detests. Ah yes, a product of the Republican system; "do as I say, not as I do."
More like the Republicrat system. Democrats are equally as guilty of it

Oh, I see, I was under the impression that Darwin didnt actually advocate social-Darwinism, perhaps I am mistaken?:confused:
Not at all. Social-Darwinism predates Darwin.

White surrender titles to become equal again, but wit no sense,
Those who fought their cause now fight for more than's fair,
They fight and call themselves words we shun and despise,
And now we watch as the fixing of our mistakes is being toppled,
Yes, The Black's are who are disrupting what they once fougt for,
And the equality we gave, gone because of Malcom X, which most idolize.

And there is plenty more poetry to combat your views.Don't tell me you actually believe that what this poem says is actually true?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holy Paradise
Also, the whites do deserve some blame for the slave trade, but remember, the leaders of the African tribes were the ones that sold the African people into slavery, they deserve as much blame as the whites of the slave trade do.

Ignoring the fact that not all slaves were sold into slavery by their social superiors...


But nontheless there is a heap of evidence that many of the Africans sold into slavery in the triangle between England/West Africa/Caribbean or US were sold into slavery by other Africans. That is a fact. I suggest, if you're ever in the area, the excellent display in Liverpool, UK on the topic. It's the Merseyside Maritime Museum at the Albert Dock.

But nontheless there is a heap of evidence that many of the Africans sold into slavery in the triangle between England/West Africa/Caribbean or US were sold into slavery by other Africans. That is a fact. I suggest, if you're ever in the area, the excellent display in Liverpool, UK on the topic. It's the Merseyside Maritime Museum at the Albert Dock.

It is very good, I was there the other week, and I almost did something that would have at least have created raised eyebrows.

White recive the biggest stigmatism from the Slave Trade because they were the ones who owned and mistreated the blacks, while Tribal Leaders could either make a profit by selling thier people into slavery or get killed and have thier people get taken as slaves anyway.


The idea of the European trader running into the forest and stealing the African from his home has become the predominant belief in the enslavement of the Africans. I'm sure this did happen many times.

However, it should be noted that many African tribes were at war with other African tribes. The African tribes made enslavement raids on other tribes and sold prisoners of war to the European trades. Face it, the African Chiefs of the time were complicit in, and profited from, the slavery.

It is very good, I was there the other week, and I almost did something that would have at least have created raised eyebrows.

What? Wore a Manchester United football shirt?

One wonders if shes knows about Granville Sharp , Wiliam Wilberforce , or James Somersett

One wonders if shes knows about Granville Sharp , Wiliam Wilberforce , or James Somersett

Or Abraham Lincoln

More like the Republicrat system. Democrats are equally as guilty of it

Why don't we just simplify it to "politics" in general.

African Americans and other minorities seem to have more rights than the majority:

Proof that racism is alive and well, from the very man who said it died out forty years ago

Proof that racism is alive and well, from the very man who said it died out forty years ago
What I mean is that when some one or a group has more rights than another, it is wrong. Rights should be equal among all, not geared towards one race or another.

First of all I'd like to say that reverse racism does exist and it is most unfortunate.

A comparsion:

America:
Freedom of religion, speech, press, etc.Retorical freedom.

UN Big 5 memberRepresented by John Bolton of all people.

No genocide in historyHave you ever read Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee?
Racism died out in 1960sNo it hasn't. Even if it had. It was still way behind most of the developed world..

Africa:
Little to no freedom of anything.
Some are members, some aren't.
Horrible numbers of genocides throughout history
Racism still practiced there.

Thanks to two factors:
1. Poorly conducted decolonisation.
2. Cold War.

I think anyone who beleives that racism no longer exists in North America, or that white people in NA have no unearned advantages over non-whites simply because they're whites are fools.
De jure, racism no longer exists, de facto race is still one of the central factors in the organization of life in north america, and its keeping the whites in their (our) dominant position

I can't be the first one to point out that the first half of that "poem" was meant to be read sarcastically, right?

But nontheless there is a heap of evidence that many of the Africans sold into slavery in the triangle between England/West Africa/Caribbean or US were sold into slavery by other Africans. That is a fact. I suggest, if you're ever in the area, the excellent display in Liverpool, UK on the topic. It's the Merseyside Maritime Museum at the Albert Dock.
Not to that the first slaves were just kidnapped. Africans only started selling other Africans once they realized the white men would pay not to have ot round them up themselves

First of all, I am not racist. I have many African-American friends, I enjoy African-American culture. They do deserve rights, but they already have got them.
While you're making a valid point, this is a very bad way of starting the post. It's become a cliche for people to say 'I'm not Xist, I have many X friends' and so on before making an Xist remark - I think many people would read those first few sentences and not bother with the rest of the post.

While you're making a valid point, this is a very bad way of starting the post. It's become a cliche for people to say 'I'm not Xist, I have many X friends' and so on before making an Xist remark - I think many people would read those first few sentences and not bother with the rest of the post.

That's true. But then again if one doesn't post a disclaimer people will think he/she's openly racist. It is a catch 22.

very true op about how young people are being brain washed at eraly ages to think white evil, black good, America evil, Africa good. which is very much racism at its finest. and Jesse Jackson supports this crap all the time, which is why i hope he never gets close to becoming president. who knows what whack ideas he would bring with him.

this is a reason why i honor Martin Luther King jr. and not Malcolm X, Malcolm X was racist, he wasnt going for equality he was going for an uprising over the white people. King was equality, that was all he was asking for, he didnt preach saying white people were evil, he was very equality by peacful protest.

but back to the OP, this shows an example of people celebrating their heritage with out truely knowing their history, for example the whole islam thing of people converting to islam because thats what they think they would be if their family werent bought into slavery, well many tribes in africa were islam, they were islam because if they were not islam the middle east would not trade with them, it was a political move to become islam.

they have a right to celebrate their heritage, but they also shouldnt be hypocrites about it, if they can say crap such as that, they should be able to fly a confederate flag in the south.

although the issue on the confederate flag is also an example of people celebrating their heritage without knowing the facts, today the confederate flag, especially the confederate battle flag means red neck, but many many years ago it had just as much meaning as the United States Flag

Not to that the first slaves were just kidnapped. Africans only started selling other Africans once they realized the white men would pay not to have ot round them up themselves

Actually the first slaves were bought from Arab traders. Or by Arab traders from Vikings. Hell, push the bar back enough and we can blame the Babylonians.

Who started the whole slavery thing isn't important. The important thing is remembering who made the biggest effort to stop it.

True hearted Racially unconcerned young morally knowledgable people with political savy!

The whole line of thought with things like this is "Victims are not responsible for crimes, therefore if I can show that I am a victim, I cannot be held accountable for anything."

This is not about striving for equality. Striving for equality would be providing people the opportunity for education and jobs so they can create their own value in the world. Instead, we have people pointing out how little they have and expect that it should just be handed to them.

It's not like you have Australians complaining to the world that their ancestors were unfairly booted from their native lands to be stuck on an isolated continent. They got over it and decided to be the best they could be.

Black People Love Us! (http://www.blackpeopleloveus.com/)
Oh God, read some of the letters on that site. Some people thought it was serious.

Personally, I'm annoyed when black men complain about racism. It's nothing compared to sexism. Black people were considered people and given the right to vote before women were. They dealt with what, 500 years of oppression as opposed to 4000? Give me a fucking break.

They've done surveys in the U.S., white men perceived racism and sexism to be nonexistant, white women perceived sexism to be a big issue, black men perceived racism to be a big issue and black women perceived both to be issues, but sexism to be bigger by far.

That's true. But then again if one doesn't post a disclaimer people will think he/she's openly racist. It is a catch 22.

Maybe, but the whole "I have many African-American friends" bit is so overplayed, and the tone of "denial" is suggestive of over-defensiveness.

If you're going to post these threads, and you're really not racist, you might begin with something like, "I believe in equality, but I think we're going about it the wrong way." It's more positive, and it doesn't try to march out (real or imagined) "black friends" to "prove" that you are "not racist." This is especially annoying because we all know it is perfectly easy to have friends that one does not respect... indeed, some of the most racist people I have ever encounted "love black people" in the most patronizing and racist kind of way.

Oh, and if you actually believe that racism and racial discrimination no longer exist in America, then you are automatically racist. End of discussion.

It's funny when black people claim that the white man is keeping them down :p

First of all, I am not racist. I have many African-American friends, I enjoy African-American culture. They do deserve rights, but they already have got them. But a bunch of demagouges are currently brain-washing the African-American youth to believing: "White evil, black good." and not telling them that there are both good white and black people and vice versa.



Ugh, it makes me want to vomit. A girl as young as 7 has been brainwashed into thinking America is Hell and Africa is heaven. Africa is a nice place, but not as nice as America:

A comparsion:

America:
Freedom of religion, speech, press, etc.
UN Big 5 member
No genocide in history
Racism died out in 1960s

Africa:
Little to no freedom of anything.
Some are members, some aren't.
Horrible numbers of genocides throughout history
Racism still practiced there.

Freedom... in america. HAHAHAH oh dear lord HAHAHA ...............AHHAHHAA...hah.
hah.
hah.
hahano.
UN big 5? OH SO YOU ADMIT THE SOVIET UNION WAS A NICE PLACE?
(pwned)
Yes no genocide, because the KKK are just pretending.
If you believe racism is dead then you need reeducation good sir.

Africa.
Yes because all african countries are the same. :rolleyes:
Again, must use the Soviet Union reference.
We are the old world. Genocide was OK here. Then America was discovered around the time it was considered "A tad harsh."
Again, AND not in america?

Ugh, it makes me want to vomit. A girl as young as 7 has been brainwashed into thinking America is Hell and Africa is heaven. Africa is a nice place, but not as nice as America:

A comparsion:

America:
Freedom of religion, speech, press, etc.
UN Big 5 member
No genocide in history
Racism died out in 1960s

Africa:
Little to no freedom of anything.
Some are members, some aren't.
Horrible numbers of genocides throughout history
Racism still practiced there.
You forgot to mention that most Americans have food and most Africans don't.

Anyway, racial pride is both stupid and dangerous.

Is anyone concerned that the world looks like it's going to end up with rich "blacks" and poor "whites"?
That would require redistribution of wealth beyond my wildest, leftest dreams. So, no, it's not going to happen.

Ok, so I've looked through this thread and I see that many people chose to pick at the mistakes the OP made...like saying that racism has died out. While he might have been stupid for saying that, its still not the point he was trying to make....he was posting an article that is showing us that children as young as 7 are being infected with black nationalism....something that we all know the KKK does as well. The fact that the KKK does it, plus the fact that she is spewing hatred for a race and elite blacks are supporting it should be upsetting to all of us. And when I see posts like....I've read the poem its actually quite good, I just lose faith in people.

Do you guys know what would happen if a 7 year old white girl stood up and said something about...."preserving the white race" and "those niggers"...it would be an outrage, so if you people truley want to fight racism...fight it wherever it may lie, biracially.

Do you guys know what would happen if a 7 year old white girl stood up and said something about...."preserving the white race" and "those niggers"...it would be an outrage...

Actually, I think I've seen news reports about a couple of racist white sisters who have turned their hatred into a modestly successful (if marginal) musical career...

Actually, I think I've seen news reports about a couple of racist white sisters who have turned their hatred into a modestly successful (if marginal) musical career...

Jessica and Ashley Simpson?

Keep the arctic white!

Black people are tecnically superior to white. There is no ovious mental difference, but they have naturally more musclular bodies and have a resistance to sun-burn. Just something to think about.

I do think this poem is appauling. Although I would protect her right to say those things, I think her parents need to be checked out because she is getting those extremely racist ideas fed to her, which isn't healthy. Also I do not support her telling the white children they could not stand, because that is trying to impinge on their freedoms.

Actually, one of the reasons many of todays Africans living in America are athletic has to do with breeding. Slave owners would breed slaves to be stronger, thus able to do more work.

Sub saharan africans are generally weaker and more prone to disease.

Jessica and Ashley Simpson?
No, a duo called Prussian Blue.

Actually, one of the reasons many of todays Africans living in America are athletic has to do with breeding. Slave owners would breed slaves to be stronger, thus able to do more work.

Sub saharan africans are generally weaker and more prone to disease.

Plus, if he wants to say one race is superior to another...you could always pull out the IQ test scores and say that black score the stupidest so that would make them "technically inferior".

No, a duo called Prussian Blue.

Ugh, why do neo nazis corrupt Prussia and everything Prussian!

Hitler was an Austrian......

Actually, I think I've seen news reports about a couple of racist white sisters who have turned their hatred into a modestly successful (if marginal) musical career...

There is a difference between hated of another group and the wish to be seperate from another group of people.

There is a difference between hated of another group and the wish to be seperate from another group of people.
As much as the difference between apartheid and genocide of black people I suppose. Both are evil.

As much as the difference between apartheid and genocide of black people I suppose. Both are evil.

The whole Seperate but equal thing never works, segregation is discrimination by the backdoor.

Um, yeah, how does Charles Darwin enter into all of this again? Seriously that's a complete non sequitur.

Ignoring the fact that not all slaves were sold into slavery by their social superiors...
And the fact that the arabs were running the slave trade long before europe and america got into it.

Um, yeah, how does Charles Darwin enter into all of this again? Seriously that's a complete non sequitur.
It was added as an attempt to gain the favor of the fundamentalists. It failed, of course. This is one man's opinion though.

Why do you put the question mark? Genocide and racism, although related, are two different things. Genocide involves killing, whilst racism involves only hatred unless the hatred escalates enough into genocide, which has not happened in American history(Although I could see a point in the wrongs of the slave trade).

Nonetheless, the Afro-centrists are not looking at the facts.

Pardon me? Are you not aware of the fact that we nearly wiped the people who were here before us off the planet? Did you simply miss that course in history? We are guilty of the most effective genocide I know of, but why don't you explain how some other group so effectively eradicated a culture and race like we did in the last two hundred years.

And racism died out in the 60's? According to whom? It was the late sixties when interracial marriage was no longer illegal. Do you think people just change on a dime? Prior to that it was legal to prevent marriages based on the race of the people applying for marriage. Now, while racism may have no longer be legally supported after the sixties, you can't possibly argue that it went away.

But how about injecting a few facts into your delusions? What percentage of death row defendents are black? What percentage of their victims are white? What are the poverty rates for blacks in the US as compared to whites? How many of the twenty richest people in the US are black? How many presidents have been black? How many vice presidents?

Pardon me? Are you not aware of the fact that we nearly wiped the people who were here before us off the planet? Did you simply miss that course in history? We are guilty of the most effective genocide I know of, but why don't you explain how some other group so effectively eradicated a culture and race like we did in the last two hundred years.

And racism died out in the 60's? According to whom? It was the late sixties when interracial marriage was no longer illegal. Do you think people just change on a dime? Prior to that it was legal to prevent marriages based on the race of the people applying for marriage. Now, while racism may have no longer be legally supported after the sixties, you can't possibly argue that it went away.

But how about injecting a few facts into your delusions? What percentage of death row defendents are black? What percentage of their victims are white? What are the poverty rates for blacks in the US as compared to whites? How many of the twenty richest people in the US are black? How many presidents have been black? How many vice presidents?
Again you raise valid points, but the idea here is that its becoming so much more than providing reparations for African-Americans, its becoming insane. Read another post of mine, where I say that the people who deserve reparations more than anyone else are the Native Americans and indigenous Hawaiians.

Again you raise valid points, but the idea here is that its becoming so much more than providing reparations for African-Americans, its becoming insane. Read another post of mine, where I say that the people who deserve reparations more than anyone else are the Native Americans and indigenous Hawaiians.

The point is this is a strawman. This girl doesn't represent black people or any substantial movement in America. She is praised by Al Sharpton and a black panther... whoa... I have to catch my breath. No one is taking them or this seriously any more than a white kid doing the same thing. We don't have a right to stop her from saying what she's saying, but I don't think that there are a substantial portion of people who think that creating a larger divide is the answer or that what she is doing is actually racial pride.

And your justification wasn't to simply call this ridiculous it was to make up a bunch of points to 'prove' that the US is better than Africa. The international community of which the US is a part failed Africa on a very large scale. Western countries created the genocide that is ongoing there. We shouldn't be dancing on the graves.

Meanwhile, one has to completely ignore the problems in this country to make the kinds of claims you make.

Because of this, your entire argument is groundless.

You raise a valuable point. However, the problems here compared to Africa's are meek and pathetic.
He is right, our problems far outstretch yours.

I'm a white African, and every black American who I have met has hated Africa once he/she has lived there and has stopped calling him/herself African-American. There is a need to put the past behind and while I have no doubt that there is need for greater equality in America that is no reason to equate Dickens or Columbus with vampires. What scares me is that this child is obviously being taught a kind of racism that would be unforgivable if she was white and does that not bring into question the standing of anyone who might be jumping on to the band wagon.

First of all, I am not racist...


Hmm, where have we heard this before...



A comparsion:

America:
Freedom of religion, speech, press, etc.
UN Big 5 member
No genocide in history
Racism died out in 1960s

Africa:
Little to no freedom of anything.
Some are members, some aren't.
Horrible numbers of genocides throughout history
Racism still practiced there.



This is really pathetic. I can see that everyone's already taken you to task for this but you've got to wonder at the decision to write it down in the first place.

In addition to being inaccurate and simplistic, it doesn't actually add anything to the point you were trying to address, or indeed seem to be suitably related to that point.

If anything, you've damaged your argument by wildly generalising about Africa in a negative context; an action that would play straight into the hands of the very people that you are complaining about.

The point is this is a strawman. This girl doesn't represent black people or any substantial movement in America. She is praised by Al Sharpton and a black panther... whoa... I have to catch my breath. No one is taking them or this seriously any more than a white kid doing the same thing. We don't have a right to stop her from saying what she's saying, but I don't think that there are a substantial portion of people who think that creating a larger divide is the answer or that what she is doing is actually racial pride.

And your justification wasn't to simply call this ridiculous it was to make up a bunch of points to 'prove' that the US is better than Africa. The international community of which the US is a part failed Africa on a very large scale. Western countries created the genocide that is ongoing there. We shouldn't be dancing on the graves.

Meanwhile, one has to completely ignore the problems in this country to make the kinds of claims you make.

Because of this, your entire argument is groundless.
I admit this nation has problems but they nowhere near rivaling that of Africa, which is what the Afro-centrists hail as heaven.

I admit this nation has problems but they nowhere near rivaling that of Africa, which is what the Afro-centrists hail as heaven.

So? Let them. How does you oversimplifying our issues and theirs help the issue? How does you committing the same level of fallacy help the issue? In fact, why is this an issue for you? I don't know any Afro-centrists, with the exception of the three Africans I work with. Most people admit that Africa has the problems you suggest and would like to fix them. Are these people claiming those problems don't exists like you did when you claimed that several problems that do exist here, don't? If not, then it's you that's guilty of obscuring the truth. More importantly, even if they are obscuring the truth, you did it here, in front of us, in this thread and you got taken to task for it.

Black people are tecnically superior to white. There is no ovious mental difference, but they have naturally more musclular bodies and have a resistance to sun-burn. Just something to think about.

Oh, that's funny.

It's called "climate adaption." Whites don't have resistance to sunburn because (surprise) you don't get sunburn in Europe. At least, you didn't used to.

And African blacks are more athletic because they have to chase their food, and run away so they don't become tiger chow. White people got chased by wolves, came back with muskets.

I don't get the whole thing about black nationalists thinking Africa is paradise. I'm half Ukrainian, but I know I don't wanna live in Ukraine. Why would a black possible want to live in Africa, which is much worse than Ukraine?

Oh, that's funny.

It's called "climate adaption." Whites don't have resistance to sunburn because (surprise) you don't get sunburn in Europe. At least, not back then.

And African blacks are more athletic because they have to chase their food, and run away so they don't become tiger chow. White people got chased by wolves, came back with muskets.

While there is a lot of proof to support this theory, do you have to word it in such a way? It is remarkably close to being "unpleasant"

While there is a lot of proof to support this theory, do you have to word it in such a way? It is remarkably close to being "unpleasant"

Sorry if it seemed harsh, but I was pretty annoyed by the post that I was responding to.

Ugh, why do neo nazis corrupt Prussia and everything Prussian!

Hitler was an Austrian......

$500 says that most neo-Nazis don't even know where Prussia is.

Black people are tecnically superior to white. There is no ovious mental difference, but they have naturally more musclular bodies

To the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence that black individuals are more able to put on muscle than white individuals. You are describing the popular "big black buck" stereotype.


and have a resistance to sun-burn. Just something to think about.

The mutation(s) that give rise to fair skin tone came about (and have thrived) because these mutations increase the skin's ability to produce vitamin D in response to sunlight. These mutations became handy for humans that had migrated to latitudes farther from the equator, where they experienced reduced contact with sunlight (longer winters, colder climates, etc). This adaptation is neither "better" nor "worse" than dark skin tones; they are simply adaptations for different situations.

Oh, that's funny.

It's called "climate adaption." Whites don't have resistance to sunburn because (surprise) you don't get sunburn in Europe. At least, you didn't used to.

Incorrect. Fair skin has, to the best of our knowledge, always had the same sensitivity to sunburn.


And African blacks are more athletic because they have to chase their food, and run away so they don't become tiger chow. White people got chased by wolves, came back with muskets.
Actually, the techology for guns came originally from "yellow people" and "brown people." So, technically speaking, white people were running from wolves for quite some time while yellow and brown people were teaching tigers who was boss.

Oh, that's funny.

It's called "climate adaption." Whites don't have resistance to sunburn because (surprise) you don't get sunburn in Europe. At least, not back then.

And African blacks are more athletic because they have to chase their food, and run away so they don't become tiger chow. White people got chased by wolves, came back with muskets.

Uh-huh. That's profound stuff you got there. Apparently there were no African farmers. Muskets were invented only shortly before they were introduced in Africa. The poster you are replying to said something ridiculous, but your claims are inaccurate in the extreme.

Some blacks in Africa bred themselves specifically on physical characteristics, like size, or height. This created some specific groups of black people that were unusually tall or large. However, the majority reason for the belief that black people are physically superior is because for several hundred years they were used as slaves and those slaves were forced to breed to making larger and stronger slaves. We tended to kill runts and to protect our 'more valuable property' so we essentially evolved them to be stronger, faster and larger. That sort of forced selective breeding can cause a change in race much quicker than natural selection. For examples, simply look at breeding of plants or domestic animals, which is more or less what we treated them like for several centuries.

Incorrect. Fair skin has, to the best of our knowledge, always had the same sensitivity to sunburn.

But Europe doesn't have as much sun.

Actually, the techology for guns came originally from "yellow people" and "brown people." So, technically speaking, white people were running from wolves for quite some time while yellow and brown people were teaching tigers who was boss.

Gunpowder came from China, true. But whites, I think, were the first to use it as a weapon; the Chinese used it for fireworks.

Uh-huh. That's profound stuff you got there. Apparently there were no African farmers. Muskets were invented only shortly before they were introduced in Africa.

What, to the arabs in the north?

But Europe doesn't have as much sun.

See that point over there? I'm just asking because you appear to have missed it.

[QUOTE=Kievan-Prussia]Gunpowder came from China, true. But whites, I think, were the first to use it as a weapon; the Chinese used it for fireworks.

First, there is evidence that we've actually gotten larger since the invention of guns. Second, that's not the point. Three hundred years without a deliberate breeding effort is a very short time to see a significant difference in the kinds of traits you are talking about. The invention of the gun alone cannot explain such a thing, especially since said guns were not immediately available to everyone.

Is anyone concerned that the world looks like it's going to end up with rich "blacks" and poor "whites"?

Firstly, perish the thought.

Secondly, evidence, statistics and the like would be appreciated.

First, there is evidence that we've actually gotten larger since the invention of guns. Second, that's not the point. Three hundred years without a deliberate breeding effort is a very short time to see a significant difference in the kinds of traits you are talking about. The invention of the gun alone cannot explain such a thing, especially since said guns were immediately available to everyone.

You're taking this literally?

What I'm saying is that whites are weaker lately because we're LAZY. Hi-fi, boob tube, instant pizza pie. We don't move much. That's why there's fat children running around.

But Europe doesn't have as much sun.

Hence the propagation of the fair-skin mutation(s). We seem to be going in circles.


Gunpowder came from China, true. But whites, I think, were the first to use it as a weapon; the Chinese used it for fireworks.
Incorrect as well. Also, you're going to need to more carefully define "whites" if we're going to pursue this line of dialogue; are you including all fair-skinned humans, or only in Europe? Only Western Europe? You clearly don't include Asians as "whites," even though individuals from many Asian nations have far less dermal melanin than individuals of European decent. So we're going to first need to figure out who the "whites" and "not-whites" are.

What, to the arabs in the north?

You do realize that guns became prevalent in Africa because we became prevalent in Africa shortly after their invention. It's the same reason that Native Americans were introduced to rifles not too long after their invention. Yes, we tending to have better weapons than them when we were conquering both continents, but the weapons were traded as well. There was not a large gap between the widespread use of firearms on the European continent and the widespread use of firearms on the other continents.

You do realize that guns became prevalent in Africa because we became prevalent in Africa shortly after their invention. It's the same reason that Native Americans were introduced to rifles not too long after their invention. Yes, we tending to have better weapons than them when we were conquering both continents, but the weapons were traded as well. There was not a large gap between the widespread use of firearms on the European continent and the widespread use of firearms on the other continents.

Oh, so they're OUR weapons? Well you didn't say that.

You're taking this literally?

What I'm saying is that whites are weaker lately because we're LAZY. Hi-fi, boob tube, instant pizza pie. We don't move much. That's why there's fat children running around.

What you're saying? That's not what you said at all. Is it acceptable in your world to argue a point and when you get nailed to the wall on it, to pretend like you said something else?

Gunpowder came from China, true. But whites, I think, were the first to use it as a weapon; the Chinese used it for fireworks.

Nope. They had gunpowder based cannons as early as the C12th.

Firstly, perish the thought.

Secondly, evidence, statistics and the like would be appreciated.

It was a rhetorical question because it's never going to happen. I believe s/he made that abundantly clear.

Oh, so they're OUR weapons? Well you didn't say that.

Why should I have to? What difference does it make? Your point is spurious and not based on any semblance of history. If you have a point to make, try to base on what really happened and not history you made up.

Hence the propagation of the fair-skin mutation(s). We seem to be going in circles.

And that's why white skin isn't inferior.

Incorrect as well. Also, you're going to need to more carefully define "whites" if we're going to pursue this line of dialogue; are you including all fair-skinned humans, or only in Europe? Only Western Europe? You clearly don't include Asians as "whites," even though individuals from many Asian nations have far less dermal melanin than individuals of European decent. So we're going to first need to figure out who the "whites" and "not-whites" are.

When the world starts classifying asians as whites, I'll do so too.

Why should I have to? What difference does it make? Your point is spurious and not based on any semblance of history. If you have a point to make, try to base on what really happened and not history you made up.

You were implying that Africans, BLACK African, had gunpowder weapons before or at the same time as Europeans, without European interferrence.

When the world starts classifying asians as whites, I'll do so too.

Indeed.

What you're saying? That's not what you said at all. Is it acceptable in your world to argue a point and when you get nailed to the wall on it, to pretend like you said something else?

No, that's exactly what I was implying. That white technology lets us not be as active, thus we're physically weaker.

Nope. They had gunpowder based cannons as early as the C12th.

Fair enough, but when did they begin making personal weapons?

And that's why white skin isn't inferior.

Erm, I'm the one saying that white skin and black skin are equally "useful" phenotypes. I was just trying to make sure everybody was clear on why.


When the world starts classifying asians as whites, I'll do so too.
I'm not discussing this topic with "the world," I'm discussing it with you. If you wish to use the term "white people," then I need to know what it means TO YOU. I don't like to just assume that everybody is using the same definitions, because usually that leads to a lot of needless confusion.

To conclude this argument: I have the bigger dick.

The thread can now die peacefully.

Erm, I'm the one saying that white skin and black skin are equally "useful" phenotypes. I was just trying to make sure everybody was clear on why.

So was I. Why were we debating it?

I'm not discussing this topic with "the world," I'm discussing it with you. If you wish to use the term "white people," then I need to know what it means TO YOU. I don't like to just assume that everybody is using the same definitions, because usually that leads to a lot of needless confusion.

You're one of those guys who refers to the Sea of Japan as the East Sea, despite everyone else using Sea of Japan, aren't you?

You're one of those guys who refers to the Sea of Japan as the East Sea, despite everyone else using Sea of Japan, aren't you?
In all honesty, I don't know that I have ever refered to the Sea of Japan (or the East Sea).

The whole Seperate but equal thing never works, segregation is discrimination by the backdoor.
Segregation/apartheid, every time it has been tried, is never "discrimination by the backdoor". It's more like outright, subtle-as-a-brick-to-the-face discrimination.

Bump.

*says something controversial for the sake of it*

What I basically got from the OP was that that kid went on stage and said "black power."

Also, an article about it from a more conservative source:

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/michellemalkin/2006/03/15/189894.html

Autum's father condemned white district officials as "racist crackers." Autum defended her poem by explaining to the Westchester Journal News that white people are "devils and they should be gone. We should be away from them and still be in Africa.

No, that's exactly what I was implying. That white technology lets us not be as active, thus we're physically weaker.I don't see why this is a good thing or a bad thing.

To conclude this argument: I have the bigger dick.Prove it. :D

What I basically got from the OP was that that kid went on stage and said "black power."Basically. Then the OP got all bent out of shape over it.

No, that's exactly what I was implying. That white technology lets us not be as active, thus we're physically weaker.

That white technology is also available to blacks now. Seriously, people who play this game make me sad. You weren't talking about televisions and junk food, so don't play like you were. You specifically used the term musket. How many muskets do you own? What's the percentage of white people who muskets today versus black people? Seriously, it's just sad that you won't have the intellectual honesty to admit your point was ridiculous and move on.

You were implying that Africans, BLACK African, had gunpowder weapons before or at the same time as Europeans, without European interferrence.

No. I wasn't. Quote me. I never said without European interferrence. You credited the personal gun with responsibility for the difference in the races physically, and I merely pointed out that there wasn't enough of a gap between when white people had those weapons and black people had those weapons in order to adequately explain the difference. Then you tried to pretend you were talking about televisions and McDonald's. Seriously, how about you try actually sticking to the point instead of constructing strawman and claiming you said something completely different than what you said.

Again, quote me or be honest and admit I never said such a thing nor implied it.

Muskets were invented only shortly before they were introduced in Africa.

Do you know what introduced means? That means they were not invented in Africa, but were brought there. Because you don't recognize the word introduce and notice the difference between that word and the word invent, does not make me responsible for your inablity to extract the proper meaning of that sentence.

That white technology is also available to blacks now. Seriously, people who play this game make me sad. You weren't talking about televisions and junk food, so don't play like you were. You specifically used the term musket. How many muskets do you own? What's the percentage of white people who muskets today versus black people? Seriously, it's just sad that you won't have the intellectual honesty to admit your point was ridiculous and move on.

Are you stupid or something? Do you not understand metaphors? Jesus, you're all dumb. I clearly meant that white technology makes us lazier and weaker. And blacks tend to be poorer, so... less technology.

No. I wasn't. Quote me. I never said without European interferrence. You credited the personal gun with responsibility for the difference in the races physically, and I merely pointed out that there wasn't enough of a gap between when white people had those weapons and black people had those weapons in order to adequately explain the difference.
Again, quote me or be honest and admit I never said such a thing nor implied it.

Sorry, I misread something Bottle said and I assumed you were on the same platform as him.

Autum's father condemned white district officials as "racist crackers." Autum defended her poem by explaining to the Westchester Journal News that white people are "devils and they should be gone. We should be away from them and still be in Africa.



Wasn't that what we (the US) set up Liberia to be...they can always head that way if they wish...free world and all.

Wasn't that what we (the US) set up Liberia to be...they can always head that way if they wish...free world and all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberian_Civil_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Liberian_Civil_War

It's a beacon of freedom and peace.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberian_Civil_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Liberian_Civil_War

It's a beacon of freedom and peace.

Never claimed that just that it was:

1. Africa

2. Meant as a place to repatriate former slaves to.

The US will always have a problem with racism until we ditch this whole, stupid "it's us versus them" idiocy. It doesn't do anyone any good.

Oh, and I'm sure everyone here knows that "race" is actually a social construct? There is actually more genetic variation within so called "racial groups" than between them.

Never claimed that just that it was:

1. Africa

2. Meant as a place to repatriate former slaves to.

I was being sarcastic, I'm on your side >_> I think.

The US will always have a problem with racism until we ditch this whole, stupid "it's us versus them" idiocy. It doesn't do anyone any good.

Oh, and I'm sure everyone here knows that "race" is actually a social construct? There is actually more genetic variation within so called "racial groups" than between them.

I think there's more to race than we know.

And alot of whites have ditched "it's us versus them." It's more fo a black thing now. You know, the Man keeping them down.

I think there's more to race than we know.


Such as what?

When the world starts classifying asians as whites, I'll do so too.
Heaven forbid you should actually think for yourself...

Evidently is there some reason why you let the world tell you how to classify Asians, yet you reject the 'world's wisdom' when it comes to the assertion 'not all Middle Eastern people are Arabs'? Seems a tad inconsistent of you...

You were implying that Africans, BLACK African, had gunpowder weapons before or at the same time as Europeans, without European interferrence.
Er, I didnt make any such inference. I suggest it was not implied and that any inference that it was, is an error on your part.

No, that's exactly what I was implying. That white technology lets us not be as active, thus we're physically weaker.
You make less sense the more you say.

Such as what?


Exactly. "Races" are not discernable genetic groups, as in, you cannot tell any genetic boundries between them, and except by special circumstances, they are not natural cultural groups either.

The latter may seem untrue, but consider this example. The Portugeuse, the Russians and the Norwegians are all "white." However, culturally, they are little alike at all. The Sicilians are "white" and so are the Swedes. Their cultures are also not similar.

A group from the southern part of Africa, say the Zulus, are of the same "race" as a group from West Africa, however, genetically and culturally, they maybe entirely different.

Race is a social construct. The only reason why it exists as a factor is because we have made it exist.

The US presents a special case, because here, skin color, or "race" as it has been called was used to separate into classes, so here you actually do have a culture that corresponds to a "race." However, it is constructed and would not exist as a unified culture if people from the continent of Africa hadn't been brought over as slaves. Large parts of their former cultures were lost due to the efforts of their captors to eradicate such, that and throwing everyone together regardless of culture contributed to the mixing of what they managed to hold onto from their beliefs and practices before being enslaved into a more unified "black culture," that has, of course, since evolved, since that's what cultures do.

Anyway, the fact is, as I was saying earlier, the whole "our group against 'the others'" idea has got to stop, no matter who is doing it. It's not helping at all. In fact, it's hurting and making the issue more complicated than it needs to be, and throwing us backwards.

I believe it's high time Whitey caught a break.

Race is not a social construct. Unless you're blind.

Race is not a social construct. Unless you're blind.

So race is a visual phenomenon? Where does that leave, say, an African-American albino?

So race is a visual phenomenon? Where does that leave, say, an African-American albino?

Race exists. It is real. You can see it. And it will cease to exist when everybody is the same. Which is to say, never.

Race exists. It is real. You can see it. And it will cease to exist when everybody is the same. Which is to say, never.

Could you answer my question, though?

Could you answer my question, though?

Sure. It's genetic. It's called "breeds." Dogs have it, cats have it, and homo sapiens have it.

I think there's more to race than we know.

And alot of whites have ditched "it's us versus them." It's more fo a black thing now. You know, the Man keeping them down.I dunno. Its a lot harder finding black supremacist regions here than nazi or white supremacist regions...

Sure. It's genetic. It's called "breeds." Dogs have it, cats have it, and homo sapiens have it.

As Callisdrun has already pointed out, there is more genetic variation within ethnic groups than between them. The genetic difference between me (a white person) and another randomly-chosen white person is likely to be as great as or greater than the genetic difference between me and a randomly-chosen black person. How, then, does one decide how to define these "breeds"?

Race is not a social construct. Unless you're blind.Phenotype != Genotype

Sure. It's genetic. It's called "breeds." Dogs have it, cats have it, and homo sapiens have it.Orchids don't...

Sure. It's genetic. It's called "breeds." Dogs have it, cats have it, and homo sapiens have it.

As a portion of the total range of expressable traits, how defining do you consider those traits related to "race"?

As Callisdrun has already pointed out, there is more genetic variation within ethnic groups than between them. The genetic difference between me (a white person) and another randomly-chosen white person is likely to be as great as or greater than the genetic difference between me and a randomly-chosen black person. How, then, does one decide how to define these "breeds"?

Easy. If it's a Alsatian, it's an Alsatian. If it's a white dude, it's a white dude.

I'm sorry, but I believe humans to be animals. And just like dogs, cats and rabbits, there are various breeds of humans.

As a portion of the total range of expressable traits, how defining do you consider those traits related to "race"?

Race is an incorrect term anyway. It's better defined as "breed." It's just not used because people don't want to accept that they're animals.

Easy. If it's a Alsatian, it's an Alsatian. If it's a white dude, it's a white dude.

I'm sorry, but I believe humans to be animals. And just like dogs, cats and rabbits, there are various breeds of humans.

You don't think that may reflect a somewhat oversimplified view?

In a taxonomical sense, isn't it possible that the superficial subsets that you're commiting to may be less useful than divisions that better illustrate more meaningful dichotomies?

Easy. If it's a Alsatian, it's an Alsatian. If it's a white dude, it's a white dude.

I'm sorry, but I believe humans to be animals. And just like dogs, cats and rabbits, there are various breeds of humans.

Of course humans are animals. I'm simply asking you to define how, precisely, we determine a person's "breed." All albinos are, by definition, fair-skinned. Does that mean that they are all racially white?

You don't think that may reflect a somewhat oversimplified view?

In a taxonomical sense, isn't it possible that the superficial subsets that you're commiting to may be less useful than divisions that better illustrate more meaningful dichotomies?

Yep. But breeds are a fact of life, and it pisses me off when I see educated people who accept that Alsatians and Siberian Huskies are different breeds of the same species, but think that humans are absolutely identical and that we're all the same. We're not special. We're just smart primates, and we have breeds just like many other animals.

Race is an incorrect term anyway. It's better defined as "breed." It's just not used because people don't want to accept that they're animals.

The people I work with place humans in the Animal Kindgom as a matter of course.

But several of us are also under the impression that grouping what you call "breeds" by external morphologies doesn't always yield the best understanding.

Sometimes the most profound differences are not the obvious ones.

Of course humans are animals. I'm simply asking you to define how, precisely, we determine a person's "breed." All albinos are, by definition, fair-skinned. Does that mean that they are all racially white?

No, that's a genetic disorder. You have albinos in many species and breeds.

The people I work with place humans in the Animal Kindgom as a matter of course.

But several of us are also under the impression that grouping what you call "breeds" by external morphologies doesn't always yield the best understanding.

Sometimes the most profound differences are not the obvious ones.

Never said they were. But they exist. Humans have different breeds, or "races." People should get over it.

Yep. But breeds are a fact of life, and it pisses me off when I see educated people who accept that Alsatians and Siberian Huskies are different breeds of the same species, but think that humans are absolutely identical and that we're all the same. We're not special. We're just smart primates, and we have breeds just like many other animals.

Please present a case of an "educated" person stating that humans are "absolutely identical".

And when you say "yep", are you following that your use of the term "breed" so far is dismissing the issue of how much genetic variability occurs well outside that definition?

Never said they were. But they exist. Humans have different breeds, or "races." People should get over it.The concept of "breeds", "races", or "species" is a human concept, sorry to break it to you. Life continuously breaks human classification. There are plenty of orchid species that would be considered orchid "breeds" under human classification.

Get over it. Explaining why a computer isn't alive and a virus is isn't the only problem this has caused for the scientific community.

No, that's a genetic disorder. You have albinos in many species and breeds.

Indeed. I ask only because a moment ago, you explained that "if it's a white dude, it's a white dude." An albino male is indisputably a "white dude." So, if you can't go strictly by visually obvious phenotypes, how precisely do you distinguish one "breed" of human from another?

Never said they were. But they exist. Humans have different breeds, or "races." People should get over it.

Yeah, those silly geneticists and their persistent exploration of the idea that inheritable qualities are less defined by what you call "breeds" than what was once thought.

Maybe you can elaborate on your terms a little bit. Which traits do you feel are the criteria for your "breeds"?

Please present a case of an "educated" person stating that humans are "absolutely identical".

As Callisdrun has already pointed out, there is more genetic variation within ethnic groups than between them. The genetic difference between me (a white person) and another randomly-chosen white person is likely to be as great as or greater than the genetic difference between me and a randomly-chosen black person. How, then, does one decide how to define these "breeds"?

Now, what I basically got from that was "We look different but we're all the same. Come on, love your brothers, kumbaya!"

And when you say "yep", are you following that your use of the term "breed" so far is dismissing the issue of how much genetic variability occurs well outside that definition?

I can't tell you, because I don't pretend to be a genetic scientist. But it's probably the same thing with canine and feline breeds. Nevertheless, those breeds are a big deal.

Easy. If it's a Alsatian, it's an Alsatian. If it's a white dude, it's a white dude.

I'm sorry, but I believe humans to be animals. And just like dogs, cats and rabbits, there are various breeds of humans.
The selection pressures that have been applied to various non-human species in order to arrive at traits far excede the intensity of selection pressures applied to humans. Throughout human history, human 'populations' have experianced gene flow.

It's amusing that you think so poorly of those educated enough to actually critically think about these issues rather than wondering what they know that you dont.

Now, what I basically got from that was "We look different but we're all the same. Come on, love your brothers, kumbaya!"
I can only suggest your reading comprehension skills need as much work as your biology knowledge.

Yeah, those silly geneticists and their persistent exploration of the idea that inheritable qualities are less defined by what you call "breeds" than what was once thought.

Maybe you can elaborate on your terms a little bit. Which traits do you feel are the criteria for your "breeds"?

Uhh... being different?

And yes, qualities are defined by breeds. Just like with dogs.

Now, what I basically got from that was "We look different but we're all the same. Come on, love your brothers, kumbaya!"
And? If "We look the same, but we're all different" is the case, why not the other?

The concept of "breeds", "races", or "species" is a human concept, sorry to break it to you. Life continuously breaks human classification. There are plenty of orchid species that would be considered orchid "breeds" under human classification.

So... a Great Dane to you, is the same as a Maltese?

So... a Great Dane to you, is the same as a Maltese?They're both words, aren't they? ;)

And? If "We look the same, but we're all different" is the case, why not the other?

Well, we DON'T look the same.

Now, what I basically got from that was "We look different but we're all the same. Come on, love your brothers, kumbaya!"


That's what you got? Do you really believe that's whats there?

Several people have asked a number of fair and reasonable questions, and your answers are just restatements of your poorly supported premise.


I can't tell you, because I don't pretend to be a genetic scientist. But it's probably the same thing with canine and feline breeds. Nevertheless, those breeds are a big deal.

Would you accept the idea that genetics as a field of research has yielded work that indicates your view of "breeds" may be somewhat flawed?

Well, we DON'T look the same.Some newt species do, but their genotypes are radically different.

Oh, listen, I tried. If you wanna live in this "Humans aren't primates, we're all the same and wolves are the same as spaniels" world, go ahead.

Now, what I basically got from that was "We look different but we're all the same. Come on, love your brothers, kumbaya!"


In that case, I'm rather unimpressed with your reading skills, since I discussed simple facts about genetics and at no point exhorted you to love anybody, and definitely never claimed that people are "all the same," genotypically or phenotypically.

Since you still appear to be having problems with the idea that phenotype /= genotype, let's try another example. Australian Aborigines and Africans tend to look fairly similar in terms of skin color and various other traits often associated with racial identity. Are they members of the same "breed"? If so, why? If not, why not?

Uhh... being different?

And yes, qualities are defined by breeds. Just like with dogs.

Different how? I can illustrate a dozen clear differences between myself and any given member of what you call my "race/breed".

Which differences are indicative of a breed?

Do you think James Earl Jones looks a lot like Halle Barry?

Ron Howard is fairly different from Tony Danza.

Seriously, which actual traits are the ones that make a different "breed"?

Oh, listen, I tried. If you wanna live in this "Humans aren't primates, we're all the same and wolves are the same as spaniels" world, go ahead.Must be fun riddlig that strawman with your mighty arrows...:rolleyes:

Since you still appear to be having problems with the idea that phenotype /= genotype, let's try another example. Australian Aborigines and Africans tend to look fairly similar in terms of skin color and various other traits often associated with racial identity. Are they members of the same "breed"? If so, why? If not, why not?

Very similar breeds, at least. There are noticeable differences.

Oh, listen, I tried. If you wanna live in this "Humans aren't primates, we're all the same and wolves are the same as spaniels" world, go ahead.

But nobody is saying that or anything like that.

I'm not asking this to be rude, but what percentage of the questions you've been asked here do you honestly understand?

You haven't really answered any of them, and admitting you don't grasp them is far more understandable than just being evasive.

Do you think James Earl Jones looks a lot like Halle Barry?

Ron Howard is fairly different from Tony Danza.

Yes, the people you paired together are quite similar.

Very similar breeds, at least. There are noticeable differences.

Which characteristics make them similar?

KP, you obviously have no understanding of the basics of genetics.

You can't seem to comprehend that phenotype does not equate to a genotype.

This means that while two people may look similar to your eyes, they could be vastly different genetically.

If you simply look at the genetics, you would see that there are no actual racial or "breed" lines. You can't tell someone's "race" from their genetics.

Many members of the african "race" are more similar to members of the european "race" genetically than to many other members of their own "race."

You know what phenotype is I hope? In case you don't, a phenotype is a visible characteristic. The same phenotypes can be due to a multitude of different sets of genes.

In an effort to get some sense going on, I'd like you, Kievan-Prussia, to do the following:

Define the term breed.

Define the term genotype.

Define the term phenotype.

[QUOTE=Saint Curie]Do you think James Earl Jones looks a lot like Halle Barry?

Ron Howard is fairly different from Tony Danza./QUOTE]

Yes, the people you paired together are quite similar.

To your eyes. Genetics has discovered that they aren't as similar as your rudimentary assessment has led you to believe.

You still aren't answering the question.

Which traits define a breed?

But nobody is saying that or anything like that.

That's your entire argument. I'm arguing that the human species has different breeds. You must naturally be opposing my view.

Which traits define a breed?

Noticeable differences.

You know what, fuck it. You win. I'm the same as Akumba in Namibia. You've proven your point, congratualations.

Very similar breeds, at least. There are noticeable differences.

That's interesting, since, given the dates of genetic divergence, it is very likely that the average African has less genetic material in common with the average Aborigine than he does with the average Swede.

So does phenotypic resemblance trump genetic resemblance in determining these breeds? And if so, what becomes of the African albino from my first example?

Oh, listen, I tried. If you wanna live in this "Humans aren't primates, we're all the same and wolves are the same as spaniels" world, go ahead.
I can only suggest you give serious consideration to the level of your reading and comprehension skills, perhaps your school has a remedial programe that could help you out...

I'm not aware of any suggestion that humans are not primates, strangely you accuse others of suggesing all is the same whilst also accusing them of suggesting humans are fundamentally different to primates (ie not primates). This is of course self-contrary.:rolleyes:

That's your entire argument. I'm arguing that the human species has different breeds. You must naturally be opposing my view.

No, that's nothing like my argument or even anything close.

You failed to provide any criteria for what you call a "breed", you cling to this simplistic and obtuse idea of "differences", ignoring the chorus of people pointing out that this a far wider domain of more meaningful differences that you're disregarding.

And in "opposing" your view, I've asked several questions to better understand your position, and you've clumsily dodged them.

Don't presume to paraphrase my argument when you can't even cogently present your own.

Noticeable differences.

Is hair color a noticable difference? Ear shape? Propensity for diabetes? Height?

All these occur substantially WITHIN what you call a breed. If that is your definition, it doesn't withstand basic examination of reason.

You know what, fuck it. You win. I'm the same as Akumba in Namibia. You've proven your point, congratualations.

We never said you were the same.

However, you are probably more genetically similar to him than he is to Joe the Zulu, though.

You know what, fuck it. You win. I'm the same as Akumba in Namibia. You've proven your point, congratualations.

No, you're different from Akumba, but you're also different from Nigel and Bob and Clemens.

You thrash and spit and clutch your own presuppositions...but what have they ever really done for you?

We never said you were the same.

However, you are probably more genetically similar to him than he is to Joe the Zulu, though.
Do you mean Zulu Joe?

Do you mean Zulu Joe?

As long as he is a Zulu and his name is Joe. I just use the name "Joe" as an example name whenever I need one. Like, "Farmer Joe," "Industrial Worker Joe," "Sailor Joe," "Soldier Joe," etc.

If I have offended any Zulus or Joes, I apologize.

As long as he is a Zulu and his name is Joe. I just use the name "Joe" as an example name whenever I need one. Like, "Farmer Joe," "Industrial Worker Joe," "Sailor Joe," "Soldier Joe," etc.

If I have offended any Zulus or Joes, I apologize.
No, no.. I just have a friend called Zulu Joe.. he's not actually a Zulu but he does love the movie!

So, I've read all your posts, and based on that... I'm now Khmer.

I always wanted to be Khmer. Ever since I saw "The Killing Fields."

So, I've read all your posts, and based on that... I'm now Khmer.

I always wanted to be Khmer. Ever since I saw "The Killing Fields."


:rolleyes: :rolleyes: Now you're just being asinine. Is it really so hard to understand? We never said that everybody's the same, it's just that there aren't these magic boxes that you seem to think humans fit into, not genetically.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: Now you're just being asinine. Is it really so hard to understand? We never said that everybody's the same, it's just that there aren't these magic boxes that you seem to think humans fit into, not genetically.

Yeah all humans are the same. Don't be racist against us asians.

Yeah all humans are the same. Don't be racist against us asians.

When did someone say that all humans are the same? Besides your current misguided notions.

Humans aren't all the same, every human has different genetics. The problem is that the "races" that people refer to do not correspond to any actual genetic groups at all. Do you not understand that? Or are you just being an ass for the sake of it?

Myself, I must go to bed, cause I have a final tomorrow.

Humans aren't all the same, every human has different genetics. The problem is that the "races" that people refer to do not correspond to any actual genetic groups at all. Do you not understand that? Or are you just being an ass for the sake of it?

A little from column A and a little from column B.

Fuck it. I'm pulling out of this human classification shit. You can call yourself whatever the hell you want, I'm none of it.

So, I've read all your posts, and based on that... I'm now Khmer.

I always wanted to be Khmer. Ever since I saw "The Killing Fields."
Really? Did you read the one where I asked you to define "breed", "phenotype", and "genotype"?

Fuck it. I'm pulling out of this human classification shit. You can call yourself whatever the hell you want, I'm none of it.

Wow, you pulled out the entire trollish toolset. Make unsupported, intentionally offensive assertions. Check. When you get taken to task on those assertions twist everything the person taking you task says just to be difficult and then treat it like victory. Check. Declare that you never brought any of this up, despite the fact that you can be quoted. Check. Leave. Check.

Did I miss anything?

Listen, if it looks like a white guy, acts like a white guy, talks like a white guy, then it's a fucking white guy. And so is his father. You guys, and apparently, scientists as well, are telling me that our white guy is more closely related to some black guy than his own father, then fuck your classification system. It ain't no good.

Listen, if it looks like a white guy, acts like a white guy, talks like a white guy, then it's a fucking white guy. And so is his father. You guys, and apparently, scientists as well, are telling me that our white guy is more closely related to some black guy than his own father, then fuck your classification system. It ain't no good.What if it's an albino, born to a black woman? Looks white.
How does one "act white" or "talk white"? Bavarians don't act or talk like normal Germans. Are they not white?

Are you stupid or something? Do you not understand metaphors? Jesus, you're all dumb. I clearly meant that white technology makes us lazier and weaker. And blacks tend to be poorer, so... less technology.

Uh-huh. The mark of classic troll - "I know I said A, but what I really meant is B."

The problem here is that you clearly don't understand human genetics. You also appear to not know anything about cultural phenomena throughout the world. And rather than simply admitting your shortcomings you insult and attack people and pretend as if your shortcomings are someone elses. You've shown demonstrable ignorance of culture, of race, of genetics, or biology, of nearly everything this thread touches and when people try to offer you knowledge, you respond with vitriol. Is this what passes for a debate in your world?

Listen, if it looks like a white guy, acts like a white guy, talks like a white guy, then it's a fucking white guy. And so is his father. You guys, and apparently, scientists as well, are telling me that our white guy is more closely related to some black guy than his own father, then fuck your classification system. It ain't no good.

It's your classification system. We're telling you that our classification rejects the idea of race because it's flawed. You talk about the relationship of a guy to his father, but what does that have to do with anything? No one is arguing that their aren't familial genetic similarities. The point is that if I take a random white person and genetically compare them to a randomly compare them to a racially-mixed group of 100 people, it's highly probable that I will end up with a closest match that is not white.

Meanwhile, if it looks like a black guy, 'acts like a black guy', 'talks like a black guy' (apparently, this is actually possible), then it's a fucking black guy, no? Now explain to me, is his mother black?

Uh-huh. The mark of classic troll - "I know I said A, but what I really meant is B."

Yes, ok, sure, whatever. The current obesity rates in the Western world are caused by muskets. Fine. *cough* stooge*cough*

Listen, I don't care. It's you're problem. Race issues, ethnic tension, fuck it, it's all yours, genetics boy.

It's your classification system. We're telling you that our classification rejects the idea of race because it's flawed. You talk about the relationship of a guy to his father, but what does that have to do with anything? No one is arguing that their aren't familial genetic similarities. The point is that if I take a random white person and genetically compare them to a randomly compare them to a racially-mixed group of 100 people, it's highly probable that I will end up with a closest match that is not white.

Meanwhile, if it looks like a black guy, 'acts like a black guy', 'talks like a black guy' (apparently, this is actually possible), then it's a fucking black guy, no? Now explain to me, is his mother black?

Look, I said I don't care, ok? You win, I lose, fuck humanity.

Yes, ok, sure, whatever. The current obesity rates in the Western world are caused by muskets. Fine. *cough* stooge*cough*

Listen, I don't care. It's you're problem. Race issues, ethnic tension, fuck it, it's all yours, genetics boy.

Okay. If your NEW claims are correct, then the obesity rates would be higher in white people. Is it? Nope. In the US, at least, obesity is FAR more prevalent among blacks. You should have quit while you were VERY far behind.

I love how you attack me for bringing up muskets when you brought them up. Another mark of a troll. Do you think nobody here sees through these shenanigans?

Look, I said I don't care, ok? You win, I lose, fuck humanity.

Or, you know, you could attempt to have a reasoned discussion and learn something rather than simply spouting more and more ignorance. Look at your last post suggesting that obesity is higher in white people, a claim not supported by facts, by a long shot. You just make unsupported claims and then get mad when we take you to task for them. You're trolling.

I don't care anymore. Humans and their divisions aren't my problem.

I don't care anymore. Humans and their divisions aren't my problem.

The final bastion of the troll. "All of my other tricks didn't work, so I'll just keep posting that I don't care. Yep, that'll fool them."

Listen, we're not dolts. We see what you're doing here. Simply admit that when you made the claims you made, they were not educated claims but emotional responses. You got taken to task on them and you never really wanted to explore those issues. You wanted to vent. Admit that you don't really understand genetics and that you're not qualified to debate this topic. It's a simple thing called intellectual honesty. Or you can just keep trolling. It's really up to you.

I don't understand anything. And I also don't care. People aren't my problem.

Just to make a point here, but to counter KP's point on obesity being linked to technology, aren't wealthier people usually more fit and healthy? They can afford better food, subscriptions to gyms, personal trainers and the like. In the West, being fit is now one of the marks of wealth and power.

Just to make a point here, but to counter KP's point on obesity being linked to technology, aren't wealthier people usually more fit and healthy? They can afford better food, subscriptions to gyms, personal trainers and the like. In the West, being fit is now one of the marks of wealth and power.

It's also counter to the facts. He claimed that televisions and whatnot are causing white people to be worse atheletes than blacks and then mentioned obesity which in Western nations where professionally black atheletes are generally more successful than whites, blacks also have a much higher rate of obesity than white people. It seems like the issue cannot be the current phenomena of technology as our friend claims. Now, of course, his original claim was about white people having guns and black people being chased by lions because they only have a spear, but, hey, why let the facts interrupt a good tirade.

I don't understand anything. And I also don't care. People aren't my problem.

For someone who doesn't care, you sure are making a large effort to make us know it. Rather than making the effort to post over and over while actually not adding anything to the thread, how about you read the posts made, and either support you claims with evidence or simply admit you can't? How about that little trick, my friend?

For someone who doesn't care, you sure are making a large effort to make us know it. Rather than making the effort to post over and over while actually not adding anything to the thread, how about you read the posts made, and either support you claims with evidence or simply admit you can't? How about that little trick, my friend?

I already admitted that I had no idea what I was talking about. Over the night, I've seen several topics that proved to me that apathy is the way. So... feh.

Besides, you're the one who's bumping this.

I already admitted that I had no idea what I was talking about. Over the night, I've seen several topics that proved to me that apathy is the way. So... feh.

Besides, you're the one who's bumping this.

I actually WANT to have an educated discussion. You're welcome to engage. In fact, you're encouraged to do so. Otherwise, tomorrow your feigned apathy will disappear and you'll be making the same spurious claims in another thread and basically running through the troll arsenal all over again. I'm not here to browbeat you or force anything out of you, but stop pretending like you ever came here to discuss anything. You didn't. Now that people showed up that know what they're talking about and they trapped you in all of your spinning and diversions, you've run out of things to try so rather than simply manning up and discussing the topic, you claim apathy and say you're leaving. However, the fact that you're still here and still arguing your apathy suggests otherwise.

However, the fact that you're still here and still arguing your apathy suggests otherwise.

I'm interested in me, and apathy. This topic is just an extention of apathy.

I actually WANT to have an educated discussion. You're welcome to engage. In fact, you're encouraged to do so.

Ehh. Too much work. I'd have to look stuff up on Wikipedia. Too far.

I'm interested in me, and apathy. This topic is just an extention of apathy.

You should look up apathy, my friend. Again, the fact that you're willing to expend the effort to make the claim of apathy and the fact that you're making an effort to draw the conversation away from the topic, further evidences your trolling.

I'll ask again-
"Meanwhile, if it looks like a black guy, 'acts like a black guy', 'talks like a black guy' (apparently, this is actually possible), then it's a fucking black guy, no? Now explain to me, is his mother black?"

Pardon my language, by the way, the poster I was imitating tends to substitute swearing for substance.

I'll ask again-
"Meanwhile, if it looks like a black guy, 'acts like a black guy', 'talks like a black guy' (apparently, this is actually possible), then it's a fucking black guy, no? Now explain to me, is his mother black?"

I told you, I don't know anything about blacks and whites and crap like that. Does anybody care anyway?

I told you, I don't know anything about blacks and whites and crap like that. Does anybody care anyway?
If you don't care, don't post. We're having a discussion here. If you don't care, leave. If you do care, and it seems you do, then engage. Posting "I don't care" over and over is spamming and it's a violation of site rules, as far as I know.

To people who DO want to discuss the topic-
Someone here claimed that if it looks like x race and acts like x race and talks like x race it must be x race, just as their parents must be. Does that mean if a person looks black their parent must be black?

Ehh. Too much work. I'd have to look stuff up on Wikipedia. Too far.If you're not willing to memorize or look up information to back up your claims, then why did you make them?

If you don't care, don't post. We're having a discussion here. If you don't care, leave. If you do care, and it seems you do, then engage. Posting "I don't care" over and over is spamming and it's a violation of site rules, as far as I know.

You're bringing it up. You want an answer? Fine.

"Meanwhile, if it looks like a black guy, 'acts like a black guy', 'talks like a black guy' (apparently, this is actually possible), then it's a fucking black guy, no? Now explain to me, is his mother black?"

It's your scenario, you tell me. I get the feeling his mother isn't black.

If you're not willing to memorize or look up information to back up your claims, then why did you make them?

*shrug*

I'm an idiot. That probably has alot to do with it.

You're bringing it up. You want an answer? Fine.

"Meanwhile, if it looks like a black guy, 'acts like a black guy', 'talks like a black guy' (apparently, this is actually possible), then it's a fucking black guy, no? Now explain to me, is his mother black?"

It's your scenario, you tell me. I get the feeling his mother isn't black.

But that can't be, that would make you *gasp* WRONG. If you're aware your claim was wrong when you made it, then why did you make it? It's clear that you can capably envision a scenario where what you said was not true.

But that can't be, that would make you *gasp* WRONG. If you're aware your claim was wrong when you made it, then why did you make it? It's clear that you can capably envision a scenario where what you said was not true.

How many times do I have to say "I was wrong, I'm an idiot"? I've got it on copy and paste now.

Black lands taken from your hands, by vampires with no remorse.
They took the gold, the wisdom and all the storytellers.
They took the black women, with the black man weak.
Made to watch as they changed the paradigm of our village.
Yeah white nationalism is what put you in bondage.
Pirates and vampires like Columbus, Morgan and Darwin.
What wisdom?

What wisdom?

They must have had something. There's a lot of wisdom to go around.