NationStates Jolt Archive

Really, I mean we hear about Black History Month every god damned year. But that's the only (Insert Race Here) History Month we hear about. There's no White History Month, no Latino History Month, no Asian History Month. Why do only the black people get a history month? Is it just proving how much bullshit affirmative action is? Or is it just that black people are the only ones actually concerned about their history?

*Tries to keep from being racist*

EDIT: Can't be considered copycat, as I'm dealing with Asian and Latino history month as well.

Umm maybe you're just unaware of this, but about ten topics down, there's the very same thread.

Really, I mean we hear about Black History Month every god damned year. But that's the only (Insert Race Here) History Month we hear about. There's no White History Month, no Latino History Month, no Asian History Month. Why do only the black people get a history month? Is it just proving how much bullshit affirmative action is? Or is it just that black people are the only ones actually concerned about their history?

*Tries to keep from being racist*

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=11868398
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/hhm1.html

Nah, they've got their own months, they're just not so well publicized.

no race should have a history month.

I guess it depends what kind of history you want to remember... race has been an important factor in some of the greatest civil rights changes in history, but I agree it shouldn't be the only reason that we remember stuff that took place in history. So maybe every nation or political group should have a history month instead of every race...

Ya, there's only a topic for this. But anyways:

Hispanic History Month just passed (Sept. 15th - Oct. 15th). Native American history month comes up in November.

Really, I mean we hear about Black History Month every god damned year. But that's the only (Insert Race Here) History Month we hear about. There's no White History Month, no Latino History Month, no Asian History Month. Why do only the black people get a history month? Is it just proving how much bullshit affirmative action is? Or is it just that black people are the only ones actually concerned about their history?

*Tries to keep from being racist*

EDIT: Can't be considered copycat, as I'm dealing with Asian and Latino history month as well.

In the US, practically every month is white history month. It's only in recent years that the teaching of both US and world history has ceased to be completely Euro-centric and has started to acknowledge the world outside the point of view of white people. Hell, it's only recently in the US that history classes have started to acknowledge the effect of the Spanish on US history.

In the US, practically every month is white history month. It's only in recent years that the teaching of both US and world history has ceased to be completely Euro-centric and has started to acknowledge the world outside the point of view of white people. Hell, it's only recently in the US that history classes have started to acknowledge the effect of the Spanish on US history.

Yes, and one can spot a lot of, shall we say closet racism, in the people who whine and complain about Evil Multiculturalism (or for example, Genocide Against White People), or hint at conspiracies by "Non-Whites."

My view - kids today who flunk out of non-Eurocentric courses or tests, wind up harboring resentment which they aim at entire races.

Okay, white history month can teach exactly the same history taught in normal schools across the Western world. How about that? :rolleyes:

Okay, white history month can teach exactly the same history taught in normal schools across the Western world. How about that? :rolleyes:

Not really.

Last time I checked, the Civil Rights movement and the Islamic Empires of the Medieval world have nothign to do with whites.

I thought every month was white history month? We definitely don't need an "official" month, IMO.

no race should have a history month.
No race should have a history. I say that we take an entire month to destroy all monuments, burn all history text books, and then beat everyone around the head with shovels to cause amnesia.
It'd be like hitting the reset button on the world, but with really bad headaches and a higher "What the fuck happened last night?"-factor.

Why isn't there a "White History Month"?meh
...

If you really think its a good Idea.. you should campaign to get it done.
Step one: http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/complaintintro.html?src=ct

Good luck :D

If you really think its a good Idea.. you should campaign to get it done.

step one: http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/complaintintro.html?src=ct

Good luck :D

Step 2: Visit White Supremacy's website.

Step 3: Kill yourself.

Step 4: Realize this is a joke.

How about a German History Month (focusing on the bits that haven't already been done to death)? They are the largest ethnic group in the United State.

Or better yet, a Germanic History Month. A month dedicated to the greatest language family and ethnic branch in history.

Not really.

Last time I checked, the Civil Rights movement and the Islamic Empires of the Medieval world have nothign to do with whites.

Oh, sorry, I see it now. You're being oppressed, and shit - why should you have to learn about brown people? They're nothing like you or what you identify with, right?

Ugh.

The experience of history in nations of predominantly European descent, is, funnily enough, predominantly Euro-centric. You never learnt about the pilgrims, for example? The American revolution? Even I learnt that in early high school, and i'm not even from your country. In fact, I recall very little being taught to me from a non-European perspective. And quite frankly, I wish I had; all forms of history are important in establishing a coherent view of the world around one-self (edit - of course, I did my own reading to compensate.). You would argue that the civil rights movement isn't important to the society around you and your relation to it?

If we want to focus on only the positive stuff, we could do the history of the entire human race in much less than a month...

"Race History" months are ridiculous. If we've come so far as a society, and are so accepting of one another, why the need for a whole month to acknowledge singular races?

In response to some complaining about "Euro-centric" teaching in U.S. schools, I would like to point out that this nation was settled by...wait for it....this is gonna be big....you may want to mentally prepare yourself for this...

European colonists.

I feel the urge to say "DUHHHHH", but then again, that might be considered as not contributing to diversity (i.e. making white people feel guilty in order to combat paranoia about being racist as well as justifying hand-outs to minorities).

In response to some complaining about "Euro-centric" teaching in U.S. schools, I would like to point out that this nation was settled by...wait for it....this is gonna be big....you may want to mentally prepare yourself for this...

European colonists.
That wasn't really what I was trying to argue against. I was arguing that the demand for a "white history month" was foolish because the societies are naturally euro-centric anyway.

...and are so accepting of one another...feeling sarcatic today?

feeling sarcatic today?

No, but I do feel sarcastic everyday.

"Race History" months are ridiculous. If we've come so far as a society, and are so accepting of one another, why the need for a whole month to acknowledge singular races?

In response to some complaining about "Euro-centric" teaching in U.S. schools, I would like to point out that this nation was settled by...wait for it....this is gonna be big....you may want to mentally prepare yourself for this...

European colonists.

I feel the urge to say "DUHHHHH", but then again, that might be considered as not contributing to diversity (i.e. making white people feel guilty in order to combat paranoia about being racist as well as justifying hand-outs to minorities).

Oh, hello puppet.

"Race History" months are ridiculous. If we've come so far as a society, and are so accepting of one another, why the need for a whole month to acknowledge singular races?

In response to some complaining about "Euro-centric" teaching in U.S. schools, I would like to point out that this nation was settled by...wait for it....this is gonna be big....you may want to mentally prepare yourself for this...

European colonists.

I feel the urge to say "DUHHHHH", but then again, that might be considered as not contributing to diversity (i.e. making white people feel guilty in order to combat paranoia about being racist as well as justifying hand-outs to minorities).
I agree.

I thought every month was white history month? We definitely don't need an "official" month, IMO.

off topic but are you from cork?

How about a German History Month (focusing on the bits that haven't already been done to death)? They are the largest ethnic group in the United State.

Or better yet, a Germanic History Month. A month dedicated to the greatest language family and ethnic branch in history.

that would be so cool!

"Race History" months are ridiculous. If we've come so far as a society, and are so accepting of one another, why the need for a whole month to acknowledge singular races?

In response to some complaining about "Euro-centric" teaching in U.S. schools, I would like to point out that this nation was settled by...wait for it....this is gonna be big....you may want to mentally prepare yourself for this...

European colonists.

I feel the urge to say "DUHHHHH", but then again, that might be considered as not contributing to diversity (i.e. making white people feel guilty in order to combat paranoia about being racist as well as justifying hand-outs to minorities).
And yet the focus in US history is always on the white colonists. The Spanish, and the African and Indian slave contributions are ignored or passed over with barely a mention.

Your white supremacism is showing--might want to tuck that back in public.

that would be so cool!

Of course it would be. It's not my fault we're awesome.

Oh is this more of your "german" pride? Sorry, you're not german. You're dog shit.

were is he from?
doesnt stop german from being cool.

Oh is this more of your "german" pride? Sorry, you're not german. You're dog shit.

Hmm, I like that. 'You're not Germanic because I say so."

And, in a delicious turn of events, I get to report that. I never thought I'd say those words.

And yet the focus in US history is always on the white colonists. The Spanish, and the African and Indian slave contributions are ignored or passed over with barely a mention.
The Spanish contribution to colonization was primarily in the form of spreading diseases like small pox and Catholocism and shooting at locals while running around South America and Mexico looking for a puddle that didn't exist. Hardly a glamorous accomplishment.

On the other hand, most of the European colonial period was taught to me by way of how it oppressed native peoples, basically ignoring any white guy who didn't own at least 10 slaves or rape a couple dozen Indians.

were is he from?
doesnt stop german from being cool.

I'm from Melbourne, Australia. My mother is German.

Hmm, I like that. 'You're not Germanic because I say so."

Nah, you're not German because you're an Australian. But we've been over this before, real Germans from Germany have expressed before their horror at your vicarious pride in "being German" and what you do with your beliefs - such as apologize for the nazis, express your bigotry and racism, etc etc.

So why go over it again? I'm not making a debate here. Debate is beyond your capability.


And, in a delicious turn of events, I get to report that. I never thought I'd say those words.

I suppose it's delicious because you a) flaunt German Ethnic Supremacy and b) whinge to the mods when people, predictably, might have an opposition. You know - sorta like flamebaiting or trolling!

The Spanish contribution to colonization was primarily in the form of spreading diseases like small pox and Catholocism and shooting at locals while running around South America and Mexico looking for a puddle that didn't exist. Hardly a glamorous accomplishment.

On the other hand, most of the European colonial period was taught to me by way of how it oppressed native peoples, basically ignoring any white guy who didn't own at least 10 slaves or rape a couple dozen Indians.
What you're really saying is that if it happened outside the mid-Atlantic and northwards seaboard, it didn't matter. White Eurocentrism strikes again.

I suppose it's delicious because you a) flaunt German Ethnic Supremacy and b) whinge to the mods when people, predictably, might have an opposition. You know - sorta like flamebaiting or trolling!

Thus spake the flamer.

What you're really saying is that if it happened outside the mid-Atlantic and northwards seaboard, it didn't matter. White Eurocentrism strikes again.
What I'm really saying is that attention was devoted to areas based on recency and the variety of wrongs that Europeans or the US were committing at the time.

My heart bleeds ... when, oh when, is the White Man gonna catch a break?

You know what? There should be a General History Month. Because the average person's knowledge of history is appauling. In ten years, people won't remember what the Iraq War was.

You know what? There should be a General History Month. Because the average person's knowledge of history is appauling. In ten years, people won't remember what the Iraq War was.

Wait ... there's something up with Iraq?

Wait ... there's something up with Iraq?

No, he's just joking. Iraq is actually really nice and you should have a holiday there.

Really, I mean we hear about Black History Month every god damned year. But that's the only (Insert Race Here) History Month we hear about. There's no White History Month, no Latino History Month, no Asian History Month. Why do only the black people get a history month? Is it just proving how much bullshit affirmative action is? Or is it just that black people are the only ones actually concerned about their history?

*Tries to keep from being racist*

EDIT: Can't be considered copycat, as I'm dealing with Asian and Latino history month as well.
Excellent idea. But maybe you should make it "white awareness weeks" instead. Hopefully some nutjobs might actually learn something.
Okay, white history month can teach exactly the same history taught in normal schools across the Western world. How about that? :rolleyes:
Yes.
How about a German History Month (focusing on the bits that haven't already been done to death)? They are the largest ethnic group in the United State.

Or better yet, a Germanic History Month. A month dedicated to the greatest language family and ethnic branch in history.
You've never been to German highschool, I take it, for our education gives you a very nice history lesson on German(ic) supremacy and where it led.

We are so aware of our history and heritage you wouldn't believe it.

Not really.

Last time I checked, the Civil Rights movement and the Islamic Empires of the Medieval world have nothign to do with whites.

...whites were pretty involved in the civil rights movement. Remember that whole little thing about not giving them their rights? Yeah, that was whitey.

And when is the last time that, when learning about the expansion of the US, you learned about Hawai'ian history? How about the heavy influence of the Spanish on Florida? The fact that the empires of Europe were the reason the Americans could win the revolution? Thats right, you can thank the Dutch, Spanish, and French more than you can thank the actual framers.

You've never been to German highschool, I take it, for our education gives you a very nice history lesson on German(ic) supremacy and where it led.

We are so aware of our history and heritage you wouldn't believe it.

Except we're talking about America.

Except we're talking about America.
I know. Improve the education systems and do some real history teaching and make people aware of their countries' histories and historical responsibilities and you wouldn't need, nor want a white history month.

...whites were pretty involved in the civil rights movement. Remember that whole little thing about not giving them their rights? Yeah, that was whitey.

And when is the last time that, when learning about the expansion of the US, you learned about Hawai'ian history? How about the heavy influence of the Spanish on Florida? The fact that the empires of Europe were the reason the Americans could win the revolution? Thats right, you can thank the Dutch, Spanish, and French more than you can thank the actual framers.

Actually, they do teach about that in our history class. Although we haven't gotten to Hawaii yet (we're just about up to the Civil War), they did teach us a bit about Florida (perhaps since we live in Florida?) and about how European countries (especially France) affected our revolution.

...whites were pretty involved in the civil rights movement. Remember that whole little thing about not giving them their rights? Yeah, that was whitey.
Unless we moved to a Black majority somewhere during the Civil Rights period, it would also be whites who relented in the end.
And when is the last time that, when learning about the expansion of the US, you learned about Hawai'ian history?
Unimportant, all that matters is those parts of Hawaiin history that are negatively impacted by Europeans. The purpose of History classes has nothing to do with learning the past, they're there to teach people White Guilt.
The fact that the empires of Europe were the reason the Americans could win the revolution? Thats right, you can thank the Dutch, Spanish, and French more than you can thank the actual framers.
The empires of Europe had nothing to do with American victory, they just encouraged the defeat of the British. If it weren't for the militancy of those "farmers", the sackless European powers would have continued cowering in the corner.

We oppress blacks for centuries. We gave them a month, so we could say, "Sorry about that." Now, we're complaining about giving thirty days of thought to one of the worst mistakes ever made by the USA?


Fucking unbelievable.

To have a History Month for your own ethnicity, your ethnicity has to have a certifiable history of being oppressed in the first place. And the only time I've seen white people oppressed was in that movie with John Travolta and Harry Belafonte.

We oppress blacks for centuries. We gave them a month, so we could say, "Sorry about that." Now, we're complaining about giving thirty days of thought to one of the worst mistakes ever made by the USA?

Who is this "we" you speak of? If anybody here has oppressed blacks lately, raise your hand, for I'm sure the Smithsonian would love to hear of a two hundred and seventy year old ex-slave owner from Mississippi who isn't sleeping in a box right now.

Actually, they do teach about that in our history class. Although we haven't gotten to Hawaii yet (we're just about up to the Civil War), they did teach us a bit about Florida (perhaps since we live in Florida?) and about how European countries (especially France) affected our revolution.They barely mention the Spanish, and I've only heard the Dutch brought up once. The majority of the fighting in the American Revolution occured in the Caribbean. As for Hawai'ian history, they might teach you about how the US overthrew the government. They probably won't talk about Kamehameha the Great, the monarchy, British influence, etc. despite the fact that it might take an hour to go through.

Unless we moved to a Black majority somewhere during the Civil Rights period, it would also be whites who relented in the end.yep

Unimportant, all that matters is those parts of Hawaiin history that are negatively impacted by Europeans. The purpose of History classes has nothing to do with learning the past, they're there to teach people White Guilt.
appearently
The empires of Europe had nothing to do with American victory, they just encouraged the defeat of the British. If it weren't for the militancy of those "farmers", the sackless European powers would have continued cowering in the corner.
a)framers. Farmers is slightly different
b)please tell me this is a joke. You don't have to mean it, but please...just say you are kidding.

To have a History Month for your own ethnicity, your ethnicity has to have a certifiable history of being oppressed in the first place. And the only time I've seen white people oppressed was in that movie with John Travolta and Harry Belafonte.

What, so you're redefining the word "history" now?

What, so you're redefining the word "history" now?

Why yes I am. And while we're on that subject, I think I need to redefine the entire content of Webster's Dictionary. Busy busy busy...

We oppress blacks for centuries. We gave them a month, so we could say, "Sorry about that." Now, we're complaining about giving thirty days of thought to one of the worst mistakes ever made by the USA?
28, February is the shortest month of the year.
And slavery wasn't a "mistake", you can't just say: "Oops! Well, look at that, somehow a hundred or so black guys just happened to fall onto my boat, waft across the ocean and get dumped onto my property. And isn't it crazy how I've been forgetting to pay them for the past 27 years?"

Who is this "we" you speak of? If anybody here has oppressed blacks lately, raise your hand, for I'm sure the Smithsonian would love to hear of a two hundred and seventy year old ex-slave owner from Mississippi who isn't sleeping in a box right now.
I'm sorry, you live in the US? Yes? You have parents? They have parents? All from the US? Yeah, then you're a part of it. The least you can do is give it some thought and not have it be forgotten, in any shape or form, what had happened in this country in the hope that something like it won't ever happen again. Racism is alive and well. Stamping out ignorance is the best weapon against it. Which, if you think about it, Black History Month is the very reason this thread exists. It's the very reason all the people participating in the thread are thinking about it. I'm glad for it.

28, February is the shortest month of the year.
And slavery wasn't a "mistake", you can't just say: "Oops! Well, look at that, somehow a hundred or so black guys just happened to fall onto my boat, waft across the ocean and get dumped onto my property. And isn't it crazy how I've been forgetting to pay them for the past 27 years?"

Try to be a bit serious.

a)framers. Farmers is slightly different
b)please tell me this is a joke. You don't have to mean it, but please...just say you are kidding.
a) It was a typo
b) What? That the British empire was top dog and had succeeded in cowing its rivals to the point that they weren't willing to move into the fight until after the Americans soundly trounced Burgoyne? Even if those rivals had made their move first, they wouldn't have done it for the good of the American colonies, they'd have simply taken them over for themselves in the same way that Britain did to Canada.

The only time I've seen white people oppressed was in that movie with John Travolta and Harry Belafonte.
Look at Zimbabwe. Can't say I blame 'em, mind.

Look at Zimbabwe. Can't say I blame 'em, mind.

Bob Mugabe grabbed the farms primarily because he saw a story on CNN where they were contributing money to his political opponents. Afterwards he's just an equal opportunity oppressor outside of toadies and cronies. Zimbabwe used to be an agricultural center of Africa, now it's a starving piece of shit thanks to him.

Bob Mugabe grabbed the farms primarily because he saw a story on CNN where they were contributing money to his political opponents. Afterwards he's just an equal opportunity oppressor outside of toadies and cronies. Zimbabwe used to be an agricultural center of Africa, now it's a starving piece of shit thanks to him.

Thank you Bobby!

They barely mention the Spanish, and I've only heard the Dutch brought up once. The majority of the fighting in the American Revolution occured in the Caribbean. As for Hawai'ian history, they might teach you about how the US overthrew the government. They probably won't talk about Kamehameha the Great, the monarchy, British influence, etc. despite the fact that it might take an hour to go through.


Maybe I've been more exposed to the Spanish history from living in Florida and visiting Castillo de San Marcos and in St. Augustine (it was really cool; the walls are made of coquina). I honestly don't know how much they'll teach us about Hawaii; we haven't gotten that far yet. Although apparently the major theme of the first semester is expansion. I'm not sure, but there might also be a difference regarding this between AP classes and regular classes.

And yet the focus in US history is always on the white colonists. The Spanish, and the African and Indian slave contributions are ignored or passed over with barely a mention.

Your white supremacism is showing--might want to tuck that back in public.

Oh, the joy of arguing with people like you -- "you're a white supremacist!" Good argument. You really dismantled my points.

U.S. history mentions slaves, Indians, and the Spanish a great deal, at least when I learned about it in school. However, the fact that white colonists may "hog the limelight" so to speak is to due to the fact that the United States as it exists today was founded by caucasians. That isn't white supremacy -- it's historical fact. Then again, historical facts don't serve the parasitic "we are all different we are all different we are all different" diversity agenda so well, so I don't blame you for ignoring them.

Oh, the joy of arguing with people like you -- "you're a white supremacist!" Good argument. You really dismantled my points.

U.S. history mentions slaves, Indians, and the Spanish a great deal, at least when I learned about it in school. However, the fact that white colonists may "hog the limelight" so to speak is to due to the fact that the United States as it exists today was founded by caucasians. That isn't white supremacy -- it's historical fact. Then again, historical facts don't serve the parasitic "we are all different we are all different we are all different" diversity agenda so well, so I don't blame you for ignoring them.

Is there a lack in your knowledge about caucasions in the US due to what was taught to you in school?

Thus spake the flamer.

And I'm right, too. Hey I know, create a puppet so people don't recognize you as quickly!

Is there a lack in your knowledge about caucasions in the US due to what was taught to you in school?

Your vague insulting elevates you to a level of great intelligence, my friend...

What the hell are you even trying to say?

Your vague insulting elevates you to a level of great intelligence, my friend...

What the hell are you even trying to say?

Thanks. I was just wondering, if there was something you didn't learn in school because it was filled up with all that black stuff.

Thanks. I was just wondering, if there was something you didn't learn in school because it was filled up with all that black stuff.

OK... Although I'm sure everyone is the on the joke, please, enlighten me as to what the hell you're babbling about, because your posts don't appear to follow a coherent line of thought.

Leaving aside all the concerns about the typical biases of the history taught in school, however accurate they may be, there is another important difference between the two.

"White" is not an identity. It is the denial of certain identities; "not Black, Latino, Asian, Native American, etc." There can be no "White History Month" because there is no "White history."

Now, if you wanted to start an "Irish History Month", or a "Russian History Month", or a "Scottish History Month", or something of the sort, go ahead; I doubt anyone would object (and some of them may already exist.)

Oh, the joy of arguing with people like you -- "you're a white supremacist!" Good argument. You really dismantled my points.

U.S. history mentions slaves, Indians, and the Spanish a great deal, at least when I learned about it in school. However, the fact that white colonists may "hog the limelight" so to speak is to due to the fact that the United States as it exists today was founded by caucasians. That isn't white supremacy -- it's historical fact. Then again, historical facts don't serve the parasitic "we are all different we are all different we are all different" diversity agenda so well, so I don't blame you for ignoring them.

No, it isn't historical fact. It's a particularly one-sided view of history favored by those who would rather sweep the contributions of non-whites away. I'm not the one ignoring anything. I grew up in areas tremendously influenced by people of color and live in them to this day--I know the contributions made by African-Americans and the Spanish and the Native Americans among others. It's you who is playing the "white people invented everything" bullshit card. Don't get pissy because I pointed it out and exposed your racism.

Then again, historical facts don't serve the parasitic "we are all different we are all different we are all different" diversity agenda so well, so I don't blame you for ignoring them.

Could you expound more on the Parasitic Diversity Agenda?

Leaving aside all the concerns about the typical biases of the history taught in school, however accurate they may be, there is another important difference between the two.

"White" is not an identity. It is the denial of certain identities; "not Black, Latino, Asian, Native American, etc." There can be no "White History Month" because there is no "White history."

Now, if you wanted to start an "Irish History Month", or a "Russian History Month", or a "Scottish History Month", or something of the sort, go ahead; I doubt anyone would object (and some of them may already exist.)

That's a good point. That would include discussions of peoples' national origins rather than vague notions about groups of people based on the pigment of their skin.

No, it isn't historical fact. It's a particularly one-sided view of history favored by those who would rather sweep the contributions of non-whites away. I'm not the one ignoring anything. I grew up in areas tremendously influenced by people of color and live in them to this day--I know the contributions made by African-Americans and the Spanish and the Native Americans among others. It's you who is playing the "white people invented everything" bullshit card. Don't get pissy because I pointed it out and exposed your racism.

Wow. You exposed my racism. Damn, Nazz, but you're a good one. Ever think of becoming an investigative journalist? You could expose all sorts of hidden racism in corrupt people; for starters, Ray Nagin!

I never said that "white people invented everything." I'd love to see a quote of that (although I doubt I'll get one). In fact, I mentioned that I was taught about the contributions of African-Americans and Native Americans when I was learning about U.S. history in school, to quite a large extent, actually. The only point I was making was that caucasians might have a tendency to show up more in the history books because the Founding Fathers, all of the Presidents, a majority of the politicians, and the largest number of people living in the United States throughout history and to this day were/are white. If stating an obvious fact is an example of racism, then I guess anyone who doesn't deny the fact that the majority of the population is white and has been for centuries is a racist.

The agenda of the diversity movement is to dispell any notions about a united America, and instead focus on peoples' differences. There may be good intentions behind it, like trying to combat racism, but it only works to further divide as Americans and as a society.

The agenda of the diversity movement is to dispell any notions about a united America, and instead focus on peoples' differences. There may be good intentions behind it, like trying to combat racism, but it only works to further divide as Americans and as a society.

No, it has the exact opposite effect.

It does not "focus on peoples' differences", that people do themselves. It ecnourages education about and tolerance towards "peoples' differences", thus permitting social cohesion among a country that is divided culturally.

The agenda of the diversity movement is to dispell any notions about a united America, and instead focus on peoples' differences. There may be good intentions behind it, like trying to combat racism, but it only works to further divide as Americans and as a society.

That's pretty vague. In fact, that's the first time I've ever heard the phrase, "diversity movement." So who are they, exactly? I mean, besides parasites.

Every month is white history month. History is white history. I guess when part of your population thinks slavery and racism and segragation is a good thing a little counter EDUCATION might be a good thing.

Dont you think ?

no race should have a history month.

It's about celebrating culture and shared history, not about celebrating race. It just so happens, there are few (are there any?) white people who share the same culture, and history being celebrated.

As for latinos, who do have a month...you'll notice that there are white latinos, black latinos, indigenous latinos...culture, not race.

And 'white history month'...I can just imagine it...you'll have Irish dancers in leiderhosen with viking caps, drinking French wine while stumbling about in their wooden clogs...

OK... Although I'm sure everyone is the on the joke, please, enlighten me as to what the hell you're babbling about, because your posts don't appear to follow a coherent line of thought.

Sweet crap dude, you really do need things drawn with really thick markers and arrows, don't you?

Things like "Black History Month" and other history months where created to fill a void in the teaching of the histories of those groups that existed in the regular curriculum, which is to say while we where learning about the adventures of rich white land owners and the heads on our bills we where missing out on the story of the other groups who in some cases literally built this country. The months are to fill a gap. So in order to get a month you have to show that there is in fact a gulf where you are not learning about 'white history' because of a exaggerated focus on non-white history. I'd love to see you try and make that case.

Really, that was pretty straight forward. I have to chalk that up to willful ignorance just to give you benefit of the doubt...

shall we imagine for a moment what white history month lessons might be like?

these are the pilgrims--all white!

they started thanksgiving. they werent the only ones there, but, well those poeple werent white so we cant talk about them..

george washington, father of our country--white dude

fought against britain--country of white people. headed by king george 3, white dude.

helped by the marquis de lafayette--white dude.

defeated general cornwallis--white dude-- at the battle of yorktown.

on and on

abraham lincoln--white dude--freed the slaves--well we cant talk about them, they werent white.

general grant--white dude

fdr--white dude

jfk --white dude

ronald reagan--old white dude

seems a bit pointless

Because obviously, the cultural, scientific and military developments of the white and latin races bar no comparison to those of the black.....

I never said that "white people invented everything." I'd love to see a quote of that (although I doubt I'll get one). In fact, I mentioned that I was taught about the contributions of African-Americans and Native Americans when I was learning about U.S. history in school, to quite a large extent, actually. The only point I was making was that caucasians might have a tendency to show up more in the history books because the Founding Fathers, all of the Presidents, a majority of the politicians, and the largest number of people living in the United States throughout history and to this day were/are white. If stating an obvious fact is an example of racism, then I guess anyone who doesn't deny the fact that the majority of the population is white and has been for centuries is a racist.

What you said was "However, the fact that white colonists may "hog the limelight" so to speak is to due to the fact that the United States as it exists today was founded by caucasians."

There's precious little difference between what you wrote and the way I translated it, to my mind. If there's an appreciable difference, I'd sure like to hear it.

Sweet crap dude, you really do need things drawn with really thick markers and arrows, don't you?

Things like "Black History Month" and other history months where created to fill a void in the teaching of the histories of those groups that existed in the regular curriculum, which is to say while we where learning about the adventures of rich white land owners and the heads on our bills we where missing out on the story of the other groups who in some cases literally built this country. The months are to fill a gap. So in order to get a month you have to show that there is in fact a gulf where you are not learning about 'white history' because of a exaggerated focus on non-white history. I'd love to see you try and make that case.

Really, that was pretty straight forward. I have to chalk that up to willful ignorance just to give you benefit of the doubt...

Thank you... I didn't know how to make myself any clearer.

Really, that was pretty straight forward. I have to chalk that up to willful ignorance just to give you benefit of the doubt...

heh, isn't it just great where the nicest way you can interpret a person's postings still makes them look like an ass?

Sweet crap dude, you really do need things drawn with really thick markers and arrows, don't you?

Things like "Black History Month" and other history months where created to fill a void in the teaching of the histories of those groups that existed in the regular curriculum, which is to say while we where learning about the adventures of rich white land owners and the heads on our bills we where missing out on the story of the other groups who in some cases literally built this country. The months are to fill a gap. So in order to get a month you have to show that there is in fact a gulf where you are not learning about 'white history' because of a exaggerated focus on non-white history. I'd love to see you try and make that case.

Really, that was pretty straight forward. I have to chalk that up to willful ignorance just to give you benefit of the doubt...

I understood that he believes "Black History Month" to be an amazing pillar of American society from the beginning. That's not what the content of his posts were, and I was confused as to how they connected to stating that belief at all.

Let's take them one by one (my posts in Italics, his not):

U.S. history mentions slaves, Indians, and the Spanish a great deal, at least when I learned about it in school. However, the fact that white colonists may "hog the limelight" so to speak is to due to the fact that the United States as it exists today was founded by caucasians. That isn't white supremacy -- it's historical fact. Then again, historical facts don't serve the parasitic "we are all different we are all different we are all different" diversity agenda so well, so I don't blame you for ignoring them.

Is there a lack in your knowledge about caucasions in the US due to what was taught to you in school? (that's really specific)

Your vague insulting elevates you to a level of great intelligence, my friend...

What the hell are you even trying to say?

Thanks. I was just wondering, if there was something you didn't learn in school because it was filled up with all that black stuff. ("")


Yeah, those comments made his position really clear...

Of course this country was built by more than just white people. But, the fact is, there have been a great deal more white people in the history of this country than non-whites. Look at the size of the white population, for Christ's sake. This is and has always been a predominantly caucasian country; it only makes sense that U.S. history will focus more on caucasians do to their sheer number.

Of course, that's so wrong of me to say. I should be saying that whites and non-whites are even in their numbers today and throughout history. Apparently by saying that there may be a logical reason why non-whites aren't mentioned as much as whites in the history books I am guilty of discrimination because somehow that translates to me saying that I believe that non-whites did nothing to help build this country. People become so focused on being politically correct that the second you suggest that minorities aren't being repressed and discriminated against at the hands of evil white men, and that logical reasons might exist for their disproprtionate representation in the history books, you automically become a racist in their eyes. Ridiculous, really, and just the sort of mentality a "Black History Month" breeds. Devoting a whole month to the history of one race rejects the idea that the history of blacks and whites should be integreted together and makes for a type of textbook segregation. If you and others want to see the U.S. as a united country, which I assume you do, why not work to make sure that black history goes noticed throughout the year? Doesn't singling blacks out for one particular month just give greater cause for ignoring them the rest of the year?

The opinions expressed in this thread show the problems with the idea of promoting "diversity." This mentality, that we should focus on our differences as people rather than our similarities, just breeds more racism and hypersensitivity to issues involving race. Focusing on our racial differences further divides us as a society; it puts people into different groups or camps, preventing people from ever fully relating to one another because we're too busy focusing on our differences. It also puts us in a constant fear of truth: saying that different races may have different natural IQs is immediately hailed as discriminatory, refusing to bus to a crime-ridden city because of the criminals it would bring back to a safer area is considered racist because that area has a higher number of blacks than whites. This topic is another perfect example. Saying that there is a disproportionate number of whites and blacks and history for logical reasons triggers the sort of response one would expect from the "diversity" mentality: "no, there must be diversity everywhere, there can't be more of one than the other, that makes one group inferior, RACISM!" Ridiculous, but an inevitable consequence of the constant striving to acknowledge our differences rather than our similarities.

Do we ignore our differences entirely? No. They should be acknowledged. But not at the expense of fully integrating us a society and focusing that we are one society of different people, not different people in one society. "Black History Month" only further continues this ridiculous and racism-empowering idea.

I understood that he believes "Black History Month" to be an amazing pillar of American society from the beginning. That's not what the content of his posts were, and I was confused as to how they connected to stating that belief at all.

Let's take them one by one (my posts in Italics, his not):

U.S. history mentions slaves, Indians, and the Spanish a great deal, at least when I learned about it in school. However, the fact that white colonists may "hog the limelight" so to speak is to due to the fact that the United States as it exists today was founded by caucasians. That isn't white supremacy -- it's historical fact. Then again, historical facts don't serve the parasitic "we are all different we are all different we are all different" diversity agenda so well, so I don't blame you for ignoring them.

Is there a lack in your knowledge about caucasions in the US due to what was taught to you in school? (that's really specific)

Your vague insulting elevates you to a level of great intelligence, my friend...

What the hell are you even trying to say?

Thanks. I was just wondering, if there was something you didn't learn in school because it was filled up with all that black stuff. ("")


Yeah, those comments made his position really clear...

Of course this country was built by more than just white people. But, the fact is, there have been a great deal more white people in the history of this country than non-whites. Look at the size of the white population, for Christ's sake. This is and has always been a predominantly caucasian country; it only makes sense that U.S. history will focus more on caucasians do to their sheer number.

Of course, that's so wrong of me to say. I should be saying that whites and non-whites are even in their numbers today and throughout history. Apparently by saying that there may be a logical reason why non-whites aren't mentioned as much as whites in the history books I am guilty of discrimination because somehow that translates to me saying that I believe that non-whites did nothing to help build this country. People become so focused on being politically correct that the second you suggest that minorities aren't being repressed and discriminated against at the hands of evil white men, and that logical reasons might exist for their disproprtionate representation in the history books, you automically become a racist in their eyes. Ridiculous, really, and just the sort of mentality a "Black History Month" breeds. Devoting a whole month to the history of one race rejects the idea that the history of blacks and whites should be integreted together and makes for a type of textbook segregation. If you and others want to see the U.S. as a united country, which I assume you do, why not work to make sure that black history goes noticed throughout the year? Doesn't singling blacks out for one particular month just give greater cause for ignoring them the rest of the year?

The opinions expressed in this thread show the problems with the idea of promoting "diversity." This mentality, that we should focus on our differences as people rather than our similarities, just breeds more racism and hypersensitivity to issues involving race. Focusing on our racial differences further divides us as a society; it puts people into different groups or camps, preventing people from ever fully relating to one another because we're too busy focusing on our differences. It also puts us in a constant fear of truth: saying that different races may have different natural IQs is immediately hailed as discriminatory, refusing to bus to a crime-ridden city because of the criminals it would bring back to a safer area is considered racist because that area has a higher number of blacks than whites. This topic is another perfect example. Saying that there is a disproportionate number of whites and blacks and history for logical reasons triggers the sort of response one would expect from the "diversity" mentality: "no, there must be diversity everywhere, there can't be more of one than the other, that makes one group inferior, RACISM!" Ridiculous, but an inevitable consequence of the constant striving to acknowledge our differences rather than our similarities.

Do we ignore our differences entirely? No. They should be acknowledged. But not at the expense of fully integrating us a society and focusing that we are one society of different people, not different people in one society. "Black History Month" only further continues this ridiculous and racism-empowering idea.

I'm sorry. In this lengthy tirade you still fail to answer a simple question.

Really, I mean we hear about Black History Month every god damned year. But that's the only (Insert Race Here) History Month we hear about. There's no White History Month, no Latino History Month, no Asian History Month. Why do only the black people get a history month? Is it just proving how much bullshit affirmative action is? Or is it just that black people are the only ones actually concerned about their history?

*Tries to keep from being racist*

EDIT: Can't be considered copycat, as I'm dealing with Asian and Latino history month as well.

A white history month would be too cruel to non-whites, too much of a show off, as most technological/scientific advances since Renaisance were made by whites, not to mention the cultural heritage ranging from symphonies of Mozart to Versailles Palace.

In the US, practically every month is white history month. It's only in recent years that the teaching of both US and world history has ceased to be completely Euro-centric and has started to acknowledge the world outside the point of view of white people. Hell, it's only recently in the US that history classes have started to acknowledge the effect of the Spanish on US history.

every month is white history month? do we hear things like "this person was a great leader in white culture"? No, but black history month says, "this person was great, plus they're black, which makes their accomplishments significant."

if you said someone was great because they were white, you'd get ass-raped for racism.

A white history month would be too cruel to non-whites, too much of a show off, as most technological/scientific advances since Renaisance were made by whites, not to mention the cultural heritage ranging from symphonies of Mozart to Versailles Palace.

That's another thing that pisses me off about racists like yourself.

You try to take credit for shit like Mozart just on the basis that you are both "white." As if you know the first thing about musical genius. As if it has anything to do with being white.

every month is white history month? do we hear things like "this person was a great leader in white culture"? No, but black history month says, "this person was great, plus they're black, which makes their accomplishments significant."

if you said someone was great because they were white, you'd get ass-raped for racism.

Ok.

Name 10 black men or women who made great contributions to society.

Hmmm how long should I give you to google and cut and paste?

Ok.

Name 10 black men or women who made great contributions to society.

Hmmm how long should I give you to google and cut and paste?

I have an idea. This may blow your mind, but... instead of devoting an entire month to one race (and calling their accomplishments great due to their race, rather than personal character), why don't we teach it as part of American history?:eek:

How about no "irrelevant grouping" months and just have history month!

every month is white history month? do we hear things like "this person was a great leader in white culture"? No, but black history month says, "this person was great, plus they're black, which makes their accomplishments significant."

if you said someone was great because they were white, you'd get ass-raped for racism.

If you look at the fall backs that happen in Black History Month (placed on the shortest month of the year) they are in fact leaders and American culture far more than a history month separated them and that in fact was part of the struggle, as is the case with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, or Frederick Douglas. Or their contributions come in spite of a cultural seperation with the old chestnut (and what passed for teaching the Black experience for oh so many years) George Washington Carver. To try to ignore that being black and American had nothing to do with what they did would be a ridiculous case of whitewashing. Is there anything relivent to the story of Ben Franklin that made being white a part of the story, other than he was more likely to be wealthy, educated and own land?

That's another thing that pisses me off about racists like yourself.

You try to take credit for shit like Mozart just on the basis that you are both "white." As if you know the first thing about musical genius. As if it has anything to do with being white.

Sure it has to do with him being white. If he was black like you, he'd make rap...:D
Seriously, his works were the result of European culture because only Europeans were doing classical music at that time and this still holds true for the most part. And it is whites that created European culture.

If you're going to include blacks pertinent to the struggle for racial equality in the month, then you better include all the people (regardless of COLOR) who helped. Unless people really think that no whites helped at all.

shouldn't also cover the struggles that all ethnicities encountered -- the irish, italians, (basically any immigrant group), etc?

Sure it has to do with him being white. If he was black like you, he'd make rap...:D

First that I'm black. That one never gets old. Second that blacks are all rap artists. Boy, racism is just the mark of high humour!


Seriously, his works were the result of European culture because only Europeans were doing classical music at that time and this still holds true for the most part. And it is whites that created European culture.

Seriously, none of that matters. Mozart was Mozart. You weren't Mozart. You have no connection with him. At all. Taking credit for anything he did because of "culture" is also ridiculous - you aren't a member of 18th century Austrian culture any more than you're an Eskimo.

Keep trying, NyNzi. I know, maybe you could take credit for the mass murders of Hitler - after all, he was white, and European...

Greater Trostia, theres nothing crazy about what hes saying. Stop trying to bring Hitler into a debate about Mozart.

Mozart directly contributed to European (mainly German) culture, and thus, was a unique thing for the world. There is nothing wrong with Germans, or their descendants, or other Europeans, for taking pride in our culture and what is has acomplished.

I fail to see what is so EVIL AND NAZI about this?

Also, black history month is retarded, and affirmitive action, whether in the job market, or in our schools sucks.

People counter that with "Well, all we usually do is learn about European history and not African/Arab history!"....Well no shit. Maybe because most of America is white and would be much more interested in learning about THEIR OWN history than some African bushman selling his people as slaves, or some Arabs fighting other Arabs for a man married to a child.

Some people never cease to amaze me....:rolleyes:

First that I'm black. That one never gets old. Second that blacks are all rap artists. Boy, racism is just the mark of high humour!



Seriously, none of that matters. Mozart was Mozart. You weren't Mozart. You have no connection with him. At all. Taking credit for anything he did because of "culture" is also ridiculous - you aren't a member of 18th century Austrian culture any more than you're an Eskimo.

Keep trying, NyNzi. I know, maybe you could take credit for the mass murders of Hitler - after all, he was white, and European...

Ahh...but buildings here are much more similar to ones in Austria in 18th century and now than the ice things in Eskimo settlements. Not to mention the linguistic, religious, historical similarities. Not to mention the current lifestyle, etc...
Anyways, besides cultural similarities, I dont want to explain further because I dont want to be cruel to you.
I just want to add that your "you cant take credit if you arent related" attitude is retarded since many people take credit at other people whom they arent related with. Like the fact that most, maybe all Americans watching the moon landing took pride with those astronauts despite not being related to them or the people who developed and built that project.

Edit: Oh and Germans do feel responsible for what Hitler have done. Besides all that guilt thing, they still pay reparations to Israel today.

Greater Trostia, theres nothing crazy about what hes saying.

Crazy? No. Stupid and racist? Yes.

Stop trying to bring Hitler into a debate about Mozart.

It's a valid point. Taking credit for Mozart purely on the basis of race is just the same as taking credit for Hitler on the same basis. Except not as ego-inflating to do, of course...

Mozart directly contributed to European (mainly German) culture, and thus, was a unique thing for the world.

Yes. Mozart was unique. Therefore saying "i'm white, therefore I'm proud of Mozart cuz he was white too. White Pride!" is a contradiction of who Mozart was and what he did, and it's nothing more than attempt to leech off the success and fame and genius of other people.

There is nothing wrong with Germans, or their descendants, or other Europeans, for taking pride in our culture and what is has acomplished.

I fail to see what is so EVIL AND NAZI about this?

Maybe you haven't read all NN's posts and aren't aware that he's a racist scumbag.

You know, kinda like how he keeps insisting that I'm black, and implying that this is an insult. Kinda like me calling you a Jewish Untermensch.

Crazy? No. Stupid and racist? Yes.



It's a valid point. Taking credit for Mozart purely on the basis of race is just the same as taking credit for Hitler on the same basis. Except not as ego-inflating to do, of course...



Yes. Mozart was unique. Therefore saying "i'm white, therefore I'm proud of Mozart cuz he was white too. White Pride!" is a contradiction of who Mozart was and what he did, and it's nothing more than attempt to leech off the success and fame and genius of other people.



Maybe you haven't read all NN's posts and aren't aware that he's a racist scumbag.

You know, kinda like how he keeps insisting that I'm black, and implying that this is an insult. Kinda like me calling you a Jewish Untermensch.

I say you are a black because you told me so, silly.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11274985&postcount=275
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11275030&postcount=285

Ahh...but buildings here are much more similar to ones in Austria in 18th century and now than the ice things in Eskimo settlements.

Oh, the buildings are more similar. So I can totally understand how that means you're responsible for Mozart. Congratulations, the 12th Symphony was particularly excellent!

Not to mention the linguistic, religious, historical similarities. Not to mention the current lifestyle, etc...

Hmm, you know, we're both typing in english, so does that mean you can take credit for anything I've ever done?

Hint: Fuck no.


Anyways, besides cultural similarities, I dont want to explain further because I dont want to be cruel to you.

You still think I'm black, don't you?


I just want to add that your "you cant take credit if you arent related" attitude is retarded since many people take credit at other people whom they arent related with.

Oh, so if a lot of people do something, that validates it?

I guess it's too much to expect logic from you.


Edit: Oh and Germans do feel responsible for what Hitler have done. Besides all that guilt thing, they still pay reparations to Israel today.

Oh ho, *Germans* do. Not *Europeans*. What about *whites?* It's amazing how you shift the goal posts around to avoid coming across as the racist scumbag we all know you are. I mean what do you think you gain from it?

It's a valid point. Taking credit for Mozart purely on the basis of race is just the same as taking credit for Hitler on the same basis. Except not as ego-inflating to do, of course...
Yes. Mozart was unique. Therefore saying "i'm white, therefore I'm proud of Mozart cuz he was white too. White Pride!" is a contradiction of who Mozart was and what he did, and it's nothing more than attempt to leech off the success and fame and genius of other people.
It has more to do with taking pride in the culture and heritage you come from, and its acomplishments, rather than Mozart was white, and I'm white, therefore I can feel proud of him. Its not a race thing, but a cultural thing...and no different than Jamacains (or even non-Jamacain blacks) with Bob Marley (who I happend to love) shirts taking pride in Bob Marley, as he is part of their race/culture/ethnic group.

Basically, its not a matter of WHITE PRIDE BROTHERS UNITE FOR HITLER ALAHAHAHALALAL *does arab war cry*, but a matter of looking in the history book and saying, yeah, the culture I come from created this invention, or my nation of origin was reponsibile for the renaissance, or, the country that I'm moving to sparked the Protestant reformation, ect. Its just taking pride in the history/culture you connect to.

You know, kinda like how he keeps insisting that I'm black, and implying that this is an insult. Kinda like me calling you a Jewish Untermensch.
Isnt he insiting your black BECAUSE YOU TOLD HIM YOU WERE?:confused: I seem to recall you stating you were Black, in a post. Theres nothing wrong with it, I just dont seem why you are denying it now when you admitted it before.

I say you are a black because you told me so, silly.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11274985&postcount=275
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11275030&postcount=285

Oh okay, and I'm also telling you that I'm white. Gosh, which one of me to believe? The me that said, once, that I'm black in order to get you throwing around shit like "Yo, whassup?" and "ur black, so you must be a rapper?" That I might do it to expose your own stupid racism?

Or the me that has said, much more frequently, that I am in fact white?

It must be tough for you, NN - not knowing whether to think of me as less-than-human, or as White with a capital W. I mean, what to do, what to do... throw me onto a slave ship, or snap your jackboots together and give me a good old heil.

It has more to do with taking pride in the culture and heritage you come from, and its acomplishments, rather than Mozart was white, and I'm white, therefore I can feel proud of him.

I didn't know you're NN.

Or shall I assume you are his diplomat? You're the Tony Snow to his Bush, telling me what he really said, what he really meant? How about not.

Its not a race thing, but a cultural thing...and no different than Jamacains (or even non-Jamacain blacks) with Bob Marley (who I happend to love) shirts taking pride in Bob Marley, as he is part of their race/culture/ethnic group.

It's not a race thing, but it is a race thing. Interesting. Let me know when you make up your own mind. You seem to be confused.


Isnt he insiting your black BECAUSE YOU TOLD HIM YOU WERE?

Once. And I'm glad I did - it's gotten him to say all kinds of racist things. Please ignore those things though, since they kinda shoot down your moral defense of his morally indefensible character.

:confused: I seem to recall you stating you were Black, in a post. Theres nothing wrong with it, I just dont seem why you are denying it now when you admitted it before.

"Admitted it?"

Okay, here's me "admitting" the truth.

I'm white.
I'm white.
I'm white.
I'm white.
I'm white.
I'm white.
I'm white.

Get it yet?

But how about the POINT. The point that he is INSISTING I am black as an INSULT, thereby showing him to be a RACIST? Get THAT yet? No? Think some more about it.

Oh, the buildings are more similar. So I can totally understand how that means you're responsible for Mozart. Congratulations, the 12th Symphony was particularly excellent!


Damn. I thought I was saying it simple enough. Cultural similarities....culture....architecture....ring a bell yet?



Hmm, you know, we're both typing in english, so does that mean you can take credit for anything I've ever done?

Hint: Fuck no.


However that means USA and UK are linguisticly more closer than USA and Papua New Guinea.



You still think I'm black, don't you?



Oh, so if a lot of people do something, that validates it?

I guess it's too much to expect logic from you.


Yeah, that validates it, unless you will argue against all forms of patriotism, black month (since they take pride at people they arent related with), etc...Actually how far do you take this relatedness issue? Can you take pride at your cousin or does it have to be in family?



Oh ho, *Germans* do. Not *Europeans*. What about *whites?* It's amazing how you shift the goal posts around to avoid coming across as the racist scumbag we all know you are. I mean what do you think you gain from it?

Yeah, Germans, although almost all of them arent related with Hitler. :eek:

or snap your jackboots together and give me a good old heil.Hes not a nazi, ....he is a Norwegian, you know, someone whos country got devasted by a destructive NAZI BOMBING campaign. :rolleyes:

I didn't know you're NN.

Or shall I assume you are his diplomat? You're the Tony Snow to his Bush, telling me what he really said, what he really meant? How about not.



It's not a race thing, but it is a race thing. Interesting. Let me know when you make up your own mind. You seem to be confused.
I'm saying its NOT a "race" thing, but I'm also showing you that many people think that when, and it comes in the form of "White Pride" all the way to "Black Pride" or taking pride in Bob Marley because he was Black, or Rosa Parks because she was black, ect.

How does taking pride in ones culture = being Ny Nordland? By that logic, every American who takes pride in this country and its achievments, culture, is Ny Nordland.....tell me when YOU start making sense.

As for YOUR race, I could care less, I just thought you told him you were Black, which is why I was telling you thats why he thinks your Black.

Personally, I dont care at all.

Damn. I thought I was saying it simple enough. Cultural similarities....culture....architecture....ring a bell yet?


Quit it with the "I'm too smart, you're too stupid to understand" pseudo-martyr self-congratulations. I get it - it's just a flawed argument.

However that means USA and UK are linguisticly more closer than USA and Papua New Guinea.

Oh, so when you take credit for Mozart, you are actually just saying you are linguistically more closer to Mozart? Why didn't you just say so? Because that's NOT what you're saying.

Yeah, that validates it

No, it doesn't. Argumentum ad populum. For a guy who used to whine about all the ad hominems you get, you sure are willing to overlook logic when it comes to arguing a point for supremacism.


Yeah, Germans, although almost all of them arent related with Hitler. :eek:

...and almost all of them are related to Hitler?

What about you. You're not even German. Yet you take pride for Mozart. You act like you wrote the symphonies yourself. You want you, and your "race" to be congratulated. Yet you don't want that for Hitler. You don't want to go on a war crimes trial.

Because you cherry-pick what to take pride for and what to dissassociate yourself from.

I didn't know you're NN.

Or shall I assume you are his diplomat? You're the Tony Snow to his Bush, telling me what he really said, what he really meant? How about not.



It's not a race thing, but it is a race thing. Interesting. Let me know when you make up your own mind. You seem to be confused.



Once. And I'm glad I did - it's gotten him to say all kinds of racist things. Please ignore those things though, since they kinda shoot down your moral defense of his morally indefensible character.


Twice actually.


"Admitted it?"

Okay, here's me "admitting" the truth.

I'm white.
I'm white.
I'm white.
I'm white.
I'm white.
I'm white.
I'm white.

Get it yet?

But how about the POINT. The point that he is INSISTING I am black as an INSULT, thereby showing him to be a RACIST? Get THAT yet? No? Think some more about it.


You are white but you call other whites, “white boy”. I find that highly suspicious.


………….
You thumb your nose at the altar of AMERICA, white boy.
………..

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10904055&postcount=887

Especially given these:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11274985&postcount=275
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11275030&postcount=285

Are you ashamed of being black or something?

Hes not a nazi, ....he is a Norwegian, you know, someone whos country got devasted by a destructive NAZI BOMBING campaign. :rolleyes:

Aha. So it's impossible to be a Norwegian Nazi, is that what you're saying?

So this didn't happen, this guy doesn't exist? (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3317190,00.html)

You are white but you call other whites, “white boy”. I find that highly suspicious.

Your suspicions are based on little more than your own bigotry. You also "suspected" that Jocabia was a Jew because "Jocabia" looks like "Jacob."

Try again, Nazi Boy. Oops, maybe I'm WWII Poland, since I called you Nazi.

Are you ashamed of being black or something?

Are you stupid or something?

Well the answer then lies before us, behold Greater Trostia in all his glory:

http://www.michael-jackson.com/mj2002.jpg

He is a black white American >_>

Aha. So it's impossible to be a Norwegian Nazi, is that what you're saying?
So...your still didnt reply to the rest of my post, the part that was actually part of the debate, not just a defense of NN....

So...your still didnt reply to the rest of my post, the part that was actually part of the debate, not just a defense of NN....

Oh, my sincerest apologies!

but I'm also showing you that many people think that when, and it comes in the form of "White Pride" all the way to "Black Pride" or taking pride in Bob Marley because he was Black, or Rosa Parks because she was black, ect.

Yes, I'm aware that many people do it. This still isn't a valid argument in support of it.

How does taking pride in ones culture = being Ny Nordland?

It doesn't, that's a strawman. I never said you were NN.

By that logic, every American who takes pride in this country and its achievments, culture, is Ny Nordland.....tell me when YOU start making sense.

See above.

As for YOUR race, I could care less, I just thought you told him you were Black, which is why I was telling you thats why he thinks your Black.

And you ignored that he obviously views it as an insult, which was the point. Are you through defending him now?

Personally, I dont care at all.

I am "suspicious" about your lack of care when it's an issue for you. An issue you feel compelled to get me to "admit" about.

Whatver, you're obviously set on your "not allowed to take pride in your culture" mindset, and I'm set in my mindset, so theres no use arguing.

I really dont care if your black or not, so maybe you should stop bringing it up when I tell you I dont care?.....unless you are just looking for attention or have a pursecution complex?

Whatver, you're obviously set on your "not allowed to take pride in your culture" mindset, and I'm set in my mindset, so theres no use arguing.

NN is technically taking pride in someone *else's* culture. Unless you really believe that modern Norway is the same as 1700s Austria. NN says they're "similar," so do you think that means they're the same?

I really dont care if your black or not, so maybe you should stop bringing it up when I tell you I dont care?.....unless you are just looking for attention or have a pursecution complex?

Hey, wake up call buddy, I'm not the one who brought it up.

Any Race of whose stock i do not come from should be oppressed.

Probably because of the integral role blacks and black issues have played in the US.

Every month is "white history month," we've just gone through a 'white history millenium.'

Latinos? Maybe in a couple hundred years. There werent even such things as 'latinos' until the spanish went to south america.

NN is technically taking pride in someone *else's* culture. Unless you really believe that modern Norway is the same as 1700s Austria. NN says they're "similar," so do you think that means they're the same? Not Norways culture, but it was part of the European cultural scene, sort of like Paris was the European cultural scene, and Europeans from all over would gather their and celebrate European music, ect...



Hey, wake up call buddy, I'm not the one who brought it up.
No, your right about that, but I only brought it up because I thought you didnt know why he was saying you were Black...thats the only reason I posted it. After that, its a non-issue to me.

Why not just learn history in general, instead of segregating it into certain months? Also, I think it's ridiculous to focus on the differences between broad groups- focus on individuals instead.

Not Norways culture, but it was part of the European cultural scene, sort of like Paris was the European cultural scene, and Europeans from all over would gather their and celebrate European music, ect...


So, where does one draw the line? Europe's cultural scene, after all, is a part of Eurasia's cultural scene, which is a part of Humanity's culture... why draw the line arbitrarily at "European?" Why not by specific nation? Why not individual? That last is the line I take - ESPECIALLY with people like Mozart.

As a musical composer I can tell you I sure don't like others taking any sort of credit for what I do and vice versa. But if we are to follow this 'culture' logic, then if Mozart writes a symphony, Salieri gets credit for being part of the same culture... as does Hitler! Being a member of a culture, or race, is NOT being in some sort of hive-mind collective where what one does, everyone does.

I think there should be a gay history month.

Why not just learn history in general, instead of segregating it into certain months? Also, I think it's ridiculous to focus on the differences between broad groups- focus on individuals instead.
Well, it is one way of compensating for the fact that most history taught in the Western world is pretty Eurocentric. Personally, I think it is the wrong way of compensating for it. They should simply improve the curriculum so that it presents a balanced approahc to teaching history ... one that teaches the history of all ethnic groups. But that would be too much of a challenge to the status quo. It is easier to segregate black history and give it its own month where people are free to celebrate it ... or ignore it. :(

I have an idea. This may blow your mind, but... instead of devoting an entire month to one race (and calling their accomplishments great due to their race, rather than personal character), why don't we teach it as part of American history?:eek:

And now you see why they have it. You couldn't name 10.

Do you even know why it was started?

I think there should be a gay history month.

The "oppressed" Christians wouldn't allow for it.

I think there should be a 'Every-Cultures-and-Faiths Month'. But realistically, this shouldn't be celebrated for a month, it should be a year-long thing.

learning about THEIR OWN history:

It is their own history.

I think there should be a gay history month.

Absolutely. It is very much necessary.

Absolutely. It is very much necessary.

But looking at society, I don't think people are gunna take it seriously.

Seriously, his works were the result of European culture because only Europeans were doing classical music at that time and this still holds true for the most part. And it is whites that created European culture.

You do know that "classical" music specifically refers to an era in Western music history, right? You have effectively declared that "only Europeans were composing European music." Well, gee, it's funny how that works. I could just as easily make an argument for Chinese cultural superiority, as they were (and still are, for the most part) the only ones composing Chinese music, or Georgian cultural superiority, as they were (and still are, for the most part) the only ones composing Georgian music, and so on and so forth.

Yeah, Germans, although almost all of them arent related with Hitler. :eek:

None of them are; Hitler only has a handful of relatives, most of them are in America.

We had better get a "Who's my Daddy?" history month as well for people who dont know or claim their ancestral past. We cant leave anyone out once we head down this silly path of handing out history months to every race lest those without a race get their feelers hurt.

You do know that "classical" music specifically refers to an era in Western music history, right? You have effectively declared that "only Europeans were composing European music." Well, gee, it's funny how that works. I could just as easily make an argument for Chinese cultural superiority, as they were (and still are, for the most part) the only ones composing Chinese music, or Georgian cultural superiority, as they were (and still are, for the most part) the only ones composing Georgian music, and so on and so forth.

You know that there are still people composing classical music?

You know that there are still people composing classical music?

Technically, no. That's a specific era that is used as a generic term, but really only refers to a relatively short period of time around Mozart. In 'layman' classical covers all 'compositional' or 'legitimate' music or whatever label that is created to cover baroque, medieval, renaissance, classical, romantic, 20th century, etc music that isn't a folk form, but really it only refers to an almost 50 year window and specific style of composition.

Technically, no. That's a specific era that is used as a generic term, but really only refers to a relatively short period of time around Mozart. In 'layman' classical covers all 'compositional' or 'legitimate' music or whatever label that is created to cover baroque, medieval, renaissance, classical, romantic, 20th century, etc music that isn't a folk form, but really it only refers to an almost 50 year window and specific style of composition.

Then it isnt a wide used definition since even Four Seasons are considered classical music by many although even I, as a not big of a fan of listening classical music, can differentiate the difference between the musical instruments between him and Mozart.

Then it isnt a wide used definition since even Four Seasons are considered classical music by many although even I, as a not big of a fan of listening classical music, can differentiate the difference between the musical instruments between him and Mozart.

Depends on who your talking to. Anyone who has frittered away a GE credit in a music appreciation class would know this.

Depends on who your talking to. Anyone who has frittered away a GE credit in a music appreciation class would know this.

Ok then, Mozart was totally a product of European culture which was the product of white people. That means people can celebrate him and likes of him in White History Month.

Ok then, Mozart was totally a product of European culture which was the product of white people. That means people can celebrate him and likes of him in White History Month.

Again though, you run into this problem-what about him being white is part of the story? Did he over come a cultural oppression, or a subjugation? What part of him being white effected his story other than he was more likely to be from a family that could afford the luxury of teaching him music? It's not about finding someone with similar pigment and going-"Him, he gets to stand up for..." whatever. Being white is not a significant part of the story.

And really, it's not like Mozart is hurting for publicity...

What's clear, as is always the case in these stupid tirades, is a lack of understanding of what's going on that manifests in a poorly conceived "I want a lollipop too" response.

Quit it with the "I'm too smart, you're too stupid to understand" pseudo-martyr self-congratulations. I get it - it's just a flawed argument.


No you dont get it, as usual, as evidenced below.


Oh, so when you take credit for Mozart, you are actually just saying you are linguistically more closer to Mozart? Why didn't you just say so? Because that's NOT what you're saying.


No I was just saying linguistic closeness is a factor in determining cultural closeness. This is why I usually ignore you. I have to keep explaining until I run out of patience which is usually not enough.



No, it doesn't. Argumentum ad populum. For a guy who used to whine about all the ad hominems you get, you sure are willing to overlook logic when it comes to arguing a point for supremacism.


LOL. You cant even manage quoting? Why didnt you quote this part?


Yeah, that validates it, unless you will argue against all forms of patriotism, black month (since they take pride at people they arent related with), etc...Actually how far do you take this relatedness issue? Can you take pride at your cousin or does it have to be in family?


Is it because even you found your answer irrelevant?


...and almost all of them are related to Hitler?

What about you. You're not even German. Yet you take pride for Mozart. You act like you wrote the symphonies yourself. You want you, and your "race" to be congratulated. Yet you don't want that for Hitler. You don't want to go on a war crimes trial.

Because you cherry-pick what to take pride for and what to dissassociate yourself from.

I act like I wrote symphonies. ROFL. I shouldnt be surprised though. Your delusional perception of reality was a well known fact.
My whole argument was if a white month was to be celebrated, like black month, Mozart will be in white month too, because he was white.

Anyways, It's interesting again though, after calling another white "white boy", you refered to whites as "my race" and not "our race", excluding yourself.

NN is technically taking pride in someone *else's* culture. Unless you really believe that modern Norway is the same as 1700s Austria. NN says they're "similar," so do you think that means they're the same?



Hey, wake up call buddy, I'm not the one who brought it up.

Oh so we are comparing modern Norway with 18th century Austria? How similar modern Austria is to 18th century Austria? Maybe Austrians shouldnt take pride in Mozart as well. :rolleyes:

So, where does one draw the line? Europe's cultural scene, after all, is a part of Eurasia's cultural scene, which is a part of Humanity's culture... why draw the line arbitrarily at "European?" Why not by specific nation? Why not individual? That last is the line I take - ESPECIALLY with people like Mozart.

As a musical composer I can tell you I sure don't like others taking any sort of credit for what I do and vice versa. But if we are to follow this 'culture' logic, then if Mozart writes a symphony, Salieri gets credit for being part of the same culture... as does Hitler! Being a member of a culture, or race, is NOT being in some sort of hive-mind collective where what one does, everyone does.

There is no Euroasian culture. However there is a European culture(s), despite being vague. The European Culture is acknowledged by people and instutitions ranging from the European Union to Huntigton.

Again though, you run into this problem-what about him being white is part of the story? Did he over come a cultural oppression, or a subjugation? What part of him being white effected his story other than he was more likely to be from a family that could afford the luxury of teaching him music? It's not about finding someone with similar pigment and going-"Him, he gets to stand up for..." whatever. Being white is not a significant part of the story.

And really, it's not like Mozart is hurting for publicity...

What's clear, as is always the case in these stupid tirades, is a lack of understanding of what's going on that manifests in a poorly conceived "I want a lollipop too" response.

Ok, so who do they celebrate in Black month there? Just Americans? And how is it relevant now? Do they still delete people from history books because they were black?

Hi.
You all realise that by having any month dedicated to any race/belief/group etc, you're highlighting that group, and pointing them out, and in a sense are being racist/sexist etc because you're highlighting that group and leaving others out - by singling that group out

Hi.
You all realise that by having any month dedicated to any race/belief/group etc, you're highlighting that group, and pointing them out, and in a sense are being racist/sexist etc because you're highlighting that group and leaving others out - by singling that group out

Apperantly, they got reasons for that. Because blacks were subjugated. Of course, they forget that everyone has reasons, Hitler was afraid that jews would contaminate Germanic blood. Maybe he thought he was as morally sound as PC people think they are today.

Of course I'm not even talking about that Asians were discriminated against as well and they dont have a month.

Hi.
You all realise that by having any month dedicated to any race/belief/group etc, you're highlighting that group, and pointing them out, and in a sense are being racist/sexist etc because you're highlighting that group and leaving others out - by singling that group out

You're missing the point. This is a tribute to black people specifically in America. Because of what America did to black people for centuries. Because of how often blacks were ignored in history lessons. Because of the little people know of the importance of black history, the civil rights movement, slavery... All it is, is an excuse to pick up that Malcolm X biography you never got around to reading. Or Fredrick Douglas. Or Martin Luther King. Or Harriet Tubman. Or Wallace Thurman. Or Langston Hughes.

You're missing the point. This is a tribute to black people specifically in America. Because of what America did to black people for centuries. Because of how often blacks were ignored in history lessons. Because of the little people know of the importance of black history, the civil rights movement, slavery... All it is, is an excuse to pick up that Malcolm X biography you never got around to reading. Or Fredrick Douglas. Or Martin Luther King. Or Harriet Tubman. Or Wallace Thurman. Or Langston Hughes.

No normal White person would want to read Malcolm X, a Black suprmacist....:rolleyes:

Anyway, we basically enslaved asians and forced them to build our railroads, the Irish were riducled and put through hardships by the English, the Catholics and Jews (religious minorites) were not accepted in mainstream America until recently, the Eastern Europeans ....also hated and persecuted against.

Basically, EVERYONE has had their problems, but its only the Blacks I see bitching about "White holding me down"....and....I demand reperations! Just suck it up, and get with the program. In the real world, you got to do it yourself, nobody is just gonna wanna say..."ohhh, here have some money, I feel sorry for you".

Apperantly, they got reasons for that. Because blacks were subjugated. Of course, they forget that everyone has reasons, Hitler was afraid that jews would contaminate Germanic blood. Maybe he thought he was as morally sound as PC people think they are today.

Of course I'm not even talking about that Asians were discriminated against as well and they dont have a month.

In the future, when the world is brown, I hope that Black History Month still exists in America. I hope we never forget what was done to all people because of their race.

No normal White person would want to read Malcolm X, a Black suprmacist....:rolleyes:

Anyway, we basically enslaved asians and forced them to build our railroads, the Irish were riducled and put through hardships by the English, the Catholics and Jews (religious minorites) were not accepted in mainstream America until recently, the Eastern Europeans ....also hated and persecuted against.

Basically, EVERYONE has had their problems, but its only the Blacks I see bitching about "White holding me down"....and....I demand reperations! Just suck it up, and get with the program. In the real world, you got to do it yourself, nobody is just gonna wanna say..."ohhh, here have some money, I feel sorry for you".

There are seventeen things being talked about here...

If you're concerned with other races not getting enough attention I suggest you get involved and get them the attention they deserve. This is specifically about Black History Month and why it is important. Start a thread on Asians or the Irish and we can talk about what important steps are being taken or not being taken so that we can understand better how they were maligned.

Really, I mean we hear about Black History Month every god damned year. But that's the only (Insert Race Here) History Month we hear about. There's no White History Month, no Latino History Month, no Asian History Month. Why do only the black people get a history month? Is it just proving how much bullshit affirmative action is? Or is it just that black people are the only ones actually concerned about their history?


I wholeheartedly agree with you. Black people and Islams get special treatment, while us white people get nothing except a bill for the whole ****ing mess (taxes). It's wrong; affirmative action is nothing more than politically correct racism.

Yes, and one can spot a lot of, shall we say closet racism, in the people who whine and complain about Evil Multiculturalism (or for example, Genocide Against White People), or hint at conspiracies by "Non-Whites.":mad:

My view - kids today who flunk out of non-Eurocentric courses or tests, wind up harboring resentment which they aim at entire races.

Multiculturalism IS evil.

Who is this "we" you speak of? If anybody here has oppressed blacks lately, raise your hand.....

Those who take pride in their ancestry should also take responsibility for the results of their ancestor's actions.

No normal White person would want to read Malcolm X, a Black suprmacist....:rolleyes:

Yeah? Well who wants to be normal?

Black people and Islams get special treatment, while us white people get nothing except a bill for the whole ****ing mess (taxes).

Seeing as how you apparently get the bill - not to mention how you're so uptight about it - please give an accurate taxation dollar figure for all the special treatment black people and 'Islams' enjoy, that you personally are constrained to dish out there, whitey.

No normal White person would want to read Malcolm X, a Black suprmacist....:rolleyes:

"I am not a racist.... In the past I permitted myself to be used...to make sweeping indictments of all white people, the entire white race and these generalizations have caused injuries to some whites who perhaps did not deserve to be hurt. Because of the spiritual enlightenment which I was blessed to receive as a result of my recent pilgrimage to the Holy city of Mecca, I no longer subscribe to sweeping indictments of any one race. I am now striving to live the life of a true...Muslim. I must repeat that I am not a racist nor do I subscribe to the tenants of racism. I can state in all sincerity that I wish nothing but freedom, justice and equality, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all people." -Malcolm X

Oh... but damn. He says it right there. He was a Muslim. Must have been a terrorist.

"I am not a racist.... In the past I permitted myself to be used...to make sweeping indictments of all white people, the entire white race and these generalizations have caused injuries to some whites who perhaps did not deserve to be hurt. Because of the spiritual enlightenment which I was blessed to receive as a result of my recent pilgrimage to the Holy city of Mecca, I no longer subscribe to sweeping indictments of any one race. I am now striving to live the life of a true...Muslim. I must repeat that I am not a racist nor do I subscribe to the tenants of racism. I can state in all sincerity that I wish nothing but freedom, justice and equality, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all people." -Malcolm XWhat a cheesy excuse.
.

What a cheesy excuse.
.

Explain? I'm interested in what you know about Malcolm X.

Explain? I'm interested in what you know about Malcolm X.Enough. But just from this sentence you can tell this man wasn't much of a thinker. And you can tell from it that the stereotype of Islam he was following before his Hajj was corrected when he actually met Muslims. You know just like Rastafarians' sterotype about Ethiopians is corrected as soon as they meet some.
.

Enough. But just from this sentence you can tell this man wasn't much of a thinker. And you can tell from it that the stereotype of Islam he was following before his Hajj was corrected when he actually met Muslims. You know just like Rastafarians' sterotype about Ethiopians is corrected as soon as they meet some.
.

So... that is what you know of Malcolm X. Read one sentence, compare him to a Rastafarians being disillisioned by Ethiopia and establish that he isn't much of a thinker?


I'm beginning to think the same of you.

"I am not a racist.... In the past I permitted myself to be used...to make sweeping indictments of all white people, the entire white race and these generalizations have caused injuries to some whites who perhaps did not deserve to be hurt. Because of the spiritual enlightenment which I was blessed to receive as a result of my recent pilgrimage to the Holy city of Mecca, I no longer subscribe to sweeping indictments of any one race. I am now striving to live the life of a true...Muslim. I must repeat that I am not a racist nor do I subscribe to the tenants of racism. I can state in all sincerity that I wish nothing but freedom, justice and equality, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all people." -Malcolm X

Oh... but damn. He says it right there. He was a Muslim. Must have been a terrorist.

that is why malcolm X was a great american.

So... that is what you know of Malcolm X. Read one sentence, compare him to a Rastafarians being disillisioned by Ethiopia and establish that he isn't much of a thinker?

I'm beginning to think the same of you.

What use is there of me telling what I know about Malcolm X? I said I know enough, not just that sentence. But that sentence sums it up pretty well.

And before beginning to think anything of me, begin to think.
.

I don't think Malcom X was a great thinker, which is why he got himself led along by the Nation of Islam for so long. But I'm very prepared to believe he was a decent man at heart.

No you dont get it, as usual, as evidenced below.

I "get it" just fine. What you don't "get" is that I disagree with you. Gasp, shock, hard to believe considering how logical your arguments are!

No I was just saying linguistic closeness is a factor in determining cultural closeness. This is why I usually ignore you. I have to keep explaining until I run out of patience which is usually not enough.


Nah, you usually ignore me because your fragile little ego can't handle it when I tear into your bigotry.

When will you learn that similar is not the same?


LOL. You cant even manage quoting? Why didnt you quote this part?


...what? Quote what? Are you denying that you made an appeal to popularity? You either did or you didn't, and you did. Simple.


Is it because even you found your answer irrelevant?


It's because we're discussing one thing, namely the stupidity of you taking pride in Mozart because he was white. The slippery slope argument doesn't work any better than appeals to popularity.

I act like I wrote symphonies. ROFL. I shouldnt be surprised though. Your delusional perception of reality was a well known fact.


...

Ooh, you got me there. Your LOLz and ROFLz are cutting arguments and your statement of opinion as "well known fact" sure carries a lot of weight on this forum. Is this the same kind of "fact" as, immigrants are a pro-genocide invasion force? The same kind of "fact" that blacks are less intelligent than whites? The kind of "fact," in other words, that has its origins in the crevasses of your hairy asshole.


My whole argument was if a white month was to be celebrated, like black month, Mozart will be in white month too, because he was white.

Oh, so your argument is that there SHOULD be a black history month? Interesting.

Anyways, It's interesting again though, after calling another white "white boy", you refered to whites as "my race" and not "our race", excluding yourself.

Because I do not feel any sort of "kinship" or inclusion with you simply because we can both be classified as "white." And frankly, you are about as far from me as it is possible to be, race having nothing to do with it.

If that "interests" you because it makes you "suspect" that I'm "black," that interests me because your rampant racialist paranoia is showing and I like it when you prove me right thusly. :)

Oh so we are comparing modern Norway with 18th century Austria? How similar modern Austria is to 18th century Austria? Maybe Austrians shouldnt take pride in Mozart as well.

Yes, we are comparing modern Norway with 18th century Austria, if you insist they share the same culture. Please try to keep up with your own lame assertations.

There is no Euroasian culture. However there is a European culture(s), despite being vague. The European Culture is acknowledged by people and instutitions ranging from the European Union to Huntigton.

"There is no Human culture. However there is a Euroasian culture." You can draw the line arbitrarily all you like, it doesn't change the fact that you, a Norwegian, don't even SPEAK German.

And yet you and I speak English and are not "culturally similar" and sure as FUCK are not the "same culture" and, yes, no matter what accomplishments I ever make, you are never, ever, going to be able to take pride in them. But go on and pat yourself on the back for Mozart anyway - I guess latching onto the accomplishments of people greater than yourself is the only thing you can do.

Next time, reply to my posts in one post. Wouldn't want you to be an embarassment to White History by being little more than a spammer eh?

that is why malcolm X was a great american.

Because he denounced his former deeply held heartfelt and widely publicised convicictions once he found a different one? How did his followers feel about his change of heart and direction? On consistency alone I prefer Stokely Carmichael to MalcolmX. At least Stokely stuck to his guns.

http://www.freeinfosociety.com/sounds/stokelycarmichael-blackpower.mp3

No normal White person would want to read Malcolm X, a Black suprmacist....:rolleyes:

Anyway, we basically enslaved asians and forced them to build our railroads, the Irish were riducled and put through hardships by the English, the Catholics and Jews (religious minorites) were not accepted in mainstream America until recently, the Eastern Europeans ....also hated and persecuted against.

Basically, EVERYONE has had their problems, but its only the Blacks I see bitching about "White holding me down"....and....I demand reperations! Just suck it up, and get with the program. In the real world, you got to do it yourself, nobody is just gonna wanna say..."ohhh, here have some money, I feel sorry for you".

Nice generalization there slick.

Well, it is one way of compensating for the fact that most history taught in the Western world is pretty Eurocentric. Personally, I think it is the wrong way of compensating for it. They should simply improve the curriculum so that it presents a balanced approahc to teaching history ... one that teaches the history of all ethnic groups. But that would be too much of a challenge to the status quo. It is easier to segregate black history and give it its own month where people are free to celebrate it ... or ignore it. :(

I'd just like history curriculums to generally teach the most important aspects of history, no matter how they deal with ethnicity (Unless it's a history class specifically about ethnicity).

"I am not a racist.... In the past I permitted myself to be used...to make sweeping indictments of all white people, the entire white race and these generalizations have caused injuries to some whites who perhaps did not deserve to be hurt. Because of the spiritual enlightenment which I was blessed to receive as a result of my recent pilgrimage to the Holy city of Mecca, I no longer subscribe to sweeping indictments of any one race. I am now striving to live the life of a true...Muslim. I must repeat that I am not a racist nor do I subscribe to the tenants of racism. I can state in all sincerity that I wish nothing but freedom, justice and equality, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all people." -Malcolm X

Oh... but damn. He says it right there. He was a Muslim. Must have been a terrorist.
A bit too convenient that he just has a 180 degree chage, when he needs a bit more broader acceptance and is looker for a more mainstream wider appeal.

I'd just like history curriculums to generally teach the most important aspects of history, no matter how they deal with ethnicity (Unless it's a history class specifically about ethnicity).


The problem is depending on your ethnicity your reality regarding history is going to be different . How can You say the perspective of the north and south American Indians would match the " history " as taught By the US and any European country ? Same for a Black American , are you a relative of a former slave or did you emigrate from Africa ? OR where you an emigrate from another country that had slavery and are a relative of a former slave from that country ?

These people have a history that runs parallel to the " history " being taught by the " main stream " Much like European Jews who had a rich history in Europe before they were rounded up and used as fuel for crematoria and as a source of income to wage war. Poland ...how much will you ever hear of Polish history ? ( Depending on your country ).

The term " history is written by the victors " is not a truism for no reason .
The additions of " black history month" etc. is only an attempt to broaden our understanding of the contributions and the HISTORY of the people we live with .

Take a Japanese history book and an american History book and read about the same period of time ...it will seem like you are reading about two seperate worlds.

I'd just like history curriculums to generally teach the most important aspects of history, no matter how they deal with ethnicity (Unless it's a history class specifically about ethnicity).

Yes but the devil is in the details. What is most important? It all depends upon who the historian is. One brand tends to view wars as the most important while another brand might view socio-political ideal changes in a population to be more important.

Because he denounced his former deeply held heartfelt and widely publicised convicictions once he found a different one? How did his followers feel about his change of heart and direction? On consistency alone I prefer Stokely Carmichael to MalcolmX. At least Stokely stuck to his guns.

http://www.freeinfosociety.com/sounds/stokelycarmichael-blackpower.mp3

he is a great american because he changed his mind. because when his eyes were opened to the reality of islam and the reality of elijah mohammed, he changed his mind. he had eyes that COULD be opened and he followed the truth even though it led him away from his position of power inside the black muslim organisation and to his own death.

it is folly to stick to your guns once you realize that they are pointed in the wrong direction.

yes im proud to call malcolm X a great american.

Because he denounced his former deeply held heartfelt and widely publicised convicictions once he found a different one? How did his followers feel about his change of heart and direction? On consistency alone I prefer Stokely Carmichael to MalcolmX. At least Stokely stuck to his guns.

http://www.freeinfosociety.com/sounds/stokelycarmichael-blackpower.mp3

Quoth the prophet, the sage :

"Firmness in decision is often merely a form of stupidity. It indicates an inability to think the same thing out twice."

Truer words seldom spoken.

A bit too convenient that he just has a 180 degree chage, when he needs a bit more broader acceptance and is looker for a more mainstream wider appeal.

What is this opinion based on?

he is a great american because he changed his mind. because when his eyes were opened to the reality of islam and the reality of elijah mohammed, he changed his mind. he had eyes that COULD be opened and he followed the truth even though it led him away from his position of power inside the black muslim organisation and to his own death.

it is folly to stick to your guns once you realize that they are pointed in the wrong direction.

yes im proud to call malcolm X a great american.


If MalcolmX had his egalitarian views from the start would he still be a great American to you or just another person? Id say that a person who does not need to change his viewpoint miight be better. Prior to his change of heart MalcolmX drew his line between black and white so hard and fast that he wanted to resegregate schools that had been desegregated. In order to better educate black children he wanted black schools taught by black teachers using curriculum developed specificly for black culture in order for the black race to have a better education untainted by whites. He wanted as wide a gap as possible between white and black people to the degree that there would be two nearly completely seperate cultures sharing a geographical space. To this end violence was OK by him if it was needed or expedient. Although from completely opposing sides his views and the Grand Dragon of the KKK's views could coexist better than most.

So if the Grand Dragon had found religion and changed heart and decided to sudenly say that black people were equal in every meaningful way to white people and then get shot would he be a great american too?

If MalcolmX had his egalitarian views from the start would he still be a great American to you or just another person? Id say that a person who does not need to change his viewpoint miight be better. Prior to his change of heart MalcolmX drew his line between black and white so hard and fast that he wanted to resegregate schools that had been desegregated. In order to better educate black children he wanted black schools taught by black teachers using curriculum developed specificly for black culture in order for the black race to have a better education untainted by whites. He wanted as wide a gap as possible between white and black people to the degree that there would be two nearly completely seperate cultures sharing a geographical space. To this end violence was OK by him if it was needed or expedient. Although from completely opposing sides his views and the Grand Dragon of the KKK's views could coexist better than most.

So if the Grand Dragon had found religion and changed heart and decided to sudenly say that black people were equal in every meaningful way to white people and then get shot would he be a great american too?

I don't understand this... Are you saying that great people are born with great ideas and that no journey is required of them? That truths are known to certain people and do not have to be learned?

Would the Grand Dragon be a better American if he never changed his mind?

I don't understand this... Are you saying that great people are born with great ideas and that no journey is required of them? That truths are known to certain people and do not have to be learned?

Would the Grand Dragon be a better American if he never changed his mind?


No. A person might be said to be better if that person is never a racist fuckup who advocates violence and seperation of races rather than being a racist fuckup and later changing his mind. This is doubly true if a person is a very good and moving public speaker with an unusually good ability to influence and inspire large numbers of people. It seems a bit rude to groom an angry and devoted following like this then just say "Sorry I was wrong about all that. My bad. Wanna be a Muslim? It's quite nice." and expect them to forget all youve taught them.

No. A person might be said to be better if that person is never a racist fuckup who advocates violence and seperation of races rather than being a racist fuckup and later changing his mind. This is doubly true if a person is a very good and moving public speaker with an unusually good ability to influence and inspire large numbers of people. It seems a bit rude to groom an angry and devoted following like this then just say "Sorry I was wrong about all that. My bad. Wanna be a Muslim? It's quite nice." and expect them to forget all youve taught them.

You're still not making much sense to me.

He also said this:

"For the freedom of my 22 million black brothers and sisters here in America, I do believe that I have fought the best that I know how, and the best that I could, with the shortcomings that I have had...I know that societies often have killed people who have helped to change those societies. And if I can die having brought any light, having exposed any meaningful truth that will help destroy the racist cancer that is malignant in the body of America then, all of the credit is due to Allah. Only the mistakes have been mine."

This:

"Here I am, back in Mecca. I am still traveling, trying to broaden my mind, for I've seen too much of the damage narrow-mindedness can make of things, and when I return home to America, I will devote what energies I have to repairing the damage."

This:

"I did many things as a [Black] Muslim that I'm sorry for now. I was a zombie then -- like all [Black] Muslims -- I was hypnotized, pointed in a certain direction and told to march. Well, I guess a man's entitled to make a fool of himself if he's ready to pay the cost."

You're still not making much sense to me.

He also said this:

"For the freedom of my 22 million black brothers and sisters here in America, I do believe that I have fought the best that I know how, and the best that I could, with the shortcomings that I have had...I know that societies often have killed people who have helped to change those societies. And if I can die having brought any light, having exposed any meaningful truth that will help destroy the racist cancer that is malignant in the body of America then, all of the credit is due to Allah. Only the mistakes have been mine."

This:

"Here I am, back in Mecca. I am still traveling, trying to broaden my mind, for I've seen too much of the damage narrow-mindedness can make of things, and when I return home to America, I will devote what energies I have to repairing the damage."

This:

"I did many things as a [Black] Muslim that I'm sorry for now. I was a zombie then -- like all [Black] Muslims -- I was hypnotized, pointed in a certain direction and told to march. Well, I guess a man's entitled to make a fool of himself if he's ready to pay the cost."

Understanding that you have done wrong is not the same as not doing wrong. It does not make a person great, it makes a person remorseful. Remorsefullness does not change the past nor free a man from obligation to his past. MalcolmX was killed by 3 black muslim brothers who had been influenced by his earlier more inspirational incarnation rather than his later better one.

Understanding that you have done wrong is not the same as having not doing wrong. It does not make a person great, it makes a person remorseful. Remorsefullness does not change the past nor free a man from obligation to his past. MalcolmX was killed by 3 black muslim brothers who had been influenced by his earlier more inspirational incarnation rather than his later better one.

In what ways did Malcolm X not try to answer to his obligation of addressing his past?

The question is rather why he had to address such a past.
.

In what ways did Malcolm X not try to answer to his obligation of addressing his past?

My argument is not that he did not improve with time. My argument is that I do not believe he should be classed as a Great Person.

If MalcolmX had his egalitarian views from the start would he still be a great American to you or just another person? Id say that a person who does not need to change his viewpoint miight be better. Prior to his change of heart MalcolmX drew his line between black and white so hard and fast that he wanted to resegregate schools that had been desegregated. In order to better educate black children he wanted black schools taught by black teachers using curriculum developed specificly for black culture in order for the black race to have a better education untainted by whites. He wanted as wide a gap as possible between white and black people to the degree that there would be two nearly completely seperate cultures sharing a geographical space. To this end violence was OK by him if it was needed or expedient. Although from completely opposing sides his views and the Grand Dragon of the KKK's views could coexist better than most.

So if the Grand Dragon had found religion and changed heart and decided to sudenly say that black people were equal in every meaningful way to white people and then get shot would he be a great american too?

if malcolm x had had egalitarian views from the beginning he probably still would have been a great american. without that being the case, there is no way to know how that would have played out. he may have been a well known leader he may have ended up unknown. if i never heard of him, i dont see how i could have admired him.

as for the grand dragon, in a word. YES!

who would NOT admire a man in a position of great authority in his own social circle who could realize that he was wrong and throw that all away to work for social justice? if that man were martyred for his new beliefs, all the more reason to admire his strength.

The question is rather why he had to address such a past.
.

That is not the question. That is your question.

My argument is not that he did not improve with time. My argument is that I do not believe he should be classed as a Great Person.

We all have our opinions.

if malcolm x had had egalitarian views from the beginning he probably still would have been a great american. without that being the case, there is no way to know how that would have played out. he may have been a well known leader he may have ended up unknown. if i never heard of him, i dont see how i could have admired him.

as for the grand dragon, in a word. YES!

who would NOT admire a man in a position of great authority in his own social circle who could realize that he was wrong and throw that all away to work for social justice? if that man were martyred for his new beliefs, all the more reason to admire his strength.

I can appreciate your point of view I think. I guess a way I can compare our two measures of greatness might be to compared greatness to climbing rungs on a ladder which has it's base in a very deep hole and it's top in the clouds.
Everybody starts on the ground where the ladder exits the hole. Some go down the ladder into the hole and later climb out. You count the rungs climbed from their lowest level to the the highest level they reach as their measure of greatness. Not only do I not count the rungs climbed back up to ground level in measuring their greatness, I also count every rung they went down into the hole against any rungs they climb up after they reach the surface. You are most likely a nicer and more forgiving person than I am, nevertheless I think both ways of measuring a person's greatness have their merits and their blind spots.

what cracks me up is how a lot of black people get really pissed about slavery.

it wasnt RIGHT but sucks to be them, they know if theyd have beaten us theyed have done the same so whats done is done and shut up about it already :p

We all have our opinions.

I think it is a pity that some of us parade opinions around as facts all dressed up as statements.

We all have our opinions...based more or less on something substantial.
.

..based more or less on something substantial.
.

One would hope. Not always the case, though. Not even nearly always.

what cracks me up is how a lot of black people get really pissed about slavery.

it wasnt RIGHT but sucks to be them, they know if theyd have beaten us theyed have done the same so whats done is done and shut up about it already :p

What unmitigated pap. Do us all a favour and follow your own advice.

What unmitigated pap. Do us all a favour and follow your own advice.

You actually understood what he wrote?

In the future, when the world is brown, I hope that Black History Month still exists in America. I hope we never forget what was done to all people because of their race.

I dont think the world will ever be brown. There will be always those who breed within their races....

I dont think the world will ever be brown. There will be always those who breed within their races....

I don't believe it is something that can be stopped.

I don't believe it is something that can be stopped.

It isnt going on

You actually understood what he wrote?

I distilled this much from that dreck, italics mine:

"what cracks me up is how a lot of black people get really pissed about slavery (I derive amusement when blacks get "uppity" about past injustices).

it (slavery) wasnt RIGHT (ethically or morally correct, either now or at the time) but sucks to be them (but that's just too bad for them, as it's not as though there's anything I or anybody else can or would do to change the shameful wrongdoing of the past), they (former slaves) know if theyd have beaten us (?) theyed have done the same (been wealthy, inhuman slave-owning bastards profiting from human misery and bondage) so whats done is done (so I wash my hands of any responsibility) and shut up about it already (leave me to sit here in my stained underpants, eating day-old cheetos in peace and quiet and never discuss this in my presence again)."

It isnt going on

You do know that it is white skin that is the mutation. We all started out brown. I find it likely we'll end up that way.

You do know that it is white skin that is the mutation. We all started out brown. I find it likely we'll end up that way.

Not all mutations die out. Sometimes, non-mutations die...

I distilled this much from that dreck, italics mine:

"what cracks me up is how a lot of black people get really pissed about slavery (I derive amusement when blacks get "uppity" about past injustices).

it (slavery) wasnt RIGHT (ethically or morally correct, either now or at the time) but sucks to be them (but that's just too bad for them, as it's not as though there's anything I or anybody else can or would do to change the shameful wrongdoing of the past), they (former slaves) know if theyd have beaten us (?) theyed have done the same (been wealthy, inhuman slave-owning bastards profiting from human misery and bondage) so whats done is done (so I wash my hands of any responsibility) and shut up about it already (leave me to sit here in my stained underpants, eating day-old cheetos in peace and quiet and never discuss this in my presence again)."

Ahh...

Well, there is a point to be made that I heard that some Africans actually sold blacks to Americans who then brought them back here... which is to say, assholes come in all colors. But he is still remarkably wrong on really basic levels. Day old cheetos? Bah. Any man who can make them last more than a day is no real man in my eyes.

Not all mutations die out. Sometimes, non-mutations die...

Theres no point to it anymore. Vitamin D is in nearly everything we eat.

Theres no point to it anymore. Vitamin D is in nearly everything we eat.

Neither to gall bladder, but it's still there...

Theres no point to it anymore. Vitamin D is in nearly everything we eat.Maybe you should learn some more before you start a painful theory about vitamin D, some "mutations" and skin color.
.

Neither to gall bladder, but it's still there...

I'm sure our tails stuck around a bit, too.

May you should learn some more before you start a painful theory about vitamin D, some "mutations" and skin color.
.

I am learning more about it.

I am learning more about it.More yet.
.

More yet.
.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501728.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/3/text_pop/l_073_04.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/3/text_pop/l_073_04.html
cool

Those who take pride in their ancestry should also take responsibility for the results of their ancestor's actions.

No. And don't bother debating with me about it. "An open mind is like a fortress, with it's gates unbarred and unguarded." You can't change me!

No. And don't bother debating with me about it. "An open mind is like a fortress, with it's gates unbarred and unguarded." You can't change me!

Which boils down to the same thing as a 4 year old sticking his fingers in his ears and making noises.

While it is true that many humans will not or do not change their opinions about things it really is not something to be proud of enough to broadcast.

Those who take pride in their ancestry should also take responsibility for the results of their ancestor's actions.

Hogwash. It's not that simple.

One branch of my family had slaves. Another branch fought to free them. So how do I pay for those mistakes?

Every country has some sort of crap in their history.

Celebrate the good and learn from the bad.

Some don't learn *coughsKashmircoughs*

Hogwash. It's not that simple.

One branch of my family had slaves. Another branch fought to free them. So how do I pay for those mistakes?

Every country has some sort of crap in their history.

Celebrate the good and learn from the bad.

Some don't learn *coughsKashmircoughs*

you dont have to PAY for anything. but if you were to celebrate your families history as gentleman farmers (supposing that thats what slaveholding implies) then you also acknowlege that slavery was a bad thing. if you celebrate that you have ancestors who died in the civil war on the northern side, you might acknowlege that the same man who died to free the slaves might not have invited a freed slave to dinner.

there is no need to put on rose colored glasses. if there are lingerng effects of 250ish years of racism, face up to it. sometimes thats all it takes to make a change.

I distilled this much from that dreck, italics mine:

"what cracks me up is how a lot of black people get really pissed about slavery (I derive amusement when blacks get "uppity" about past injustices).

it (slavery) wasnt RIGHT (ethically or morally correct, either now or at the time) but sucks to be them (but that's just too bad for them, as it's not as though there's anything I or anybody else can or would do to change the shameful wrongdoing of the past), they (former slaves) know if theyd have beaten us (?) theyed have done the same (been wealthy, inhuman slave-owning bastards profiting from human misery and bondage) so whats done is done (so I wash my hands of any responsibility) and shut up about it already (leave me to sit here in my stained underpants, eating day-old cheetos in peace and quiet and never discuss this in my presence again)."

That is pretty much the same translation I got. Except the cheetos and underpants part.

Hogwash. It's not that simple.

One branch of my family had slaves. Another branch fought to free them. So how do I pay for those mistakes?

Every country has some sort of crap in their history.

Celebrate the good and learn from the bad.

All I said was if you take pride in your ancestors accomplishments, you have to take responsibility for the results of their failings.

Some don't learn *coughsKashmircoughs*

What about Kashmir? You are just putting up the first bad thing about India that came to your mind. ;) Wrong analogy. In anycase, the responsibility of the killings in Kashmir lies in the hands of Pak jihadies and their American backers. That means you.

Correct analogy would be the quota system. Due to past caste based discrimination, the govt has set aside quota for so-called backward castes. Now I know many a forward caste childhood friends who could not get into the college they wanted because they had to give the seat to a lesser qualified backward caste candidate. None of them or their family had done any sort of discrimination. But they had to suffer. This might be a tough concept to you, but most of them understood the system and were not thinking like "well, i did not discriminate anybody, why should there be quota"....

All I said was if you take pride in your ancestors accomplishments, you have to take responsibility for the results of their failings.


Nope.

The slaves are dead.
The slaves children are dead.
The slaves grandchildren are dead.
The slaves great-grandchildren are dead.

You logic would suggest that if my great-great-great-great grandfather murdered a man, I own that mans family. It don't work that way.


What about Kashmir? You are just putting up the first bad thing about India that came to your mind. ;) Wrong analogy. In any case, the responsibility of the killings in Kashmir lies in the hands of Pak jihadies and their American backers. That means you.

Always a touchy subject. ;)

The Indian government is blameless eh?