NationStates Jolt Archive

What bothers me is that blacks are portrayed, locally, as minorities, whether or not that is true locally. Example: my hometown. In local politics, there is always a fuss, promoting the election of "minorities" (which almost always infers "vote for the black candidate") when the MAJORITY of local politicians are indeed black. There is some degree of hostility toward white candidates, even causing some to drop out.

According to the US Census, most of my town/county is black and female. (50.4% and 51.8% respectively) I think this may be why I cannot see the whole racism thing. Most of the people I encounter on a day-to-day basis in this town are black, and are working the same jobs white people are working elsewhere. Locally, I have no visual confirmation that there is a "glass ceiling" of sorts. Maybe I'm in some freaked-out bubble of the Twilight Zone.




And I've got to throw this out there -- slavery existed waaaaaaaaaaay before white people as we know them existed. Are we forgetting that people sold their children, prisoners of war, etc. into slavery and traded those same people to be sent overseas? Slavery was not a "white" problem. (Hell, it's still going on today, but I'm not going to get into the crimes against humanity we're seeing on the news.) I don't get it. Most of the time when someone so much as mentions the word "slavery", the nearest white person gets dirty looks, as if he or she just cracked a whip on somebody's ass. (Again, maybe I hang around assholes.)

I dunno...maybe blacks are better at some sports because during the slave trade, White slave owners would throw small or weak slaves overboard and kill them, ensuring that only the strongest slaves survived the middle passage and made it to North America?

Now you answer why there are so many whites in Golf, Hockey and Nascar?

*vomits* Sorry, you said the g-word. Don't ask.

Anyway, I just checked, and in the last census, it was up to 12.8%, so that 8 that some dude's been dangling in front of you is inaccurate.

What bothers me is that blacks are portrayed, locally, as minorities, whether or not that is true locally. Example: my hometown. In local politics, there is always a fuss, promoting the election of "minorities" (which almost always infers "vote for the black candidate") when the MAJORITY of local politicians are indeed black. There is some degree of hostility toward white candidates, even causing some to drop out.

According to the US Census, most of my town/county is black and female. (50.4% and 51.8% respectively) I think this may be why I cannot see the whole racism thing. Most of the people I encounter on a day-to-day basis in this town are black, and are working the same jobs white people are working elsewhere. Locally, I have no visual confirmation that there is a "glass ceiling" of sorts. Maybe I'm in some freaked-out bubble of the Twilight Zone.




And I've got to throw this out there -- slavery existed waaaaaaaaaaay before white people as we know them existed. Are we forgetting that people sold their children, prisoners of war, etc. into slavery and traded those same people to be sent overseas? Slavery was not a "white" problem. (Hell, it's still going on today, but I'm not going to get into the crimes against humanity we're seeing on the news.) I don't get it. Most of the time when someone so much as mentions the word "slavery", the nearest white person gets dirty looks, as if he or she just cracked a whip on somebody's ass. (Again, maybe I hang around assholes.)

okay...but i said North American slavery not slavery in general

okay...but i said North American slavery not slavery in general

I wasn't personally griping at you. You managed to specify, thankfully. Others have not, unfortunately, and it was getting under my skin.

I wasn't personally griping at you. You managed to specify, thankfully. Others have not, unfortunately, and it was getting under my skin.

Context is your friend. It's pretty clear what we mean when used in this context.

For example, I we're talking about Bush and I say I'm against the war in Iraq would you be unsure of whether I was talking about the current war or the one in 1991. If you would be, then perhaps you should examine how context works.

Some folks have said that blacks are discriminated against, and that it's "harder" to be black in America (United States to politically correct fools). I disagree. For an answer I choose sports. Why are there more blacks in Basketball if they're so discriminated against? They make-up 8% of America's population, and are obviously over-represented in Basketball. Are they actually better at sports then whites? No, that would be "racist" to say, now wouldn't it? Are whites less-likely to enjoiy Basketball then blacks? No, just as racist. Plenty of whites watch Basketball.
Are WHITES discriminated against? Not racist, but obviously a preposterous notion. Yet according to a fool's method of deduction, it's obvious.
Please use your divine (sorry, most of you are Athiests here, I didn't mean to offend you) reasoning to explain NS'ers....

Assume: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12694437&postcount=243

Therefore: http://youngestofone.typepad.com/photos/sketchpad/served.jpg

Assume: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12694437&postcount=243

Therefore: http://youngestofone.typepad.com/photos/sketchpad/served.jpg

thats awesome...:p:D

thats awesome...:p:D

Hey, the math don't lie. :D

WTF?!?! PAGE 17?!?!

Why are you all still arguing with this idiot???

Because most of these people enjoy a good argument. The Cat-Tribe for instance is probably highly intelligent, as for most of the nations taking the position against me. I came-up with a good argument. Maybe balcks are discriminated agaisnt, I'm not sure. I *think* they aren't, and I enjoy defending my postion. YOU can only attack my person, unlike The Cat-Tribe which can actually make-hash out of a good-deal of my argument. The greatest insult to me is smashing my argument with superior debating, not repeatingly calling me an idiot.
I think others will agree you only worsen their argument. Other then you and the uncreative-sarcastics I'd say that the others are quite fun to argue with, and they put a good-fight. I won't go so-far as to say I've lost, but I will say they made considerable progress in that direction, and I especially salute The Cat-Tribe.

Because most of these people enjoy a good argument. The Cat-Tribe for instance is probably highly intelligent, as for most of the nations taking the position against me. I came-up with a good argument. Maybe balcks are discriminated agaisnt, I'm not sure. I *think* they aren't, and I enjoy defending my postion. YOU can only attack my person, unlike The Cat-Tribe which can actually make-hash out of a good-deal of my argument. The greatest insult to me is smashing my argument with superior debating, not repeatingly calling me an idiot.
I think others will agree you only worsen their argument. Other then you and the uncreative-sarcastics I'd say that the others are quite fun to argue with, and they put a good-fight. I won't go so-far as to say I've lost, but I will say they made considerable progress in that direction, and I especially salute The Cat-Tribe.

Err.. you have lost. Cat demolished you. It wasn't pretty. You are the Black Knight.

Because most of these people enjoy a good argument. The Cat-Tribe for instance is probably highly intelligent, as for most of the nations taking the position against me. I came-up with a good argument. Maybe balcks are discriminated agaisnt, I'm not sure. I *think* they aren't, and I enjoy defending my postion. YOU can only attack my person, unlike The Cat-Tribe which can actually make-hash out of a good-deal of my argument. The greatest insult to me is smashing my argument with superior debating, not repeatingly calling me an idiot.
I think others will agree you only worsen their argument. Other then you and the uncreative-sarcastics I'd say that the others are quite fun to argue with, and they put a good-fight. I won't go so-far as to say I've lost, but I will say they made considerable progress in that direction, and I especially salute The Cat-Tribe.

You didn't come up with a good argument. You're just stubborn and we're passionate. The fact that your argument relies on such silliness is precisely why it was never a good argument.

I find it amusing that you reference a "good fight" as if you've defeated any of the arguments against you when you've failed to reply to almost every reasoned argument in thread instead relying on hyperbole and fallacies. There is an argument you presented still standing and you've found plenty of time to reply to people like the quoted poster who are making no argument, you've not even tried to address anything more reasonable.

What's your point?
No-one will answer why there are more blacks in Basketball!

Because black people can jump better then white people.


There. I said it.

Err.. you have lost. Cat demolished you. It wasn't pretty. You are the Black Knight.

"We'll call it a draw"? No, you're right, I was soundly defeated by Cat-Tribe in the Basketball argument. The fact was demonstrated it is clearly a class-sport and I agnowledge that. Still, I will make a Alamo-Style hold-out and ask about sorts in general, such as football. Whites watch them so-much, so why are blacks hired more?

Because black people can jump better then white people.


There. I said it.

And it's the truth.

"We'll call it a draw"? No, you're right, I was soundly defeated by Cat-Tribe in the Basketball argument. The fact was demonstrated it is clearly a class-sport and I agnowledge that. Still, I will make a Alamo-Style hold-out and ask about sorts in general, such as football. Whites watch them so-much, so why are blacks hired more?

A reasonable guess would be more blacks try.

"We'll call it a draw"? No, you're right, I was soundly defeated by Cat-Tribe in the Basketball argument. The fact was demonstrated it is clearly a class-sport and I agnowledge that. Still, I will make a Alamo-Style hold-out and ask about sorts in general, such as football. Whites watch them so-much, so why are blacks hired more?

Because people in sports often consider sports their only way to get to college, and black people are more likely to be put in this position. Your highschool is shit, and your parents don't have any money, so Football seems like something you can do and succeed at.

Also, it's not uncommon for poor parents to press their kids into sports so that they will have a coach to force them to keep their grades up, so they can continue to play.

Context is your friend. It's pretty clear what we mean when used in this context.

For example, I we're talking about Bush and I say I'm against the war in Iraq would you be unsure of whether I was talking about the current war or the one in 1991. If you would be, then perhaps you should examine how context works.

It's in a historical context, and some people like to argue as if whites were the only people who ever owned slaves. To me, the fact that other races owned the same slaves takes the racism out of the equation to some extent. Perhaps I'm looking at it from a totally different angle.


When did you guys get so condescending and competitive? Shit, this place was calm last time I was around.

A reasonable guess would be more blacks try.

Then I would suppose it's reasonable to assume more whites try to be CEO's. :D

Also, it's not uncommon for poor parents to press their kids into sports so that they will have a coach to force them to keep their grades up, so they can continue to play.

This does not explain it. The Cat-Tribe explained it.

Because most of these people enjoy a good argument. The Cat-Tribe for instance is probably highly intelligent, as for most of the nations taking the position against me. I came-up with a good argument. Maybe balcks are discriminated agaisnt, I'm not sure. I *think* they aren't, and I enjoy defending my postion. YOU can only attack my person, unlike The Cat-Tribe which can actually make-hash out of a good-deal of my argument. The greatest insult to me is smashing my argument with superior debating, not repeatingly calling me an idiot.
I think others will agree you only worsen their argument. Other then you and the uncreative-sarcastics I'd say that the others are quite fun to argue with, and they put a good-fight. I won't go so-far as to say I've lost, but I will say they made considerable progress in that direction, and I especially salute The Cat-Tribe.
Man it seems like I'm duckin dodgin terms everyday
Libruls hatin on me cause I got some racist shit to say
But I gotta stay paid, gotta stay above water
Couldn't keep up with my bro's, that's when shit got harder
Suburbia where I'm from, I'm university bound
Where honkies all the time end up lost and never found
Man these fools think we prove thangs, cause we got them swelled heads
We be hopin' ev'ry night our bullshit Objectivism ain't dead
Wait I got a good lawyer, and a lawn boy too
You pay the right price and they'll both do you
That's the way the game goes, gotta keep it strictly pimpin
Gotta have my hustle tight, makin change off these suckas, yeah.

You know it's hard out here for a Honky (you ain't knowin)
When he tryin to get his props on the court (you ain't knowin)
Or get outa payin' child support (you ain't knowin)
Because a whole lot of negros talkin shit (you ain't knowin)
Will have a whole lot of bitches talkin shit (you ain't knowin)
Will have a whole lot of Plebs talkin shit (you ain't knowin)

You know it's hard out here for a Honky...

This does not explain it. The Cat-Tribe explained it.

Yeah, what the dude you're replying to was talking about is a mere psychological strategy -- people do it to themselves in college. Some join sports teams with a "no pass no play" policy, others join organizations that require a certain GPA. That doesn't seem too connected to any one group...

Man it seems like I'm duckin dodgin terms everyday
Libruls hatin on me cause I got some racist shit to say
But I gotta stay paid, gotta stay above water
Couldn't keep up with my bro's, that's when shit got harder
Suburbia where I'm from, I'm university bound
Where honkies all the time end up lost and never found
Man these fools think we prove thangs, cause we got them swelled heads
We be hopin' ev'ry night our bullshit Objectivism ain't dead
Wait I got a good lawyer, and a lawn boy too
You pay the right price and they'll both do you
That's the way the game goes, gotta keep it strictly pimpin
Gotta have my hustle tight, makin change off these suckas, yeah.

You know it's hard out here for a Honky (you ain't knowin)
When he tryin to get his props on the court (you ain't knowin)
Or get outa payin' child support (you ain't knowin)
Because a whole lot of negros talkin shit (you ain't knowin)
Will have a whole lot of bitches talkin shit (you ain't knowin)
Will have a whole lot of Plebs talkin shit (you ain't knowin)

You know it's hard out here for a Honky...

What-the-hell is with this? How can people be worried about racism against blacks, and not get upset about this racism against whites?

What-the-hell is with this? How can people be worried about racism against blacks, and not get upset about this racism against whites?
Actual racism, regardless of victim, is absolutely worrisome.

White boys complaining about how there be so many black men on the court...that just begs for a parody rap.

Actual racism, regardless of victim, is absolutely worrisome.

White boys complaining about how there be so many black men on the court...that just begs for a parody rap.

Lol. If I made`parody of whiney blacks, I'd be considered KKK.

Lol. If I made`parody of whiney blacks, I'd be considered KKK.
Well...yeah.

That's the one sacrifice you're gonna have to make. You get economic, social, and political control. In exchange, you give up your right to bitch about how the man be keeping you down. Seeing as how you're the man.

Well...yeah.

That's the one sacrifice you're gonna have to make. You get economic, social, and political control. In exchange, you give up your right to bitch about how the man be keeping you down. Seeing as how you're the man.

You schmuck. YOU give Liberals a bad name. I don't get control! I'm the one watching Obama (black) and Hillary (woman...I think) on T.V.! I don't mean to say that white men are the "Third Estate", or even that it's "easy" for blacks, that would be silly. But there are PLENTY of black bosses, and white workers. Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Obama? None of those names mean anything to you? If Powell ran for President, I assure you I'd vote for him. How can you say the blacks a "ruled" by whites? If it were as bad as you say, they wouldn't recieve welfare from our "white" goverment.
I don't get Jack for my sacrifice, I just keep paying welfare to "poor-blacks".
Schmuck.

I notice he has time to answer anyone who doesn't present evidence. Isn't that always the way? Anything that actually shows their racism for the fallacy it is, they have to ignore.

Again, I argue that since blacks on average are taller that racism doesn't exist. Makes just as much sense.

Speaking of evidence being presented - black people are not taller on average than white people, as shown already, with evidence, in this thread.

If people would read a thread before making the same mistakes again and again, maybe we wouldn't be on page 19.

Speaking of evidence being presented - black people are not taller on average than white people, as shown already, with evidence, in this thread.

If people would read a thread before making the same mistakes again and again, maybe we wouldn't be on page 19.

Not only that, but if I say whites get hired more often because they haver a higher avarage I.Q. (which they do), I'm racist. :rolleyes:

You schmuck. YOU give Liberals a bad name. I don't get control! I'm the one watching Obama (black) and Hillary (woman...I think) on T.V.! I don't mean to say that white men are the "Third Estate", or even that it's "easy" for blacks, that would be silly. But there are PLENTY of black bosses, and white workers. Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Obama? None of those names mean anything to you? If Powell ran for President, I assure you I'd vote for him. How can you say the blacks a "ruled" by whites? If it were as bad as you say, they wouldn't recieve welfare from our "white" goverment.
I don't get Jack for my sacrifice, I just keep paying welfare to "poor-blacks".
Schmuck.

Calm down, there, boyo.

Just when you were starting to sound at least vaguelly sane, you go off foaming at the mouth.

Not only that, but if I say whites get hired more often because they haver a higher avarage I.Q. (which they do), I'm racist. :rolleyes:

Given this has been answered about 50 times already, I have nothing to add :(

Calm down, there, boyo.

Just when you were starting to sound at least vaguelly sane, you go off foaming at the mouth.

Sorry about that :(. I have bad temper. I shouldn't try to respond to those people, it just implodes my cerbreal cortex.

Well...yeah.

That's the one sacrifice you're gonna have to make. You get economic, social, and political control. In exchange, you give up your right to bitch about how the man be keeping you down. Seeing as how you're the man.

The median income of an Asian family is higher than whites. Does that mean Asians shouldnt bitch about anything too? Should whites be able to bitch about Asians and not about blacks?

Should a poor white with no social and political control be able to bitch about a rich powerful black?

Then why are southern white racists generally affluent and blacks not?

Some one has never been to the south.

You schmuck. YOU give Liberals a bad name. I don't get control! I'm the one watching Obama (black) and Hillary (woman...I think) on T.V.! I don't mean to say that white men are the "Third Estate", or even that it's "easy" for blacks, that would be silly. But there are PLENTY of black bosses, and white workers. Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Obama? None of those names mean anything to you? If Powell ran for President, I assure you I'd vote for him. How can you say the blacks a "ruled" by whites? If it were as bad as you say, they wouldn't recieve welfare from our "white" goverment.
I don't get Jack for my sacrifice, I just keep paying welfare to "poor-blacks".
Schmuck.

Man! There are lots of stupid people on this planet. If you get mad over all the things they say, you'll get an ulcer. Just relax and be patient with these people, tolerate them, it's a sacrifice you should make for being smarter...

Well...yeah.

That's the one sacrifice you're gonna have to make. You get economic, social, and political control. In exchange, you give up your right to bitch about how the man be keeping you down. Seeing as how you're the man.
If it was only all just the same the Man.

Man! There are lots of stupid people on this planet. If you get mad over all the things they say, you'll get an ulcer. Just relax and be patient with these people, tolerate them, it's a sacrifice you should make for being smarter...

Right. *breathes into paper bag* If I can be calm with a Nazi, I can do the same here....

You schmuck. YOU give Liberals a bad name. I don't get control! I'm the one watching Obama (black) and Hillary (woman...I think) on T.V.! I don't mean to say that white men are the "Third Estate", or even that it's "easy" for blacks, that would be silly. But there are PLENTY of black bosses, and white workers. Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Obama? None of those names mean anything to you? If Powell ran for President, I assure you I'd vote for him. How can you say the blacks a "ruled" by whites? If it were as bad as you say, they wouldn't recieve welfare from our "white" goverment.
I don't get Jack for my sacrifice, I just keep paying welfare to "poor-blacks".
Schmuck.

That post reminded me of this clip (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Xl05vFy091c)

Some folks have said that blacks are discriminated against, and that it's "harder" to be black in America (United States to politically correct fools). I disagree. For an answer I choose sports. Why are there more blacks in Basketball if they're so discriminated against?

Look up the average income for a black person. Look up the percentage of blacks arrested and incarcerated. Look up the percentage of jobless blacks. Look up the number of black people murdered or victims of violent crimes. Number of blacks to receive education beyond high school, or even finish high school.


They make-up 8% of America's population, and are obviously over-represented in Basketball. Are they actually better at sports then whites?

It was common practice to breed bigger and stronger slaves. Also given that living on lower incomes = no high cost entertainment ergo playing sports is one of the few ways to keep busy.

No, that would be "racist" to say, now wouldn't it? Are whites less-likely to enjoiy Basketball then blacks? No, just as racist. Plenty of whites watch Basketball.

What? I don't follow really.


Are WHITES discriminated against? Not racist, but obviously a preposterous notion. Yet according to a fool's method of deduction, it's obvious.
Please use your divine (sorry, most of you are Athiests here, I didn't mean to offend you) reasoning to explain NS'ers....

You're an insecure white boy with a great lack of information. There is a great divide between whites and blacks in America and the only real sollution is to improve on social welfare and public education.

It's in a historical context, and some people like to argue as if whites were the only people who ever owned slaves. To me, the fact that other races owned the same slaves takes the racism out of the equation to some extent. Perhaps I'm looking at it from a totally different angle.


When did you guys get so condescending and competitive? Shit, this place was calm last time I was around.

The fact that other people did it does not in any way make it less racist. Is a black man less racist just because white people were racist to him first? Nope. Racism is racism. It may not be a uniquely white phenomena. In fact, it's definitely not. But it was racist when whites were doing it, and any time other races were owning people simply becuase they don't regard other races as people, that was racist too.

As to the last bit, I'm not really interested in whether or not you like how I post. You made a nonsensical point chastising other posters because you're not paying attention to context in which a word is used. If you're going to not try to tell me I'm condescending perhaps you should not have started with a lecture to people on how they have to clarify a word that is perfectly clear in context.

You schmuck. YOU give Liberals a bad name. I don't get control! I'm the one watching Obama (black) and Hillary (woman...I think) on T.V.! I don't mean to say that white men are the "Third Estate", or even that it's "easy" for blacks, that would be silly. But there are PLENTY of black bosses, and white workers. Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Obama? None of those names mean anything to you? If Powell ran for President, I assure you I'd vote for him. How can you say the blacks a "ruled" by whites? If it were as bad as you say, they wouldn't recieve welfare from our "white" goverment.
I don't get Jack for my sacrifice, I just keep paying welfare to "poor-blacks".
Schmuck.

This passes for an argument. You came here and claimed you'd crushed an argument nobody made and did it using extremely flawed logic. Bottle laughed at it and showed why it was silly and suddenly you flip it like you were just trying to suggest that blacks are advantaged in a provably silly way. You made that bed. Lie in it.

It was common practice to breed bigger and stronger slaves.

Was it really?

Did they give slaves better nutrition, some gym facilities, possibly some genetic manipulation?

Statements like this and the 'average taller' statements, I don't know where they come from!

Speaking of evidence being presented - black people are not taller on average than white people, as shown already, with evidence, in this thread.

If people would read a thread before making the same mistakes again and again, maybe we wouldn't be on page 19.

Um.. sarcasm meet Barringtonia. Barringtonia meet sarcasm. I was pointing out how nonsensical it is to point to a meritorious system that resutls in blacks being advantaged a tiny percentage of the time and pretend it excuses the fact that economic and social problems leave them disadvantaged overall.

Was it really?

Did they give slaves better nutrition, some gym facilities, possibly some genetic manipulation?

Same way fighting dogs are bred.

Was it really?

Did they give slaves better nutrition, some gym facilities, possibly some genetic manipulation?

Statements like this and the 'average taller' statements, I don't know where they come from!

The "gym facilities" and "better nutrition" have little to do with their breeding programs. Meanwhile it was common practice for slaves to be chosen by their stock and to force slaves to breed to create children that would make better slaves.

How does your "argument" negate that it happened or even address it? Did they use special nutrition and gym facilities or genetic manipulation to breed dogs to have certain characteristics or are you possibly aware that none of what you mentioned is at all required?

Same way fighting dogs are bred.

No, breeding dogs never happened. The only way in the fallacious world of certain arguments to breed is to use special nutrition, gym facilities and genetic manipulation. Mankind hasn't driving the breeding of its "livestock" for millennia. Why accept that? That would require accepting reality and how does that help racism?

It was common practice to breed bigger and stronger slaves.

The time interval seems too small, though. That sort of broad genetic change, in a few centuries?

The selective pressure couldn't have been too strong, either, because to kill the ones who weren't fit enough, or even just to make them infertile, would not have been profitable.

And the argument that there's a genetic basis for the prominence of blacks in basketball just isn't very strong in the first place, anyway.

No, breeding dogs never happened. The only way in the fallacious world of certain arguments to breed is to use special nutrition, gym facilities and genetic manipulation. Mankind hasn't driving the breeding of its "livestock" for millennia. Why accept that? That would require accepting reality and how does that help racism?

The same way champion horses AREN'T bred either, or why the semen of said horse sells for thousands. Honestly I can barely understand a word your saying.

Um.. sarcasm meet Barringtonia. Barringtonia meet sarcasm. I was pointing out how nonsensical it is to point to a meritorious system that resutls in blacks being advantaged a tiny percentage of the time and pretend it excuses the fact that economic and social problems leave them disadvantaged overall.

Then use an example that isn't a fallacy rather than subscribe to the unfounded notion that 'blacks are taller/stronger/whatever - especially when it's already been pointed out - these little statements are what entrench set opinions about any race.

The time interval seems too small, though. That sort of broad genetic change, in a few centuries?

The selective pressure couldn't have been too strong, either, because to kill the ones who weren't fit enough, or even just to make them infertile, would not have been profitable.

And the argument that there's a genetic basis for the prominence of blacks in basketball just isn't very strong in the first place, anyway.

It's not just that but like I said before lower income families can't afford high end entertainment, so they grow up playing sports outside and become more athletic. That is the main reason why blacks dominate some sports.

Originally Posted by Barringtonia
Was it really?

Did they give slaves better nutrition, some gym facilities, possibly some genetic manipulation?
Same way fighting dogs are bred.

And people say that the Lebensborn project was stupid and couldn't have succeeded. Its the same theory as evolution; if you breed the strongest together, and breed their children together enough times you get a set of DNA that favors strong children. It takes time though, and I doubt that any breeding of slaves would have succeeded. Not enough control or time.


Note: I am not supporting eugenics, just commenting.

No, breeding dogs never happened. The only way in the fallacious world of certain arguments to breed is to use special nutrition, gym facilities and genetic manipulation. Mankind hasn't driving the breeding of its "livestock" for millennia. Why accept that? That would require accepting reality and how does that help racism?

I accept this on a little research - pairing strong slaves was indeed done.

My point remains that statements are thrown out by both sides on pre-conceived notions without people checking the facts of what they're saying

The time interval seems too small, though. That sort of broad genetic change, in a few centuries? .

That's roughly 5 generations. It would be small, but still have a minor result nonetheless. Also combined with my other hypothesis it would make sense why blacks are fairly athletic.

I accept this on a little research - pairing strong males was indeed done with slavery.

My point remains that statements are thrown out by both sides on pre-conceived notions without people checking the facts of what they're saying

lol. One of the things I like about NSG is that people tend to cite sources more than most other forums. Sometimes in debates with "real" people I have to stop myself asking for a source.

It's not just that but like I said before lower income families can't afford high end entertainment, so they grow up playing sports outside and become more athletic. That is the main reason why blacks dominate some sports.

Again though - is it really? What is this high-end entertainment? Opera, theatre, TV? I would like some back-up to these statements though I concede I should go find them myself.

And is it really the reason why blacks are predominate per population in basketball, because they exercise more?

I accept this on a little research - pairing strong males was indeed done with slavery.

My point remains that statements are thrown out by both sides on pre-conceived notions without people checking the facts of what they're saying

So far the only one caught was you? You took a statement you've since admitted was correct and bitched about it. The other statement was a joke about a stereotype and was meant to show how nonsensical the OP is. To suggest that shows that one is not checking their facts is to completely miss the point.

So I'm gonna need a little evidence of your both sides BS. It looks like your side keeps getting caught and you want to pull us in the drink with you.

Again though - is it really? What is this high-end entertainment? Opera, theatre, TV? I would like some back-up to these statements though I concede I should go find them myself.

And is it really the reason why blacks are predominate per population in basketball, because they exercise more?

Well they would be more adept to sports wouldn't they?

High end entertainment is like video games, movies, tv, etc. Great athletes play the sport for all their lives, and many pro athletes grew up in poor economic conditions.

I don't have the numbers, which is why I'm just guessing, but it is a logical explination.

The time interval seems too small, though. That sort of broad genetic change, in a few centuries?

The selective pressure couldn't have been too strong, either, because to kill the ones who weren't fit enough, or even just to make them infertile, would not have been profitable.

And the argument that there's a genetic basis for the prominence of blacks in basketball just isn't very strong in the first place, anyway.

I personally don't think this explains it. I was just pointing out the ridiculousness of claiming it didn't happen or worse that it was impossible.

I happen to think sports is and always has been one of those things dominated by those with the most to gain by succeeding at it. Training to be as good as a top athelete is painful and dangerous. It doesn't mean everyone will succeed that has a lot to gain, but it does mean you're more likely to succeed if that pain and danger is less than what you already experience. You would certainly find a better correllation to poverty and success in sports than race.

So far the only one caught was you? You took a statement you've since admitted was correct and bitched about it. The other statement was a joke about a stereotype and was meant to show how nonsensical the OP is. To suggest that shows that one is not checking their facts is to completely miss the point.

So I'm gonna need a little evidence of your both sides BS. It looks like your side keeps getting caught and you want to pull us in the drink with you.

Yes, I questioned a statement and am happy to check the research and see it was right.

I pointed out that you used a false statement, even if just to make a joke, for which evidence has been supplied. Don't take things so personally just because something dents the overt air of superiority you try to use in debating.

My point is that statements are being thrown out, and I'm being fair to say it's on both sides.

Yes, I questioned a statement and am happy to check the research and see it was right.

I pointed out that you used a false statement, even if just to make a joke, for which evidence has been supplied. Don't take things so personally just because something dents the overt air of superiority you try to use in debating.

My point is that statements are being thrown out, and I'm being fair to say it's on both sides.

Again, it was chosen because it's a stereotype. It was false by design. I'm sorry you didn't get it, but that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not I was wrong.

You mean statements with no support like the bolded one? Again, still only your side. If the best you can do is one where you're proven wrong and another that was a joke, I think you'd better stop beating that drum.

Well they would be more adept to sports wouldn't they?

High end entertainment is like video games, movies, tv, etc. Great athletes play the sport for all their lives, and many pro athletes grew up in poor economic conditions.

I don't have the numbers, which is why I'm just guessing, but it is a logical explination.

Yet blacks have far faster rates of obesity than whites, among so much else

Link (http://www.obesityinamerica.org/trends.html)

Again, it was chosen because it's a stereotype. It was false by design. I'm sorry you didn't get it, but that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not I was wrong.

You mean statements with no support like the bolded one? Again, still only your side. If the best you can do is one where you're proven wrong and another that was a joke, I think you'd better stop beating that drum.

See above - I'm simply trying to have actual facts presented rather than throwaway statements.

Sure you meant to use a false statement - one can say anything after the fact.

Yet blacks have far faster rates of obesity than whites, among so much else

Link (http://www.obesityinamerica.org/trends.html)

Maybe also why blacks are more predisposed to developing heart disease, and diabetes. There may be a genetic element to that, but it does not follow from such source that blacks are less athletic, or take part in more physical activity when they're young.

Maybe also why blacks are more predisposed to developing heart disease, and diabetes. There may be a genetic element to that, but it does not follow from such source that blacks are less athletic, or take part in more physical activity when they're young.

Right - the point is that to say it's because blacks don't have access to high-end entertainment belittles the debate - there's many many factors of which racism is just one, a major underlying cause but there's many different factors now at play.

I guess my real reaction is against the 'because they're more suited to be athletes', which I know you're not specifically saying but I just feel it's going to be a self-fulfilling prophecy along the lines of 'they're more likely to be drug dealers'.

So I tend to react to the 'they're taller, they're stronger etc' statements, perhaps more than I should.

We expect people to be athletes therefore that becomes the best option open to them, we expect them to be drug dealers therefore that becomes the best option open for them.

That's what I feel is happening.

See above - I'm simply trying to have actual facts presented rather than throwaway statements.

Sure you meant to use a false statement - one can say anything after the fact.

Dude, seriously. Are you really trying to argue that black are taller AND that this makes racism not exist? The entire thing was a joke. If you can't see that, I can't help you. If you're not aware I repeated that joke in several threads. I take this as an act of desperation. I notice you make the same fallacious argument that racism is founded on. Take one example, real or not, and try to use it to extend it to all. You're trying to do it here to dismiss our argument, rather than doing the work.

No one is claiming I'm never wrong or that you always are. The point is that if you want to show someone is wrong, do it. You're trying a fallacious way of suggesting people are wrong with provably wrong examples.

Right - the point is that to say it's because blacks don't have access to high-end entertainment belittles the debate - there's many many factors of which racism is just one, a major underlying cause but there's many different factors now at play.

I guess my real reaction is against the 'because they're more suited to be athletes', which I know you're not specifically saying but I just feel it's going to be a self-fulfilling prophecy along the lines of 'they're more likely to be drug dealers'.

So I tend to react to the 'they're taller, they're stronger etc' statements, perhaps more than I should.

We expect people to be athletes therefore that becomes the best option open to them, we expect them to be drug dealers therefore that becomes the best option open for them.

That's what I feel is happening.


What you presented actually goes a long way to show there is likely a social factor that causes them to be more driven to be atheletes. One very reasonable example is that the walls that exist in other areas don't exist in sports.

This doesn't negate the fact that the ones signing their checks are almost entirely white.

Dude, seriously. Are you really trying to argue that black are taller AND that this makes racism not exist? The entire thing was a joke. If you can't see that, I can't help you. If you're not aware I repeated that joke in several threads. I take this as an act of desperation. I notice you make the same fallacious argument that racism is founded on. Take one example, real or not, and try to use it to extend it to all. You're trying to do it here to dismiss our argument, rather than doing the work.

No one is claiming I'm never wrong or that you always are. The point is that if you want to show someone is wrong, do it. You're trying a fallacious way of suggesting people are wrong with provably wrong examples.

NO, read the thread - the evidence is clear that black people are not taller.

What you presented actually goes a long way to show there is likely a social factor that causes them to be more driven to be atheletes. One very reasonable example is that the walls that exist in other areas don't exist in some sports.

This doesn't negate the fact that the ones signing their checks are almost entirely white.

Fixed

I'm on the same side of the debate btw.

NO, read the thread - the evidence is clear that black people are not taller.

You're still failing here. I wasn't actually suggesting they were. I know that's difficult for you, but the entire point was to make a sarcastic argument that says racism doesn't exist. Read what I wrote and apply a little, just a little, logic. It's really not that hard to follow. Or just keep clinging to anything that you can since you don't appear to have an actual point.

Fixed

I'm on the same side of the debate btw.

Amusing. It appears your only goal is to just jump on any minor little point because you don't have an argument. You try to prove you don't have an argument in ever post, and you're quite adept at it.

Nice not so subtle racism there, your own 'conclusion' at the end there is nothing but racism justified by 'statistics' you are saying that naturally in genetic terms whites are more intelligent intellectually than blacks, and blacks are only good at running around in sport. That in itself is racism because your denying the concept of universal merit in favor of race based merit, that blacks will only ever be sportsmen/women and whites only business operators etc.

I don't expect a hick like you to understand this, but the very statistics hicks like you quote prove and lay out that individuals and communities in low socio-economic brackets themselves have low equality of opporunity, which means low equality of employment, income and yes education. It is because of this class antagonism and the fact of a concentrated wealth in classes mainly white that blacks will generally do worst in life, not because of the race based merit crap you say. Everyone should have equal chance to suceed in life under the principle of social justice.

All I am saying is that blacks and whites have very different cultrues for the most part. I'm not saying blacks are better at sports and whites are better intellectually. Both races can succeed equally in both fields, but they don't. Blacks are more successful in things like basketball because for the most part they're more confident in their ability. Most blacks are outgoing and thus confident because of the environment they were raised in. For example, I'm more skilled at basketball than almost anyone I know, including blakcs, but I'm not really a good player because I don't have the same outgoing flare and aggressivness that blacks have. I was just raised in a different environment. I agree one hundred percent that everyone should have an equal chance and that everyone's equal, but because everyone doesn't have equal oppurtunity, this is how it turns out. If you put a black person in a white environment, they would turn out the same as a white would, but that's just not the way the world works. Some things however are genetics and correspond with race. Is it racist to say that only blacks get sickle cell? No, it's genetics. Africans developed sickle cells as an adaptation to avoid getting malaria. Is it racist to say that almost all skin cancer cases are in whites? Is it racist to say that Kenyans are the dominant long distant runners? It's just genetics. Genetics matter in some cases, but a lot of the way a person turns out is environment so naturally, blacks turn out different than whites. While we're on this topic, I'm tired of the double standard. There's of course, a movie called "White Men Can't Jump". Would it be socially exceptable to have a movie called "Black Men Can't Read". No, beacuse blacks are a minority. We're supposed to call them African Americans so that we don't offend them. Should we start having them call whites Caucasions then? We should treat everyone from every race the same. We can't act differently around different races. There should be no special advantages to being a minority. Most colleges will take a minority over a white because they want more minorities. If you want to not offend minorities, then treat them the same way as if they were the majority.

Ha ha, you're funny. I've met Southern white racists, and they're no more affluent than the blacks that are living in the projects. Except they just live in trailer parks or in government subsidized houses.Nope, my great uncle is pretty damn racist and is rich as hell.

The fact that other people did it does not in any way make it less racist. Is a black man less racist just because white people were racist to him first? Nope. Racism is racism. It may not be a uniquely white phenomena. In fact, it's definitely not. But it was racist when whites were doing it, and any time other races were owning people simply becuase they don't regard other races as people, that was racist too.

As to the last bit, I'm not really interested in whether or not you like how I post. You made a nonsensical point chastising other posters because you're not paying attention to context in which a word is used. If you're going to not try to tell me I'm condescending perhaps you should not have started with a lecture to people on how they have to clarify a word that is perfectly clear in context.


I have yet to chastise or lecture anyone. Perhaps I was a bit off-topic, ranty, or not paying attention, but I maintain that I did NOT chastise or lecture ANY user. Saying "this is bugging me" doesn't even come close to what you're suggesting.

I could be a real bitch and hunt through your post for typographical errors and perhaps chastise you over those, but no, I'll avoid giving you something else to bitch about. I wasn't even talking about you in particular being rude and condescending. I do believe you made that assumption. "You guys" is clearly plural, making it apparent that I've noticed a slight trend today. Relax, alright?

I don't really have anything else to say about this thread, considering it's midnight and I'm getting tired, so I'll catch the tail end of this shitstorm tomorrow.

Or maybe more white people have the proper education?
I know this is a case sometimes, but not even a majority. My school is about 60 blacks to every 40 whites and I do just fine. It's not a great school, but it's not terrible either. We don't have great facilities or anything like that, but I have a 5.0 GPA and my sister is first and her class and heading possibly to Washington University or Georgetown on either a scholarship or a large ammount financial aid. Being poor and going to a bad school can't be blamed for everything. There are 14 people in my class with a 5.0 GPA and only one is black. Why is that? That is very troubling. It's because of the black culture. It may sound racist, but it is the truth. I am no racist. I have black friends (Although, I do have a lot more white friends than black.) It's just the way things are. Stating facts is not racist. For example, people of Middle Eastern descent have larger noses because it helps breathe in the hot, dry, dessert air. It's not racist, it's a fact. It's an adaptation. How did we end up with different races in the first place? Adaptation.

Amusing. It appears your only goal is to just jump on any minor little point because you don't have an argument. You try to prove you don't have an argument in ever post, and you're quite adept at it.

Oh puh-lease - making a statement doesn't make it true - there's plenty of 'points' throughout this thread, one I've been on since the start

And I've made my point (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12696094&postcount=313)as to why I jump on statements that can simply be entrenchments of stereotypes whether made as a joke or not.

And I'm also happy to research to see if these points are right and admit when they're not.

Dude, seriously. Are you really trying to argue that black are taller AND that this makes racism not exist?

Clearly showing you haven't read the thread, which is why you repeated a statement in 319, whether meant as a joke or not.

My original point to you was that if you had read the thread, you would have made your perfectly reasonable point differently - don't take it personally.

What-the-hell is with this? How can people be worried about racism against blacks, and not get upset about this racism against whites?

Thank You

I'm noticing that there is a trend of racists, defending racism, by attacking the idea that racism exists. NMG, TPE. Jesus.

And if the OP's rambling tripe constitutes "crushing" an "argument" then my farting translates to slaughtering ten thousand pigs.

Look up the average income for a black person. Look up the percentage of blacks arrested and incarcerated. Look up the percentage of jobless blacks. Look up the number of black people murdered or victims of violent crimes. Number of blacks to receive education beyond high school, or even finish high school.

Oh, lame. I had just lost, surrendering to The Cat-Tribe when you give me another shot to punch holes in your argument.

Look at Africa you moron, is that ALSO due to discrimination?

Look at Africa you moron, is that ALSO due to discrimination?

What does that have to do with anything the guy said? Nothing. Stupid strawman. BUT it does prove that hey, you'll take any opportunity to degrade black people. How about you pat yourself on the back for white Beethoven and Einstein too while you're at it, racist?

What does that have to do with anything the guy said? Nothing. Stupid strawman. BUT it does prove that hey, you'll take any opportunity to degrade black people. How about you pat yourself on the back for white Beethoven and Einstein too while you're at it, racist?

Eh? Bethoven was Austrian, and Eistein was Jewish. I have no racial relation to either. Ther skin-colour doesn't provide any credit to others of the same shade, just like Hitler's crimes don't relate to whites.
The fact is they said whites were responsible for the divide. I disagree. Maybe there is racism in America (Cat-Tribes made a very convincing argument), but it obviously doesn't account for the full-divide, or else Africa would be just-peachy. It obviously doesn't have anything to do with skin-colour (that makes no-sense), but it COULD be due to culture. Whatever it's due to, racism is obviously not it's greatest contributor.

Eh? Bethoven was Austrian, and Eistein was Jewish. I have no racial relation to either.

Neither "Jewish" nor "Austrian" is a race.

Ther skin-colour doesn't provide any credit to others of the same shade, just like Hitler's crimes don't relate to whites.

Ah, but the state of the entire continent of Africa relates to blacks? Nice double standard.


The fact is they said whites were responsible for the divide.

Who are "they?"

Maybe there is racism in America (Cat-Tribes made a very convincing argument), but it obviously doesn't account for the full-divide, or else Africa would be just-peachy.

That's idiotic. Racism in the US has nothing to do with racism in Africa. And while Cat-Tribe does indeed make a convincing argument and you seem to suggest he won, you still say "maybe there is racism in America." MAYBE. Ha.

It's like Holocaust Denial.

It obviously doesn't have anything to do with skin-colour (that makes no-sense)

Why not? For a guy who thinks Jews and Austrians are two different races, you seem awful willing to lump everyone in Africa in the same.

And not everyone in Africa is black.

, but it COULD be due to culture. Whatever it's due to, racism is obviously not it's greatest contributor.

Nonsense. Racism was one of the key factors in European colonialism which wrecked most of the third world. Economics, history, geography, politics - yet here you are, not only denying that racism exists in the US but asserting that hey maybe it's black African "culture" (wink wink, we both know what you mean by "culture") that is responsible for all the problems in Africa.

Racist. As I said.

Neither "Jewish" nor "Austrian" is a race.

Well then, what-the-hell is a race?

Ah, but the state of the entire continent of Africa relates to blacks? Nice double standard.

No, it doesn't. It just obviously doesn't have to do with white racist, so why should America?

Who are "they?"

Luporum

That's idiotic. Racism in the US has nothing to do with racism in Africa. And while Cat-Tribe does indeed make a convincing argument and you seem to suggest he won, you still say "maybe there is racism in America." MAYBE. Ha.

Allright, I conceded that there is , it's unavoidable. BUT I do not concede that it is responsible wholly responsible for racial divides, as you say it is.

It's like Holocaust Denial.

See above.

Why not? For a guy who thinks Jews and Austrians are two different races, you seem awful willing to lump everyone in Africa in the same.

Good, point, quite good. I wasn't thinking...and I screwed-up big-time there. I'm merely saying there aren't the Bad Whities running everything to blame it on. I dunno, if racism was problem, I suppose Africa could suffer from it, just not from whites.

And not everyone in Africa is black.

What's your point?

Nonsense. Racism was one of the key factors in European colonialism which wrecked most of the third world. Economics, history, geography, politics - yet here you are, not only denying that racism exists in the US but asserting that hey maybe it's black African "culture" (wink wink, we both know what you mean by "culture") that is responsible for all the problems in Africa.

Listen, you could blame it on Europeans, but they didn't invent it. They didn't invent slavery either.

Racist. As I said.

Are you trying to debate with me, or prove to me that I'm racist?

Well then, what-the-hell is a race?

If you don't know, perhaps it's best you don't couch your entire world view on it.

No, it doesn't. It just obviously doesn't have to do with white racist, so why should America?

You are going to do yourself a favor and list all the possible differences between the continent of Africa and the USA. Then you will see why this kind of comparison doesn't work in favor of any such generalized argument.

Allright, I conceded that there is , it's unavoidable. BUT I do not concede that it is responsible wholly responsible for racial divides, as you say it is.

I don't say that.


Good, point, quite good. I wasn't thinking...and I screwed-up big-time there. I'm merely saying there aren't the Bad Whities running everything to blame it on. I dunno, if racism was problem, I suppose Africa could suffer from it, just not from whites.


What's your point?


Sigh. One, you are saying that because Africa has problems, and "Bad Whities" aren't there in large enough numbers to be the source of those problems, that this means the same is true for the USA. This is just illogical. Two, you have already assumed that non-blacks in Africa aren't racist. This is simply, and demonstrably untrue. Apartheid may have ended, but racism doesn't. Third, you seem to dismiss the fact that Africa is a multi-cultural, multi-racial continent just like any other - instead you choose to think of it as "black racial homeland" and that thus it can be some sort of lab study where you can see how black people do on their own. This is unreasonable in the extreme.

Listen, you could blame it on Europeans, but they didn't invent it. They didn't invent slavery either.

Hey you're right, Europeans didn't invent slavery.

SO WHAT.

Are you trying to debate with me, or prove to me that I'm racist?

I think it's already been proven that you're a racist. Your arguments reek of racial bias and ignorance.

But I do find it amusing that your own racist argument... is crushed.

"We'll call it a draw"? No, you're right, I was soundly defeated by Cat-Tribe in the Basketball argument. The fact was demonstrated it is clearly a class-sport and I agnowledge that. Still, I will make a Alamo-Style hold-out and ask about sorts in general, such as football. Whites watch them so-much, so why are blacks hired more?

Can't answer that. I don't watch sports, much less what Americans call 'football'. I would assume it is something to do with minority athletes looking for ways out of tricky situations, by moving into a field where sheer will and determination can cary one a long way... like professional sports.

Then I would suppose it's reasonable to assume more whites try to be CEO's. :D

Except that CEO-dom isn't something that is achieved through force of will, necessarily. Priviliged upbringing actually is MUCH more likely to drop you into that slot.

Oh puh-lease - making a statement doesn't make it true - there's plenty of 'points' throughout this thread, one I've been on since the start

And I've made my point (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12696094&postcount=313)as to why I jump on statements that can simply be entrenchments of stereotypes whether made as a joke or not.

And I'm also happy to research to see if these points are right and admit when they're not.



Clearly showing you haven't read the thread, which is why you repeated a statement in 319, whether meant as a joke or not.

My original point to you was that if you had read the thread, you would have made your perfectly reasonable point differently - don't take it personally.


As I said, this stuff never ceases to amuse. First, you've jumped on two points and been made to look silly on both. Both points were being made against my argument, not for it, but you want to pretend that this means EVERYONE is wrong, which is exactly the type of tarbrusshing that makes racism flawed.

Meanwhile, if you were trying to choose a silly stereotype that many people believed (one that suggested black people had some advantage) and trying to pretend to extend that stereotype in as silly a way as possible to claim that this proves blacks are no longer the subject of racism or disadvantage, are you claiming "blacks are taller" is a bad choice? You've said that repeatedly, but I think you've not really thought about it. That you've already addressed the problem with that stereotype is an advantage to my claim, so how can you claim that would cause me to choose differently?

Oh, lame. I had just lost, surrendering to The Cat-Tribe when you give me another shot to punch holes in your argument.

Look at Africa you moron, is that ALSO due to discrimination?

Do you just like making silly arguments? Yes, the problems in Africa were caused by racism. How does that help your claim?

Do you just like making silly arguments? Yes, the problems in Africa were caused by racism. How does that help your claim?

Actually, I thought the problems in most of Africa (Excluding, for example, South Africa) were caused by no one having any money and the everybody dying of disease.

Silly me.

Actually, I thought the problems in most of Africa (Excluding, for example, South Africa) were caused by no one having any money and the everybody dying of disease.

Silly me.

Yeah, and one of my coworkers limps because he doesn't have a leg. Let's pretend the cause of his missing leg has nothing to do with it, shall we?

The reason no one in Africa has any money is very related to Colonialism. The problems in Sudan, for example, are completely related to colonialism. Or do you claim because they aren't colonies now, it must not have a relationship.

"We'll call it a draw"? No, you're right, I was soundly defeated by Cat-Tribe in the Basketball argument. The fact was demonstrated it is clearly a class-sport and I agnowledge that. Still, I will make a Alamo-Style hold-out and ask about sorts in general, such as football. Whites watch them so-much, so why are blacks hired more?
And yet hardly any black quarterbacks or head coaches...

Oh, lame. I had just lost, surrendering to The Cat-Tribe when you give me another shot to punch holes in your argument.

Look at Africa you moron, is that ALSO due to discrimination?

Hmmm South Africa... YES.

How do you intend to shot holes in something that is as bulletproof as the post you quoted? I would look up what your arguement is exactly, but since we're making up strawmen I'll assume it has something to do with you calling blacks violent animals, and then backing it with the above comment.

The fact is they said whites were responsible for the divide.

Now go back and find where I said that and I'll let you call me Miss Habberdasher.

And yet hardly any black quarterbacks or head coaches...

Nevermind the last superbowl had TWO black head coaches, and the first round draft pick this year was a BLACK QUARTERBACK you must be feeling pretty silly right about now. Your point would have been better had you said black owners.

Nevermind the last superbowl had TWO black head coaches, and the first round draft pick this year was a BLACK QUARTERBACK you must be feeling pretty silly right about now. Your point would have been better had you said black owners.

You do remembery why you know the last Superbowl had two, right? Because no black person has EVER coached the Superbowl before that one. I don't really agree with the sentiment that there are hardly any black coaches or quarterbacks, but I think you gabe a pretty poor example (given that you chose two very rare events).

You do remembery why you know the last Superbowl had two, right? Because no black person has EVER coached the Superbowl before that one. I don't really agree with the sentiment that there are hardly any black coaches or quarterbacks, but I think you gabe a pretty poor example (given that you chose two very rare events).

Black coaches in the NFL roughly resemble the same percentage of blacks in America. Probably a little more, but I can't remember all of them right now.

I wouldn't call black quarterbacks rare nowadays anyway. Sure when the Raiders started it in the 70s it was something to gasp at, but now it's fairly common.

Black coaches in the NFL roughly resemble the same percentage of blacks in America. Probably a little more, but I can't remember all of them right now.

I wouldn't call black quarterbacks rare nowadays anyway. Sure when the Raiders started it in the 70s it was something to gasp at, but now it's fairly common.

Yeah, and that's a better example. I was just saying your example sucked since it was actually a big deal because it's never happened before. If all was equal coaches would represent fairly similar to the percentages of players, not the percentages of the general population, and that they don't. However, since coaches tend to lag WAY behind the play (meaning that it's long after you play that you coach in the NFL) it would be appropriate that they match the distribution of ten years ago.

The fact is that sports in general (not all of them, but certainly a large percentage) do a pretty good job of being meritorious in terms of coaching and playing. I think it's pretty telling that the we don't see the same types of distributions in terms of ownership. Across the board, you see a disproportionate number of white people signing the checks, both in and out of sports.

Yeah, and one of my coworkers limps because he doesn't have a leg. Let's pretend the cause of his missing leg has nothing to do with it, shall we?

The reason no one in Africa has any money is very related to Colonialism. The problems in Sudan, for example, are completely related to colonialism. Or do you claim because they aren't colonies now, it must not have a relationship.

That is pure and unadulterated nonsense. The problems in Africa are because of African countries trying to emulate developed countries and failing miserably because of their extremely backwards culture. Living standards in many African countries have actually dropped since decolonisation.

That is pure and unadulterated nonsense. The problems in Africa are because of African countries trying to emulate developed countries and failing miserably because of their extremely backwards culture. Living standards in many African countries have actually dropped since decolonisation.

Hmmm... and why would that be? Could it be because European countries went in and stripped their resources, drew arbitrary boundaries we suddenly called nationstates, and created all sorts of rivalries where none exists (like in Sudan). Then they left without cleaning up the mess they created.

If the US left Iraq right now, the living standard will drop as well. Are you suggesting this wouldn't be related to the turmoil created by such acts of aggression?

You're pointing out symptoms but ignoring the problem. Why are they failing? Why are they trying to emulate developed countries? Why is their culture "backwards"? I know you want to believe it's because black people are just lesser, but the fact is there is simply nothing to support that premise. Everywhere in the world suffered immediately after Europeans decolonized. Everywhere in the world suffered during colonization. It's not a coincidence.

You want to talk about backwards cultures. There has been only one group in history that spread death and destruction to every continent with people on it, claimed to discover already populated lands, were so dirty that they spread disease to every other group they encountered, encountered every other culture in the world and warred with them, slaughtered them, attempted genocide against them, attempted to replace the native culture with their own cultures, spread slavery and mysogyny, stripped the land of resources rather than living in balance with the land, and claimed they did it all in the name of their god. Any guess which culture that was. Europeans spread across the world like a virus. And like a virus they didn't care if they brought death or illness with them because other people were just another resource.

There is nothing superior about European culture. Modern culture is a result of advantage, more a result of encountering other cultures and parasiting off them, then of some natural superiority that racists want to claim. If not for encountering these "backward" cultures and stealing their resources and committing genocide we'd be lucky to still exist let alone ruling the globe. Now I don't think the culture that relied on genocide to survive is the superior culture, but perhaps that's because I'm applying. I'm silly like that.

Some folks have said that blacks are discriminated against, and that it's "harder" to be black in America (United States to politically correct fools). I disagree. For an answer I choose sports. Why are there more blacks in Basketball if they're so discriminated against? They make-up 8% of America's population, and are obviously over-represented in Basketball. Are they actually better at sports then whites? No, that would be "racist" to say, now wouldn't it? Are whites less-likely to enjoiy Basketball then blacks? No, just as racist. Plenty of whites watch Basketball.
Are WHITES discriminated against? Not racist, but obviously a preposterous notion. Yet according to a fool's method of deduction, it's obvious.
Please use your divine (sorry, most of you are Athiests here, I didn't mean to offend you) reasoning to explain NS'ers....

This is an ad hoc argument. That's a fancy word for a particular kind of bullshit argument.

It would be like if I were to say that the worlds population is 75% female, and then point to a survey that shows that Israeli fighter pilots during a particular 5 year stretch had children in a 1:4 male/female ratio. I picked at statistical anomaly and then argued the general from that.

Blacks make up the bulk of professional athletes in many sports because they are, on average, much better at them. There was a great deal of effort put into keeping them out. Even after the "Negro Leagues" were abolished, the "curse of the Bambino" was attributable to an effort to avoid recruiting black athletes.

You see, the discrimination is there. It's just not enough to overcome the cold hard reality of athletic puissance.

Hmmm... and why would that be? Could it be because European countries went in and stripped their resources

Oh please, here we go with the 'they were stripped of their resources' again.

1) As far as I know there are plenty of resources left in Africa. The true 'evil legacy' left by European colonialism has been crumbling for decades; roads, hospitals, railways,...
2) The notion that the 'success' of a nation is mostly a consequence of its resources and environment is ludicrous. Japan is a mountainous country regularly rocked by natural disasters and with little resources, yet they have become one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Dito for Australia, Iceland etc. which have unhospitable environments yet prosper. A nation is built by its people.

drew arbitrary boundaries we suddenly called nationstates

A valid argument. Probably there would be less civil wars without the boundaries left by European powers. But it has little do with Africa's numerous other problems, as peaceful countries aren't exactly wealthy states either.

and created all sorts of rivalries where none exists (like in Sudan).

I'm no expert on Sudan, but where do you get this? As far as I know the conflict in Darfur, between Khartoum-based Africans who have adopted a lot of Arab culture and have some Arab blood, and a rival group in the Darfur and parts of Chad is just inter-ethnic rivalry which has little to do with Sudan's colonial history. Same for its North-South, Islamic-Christian/Animist rift.

Then they left without cleaning up the mess they created.

...because Africans wanted them to.

If the US left Iraq right now, the living standard will drop as well. Are you suggesting this wouldn't be related to the turmoil created by such acts of aggression?

Countries that have never been colonised, such as Ethiopia or Liberia, are not much (in fact, not at all) better off than other African countries, so that blows that argument out of the water.

The attempts to blame Africa's problems on European intervention annoy me to no end. Europeans have committed a lot of atrocities in Africa, and their racist rule was often oppressive towards the indigenous population. But they also developed infrastructure, improved education and introduced order, a central administration and a lingua franca. In the end though, I think none of this matters - Africans themselves are responsible for the current sorry state Africa is in, and it is up to them to change it. To claim otherwise is to distort reality to fit your own preferred view.

Everywhere in the world suffered immediately after Europeans decolonized.

Yet countries such as Malaysia or India are starting to become prosperous. Go to India, and ask young people what they think of the English - there is no bitterness left, no resentment, and it is acknowledged that they owe their former colonial rulers for a lot of the still existing infrastructure - my Sikh friend who immigrated to Delhi literally told me.

But they don't go as far as to want colonialism back - as opposed to quite a few Africans. That would be a bit of a strange reaction for Africans if they thought the root cause of most their misery was colonialism, but hey.

You want to talk about backwards cultures. There has been only one group in history that spread death and destruction to every continent with people on it, claimed to discover already populated lands, were so dirty that they spread disease to every other group they encountered, encountered every other culture in the world and warred with them, slaughtered them, attempted genocide against them, attempted to replace the native culture with their own cultures, spread slavery and mysogyny, stripped the land of resources rather than living in balance with the land, and claimed they did it all in the name of their god. Any guess which culture that was. Europeans spread across the world like a virus. And like a virus they didn't care if they brought death or illness with them because other people were just another resource.

Not only is this is an incredibly bitter diatribe, it is full of blatant falsehoods. I'm not going to dissect this part by part, but, for example, they spread slavery and mysogyny? WHAT? This was unexistent in other parts of the world? This simply smacks of a narrow-minded, irrational and hypocritical hatred towards all things European. If anything is racist, it's this paragraph, but I somehow doubt you'll be catching much flak for it - hell, you're probably white yourself. Right?

There is nothing superior about European culture. Modern culture is a result of advantage, more a result of encountering other cultures and parasiting off them, then of some natural superiority that racists want to claim. If not for encountering these "backward" cultures and stealing their resources and committing genocide we'd be lucky to still exist let alone ruling the globe. Now I don't think the culture that relied on genocide to survive is the superior culture, but perhaps that's because I'm applying. I'm silly like that.

I'm a bit baffled at how you first rag on 'racists' for claiming European superiority and then saying Europeans would 'be lucky to exist' if it wasn't for stealing resources and committing genocide. Seriously - do you not even notice the incredible hypocrisy in that?

Yet countries such as Malaysia or India are starting to become prosperous.

Starting to? Hmmm... I wonder why you say "starting to". Could it be because when we left then were utterly destitute.

Go to India, and ask young people what they think of the English - there is no bitterness left, no resentment, and it is acknowledged that they owe their former colonial rulers for a lot of the still existing infrastructure - my Sikh friend who immigrated to Delhi literally told me.

Your friend told you. The common racist argument, one equals all. You do realize there is a class structure in India, no? Your sikh friend hardly represents all people. If he lived in Delhi and came to where you are, he was likely not a part of the class that is basically slaves.


But they don't go as far as to want colonialism back - as opposed to quite a few Africans. That would be a bit of a strange reaction for Africans if they thought the root cause of most their misery was colonialism, but hey.

Ha. Quite a few Africans wish to be oppressed again. Source?


Not only is this is an incredibly bitter diatribe, it is full of blatant falsehoods. I'm not going to dissect this part by part, but, for example, they spread slavery and mysogyny? WHAT? This was unexistent in other parts of the world? This simply smacks of a narrow-minded, irrational and hypocritical hatred towards all things European. If anything is racist, it's this paragraph, but I somehow doubt you'll be catching much flak for it - hell, you're probably white yourself. Right?

I didn't say it was unexistant. I'm saying they spread it, that it was a part of the European culture. The "superior" culture, you're touting. I love how if I ignore all of the good things about European culture and don't tout it as superior then I'm espousing "narrow-minded, irrational and hypocritical hatred" but when you literally say that all of Africa's culture is "extremely backwards" that doesn't smack of absurdity to you. Hilarious. You literally point out the problem with your argument and then complain about it.

I chose that argument because it does intentionally look at only the bad parts of European culture, which there is a plethora of and shows that if one chooses a particular bias, all cultures will look backwards. Thank you for proving how hateful such behavior is. I hope you'll learn from this.


I'm a bit baffled at how you first rag on 'racists' for claiming European superiority and then saying Europeans would 'be lucky to exist' if it wasn't for stealing resources and committing genocide. Seriously - do you not even notice the incredible hypocrisy in that?

Yes, I notice it. I was paralleling your argument. I was pointing out exactly how hateful and irrational it is. Thank you for accepting it as valid. I expect you'll do better in the future.

Then why are southern white racists generally affluent and blacks not?

That's just not true. Most white southerners are dirt poor.

The reason no one in Africa has any money is very related to Colonialism. The problems in Sudan, for example, are completely related to colonialism. Or do you claim because they aren't colonies now, it must not have a relationship.

Yes, because before colonialism, sub Saharan africa was all BMWs and mansions.

There really is a good case that it was better off during the colonial period.

Oh please, here we go with the 'they were stripped of their resources' again.

1) As far as I know there are plenty of resources left in Africa. The true 'evil legacy' left by European colonialism has been crumbling for decades; roads, hospitals, railways,...
2) The notion that the 'success' of a nation is mostly a consequence of its resources and environment is ludicrous. Japan is a mountainous country regularly rocked by natural disasters and with little resources, yet they have become one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Dito for Australia, Iceland etc. which have unhospitable environments yet prosper. A nation is built by its people.

They are successful because we destroyed them and basically gave them technology and support until they were successful. Hardly comparable to Africa where we destroyed them and then left.

Australia, Iceland, etc., Europeans are still on every one of those continents ruling.






A valid argument. Probably there would be less civil wars without the boundaries left by European powers. But it has little do with Africa's numerous other problems, as peaceful countries aren't exactly wealthy states either.

Based on what? Your rather spurious claims. These wars were created by Europeans because we utterly ruined that continent.


I'm no expert on Sudan, but where do you get this? As far as I know the conflict in Darfur, between Khartoum-based Africans who have adopted a lot of Arab culture and have some Arab blood, and a rival group in the Darfur and parts of Chad is just inter-ethnic rivalry which has little to do with Sudan's colonial history. Same for its North-South, Islamic-Christian/Animist rift.

You should do a little research. Europeans created two "races" where none existed, used one to oppress the other, and the left with the oppressed one in charge and ready to exact vengeance.


...because Africans wanted them to.

Yes, people don't like to be oppressed. Funny how that works.


Countries that have never been colonised, such as Ethiopia or Liberia, are not much (in fact, not at all) better off than other African countries, so that blows that argument out of the water.

You think they escaped the damaged of the White conquering of that continent? Really?

The attempts to blame Africa's problems on European intervention annoy me to no end. Europeans have committed a lot of atrocities in Africa, and their racist rule was often oppressive towards the indigenous population. But they also developed infrastructure, improved education and introduced order, a central administration and a lingua franca. In the end though, I think none of this matters - Africans themselves are responsible for the current sorry state Africa is in, and it is up to them to change it. To claim otherwise is to distort reality to fit your own preferred view.

Of course they annoy you, because it requires you to accept that other cultures aren't inferior. These people were plenty prosperous until Europeans treated them like pets and livestock.

I love how pissed off racists get when you use the same methodology they use to talk about inferior cultures to prove that Europeans are inferior. The best part is that you called it hypocrisy becausse you recognize your own methodology but then continue to prove exactly why said methodology is ludicrous. Amusing, to say the least.

Yes, because before colonialism, sub Saharan africa was all BMWs and mansions.

There really is a good case that it was better off during the colonial period.

Yes, because if it wasn't then it MUST have been worse off. What a brilliant argument? There really is a good case that they were better off without colonialism, mostly if you're a fan of freedom and equality. I am. I'm silly like that.

Yes, because if it wasn't then it MUST have been worse off. What a brilliant argument? There really is a good case that they were better off without colonialism, mostly if you're a fan of freedom and equality. I am. I'm silly like that.

I don't think you'll find a person that has more sympathy about the plight of sub saharan africa than me. I'm just a realist about it, is all. The post colonial era has led to a whole subset of 'well intentioned' meddling that has actually made things worse than when most african countries were colonies. At least then, they were protected by first world powers. These days, they are totally fucked.

A few comments:
1. India's caste system is virtually gone. Do note that their current (or maybe not current, but recently they had one) President (or maybe Prime Minister, I forget the exact title) was a female who, if Hinduism hadn't started abolishing the caste system around 1900 (largely due to British pressure and people like western-educated humanitarian-minded heros like Gandhi) would be an Untouchable.

2. It is undeniable that European nations (especially Belgium) did truly terrible things in Africa. It's a reality that cannot be escaped. France and Belgium were probably the worst, but Britain wasn't guiltless. But, economically speaking, colonial periods (and early post-colonial periods) were Africa's best times since, oh.... 1300. Africa had always been a place of widespread tribal feuding, short-lived kingdoms under charismatic military chieftains, and mixing of various religions into nationalistic pseudo-cultic religions. Forgive me if I sound "racist" (though how one can be racist without even discussing race, merely economics and geography, baffles me...).

3. African Americans have it great. They get special scholarships that don't require as good of test scores, they get job preferences due to affirmative action type initiatives, and they get all sorts of special notice. My school even has a Black History Club! We tried to start an Irish Heritage Club but got told it was "raciallyu descriminating against minorities". Apparently the Irish never struggled against oppression, and were never marginalized?

4. Do remember, slavery existed in Africa long before colonial periods. In fact, it was already pandemic across Africa and the Middle East. Islam tended to view slavery as sort of... step #1 to conversion for POWs, and it gradually just become the norm. Also remember that Islamic countries had a history of kidnapping hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of young Christian males to be raised as a slave-military. The West did not invent slavery.

5. Two words: Sokoto Caliphate. After England made the slave trade illegal (hey, is England a Western nation? I think it is...) the interior Africa didn't stop trading slaves (no, the number remained roughly constant). They traded them inland, largely to the Sokoto Caliphate. Remember, this is before Europeans have even gotten the idea yet, "Hey, lets colonize Africa!" This is when Africa is totally independent and, honestly, has some degree of power. Not on the scale of Europe or the Middle East or China, but certainly some.

I'm not trying to say that Western society is some bringer of goodness and virtue or anything like that. My point is that to try and characterize any people group or culture's history in any kind of modern political terms is rather foolhardy due to the fact that every culture is guilty of almost identical crimes. Naturally, there are some exceptions.

Oh, also, look up the African Union. They seem to have a problem with money given by the EU (woah... do I see big-bad-westernized-Europe HELPING Africa?) vanishing into thin air, thus their troops go unpaid.

Yeah, and that's a better example. I was just saying your example sucked since it was actually a big deal because it's never happened before. If all was equal coaches would represent fairly similar to the percentages of players, not the percentages of the general population, and that they don't. However, since coaches tend to lag WAY behind the play (meaning that it's long after you play that you coach in the NFL) it would be appropriate that they match the distribution of ten years ago.

True, good for Tony Dungy regardless. :D


Across the board, you see a disproportionate number of white people signing the checks, both in and out of sports.

Yeah. The only black NFL owner is Al Davis. His soul is a vacuum void of all morals, honor, and color. Also why I love him.

3. African Americans have it great. They get special scholarships that don't require as good of test scores, they get job preferences due to affirmative action type initiatives, and they get all sorts of special notice. My school even has a Black History Club! We tried to start an Irish Heritage Club but got told it was "raciallyu descriminating against minorities". Apparently the Irish never struggled against oppression, and were never marginalized?

I'd rather have sound economic and social status than an after school club and a 500$ scholarship. :rolleyes:

4. Do remember, slavery existed in Africa long before colonial periods. In fact, it was already pandemic across Africa and the Middle East. Islam tended to view slavery as sort of... step #1 to conversion for POWs, and it gradually just become the norm. Also remember that Islamic countries had a history of kidnapping hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of young Christian males to be raised as a slave-military. The West did not invent slavery.

Wow way not to include Rome, Greece, and any other western culture that started it long before Islam was even created!

Blah blah European culture...

Mongolians spread across the world and subdued people from Beijing to Baghdad - it's not isolated to Europeans.

Europeans were simply the first to acquire industrial technology that required the sourcing of minerals and resources rather than just people, as well as the means to do them.

And the particular type of religion observed by Europe meant that Europeans looked to establish their culture over subdued nations - Christianity has more to answer for than European culture.

There's no superiority/inferiority discussion to be made, you simply need to stand on the shoulders of history.

WOW. I disagree with the original post to the most absolute degree possible. Membership in basketball teams is hardly the marker for equality or advantage.

A short list of ways blacks are disadvantaged in America:

HEALTH: In countless studies, blacks have higher mortality and worse health outcomes than their white counterparts in so many disease I'm not even going to name them all. Blacks are much less likely to have health insurance than Whites. So for example, while White women have higher incidences of breast cancer, guess who dies more often of breast cancer? Thats right. BLACK women. Now I think DEATH is a pretty good marker of being disadvantaged...and Blacks DIE more and have a lower life expectancy.

POVERTY: Disproportionate amount of Blacks are under the poverty line. This has tons of implications...going back to health...yes, as would be logical, poorer people die more frequently and at younger ages. Also related, guess what's usually true about living in a poor neighborhood? Your public schools SUCK...you receive a much poorer education, have fewer opportunities in life, and are more likely to go to jail. Also related...Blacks are again, overrepresented in jails.

STEREOTYPES: Ever hear of the "double consciousness" in DuBois's work? Can you imagine what it's like knowing that people will make judgments about your entire race based on your actions? Knowing that even before you open your mouth, people already have negative preconceived ideas about you? Every minority has their stories of discrimination and being called racial slurs and having their pride injured by ignorant racists.

//rant.

Blacks make up the bulk of professional athletes in many sports because they are, on average, much better at them.
:p Riiight, and whites are smarter "on-avarage", and that's why they run everything. :rolleyes:

So basically Wilgrove and PE's arguments boil down to "Blacks aren't being discriminated against because they have opportunities for college-level education and financial success through athletics or the military." Never mind that those two avenues disproportionately draws heavily upon minorities for their recruitment pool, and both could be considered indentured servitude.

Starting to? Hmmm... I wonder why you say "starting to". Could it be because when we left then were utterly destitute.

I'm not sure I'm following your point - so they wouldn't have been destitute if they hadn't been colonised? Yes, we all know how good countries like Liberia, Ethiopia, Afghanistan and Thailand were doing in the sixties.

Your friend told you. The common racist argument, one equals all. You do realize there is a class structure in India, no? Your sikh friend hardly represents all people. If he lived in Delhi and came to where you are, he was likely not a part of the class that is basically slaves.

Of course I know there's a caste system. My friend, being Sikh, is not part of that though. He is middle class I suppose. Oh, and please, no straw man arguments.

Now why are you dragging in India's massive underclass anyway? The British never had much love for the caste system. The Indian Rebellion of 1857 was instigated by the old aristocracy who felt their power eroding and felt threatened by alleged attempts to convert them to Christianity, doing away with the caste system. British colonialism directly led to the creation of a centralised, (nominally) secular Indian state where caste had (again, nominally) lost most of its meaning. Why would they, of all people, be opposed to the British?

Ha. Quite a few Africans wish to be oppressed again. Source?

From the Sierra Leonean perspective, the British are the most respected of all the key players in the country. The UN is regarded with contempt as a result of their collapse in May 2000 and their refusal to fight the RUF even though the mandate specifically allowed for this. The Nigerians are somewhat appreciated due to their willingness to shoot at the RUF when necessary, but at the same time they are derided for their lack of discipline and their involvement in diamond smuggling. But the British are a different story altogether and many Sierra Leoneans openly call for ‘recolonisation’.

Revealed through a quick Google search. My point is, not even all Africans themselves are buying into your 'white devils are the cause of all of Africa's problems!' bullshit.

NOT that I'm defending colonialism anyway. I would have to be crazy to do that as a European; it will be the cause of France and England's eventual demise. Already their major cities are for a large part basically Third World slums thanks to their former colonial subjects. And either way, I think it is fundamentally wrong to oppress people in their own nations. I'm 100 % opposed to colonialism.

I'm merely resisting the artificial guilt people like you would like us to feel. As I've said, objectively speaking colonialism undeniably had its positive sides too.

I didn't say it was unexistant. I'm saying they spread it, that it was a part of the European culture. The "superior" culture, you're touting.

So my statement that African culture is backwards is equal to your lengthy rant about why Europeans, and Europeans alone, are like a dirty evil virus. Right. You know full well that if I had said something even remotely similar about Africans, no matter what excuse I had, I would have been lynched for being an evil baby-killing Nazi racist, not in the least by you.

Not only that, but most of what you said was just plain wrong or distorted over-emotional nonsense, for example the mysogyny or Europeans being 'dirty'. Stick to the facts - that's bad enough. I never said colonial history was pretty.

I chose that argument because it does intentionally look at only the bad parts of European culture, which there is a plethora of and shows that if one chooses a particular bias, all cultures will look backwards. Thank you for proving how hateful such behavior is. I hope you'll learn from this.

Yes, and choosing my particular bias, I proclaim African culture to be backwards because it has produced Africa. I don't see how you can argue with that. What, that's because it's biased? Well then, what's wrong with Europeans enslaving half the world? It's just part of European culture, right? You can't have it both ways.

A few comments:

I fully concur.

EDIT: double post

Australia, Iceland, etc., Europeans are still on every one of those continents ruling.

Yes...my point exactly. Well, except that Iceland isn't a continent.

Based on what? Your rather spurious claims. These wars were created by Europeans because we utterly ruined that continent.[/quote$

Groundless claim. Now war was created by Europeans? Sigh.

[quote]You should do a little research. Europeans created two "races" where none existed, used one to oppress the other, and the left with the oppressed one in charge and ready to exact vengeance.

Elaborate please.

You think they escaped the damaged of the White conquering of that continent? Really?

And you continue to lay the blame of Africa's current sorry state on European (not White) colonialism, even with countries that have never been colonised. Don't you see how one-sided and short-sighted, not to say plain wrong, your argument is, especially when other former colonies, are doing relatively well? Why do I even bother? You are so completely convinced of your own flawed black-and-white world view.

Of course they annoy you, because it requires you to accept that other cultures aren't inferior.

No, they annoy me because they are incredibly simplistic and obviously biased, not to mention ironically degrading to Africans, who are represented as passive, dim-witted perpetual victims.

Of course 'other' cultures aren't inferior. It could well be argued that Japanese culture is superior to Western culture, which is more chaotic. On the other hand, the West stresses individual freedoms to a greater extent, so it could be argued that the West has a superior culture overall, depending on your point of view. And so on.

And African culture is appealing to those who like being gang raped or hacked up by machetes, I guess. Yeah, that's degrading, but I'm not into cultural relativism. For example, cultures where a woman is stoned to death for adultery, such as in parts of the Middle East, are inferior. Period.

These people were plenty prosperous until Europeans treated them like pets and livestock.

No they weren't. They just lived typically primitive pre-industrial lifestyles, but like the rest of the world, have since been sucked into the modern world, with Africans unfortunately failing miserably at building stable, prosperous nation-states since the end of colonialism.

I love how pissed off racists get when you use the same methodology they use to talk about inferior cultures to prove that Europeans are inferior. The best part is that you called it hypocrisy becausse you recognize your own methodology but then continue to prove exactly why said methodology is ludicrous. Amusing, to say the least.

You didn't say European culture was inferior - you said Europeans were evil. If anything by simultaneously saying that Europeans were truly horrific and they managed to conquer most of the world, you're implying that it is, in at least some ways, superior.

I'm not trying to say that Western society is some bringer of goodness and virtue or anything like that. My point is that to try and characterize any people group or culture's history in any kind of modern political terms is rather foolhardy due to the fact that every culture is guilty of almost identical crimes. Naturally, there are some exceptions.

That's exactly the point. I notice that the racists get all up in flames whenever you say anything bad about western culture or what Europeans did during colonialism. In fact, they called me racist for saying so. Yet, when you ignore the good and focus on the bad in Africa, it's just "exploring their backwards culture".

A couple of things - talking about economies prior to colonialism is silly. For example, some Native Americans had virtually no economies and they lived much better, in my opinion, than many do today. When you don't have money or a system that requires money, why would your production or such things matter?

Your statements about black people in America is nonsensical. I'll tell you what. How about we give white people the scholarships but they have to give up every job as CEO. They can't be president for another 200 years or a member of any government agency for 175 years, can't vote for 100 years or so. They have to give up all of their money. I know we're talking the present, but blacks in America started with no power and no money, when both have legacies and still today as a result you find a wide disproportion of blacks in a position of poverty and lacking education. You find a wide disproportion of blacks without access to financially powerful positions.

After about 200 years of that, we'll give white special educational opportunities. Then we can talk about how great they have it.

I'm not sure I'm following your point - so they wouldn't have been destitute if they hadn't been colonised? Yes, we all know how good countries like Liberia, Ethiopia, Afghanistan and Thailand were doing in the sixties.

You do realize that militaristic colonozation is not the only kind.


Of course I know there's a caste system. My friend, being Sikh, is not part of that though. He is middle class I suppose. Oh, and please, no straw man arguments.

Amusing. So you didn't say "my friend said this and he's Indian so therefore India doesn't have these problems". Oh, wait, you did. Keep it up. It truly helps your position. If you're trying to make racism look silly that is.



Now why are you dragging in India's massive underclass anyway? The British never had much love for the caste system. The Indian Rebellion of 1857 was instigated by the old aristocracy who felt their power eroding and felt threatened by alleged attempts to convert them to Christianity, doing away with the caste system. British colonialism directly led to the creation of a centralised, (nominally) secular Indian state where caste had (again, nominally) lost most of its meaning. Why would they, of all people, be opposed to the British?

Oh, I see, so you don't wish to examine the facts, just what your friend said. I see. Let's have a discussion about what your friend said. Yeah, that will be useful.

British colonialism disrupted the flow of India's history. Talking about India as if it benefitted from being enslaved and mistreated is absurd. You wish to pretend that without it they would be worse off, but the mere suggestion of such a thing about Europe and you were practically foaming at the mouth. I wonder if you recognize what i'm going for here.




Revealed through a quick Google search. My point is, not even all Africans themselves are buying into your 'white devils are the cause of all of Africa's problems!' bullshit.

That's not what I said. I said that colonialism cannot be seperated from their problems. I wonder if "all africans are buying into their backwards culture ar the cause of all their problems" bullshit. I mean, since we're going on opinion and all. See how easy it is to defeat racists on their turf. When we're talking about any other culture you want to ignore everything that doesn't support your point, but you want to bring those things back in when we're discuss Europeans. Convenient, no?



NOT that I'm defending colonialism anyway. I would have to be crazy to do that as a European; it will be the cause of France and England's eventual demise. Already their major cities are for a large part basically Third World slums thanks to their former colonial subjects. And either way, I think it is fundamentally wrong to oppress people in their own nations. I'm 100 % opposed to colonialism.

Ha. Amusing. I love racists. Do you realize that prior to colonialism Europe was becoming subject to poverty, rampant plagues, and famine, all caused by overpopulation. Europe had to export 100,000's of people until their technology caught up with their population. I find it interesting how racists can only make their argument by ignoring all of one side and complaing about the other. I know that resembles logic to you, but forgive me if I see through that.


I'm merely resisting the artificial guilt people like you would like us to feel. As I've said, objectively speaking colonialism undeniably had its positive sides too.

We're not talking about the positive sides. Racists want to focus on the bad stuff, like calling Africa backwards. You want to seperate out the effects of colonialism to pretend like history didn't happen. I don't feel guilty, mostly because I'm not stupid enough to defend the violent and absurd history of Europe.




So my statement that African culture is backwards is equal to your lengthy rant about why Europeans, and Europeans alone, are like a dirty evil virus. Right. You know full well that if I had said something even remotely similar about Africans, no matter what excuse I had, I would have been lynched for being an evil baby-killing Nazi racist, not in the least by you.

It would be racist. So was my post. That was the point. I find it amusing that you're dripping foam when I say it about Europeans using your same faulty logic. You call it racist and complain. However, when you're doing it to Africa, it's perfectly okay. I love that you've exposed your own tactics as racist. Thanks for playing.




Not only that, but most of what you said was just plain wrong or distorted over-emotional nonsense, for example the mysogyny or Europeans being 'dirty'. Stick to the facts - that's bad enough. I never said colonial history was pretty.

I was paralleling you. Thank you for pointing out what was wrong with your claims. No, you said that Africa's problems are caused solely by their "completely backwards culture." I notice you don't like it when the same fallacies are applied to white people. Hmmm... I wonder why.


Yes, and choosing my particular bias, I proclaim African culture to be backwards because it has produced Africa. I don't see how you can argue with that. What, that's because it's biased? Well then, what's wrong with Europeans enslaving half the world? It's just part of European culture, right? You can't have it both ways.

I don't want it either way. That's the point. Amusingly, you claim I can't have it both ways, but you complained when I did exactly what you did. The logic trained stopped way before you ever started your racist argument.

Anyone else notice how racists don't want to discuss "white" culture the same way they discuss "black" culture, because it won't stand up. Aw, it's too bad that you don't want the same nonsensical fallacies applied to european culture. The fact that you don't exposes exactly what is wrong with your argument.

I fully concur.

What? The racists agree with one another. I'm shocked. Again, I love how important it is that people not focus on the problems of Europe, but doing the exact same thing to Africa is fair. I love how often blacks must be lumped together as if they are one homogenous culture, but doing so with "white" culture is fallacious. The fun thing about racists is to show what's wrong with their argument you just have to flip against white people and they'll TELL you exacly how fallacious such an argument is. never change, my friends.

Yes...my point exactly. Well, except that Iceland isn't a continent.

Your point. I'm not sure you have one.


Groundless claim. Now war was created by Europeans? Sigh.

Thank you for demonstrating what a strawman is. I didn't say they created war. I said they created those wars.



Elaborate please.

So you don't understand but you're perfectly to wax nostalgic to colonialism and pretend the problems in Africa have nothing to do with colonialism. Admitted ignorance to what you're discussing is generally not a good argument.


And you continue to lay the blame of Africa's current sorry state on European (not White) colonialism, even with countries that have never been colonised. Don't you see how one-sided and short-sighted, not to say plain wrong, your argument is, especially when other former colonies, are doing relatively well? Why do I even bother? You are so completely convinced of your own flawed black-and-white world view.

I continue to accept Europe's role in the current state of Africa. Something racists wish to ignore. And yes, I see how one-side and short-sighted my argument is. I copied it from your argument. I did it on purpose. If only this would teach how exactly flawed your argument is, but it won't. We both know that. You don't recognize how similar this is to your argument, even after you've stated it repeatedly.


No, they annoy me because they are incredibly simplistic and obviously biased, not to mention ironically degrading to Africans, who are represented as passive, dim-witted perpetual victims.

Yes, I'm sure that's your problem with. I'm sure calling them completely backwards is much less degrading.


Of course 'other' cultures aren't inferior. It could well be argued that Japanese culture is superior to Western culture, which is more chaotic. On the other hand, the West stresses individual freedoms to a greater extent, so it could be argued that the West has a superior culture overall, depending on your point of view. And so on.

And African culture is appealing to those who like being gang raped or hacked up by machetes, I guess. Yeah, that's degrading, but I'm not into cultural relativism. For example, cultures where a woman is stoned to death for adultery, such as in parts of the Middle East, are inferior. Period.

Amusing. I love how you want us only to focus on the negatives in certain cultures but you explode if we do the same to european culture. I can't think of a better way to demonstrate just how nonsensical your claims are than getting you to complain when people do it to Europe. Again, thanks for playing, you've been very helpful to destroying the fallacies of racist arguments.





No they weren't. They just lived typically primitive pre-industrial lifestyles, but like the rest of the world, have since been sucked into the modern world, with Africans unfortunately failing miserably at building stable, prosperous nation-states since the end of colonialism.

How were they sucked into the modern world? Could it possibly be imperialism? Or are we still in denial about that?





You didn't say European culture was inferior - you said Europeans were evil. If anything by simultaneously saying that Europeans were truly horrific and they managed to conquer most of the world, you're implying that it is, in at least some ways, superior.

I said it was evil? Really? Please quote me or admit you're lying.

I wouldn't call a complete disdain for human life and being so dirty that everywhere you arrived disease spread like wildfire and decimated opposing armies superior in some ways. See, if we're allowed to make racist arguments I can do this all day.

That's exactly the point. I notice that the racists get all up in flames whenever you say anything bad about western culture or what Europeans did during colonialism. In fact, they called me racist for saying so.

I did not get 'up in flames'. There you go again with the straw man arguments - I never denied Western culture has negative aspects or that Europeans have done nothing wrong during its colonial history. I was simply showing that your representation of colonialism, and especially its consequences is one-sided, misleading and nonsensical.

I also didn't call you racist. I said, if you applied the same standards to your rant and to people of European descent, what you said should be considered ten times as racist than anything I've said in this thread.

Yet, when you ignore the good and focus on the bad in Africa, it's just "exploring their backwards culture".

Seriously now - what good is there about African culture?

EDIT: double

Seriously now - what good is there about African culture?

Cradle of humanity, baby. Like it or not, you got some of that in ya...really if you get right down to it, when you talk about 'racial purity' or whatever, it's crackers that are the mutants...

Not that you were talking about racial purity, it just occurred to me is all...

I did not get 'up in flames'. There you go again with the straw man arguments - I never denied Western culture has negative aspects or that Europeans have done nothing wrong during its colonial history. I was simply showing that your representation of colonialism, and especially its consequences is one-sided, misleading and nonsensical.

I also didn't call you racist. I said, if you applied the same standards to your rant and to people of European descent, what you said should be considered ten times as racist than anything I've said in this thread.

You should stop using that word. I don't think you know what it means. Strawman means I claimed you made an argument you didn't or argued against an argument no one made. Whether or not you agree that you were "up in flames" many were. You were clearly upset and said so several times.

You said that employing the same fallacies as you would be considered racist, that it would be considered nonsensical, that it would be one-sided, that it would be biased, etc. Amusingly, it was modeled after your argument. It's ten-times as racist to focus on the negatives of Europeans than to say "What good is there about African culture" and "Muslim culture is inferior. Period."? Amusing. Don't worry. I'm not the only one who noticed the ridiculousness of such statements.

Seriously now - what good is there about African culture?

Yes, yes, nothing racist about that.

Let's see the cradle of civilization. African cultures such as the Egyptians made enourmous contributions to current human knowledge. Africans discovered the world was round several hundred years after Columbus was expeccted to sail off the world. Africans taught Europeans much about oceanic travel when they arrived in Africa and were trading with Asia and India long before Europe. The standard we use for our money, gold, was a resource we got in vast quantities from Africa. The contributions of Africa to Europe is a major reason western nations have the power they do today.

Meanwhile, prior to colonialization and the slave trade Europe and Africa generally viewed each other as equals. But hey, colonization has nothing to do with the situation their in. It's simply coincidence that the origin of the view you espouse of Africa began with colonization and that their large contributions to the world pretty much ended when Europeans took them over.

But, hey, let's ignore all that. It's very important that we not be "one-sided" after all, no?

You do realize that militaristic colonozation is not the only kind.

So they were somehow kept backwards by 'economic colonisation'? Right. You simply have no proof whatsoever that colonialism is largely responsible for the state Africa and other LDC's are in. You just don't want your convenient and simplistic world view to be disturbed.

Amusing. So you didn't say "my friend said this and he's Indian so therefore India doesn't have these problems". Oh, wait, you did. Keep it up. It truly helps your position. If you're trying to make racism look silly that is.

Who's talking about India's problems? Are you having trouble keeping up? I was merely stating that plenty of former colonial subjects feel no resentment towards their former oppressors and acknowledge not only the negative effects of their rule but also the positive ones. I'm more inclined to listen to them than some patronising white girl who thinks she's got it all figured out.

Oh, I see, so you don't wish to examine the facts, just what your friend said. I see. Let's have a discussion about what your friend said. Yeah, that will be useful.

British colonialism disrupted the flow of India's history. Talking about India as if it benefitted from being enslaved and mistreated is absurd. You wish to pretend that without it they would be worse off, but the mere suggestion of such a thing about Europe and you were practically foaming at the mouth. I wonder if you recognize what i'm going for here.

What? That's not even a response to what I quoted. Next time you try to change the subject because your argument was disproven, be more subtle. Oh, and I'm going to say it once more: please stop putting words in my mouth.

Also one more time: I do not condone, let alone support colonialism and I do not think India or any other country would have been (significantly) worse off without colonialism. That's my entire point. Colonialism, for some nations, has just become a convenient way for some nations to blame their own failings while I believe it has actually had a negligible influence on any nation's development.

That's not what I said. I said that colonialism cannot be seperated from their problems. I wonder if "all africans are buying into their backwards culture ar the cause of all their problems" bullshit. I mean, since we're going on opinion and all. See how easy it is to defeat racists on their turf.

Could you please stop doing this? 'I love how racists', 'the racists' etc. etc. Whatever group you arbirtrarily decide I belong to or not, these remarks really are quite irrelevant to the discussion. It makes for a rather childish discussion technique.

When we're talking about any other culture you want to ignore everything that doesn't support your point, but you want to bring those things back in when we're discuss Europeans. Convenient, no?

How can I be ignoring everything that doesn't support my point? You haven't brought anything up!

Ha. Amusing. I love racists.

And here we go again.

Do you realize that prior to colonialism Europe was becoming subject to poverty, rampant plagues, and famine, all caused by overpopulation. Europe had to export 100,000's of people until their technology caught up with their population.

You're exaggerating, but of course I do. Those are the stages of industrialisation several developing countries have gone through in the past, which were brought on by contact with European powers rather than colonialism in itself. Colonised or not, China, India, Japan, Malaysia, Indonesia...etc. have or are going through its final stages. Some nations, particularly Japan, Taiwan and South Korea and now countries China, Vietnam, Malaysia and to a lesser extent, India are evolving towards wealthy, stable states the way European nations have done.

And then there are the nations that seem to make little progress at all, which seem to be mostly situated in Africa, African offshoot populations in the New World and Latin American nations with an Amerindian majority.

I find it interesting how racists can only make their argument by ignoring all of one side and complaing about the other. I know that resembles logic to you, but forgive me if I see through that.

Oh please - I could say the same about you. Be more concrete. Even better, how about you start debating the issue at hand?

We're not talking about the positive sides. Racists want to focus on the bad stuff, like calling Africa backwards. You want to separate out the effects of colonialism to pretend like history didn't happen.

You were talking about how Europeans destroyed Africa before I ever said anything, so way to reverse the roles there. You were focusing on the negative sides of colonialism while exaggerating its consequences to a downright absurd extent.

It would be racist. So was my post. That was the point. I find it amusing that you're dripping foam when I say it about Europeans using your same faulty logic. You call it racist and complain. However, when you're doing it to Africa, it's perfectly okay. I love that you've exposed your own tactics as racist. Thanks for playing.

I was paralleling you. Thank you for pointing out what was wrong with your claims. No, you said that Africa's problems are caused solely by their "completely backwards culture." I notice you don't like it when the same fallacies are applied to white people. Hmmm... I wonder why.

I don't want it either way. That's the point. Amusingly, you claim I can't have it both ways, but you complained when I did exactly what you did. The logic trained stopped way before you ever started your racist argument.

Anyone else notice how racists don't want to discuss "white" culture the same way they discuss "black" culture, because it won't stand up. Aw, it's too bad that you don't want the same nonsensical fallacies applied to european culture. The fact that you don't exposes exactly what is wrong with your argument.

You haven't applied any fallacies to European culture, nonsensical or otherwise. I never even said that everything in your rant was incorrect - however, most of it was untrue, or a biased distortion. Still, maybe you have a point when you say they did bring destruction to the rest of the world.

I still find it strange that you equate a lengthy and very specific rant about Europeans to a general remark about African culture being backwards. You have still failed to account for this. I suspect that you meant every word you said, and you came up with this masturbatory 'expose the hypocritical racist' thing afterwards. Try again.

Either way, African culture being backwards is a simple fact. At least to me - once again, because it has produced Africa. I never said it was the sole cause, but it is obviously the main cause.

What? The racists agree with one another.

Here you show your true colours. I am a racist in the sense that I believe evolution has produced substantial differences in many areas between different human subraces, but what the guy I quoted said was simply the truth and there was nothing 'racist' about it, not even according to your hypersensitive definition.

Here you show your true colours. I am a racist in the sense that I believe evolution has produced substantial differences in many areas between different human subraces, but what the guy I quoted said was simply the truth and there was nothing 'racist' about it, not even according to your hypersensitive definition.

Uh-huh. Except he was of course showing a "one-sided, short-sighted" view. But, hey, who expects consistency from you at this point. That would be ignoring the evidence provided thus far in the argument.

His position on blacks in America for example was incredibly one-sided, not coincidentally so. I agreed with some of what he said, but one can't agree with all of what he said and complain about my review of European culture without being both a hypocrite and inconsistent.

You should stop using that word. I don't think you know what it means. Strawman means I claimed you made an argument you didn't or argued against an argument no one made. Whether or not you agree that you were "up in flames" many were. You were clearly upset and said so several times.

I know full well, and it's almost literally all you've been doing in this thread. I figured even you would admit to that, but hey. I've come to the conclusion that you're not exactly a reasonable person.

You said that employing the same fallacies as you would be considered racist, that it would be considered nonsensical, that it would be one-sided, that it would be biased, etc. Amusingly, it was modeled after your argument. It's ten-times as racist to focus on the negatives of Europeans than to say "What good is there about African culture"[/quote $


Well, I'm pretty sure you meant what you said but anyway, I said that if you employed the same standards as you did for things pertaining Africans it would be considered racist by you. And that's true.

Either way, way to reverse the roles like that. You spout a probably fully meant rant about Europeans and then jump on it when I react, using flawed logic to claim that my argument has no basis. You're the one at fault, not me.

I simply resent the fact that this has now devolved into a discussion about my alleged hypocrisy as one of those infernal racists and not about the thing we are supposed to be debating. Maybe Al Gore keeps his airconditioning on all the time, but that doesn't make his point about global warming any less true.

"Muslim culture is inferior. Period."?

So now you're equating 'the culture in certain areas in the ME' to 'muslim culture'? I'd point out your hypocrisy, but I'm getting pretty tired and I'm fairly sure it wouldn't sink in anyway. Talking to you is like talking to a rather selective and bitchy brick wall.

Amusing. Don't worry. I'm not the only one who noticed the ridiculousness of such statements.

Yeah, this is the pubescent and condescending stuff I'm talkin' about.

African cultures such as the Egyptians made enourmous contributions to current human knowledge.

Like you don't know that by Africa, people mean Sub-Saharan Africa and by Africans, they mean the Bantus and black East-African ethnicities. Before you start, not my definition but general usage. To claim the Egyptians as an African culture is to display a stunning lack of knowledge and, more likely, a willlingness to distort the facts to fit their own views.

Africans discovered the world was round several hundred years after Columbus was expeccted to sail off the world.

The idea that most Europeans before Columbus thought the earth was flat is a misconception that originated in the 19th century. So I'm not denying it, but I would still like to see a source for your claim.

Africans taught Europeans much about oceanic travel

Source?

were trading with Asia and India long before Europe.

Yeah, the Arabs got quite a head start when it came to slavery.

The standard we use for our money, gold, was a resource we got in vast quantities from Africa.

And this proves the worth of African culture how...? Growing desperate, are we?

The contributions of Africa to Europe is a major reason western nations have the power they do today.

Nonsense. The only valid argument in that direction would be that resources obtained in Africa fuelled certain sectors of the European economy. Still not sure how that validates African culture.

Meanwhile, prior to colonialization and the slave trade Europe and Africa generally viewed each other as equals.

Where do you get this stuff? Before the Portuguese explorations at the end of the 15th century barely anyone in Europe had ever seen a black African, and when they did, most of them didn't really consider them human.

Conversely, by the heyday of African colonialism, 1870-1914, slavery had been abolished by almost every Western power (but not the Arabs).

But hey, colonization has nothing to do with the situation their in. It's simply coincidence that the origin of the view you espouse of Africa began with colonization and that their large contributions to the world pretty much ended when Europeans took them over.

It didn't begin with colonisation, it began with European-African contact. Are you unaware that true European colonisation of Africa only lasted from 1870-1960? Before that they only had a couple of forts and coastal trading towns. They only started conquering the interior by 1870. Oh, and by the way - what major contributions are you talking about, just out of curiosity?

It would seem you are the one who needs to do some research.

Uh-huh. Except he was of course showing a "one-sided, short-sighted" view. But, hey, who expects consistency from you at this point. That would be ignoring the evidence provided thus far in the argument.

His position on blacks in America for example was incredibly one-sided, not coincidentally so. I agreed with some of what he said, but one can't agree with all of what he said and complain about my review of European culture without being both a hypocrite and inconsistent.

I haven't read the part about African-Americans, since it doesn't concern me, but from an objective point of view he is much more balanced and reasonable than you are. Re-read his post and see how he concedes on many matters. He is much less arrogantly convinced of the absolute truth of his opinion than you are, or I am for that matter. It simply annoys me how you immediately label anyone who is on the wrong side of your point of view as this or that without any gradations. Once again, the detestable black-white world view surfaces

I love it when racists accuse people of having a narrow perspective. It gives me a chuckle.

Like you don't know that by Africa, people mean Sub-Saharan Africa and by Africans, they mean the Bantus and black East-African ethnicities. Before you start, not my definition but general usage. To claim the Egyptians as an African culture is to display a stunning lack of knowledge and, more likely, a willlingness to distort the facts to fit their own views.


Egypt is in Africa. That is the fact. You are the one trying to hearken to "general usage" as justification for your obvious disdain and bias.

Seriously now - what good is there about African culture?

And this proves the worth of African culture how...? Growing desperate, are we?


Why should anyone need to prove the worth of any culture to you? Especially when I know, and most of us know, that by "culture" you mean "race."

Could you please stop doing this? 'I love how racists', 'the racists' etc. etc. Whatever group you arbirtrarily decide I belong to or not, these remarks really are quite irrelevant to the discussion. It makes for a rather childish discussion technique.

And here we go again.

It's quite relevant, since you're being totally unreasonable and the explanation for that is - wait for it - you're a fucking racist.

It would be childish to ignore facts just to carry on the pretense of debate. There is no debate with your kind. You pop out of nowhere with this new alt, spew your drivel, and you'll go underground again when you feel like recharging for your next batch of racial propagandizing and trolling. You don't deserve to be treated any better than... why, any better than your sort would treat a Jew if you knew you could get away with it.

I have to concur with my colleague Trostia.

Pissing in the wind is occasionally fun, but that's really all that talking to racists is.

Seriously now - what good is there about African culture?

Sigged for beautiful racism.

Either way, African culture being backwards is a simple fact. At least to me - once again, because it has produced Africa. I never said it was the sole cause, but it is obviously the main cause.

1) 'African' culture is not homogenous.

2) A simple fact - to you, might be classed as being not a 'simple fact' ata ll, but an opinion... yes?

3) I live in a culture where the powers-that-be are trying to legislate what can occur 'that side' of a woman's vagina, and regulate who can orgasm with who else... 'backwards' is in the eye of the beholder.

Like you don't know that by Africa, people mean Sub-Saharan Africa and by Africans, they mean the Bantus and black East-African ethnicities. Before you start, not my definition but general usage. To claim the Egyptians as an African culture is to display a stunning lack of knowledge and, more likely, a willlingness to distort the facts to fit their own views.


Hi NH. when talking about africa, most people on this forum would refer to all nations on that continent. Whether ancient egypt, carthage, mali, bantus, zulus, etc...

If you are specifically refering to sub-saharan cultures, say so.
Another example would be saying asia. that does not only refer to orientals or indians. But slavic, turkic, etc... peoples and cultures. People can be quite pendatic about such things here...

3. African Americans have it great. They get special scholarships that don't require as good of test scores, they get job preferences due to affirmative action type initiatives, and they get all sorts of special notice. My school even has a Black History Club! We tried to start an Irish Heritage Club but got told it was "raciallyu descriminating against minorities". Apparently the Irish never struggled against oppression, and were never marginalized?


1. Utter bullshit. Blacks are hugely disadvantaged in America. Check your facts (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12633540&postcount=1).

2. Even assuming your little anecdote about the Irish Heritage Club is true, so what? Tell you what, you can have your club and Blacks can have 96 percent of the CEO positions of the Fortune 1000. Fair?

I fully concur.

I haven't read the part about African-Americans, since it doesn't concern me, but from an objective point of view he is much more balanced and reasonable than you are. Re-read his post and see how he concedes on many matters. He is much less arrogantly convinced of the absolute truth of his opinion than you are, or I am for that matter. It simply annoys me how you immediately label anyone who is on the wrong side of your point of view as this or that without any gradations. Once again, the detestable black-white world view surfaces

Next time, perhaps you shouldn't fully concur with something if you are going to claim that you didn't read it all.



Here you show your true colours. I am a racist in the sense that I believe evolution has produced substantial differences in many areas between different human subraces, but what the guy I quoted said was simply the truth and there was nothing 'racist' about it, not even according to your hypersensitive definition.

In other words, you are a racist in the general sense of the word. You are a racist, period.

Surprise, surprise.

"Hi there. I was reading your post about racism in America and I have to say your argument was not only pathetic but it screamed ignorance. If your a 12 year old kid with racist parents I suppose its not really "your fault" that you dont understand. The percentage of blacks in professional supports in extremely small. Most african americans arent in the NBA....i bet only about .00001% are. And the reason they have a majority in that sport is because it is connected with their culture. Just like you dont see many minority golfers because the sport is expensive to play, you see alot of minority basketball players because it is very economical to play. The truth is that racism is getting better and we have made great progress but as long as a people are kept in poverty they will not have the opportunities other people do. Our school system is based on local taxes. Poor people=bad local schools. bad schools=no college. No college=low paying job. low paying job=poor people. Its a cycle that is hard for anyone (not just blacks) to get out of. It just so happens that minorities are often poor but whites can suffer the same fate."

I sent that to the creator of this thread. Hopefully he will read it. Oh and by the way, is anyone else not suprised that the racist posters on this thread are also the religious ones? Christianity and Racism have walked hand in hand for centuries.

"Hi there. I was reading your post about racism in America and I have to say your argument was not only pathetic but it screamed ignorance. If your a 12 year old kid with racist parents I suppose its not really "your fault" that you dont understand. The percentage of blacks in professional supports in extremely small. Most african americans arent in the NBA....i bet only about .00001% are. And the reason they have a majority in that sport is because it is connected with their culture. Just like you dont see many minority golfers because the sport is expensive to play, you see alot of minority basketball players because it is very economical to play. The truth is that racism is getting better and we have made great progress but as long as a people are kept in poverty they will not have the opportunities other people do. Our school system is based on local taxes. Poor people=bad local schools. bad schools=no college. No college=low paying job. low paying job=poor people. Its a cycle that is hard for anyone (not just blacks) to get out of. It just so happens that minorities are often poor but whites can suffer the same fate."

I sent that to the creator of this thread. Hopefully he will read it. Oh and by the way, is anyone else not suprised that the racist posters on this thread are also the religious ones? Christianity and Racism have walked hand in hand for centuries.

I think you'll find that's not even remotely true in regards to posters. I'm quite religious and I think you'd have a hard time showing me to be racist unless you take my silly, one-sided parallel argument seriously.

It did its job and did it well. It showed that the same people who happily look at only one side of certain cultures to claim they are inferior get pissed when one does the same to their favorite culture.

Well, I'm pretty sure you meant what you said but anyway, I said that if you employed the same standards as you did for things pertaining Africans it would be considered racist by you. And that's true.

Either way, way to reverse the roles like that. You spout a probably fully meant rant about Europeans and then jump on it when I react, using flawed logic to claim that my argument has no basis. You're the one at fault, not me.

Quoted for comedy. I love this stuff. So it's flawed logic to flip your argument and get you to point out how seriously addled such an argument is? Seemed pretty effective by my standards. You've been complaining all thread about one-sided arguments but happily keep presenting yours. You've compared my argument to your several times all the while criticizing mine. That's not flawed logic. That's hilarious. The best part is the bolded. If by "fully-meant" you mean that it happened, then yes I meant it. It was however a very narrow view of a rich culture that has done both much harm and much good. Looking at only one side of a culture is simply bias. That's all. You can try to have it both ways, but you can't cry about bias while demonstrating it friend. But, hey, if you like you can tell me your argument was no more serious than mine. I'll be ecstatic to hear it.

As for the rest, I actually started to put my source in the original post, but I wanted you to admit you're actually quite ignorant about the products of "African" culture. You've done so, so we're done here. I love how you keep criticizing me while you judge the entirety of Africa as if it is a single culture all the while showing you don't know enough to even speak to it, let alone judge it. Like, I say below, this stuff is beautiful. I love when y'all show up every summer.

I haven't read the part about African-Americans, since it doesn't concern me, but from an objective point of view he is much more balanced and reasonable than you are. Re-read his post and see how he concedes on many matters. He is much less arrogantly convinced of the absolute truth of his opinion than you are, or I am for that matter. It simply annoys me how you immediately label anyone who is on the wrong side of your point of view as this or that without any gradations. Once again, the detestable black-white world view surfaces

Beautiful. You quoted for truth a post you didn't read. If this doesn't capture it all, I don't know what does.

I love that you're complaining that my view is overly simplistic when I'm suggesting that cultures are much more than the little bits you wish to push forward. From the guy who mentions one thing about a culture and calls it inferior, this is just beautifully ironic.

In other words, you are a racist in the general sense of the word. You are a racist, period.

Surprise, surprise.

no, he's not a racist. he's just pining for the fjords.

oh God, is this thread still going?
why won't it die!?!

For an answer I choose sports.

Sorry. I'd say that this is a clear case of panem et circenses.

That is, give the oppressed majority some very basical assistance (panem, bread) and something to forget their problems for a while (circenses, show in the circus), and you'll rule without giving the poor any further thought.

I'd just like to say that I'm delighted to see an active racist contingent return to NSGeneral. I miss the good old days, when the dregs of Stormfront would wander in and provide us all with entertainment for days at a time.

The median income of an Asian family is higher than whites. Does that mean Asians shouldnt bitch about anything too? Should whites be able to bitch about Asians and not about blacks?

Should a poor white with no social and political control be able to bitch about a rich powerful black?
I amend my statement:

Everybody is entitled to bitch. It's just that if a straight white male chooses to bitch about how oppressed he is in the Western world, he'd better have a set of ear plugs on hand lest he be deafened by the uproarious laughter that will follow.

Boo hoo, pity the poor hetero honkies. Forced to watch women, black, Asians, fags, and all manner of subhumans ascend to nearly equal status with The Almighty White Dude! Surely the loss of his undeserved privileged status is to be pitied as much as the status of uppity non-honkies who aspire to hold status equal to his own!

You schmuck.

You racist.

I'd take my title over yours any day.


YOU give Liberals a bad name.

I'm not a liberal, so I'm a bit confused as to why my actions or statements do anything to the Liberal name.


I don't get control! I'm the one watching Obama (black) and Hillary (woman...I think) on T.V.!

Look, I'm sorry if you've lost the remote, but I don't really think you can blame me (or "liberals") for that one.


I don't mean to say that white men are the "Third Estate", or even that it's "easy" for blacks, that would be silly.
You know exactly what you meant to say. Own it.


But there are PLENTY of black bosses, and white workers.

Wait, you're not going to do that thing where you point to the Token Black Leaders and claim that their existence disproves racism, are you?

As if nobody is smart enough to realize that a few black people succeeding despite overwhelmingly negative odds does not, in fact, disprove the existence of the OVERWHELMINGLY NEGATIVE ODDS.

As if nobody is smart enough to realize that being RICH pretty much allows a person to overcome anything these days. Pay them enough and people will overlook your femaleness or blackness or homosexuality, or any of the other undesirable qualities you might have. The current Republican party seems to be about 3/4 child molesters, after all.


Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Obama?

Pop quiz:

What percentage of the US population is non-white? What percentage of government and/or domestic industry leaders are non-white?

What percentage of the US population is female? What percentage of government and/or domestic industry leaders are non-white?

Stop listing exceptions that prove the rule. It is a waste of your time.


None of those names mean anything to you? If Powell ran for President, I assure you I'd vote for him.

Dude, I'm so going to lose coolness points here, but this totally reminds me of a line from Cruel Intentions.

You know, that shitty teen-drama remake of Dangerous Liaisons, with Ryan whatshisname and Sarah Michelle Geller. And there's that scene where the rich snobby mom finds out that her young daughter has the hots for her (black) cello teacher, and the mom throws him out.

Ronald: "First of all, l never touched your daughter. And second, l would think someone of your stature could look beyond racial lines.

Mom: "Don't give me any of that racist crap! My husband and l gave money to Colin Powell!"

Ronald: "l guess that puts me in my place."


How can you say the blacks a "ruled" by whites? If it were as bad as you say, they wouldn't recieve welfare from our "white" goverment.

Most of them don't. Trotting out the racist stereotype of blacks on welfare isn't really a good defense to an accusation of racism on your part.


I don't get Jack for my sacrifice, I just keep paying welfare to "poor-blacks".
Schmuck.
Boo hoo hoo. You pay taxes just like everybody else. You're so oppressed. Here, let me tune my tiny violin so I can play for you.

I hope all the liberals out there that talk like they love miscegenation and homos and all that sort of filth, have their white daughters run off to screw the blackies or their son starts experiencing the thrills of gaiety. I wonder what thoughts go through their minds then?

I hope all the liberals out there that talk like they love miscegenation and homos and all that sort of filth, have their white daughters run off to screw the blackies or their son starts experiencing the thrills of gaiety. I wonder what thoughts go through their minds then?

Personally, I wouldn't mind at all. My sister did exactly that. They are married with lovely children. Intelligent, interesting children. I have no gay family members that I know of, but I'm not exactly sure why I would or should care.

oh God, is this thread still going?
why won't it die!?!

Umm coz rascism won't?

I hope all the liberals out there that talk like they love miscegenation and homos and all that sort of filth, have their white daughters run off to screw the blackies or their son starts experiencing the thrills of gaiety. I wonder what thoughts go through their minds then?

Everyone knows that those things happen most (and best) to people who don't approve of it.

I hope all the liberals out there that talk like they love miscegenation and homos and all that sort of filth, have their white daughters run off to screw the blackies or their son starts experiencing the thrills of gaiety. I wonder what thoughts go through their minds then?
Why "their white daughters" or "their son"? Why not us, ourselves?

I have no problem with the idea of being in a relationship with a black person, or a person of my own gender.

The only reason I would be alarmed by the idea of my child(ren) having such relationships would be that I don't have any intention of having children in the first place.

I hope all the liberals out there that talk like they love miscegenation and homos and all that sort of filth, have their white daughters run off to screw the blackies or their son starts experiencing the thrills of gaiety. I wonder what thoughts go through their minds then?

Wow, Now I just hope that I end up with a gay black dude. I've always had a thing for Carter from Spin City.

I guess you forget that some of us horrible liberals might be gay or bisexual ourselves, or at least not subconsciously judgmental.

I hope all the liberals out there that talk like they love miscegenation and homos and all that sort of filth, have their white daughters run off to screw the blackies or their son starts experiencing the thrills of gaiety. I wonder what thoughts go through their minds then?

Look everyone! Jerry Falwell is posting from beyond the grave!

Hey Jerry, what's it like in Hell?

:D

Don't forget the many programs and scholarship out there to help blacks.

its the USA government way of repairing the wrong things in the past