|
Post by Requiem on Jan 17, 2004 12:56:47 GMT -5
Please remember that this only goes for the South, there were free Blacks in the North LONG before there were in the South. Also many blacks came to the US as freemen during this same time and were never slaves. Many Northern blacks went to college and had friends in high places, while there were still slaves in the South. The North and South were really like two different worlds back then. At the height of Slavery, there was only 3,000 white slave owners compared to the millions of whites living in the US. Therefore, to blame all whites for slavery is just plain stupid, and only blacks living in the south can use that Civil Rights Act excuse.
I am not writing this to somehow downplay slavery, since every person thinks that was wrong, but people today who do not know about history tend to blow things out of proportion.
|
|
|
Post by devilsadvocate on Feb 24, 2004 1:18:28 GMT -5
To ascribe one's virtues to one's racial origin, is to confess that one has no knowledge of the process by which virtues are aquired and, most often, that one has failed to acquire them. The overwhelming majority of racists are men who have earned no sense of personal identity, who can claim no individual achievement or distinction, and who seek the illusion of a "tribal self esteem" by alleging the inferiority of some other tribe. Like every other form of collectivism, racism is a quest for the unearned. It is a quest for automatic knowledge-for an automatic evaluation of men's charachters that by-passes the responsibility of exercising rational or moral judgement, and above all, a quest for an automatic self esteem or (psuedo-self esteem). There is only one antidote to racism... The phillosophy of individualism. Individualism regards man-every man, as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life. Individualism holds that a civilized society, or any form of association, cooperation or peaceful coexistence among men/women, can be achieved only on the basis of reckongintion of individual rights, and that a group as such, has no rights other than the rights of its individual members. It is not a mans ancestors or relatives or genes or body chemistry that should count in society, but only one human attribute... Individual ability, and ambition.
|
|
|
Post by galvez on Feb 24, 2004 2:02:56 GMT -5
To ascribe one's virtues to one's racial origin, is to confess that one has no knowledge of the process by which virtues are aquired and, most often, that one has failed to acquire them. The overwhelming majority of racists are men who have earned no sense of personal identity, who can claim no individual achievement or distinction, and who seek the illusion of a "tribal self esteem" by alleging the inferiority of some other tribe. This is true. A lot of people who embrace racialist positions do so precisely because they wish to live through the achievements of others rather than their own. They come to see themselves as embodying the best perceived characteristics of their race, and see the worst in those who differ from them or simply dislike. A Spaniard thus becomes "passionate" and a Jew an "innate liar," and themselves as descendants of Goethe, Kant or Newton. This individual may live in a trailer park or may be earning slightly above the minimum wage with those he perceives as inferior as his bosses or social superiors in one way or another -- but by logging onto the web and reading certain websites stereotypes are exaggerated 1000 times and these dregs come to embody the superior elements of the human race. The internet is pure fantasy. This is definitely an attraction for fanatics. The reality is that it is precisely their personal failures that drive them to seek identity with others. This is the reason why "racists" are associated with trailer parks: it is not media propaganda (although that may be partly why); it is the fact that dregs tend to be attracted to these movements. And the dregs may believe they are among the most refined in society. I agree but think this is a little wordy.
|
|
|
Post by Mouguias on Feb 29, 2004 21:43:36 GMT -5
Ramsharma said: >I don't think that blacks encourage hatred against Whites. But there's just a general feeling of fear that their past might come back, and so they just are ready to face the future
That is to say, they feel distrust against whites? They are eager to fight against them whenever the slave trade comes back? The whole thing stinks. So we whites are guilty as long as not proven innocent. So it is quite likely that, at any moment, we start hanging blacks or enslaving them again... It sounds quite offensive. I don`t know at what point the Civil Rights movement became distrust and begrudge against whites, but it simply STINKS. By the way, it was NOT whites who started slavery. Slavery is as old as mankind, and practised in every culture. All European nations were chased as slaves at one time or another (Britanians, Celtiberians, Gauls, Germans...and Slavs, of course). On the other hand, it was whites who ABOLISHED slavery. Be it not for the abolitionists, British first, then Americans, slavery would be well and alive today. And notice that slavery was widely practised in Africa, that slave trade wouldn`t be possible without the cooperation of African slave traders, that Africans refused for a long time to ban slavery (I think it was Mali which banned it in 1982)...and of course it is Africans from Sudan who still practise it widely TODAY!!! As to segregation, and the endless sufferings of blacks, and all that stuff, I don`t know how can American whites be so gullible, so feeble, to buy that BS. I myself will only apologize for MY words and MY deeds, I will not ask your forgiveness for something that someone who is dead did to yet someone ELSE who happens to be DEAD, TOO.
|
|
|
Post by Tecumseh on Mar 5, 2004 5:10:35 GMT -5
Racism against Whites is a topic liberals don't talk much about. However, there is a lot of racism against Whites -- sure, in the industrialized countries which are predominantly European (or European descended) Whites dominate, but unfortunately White success is often seen as necessarily a result of exploitation. Some intellectuals seem to think that the wealth of one person is created from the poverty of another -- this is false. Some people are just very resourceful and have an ability to create wealth from nothing. Moreover, in South Africa and Rhodesia Whites have been getting ethnically cleansed and farmers and their families have been murdered, tortured and raped, and very little of this is mentioned by the mainstream media -- instead, they talk about the Laci Peterson case or the latest controversy surrounding Michael Jackson. So, this thread provides an opportunity to discuss racism against Whites -- or racism in general. Oh, you want to talk about racism? Pshh. Racism towards whites pales in comparison to mass-genocide imposed upon non-whites.
|
|
|
Post by Mouguias on Mar 5, 2004 7:23:24 GMT -5
>>Racism towards whites pales in comparison to mass-genocide imposed upon non-whites.
Mm...let`s remember one important factor: genocides commited by whites have received a much wider publicity than those commited by NON WHITES. Simply because ethnocentrism is still working, and the massacres commited by Africans against Africans, well...apparently no one cares. I guess you are referring to the well known stories about slave trade, mass killing of "native Americans" and all that stuff. Am I wrong? Well, let`s update a little. All that BS is starting to stink a little, ok? It is not whites who invented slavery, opression or genocide. These things are old as the world, and were the bulk of the intercourse between nations since it can be remembered. It was whites, however, who first said that those things are wrong. It was a white from Castile, Fray Bartolome de las Casas, who first defended the victims of a genocide commited by his own people. I think his efforts and words are unprecedented in history. So bad for Afrocentrism and cultural studies, but it was a white man, de las Casas, who set the foundations of human rights and the idea that we are all equals. In the while, non whites like Aztecs or most of African nations were living in the middle of an endless blood bath. African and American cultures rested upon tribal wars, tribal chieftains (that is, despots), periodical genocides, a terrible sexual opression against women and, of course, slavery. It took the British empire to grow almighty, so that they were able to impose their ideas on others, for slavery to be abolished - both in white and non white nations. And notice that non whites stubbornly refused to give up slavery...up to this very day. It can be said that the massacres by whites upon non-whites ended roughly in 1900, more or less, when the colonial process ended and slavery was abolished in the West. That is, you are whinning about old news. It is not only that living whites don`t have nothing to do with those genocides, but rather that our GRANDPARENTS were born later than that. So Afrocentrists can go fly a kite, as far as I am concerned, with their "feel guilty" BS. I don`t buy that. Period. Now, it is sadly obvious that, when offered the chance, non-whites didn`t follow the humanitarian ideals that westerners developed. When the nations of the 3rd World achieved independence, an endless row of civil wars, bloody dictatorships and simple genocides followed. I bet, Tecumseh, you had never heard a word on the Biafra genocide, a provoked starvation against a non-white nation. No wonder, since the executioners were also non-whites. I bet you have forgotten the Rwanda genocide, although it is quite closer than all the "slave trade" old tale. Even more, I bet you don`t care much about the CURRENT genocides, in Sudan and Congo. In Sudan the northerners are killing, expelling and enslaving their southern countrymen. In Congo they have killed some 3 000 000 people in the last 5 years. In Nigeria, little by little, they are exterminating the Christian minority of the country. All those "I don`t bear a slave name any longer" whinners don`t give a damn about human suffering or justice. They don`t want to stop genocide, opression or war. They just want to feel entitled against whites, then demand for "reparations". That simple. What a heap of BS, for God`s sake!!
|
|
|
Post by Graeme on Mar 5, 2004 9:16:20 GMT -5
Most white people have been killed by white people: American civil war, roundhead vs loyalists, the world wars, 100 year war, war of the roses etc. Most black deaths in the US are committed by blacks. So, it is not white racism or mass genocide that kills most non whites, it is and always has been non whites doing the majority of the killing. It was not the whites who made the Hutu turn on the Tutsi or conversely, non whites that caused the conflict in the former Yugoslavia.
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Mar 5, 2004 10:04:53 GMT -5
It was not the whites who made the Hutu turn on the Tutsi Actually, I believe the 'divide and conquer' tactics of the Belgian colonial rule may have had something to do with this. www.exile.ru/161/war_nerd.html
|
|
|
Post by Tecumseh on Mar 5, 2004 16:14:38 GMT -5
>>Racism towards whites pales in comparison to mass-genocide imposed upon non-whites. Mm...let`s remember one important factor: genocides commited by whites have received a much wider publicity than those commited by NON WHITES. Simply because ethnocentrism is still working, and the massacres commited by Africans against Africans, well...apparently no one cares. Right, because as I intially stated; racism towards whites pales in comparison to mass-genocide imposed (by whites) upon non-whites. First of all, "endless bloodbath" is a bit of an exageration. I'm not sure about west-African history, but the Aztecs held women at an unusually high standard, when looking at the status of women world-wide. The Aztecs were a violent people, does this change the fact that the Spaniards conquered them, and took their land? Same goes with Africans, they were doing this on their own soil, besides, it's not like they were trying to intervene; no. Europeans were after gold, land and new slaves. I'm fairly certain that the Aztecs didn't own slaves on a mass-scale, like the Euros. Actually, the Aztecs held slaves of war, they weren't seen as property; a little different than European owned slaves, ey? It couldn't have ended in 1900, segregation was still in place 50 years ago, and massacres such as Black Walstreet were happening, not to mention the numerous lynchings. Then you have the reserves, the incident at Pine Ridge may have been before my time (1985), but rather recent, and that's only one example of the government screwing with our reservations. This definitely doesn't go for my people. First of all, I could care-less how or when slavery was invented; Europeans took the slave trade to a whole new level. Secondly, the largest genocide in the history of man was committed against my people. If this is the case, and genocide against whites goes unmentioned, why is the word "holocaust" now associated with the genocide of Jewish people? In fact, that's all I ever hear about! It's standard high school curriculum, whereas the "American" holocaust goes damn-near unmentioned. The fact is, this may have begun 500 years ago, but it's far from old. It still affects us today; Native Americans don't even make up 1% of the U.S. population. That's ashame, and as long as you are still on our indigenous land, we have the right to complain... I think my ancestor's were worth a little more than that. You may feel like white people are getting treated unfairly, next time you feel this way, think of the 100,000,000 + Natives your people slaughtered, enslaved, and took from, and if you're up to it, give the Africans some thought as well. I'll tell you what I want, it for damn-sure isn't your money... I want our land to be returned. Any kind of genocide is wrong in my book, I don't give a damn if you're black, white, brown, red or polka dot. Personally, I don't hold racist opinions, I speak the truth. And just in case you're wondering, I'm a halfbreed, my mother is white.
|
|
|
Post by AWAR on Mar 5, 2004 22:48:44 GMT -5
Right, because as I intially stated; racism towards whites pales in comparison to mass-genocide imposed (by whites) upon non-whites. No, it doesn't pale in comparison. Racism is racism. You can't evaluate all things in such a manner. If by racism you mean blind hatred of all that isn't of a given race, I think all humans are equally capable of it. Right now, you're being racist towards us whites because some of us at some point in history enslaved non-whites. How can I, a south-east European Slav be responsible for something some Spaniard has done 500 years ago. I can't be held responsible for what my father has done, let alone someone who I'm not even related to. Your ancestors suffered in the hands of west-Europeans, so now you hate east-Europeans Actually, it's not an exaggeration, but it's not simple either. Throughout history Africans have murdered other africans, enslaved them before whites and continue to enslave them after. Bantus killed and enslaved Bushmen. Some guerilla armies today enslave and eat pygmees etc. So, you see, they're both racists and cannibals at the same time. Of course, many of modern conflicts are started thanks to multinational corporations who bleed Africa dry of resources, and constant warfare suits them just fine. I'm sorry, but I honestly don't believe that if the tables were turned, the Aztecs wouldn't have done the same to Spain. Such is the law of the strongest, the Aztecs weren't strong enough to resist the invasion, but that is all in a time long gone. You can't forever hold a grudge against Spaniards, just like modern Russians didn't nuke modern Mongolia because of something that happened in the 13th century. Modern times should be different, with mutual respect and understanding being the key, not blind hatred. Africa, where masses of Negroids killed and enslaved masses of Capoids. Oh, sure, next you'll say that Aztecs were good, nice slave-owners who respected and loved their slaves. ...and that's the fault of US government, not the fault of the entire caucasoid race On the contrary, if you're trying to speak about some phenomenon of human civilization, first be sure to know much about it, or your opinion will be shallow and irrelevant. I almost forgot, when you speak about slavery, you continue to say 'Europeans', well, I'm an European, and I, and all my accountable ancestors have never ever been slave owners, and that also goes for the majority of Europeans. So, next time when you utter the word 'racist' please be careful of whom you label as one. Actually, I think the largest genocide was perpetrated during the Mongol reign over China, the second in line was done in Communist Russia. That's an injustice, but I'm sure that instead of actually doing something about it, you're spending time, whinning about white people. I agree that's a shame. But also the fact is that America was scarcely populated. You sure do have the right to complain, but you're just making racist remarks against all whites, generalizing. 100.000.000 is a ridiculously high number, what happened to native Americans is a tragedy, no need for you to cheapen it by inventing ridiculous, unaccurate figures. What about the white people who already live there ( including your mother ) would you kill them all, or expell them to Europe?
|
|
|
Post by AWAR on Mar 5, 2004 22:51:07 GMT -5
Actually, I believe the 'divide and conquer' tactics of the Belgian colonial rule may have had something to do with this. www.exile.ru/161/war_nerd.htmlSure, but they were bound to develop some sort of ethnic conscience sooner or later. Of course, similar to what happened in Balkans, that war was partially artificially created.
|
|
|
Post by alex221166 on Mar 6, 2004 0:15:17 GMT -5
To Tecumseh:
"Right, because as I intially stated; racism towards whites pales in comparison to mass-genocide imposed (by whites) upon non-whites."
Is that so? Have you heard of the Europeans (mostly Portuguese and Spaniards) who were crucified in Asia just for being different? And how about the Huns and the Mongols? The only reason why History favoured Europe was because Europe was stronger and managed to survive.
"Europeans were after gold, land and new slaves."
That is true, but one (too often) neglected reason for the colonial expansion was to defeat Islam (by removing the trade monopolies from their hands) and to expand Christianity.
"I'm fairly certain that the Aztecs didn't own slaves on a mass-scale, like the Euros. Actually, the Aztecs held slaves of war, they weren't seen as property; a little different than European owned slaves, ey?"
Then you are fairly wrong, because they did. And they sacrificed their prisoners (or slaves of war) by removing their hearts while they were still beating. Many other Indians were cannibals that used to eat Europeans and other native Americans. The romantic idea of the peacful wise Indian is a crock of new-age bullshit - particularly in the case of the Aztecs who were particularly brutal. In case you failed to notice, Hernán Cortés had tens of thousands of Indian allies (have you ever heard of the Tlaxcala?). And why was that? Because everyone hated the Aztecs!!!
"Europeans took the slave trade to a whole new level."
That is also not true. The Moors/Arabs trade much more slaves than all of Europe put together.
"In fact, that's all I ever hear about! It's standard high school curriculum, whereas the "American" holocaust goes damn-near unmentioned."
The Indian holocaust was caused not by war, but by infectious diseases. Europe faced the Black Death for over 1000 years. Your people faced small-pox. Tough luck, but you can't blame anyone for that one...
"You may feel like white people are getting treated unfairly, next time you feel this way, think of the 100,000,000 + Natives your people slaughtered, enslaved, and took from, and if you're up to it, give the Africans some thought as well."
100 million? LMAO! As if Nordicism and Afrocentrism weren't enough, now we have Amerindianocentrism!!!
"I'll tell you what I want, it for damn-sure isn't your money... I want our land to be returned."
Me too, buddy. My family lost a fortune when we lost our colonies, but alas... What can one do?
Incidentally: unlike most of your families, part of my family was actually involved in the Indian Ocean slave trade until the XIX century - the thing is, that side of my family is from where I get my non-European blood.
That's right - what people like you seem to forget is that the WHOLE WORLD was doing the same thing. Stop blaming Europe!
I also had ancestors that killed many Indians in Brazil. Do I feel sorry for it? Not particularly. You see, almost 90% of the Portuguese that sailed to India during the XVI century never returned home (and "never returned" is a euphemism). What I am trying to say is that life sucks, but it sucks for everybody.
Your people isn't special, it isn't any better or any worse. If anything, it was barbaric and it was civilised, in some cases in a brutal way.
But think about this: the first laws protecting native Americans from slavery and condemning the settlers for violence towards the Indians, were issued in Portugal (1570) and in Spain (not long after). It is not a surprise that most Indians fought with Portugal against the Dutch and against the Sephardic Jews in Brazil...
|
|
|
Post by Tecumseh on Mar 6, 2004 1:47:39 GMT -5
No, it doesn't pale in comparison. Racism is racism. You can't evaluate all things in such a manner. If by racism you mean blind hatred of all that isn't of a given race, I think all humans are equally capable of it. Yes, it does pale in comparison; research the death-toll. At one point you enslaved and stole land from my people as well as others, and continue to oppress us. Don't believe me: Take a tour of my reservation. You must bear a guilty-conscience; I couldn't have been any vaguer. However, your people (Europeans of every kind) live in my land, and thus, have and continue to benefit from the largest genocide in history. Two things; I hate liars and thieves, they make my blood boil. Do you fall under this category? I'm not following, mainly because you avoided my response and proceeded to be irrelevant. Again, irrelevant. Act of desperation? Brush up on your Aztec history: Montecuhzoma (Montezuma) believed Cortés and his troops to be god-like, due to his light-skin. Besides, Native Americans are a peaceful people, my ancestors welcomed European explorers (invaders) with open arms. Okay. As long as Europeans occupy America I reserve the right to bitch about your presence. Agreed. This is really beginning to get petty. No. I suppose twisting my words is par for the course. It's not that I'm unaware, it's that you're trying to stray from the point. Are you denying your European kin? Your brothers? That would be false. Don't be so sure. I just turned 18, I'm doing everything I can to better myself and help my native brothers and sisters. It certainly wasn't as dense as it is now, but between two continents and some islands, there were millions of clans, thousands of tribes and a few civilizations. Could you please elaborate, I'm very curious about this statement. If I'm wrong, I'd appreciate a correction. I probably exagerated, I think I remember reading the numbers were around 80 mil. You can read up on it if you want, check out 'American Holocaust' by David E. Stannard. Who said anything about killing? Is that what you want? Shit, the Zapatistas don't have a problem with that. BTW I'm Shawnee, I'm not Mexican.
|
|
|
Post by Tecumseh on Mar 6, 2004 2:12:34 GMT -5
Is that so? Have you heard of the Europeans (mostly Portuguese and Spaniards) who were crucified in Asia just for being different? Wow, talk about karma... I don't know if Amerindiancentrism exists, but Eurocentrism has been thriving for the last 500 years. Believe what you want; it's of no consequence. As if the slave-trade wasn't enough... Manifest Destiny is quite the bullshit excuse. They did, what? They did not view slaves as property, if that's what you're implying. Whites claim they had to civilize us pagan animals, but up until the late 1800's there are documented cases of whites being the savage animals, eating "Indians". What about Thomas Jefferson who used the skin of natives to make leather objects? There are so many examples... LOL @ You people thinking I'm Mexican. Are you attempting to rewrite history? Typical. Europeans have held the title for some time now. Disease spread maliciously, through "tokens of peace," by men like Sir Jeffery Amherst. Yuck. I don't hold any complexes, whether they be superior or inferior, the idea alone sickens me. You're the second person to disagree, so, correct me if I'm wrong. Dry humor goes unappreciated with me. I don't give a shit if Jesus himself was doing it, it was the Europeans who began the intrusion on our territory. Who is the majority in Portugal? I could care-less what you think of my people, I'm not here to argue over trivial shit. Too bad it didn't end then. Many natives feared whites, that era is done. You think I hate everyone of Eurodescent or something?
|
|
|
Post by alex221166 on Mar 6, 2004 9:25:01 GMT -5
Karma? I wonder if that was why "your people" is almost extinct...
Eurocentrism? I've went through this countless times. The only type of Eurocentrism that existed was ANGLOCENTRISM. Anglocentrism thrived from the XVIII to the mid XX century, and if anything, it insulted fellow Europeans like the Portuguese, Spaniards and Italians. Like I said: your people isn't special. Mine has been far more insulted, particularly considering how important our past was and how neglected or forgotten it is by the English historians. I have actually read in English sites that Drake was the first person to sail around the globe!
Is it? Do you know that the Portuguese ships sailed with the red cross of the Order of Christ? Do you know that we - Portugal - spent an unbelievable fortune in missionary work in Brazil, Africa, India, China and Japan? You don't have the slightest knowledge about what you are talking about - silence is the best friend of the ignorants
Of course, not, they viewed them as sheep to be used in ritual sacrifice, and in some cases they viewed them as a source of protein. Sweet!
Like I said: according to the Portuguese law issued by kign Sebastian in 1570, the Native Americans were protected from any sort of abuse. You have never heard of the Portuguese Padre António Vieira, have you? Or of the Spaniard Bartolomé de las Casas?
I have never assumed you to be Mexican. I doubt that you have any Amerindian at all - I think you are a black Afrocentrist.
Inform yourself prior to making stupid statements. The Arabs traded far more black slaves than Europe.
Yes, pretty much like your poisoned arrows.
Yes, and the Celts invaded the Iberian Peninsula, so did the Romans, the Germans, and the Moors... The Huns and the Mongols also intruded in Europe - like I said: SHIT HAPPENS and you are not special!
At the moment we have ~4%-5% immigrants.
Sure, buddy. Keep on thinking about happy Indians in their huts living in communion with nature... What a joke!
You missed my point: my point is that if Brazilians today speak Portuguese, they can owe it to the Amerindian leaders who chose the Portuguese side. The same thing with the Spaniards: the Indians consistently chose to fight for Spain against the English and French pirates.
No, but I know that you don't have a clue about what you are talking about.
|
|