|
Until you sign up you can't do much. Yes, it's free.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 | / / / Viewing Topic
|  |
|
why are africans the most hated minority?  |
|
|
|
 Replies: 85 — Last Post Jan. 30 7:51pm by imatwirp
|
|
|
|
|
Web Resources: Suicide Myths Dispelled, Suicide Information
USA Suicide Hotline: 1-800-SUICIDE (1-800-784-2433)
|
|
|
|
|
 LiveWire Humor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
kidd rune
Soothsayer
 Patron
|
     
 I still don't see how the preservation of race is important.
I do.
I think the human race is meant to work together.
We see how that works out.
Slavery.
Wars.
Genocide.
etc....
I believe having a strictly all white nation will influence negatives.
I believe it will influence positives.
And if we did I don't tink it would tell us much about race.
What they COULD do is show the genetic distance from other populations.
Exactly. Which should tell you that race does not say much about who we are as humans.
No it doesn't.
It says that race came later on. That's like saying since Chimpanzees and Humans had a common ancestor species doesn't tell us much about who we are as mammals.
The don't bitch if I call you obsessed
It doesn't mean I'm obsessed at all.
I know half of it is spent on LW from your public profile. It's a good thing I don't stalk you or else I would have no time for anything else.
That's quite inaccurate actually. I DO keep my computer on a lot of the day - so it may SAY I'm online.
And I know that I don't reply that much in a day for sure.
To what end? We didn't have races as the first humans. Were things that horrible for us? Do you really think that just because we don't have races we will all start living in caves?
The first humans didn't have much at all. If we all mix and lose our racial individuality then the various races and beauty of our species will be gone. The dominant traits will overpower all others and we will be a large population of sameness. If that happens - those humans will never see the various beautiful races we saw when we were alive.
Its not the fault of the current immigrants either. They are just following on a trend that has been going on for a while and started by YOUR white ppl and Your ancestor. Why blame them for something you guys started? You are reaping the fruits of your white ancestors as you say. be proud of what they did
My ancestors did not ask them to come to their countries at all. How about the Moors that invaded Europe? Or the Huns? Or the Mongols? You don't see Whites mass immigrating to those countries of origin.
They did
And they lost.
Therefore - they got colonized.
well that is exaclty what they are doing
What they are doing NOW - when NOBODY is colonizing them or wanting to.
Colonization was FORCED on them yeah. You don't want nonwhites in your backyard you stay in europe.
I'll go back to Europe when all non-Europeans leave.
you mean its their fault for living in their own land and suddenlly being called immigrants in their own country?
It's their fault for being defeated.
Maybe you never heard of the generic "you" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you its true you suck at english...(and that is not the generic you) But nice to see how you like to dissociate yourself from your white ancestors when we talk about something you like.
I don't ever dissociate from my White ancestors. But - unlike you - I don't think that two wrongs make a right. If Whites do something wrong like colonize or enslave a people - they shouldn't be bombarded with those people who come to their country overpowering and destroying their culture, mixing and destroying their race, and creating havoc in their lands. Both are bad - but that doesn't mean any should or should have happened. The difference is that what Whites did was IN THE PAST - we can't change that. But what's happening to Whites NOW is FIXABLE.
Why didn't it happen? Tell me. After all if the resident and the majority of americans wanted it as you claim then why didn't it happen?
Lincoln got shot by an anarchist. And many DID get sent back - just not all.
What does "this" refer to?
These posts.
Are they SAT tests?
Its eay to get those numbers when you see that any opposition or open dislike of the regime or its leader can send you to a concentration camp.
Evident proof - a signed document or formal claim by Hitler - that all people opposed to him should be put in concentration camps, or killed, from 1933-1937. Then your claim may have validity.
Because statistics obtained in a dictatioral regime when people who voice their oppistion can be shot on sight are SO RELIABLE. sure.. keep telling yourself that.
Same as above - REAL proof of this.
Oh you mean like the racist you were talking about?
You mean Hitler?
Yeah, that's kind of why I said it.
People wanted to kill him.
People want to kill Obama.
People want to kill Bush.
People want to kill important people they don't like and important people can't make everyone happy.
When you are in the Weihrmacht and the Abwehr you are not just some pretend Nazi.
Nazism was an ideology.
You can change your ideology and pretend to be a Nazi - when you were previously.
Sure those guys were so pacifists they were Military careerists.
They thought Hitler was doing a shitty job in the war.
Those guys wanted to stop the insanity which would lead to the destruction of Nazi Germany. They WERE right. In the end Nazi Germany WAS destroyed.
No.
They wanted to win the war.
They wre right in that they feared for the destrocution of Germany. I don't say they are right in the aboslute. I simply showed that the opponets of Germany aren't limited to Jews, Communists or Anrchists as YOU CLAIMED. I am showing you for the liar you really are.
They wanted to kill Hitler - not because of what he was doing to the country - but because of the war effort.
And you still pretend to claim that ONLY jews Communists and Anarchists were opposed to Hitler?
I never did.
No but it does confirm that you are a liar since you claimed that the opposition was mainly Communists and Anarchists.
Not all opposition had the ability to kill him.
The Communists were in other countries and quite populous.
-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"
|
9:43 am on Jan. 10, 2009 | Joined: Nov. 2007 | Days Active: 262
Join to learn more about kidd rune Florida, United States | Straight Male | Posts: 10,350 | Points: 13,897
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jakelong
Swami
 Ad Free
|
Quote: from kidd rune at 12:17 pm on Jan. 10, 2009
It's different.
Tell that to those who are enslaved.
When you enslave your own race and they are freed there is no guilt or reparations because you can't tell the difference.
Do YOU feel guilty for what your ancestors did? Have blacks received ANY reparations for the enslavement?
There are civil wars but they are not racially motivated - this is obvious because there would only be one race.
Your words make no sense at all. We are not even speaking of civil wars. Wars DO exist WITHIN races. WWI and all the wars in Europe are complete proof of that. Unless you claim that English and French are a DIFFERENT race? or German and French? Ever heard of The Hundred year war? Thats a pretty nasty one for you. Race had nothing to do with it and it still lasted a century.
Genocide isn't really possible when they're all of the same race, correct?
oh yes it can. Look at Kosovo in 1990s. Serbs mass murdering Croats and vice-versa. Serbs mass murdering Bosnian And yes they are called genocides http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_Genocide
The term Bosnian Genocide is used to refer either to the genocide committed by Bosnian Serb forces in Srebrenica in 1995,[1] or to ethnic cleansing that took place during the 1992-1995 Bosnian War.[2][3] In the 1990s, several authorities, in line with a minority of legal scholars, asserted that ethnic cleansing as carried out by elements of the Bosnian Serb army was genocide. These included a resolution by the United Nations General Assembly and three convictions for genocide in German courts, the convictions based upon a wider interpretation of genocide than that used by international courts. [4] In 2005, the United States Congress passed a resolution declaring that "the Serbian policies of aggression and ethnic cleansing meet the terms defining genocide". [5] However, in line with a majority of legal scholars, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) have ruled that, in order for actions to be deemed genocide, there must be physical or biological destruction of a protected group and a specific intent to commit such destruction. To date only the Srebrenica massacre has been found to be an act of genocide by the ICTY, a finding upheld by the ICJ.
Genocide is not just rlated to race. It is related to ETHNICITY. And for the last time I repeat RACE =/= ETNNICITY
Post edited at 3:24 pm on Jan. 10, 2009 by jakelong
-------
"Everyone helpin' each other whenever they can we makin' it happen, from nothin' to somethin'
That's how we be survivin'" - BEP
|
3:17 pm on Jan. 10, 2009 | Joined: Aug. 2005 | Days Active: 766
Join to learn more about jakelong California, United States | Straight Male | Posts: 14,227 | Points: 25,060
|
|
| |
|
|
Chelle92
Personal Assistant
|
I dont think they are the most hated. I think they are the most feared & emulated. Watch TV, watch how ppl act in every day life and the expressions they use. I gauruntee that 25% of what ppl do/say is derived from something of African American pop culture or African American culture in general. People all over the world copy off of their culture.
|
|
|
|
|
kidd rune
Soothsayer
Patron
|
Tell that to those who are enslaved.
That's not what we're talking about.
We're talking about their descendants. Negroes make a larger fuss about being enslaved than Irishmen - when both were enslaved in US history. It's because Irish are Whites and they were enslaved by mostly Whites - but Negroes aren't White.
Do YOU feel guilty for what your ancestors did? Have blacks received ANY reparations for the enslavement?
Not really.
And they HAVE received reparations.
Your words make no sense at all. We are not even speaking of civil wars. Wars DO exist WITHIN races. WWI and all the wars in Europe are complete proof of that. Unless you claim that English and French are a DIFFERENT race? or German and French? Ever heard of The Hundred year war? Thats a pretty nasty one for you. Race had nothing to do with it and it still lasted a century.
I meant that conflicts wouldn't start due to race - I KNOW that many wars DID NOT have race as a factor - but some DID and those could have never happened.
oh yes it can. Look at Kosovo in 1990s. Serbs mass murdering Croats and vice-versa. Serbs mass murdering Bosnian
They classified themselves accordingly as different races.
Genocide is not just rlated to race. It is related to ETHNICITY. And for the last time I repeat RACE =/= ETNNICITY
Race is a classification of humans based on relatedness. Any ethnicity can be a race unless there is something like religion or culture or nationality involved - and THAT is something you choose.
Yet Jews were NOT ABLE to use the fact that they converted to Christianity to avoid genocide. And many German jews were partly white.
Well there was no planned genocide or systematic extermination.
So the Holocaust really doesn't hold its ground.
Check these out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Bartholomew's_Day_massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsmill_massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milltown_massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greysteel_massacre Do you believe Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants to be a different ethnic group?
They did.
And you HAVE to be kidding me.
Most of these have less than 100 deaths!
Genocide is
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.
If it is ONLY about certain people of a certain religion in a certain town - it is NOT a genocide. Genocide is meant to define exterminations of a large number of people - NOT massacres.
Oh and do YOU believe Jews to be DIFFERNT RACE than Palestinians? Because if you don't then there are TONS of massacres examples there... This would be an example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1066_Granada_massacre What about this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Glencoe Scots vs Scots Also explain to me how those guys are a differnt RACE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baylor_Massacre
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-4030787.html
http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=13093
http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=29339&sec=51&con=18
We're talking about formally declared wars and genocides (not massacres). But didn't you say Jews were White?
So Palestinians are White too...
:D
-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"
|
8:00 pm on Jan. 10, 2009 | Joined: Nov. 2007 | Days Active: 262
Join to learn more about kidd rune Florida, United States | Straight Male | Posts: 10,350 | Points: 13,897
|
|
| |
|
|
jakelong
Swami
Ad Free
|
Quote: from kidd rune at 8:00 pm on Jan. 10, 2009
Negroes make a larger fuss about being enslaved than Irishmen - when both were enslaved in US history.
That is because 1. Blacks were enslaved for a much longer period overall
2. Blacks were enslaved for the mere fact of BEING black. Many laws made the mere fact of being black an AUTOMATIC slave. I gave you a lot of links and info which explained how and why so don't pretend you don't know them.
3. Irish ppl were enslaved under British rule in Ireland not as much in the US
It's because Irish are Whites and they were enslaved by mostly Whites - but Negroes aren't White.
Part of the reason is that blacks were enlsaved for being black because it was easier to KEEP TRACK of them because of their noticeable color. So white slavers brought it on themselves by TARGETTING blacks,
Not really.
Then why bring it up?
And they HAVE received reparations.
Who?
I meant that conflicts wouldn't start due to race - I KNOW that many wars DID NOT have race as a factor - but some DID and those could have never happened.
So? Many many more wars started simply because of difference of ethnicity, land disputes and religious conflict. And having a 100% white nation will not necessarily eliminate race as a factor in a war if that particular nation choose to go to war. If they go to war with another country of 100% another race, it is quite possible that race could become a factor or make things worse between the 2 countries. The only way to completely eliminate race as a possible issue in any war is either to - have the WHOLE WORLD be a single race or
- make sure racism is completely eliminated from any person's heart. Is that what you really want? 
They classified themselves accordingly as different races.
Nope. They classified themselves according to ethnicity. NOT race.
Race is a classification of humans based on relatedness. Any ethnicity can be a race unless there is something like religion or culture or nationality involved - and THAT is something you choose.
Ethnicity is more specific than race. There are many many more wars betweens different ethnicities than between different races. Study more history. Race has too many meanings. Most of the time you are not even clear which definition you are using.
race2 /reɪs/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [reys] Show IPA Pronunciation -noun 1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
2. a population so related.
3. Anthropology. a. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use.
b. an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, esp. formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups.
c. a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans.
4. a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic stock: the Slavic race.
5. any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race.
6. the human race or family; humankind: Nuclear weapons pose a threat to the race.
7. Zoology. a variety; subspecies.
8. a natural kind of living creature: the race of fishes.
9. any group, class, or kind, esp. of persons: Journalists are an interesting race.
Ethnicity
Identity with or membership in a particular racial, national, or cultural group and observance of that group's customs, beliefs, and language.
eth⋅nic -adjective 1. pertaining to or characteristic of a people, esp. a group (ethnic group) sharing a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like.
2. referring to the origin, classification, characteristics, etc., of such groups.
3. being a member of an ethnic group, esp. of a group that is a minority within a larger society: ethnic Chinese in San Francisco.
4. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of members of such a group.
5. belonging to or deriving from the cultural, racial, religious, or linguistic traditions of a people or country: ethnic dances.
Well there was no planned genocide or systematic extermination.
Planned or not it still occured. Or are you denying that?
They did.
Prove it.
And you HAVE to be kidding me.
Most of these have less than 100 deaths!
So?
Genocide is the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.
You see something about a minimum number to fit the definition?
If it is ONLY about certain people of a certain religion in a certain town - it is NOT a genocide.
It is still a massacre.
Genocide is meant to define exterminations of a large number of people - NOT massacres.
Are you the one who decides?
We're talking about formally declared wars and genocides (not massacres).
We are just talking o wars and genocides. Do you need the UN stamp of defnition? Does a massacre WITHIN a race make any less a bad thing?
But didn't you say Jews were White?
So Palestinians are White too...
:D
No argument from me! Do you have problem with that?
-------
"Everyone helpin' each other whenever they can we makin' it happen, from nothin' to somethin'
That's how we be survivin'" - BEP
|
9:03 pm on Jan. 10, 2009 | Joined: Aug. 2005 | Days Active: 766
Join to learn more about jakelong California, United States | Straight Male | Posts: 14,227 | Points: 25,060
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| Looking for something else?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| / / / Viewing Topic | |
|
284 users online 
221741 members 
You have 1 new message.
