Quoting Post Archived Topic: It will not be bumped to the top of the forum. Topic Racism - part of brain Membername   Not a member? Sign Up Free (takes 20 seconds) Password   Forgotten your password? Post Font: Verdana Arial Black Georgia Comic Sans Impact   Size: Tiny Normal Big Huge   Color: Default Dark Red Red Orange Brown Green Olive Cyan Blue Dark Blue Indigo Black [ Check Spelling ] [ Post Preview ] [ LiveTags ] Quote: from [m]kidd rune[/m] at 10:11 am on Nov. 27, 2008[quote][quote]What about the Native Americans? Also as history shows which you insist on denying it was Europeans who couldn't stay in Europe am I right? [/quote]What about the Amerinds? They have a right to exist - though only about 6% of the population of Amerinds ever lived in the USA.[/quote] FAQ Keyword Search: Post Options Favorites Manager Notify me of new replies to this topic by email Notify me of new replies to this topic by private message Original Post kidd rune Posted at 12:20 pm on Nov. 26, 2008 Test: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/" target="_top">http://https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/ Implicit attitudes on race are assessed by tests like the  Implicit Association Test (the link above) Subjects are shown photos of Blacks and Whites and asked to pair positive and negative words with them. 80% of Whites take longer to associate positive words with Blacks than Whites. This implies that that Whites have implicit negative stereotypes of Blacks. The thing that's interesting is that there's a gap between Whites certainly positive attitudes about Blacks and their certainly negative attitudes. Even liberal Whites show certain negative attitudes toward Blacks (although less negative than conservatives). In fact, White liberals are more race-hypocritical than conservatives because there is a larger gap between implicit attitudes and explicit attitudes towards Blacks. What's actually happening is that the conscious (explicit) brain is thinking positive thoughts about blacks because it is culturally pushed on them and they don't want to be "Racist" - it's suppressing the negative thoughts deep below the implicit part of the brain. In one study, Subjects were shown photos of blacks and whites while hooked up to an fMRI machine that takes pictures of the brain in action. When the photos were shown for very brief periods—too short to be explicitly processed, the fMRI showed that whites had a negative response to the photos of blacks. This procedure therefore measures implicit negative attitudes toward blacks. However, the photos of blacks were presented for a much longer period, so that they were processed by the explicit part of the brain. The difference in negative reaction to black and white faces decreased. This happened because the prefrontal cortex/explicit processing were activated. In other words: people CONSCIOUSLY aware that they are seeing Blacks have less negative thoughts than those that aren't - and they can suppress those negative thoughts (http://preview.tinyurl.com/66owqt" target="_top">http://http://preview.tinyurl.com/66owqt). Yeah.. discuss?

Replies 420trendz Posted at 12:46 am on Dec. 5, 2008 jakelong and kidd rune are at it again jakelong Posted at 5:59 pm on Dec. 3, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 2:22 pm on Dec. 3, 2008 You're such a hipocrate. You called them all greedy whip cracking slave drivers - and said I shouldn't be proud of my slave selling ancestors. No I didn't say ALL whites were greedy whip cracking slavers.   I said slavers were greedy whipcracking slavers which is what you ancestor was.   YOU make them seem racist. Lets look at YOUR statements on whites which I argue AGAINST And there was ABSOLUTELY NO POINT in having Blacks in the USA if they weren't slaves. They called then non-human because they didn't think they were human - not to justify what they did They damn well didn't think it was wrong! Most Whites - and I can assure you MOST - didn't want Blacks to be considered equals. I can assure you at least 1/2 of the USA didn't want Blacks to be a part of it. They didn't call them non-human to make slavery "Better" but they called them subhuman because they THOUGHT they were. Tell me of us 2 who is making whites look more racist? jakelong Posted at 5:45 pm on Dec. 3, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 2:22 pm on Dec. 3, 2008 Do you just not believe that most Whites thought that or do you just want proof - something that only common sense and historical knowledge can bring. When you pop numbers out you must have some data, Otherwise it's just BS. Most Whites believed them to be inferior beasts that had no right as anything but property to them. Prove it. They didn't treat them equally for a long time - why wouldn't they treat them equally if they loved them so much? Love=/= Consider human =/=  treat equally 3 different topics, 3 different issues. Why not just have none? What would happen if ONE was there? has a bias over everything - Jewish or not. you called it that. Well, presidents will LIE about what they thought the people wanted because that's how you get votes. Lincoln did that a lot. How do you know his statement has SOMETHING to do with being RE ELECTED? Show me the PROOF not a bunch of general BS. And why the hell do you need proof that people vote for who they like? I need you to show me there was a CONNECTION between the liberia idea and him being re-elected. You made that claim. It shouldn't be hard to provide evidence for that. And no, "common sense" doesn't cut it even when you're dealing with history. If I make a statement for a history essay or even an english essay I have to PROVE my statement. I can't just tell the teacher "it's common sense". If you don't know that your teachers are doing a crap job. kidd rune Posted at 2:22 pm on Dec. 3, 2008 First you say "everyone" as in all whites and all nonwhites. Then you say "1/2 of whites" Now you say "most whites" Which is it really? You haven't given any evidence for any of that either. Do you just not believe that most Whites thought that or do you just want proof - something that only common sense and historical knowledge can bring. 1. When you say "the people of that day" you are not saying who and why and in what circumstance. 2. The fact that they thought them humans or not doesn't have much to do with sending them back to Africa. There's no evidence that the 2 ideas are at all CONNECTED. If you have proof you never given it. Most Whites believed them to be inferior beasts that had no right as anything but property to them. They didn't treat them equally for a long time - why wouldn't they treat them equally if they loved them so much? are many of those countries with only 1% blacks ALREADY. Why NO blacks at all? What is the motivation? Why not just have none? Jewpedia right? Yeah I get it... It has a bias over everything - Jewish or not. For both. Well, presidents will LIE about what they thought the people wanted because that's how you get votes. Lincoln did that a lot. And why the hell do you need proof that people vote for who they like?     The constitution called them 3/5 of a human. Actually that's not exactly what went on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_compromise The 3/5 compromise was made for TAX puposes and counting SLAVES as 3/5 of a regular population allowed slave states to increase their population count. So according to your logic those in FAVOR of slavery wanted slaves to count as FULLY human and those OPPOSED to slavery wanted them to count as NON-HUMAN? Yeah that makes a LOT of sense (this is sarcasm btw I know you are slow with that) The 3/5 compromised was purely a compromise for TAX and POPULATION COUNTING  purposes. It was NOT meant originally to estimate the VALUE or "humanity" of a slave. Its really funny how you like to portray the ppl of the 19th century as much more racist than they really were. Stop right there. The last sentence... You're such a hipocrate. You called them all greedy whip cracking slave drivers - and said I shouldn't be proud of my slave selling ancestors. YOU make them seem racist. YOU say we're still oppressing them or just stopped - and that's still affecting the Negro of today... jakelong Posted at 9:33 pm on Dec. 2, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 2:29 pm on Dec. 2, 2008 The constitution called them 3/5 of a human. Actually that's not exactly what went on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_compromise The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise between Southern and Northern states reached during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 in which three-fifths of the population of slaves would be counted for enumeration purposes regarding both the distribution of taxes and the apportionment of the members of the United States House of Representatives. It was proposed by delegates James Wilson and Roger Sherman. Delegates opposed to slavery generally wished to count only the free inhabitants of each state. Delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, generally wanted to count slaves at their actual numbers. The 3/5 compromise was made for TAX puposes and counting SLAVES as 3/5 of a regular population allowed slave states to increase their population count. So according to your logic those in FAVOR of slavery wanted slaves to count as FULLY human and those OPPOSED to slavery wanted them to count as NON-HUMAN? Yeah that makes a LOT of sense (this is sarcasm btw I know you are slow with that) The 3/5 compromised was purely a compromise for TAX and POPULATION COUNTING  purposes. It was NOT meant originally to estimate the VALUE or "humanity" of a slave. Its really funny how you like to portray the ppl of the 19th century as much more racist than they really were. jakelong Posted at 8:49 pm on Dec. 2, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 2:29 pm on Dec. 2, 2008 Not "All Whites" but most of them. First you say "everyone" as in all whites and all nonwhites. Then you say "1/2 of whites" Now you say "most whites" Which is it really? You haven't given any evidence for any of that either. The people of that day didn't find them equal at all - and many supported the send them back to Africa movement. 1. When you say "the people of that day" you are not saying who and why and in what circumstance. 2. The fact that they thought them humans or not doesn't have much to do with sending them back to Africa. There's no evidence that the 2 ideas are at all CONNECTED. If you have proof you never given it. Whites and Blacks can be in the same country - but I think that Whites should have a country without any Blacks at all. There are many of those countries with only 1% blacks ALREADY. Why NO blacks at all? What is the motivation? Or something that they don't like. Much of Wikipedia is quite biased. Jewpedia right? Yeah I get it... For which one? For both. The constitution called them 3/5 of a human. Does that PROVE that ALL whites considered them this way? The constituion said in 1865 that blacks have the right to vote. Does it prove that everyone in the US in 1865 thought they should have that right? Theconstituion in 1964 outlawed racial segregation in jobs. Does that prove that everyone in 1964 agreed with it?   kidd rune Posted at 2:29 pm on Dec. 2, 2008 He was trying to justify it by saying Lincoln didn't want blacks around and that according to him that is PROOF that blacks were not wanted by all whites. Not "All Whites" but most of them. And that is NOT the only reason. The people of that day didn't find them equal at all - and many supported the send them back to Africa movement. To him that proves that whites and black belong in different countries. Whites and Blacks can be in the same country - but I think that Whites should have a country without any Blacks at all. They ban you only if you spam or deface the page or fill it with BS and rants without proper sources. Or something that they don't like. Much of Wikipedia is quite biased. Proof? For which one? Another thn you keep repeating. Some did others did not. Or are you saying ALL WHITES were racists and listend to the racist beliefs?   The constitution called them 3/5 of a human. jakelong Posted at 11:56 pm on Dec. 1, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 3:22 pm on Dec. 1, 2008 They can fix it and ban you if they don't like your edits. They ban you only if you spam or deface the page or fill it with BS and rants without proper sources. They voted for presidents with the same ideals and the presidents were known to say what the people wanted. Proof? Remember - back then Negroes weren't considered humans. Another thn you keep repeating. Some did others did not. Or are you saying ALL WHITES were racists and listend to the racist beliefs?   jakelong Posted at 11:51 pm on Dec. 1, 2008 Quote: from sadnessness at 7:38 am on Dec. 1, 2008 Jakelong, you should probably accept that black people were properly discriminated against for years though. Sure, the 13th amendment was passed, then that was replaced by Jim Crow laws and literacy tests. Black people werent truly free until the 1950's-60's, and there are still enough racists around now for it to be of some concern I never said they weren't. In fact most of the topic is about discriminated. I am arguing with the local retard WN about greed and slavery. He was trying to justify it by saying Lincoln didn't want blacks around and that according to him that is PROOF that blacks were not wanted by all whites. To him that proves that whites and black belong in different countries. I hope you don't agree with that... kidd rune Posted at 3:22 pm on Dec. 1, 2008 Wiki can be changed by anyone right. Meaning if you see some error or something not completely exact it's YOUR duty to change it. Other wise don't bitch. They can fix it and ban you if they don't like your edits. And you would have to reimburse all those slave owners who probably wanted their money back. Not to mention compensate those slaves for being taken from their country and used as cattle for months or years or generations. I was speaking of after the slaves were freed. Can you read their mind or is it that you KNOW what they were thinking because you share those thoughts?   They voted for presidents with the same ideals and the presidents were known to say what the people wanted. Also, abolitionists were rare at that point in time.      Remember - back then Negroes weren't considered humans. That is the way they justified what they did to themselves. If really read what people said back then they called them   "savages" (as in "uncivilized") but still thought of them as humans.   it is only during the 19th century that they tried to justify what they did by declaring them not human.   They called then non-human because they didn't think they were human - not to justify what they did. Article 1 section 2 of the Constitution: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States[...] Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." Blacks were considered 3/5 of a person. There was no SINGLE war. Just a series of battles and treaties. Of course but in historic terms, many times it's considered a war. You do. The American colonists often considered them as neutral parties and as allies during their war against England. Yes - but the battles between them raged on. BTW which side were your ancestors in the Tory vs Revolutionary conflict? I don't know - though I know one of my ancestors fought in it (The others I'm not sure of - you know there wasn't a perfect record keeping system of that back then). Sure but since they were fighting with the same weapons the battle was even-handed and did not cause as much damage. The Whites usually had the upper hand - and the Amerinds only got guns from trades and corpses. Well then Hispanics are not destroying your race in the US... They are altering the culture of my area - what I've said... Was the US ever better than Europe in your mind? Not really - all of Europe combined was probably always a little better than the USA - but by "Better" you mean what specifically? Better technology? Better government? They came over and "destroyed" the Indian race by imposing their culture and language otherwise we would be still be speaking whichever native language is most used in the area where we live and practicing their culture.... How do you know MY ancestors did it? Maybe everyone I descend from sat back and watched. Maynbe the Hispanics are just having a normal life in Florida without any fighting... This claim can be disproven because I SEE the proof right here - they all aren't really doing so. My ancestors are different - nobody is old enough to have known. How can you assure me of this?   They agreed with it. This is common knowledge of American history! The Abolitionists were a small group compared to the rest of the USA. Apparently plenty of people DID want them there http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1866 But yeah I am sure the slave owners and racists could not stand having blacks around if they couldn't put their foot over black's head any longer.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Colonization_Society Check that out. And there was ABSOLUTELY NO POINT in having Blacks in the USA if they weren't slaves. Remember - they weren't multicultural loving like the people of today... Show me the evidence for "most".   Otherwise you are just talking out of your ass. As usual. Common sense? Common knowledge of American history? If most of them DID want them to be considered equals - why the hell were they "Oppressed" for so long? Wait what?   Prove to me that THE REASON Lincon was re-elected in 1864 is BECAUSE he wanted to send them back to Africa (and no don't repeat posts quoting him about that intention. most of us already know that) Show where his intention was USED to get re-elected. Here is the platform for Lincoln's national party http://tinyurl.com/6xblfz Nothing here about sending blacks back to Liberia. This was an idea made AFTER Lincoln had been re-elected That wasn't the only reason he got elected. And he formulated the idea when the war was almost over I believe. BleedingSteelWings Posted at 9:48 am on Dec. 1, 2008 Discrimination is genetic. It originates a long while ago, back in the early days of our race. to incompletly quote Carl Sagan, "We owed loyalty and allegiance to our own little tribes. other tribes were met with contempt. THey were something less than human." I cant remember the entire passage, but if you want to find it, look through his book Pale Blue Dot. its a good read. unless you're a creationist. I wont get into that though. The thing is, its part of us. its not right or necessary, but its just there. sadnessness Posted at 7:38 am on Dec. 1, 2008 Jakelong, you should probably accept that black people were properly discriminated against for years though. Sure, the 13th amendment was passed, then that was replaced by Jim Crow laws and literacy tests. Black people werent truly free until the 1950's-60's, and there are still enough racists around now for it to be of some concern jakelong Posted at 10:35 pm on Nov. 29, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 9:59 am on Nov. 29, 2008 They damn well didn't think it was wrong! Can you read their mind or is it that you KNOW what they were thinking because you share those thoughts?   Remember - back then Negroes weren't considered humans. That is the way they justified what they did to themselves. If really read what people said back then they called them   "savages" (as in "uncivilized") but still thought of them as humans.   it is only during the 19th century that they tried to justify what they did by declaring them not human.   The war itself is an UNDERSTOOD war. There was no SINGLE war. Just a series of battles and treaties.   There was no formal declarations but we still consider it a war - as people were put on two sides, White and Amerind. You do. The American colonists often considered them as neutral parties and as allies during their war against England.   BTW which side were your ancestors in the Tory vs Revolutionary conflict? There was a lot of fighting even before Whites came into the Great Plains and "Destroyed" the hunting grounds. Sure but since they were fighting with the same weapons the battle was even-handed and did not cause as much damage.   No it didn't.   If he brought them to EUROPE he would have. Well then Hispanics are not destroying your race in the US... Why spread it into nonwhite territory? The land where he did this was bought out by the British and technically part of the British Empire.   And unlike you I want to go back to the country they came from because nowadays I think it's better than the USA. Was the US ever better than Europe in your mind? How do you know MY ancestors did it? They came over and "destroyed" the Indian race by imposing their culture and language otherwise we would be still be speaking whichever native language is most used in the area where we live and practicing their culture....   Maybe my ancestors just had a normal life over in the USA without any fighting (Though some did fight in the revolutionary war and civil war). Maynbe the Hispanics are just having a normal life in Florida without any fighting... I can assure you at least 1/2 of the USA didn't want Blacks to be a part of it. How can you assure me of this?   I was speaking about after Blacks were freed. Apparently plenty of people DID want them there http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1866 But yeah I am sure the slave owners and racists could not stand having blacks around if they couldn't put their foot over black's head any longer.   Most Whites - and I can assure you MOST - didn't want Blacks to be considered equals. Show me the evidence for "most".   Otherwise you are just talking out of your ass. As usual.   Many wanted to send them back to Africa - hence Lincoln being voted into office by majority votes. Wait what?   Prove to me that THE REASON Lincon was re-elected in 1864 is BECAUSE he wanted to send them back to Africa (and no don't repeat posts quoting him about that intention. most of us already know that) Show where his intention was USED to get re-elected. Here is the platform for Lincoln's national party o Pursue the war to the unconditional surrender of the Confederacy o Amend the Constitution to abolish slavery o Guarantee aid to disabled Union veterans o Enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine o Encourage immigration o Build a transcontinental railroad o Extol the use of black troops o Recognize Lincoln's successful management of the war   http://tinyurl.com/6xblfz Nothing here about sending blacks back to Liberia. This was an idea made AFTER Lincoln had been re-elected jakelong Posted at 9:45 pm on Nov. 29, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 7:44 pm on Nov. 28, 2008 When they record some events and deliberately fail to say that some Klans aren't racist it is. Wiki can be changed by anyone right. Meaning if you see some error or something not completely exact it's YOUR duty to change it. Other wise don't bitch.   We could have sent them back to Africa - because, obviously, we just took them form Africa against their will - and put them back where THEY wanted to be. And you would have to reimburse all those slave owners who probably wanted their money back. Not to mention compensate those slaves for being taken from their country and used as cattle for months or years or generations.   Moonscar Posted at 8:45 pm on Nov. 29, 2008 I can't believe it either, then again I also can't believe it's not butter......... Most recent 15 of 89 previous replies displayed.