If You are using Racism as a political tool...You are a racist(poll to be taken)

[EatTheRich]

Whites, by virtue of their skin color, have some advantage over non-whites in every country they occupy???? Huh? Did you really mean that?

There is nothing that can fuel the flames of white supremacy more than to claim that whites have more by virtue of their skin color.

IF, in white nations, the whites have more and the blacks have less while whites make up less than one in 13 of the world's population, we should be inquiring as to why this is so. Are they smarter, more intelligent or more knowledgeable when it comes to managing resources?

WHY are blacks not able to build a nation and harness the power and abundance that nature provides? Holland is a nation that was literally beat back from the sea; America was founded by people seeking to get away from tyranny and oppression. What country represents the inherent capabilities of the black race? OR is it your contention they have none?

BTW, what proof do you have that white supremacy is wrong?

White European nations got a head start by virtue of geography and historical contingency, and used the immense power differential resulting from it to destroy non-white civilizations and create institutions reinforcing white supremacy all over the world.

Haiti, alluded to in the post you quoted, is a good example of "the inherent capabilities of the black race" considering that, with far fewer resources, it was able to defeat the French, Spanish, and British empires in a matter of a few years and achieve independence.

 

[reason10]

<<<<White European nations got a head start by virtue of geography and historical contingency, and used the immense power differential resulting from it to destroy non-white civilizations and create institutions reinforcing white supremacy all over the world.>>>>

See, THIS is the problem with low information public schools. They have produced a generation of idiots who have no clue as to the origins of civilization.

You are starting to sound like one of those racist terrorist BLM animals.

<<<<Haiti, alluded to in the post you quoted, is a good example of "the inherent capabilities of the black race" considering that, with far fewer resources, it was able to defeat the French, Spanish, and British empires in a matter of a few years and achieve independence.>>>>

And it's a shithole country where everyone is starving to death.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Shaming Into Submission

The Puritans called normal and healthy behavior "sins." History's judgment is that they were just making things up about what was immoral in order to have power over people. Calling people "racists" shows the same desire to dominate and feel morally superior based on a false sin. There is nothing wrong with racism; it is a rational conclusion from observing a group's general behavior. Whites have nothing to feel guilty about; we have never treated Blacks worse than they deserved.

 

[TheResister]

White European nations got a head start by virtue of geography and historical contingency, and used the immense power differential resulting from it to destroy non-white civilizations and create institutions reinforcing white supremacy all over the world.

Haiti, alluded to in the post you quoted, is a good example of "the inherent capabilities of the black race" considering that, with far fewer resources, it was able to defeat the French, Spanish, and British empires in a matter of a few years and achieve independence.

What a load of horse dung! I have a quote from what someone claimed authored by Thomas Dixon (who was an author whose books were the inspiration for the movie Birth of a Nation):

"Since the dawn of history the Negro has owned the continent of Africa rich beyond the poet's fancy, crunching acres of diamonds beneath his bare black feet. Yet he never picked one up from the dust until a White man showed him its light. His land swarmed with powerful and docile animals, yet he never built a harness, cart or sled.

A hunter by necessity, he never made an axe, spear or arrowhead worth preserving beyond the moment of its use. He lived as an ox, content to graze for an hour. In a land of stone and timber, he never carved a block, sawed a foot of lumber or built a house save of broken sticks and mud.

With league on league of ocean strand and miles of inland seas, for 4,000 years he watched their surface ripple under the wind, heard the thunder of the surf on his beach, the howl of the storm over his head, gazed on the dim blue horizons calling him to worlds that lie beyond, and yet he never dreamed of a sail. He lived as his fathers lived - stole his food, worked his wife, sold his children, ate his brother, content to drink, sing, to dance, and sport as the ape.

And this creature, half child, half animal, the creature of impulse, whim and conceit, pleased with a rattle, tickled with a straw; a being who left to his will, roams at night and sleeps in the day, whose speech knows no word of love, whose passions once aroused, are as the fury of the tiger - they have set this thing to rule over the Southern people ... Merciful God ... it surpasses human belief." - Thomas Dixon, Jr.

So, we now have two extreme points of view about this supposed geographical advantage and historical contingency.

In America, after 8 months, there were only 38 of the original 104 settlers living. Anyone who has read about the history of the founding of America can see they had no geographical advantage. The only contingency they understood was to work together and utilize their resources or they faced certain death.

 

[Max R.]

I presume that, under a constitutional Republic, we have unalienable Rights. It's a bit different from inalienable rights, but they are not limited to people by race.

How is it different?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inalienable
Alien, "alienable," "inalienable" - it's easy enough to see the Latin wordalius, meaning "other," at the root of these three words. "Alien" joined our language in the 14th century, and one of its earliest meanings was "belonging to another." By the early 1600s that sense of "alien" had led to the development of "alienable," an adjective describing something you could give away or transfer ownership of, and "unalienable," its opposite. By about 1645, "inalienable" was also in use as a synonym of "unalienable." "Inalienable" is the more common variant today, but it was "unalienable" that was used in the Declaration of Independence to describe rights like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[TheResister]

How is it different?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inalienable
Alien, "alienable," "inalienable" - it's easy enough to see the Latin wordalius, meaning "other," at the root of these three words. "Alien" joined our language in the 14th century, and one of its earliest meanings was "belonging to another." By the early 1600s that sense of "alien" had led to the development of "alienable," an adjective describing something you could give away or transfer ownership of, and "unalienable," its opposite. By about 1645, "inalienable" was also in use as a synonym of "unalienable." "Inalienable" is the more common variant today, but it was "unalienable" that was used in the Declaration of Independence to describe rights like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Remember, we are discussing a legal concept:


Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are UNALIENABLE. Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 Edition

"Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the Creator to the individual and can not, under any circumstances, be surrendered or taken. All individuals have unalienable rights.

Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Remember, we are discussing a legal concept:


Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are UNALIENABLE. Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 Edition

"Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the Creator to the individual and can not, under any circumstances, be surrendered or taken. All individuals have unalienable rights.

Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government.

Of the 7 drafts of the DoI, Jefferson used "inalienable" in the original copy. Masons draft used "inherent rights". In 1790, the 2nd Congress edited it and the word "unalienable" appeared (many think it was the printers mistake, most say that inalienable and unalienable meant the same thing, one was the French word the other was the English word), and had removed portions of the original text regarding the peoples right to revolution.

All rights, by their very nature, are limiting, they are not absolute. Your "unalienable" right to bear arms means nothing more than you have a right to self protection and to use what are common weapons (musket or rifle, bayonet, belt, magazine, powder, bullets/balls, and a knapsack) if need be for not only protection of yourself and of your state (conscripted into the states militia {military} where you will be issued and trained with/on military grade arms/weapons that are owned by the govt for the protection and common defense of the people and the US ), but also for an ability to hunt for food. Weapons can be limited, some can also be taken from the market.

 

[EatTheRich]

See, THIS is the problem with low information public schools. They have produced a generation of idiots who have no clue as to the origins of civilization.

The "origins of civilization"? Control of fire, knitting, basketry, boating, stone tools, fishing, hunting, music, art, religion, and medicine were inventions or discoveries from Africa. Plant and animal domestication, pottery, the wheel, and clothing originated in Asia. Private property, the family, and the state are all of African origin. Writing originated with the Black Sumerians.

If you went to a private school, you should definitely get your money back.

You are starting to sound like one of those racist terrorist BLM animals.

Projection. Imputing your own racial consciousness to anyone else who is race-conscious, when some of us are simply aware of race as a cause of systemic discrimination and falsification of history.

<<<<Haiti, alluded to in the post you quoted, is a good example of "the inherent capabilities of the black race" considering that, with far fewer resources, it was able to defeat the French, Spanish, and British empires in a matter of a few years and achieve independence.>>>>

And it's a shithole country where everyone is starving to death.

Theirs was not the first or last fight for freedom to be punished by those more powerful.

 

[EatTheRich]

Shaming Into Submission

The Puritans called normal and healthy behavior "sins." History's judgment is that they were just making things up about what was immoral in order to have power over people. Calling people "racists" shows the same desire to dominate and feel morally superior based on a false sin. There is nothing wrong with racism; it is a rational conclusion from observing a group's general behavior. Whites have nothing to feel guilty about; we have never treated Blacks worse than they deserved.

What about Blacks' "general behavior" made slavery acceptable?

 

[EatTheRich]

What a load of horse dung! I have a quote from what someone claimed authored by Thomas Dixon (who was an author whose books were the inspiration for the movie Birth of a Nation):

"Since the dawn of history the Negro has owned the continent of Africa rich beyond the poet's fancy, crunching acres of diamonds beneath his bare black feet. Yet he never picked one up from the dust until a White man showed him its light. His land swarmed with powerful and docile animals, yet he never built a harness, cart or sled.

A hunter by necessity, he never made an axe, spear or arrowhead worth preserving beyond the moment of its use. He lived as an ox, content to graze for an hour. In a land of stone and timber, he never carved a block, sawed a foot of lumber or built a house save of broken sticks and mud.

With league on league of ocean strand and miles of inland seas, for 4,000 years he watched their surface ripple under the wind, heard the thunder of the surf on his beach, the howl of the storm over his head, gazed on the dim blue horizons calling him to worlds that lie beyond, and yet he never dreamed of a sail. He lived as his fathers lived - stole his food, worked his wife, sold his children, ate his brother, content to drink, sing, to dance, and sport as the ape.

And this creature, half child, half animal, the creature of impulse, whim and conceit, pleased with a rattle, tickled with a straw; a being who left to his will, roams at night and sleeps in the day, whose speech knows no word of love, whose passions once aroused, are as the fury of the tiger - they have set this thing to rule over the Southern people ... Merciful God ... it surpasses human belief." - Thomas Dixon, Jr.

So, we now have two extreme points of view about this supposed geographical advantage and historical contingency.

In America, after 8 months, there were only 38 of the original 104 settlers living. Anyone who has read about the history of the founding of America can see they had no geographical advantage. The only contingency they understood was to work together and utilize their resources or they faced certain death.

Consider the source--a Ku Klux Klan worshipping white supremacist.

The fact is, he is simply wrong.

1. Africa did NOT in fact have any animal species suitable for domestication, other than the cat, and no other animal species native to Africa has in fact been domesticated since the time of European colonization.
2. The superiority of the Black Egyptians' weapons gave them an edge over their Canaanite, Hittite, and Libyan neighbors.
3. The pyramids, temples, libraries, palaces, and mosques built by Black Africans are numerous and well known.
4. Timbuktu during the time of the Mali Empire was the richest city in the world and had the biggest library in the world.
5. The city of Edo in the Benin Kingdom had paved roads centuries before Paris or London did.
6. The Kingdom of Makuria was one of the first countries in the world with indoor plumbing.
7. Africans may have sailed to the Americas during the time of the Kingdom of Kush, and almost certainly did during the time of the Kingdom of Mali.
8. Cannibalism was historically less prevalent on Africa than on any other continent.

1. The Indians weren't dying at a rate of 2/3 per year ... at least not until Europeans got there. It seems they were better at surviving.
2. Colonization of the Americas was pushing the advantages of the society to their limits by outrunning their supply lines and settling in a place with an unfamiliar climate to which European crops weren't always well-suited. That doesn't mean that Europeans didn't benefit from the geographical advantages enumerated in Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel.

 

[TheResister]

Consider the source--a Ku Klux Klan worshipping white supremacist.

The fact is, he is simply wrong.

1. Africa did NOT in fact have any animal species suitable for domestication, other than the cat, and no other animal species native to Africa has in fact been domesticated since the time of European colonization.
2. The superiority of the Black Egyptians' weapons gave them an edge over their Canaanite, Hittite, and Libyan neighbors.
3. The pyramids, temples, libraries, palaces, and mosques built by Black Africans are numerous and well known.
4. Timbuktu during the time of the Mali Empire was the richest city in the world and had the biggest library in the world.
5. The city of Edo in the Benin Kingdom had paved roads centuries before Paris or London did.
6. The Kingdom of Makuria was one of the first countries in the world with indoor plumbing.
7. Africans may have sailed to the Americas during the time of the Kingdom of Kush, and almost certainly did during the time of the Kingdom of Mali.
8. Cannibalism was historically less prevalent on Africa than on any other continent.

1. The Indians weren't dying at a rate of 2/3 per year ... at least not until Europeans got there. It seems they were better at surviving.
2. Colonization of the Americas was pushing the advantages of the society to their limits by outrunning their supply lines and settling in a place with an unfamiliar climate to which European crops weren't always well-suited. That doesn't mean that Europeans didn't benefit from the geographical advantages enumerated in Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel.

I had to double over in laughter. You complain about white supremacy yet want to pretend that blacks were superior in every way to the whites.

So, explain this to me:

How did a few Jewish slave trading ships come to Africa and take the slaves without any resistance from these hordes of racially superior black people?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The "origins of civilization"? Control of fire, knitting, basketry, boating, stone tools, fishing, hunting, music, art, religion, and medicine were inventions or discoveries from Africa. Plant and animal domestication, pottery, the wheel, and clothing originated in Asia. Private property, the family, and the state are all of African origin. Writing originated with the Black Sumerians.

If you went to a private school, you should definitely get your money back.



Projection. Imputing your own racial consciousness to anyone else who is race-conscious, when some of us are simply aware of race as a cause of systemic discrimination and falsification of history.



Theirs was not the first or last fight for freedom to be punished by those more powerful.

Plebeiophobia

Your Whitey Hating Whitey pathetic explanation is as absurd as the Nazis claiming that Jesus was part of an "Aryan pocket" within Israel. Your New Left fraud was devised by those who were born rich and felt they had inherited superior genes that made them a separate and evolved race.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

What about Blacks' "general behavior" made slavery acceptable?

Cure the Feralphile Virus

They were only useful as tamed farm animals. As with all domesticated species, they benefited from that. Fantasies about Black civilizations aside, they have always been better off in America than Africa. For their ingratitude and irrational, Liberal-fed illusions of their worth, they must be disenfranchised and their wilder ones exterminated.

 

[TheResister]

Plebeiophobia

Your Whitey Hating Whitey pathetic explanation is as absurd as the Nazis claiming that Jesus was part of an "Aryan pocket" within Israel. Your New Left fraud was devised by those who were born rich and felt they had inherited superior genes that made them a separate and evolved race.

I noticed that hint of black racism as well. Of the sources that the left relies on, I'd like to say something there regarding the black Egyptians Eat the Rich talks about:

In 1839, Champollion's and Volney's claims were disputed by Jacques Joseph Champollion-Figeac, who blamed the ancients for spreading a false impression of a Negro Egypt, stating "The opinion that the ancient population of Egypt belonged to the Negro African race, is an error long accepted as the truth. [...] Volney's conclusion as to the Negro origin of the ancient Egyptian civilization is evidently forced and inadmissible."
L'Egypt ancienne et moderne (1840)

Not much point in multiplying an expose' of the rest of the false claims made in Eat the Rich's post.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Consider the source--a Ku Klux Klan worshipping white supremacist.

The fact is, he is simply wrong.

1. Africa did NOT in fact have any animal species suitable for domestication, other than the cat, and no other animal species native to Africa has in fact been domesticated since the time of European colonization.
2. The superiority of the Black Egyptians' weapons gave them an edge over their Canaanite, Hittite, and Libyan neighbors.
3. The pyramids, temples, libraries, palaces, and mosques built by Black Africans are numerous and well known.
4. Timbuktu during the time of the Mali Empire was the richest city in the world and had the biggest library in the world.
5. The city of Edo in the Benin Kingdom had paved roads centuries before Paris or London did.
6. The Kingdom of Makuria was one of the first countries in the world with indoor plumbing.
7. Africans may have sailed to the Americas during the time of the Kingdom of Kush, and almost certainly did during the time of the Kingdom of Mali.
8. Cannibalism was historically less prevalent on Africa than on any other continent.

1. The Indians weren't dying at a rate of 2/3 per year ... at least not until Europeans got there. It seems they were better at surviving.
2. Colonization of the Americas was pushing the advantages of the society to their limits by outrunning their supply lines and settling in a place with an unfamiliar climate to which European crops weren't always well-suited. That doesn't mean that Europeans didn't benefit from the geographical advantages enumerated in Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel.

Spoiled Snobs Are Suffocating Our Race's Potential

The Egyptians were not Black. They weren't Arabs, either. They were related to other advanced tribes such as the Trojans, Babylonians (not Arab either), Cretans, Carthaginians, Jews, etc.

With your twisting of proper nouns, you might as well claim that the American Indians came from India. If the hereditary upper class didn't desperately need to humiliate us, we would be allowed to realize that they were criminal fugitives originating in Siberia, where they had been driven to by the evolved Asians.

All those supposedly Black achievements came from the Muslim conquest. The Muslims, savage desert bandits that they were, borrowed everything apparently advanced in their society from the formerly great civilizations they conquered.

 

[EatTheRich]

I had to double over in laughter. You complain about white supremacy yet want to pretend that blacks were superior in every way to the whites.

I never attempted to argue anything of the sort. Apparently that is the conclusion you drew from the factual data I provided. It is not the conclusion I draw ... I think that the differential rates at which different areas advance depends on the historical influence of geographic and historical factors.

So, explain this to me:

How did a few Jewish slave trading ships come to Africa and take the slaves without any resistance from these hordes of racially superior black people?

1. I never said that Blacks were racially superior. That is your straw man. And while there were certainly Jewish-owned trading ships, the implication that a large percentage were Jewish is a long-standing anti-Semitic canard.
2. Europeans certainly had technological superiority in certain ways. They had better ships, they had better guns, and unlike many African polities they had political systems (centralized states) well-suited to waging war.
3. One reason for this differential evolution is that, because Eurasian plants and animals were generally better suited to domestication than African plants and animals, Eurasia got a head start on agriculture. Also, because much of Eurasia is at similar latitudes with similar temperature, rainfall, and seasonal patterns, unlike in Africa, crops developed in one area could quickly spread to another, while both the lack of common crop systems and the larger geographic barriers to easy human movement in much of Africa helped keep African societies isolated from each other and not reaping the benefits of other cultures' advances to the extent that many Eurasian cultures did.
4. Europeans also often got slaves without waging war. In fact, centuries before Europeans were powerful enough to penetrate the defenses of Africa's coastline, Europeans were buying slaves from African states such as the Songhai Empire. In return, these states got clothing, guns, and other goods made in Europe.

 

[EatTheRich]

Plebeiophobia

Your Whitey Hating Whitey pathetic explanation is as absurd as the Nazis claiming that Jesus was part of an "Aryan pocket" within Israel. Your New Left fraud was devised by those who were born rich and felt they had inherited superior genes that made them a separate and evolved race.

Definitely projection. You're the one with the master race complex.

 

[EatTheRich]

Cure the Feralphile Virus

They were only useful as tamed farm animals. As with all domesticated species, they benefited from that. Fantasies about Black civilizations aside, they have always been better off in America than Africa.

See what I mean about you being the "master race" ideologist?

No, as a matter of fact, many of the first slaves imported from Africa were bought because they possessed special skills ... as doctors, blacksmiths, architects, etc. ... that Europeans stood in need of.

Would Emmett Till have been better off in Africa? What about American Blacks who chose to move to Africa? Where were they better off?

Millions of Africans are suffering due to the same systems of colonialism, racism, imperialism, and capitalism that are causing many African-Americans to suffer.

For their ingratitude and irrational, Liberal-fed illusions of their worth, they must be disenfranchised and their wilder ones exterminated.

Say hi to Ron Paul for me. Let him know he's an [Unwelcome language removed].

 

[EatTheRich]

I noticed that hint of black racism as well. Of the sources that the left relies on, I'd like to say something there regarding the black Egyptians Eat the Rich talks about:

In 1839, Champollion's and Volney's claims were disputed by Jacques Joseph Champollion-Figeac, who blamed the ancients for spreading a false impression of a Negro Egypt, stating "The opinion that the ancient population of Egypt belonged to the Negro African race, is an error long accepted as the truth. [...] Volney's conclusion as to the Negro origin of the ancient Egyptian civilization is evidently forced and inadmissible."
L'Egypt ancienne et moderne (1840)

Not much point in multiplying an expose' of the rest of the false claims made in Eat the Rich's post.

LMAO. A source from 1840 vs. the near-unanimous record of the ancient world (and I say near-unanimous because there were periods when ancient Egypt was taken over by whites), the depictions of the ancient Egyptians themselves, and modern DNA evidence.

 

[EatTheRich]

Spoiled Snobs Are Suffocating Our Race's Potential

The Egyptians were not Black. They weren't Arabs, either. They were related to other advanced tribes such as the Trojans, Babylonians (not Arab either), Cretans, Carthaginians, Jews, etc.

We're all related to each other. According to most linguistic evidence, the Egyptians (ancestors of the present-day Copts) were most closely related to languages apparently spoken by whites (Berbers & Middle Eastern Semites) and languages spoken by Blacks (African Semites and speakers of Chadic and Cushitic languages). DNA evidence shows affiliation with Black Cushitic and Nilotic populations. Culturally, they show influence from Black Nubians as well as white Libyans, Greeks, Semites, etc.

With your twisting of proper nouns, you might as well claim that the American Indians came from India. If the hereditary upper class didn't desperately need to humiliate us, we would be allowed to realize that they were criminal fugitives originating in Siberia, where they had been driven to by the evolved Asians.

Defend the claim that they were "criminal fugitives" rather than the explorers and hunters depicted in the archaeological record.

All those supposedly Black achievements came from the Muslim conquest. The Muslims, savage desert bandits that they were, borrowed everything apparently advanced in their society from the formerly great civilizations they conquered.

Arabia was hardly "savage" in a technical sense in Muhammad's time. But, yes, the Arabs did conquer and assimilate the knowledge of more advanced civilizations. And many of the great advances for African civilization came from Muslims (both white and Black) and before that from Phoenicians, Romans, and Jews. But what do you think you're proving? I have never set out to show that African civilization was the only civilization or even a superior civilization. I was merely pushing back against the Klan propaganda that Africa had no civilization whatsoever.