I'm not white, but I do sympathize with white Americans

[Asclepias]

Let me say something to the white liberals/race deniers here.

Your idea that people who are not white are automatically not racist is incorrect. If anything, people who are not white are more racist, and it is only deluded white people who are not racist (even though these same white people hypocritically take great pains to separate themselves from people of other race).

I'm a brown Indian and I'm racist. Accept it, I'm not going to change. This doesn't mean I am white washed, it just means I am very racially aware and think in terms of race. Race is about us and them. It's about who you are biologically, and of course it is of supreme importance. You can't change it, any more than you can change being male or female (you know what I mean) or growing old, or change your life history.

Race is who you are.

I disagree. Its obvious the white race is more racist than any other race on the planet. When you can name me one other race that invaded the globe and killed off native brown people then you might have a point. After that then you need to point out that same race that waged a campaign of propaganda structured to promote themselves as a superior race. As I see it either you are a lap dog for a white man or you are a sock.

 

[RoshanNair]

Let me say something to the white liberals/race deniers here.

Your idea that people who are not white are automatically not racist is incorrect. If anything, people who are not white are more racist, and it is only deluded white people who are not racist (even though these same white people hypocritically take great pains to separate themselves from people of other race).

I'm a brown Indian and I'm racist. Accept it, I'm not going to change. This doesn't mean I am white washed, it just means I am very racially aware and think in terms of race. Race is about us and them. It's about who you are biologically, and of course it is of supreme importance. You can't change it, any more than you can change being male or female (you know what I mean) or growing old, or change your life history.

Race is who you are.

I disagree. Its obvious the white race is more racist than any other race on the planet. When you can name me one other race that invaded the globe and killed off native brown people then you might have a point. After that then you need to point out that same race that waged a campaign of propaganda structured to promote themselves as a superior race. As I see it either you are a lap dog for a white man or you are a sock.

Indigenous people have been relentlessly persecuted across all societies on this planet. It's just that you've been so thoroughly conditioned that you only see the foul play perpetrated by European invaders/colonizers.

 

[Asclepias]

Let me say something to the white liberals/race deniers here.

Your idea that people who are not white are automatically not racist is incorrect. If anything, people who are not white are more racist, and it is only deluded white people who are not racist (even though these same white people hypocritically take great pains to separate themselves from people of other race).

I'm a brown Indian and I'm racist. Accept it, I'm not going to change. This doesn't mean I am white washed, it just means I am very racially aware and think in terms of race. Race is about us and them. It's about who you are biologically, and of course it is of supreme importance. You can't change it, any more than you can change being male or female (you know what I mean) or growing old, or change your life history.

Race is who you are.

I disagree. Its obvious the white race is more racist than any other race on the planet. When you can name me one other race that invaded the globe and killed off native brown people then you might have a point. After that then you need to point out that same race that waged a campaign of propaganda structured to promote themselves as a superior race. As I see it either you are a lap dog for a white man or you are a sock.

Indigenous people have been relentlessly persecuted across all societies on this planet. It's just that you've been so thoroughly conditioned that you only see the foul play perpetrated by European invaders/colonizers.

So instead of doing what I asked you deflect? Answer my question if you can or I cant take you as a serous interlocutor.

 

[RoshanNair]

Let me say something to the white liberals/race deniers here.

Your idea that people who are not white are automatically not racist is incorrect. If anything, people who are not white are more racist, and it is only deluded white people who are not racist (even though these same white people hypocritically take great pains to separate themselves from people of other race).

I'm a brown Indian and I'm racist. Accept it, I'm not going to change. This doesn't mean I am white washed, it just means I am very racially aware and think in terms of race. Race is about us and them. It's about who you are biologically, and of course it is of supreme importance. You can't change it, any more than you can change being male or female (you know what I mean) or growing old, or change your life history.

Race is who you are.

I disagree. Its obvious the white race is more racist than any other race on the planet. When you can name me one other race that invaded the globe and killed off native brown people then you might have a point. After that then you need to point out that same race that waged a campaign of propaganda structured to promote themselves as a superior race. As I see it either you are a lap dog for a white man or you are a sock.

Indigenous people have been relentlessly persecuted across all societies on this planet. It's just that you've been so thoroughly conditioned that you only see the foul play perpetrated by European invaders/colonizers.

So instead of doing what I asked you deflect? Answer my question if you can or I cant take you as a serous interlocutor.

Go read up on the history/present conditions of the Adivasis of South Asia, the mass extermination of the Dzungar people of China, the persecution of the Ainu in Japan, and the innumerable episodes of genocidal violence against indigenous communities (still ongoing) in Africa.

And that doesn't even endeavor to scratch the surface, tbh.

 

[Asclepias]

Let me say something to the white liberals/race deniers here.

Your idea that people who are not white are automatically not racist is incorrect. If anything, people who are not white are more racist, and it is only deluded white people who are not racist (even though these same white people hypocritically take great pains to separate themselves from people of other race).

I'm a brown Indian and I'm racist. Accept it, I'm not going to change. This doesn't mean I am white washed, it just means I am very racially aware and think in terms of race. Race is about us and them. It's about who you are biologically, and of course it is of supreme importance. You can't change it, any more than you can change being male or female (you know what I mean) or growing old, or change your life history.

Race is who you are.

I disagree. Its obvious the white race is more racist than any other race on the planet. When you can name me one other race that invaded the globe and killed off native brown people then you might have a point. After that then you need to point out that same race that waged a campaign of propaganda structured to promote themselves as a superior race. As I see it either you are a lap dog for a white man or you are a sock.

Indigenous people have been relentlessly persecuted across all societies on this planet. It's just that you've been so thoroughly conditioned that you only see the foul play perpetrated by European invaders/colonizers.

So instead of doing what I asked you deflect? Answer my question if you can or I cant take you as a serous interlocutor.

Go read up on the history/present conditions of the Adivasis of South Asia, the mass extermination of the Dzungar people of China, the persecution of the Ainu in Japan, and the innumerable episodes of genocidal violence against indigenous communities (still ongoing) in Africa.

And that doesn't even endeavor to scratch the surface, tbh.

Why would I do any of that when I asked you specifically about a race doing that on a global scale due to skin color? Youre deflecting and thats now twice. You have one more chance.

 

[RoshanNair]

Let me say something to the white liberals/race deniers here.

Your idea that people who are not white are automatically not racist is incorrect. If anything, people who are not white are more racist, and it is only deluded white people who are not racist (even though these same white people hypocritically take great pains to separate themselves from people of other race).

I'm a brown Indian and I'm racist. Accept it, I'm not going to change. This doesn't mean I am white washed, it just means I am very racially aware and think in terms of race. Race is about us and them. It's about who you are biologically, and of course it is of supreme importance. You can't change it, any more than you can change being male or female (you know what I mean) or growing old, or change your life history.

Race is who you are.

I disagree. Its obvious the white race is more racist than any other race on the planet. When you can name me one other race that invaded the globe and killed off native brown people then you might have a point. After that then you need to point out that same race that waged a campaign of propaganda structured to promote themselves as a superior race. As I see it either you are a lap dog for a white man or you are a sock.

Indigenous people have been relentlessly persecuted across all societies on this planet. It's just that you've been so thoroughly conditioned that you only see the foul play perpetrated by European invaders/colonizers.

So instead of doing what I asked you deflect? Answer my question if you can or I cant take you as a serous interlocutor.

Go read up on the history/present conditions of the Adivasis of South Asia, the mass extermination of the Dzungar people of China, the persecution of the Ainu in Japan, and the innumerable episodes of genocidal violence against indigenous communities (still ongoing) in Africa.

And that doesn't even endeavor to scratch the surface, tbh.

Why would I do any of that when I asked you specifically about a race doing that on a global scale due to skin color? Youre deflecting and thats now twice. You have one more chance.

Err...your words were "native brown people". Key word: native.

If you are asking solely about ostensibly racial wars....what makes you determine that they are doing so for that reason? Your argument is baseless.

 

[Asclepias]

I disagree. Its obvious the white race is more racist than any other race on the planet. When you can name me one other race that invaded the globe and killed off native brown people then you might have a point. After that then you need to point out that same race that waged a campaign of propaganda structured to promote themselves as a superior race. As I see it either you are a lap dog for a white man or you are a sock.

Indigenous people have been relentlessly persecuted across all societies on this planet. It's just that you've been so thoroughly conditioned that you only see the foul play perpetrated by European invaders/colonizers.

So instead of doing what I asked you deflect? Answer my question if you can or I cant take you as a serous interlocutor.

Go read up on the history/present conditions of the Adivasis of South Asia, the mass extermination of the Dzungar people of China, the persecution of the Ainu in Japan, and the innumerable episodes of genocidal violence against indigenous communities (still ongoing) in Africa.

And that doesn't even endeavor to scratch the surface, tbh.

Why would I do any of that when I asked you specifically about a race doing that on a global scale due to skin color? Youre deflecting and thats now twice. You have one more chance.

Err...your words were "native brown people". Key word: native.

If you are asking solely about ostensibly racial wars....what makes you determine that they are doing so for that reason? Your argument is baseless.

Try reading my post. Of course I said native brown people. Only whites have done that on a global scale.

 

[RoshanNair]

Indigenous people have been relentlessly persecuted across all societies on this planet. It's just that you've been so thoroughly conditioned that you only see the foul play perpetrated by European invaders/colonizers.

So instead of doing what I asked you deflect? Answer my question if you can or I cant take you as a serous interlocutor.

Go read up on the history/present conditions of the Adivasis of South Asia, the mass extermination of the Dzungar people of China, the persecution of the Ainu in Japan, and the innumerable episodes of genocidal violence against indigenous communities (still ongoing) in Africa.

And that doesn't even endeavor to scratch the surface, tbh.

Why would I do any of that when I asked you specifically about a race doing that on a global scale due to skin color? Youre deflecting and thats now twice. You have one more chance.

Err...your words were "native brown people". Key word: native.

If you are asking solely about ostensibly racial wars....what makes you determine that they are doing so for that reason? Your argument is baseless.

Try reading my post. Of course I said native brown people. Only whites have done that on a global scale.

Mind clarifying exactly wtf you mean when you say "native brown people"? Who the hell are you referring to in particular??

 

[Asclepias]

So instead of doing what I asked you deflect? Answer my question if you can or I cant take you as a serous interlocutor.

Go read up on the history/present conditions of the Adivasis of South Asia, the mass extermination of the Dzungar people of China, the persecution of the Ainu in Japan, and the innumerable episodes of genocidal violence against indigenous communities (still ongoing) in Africa.

And that doesn't even endeavor to scratch the surface, tbh.

Why would I do any of that when I asked you specifically about a race doing that on a global scale due to skin color? Youre deflecting and thats now twice. You have one more chance.

Err...your words were "native brown people". Key word: native.

If you are asking solely about ostensibly racial wars....what makes you determine that they are doing so for that reason? Your argument is baseless.

Try reading my post. Of course I said native brown people. Only whites have done that on a global scale.

Mind clarifying exactly wtf you mean when you say "native brown people"? Who the hell are you referring to in particular??

I dont know how to make it any clearer for you. If you dont know what that means there is not much I can do to help you other than point out what whites did your native country. Look up what part Churchill played in the famine in India.

 

[RoshanNair]

Go read up on the history/present conditions of the Adivasis of South Asia, the mass extermination of the Dzungar people of China, the persecution of the Ainu in Japan, and the innumerable episodes of genocidal violence against indigenous communities (still ongoing) in Africa.

And that doesn't even endeavor to scratch the surface, tbh.

Why would I do any of that when I asked you specifically about a race doing that on a global scale due to skin color? Youre deflecting and thats now twice. You have one more chance.

Err...your words were "native brown people". Key word: native.

If you are asking solely about ostensibly racial wars....what makes you determine that they are doing so for that reason? Your argument is baseless.

Try reading my post. Of course I said native brown people. Only whites have done that on a global scale.

Mind clarifying exactly wtf you mean when you say "native brown people"? Who the hell are you referring to in particular??

I dont know how to make it any clearer for you. If you dont know what that means there is not much I can do to help you other than point out what whites did your native country. Look up what part Churchill played in the famine in India.

Maybe it's just my pedantic disposition, but I expect people to use more precise terminology......words like "native" denote indigenous or aboriginal, neither of which would apply within the parameters of your general argument for today's world (IE notwithstanding the history of European settler-colonialism in the U.S., Canada, Australia, NZ, South Africa, etc.).

Aside from the Adivasi tribes, the people who suffered the colonial enormities in the Indian subcontinent were themselves not indigenous or "native" to the land, so your employment of the term itself is improper (all things considered).

As for the Bengal famine and Churchill....you're nitpicking a very particular piece of history from 70+ years ago and positing that such is part of a wider continuum. You are trying to incorporate the historic struggle against British colonialism in India as part of a larger, more expansive paradigm of POC rebellion against "White crimes" when it isn't anything of the sort.

PS: "Whites" didn't commit those crimes, the English did. I am loathe to subsuming Scots, Irish, Italians, Germans, Poles, Danes, Swedes, etc. into that foray which should rightfully identify only one European ethnic group as the perpetrator.

 

[Asclepias]

Why would I do any of that when I asked you specifically about a race doing that on a global scale due to skin color? Youre deflecting and thats now twice. You have one more chance.

Err...your words were "native brown people". Key word: native.

If you are asking solely about ostensibly racial wars....what makes you determine that they are doing so for that reason? Your argument is baseless.

Try reading my post. Of course I said native brown people. Only whites have done that on a global scale.

Mind clarifying exactly wtf you mean when you say "native brown people"? Who the hell are you referring to in particular??

I dont know how to make it any clearer for you. If you dont know what that means there is not much I can do to help you other than point out what whites did your native country. Look up what part Churchill played in the famine in India.

Maybe it's just my pedantic disposition, but I expect people to use more precise terminology......words like "native" denote indigenous or aboriginal, neither of which would apply within the parameters of your general argument for today's world (IE notwithstanding the history of European settler-colonialism in the U.S., Canada, Australia, NZ, South Africa, etc.).

Aside from the Adivasi tribes, the people who suffered the colonial enormities in the Indian subcontinent were themselves not indigenous or "native" to the land, so your employment of the term itself is improper (all things considered).

As for the Bengal famine and Churchill....you're nitpicking a very particular piece of history from 70+ years ago and positing that such is part of a wider continuum. You are trying to incorporate the historic struggle against British colonialism in India as part of a larger, more expansive paradigm of POC rebellion against "White crimes" when it isn't anything of the sort.

PS: "Whites" didn't commit those crimes, the English did. I am loathe to subsuming Scots, Irish, Italians, Germans, Poles, Danes, Swedes, etc. into that foray which should rightfully identify only one European ethnic group as the perpetrator.

I think you somehow missed the point. I never said anything about todays world. That was an erroneous assumption you made on your part. i was speaking about racism and its evident abundance in the populations of the white races due to historical facts. I asked you to point out a race other than whites that globally and systematically attempted to exterminate natives (brown people). It simply cant be that difficult for anyone with even a mediocre intelligence to grasp what I am asking.

 

[RoshanNair]

Err...your words were "native brown people". Key word: native.

If you are asking solely about ostensibly racial wars....what makes you determine that they are doing so for that reason? Your argument is baseless.

Try reading my post. Of course I said native brown people. Only whites have done that on a global scale.

Mind clarifying exactly wtf you mean when you say "native brown people"? Who the hell are you referring to in particular??

I dont know how to make it any clearer for you. If you dont know what that means there is not much I can do to help you other than point out what whites did your native country. Look up what part Churchill played in the famine in India.

Maybe it's just my pedantic disposition, but I expect people to use more precise terminology......words like "native" denote indigenous or aboriginal, neither of which would apply within the parameters of your general argument for today's world (IE notwithstanding the history of European settler-colonialism in the U.S., Canada, Australia, NZ, South Africa, etc.).

Aside from the Adivasi tribes, the people who suffered the colonial enormities in the Indian subcontinent were themselves not indigenous or "native" to the land, so your employment of the term itself is improper (all things considered).

As for the Bengal famine and Churchill....you're nitpicking a very particular piece of history from 70+ years ago and positing that such is part of a wider continuum. You are trying to incorporate the historic struggle against British colonialism in India as part of a larger, more expansive paradigm of POC rebellion against "White crimes" when it isn't anything of the sort.

PS: "Whites" didn't commit those crimes, the English did. I am loathe to subsuming Scots, Irish, Italians, Germans, Poles, Danes, Swedes, etc. into that foray which should rightfully identify only one European ethnic group as the perpetrator.

I think you somehow missed the point. I never said anything about todays world. That was an erroneous assumption you made on your part. i was speaking about racism and its evident abundance in the populations of the white races due to historical facts. I asked you to point out a race other than whites that globally and systematically attempted to exterminate natives (brown people). It simply cant be that difficult for anyone with even a mediocre intelligence to grasp what I am asking.

Err...your words were "native brown people". Key word: native.

If you are asking solely about ostensibly racial wars....what makes you determine that they are doing so for that reason? Your argument is baseless.

Try reading my post. Of course I said native brown people. Only whites have done that on a global scale.

Mind clarifying exactly wtf you mean when you say "native brown people"? Who the hell are you referring to in particular??

I dont know how to make it any clearer for you. If you dont know what that means there is not much I can do to help you other than point out what whites did your native country. Look up what part Churchill played in the famine in India.

Maybe it's just my pedantic disposition, but I expect people to use more precise terminology......words like "native" denote indigenous or aboriginal, neither of which would apply within the parameters of your general argument for today's world (IE notwithstanding the history of European settler-colonialism in the U.S., Canada, Australia, NZ, South Africa, etc.).

Aside from the Adivasi tribes, the people who suffered the colonial enormities in the Indian subcontinent were themselves not indigenous or "native" to the land, so your employment of the term itself is improper (all things considered).

As for the Bengal famine and Churchill....you're nitpicking a very particular piece of history from 70+ years ago and positing that such is part of a wider continuum. You are trying to incorporate the historic struggle against British colonialism in India as part of a larger, more expansive paradigm of POC rebellion against "White crimes" when it isn't anything of the sort.

PS: "Whites" didn't commit those crimes, the English did. I am loathe to subsuming Scots, Irish, Italians, Germans, Poles, Danes, Swedes, etc. into that foray which should rightfully identify only one European ethnic group as the perpetrator.

I think you somehow missed the point. I never said anything about todays world. That was an erroneous assumption you made on your part. i was speaking about racism and its evident abundance in the populations of the white races due to historical facts. I asked you to point out a race other than whites that globally and systematically attempted to exterminate natives (brown people). It simply cant be that difficult for anyone with even a mediocre intelligence to grasp what I am asking.

Uhh....you might wanna re-read your posts. You ask me to point out another race "doing" what white people had....."doing" infers currently ongoing/present tense, assuming you never paid attention during middle-school English classes of course...

Also, your continued use of "brown" with reference to "native" people is also deeply problematic. It is such a relative term. Are the "native" peoples of Europe, East Asia, SS Africa, etc. "brown" in pigmentation? LOL.

BTW, in terms of sheer numbers, far more people of SS African descent were killed by Semitic Arabs than they were Europeans.....just some food for thought.

 

[Asclepias]

Try reading my post. Of course I said native brown people. Only whites have done that on a global scale.

Mind clarifying exactly wtf you mean when you say "native brown people"? Who the hell are you referring to in particular??

I dont know how to make it any clearer for you. If you dont know what that means there is not much I can do to help you other than point out what whites did your native country. Look up what part Churchill played in the famine in India.

Maybe it's just my pedantic disposition, but I expect people to use more precise terminology......words like "native" denote indigenous or aboriginal, neither of which would apply within the parameters of your general argument for today's world (IE notwithstanding the history of European settler-colonialism in the U.S., Canada, Australia, NZ, South Africa, etc.).

Aside from the Adivasi tribes, the people who suffered the colonial enormities in the Indian subcontinent were themselves not indigenous or "native" to the land, so your employment of the term itself is improper (all things considered).

As for the Bengal famine and Churchill....you're nitpicking a very particular piece of history from 70+ years ago and positing that such is part of a wider continuum. You are trying to incorporate the historic struggle against British colonialism in India as part of a larger, more expansive paradigm of POC rebellion against "White crimes" when it isn't anything of the sort.

PS: "Whites" didn't commit those crimes, the English did. I am loathe to subsuming Scots, Irish, Italians, Germans, Poles, Danes, Swedes, etc. into that foray which should rightfully identify only one European ethnic group as the perpetrator.

I think you somehow missed the point. I never said anything about todays world. That was an erroneous assumption you made on your part. i was speaking about racism and its evident abundance in the populations of the white races due to historical facts. I asked you to point out a race other than whites that globally and systematically attempted to exterminate natives (brown people). It simply cant be that difficult for anyone with even a mediocre intelligence to grasp what I am asking.

Try reading my post. Of course I said native brown people. Only whites have done that on a global scale.

Mind clarifying exactly wtf you mean when you say "native brown people"? Who the hell are you referring to in particular??

I dont know how to make it any clearer for you. If you dont know what that means there is not much I can do to help you other than point out what whites did your native country. Look up what part Churchill played in the famine in India.

Maybe it's just my pedantic disposition, but I expect people to use more precise terminology......words like "native" denote indigenous or aboriginal, neither of which would apply within the parameters of your general argument for today's world (IE notwithstanding the history of European settler-colonialism in the U.S., Canada, Australia, NZ, South Africa, etc.).

Aside from the Adivasi tribes, the people who suffered the colonial enormities in the Indian subcontinent were themselves not indigenous or "native" to the land, so your employment of the term itself is improper (all things considered).

As for the Bengal famine and Churchill....you're nitpicking a very particular piece of history from 70+ years ago and positing that such is part of a wider continuum. You are trying to incorporate the historic struggle against British colonialism in India as part of a larger, more expansive paradigm of POC rebellion against "White crimes" when it isn't anything of the sort.

PS: "Whites" didn't commit those crimes, the English did. I am loathe to subsuming Scots, Irish, Italians, Germans, Poles, Danes, Swedes, etc. into that foray which should rightfully identify only one European ethnic group as the perpetrator.

I think you somehow missed the point. I never said anything about todays world. That was an erroneous assumption you made on your part. i was speaking about racism and its evident abundance in the populations of the white races due to historical facts. I asked you to point out a race other than whites that globally and systematically attempted to exterminate natives (brown people). It simply cant be that difficult for anyone with even a mediocre intelligence to grasp what I am asking.

Uhh....you might wanna re-read your posts. You ask me to point out another race "doing" what white people had....."doing" infers currently ongoing/present tense, assuming you never paid attention during middle-school English classes of course...

Also, your continued use of "brown" with reference to "native" people is also deeply problematic. It is such a relative term. Are the "native" peoples of Europe, East Asia, SS Africa, etc. "brown" in pigmentation? LOL.

BTW, in terms of sheer numbers, far more people of SS African descent were killed by Semitic Arabs than they were Europeans.....just some food for thought.

Uhh...You may want to reread my posts. All past tense. This was my orginal question you replied to. Deflecting is not working for you.

"When you can name me one other race that invaded the globe and killed off native brown people then you might have a point. After that then you need to point out that same race that waged a campaign of propaganda structured to promote themselves as a superior race"

 

[RoshanNair]

Mind clarifying exactly wtf you mean when you say "native brown people"? Who the hell are you referring to in particular??

I dont know how to make it any clearer for you. If you dont know what that means there is not much I can do to help you other than point out what whites did your native country. Look up what part Churchill played in the famine in India.

Maybe it's just my pedantic disposition, but I expect people to use more precise terminology......words like "native" denote indigenous or aboriginal, neither of which would apply within the parameters of your general argument for today's world (IE notwithstanding the history of European settler-colonialism in the U.S., Canada, Australia, NZ, South Africa, etc.).

Aside from the Adivasi tribes, the people who suffered the colonial enormities in the Indian subcontinent were themselves not indigenous or "native" to the land, so your employment of the term itself is improper (all things considered).

As for the Bengal famine and Churchill....you're nitpicking a very particular piece of history from 70+ years ago and positing that such is part of a wider continuum. You are trying to incorporate the historic struggle against British colonialism in India as part of a larger, more expansive paradigm of POC rebellion against "White crimes" when it isn't anything of the sort.

PS: "Whites" didn't commit those crimes, the English did. I am loathe to subsuming Scots, Irish, Italians, Germans, Poles, Danes, Swedes, etc. into that foray which should rightfully identify only one European ethnic group as the perpetrator.

I think you somehow missed the point. I never said anything about todays world. That was an erroneous assumption you made on your part. i was speaking about racism and its evident abundance in the populations of the white races due to historical facts. I asked you to point out a race other than whites that globally and systematically attempted to exterminate natives (brown people). It simply cant be that difficult for anyone with even a mediocre intelligence to grasp what I am asking.

Mind clarifying exactly wtf you mean when you say "native brown people"? Who the hell are you referring to in particular??

I dont know how to make it any clearer for you. If you dont know what that means there is not much I can do to help you other than point out what whites did your native country. Look up what part Churchill played in the famine in India.

Maybe it's just my pedantic disposition, but I expect people to use more precise terminology......words like "native" denote indigenous or aboriginal, neither of which would apply within the parameters of your general argument for today's world (IE notwithstanding the history of European settler-colonialism in the U.S., Canada, Australia, NZ, South Africa, etc.).

Aside from the Adivasi tribes, the people who suffered the colonial enormities in the Indian subcontinent were themselves not indigenous or "native" to the land, so your employment of the term itself is improper (all things considered).

As for the Bengal famine and Churchill....you're nitpicking a very particular piece of history from 70+ years ago and positing that such is part of a wider continuum. You are trying to incorporate the historic struggle against British colonialism in India as part of a larger, more expansive paradigm of POC rebellion against "White crimes" when it isn't anything of the sort.

PS: "Whites" didn't commit those crimes, the English did. I am loathe to subsuming Scots, Irish, Italians, Germans, Poles, Danes, Swedes, etc. into that foray which should rightfully identify only one European ethnic group as the perpetrator.

I think you somehow missed the point. I never said anything about todays world. That was an erroneous assumption you made on your part. i was speaking about racism and its evident abundance in the populations of the white races due to historical facts. I asked you to point out a race other than whites that globally and systematically attempted to exterminate natives (brown people). It simply cant be that difficult for anyone with even a mediocre intelligence to grasp what I am asking.

Uhh....you might wanna re-read your posts. You ask me to point out another race "doing" what white people had....."doing" infers currently ongoing/present tense, assuming you never paid attention during middle-school English classes of course...

Also, your continued use of "brown" with reference to "native" people is also deeply problematic. It is such a relative term. Are the "native" peoples of Europe, East Asia, SS Africa, etc. "brown" in pigmentation? LOL.

BTW, in terms of sheer numbers, far more people of SS African descent were killed by Semitic Arabs than they were Europeans.....just some food for thought.

Uhh...You may want to reread my posts. All past tense. This was my orginal question you replied to. Deflecting is not working for you.

"When you can name me one other race that invaded the globe and killed off native brown people then you might have a point. After that then you need to point out that same race that waged a campaign of propaganda structured to promote themselves as a superior race"

Yeah, and I responded to that while under the impression that you were referring to legit native people IE indigenous people by pointing out the injustices suffered by various indigenous groups across the world.....and then your very next post you clarified that you were strictly speaking re: the suffering of non-white people as a whole, and you used the word "doing".......not "have done".

You are oblivious to the true meaning of the words you toss around. Not my problem.

 

[Mortimer]

Its wrong that only Adivasis are native to India. India is a huge melting pot influenced by both westerneuroasia and southeasterneuroasia. All ethnic groups are mixed there and there is not much difference in skin tone in india. I dont know the indian context how they divide themselfes but its wrong that upper castes are "aryan" lower castes "indigenous" they are all just brown.

 

[Asclepias]

I dont know how to make it any clearer for you. If you dont know what that means there is not much I can do to help you other than point out what whites did your native country. Look up what part Churchill played in the famine in India.

Maybe it's just my pedantic disposition, but I expect people to use more precise terminology......words like "native" denote indigenous or aboriginal, neither of which would apply within the parameters of your general argument for today's world (IE notwithstanding the history of European settler-colonialism in the U.S., Canada, Australia, NZ, South Africa, etc.).

Aside from the Adivasi tribes, the people who suffered the colonial enormities in the Indian subcontinent were themselves not indigenous or "native" to the land, so your employment of the term itself is improper (all things considered).

As for the Bengal famine and Churchill....you're nitpicking a very particular piece of history from 70+ years ago and positing that such is part of a wider continuum. You are trying to incorporate the historic struggle against British colonialism in India as part of a larger, more expansive paradigm of POC rebellion against "White crimes" when it isn't anything of the sort.

PS: "Whites" didn't commit those crimes, the English did. I am loathe to subsuming Scots, Irish, Italians, Germans, Poles, Danes, Swedes, etc. into that foray which should rightfully identify only one European ethnic group as the perpetrator.

I think you somehow missed the point. I never said anything about todays world. That was an erroneous assumption you made on your part. i was speaking about racism and its evident abundance in the populations of the white races due to historical facts. I asked you to point out a race other than whites that globally and systematically attempted to exterminate natives (brown people). It simply cant be that difficult for anyone with even a mediocre intelligence to grasp what I am asking.

I dont know how to make it any clearer for you. If you dont know what that means there is not much I can do to help you other than point out what whites did your native country. Look up what part Churchill played in the famine in India.

Maybe it's just my pedantic disposition, but I expect people to use more precise terminology......words like "native" denote indigenous or aboriginal, neither of which would apply within the parameters of your general argument for today's world (IE notwithstanding the history of European settler-colonialism in the U.S., Canada, Australia, NZ, South Africa, etc.).

Aside from the Adivasi tribes, the people who suffered the colonial enormities in the Indian subcontinent were themselves not indigenous or "native" to the land, so your employment of the term itself is improper (all things considered).

As for the Bengal famine and Churchill....you're nitpicking a very particular piece of history from 70+ years ago and positing that such is part of a wider continuum. You are trying to incorporate the historic struggle against British colonialism in India as part of a larger, more expansive paradigm of POC rebellion against "White crimes" when it isn't anything of the sort.

PS: "Whites" didn't commit those crimes, the English did. I am loathe to subsuming Scots, Irish, Italians, Germans, Poles, Danes, Swedes, etc. into that foray which should rightfully identify only one European ethnic group as the perpetrator.

I think you somehow missed the point. I never said anything about todays world. That was an erroneous assumption you made on your part. i was speaking about racism and its evident abundance in the populations of the white races due to historical facts. I asked you to point out a race other than whites that globally and systematically attempted to exterminate natives (brown people). It simply cant be that difficult for anyone with even a mediocre intelligence to grasp what I am asking.

Uhh....you might wanna re-read your posts. You ask me to point out another race "doing" what white people had....."doing" infers currently ongoing/present tense, assuming you never paid attention during middle-school English classes of course...

Also, your continued use of "brown" with reference to "native" people is also deeply problematic. It is such a relative term. Are the "native" peoples of Europe, East Asia, SS Africa, etc. "brown" in pigmentation? LOL.

BTW, in terms of sheer numbers, far more people of SS African descent were killed by Semitic Arabs than they were Europeans.....just some food for thought.

Uhh...You may want to reread my posts. All past tense. This was my orginal question you replied to. Deflecting is not working for you.

"When you can name me one other race that invaded the globe and killed off native brown people then you might have a point. After that then you need to point out that same race that waged a campaign of propaganda structured to promote themselves as a superior race"

Yeah, and I responded to that while under the impression that you were referring to legit native people IE indigenous people by pointing out the injustices suffered by various indigenous groups across the world.....and then your very next post you clarified that you were strictly speaking re: the suffering of non-white people as a whole, and you used the word "doing".......not "have done".

You are oblivious to the true meaning of the words you toss around. Not my problem.

No you didnt respond to it unless you dont know what a globe is. You totally missed the point of my question. Looks like you have struck out.

 

[RoshanNair]

Mind clarifying exactly wtf you mean when you say "native brown people"? Who the hell are you referring to in particular??

I dont know how to make it any clearer for you. If you dont know what that means there is not much I can do to help you other than point out what whites did your native country. Look up what part Churchill played in the famine in India.

Maybe it's just my pedantic disposition, but I expect people to use more precise terminology......words like "native" denote indigenous or aboriginal, neither of which would apply within the parameters of your general argument for today's world (IE notwithstanding the history of European settler-colonialism in the U.S., Canada, Australia, NZ, South Africa, etc.).

Aside from the Adivasi tribes, the people who suffered the colonial enormities in the Indian subcontinent were themselves not indigenous or "native" to the land, so your employment of the term itself is improper (all things considered).

As for the Bengal famine and Churchill....you're nitpicking a very particular piece of history from 70+ years ago and positing that such is part of a wider continuum. You are trying to incorporate the historic struggle against British colonialism in India as part of a larger, more expansive paradigm of POC rebellion against "White crimes" when it isn't anything of the sort.

PS: "Whites" didn't commit those crimes, the English did. I am loathe to subsuming Scots, Irish, Italians, Germans, Poles, Danes, Swedes, etc. into that foray which should rightfully identify only one European ethnic group as the perpetrator.

I think you somehow missed the point. I never said anything about todays world. That was an erroneous assumption you made on your part. i was speaking about racism and its evident abundance in the populations of the white races due to historical facts. I asked you to point out a race other than whites that globally and systematically attempted to exterminate natives (brown people). It simply cant be that difficult for anyone with even a mediocre intelligence to grasp what I am asking.

Mind clarifying exactly wtf you mean when you say "native brown people"? Who the hell are you referring to in particular??

I dont know how to make it any clearer for you. If you dont know what that means there is not much I can do to help you other than point out what whites did your native country. Look up what part Churchill played in the famine in India.

Maybe it's just my pedantic disposition, but I expect people to use more precise terminology......words like "native" denote indigenous or aboriginal, neither of which would apply within the parameters of your general argument for today's world (IE notwithstanding the history of European settler-colonialism in the U.S., Canada, Australia, NZ, South Africa, etc.).

Aside from the Adivasi tribes, the people who suffered the colonial enormities in the Indian subcontinent were themselves not indigenous or "native" to the land, so your employment of the term itself is improper (all things considered).

As for the Bengal famine and Churchill....you're nitpicking a very particular piece of history from 70+ years ago and positing that such is part of a wider continuum. You are trying to incorporate the historic struggle against British colonialism in India as part of a larger, more expansive paradigm of POC rebellion against "White crimes" when it isn't anything of the sort.

PS: "Whites" didn't commit those crimes, the English did. I am loathe to subsuming Scots, Irish, Italians, Germans, Poles, Danes, Swedes, etc. into that foray which should rightfully identify only one European ethnic group as the perpetrator.

I think you somehow missed the point. I never said anything about todays world. That was an erroneous assumption you made on your part. i was speaking about racism and its evident abundance in the populations of the white races due to historical facts. I asked you to point out a race other than whites that globally and systematically attempted to exterminate natives (brown people). It simply cant be that difficult for anyone with even a mediocre intelligence to grasp what I am asking.

Uhh....you might wanna re-read your posts. You ask me to point out another race "doing" what white people had....."doing" infers currently ongoing/present tense, assuming you never paid attention during middle-school English classes of course...

Also, your continued use of "brown" with reference to "native" people is also deeply problematic. It is such a relative term. Are the "native" peoples of Europe, East Asia, SS Africa, etc. "brown" in pigmentation? LOL.

BTW, in terms of sheer numbers, far more people of SS African descent were killed by Semitic Arabs than they were Europeans.....just some food for thought.

Uhh...You may want to reread my posts. All past tense. This was my orginal question you replied to. Deflecting is not working for you.

"When you can name me one other race that invaded the globe and killed off native brown people then you might have a point. After that then you need to point out that same race that waged a campaign of propaganda structured to promote themselves as a superior race"

Btw, care to explain why you collectivize things by using the word "white"?

How are Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, Scots, Irish, Welsh, Poles, Serbs, etc. guilty of the purported sins committed by the English, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and Dutch colonial empires?

 

[Mortimer]

I dont know how to make it any clearer for you. If you dont know what that means there is not much I can do to help you other than point out what whites did your native country. Look up what part Churchill played in the famine in India.

Maybe it's just my pedantic disposition, but I expect people to use more precise terminology......words like "native" denote indigenous or aboriginal, neither of which would apply within the parameters of your general argument for today's world (IE notwithstanding the history of European settler-colonialism in the U.S., Canada, Australia, NZ, South Africa, etc.).

Aside from the Adivasi tribes, the people who suffered the colonial enormities in the Indian subcontinent were themselves not indigenous or "native" to the land, so your employment of the term itself is improper (all things considered).

As for the Bengal famine and Churchill....you're nitpicking a very particular piece of history from 70+ years ago and positing that such is part of a wider continuum. You are trying to incorporate the historic struggle against British colonialism in India as part of a larger, more expansive paradigm of POC rebellion against "White crimes" when it isn't anything of the sort.

PS: "Whites" didn't commit those crimes, the English did. I am loathe to subsuming Scots, Irish, Italians, Germans, Poles, Danes, Swedes, etc. into that foray which should rightfully identify only one European ethnic group as the perpetrator.

I think you somehow missed the point. I never said anything about todays world. That was an erroneous assumption you made on your part. i was speaking about racism and its evident abundance in the populations of the white races due to historical facts. I asked you to point out a race other than whites that globally and systematically attempted to exterminate natives (brown people). It simply cant be that difficult for anyone with even a mediocre intelligence to grasp what I am asking.

I dont know how to make it any clearer for you. If you dont know what that means there is not much I can do to help you other than point out what whites did your native country. Look up what part Churchill played in the famine in India.

Maybe it's just my pedantic disposition, but I expect people to use more precise terminology......words like "native" denote indigenous or aboriginal, neither of which would apply within the parameters of your general argument for today's world (IE notwithstanding the history of European settler-colonialism in the U.S., Canada, Australia, NZ, South Africa, etc.).

Aside from the Adivasi tribes, the people who suffered the colonial enormities in the Indian subcontinent were themselves not indigenous or "native" to the land, so your employment of the term itself is improper (all things considered).

As for the Bengal famine and Churchill....you're nitpicking a very particular piece of history from 70+ years ago and positing that such is part of a wider continuum. You are trying to incorporate the historic struggle against British colonialism in India as part of a larger, more expansive paradigm of POC rebellion against "White crimes" when it isn't anything of the sort.

PS: "Whites" didn't commit those crimes, the English did. I am loathe to subsuming Scots, Irish, Italians, Germans, Poles, Danes, Swedes, etc. into that foray which should rightfully identify only one European ethnic group as the perpetrator.

I think you somehow missed the point. I never said anything about todays world. That was an erroneous assumption you made on your part. i was speaking about racism and its evident abundance in the populations of the white races due to historical facts. I asked you to point out a race other than whites that globally and systematically attempted to exterminate natives (brown people). It simply cant be that difficult for anyone with even a mediocre intelligence to grasp what I am asking.

Uhh....you might wanna re-read your posts. You ask me to point out another race "doing" what white people had....."doing" infers currently ongoing/present tense, assuming you never paid attention during middle-school English classes of course...

Also, your continued use of "brown" with reference to "native" people is also deeply problematic. It is such a relative term. Are the "native" peoples of Europe, East Asia, SS Africa, etc. "brown" in pigmentation? LOL.

BTW, in terms of sheer numbers, far more people of SS African descent were killed by Semitic Arabs than they were Europeans.....just some food for thought.

Uhh...You may want to reread my posts. All past tense. This was my orginal question you replied to. Deflecting is not working for you.

"When you can name me one other race that invaded the globe and killed off native brown people then you might have a point. After that then you need to point out that same race that waged a campaign of propaganda structured to promote themselves as a superior race"

Yeah, and I responded to that while under the impression that you were referring to legit native people IE indigenous people by pointing out the injustices suffered by various indigenous groups across the world.....and then your very next post you clarified that you were strictly speaking re: the suffering of non-white people as a whole, and you used the word "doing".......not "have done".

You are oblivious to the true meaning of the words you toss around. Not my problem.

If Japanese are not native to Japan or Caste Indians not native to India, then Native Americans are not native to Americas, they came from Siberia. No ones native then. What he said happened during colonialism on a global scale since intercontinental travel in the past 500 years, and no one else did that. I dont blame the Whites as a Whole or that I dislike Whites but its hardly comparable even the homo sapiens exterminated the native Neanderthals. Apples and Oranges. You cant go that much back into history. And Im sure whites are the most racist group thats true. Only Whites have Stormfront.

 

[Mortimer]

I dont know how to make it any clearer for you. If you dont know what that means there is not much I can do to help you other than point out what whites did your native country. Look up what part Churchill played in the famine in India.

Maybe it's just my pedantic disposition, but I expect people to use more precise terminology......words like "native" denote indigenous or aboriginal, neither of which would apply within the parameters of your general argument for today's world (IE notwithstanding the history of European settler-colonialism in the U.S., Canada, Australia, NZ, South Africa, etc.).

Aside from the Adivasi tribes, the people who suffered the colonial enormities in the Indian subcontinent were themselves not indigenous or "native" to the land, so your employment of the term itself is improper (all things considered).

As for the Bengal famine and Churchill....you're nitpicking a very particular piece of history from 70+ years ago and positing that such is part of a wider continuum. You are trying to incorporate the historic struggle against British colonialism in India as part of a larger, more expansive paradigm of POC rebellion against "White crimes" when it isn't anything of the sort.

PS: "Whites" didn't commit those crimes, the English did. I am loathe to subsuming Scots, Irish, Italians, Germans, Poles, Danes, Swedes, etc. into that foray which should rightfully identify only one European ethnic group as the perpetrator.

I think you somehow missed the point. I never said anything about todays world. That was an erroneous assumption you made on your part. i was speaking about racism and its evident abundance in the populations of the white races due to historical facts. I asked you to point out a race other than whites that globally and systematically attempted to exterminate natives (brown people). It simply cant be that difficult for anyone with even a mediocre intelligence to grasp what I am asking.

I dont know how to make it any clearer for you. If you dont know what that means there is not much I can do to help you other than point out what whites did your native country. Look up what part Churchill played in the famine in India.

Maybe it's just my pedantic disposition, but I expect people to use more precise terminology......words like "native" denote indigenous or aboriginal, neither of which would apply within the parameters of your general argument for today's world (IE notwithstanding the history of European settler-colonialism in the U.S., Canada, Australia, NZ, South Africa, etc.).

Aside from the Adivasi tribes, the people who suffered the colonial enormities in the Indian subcontinent were themselves not indigenous or "native" to the land, so your employment of the term itself is improper (all things considered).

As for the Bengal famine and Churchill....you're nitpicking a very particular piece of history from 70+ years ago and positing that such is part of a wider continuum. You are trying to incorporate the historic struggle against British colonialism in India as part of a larger, more expansive paradigm of POC rebellion against "White crimes" when it isn't anything of the sort.

PS: "Whites" didn't commit those crimes, the English did. I am loathe to subsuming Scots, Irish, Italians, Germans, Poles, Danes, Swedes, etc. into that foray which should rightfully identify only one European ethnic group as the perpetrator.

I think you somehow missed the point. I never said anything about todays world. That was an erroneous assumption you made on your part. i was speaking about racism and its evident abundance in the populations of the white races due to historical facts. I asked you to point out a race other than whites that globally and systematically attempted to exterminate natives (brown people). It simply cant be that difficult for anyone with even a mediocre intelligence to grasp what I am asking.

Uhh....you might wanna re-read your posts. You ask me to point out another race "doing" what white people had....."doing" infers currently ongoing/present tense, assuming you never paid attention during middle-school English classes of course...

Also, your continued use of "brown" with reference to "native" people is also deeply problematic. It is such a relative term. Are the "native" peoples of Europe, East Asia, SS Africa, etc. "brown" in pigmentation? LOL.

BTW, in terms of sheer numbers, far more people of SS African descent were killed by Semitic Arabs than they were Europeans.....just some food for thought.

Uhh...You may want to reread my posts. All past tense. This was my orginal question you replied to. Deflecting is not working for you.

"When you can name me one other race that invaded the globe and killed off native brown people then you might have a point. After that then you need to point out that same race that waged a campaign of propaganda structured to promote themselves as a superior race"

Btw, care to explain why you collectivize things by using the word "white"?

How are Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, Scots, Irish, Welsh, Poles, Serbs, etc. guilty of the purported sins committed by the English, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and Dutch colonial empires?

They are not guilty but they are just as racist as the other whites, and in a new world context once you relocate you get integrated into the "white black" divide, and they are white then. They forget they are serbs or scots.

 

[Asclepias]

I dont know how to make it any clearer for you. If you dont know what that means there is not much I can do to help you other than point out what whites did your native country. Look up what part Churchill played in the famine in India.

Maybe it's just my pedantic disposition, but I expect people to use more precise terminology......words like "native" denote indigenous or aboriginal, neither of which would apply within the parameters of your general argument for today's world (IE notwithstanding the history of European settler-colonialism in the U.S., Canada, Australia, NZ, South Africa, etc.).

Aside from the Adivasi tribes, the people who suffered the colonial enormities in the Indian subcontinent were themselves not indigenous or "native" to the land, so your employment of the term itself is improper (all things considered).

As for the Bengal famine and Churchill....you're nitpicking a very particular piece of history from 70+ years ago and positing that such is part of a wider continuum. You are trying to incorporate the historic struggle against British colonialism in India as part of a larger, more expansive paradigm of POC rebellion against "White crimes" when it isn't anything of the sort.

PS: "Whites" didn't commit those crimes, the English did. I am loathe to subsuming Scots, Irish, Italians, Germans, Poles, Danes, Swedes, etc. into that foray which should rightfully identify only one European ethnic group as the perpetrator.

I think you somehow missed the point. I never said anything about todays world. That was an erroneous assumption you made on your part. i was speaking about racism and its evident abundance in the populations of the white races due to historical facts. I asked you to point out a race other than whites that globally and systematically attempted to exterminate natives (brown people). It simply cant be that difficult for anyone with even a mediocre intelligence to grasp what I am asking.

I dont know how to make it any clearer for you. If you dont know what that means there is not much I can do to help you other than point out what whites did your native country. Look up what part Churchill played in the famine in India.

Maybe it's just my pedantic disposition, but I expect people to use more precise terminology......words like "native" denote indigenous or aboriginal, neither of which would apply within the parameters of your general argument for today's world (IE notwithstanding the history of European settler-colonialism in the U.S., Canada, Australia, NZ, South Africa, etc.).

Aside from the Adivasi tribes, the people who suffered the colonial enormities in the Indian subcontinent were themselves not indigenous or "native" to the land, so your employment of the term itself is improper (all things considered).

As for the Bengal famine and Churchill....you're nitpicking a very particular piece of history from 70+ years ago and positing that such is part of a wider continuum. You are trying to incorporate the historic struggle against British colonialism in India as part of a larger, more expansive paradigm of POC rebellion against "White crimes" when it isn't anything of the sort.

PS: "Whites" didn't commit those crimes, the English did. I am loathe to subsuming Scots, Irish, Italians, Germans, Poles, Danes, Swedes, etc. into that foray which should rightfully identify only one European ethnic group as the perpetrator.

I think you somehow missed the point. I never said anything about todays world. That was an erroneous assumption you made on your part. i was speaking about racism and its evident abundance in the populations of the white races due to historical facts. I asked you to point out a race other than whites that globally and systematically attempted to exterminate natives (brown people). It simply cant be that difficult for anyone with even a mediocre intelligence to grasp what I am asking.

Uhh....you might wanna re-read your posts. You ask me to point out another race "doing" what white people had....."doing" infers currently ongoing/present tense, assuming you never paid attention during middle-school English classes of course...

Also, your continued use of "brown" with reference to "native" people is also deeply problematic. It is such a relative term. Are the "native" peoples of Europe, East Asia, SS Africa, etc. "brown" in pigmentation? LOL.

BTW, in terms of sheer numbers, far more people of SS African descent were killed by Semitic Arabs than they were Europeans.....just some food for thought.

Uhh...You may want to reread my posts. All past tense. This was my orginal question you replied to. Deflecting is not working for you.

"When you can name me one other race that invaded the globe and killed off native brown people then you might have a point. After that then you need to point out that same race that waged a campaign of propaganda structured to promote themselves as a superior race"

Btw, care to explain why you collectivize things by using the word "white"?

How are Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, Scots, Irish, Welsh, Poles, Serbs, etc. guilty of the purported sins committed by the English, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and Dutch colonial empires?

Because thats what white people made up when they called themselves white. I call people by the names they wish to be called unless it interferes with my beliefs. FYI. You may want to check your facts. I know several of the whites you think didnt "commit sins" in fact did.