NYC's Hunter College has coursework in “the abolition of whiteness.”

[IM2]

Because I felt like it. And macro level has nothing to do with individuals.

It does if you're talking about a group of individuals. Hence the words "some blacks...".

You want to talk about blacks and racism at the macro level, then you must discuss racism, where it came from what it consists of, how it affects society and what would create whatever you think black racism is.

Okay, if you want to discuss where racism came from, let's do that.

Now, I'm no expert but I will offer my thoughts on the matter. Racism stems from an inherent idea that one's group is unique and special and a fear and mistrust of other groups outside of our own that may be a threat to our uniqueness or survival. It is one of the defining characteristics of mankind and is manifested in many ways, including the two most often seen throughout history: war and conquest; enslavement.
There are examples too numerous to cite but the ones that readily come to mind the Spanish conquest of South and Central America; the wars and enslavement between the Mesoamerican tribes before that; the Roman conquests; the warring tribes in Africa, including the more recent war in Rwanda between the Hutu and Tutsi; the Holocaust; the Japanese invasion of China in the late 30s and of course the enslavement of Africans throughout the Western world.
Black racism in America stems from the same causes: fear and mistrust of whites. Sometimes it is misplaced, sometimes it is not.

No ghost what you call black racism doesn't stem from anything you say. You say this and ignore the years from 1641 until 1965 that blacks were either enslaved or treated as second class citizens who were denied rights by whites.

The Berlin Conference of 1884 assigned the territory to Germany as part of German East Africa, marking the beginning of the colonial era. The explorer Gustav Adolf von Götzen was the first European to significantly explore the country in 1894; he crossed from the south-east to Lake Kivu and met the king.[24][25] The Germans did not significantly alter the social structure of the country, but exerted influence by supporting the king and the existing hierarchy and delegating power to local chiefs.[26] [27] Belgian forces took control of Rwanda and Burundi in 1916, during World War I, beginning a period of more direct colonial rule.[28] Belgium ruled both Rwanda and Burundi as a League of Nations 'mandate' called Ruanda-Urundi; the Belgians also simplified and centralised the power structure,[29] and introduced large-scale projects in education, health, public works, and agricultural supervision, including new crops and improved agricultural techniques to try to reduce the incidence of famine.[30] Both the Germans and the Belgians promoted Tutsi supremacy, considering the Hutu and Tutsi different races.[31] In 1935, Belgium introduced identity cards labelling each individual as either Tutsi, Hutu, Twa or Naturalised. While it had previously been possible for particularly wealthy Hutu to become honorary Tutsi, the identity cards prevented any further movement between the classes.[32]

This is what started the problems in Rwanda.

So you're telling me that the Hutu, Tutsi and Twa were not aware that they were the same race? That they allowed foreigners to dictate their social structure to them?

As wrong as it was for the Germans and Belgians to do what they did, obviously the Hutu thought themselves the superior tribe and chose to enjoy the advantages the whites were offering else they would have fought against their efforts. Plus, none of that excuses the Hutus and Tutsis slaughtering each other to the tune of 800,000 people killed.

Sorry bud, but those whites had no reason to be in Africa. That's where this discussion begins and ends. Until you recognize that, we have nothing to talk about.

Of course I recognize it you dimwit. Did I or did I not say it was wrong for them to do what they did?

Had those whites not done what they did there would have been no such slaughter. Stop making excuses for whites then telling me what doesn't excuse blacks..

So you're telling me that the actions of white men a hundred years ago are directly responsible for the Rwandan slaughter in 1994? You can't be so stupid as to believe that.

The rift between the two tribes dates back 400 years and was defined along class lines - the Tutsis being considered the higher class. The actions of the Germans and Belgians merely exacerbated an already established tension between the two groups. What's more, the Tutsis, rather than fight for equality for both tribes when the Belgians instituted their laws, chose instead to make use of the advantages the Belgians offered and relegate their fellow countrymen to second class citizenship.

Say what you will about the Germans and Belgians but there are absolutely no redeeming actions or choices on the part of the two tribes in this story. The Hutus chose to commit genocide on another tribe and no one forced them into it.

That's what I'm saying. And if you had actually studied what went on during the years of white colonization of Africa you would also. But you haven't. You seem to find it very difficult to understand that the whites didn't belong in control of that country. Rwanda had existed for thousands of years before whites decided they had the right to govern there. Whatever rival animosity they had was no different that the whites in Europe and we have had 2 world wars which have killed millions because of the long standing animosity white tribes had.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

It does if you're talking about a group of individuals. Hence the words "some blacks...".

Okay, if you want to discuss where racism came from, let's do that.

Now, I'm no expert but I will offer my thoughts on the matter. Racism stems from an inherent idea that one's group is unique and special and a fear and mistrust of other groups outside of our own that may be a threat to our uniqueness or survival. It is one of the defining characteristics of mankind and is manifested in many ways, including the two most often seen throughout history: war and conquest; enslavement.
There are examples too numerous to cite but the ones that readily come to mind the Spanish conquest of South and Central America; the wars and enslavement between the Mesoamerican tribes before that; the Roman conquests; the warring tribes in Africa, including the more recent war in Rwanda between the Hutu and Tutsi; the Holocaust; the Japanese invasion of China in the late 30s and of course the enslavement of Africans throughout the Western world.
Black racism in America stems from the same causes: fear and mistrust of whites. Sometimes it is misplaced, sometimes it is not.

No ghost what you call black racism doesn't stem from anything you say. You say this and ignore the years from 1641 until 1965 that blacks were either enslaved or treated as second class citizens who were denied rights by whites.

The Berlin Conference of 1884 assigned the territory to Germany as part of German East Africa, marking the beginning of the colonial era. The explorer Gustav Adolf von Götzen was the first European to significantly explore the country in 1894; he crossed from the south-east to Lake Kivu and met the king.[24][25] The Germans did not significantly alter the social structure of the country, but exerted influence by supporting the king and the existing hierarchy and delegating power to local chiefs.[26] [27] Belgian forces took control of Rwanda and Burundi in 1916, during World War I, beginning a period of more direct colonial rule.[28] Belgium ruled both Rwanda and Burundi as a League of Nations 'mandate' called Ruanda-Urundi; the Belgians also simplified and centralised the power structure,[29] and introduced large-scale projects in education, health, public works, and agricultural supervision, including new crops and improved agricultural techniques to try to reduce the incidence of famine.[30] Both the Germans and the Belgians promoted Tutsi supremacy, considering the Hutu and Tutsi different races.[31] In 1935, Belgium introduced identity cards labelling each individual as either Tutsi, Hutu, Twa or Naturalised. While it had previously been possible for particularly wealthy Hutu to become honorary Tutsi, the identity cards prevented any further movement between the classes.[32]

This is what started the problems in Rwanda.

So you're telling me that the Hutu, Tutsi and Twa were not aware that they were the same race? That they allowed foreigners to dictate their social structure to them?

As wrong as it was for the Germans and Belgians to do what they did, obviously the Hutu thought themselves the superior tribe and chose to enjoy the advantages the whites were offering else they would have fought against their efforts. Plus, none of that excuses the Hutus and Tutsis slaughtering each other to the tune of 800,000 people killed.

Sorry bud, but those whites had no reason to be in Africa. That's where this discussion begins and ends. Until you recognize that, we have nothing to talk about.

Of course I recognize it you dimwit. Did I or did I not say it was wrong for them to do what they did?

Had those whites not done what they did there would have been no such slaughter. Stop making excuses for whites then telling me what doesn't excuse blacks..

So you're telling me that the actions of white men a hundred years ago are directly responsible for the Rwandan slaughter in 1994? You can't be so stupid as to believe that.

The rift between the two tribes dates back 400 years and was defined along class lines - the Tutsis being considered the higher class. The actions of the Germans and Belgians merely exacerbated an already established tension between the two groups. What's more, the Tutsis, rather than fight for equality for both tribes when the Belgians instituted their laws, chose instead to make use of the advantages the Belgians offered and relegate their fellow countrymen to second class citizenship.

Say what you will about the Germans and Belgians but there are absolutely no redeeming actions or choices on the part of the two tribes in this story. The Hutus chose to commit genocide on another tribe and no one forced them into it.

That's what I'm saying. And if you had actually studied what went on during the years of white colonization of Africa you would also. But you haven't. You seem to find it very difficult to understand that the whites didn't belong in control of that country.

Again, did I or did I not say that what the Germans and Belgians did was wrong? You just will not take yes for an answer, will you?

Rwanda had existed for thousands of years before whites decided they had the right to govern there. Whatever rival animosity they had was no different that the whites in Europe and we have had 2 world wars which have killed millions because of the long standing animosity white tribes had.

No shit. But unlike you, no one is suggesting that the Jewish genocide was the fault of some other nation, race or entity favoring Jews over Germans. The Germans chose to commit genocide all on their own just as the Hutus did.

 

[squeeze berry]

When I spoke from the macro level to say that some blacks are racist you pretty much told me I was full of shit. I cited a personal example on the micro level so then you retreated to make it look like I was the racist and in the wrong using the macro level history of white racism. Thus rendering your comments and opinions impotent.

You were the first one to bring it up when you asked what "whiteness" was, remember?

You have never spoke from the macro level. Some blacks is not macro level. .

In relation to individual blacks, it is. And why are you responding to this now? This was over a week ago.

Because I felt like it. And macro level has nothing to do with individuals.

It does if you're talking about a group of individuals. Hence the words "some blacks...".

You want to talk about blacks and racism at the macro level, then you must discuss racism, where it came from what it consists of, how it affects society and what would create whatever you think black racism is.

Okay, if you want to discuss where racism came from, let's do that.

Now, I'm no expert but I will offer my thoughts on the matter. Racism stems from an inherent idea that one's group is unique and special and a fear and mistrust of other groups outside of our own that may be a threat to our uniqueness or survival. It is one of the defining characteristics of mankind and is manifested in many ways, including the two most often seen throughout history: war and conquest; enslavement.
There are examples too numerous to cite but the ones that readily come to mind the Spanish conquest of South and Central America; the wars and enslavement between the Mesoamerican tribes before that; the Roman conquests; the warring tribes in Africa, including the more recent war in Rwanda between the Hutu and Tutsi; the Holocaust; the Japanese invasion of China in the late 30s and of course the enslavement of Africans throughout the Western world.
Black racism in America stems from the same causes: fear and mistrust of whites. Sometimes it is misplaced, sometimes it is not.

No ghost what you call black racism doesn't stem from anything you say. You say this and ignore the years from 1641 until 1965 that blacks were either enslaved or treated as second class citizens who were denied rights by whites.

The Berlin Conference of 1884 assigned the territory to Germany as part of German East Africa, marking the beginning of the colonial era. The explorer Gustav Adolf von Götzen was the first European to significantly explore the country in 1894; he crossed from the south-east to Lake Kivu and met the king.[24][25] The Germans did not significantly alter the social structure of the country, but exerted influence by supporting the king and the existing hierarchy and delegating power to local chiefs.[26] [27] Belgian forces took control of Rwanda and Burundi in 1916, during World War I, beginning a period of more direct colonial rule.[28] Belgium ruled both Rwanda and Burundi as a League of Nations 'mandate' called Ruanda-Urundi; the Belgians also simplified and centralised the power structure,[29] and introduced large-scale projects in education, health, public works, and agricultural supervision, including new crops and improved agricultural techniques to try to reduce the incidence of famine.[30] Both the Germans and the Belgians promoted Tutsi supremacy, considering the Hutu and Tutsi different races.[31] In 1935, Belgium introduced identity cards labelling each individual as either Tutsi, Hutu, Twa or Naturalised. While it had previously been possible for particularly wealthy Hutu to become honorary Tutsi, the identity cards prevented any further movement between the classes.[32]

This is what started the problems in Rwanda.

you lost.

tough shit

 

[IM2]

No ghost what you call black racism doesn't stem from anything you say. You say this and ignore the years from 1641 until 1965 that blacks were either enslaved or treated as second class citizens who were denied rights by whites.

The Berlin Conference of 1884 assigned the territory to Germany as part of German East Africa, marking the beginning of the colonial era. The explorer Gustav Adolf von Götzen was the first European to significantly explore the country in 1894; he crossed from the south-east to Lake Kivu and met the king.[24][25] The Germans did not significantly alter the social structure of the country, but exerted influence by supporting the king and the existing hierarchy and delegating power to local chiefs.[26] [27] Belgian forces took control of Rwanda and Burundi in 1916, during World War I, beginning a period of more direct colonial rule.[28] Belgium ruled both Rwanda and Burundi as a League of Nations 'mandate' called Ruanda-Urundi; the Belgians also simplified and centralised the power structure,[29] and introduced large-scale projects in education, health, public works, and agricultural supervision, including new crops and improved agricultural techniques to try to reduce the incidence of famine.[30] Both the Germans and the Belgians promoted Tutsi supremacy, considering the Hutu and Tutsi different races.[31] In 1935, Belgium introduced identity cards labelling each individual as either Tutsi, Hutu, Twa or Naturalised. While it had previously been possible for particularly wealthy Hutu to become honorary Tutsi, the identity cards prevented any further movement between the classes.[32]

This is what started the problems in Rwanda.

So you're telling me that the Hutu, Tutsi and Twa were not aware that they were the same race? That they allowed foreigners to dictate their social structure to them?

As wrong as it was for the Germans and Belgians to do what they did, obviously the Hutu thought themselves the superior tribe and chose to enjoy the advantages the whites were offering else they would have fought against their efforts. Plus, none of that excuses the Hutus and Tutsis slaughtering each other to the tune of 800,000 people killed.

Sorry bud, but those whites had no reason to be in Africa. That's where this discussion begins and ends. Until you recognize that, we have nothing to talk about.

Of course I recognize it you dimwit. Did I or did I not say it was wrong for them to do what they did?

Had those whites not done what they did there would have been no such slaughter. Stop making excuses for whites then telling me what doesn't excuse blacks..

So you're telling me that the actions of white men a hundred years ago are directly responsible for the Rwandan slaughter in 1994? You can't be so stupid as to believe that.

The rift between the two tribes dates back 400 years and was defined along class lines - the Tutsis being considered the higher class. The actions of the Germans and Belgians merely exacerbated an already established tension between the two groups. What's more, the Tutsis, rather than fight for equality for both tribes when the Belgians instituted their laws, chose instead to make use of the advantages the Belgians offered and relegate their fellow countrymen to second class citizenship.

Say what you will about the Germans and Belgians but there are absolutely no redeeming actions or choices on the part of the two tribes in this story. The Hutus chose to commit genocide on another tribe and no one forced them into it.

That's what I'm saying. And if you had actually studied what went on during the years of white colonization of Africa you would also. But you haven't. You seem to find it very difficult to understand that the whites didn't belong in control of that country.

Again, did I or did I not say that what the Germans and Belgians did was wrong? You just will not take yes for an answer, will you?

Rwanda had existed for thousands of years before whites decided they had the right to govern there. Whatever rival animosity they had was no different that the whites in Europe and we have had 2 world wars which have killed millions because of the long standing animosity white tribes had.

No shit. But unlike you, no one is suggesting that the Jewish genocide was the fault of some other nation, race or entity favoring Jews over Germans. The Germans chose to commit genocide all on their own just as the Hutus did.

Rwanda's genocide — what happened, why it happened, and how it still matters

The story behind the Rwandan genocide begins with colonialism
The split between Hutus and Tutsis arose not as a result of religious or cultural differences, but economic ones. "Hutus" were people who farmed crops, while "Tutsis" were people who tended livestock. Most Rwandans were Hutus. Gradually, these class divisions became seen as ethnic designations.

Because cattle were more valuable than crops, the minority Tutsis became the local elite. By the time Belgium took over the land in 1917 from Germany (who took it in 1884), an ethnic Tutsi elite had been the ruling monarchy for quite some time.

German and Belgian rule made the dividing lines between the groups sharper. This "divide and conquer" strategy meant supporting the Tutsi monarchy and requiring that all local chiefs be Tutsis, turning the Tutsis into symbols of colonial rule for the Hutu majority.

Post-independence, the resentment created by colonial divide-and-conquer bred violence. Seeing as Hutus were a large majority, they handily won the country's first elections in 1961, and the regime that followed was staunchly Hutu nationalist. Intermittent violence between Hutus and Tutsis became a feature of post-independent Rwandan

What you need to know about the Rwandan genocide

how did the germans and belgium enforce tutsi preferences - Yahoo Search Results

Stupid "individuals" such as yourself seem unable to understand that just because colonization ended the damage it created did not. Things just don't magically go poof and things end.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

So you're telling me that the Hutu, Tutsi and Twa were not aware that they were the same race? That they allowed foreigners to dictate their social structure to them?

As wrong as it was for the Germans and Belgians to do what they did, obviously the Hutu thought themselves the superior tribe and chose to enjoy the advantages the whites were offering else they would have fought against their efforts. Plus, none of that excuses the Hutus and Tutsis slaughtering each other to the tune of 800,000 people killed.

Sorry bud, but those whites had no reason to be in Africa. That's where this discussion begins and ends. Until you recognize that, we have nothing to talk about.

Of course I recognize it you dimwit. Did I or did I not say it was wrong for them to do what they did?

Had those whites not done what they did there would have been no such slaughter. Stop making excuses for whites then telling me what doesn't excuse blacks..

So you're telling me that the actions of white men a hundred years ago are directly responsible for the Rwandan slaughter in 1994? You can't be so stupid as to believe that.

The rift between the two tribes dates back 400 years and was defined along class lines - the Tutsis being considered the higher class. The actions of the Germans and Belgians merely exacerbated an already established tension between the two groups. What's more, the Tutsis, rather than fight for equality for both tribes when the Belgians instituted their laws, chose instead to make use of the advantages the Belgians offered and relegate their fellow countrymen to second class citizenship.

Say what you will about the Germans and Belgians but there are absolutely no redeeming actions or choices on the part of the two tribes in this story. The Hutus chose to commit genocide on another tribe and no one forced them into it.

That's what I'm saying. And if you had actually studied what went on during the years of white colonization of Africa you would also. But you haven't. You seem to find it very difficult to understand that the whites didn't belong in control of that country.

Again, did I or did I not say that what the Germans and Belgians did was wrong? You just will not take yes for an answer, will you?

Rwanda had existed for thousands of years before whites decided they had the right to govern there. Whatever rival animosity they had was no different that the whites in Europe and we have had 2 world wars which have killed millions because of the long standing animosity white tribes had.

No shit. But unlike you, no one is suggesting that the Jewish genocide was the fault of some other nation, race or entity favoring Jews over Germans. The Germans chose to commit genocide all on their own just as the Hutus did.

Rwanda's genocide — what happened, why it happened, and how it still matters

The story behind the Rwandan genocide begins with colonialism
The split between Hutus and Tutsis arose not as a result of religious or cultural differences, but economic ones. "Hutus" were people who farmed crops, while "Tutsis" were people who tended livestock. Most Rwandans were Hutus. Gradually, these class divisions became seen as ethnic designations.

Because cattle were more valuable than crops, the minority Tutsis became the local elite. By the time Belgium took over the land in 1917 from Germany (who took it in 1884), an ethnic Tutsi elite had been the ruling monarchy for quite some time.

German and Belgian rule made the dividing lines between the groups sharper. This "divide and conquer" strategy meant supporting the Tutsi monarchy and requiring that all local chiefs be Tutsis, turning the Tutsis into symbols of colonial rule for the Hutu majority.

Post-independence, the resentment created by colonial divide-and-conquer bred violence. Seeing as Hutus were a large majority, they handily won the country's first elections in 1961, and the regime that followed was staunchly Hutu nationalist. Intermittent violence between Hutus and Tutsis became a feature of post-independent Rwandan

What you need to know about the Rwandan genocide

how did the germans and belgium enforce tutsi preferences - Yahoo Search Results

Stupid "individuals" such as yourself seem unable to understand that just because colonization ended the damage it created did not. Things just don't magically go poof and things end.

You can cite all the articles you want about white colonialism but as reprehensible as the German and Belgian actions were, in the end, these people chose on their own to commit genocide.

Rwanda had been independent since 1962 (32 years), at what point do they become responsible for their own actions? 33 years? 50 years? Never?

 

[IM2]

Sorry bud, but those whites had no reason to be in Africa. That's where this discussion begins and ends. Until you recognize that, we have nothing to talk about.

Of course I recognize it you dimwit. Did I or did I not say it was wrong for them to do what they did?

Had those whites not done what they did there would have been no such slaughter. Stop making excuses for whites then telling me what doesn't excuse blacks..

So you're telling me that the actions of white men a hundred years ago are directly responsible for the Rwandan slaughter in 1994? You can't be so stupid as to believe that.

The rift between the two tribes dates back 400 years and was defined along class lines - the Tutsis being considered the higher class. The actions of the Germans and Belgians merely exacerbated an already established tension between the two groups. What's more, the Tutsis, rather than fight for equality for both tribes when the Belgians instituted their laws, chose instead to make use of the advantages the Belgians offered and relegate their fellow countrymen to second class citizenship.

Say what you will about the Germans and Belgians but there are absolutely no redeeming actions or choices on the part of the two tribes in this story. The Hutus chose to commit genocide on another tribe and no one forced them into it.

That's what I'm saying. And if you had actually studied what went on during the years of white colonization of Africa you would also. But you haven't. You seem to find it very difficult to understand that the whites didn't belong in control of that country.

Again, did I or did I not say that what the Germans and Belgians did was wrong? You just will not take yes for an answer, will you?

Rwanda had existed for thousands of years before whites decided they had the right to govern there. Whatever rival animosity they had was no different that the whites in Europe and we have had 2 world wars which have killed millions because of the long standing animosity white tribes had.

No shit. But unlike you, no one is suggesting that the Jewish genocide was the fault of some other nation, race or entity favoring Jews over Germans. The Germans chose to commit genocide all on their own just as the Hutus did.

Rwanda's genocide — what happened, why it happened, and how it still matters

The story behind the Rwandan genocide begins with colonialism
The split between Hutus and Tutsis arose not as a result of religious or cultural differences, but economic ones. "Hutus" were people who farmed crops, while "Tutsis" were people who tended livestock. Most Rwandans were Hutus. Gradually, these class divisions became seen as ethnic designations.

Because cattle were more valuable than crops, the minority Tutsis became the local elite. By the time Belgium took over the land in 1917 from Germany (who took it in 1884), an ethnic Tutsi elite had been the ruling monarchy for quite some time.

German and Belgian rule made the dividing lines between the groups sharper. This "divide and conquer" strategy meant supporting the Tutsi monarchy and requiring that all local chiefs be Tutsis, turning the Tutsis into symbols of colonial rule for the Hutu majority.

Post-independence, the resentment created by colonial divide-and-conquer bred violence. Seeing as Hutus were a large majority, they handily won the country's first elections in 1961, and the regime that followed was staunchly Hutu nationalist. Intermittent violence between Hutus and Tutsis became a feature of post-independent Rwandan

What you need to know about the Rwandan genocide

how did the germans and belgium enforce tutsi preferences - Yahoo Search Results

Stupid "individuals" such as yourself seem unable to understand that just because colonization ended the damage it created did not. Things just don't magically go poof and things end.

You can cite all the articles you want about white colonialism but as reprehensible as the German and Belgian actions were, in the end, these people chose on their own to commit genocide.

Rwanda had been independent since 1962 (32 years), at what point do they become responsible for their own actions? 33 years? 50 years? Never?

Not so. And you need to concern yourself only with the fact that whites should not have decided to colonize and rule places where they did not live.

 

[IM2]

This is from “No Name in the Street” (1972) by James Baldwin. It seems as true to me now as the day when I first read it years ago:


White children, in the main, and whether they are rich or poor, grow up with a grasp of reality so feeble that they can very accurately be described as deluded – about themselves and about the world they live in. White people have managed to get through entire lifetimes in this euphoric state, but black people have not been so lucky: a black man who sees the world the way John Wayne, for example, sees it would not be an eccentric patriot, but a raving maniac. … People who cling to their delusions find it difficult, if not impossible, to learn anything worth learning: a people under the necessity of creating themselves must examine everything, and soak up learning the way the roots of a tree soak up water. As people still held in bondage must believe that “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make ye free”.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Of course I recognize it you dimwit. Did I or did I not say it was wrong for them to do what they did?

So you're telling me that the actions of white men a hundred years ago are directly responsible for the Rwandan slaughter in 1994? You can't be so stupid as to believe that.

The rift between the two tribes dates back 400 years and was defined along class lines - the Tutsis being considered the higher class. The actions of the Germans and Belgians merely exacerbated an already established tension between the two groups. What's more, the Tutsis, rather than fight for equality for both tribes when the Belgians instituted their laws, chose instead to make use of the advantages the Belgians offered and relegate their fellow countrymen to second class citizenship.

Say what you will about the Germans and Belgians but there are absolutely no redeeming actions or choices on the part of the two tribes in this story. The Hutus chose to commit genocide on another tribe and no one forced them into it.

That's what I'm saying. And if you had actually studied what went on during the years of white colonization of Africa you would also. But you haven't. You seem to find it very difficult to understand that the whites didn't belong in control of that country.

Again, did I or did I not say that what the Germans and Belgians did was wrong? You just will not take yes for an answer, will you?

Rwanda had existed for thousands of years before whites decided they had the right to govern there. Whatever rival animosity they had was no different that the whites in Europe and we have had 2 world wars which have killed millions because of the long standing animosity white tribes had.

No shit. But unlike you, no one is suggesting that the Jewish genocide was the fault of some other nation, race or entity favoring Jews over Germans. The Germans chose to commit genocide all on their own just as the Hutus did.

Rwanda's genocide — what happened, why it happened, and how it still matters

The story behind the Rwandan genocide begins with colonialism
The split between Hutus and Tutsis arose not as a result of religious or cultural differences, but economic ones. "Hutus" were people who farmed crops, while "Tutsis" were people who tended livestock. Most Rwandans were Hutus. Gradually, these class divisions became seen as ethnic designations.

Because cattle were more valuable than crops, the minority Tutsis became the local elite. By the time Belgium took over the land in 1917 from Germany (who took it in 1884), an ethnic Tutsi elite had been the ruling monarchy for quite some time.

German and Belgian rule made the dividing lines between the groups sharper. This "divide and conquer" strategy meant supporting the Tutsi monarchy and requiring that all local chiefs be Tutsis, turning the Tutsis into symbols of colonial rule for the Hutu majority.

Post-independence, the resentment created by colonial divide-and-conquer bred violence. Seeing as Hutus were a large majority, they handily won the country's first elections in 1961, and the regime that followed was staunchly Hutu nationalist. Intermittent violence between Hutus and Tutsis became a feature of post-independent Rwandan

What you need to know about the Rwandan genocide

how did the germans and belgium enforce tutsi preferences - Yahoo Search Results

Stupid "individuals" such as yourself seem unable to understand that just because colonization ended the damage it created did not. Things just don't magically go poof and things end.

You can cite all the articles you want about white colonialism but as reprehensible as the German and Belgian actions were, in the end, these people chose on their own to commit genocide.

Rwanda had been independent since 1962 (32 years), at what point do they become responsible for their own actions? 33 years? 50 years? Never?

Not so.

What is not so?

And you need to concern yourself only with the fact that whites should not have decided to colonize and rule places where they did not live.

I'll ask again: At what point were the Rwandans responsible for their own actions? Also, if they were not responsible for their own actions in the genocide of 1994 - 32 years after independence - are they still not responsible for their own actions 56 years after independence?

 

[IM2]

That's what I'm saying. And if you had actually studied what went on during the years of white colonization of Africa you would also. But you haven't. You seem to find it very difficult to understand that the whites didn't belong in control of that country.

Again, did I or did I not say that what the Germans and Belgians did was wrong? You just will not take yes for an answer, will you?

Rwanda had existed for thousands of years before whites decided they had the right to govern there. Whatever rival animosity they had was no different that the whites in Europe and we have had 2 world wars which have killed millions because of the long standing animosity white tribes had.

No shit. But unlike you, no one is suggesting that the Jewish genocide was the fault of some other nation, race or entity favoring Jews over Germans. The Germans chose to commit genocide all on their own just as the Hutus did.

Rwanda's genocide — what happened, why it happened, and how it still matters

The story behind the Rwandan genocide begins with colonialism
The split between Hutus and Tutsis arose not as a result of religious or cultural differences, but economic ones. "Hutus" were people who farmed crops, while "Tutsis" were people who tended livestock. Most Rwandans were Hutus. Gradually, these class divisions became seen as ethnic designations.

Because cattle were more valuable than crops, the minority Tutsis became the local elite. By the time Belgium took over the land in 1917 from Germany (who took it in 1884), an ethnic Tutsi elite had been the ruling monarchy for quite some time.

German and Belgian rule made the dividing lines between the groups sharper. This "divide and conquer" strategy meant supporting the Tutsi monarchy and requiring that all local chiefs be Tutsis, turning the Tutsis into symbols of colonial rule for the Hutu majority.

Post-independence, the resentment created by colonial divide-and-conquer bred violence. Seeing as Hutus were a large majority, they handily won the country's first elections in 1961, and the regime that followed was staunchly Hutu nationalist. Intermittent violence between Hutus and Tutsis became a feature of post-independent Rwandan

What you need to know about the Rwandan genocide

how did the germans and belgium enforce tutsi preferences - Yahoo Search Results

Stupid "individuals" such as yourself seem unable to understand that just because colonization ended the damage it created did not. Things just don't magically go poof and things end.

You can cite all the articles you want about white colonialism but as reprehensible as the German and Belgian actions were, in the end, these people chose on their own to commit genocide.

Rwanda had been independent since 1962 (32 years), at what point do they become responsible for their own actions? 33 years? 50 years? Never?

Not so.

What is not so?

And you need to concern yourself only with the fact that whites should not have decided to colonize and rule places where they did not live.

I'll ask again: At what point were the Rwandans responsible for their own actions? Also, if they were not responsible for their own actions in the genocide of 1994 - 32 years after independence - are they still not responsible for their own actions 56 years after independence?

And I'll answer it again: You need to concern yourself only with the fact that whites should not have decided to colonize and rule places where they did not live.

 

[IM2]

White people (1502- ) are those light-skinned people who come from Europe, the Middle East and parts nearby. Over the past 500 years they have settled in Australia, South Africa, North and South America.

Some say that Muslim and Latin American whites are not white, but if you are going to divide the world into five or so races, there is no physical reason to set them apart – only ones of history and religion.

Even so, in English when people say “white” they mainly mean the whites in North America and Britain. I do too.

Who counts as “white” in America has changed: the Irish and the Jews were not considered to be “white” at first. The same is true now for Latinos. About 40% of Americans who are part African pass for white.

On the world stage, whites are on top, but only since about 1800.

Northern Europe had been a backward corner of the world through most of history. As late as the 1400s Timbuktu, a black city in Africa, and Tenochtitlan, a brown city in Mexico, each had far more people than London, a white city in Europe.

Egypt and China, not Europe, have been the most advanced parts of the world through most of history. China still was as late as 1700 and likely will be again by 2030. Just look at who is studying engineering now.

Many whites think they are on top because they are just better than everyone else. Either because of their race, their way of life or their laws and customs.

Not quite.

Whites got on top because they had guns and ocean-going ships and industry first. Japan has shown these things are not “white”, so whites got them first only through an accident of history.

Whites, except for their power, are the same as everyone else. God did not make them special. God is not smiling on them. Hardly.

Starting in the 1600s in America they came with their guns and pushed the red man off his land and then with their wonderful ships (they were a wonder), they brought black men over the seas in chains to work that land. It is not what Jesus would have done, but it is what they did.

Deep down they knew it was wrong. So to live with themselves they had to believe a lie: whites are better than everyone else. A lie most of them still believe to this day.

Racism is not just some bad habit they fell into. It is built into their sense of who they are.

White American racism was open and naked down to the time of Martin Luther King, Jr. They have since changed. But it seems their words have changed far more than their hearts. They still think they are better than blacks, but their excuses are now a bit more subtle and carefully worded – not so much to hide their racism from the world but from themselves.

 

[TheParser]

Those people who want to abolish "whiteness" should be very happy, for all demographic experts tell us that Caucasians are a shrinking ethnicity in the United States and will lose their majority status in about 30 years.

Then we can expect the percentage to drop really fast. Here in Los Angeles, for example, the Caucasian population is now around 30%.

IMHO, everyone (and I mean everyone) is going to be mighty sorry when "whiteness" does disappear.

 

[IM2]

Those people who want to abolish "whiteness" should be very happy, for all demographic experts tell us that Caucasians are a shrinking ethnicity in the United States and will lose their majority status in about 30 years.

Then we can expect the percentage to drop really fast. Here in Los Angeles, for example, the Caucasian population is now around 30%.

IMHO, everyone (and I mean everyone) is going to be mighty sorry when "whiteness" does disappear.

White people and whiteness are 2 different things. I don't think anyone will be sorry when whiteness is gone. Whiteness has allowed you to arrogantly give your race credit for things you have not done and allows you to believe that the world revolves around you. White people are going nowhere.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Again, did I or did I not say that what the Germans and Belgians did was wrong? You just will not take yes for an answer, will you?

No shit. But unlike you, no one is suggesting that the Jewish genocide was the fault of some other nation, race or entity favoring Jews over Germans. The Germans chose to commit genocide all on their own just as the Hutus did.

Rwanda's genocide — what happened, why it happened, and how it still matters

The story behind the Rwandan genocide begins with colonialism
The split between Hutus and Tutsis arose not as a result of religious or cultural differences, but economic ones. "Hutus" were people who farmed crops, while "Tutsis" were people who tended livestock. Most Rwandans were Hutus. Gradually, these class divisions became seen as ethnic designations.

Because cattle were more valuable than crops, the minority Tutsis became the local elite. By the time Belgium took over the land in 1917 from Germany (who took it in 1884), an ethnic Tutsi elite had been the ruling monarchy for quite some time.

German and Belgian rule made the dividing lines between the groups sharper. This "divide and conquer" strategy meant supporting the Tutsi monarchy and requiring that all local chiefs be Tutsis, turning the Tutsis into symbols of colonial rule for the Hutu majority.

Post-independence, the resentment created by colonial divide-and-conquer bred violence. Seeing as Hutus were a large majority, they handily won the country's first elections in 1961, and the regime that followed was staunchly Hutu nationalist. Intermittent violence between Hutus and Tutsis became a feature of post-independent Rwandan

What you need to know about the Rwandan genocide

how did the germans and belgium enforce tutsi preferences - Yahoo Search Results

Stupid "individuals" such as yourself seem unable to understand that just because colonization ended the damage it created did not. Things just don't magically go poof and things end.

You can cite all the articles you want about white colonialism but as reprehensible as the German and Belgian actions were, in the end, these people chose on their own to commit genocide.

Rwanda had been independent since 1962 (32 years), at what point do they become responsible for their own actions? 33 years? 50 years? Never?

Not so.

What is not so?

And you need to concern yourself only with the fact that whites should not have decided to colonize and rule places where they did not live.

I'll ask again: At what point were the Rwandans responsible for their own actions? Also, if they were not responsible for their own actions in the genocide of 1994 - 32 years after independence - are they still not responsible for their own actions 56 years after independence?

And I'll answer it again: You need to concern yourself only with the fact that whites should not have decided to colonize and rule places where they did not live.

Don't presume to tell me what I should or should not concern myself with. I've already said that what the Germans and Belgians did was wrong so that's not what's at issue here. We both agree on that much so why are you still harping on it? Why are you so afraid to examine the motives and level of culpability of the Rwandans' actions in the genocide?

Your tunnel vision is so acute that you are unable to see anything beyond "Whites are bad". This particular conversation is a template for every discussion you participate in on white racism. Your arguing style is something like this:

Me: "Rwandans committed genocide and 800,000 people died."

You: "But whites put them up to it."

Me: "It was wrong for the whites to do what they did but the Rwandans..."

You: "But look at what the whites did."

Me: "Their was division between the two tribes for hundreds of years and..."

You: "But look at what the whites did."

Me: "They chose on their own to..."

You: "But look at what the whites did."

Me: "It was 32 years after their independence and..."

You: "But look at what the whites did.'

Me: "The Rwandans are responsible for their own actions and..."

You: "But look at what the whites did."

"Look at what whites did" is the basis for all your arguments in every discussion you've been in. You repeat this ad nauseum until you encounter more reality and logic than you are prepared to face and then you bail on the discussion and start another thread in the same vein with copy-and-paste jobs from websites that say basically the same thing: "Look at what whites did.".

You complained about my not answering your questions in "the Difference" thread so I openly invited you to ask me any question you wanted but instead of doing that, you chose instead to tell me to quit whining (after you whined about your questions not being answered) and post not one, not two, not three, but eight copy-and-paste jobs from one of the plethora of your "Look at what whites did" websites.

It's ridiculous.

 

[IM2]

Rwanda's genocide — what happened, why it happened, and how it still matters

The story behind the Rwandan genocide begins with colonialism
The split between Hutus and Tutsis arose not as a result of religious or cultural differences, but economic ones. "Hutus" were people who farmed crops, while "Tutsis" were people who tended livestock. Most Rwandans were Hutus. Gradually, these class divisions became seen as ethnic designations.

Because cattle were more valuable than crops, the minority Tutsis became the local elite. By the time Belgium took over the land in 1917 from Germany (who took it in 1884), an ethnic Tutsi elite had been the ruling monarchy for quite some time.

German and Belgian rule made the dividing lines between the groups sharper. This "divide and conquer" strategy meant supporting the Tutsi monarchy and requiring that all local chiefs be Tutsis, turning the Tutsis into symbols of colonial rule for the Hutu majority.

Post-independence, the resentment created by colonial divide-and-conquer bred violence. Seeing as Hutus were a large majority, they handily won the country's first elections in 1961, and the regime that followed was staunchly Hutu nationalist. Intermittent violence between Hutus and Tutsis became a feature of post-independent Rwandan

What you need to know about the Rwandan genocide

how did the germans and belgium enforce tutsi preferences - Yahoo Search Results

Stupid "individuals" such as yourself seem unable to understand that just because colonization ended the damage it created did not. Things just don't magically go poof and things end.

You can cite all the articles you want about white colonialism but as reprehensible as the German and Belgian actions were, in the end, these people chose on their own to commit genocide.

Rwanda had been independent since 1962 (32 years), at what point do they become responsible for their own actions? 33 years? 50 years? Never?

Not so.

What is not so?

And you need to concern yourself only with the fact that whites should not have decided to colonize and rule places where they did not live.

I'll ask again: At what point were the Rwandans responsible for their own actions? Also, if they were not responsible for their own actions in the genocide of 1994 - 32 years after independence - are they still not responsible for their own actions 56 years after independence?

And I'll answer it again: You need to concern yourself only with the fact that whites should not have decided to colonize and rule places where they did not live.

Don't presume to tell me what I should or should not concern myself with. I've already said that what the Germans and Belgians did was wrong so that's not what's at issue here. We both agree on that much so why are you still harping on it? Why are you so afraid to examine the motives and level of culpability of the Rwandans' actions in the genocide?

Your tunnel vision is so acute that you are unable to see anything beyond "Whites are bad". This particular conversation is a template for every discussion you participate in on white racism. Your arguing style is something like this:

Me: "Rwandans committed genocide and 800,000 people died."

You: "But whites put them up to it."

Me: "It was wrong for the whites to do what they did but the Rwandans..."

You: "But look at what the whites did."

Me: "Their was division between the two tribes for hundreds of years and..."

You: "But look at what the whites did."

Me: "They chose on their own to..."

You: "But look at what the whites did."

Me: "It was 32 years after their independence and..."

You: "But look at what the whites did.'

Me: "The Rwandans are responsible for their own actions and..."

You: "But look at what the whites did."

"Look at what whites did" is the basis for all your arguments in every discussion you've been in. You repeat this ad nauseum until you encounter more reality and logic than you are prepared to face and then you bail on the discussion and start another thread in the same vein with copy-and-paste jobs from websites that say basically the same thing: "Look at what whites did.".

You complained about my not answering your questions in "the Difference" thread so I openly invited you to ask me any question you wanted but instead of doing that, you chose instead to tell me to quit whining (after you whined about your questions not being answered) and post not one, not two, not three, but eight copy-and-paste jobs from one of the plethora of your "Look at what whites did" websites.

It's ridiculous.

I am presuming and will continue until you understand the fact that whites had no business taking over that nation. It was 32 years after their independence you say. I really hate trying to debate dumb people like you. Things just don't just go poof and stop you dumb bastard. 32 years after independence there were still Tutsis alive that were given preference and who dished out the abuses. There were still Hutus that had suffered the abuses or who had family members who did, and some of them died. All that became part pf Rwanda because of what whites did. What the fuck do you think colonization was ? A peaceful form of desegregation?

Now you have not seen me anywhere condoning this but if you are going to act like your white ass can pass judgement on blacks as you guys do in here then you will be made to understand the role whites had in creating the problem. Whites fucked up Africa because of colonization. Many countries there are still struggling to recover from what whites did. Teflon history does not exist. So if you are butthurt so fucking what? Whites should not have done the shit. And whites need to take responsibility for what they have done when they start talking shit in forums like this. Understand?
.
The only person here who can't deal with reality is you. .You can't look at wrongs whites have done. You have admitted that you won't be roped into a conversation about how bad whites are BUT your punk ass is here trying to lecture me about blacks? Fuck you.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

You can cite all the articles you want about white colonialism but as reprehensible as the German and Belgian actions were, in the end, these people chose on their own to commit genocide.

Rwanda had been independent since 1962 (32 years), at what point do they become responsible for their own actions? 33 years? 50 years? Never?

Not so.

What is not so?

And you need to concern yourself only with the fact that whites should not have decided to colonize and rule places where they did not live.

I'll ask again: At what point were the Rwandans responsible for their own actions? Also, if they were not responsible for their own actions in the genocide of 1994 - 32 years after independence - are they still not responsible for their own actions 56 years after independence?

And I'll answer it again: You need to concern yourself only with the fact that whites should not have decided to colonize and rule places where they did not live.

Don't presume to tell me what I should or should not concern myself with. I've already said that what the Germans and Belgians did was wrong so that's not what's at issue here. We both agree on that much so why are you still harping on it? Why are you so afraid to examine the motives and level of culpability of the Rwandans' actions in the genocide?

Your tunnel vision is so acute that you are unable to see anything beyond "Whites are bad". This particular conversation is a template for every discussion you participate in on white racism. Your arguing style is something like this:

Me: "Rwandans committed genocide and 800,000 people died."

You: "But whites put them up to it."

Me: "It was wrong for the whites to do what they did but the Rwandans..."

You: "But look at what the whites did."

Me: "Their was division between the two tribes for hundreds of years and..."

You: "But look at what the whites did."

Me: "They chose on their own to..."

You: "But look at what the whites did."

Me: "It was 32 years after their independence and..."

You: "But look at what the whites did.'

Me: "The Rwandans are responsible for their own actions and..."

You: "But look at what the whites did."

"Look at what whites did" is the basis for all your arguments in every discussion you've been in. You repeat this ad nauseum until you encounter more reality and logic than you are prepared to face and then you bail on the discussion and start another thread in the same vein with copy-and-paste jobs from websites that say basically the same thing: "Look at what whites did.".

You complained about my not answering your questions in "the Difference" thread so I openly invited you to ask me any question you wanted but instead of doing that, you chose instead to tell me to quit whining (after you whined about your questions not being answered) and post not one, not two, not three, but eight copy-and-paste jobs from one of the plethora of your "Look at what whites did" websites.

It's ridiculous.

I am presuming and will continue until you understand the fact that whites had no business taking over that nation.

I've said about three or four times now that they shouldn't have done what they did. Why are you refusing to acknowledge that I acknowledged it?

It was 32 years after their independence you say. I really hate trying to debate dumb people like you. Things just don't just go poof and stop you dumb bastard.

Things didn't go poof because the Rwandans chose to continue and exacerbate the racism, not because whites encouraged it a hundred years ago.

32 years after independence there were still Tutsis alive that were given preference and who dished out the abuses. There were still Hutus that had suffered the abuses or who had family members who did, and some of them died. All that became part pf Rwanda because of what whites did.

If I am as racist as you say, who is responsible for that?

Now you have not seen me anywhere condoning this but if you are going to act like your white ass can pass judgement on blacks as you guys do in here then you will be made to understand the role whites had in creating the problem. Whites fucked up Africa because of colonization. Many countries there are still struggling to recover from what whites did. Teflon history does not exist. So if you are butthurt so fucking what? Whites should not have done the shit. And whites need to take responsibility for what they have done when they start talking shit in forums like this. Understand?
.
The only person here who can't deal with reality is you. .You can't look at wrongs whites have done. You have admitted that you won't be roped into a conversation about how bad whites are BUT your punk ass is here trying to lecture me about blacks? Fuck you.

Very eloquently put. You must be getting addled again because the insults increased and the profanity meter shot up to the red zone again.