Should black people still be upset about slavery?

[Lonestar_logic]

What the flying FUCK dood?? I was the first one to offer any comment at all, while your wangly ass was watching. And I went into way more historical context than anybody else, certainly more than your lazy dismissive wankjob here. You gave none whatsoever.

What did you do, post when a commercial came on? Don't break a brain sweat or anything -- you might pull a muscle.

Meanwhile boldface-boy you're circle jerking with came running in going "hey, looka me!! White slaves! White slaves! I found a YouTube video!" So don't come oozing in here telling ME I didn't answer the question, ya lazy ass FUCK.

So is your answer yes or no?

BTW I have this little thing called a "job", so I don't just sit here and opine on USMB all day.

Your personal attacks indicate I struck a nerve.

I don't do watered-down bite-size fast food superficial crapola posts, numnuts. I've got at least half a dozen posts back there; if you want to know what I think, go fucking read them whenevrer you have time but don't sit on this board and tell me they're not there, wanker.

I read all your post and you haven't stated equivocally one way or the other. A simple yes or no is all that is asked.

Bullshit. I was the FIRST to answer it. Post 3. And then it goes on to background. You know -- what you DIDN'T do. Learn to read.
And learn to write while you're at it, for it's true I haven't stated equivocally -- I stated UNequivocally. Illiterate hack.

Leave it to lonely star to lower the collective IQ in the thread.

Defend your idiot friend. He needs all the help he can get.

 

[WelfareQueen]

I addressed that in my first post here (3) before you tried to carry us off to white slavery with a YouTube video.

You might want to go back and re-read your comment because NO you did not. It started off "I don't think" but there was NO direct reply to the question as in yes or no.

I don't need to re-read shit; I was posting my view, which must be a statement of what I think. To state "yes" or "no" directly would be arrogant. Even if I were black, to pretend my view represented everybody in "my people" would be fallacious, presumptuous and similarly arrogant. I just don't swing that way.

NO ONE asked you to speak for everybody. The OP asked you to speak for YOURSELF.

He's afraid to commit and be tied down to one side or the other. So he waffles.

IMO Blacks use slavery to justify their hatred toward whites. They will always harbor resentment toward whites no amount of reparations would stop that.

The question , should they still be upset? No they shouldn't. But they will because they have to.

What the flying FUCK dood?? I was the first one to offer any comment at all, while your wangly ass was watching. And I went into way more historical context than anybody else, certainly more than your lazy dismissive wankjob here. You gave none whatsoever.

What did you do, post when a commercial came on? Don't break a brain sweat or anything -- you might pull a muscle.

Meanwhile boldface-boy you're circle jerking with came running in going "hey, looka me!! White slaves! White slaves! I found a YouTube video!" So don't come oozing in here telling ME I didn't answer the question, ya lazy ass FUCK.

Question: Why the need for historical context for blacks but not for others? There is virtually no group on Earth that has not been enslaved or abused at some point.

I know you have mentioned having Irish ancestry.....so do I. Surely you must be aware of the history of the Irish and the genocide and slavery perpetrated by the British for centuries.

Is our history no less compelling? Does our shared history provide an excuse or cover if we suffer personal failures?

 

[Asclepias]

So is your answer yes or no?

BTW I have this little thing called a "job", so I don't just sit here and opine on USMB all day.

Your personal attacks indicate I struck a nerve.

I don't do watered-down bite-size fast food superficial crapola posts, numnuts. I've got at least half a dozen posts back there; if you want to know what I think, go fucking read them whenevrer you have time but don't sit on this board and tell me they're not there, wanker.

I read all your post and you haven't stated equivocally one way or the other. A simple yes or no is all that is asked.

Bullshit. I was the FIRST to answer it. Post 3. And then it goes on to background. You know -- what you DIDN'T do. Learn to read.
And learn to write while you're at it, for it's true I haven't stated equivocally -- I stated UNequivocally. Illiterate hack.

Leave it to lonely star to lower the collective IQ in the thread.

Defend your idiot friend. He needs all the help he can get.

There is no need to defend anyone. Your own comments show you to be an idiot. You were helping him out much better than I ever could.

 

[Asclepias]

You might want to go back and re-read your comment because NO you did not. It started off "I don't think" but there was NO direct reply to the question as in yes or no.

I don't need to re-read shit; I was posting my view, which must be a statement of what I think. To state "yes" or "no" directly would be arrogant. Even if I were black, to pretend my view represented everybody in "my people" would be fallacious, presumptuous and similarly arrogant. I just don't swing that way.

NO ONE asked you to speak for everybody. The OP asked you to speak for YOURSELF.

He's afraid to commit and be tied down to one side or the other. So he waffles.

IMO Blacks use slavery to justify their hatred toward whites. They will always harbor resentment toward whites no amount of reparations would stop that.

The question , should they still be upset? No they shouldn't. But they will because they have to.

What the flying FUCK dood?? I was the first one to offer any comment at all, while your wangly ass was watching. And I went into way more historical context than anybody else, certainly more than your lazy dismissive wankjob here. You gave none whatsoever.

What did you do, post when a commercial came on? Don't break a brain sweat or anything -- you might pull a muscle.

Meanwhile boldface-boy you're circle jerking with came running in going "hey, looka me!! White slaves! White slaves! I found a YouTube video!" So don't come oozing in here telling ME I didn't answer the question, ya lazy ass FUCK.

Question: Why the need for historical context for blacks but not for others? There is virtually no group on Earth that has not been enslaved or abused at some point.

I know you have mentioned having Irish ancestry.....so do I. Surely you must be aware of the history of the Irish and the genocide and slavery perpetrated by the British for centuries.

Is our history no less compelling? Does our shared history provide an excuse or cover if we suffer personal failures?

Because we are talking about here in the US idiot. Thats why not much is discussed concerning the role of the Arabs in the slave trades beginnings.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I don't do watered-down bite-size fast food superficial crapola posts, numnuts. I've got at least half a dozen posts back there; if you want to know what I think, go fucking read them whenevrer you have time but don't sit on this board and tell me they're not there, wanker.

I read all your post and you haven't stated equivocally one way or the other. A simple yes or no is all that is asked.

Bullshit. I was the FIRST to answer it. Post 3. And then it goes on to background. You know -- what you DIDN'T do. Learn to read.
And learn to write while you're at it, for it's true I haven't stated equivocally -- I stated UNequivocally. Illiterate hack.

Leave it to lonely star to lower the collective IQ in the thread.

Defend your idiot friend. He needs all the help he can get.

There is no need to defend anyone. Your own comments show you to be an idiot. You were helping him out much better than I ever could.

You are a liar, not to be trusted or believed.

Now hurl more insults since that is all you can do.

I asked for a yes or no answer and that seemed to difficult for your moronic friend.

 

[Pogo]

You might want to go back and re-read your comment because NO you did not. It started off "I don't think" but there was NO direct reply to the question as in yes or no.

I don't need to re-read shit; I was posting my view, which must be a statement of what I think. To state "yes" or "no" directly would be arrogant. Even if I were black, to pretend my view represented everybody in "my people" would be fallacious, presumptuous and similarly arrogant. I just don't swing that way.

NO ONE asked you to speak for everybody. The OP asked you to speak for YOURSELF.

He's afraid to commit and be tied down to one side or the other. So he waffles.

IMO Blacks use slavery to justify their hatred toward whites. They will always harbor resentment toward whites no amount of reparations would stop that.

The question , should they still be upset? No they shouldn't. But they will because they have to.

What the flying FUCK dood?? I was the first one to offer any comment at all, while your wangly ass was watching. And I went into way more historical context than anybody else, certainly more than your lazy dismissive wankjob here. You gave none whatsoever.

What did you do, post when a commercial came on? Don't break a brain sweat or anything -- you might pull a muscle.

Meanwhile boldface-boy you're circle jerking with came running in going "hey, looka me!! White slaves! White slaves! I found a YouTube video!" So don't come oozing in here telling ME I didn't answer the question, ya lazy ass FUCK.

Question: Why the need for historical context for blacks but not for others? There is virtually no group on Earth that has not been enslaved or abused at some point.

I know you have mentioned having Irish ancestry.....so do I. Surely you must be aware of the history of the Irish and the genocide and slavery perpetrated by the British for centuries.

Is our history no less compelling? Does our shared history provide an excuse or cover if we suffer personal failures?

Because that's what the question was specifically about --- black slaves. It's right there in the title.

There's no exclusion of anybody else; yes I'm Irish on both sides (black Irish on one in fact) and we can go into that where that's brought up as a question. But that slavery was (a) not race-based, (b) has no lasting repercussions in the present, and (c) not well known. Nor did it result in the construction of a socioeconomic class. Yet all of those apply to the question of African slavery.

I explore that historical context because it's crucial when one draws a conclusion to know how one got there. When I draw a conclusion, you get the entire map with turn-by-turn directions, so that when you get to the end, the spot where you ended up makes sense.

For exactly the same reason, looking around to make sense of where we are in the world requires us to examine how we got to this point. The world as we know it doesn't exist in a vacuum; it didn't just pop up spontaneously for no reason. Everything has reasons.

 

[WelfareQueen]

I don't need to re-read shit; I was posting my view, which must be a statement of what I think. To state "yes" or "no" directly would be arrogant. Even if I were black, to pretend my view represented everybody in "my people" would be fallacious, presumptuous and similarly arrogant. I just don't swing that way.

NO ONE asked you to speak for everybody. The OP asked you to speak for YOURSELF.

He's afraid to commit and be tied down to one side or the other. So he waffles.

IMO Blacks use slavery to justify their hatred toward whites. They will always harbor resentment toward whites no amount of reparations would stop that.

The question , should they still be upset? No they shouldn't. But they will because they have to.

What the flying FUCK dood?? I was the first one to offer any comment at all, while your wangly ass was watching. And I went into way more historical context than anybody else, certainly more than your lazy dismissive wankjob here. You gave none whatsoever.

What did you do, post when a commercial came on? Don't break a brain sweat or anything -- you might pull a muscle.

Meanwhile boldface-boy you're circle jerking with came running in going "hey, looka me!! White slaves! White slaves! I found a YouTube video!" So don't come oozing in here telling ME I didn't answer the question, ya lazy ass FUCK.

Question: Why the need for historical context for blacks but not for others? There is virtually no group on Earth that has not been enslaved or abused at some point.

I know you have mentioned having Irish ancestry.....so do I. Surely you must be aware of the history of the Irish and the genocide and slavery perpetrated by the British for centuries.

Is our history no less compelling? Does our shared history provide an excuse or cover if we suffer personal failures?

Because that's what the question was specifically about --- black slaves.

There's no exclusion of anybody else; yes I'm Irish on both sides (black Irish on one in fact) and we can go into that where that's brought up as a question. But that slavery was (a) not race-based, (b) has no lasting repercussions in the present, and (c) not well known. Nor did it result in the construction of a socioeconomic class. Yet all of those apply to the question of African slavery.

I explore that historical context because it's crucial when one draws a conclusion to know how one got there. When I draw a conclusion, you get the entire map with turn-by-turn directions, so that when you get to the end, where you ended up makes sense.

Okay. But the British did consider the Irish to be of an inferior "race" and religion. The Irish were not allowed to be educated under penalty of death. Northern Ireland was virtually wiped out.

The parallels with the black experience in America are many.

 

[Pogo]

NO ONE asked you to speak for everybody. The OP asked you to speak for YOURSELF.

He's afraid to commit and be tied down to one side or the other. So he waffles.

IMO Blacks use slavery to justify their hatred toward whites. They will always harbor resentment toward whites no amount of reparations would stop that.

The question , should they still be upset? No they shouldn't. But they will because they have to.

What the flying FUCK dood?? I was the first one to offer any comment at all, while your wangly ass was watching. And I went into way more historical context than anybody else, certainly more than your lazy dismissive wankjob here. You gave none whatsoever.

What did you do, post when a commercial came on? Don't break a brain sweat or anything -- you might pull a muscle.

Meanwhile boldface-boy you're circle jerking with came running in going "hey, looka me!! White slaves! White slaves! I found a YouTube video!" So don't come oozing in here telling ME I didn't answer the question, ya lazy ass FUCK.

Question: Why the need for historical context for blacks but not for others? There is virtually no group on Earth that has not been enslaved or abused at some point.

I know you have mentioned having Irish ancestry.....so do I. Surely you must be aware of the history of the Irish and the genocide and slavery perpetrated by the British for centuries.

Is our history no less compelling? Does our shared history provide an excuse or cover if we suffer personal failures?

Because that's what the question was specifically about --- black slaves.

There's no exclusion of anybody else; yes I'm Irish on both sides (black Irish on one in fact) and we can go into that where that's brought up as a question. But that slavery was (a) not race-based, (b) has no lasting repercussions in the present, and (c) not well known. Nor did it result in the construction of a socioeconomic class. Yet all of those apply to the question of African slavery.

I explore that historical context because it's crucial when one draws a conclusion to know how one got there. When I draw a conclusion, you get the entire map with turn-by-turn directions, so that when you get to the end, where you ended up makes sense.

Okay. But the British did consider the Irish to be of an inferior "race" and religion. The Irish were not allowed to be educated under penalty of death. Northern Ireland was virtually wiped out.

The parallels with the black experience in America are many.

The word "race" is used there differently from the way it's used as a skin color. You can't pick Irish out of a lineup based on skin color. That was the whole point of inventing racism as a concept -- to justify the transatlantic shipping of slaves-for-life on the basis that they were some "inferior" species, readily identifiable by a color code. Before that transatlantic trade (before he knowledge of the Americas in Europe), black Africans were known there with no particular stigma attached to skin color. That was invented later -- for the slave trade. As usual it's derived of economic greed.

As far as the "Irish race", that's a use of "race" to mean nationality or ethnicity. Not the sort of race used to invent racism. The English persecution of the Irish (and many others) was political, the English doing what they do best -- kicking people out of their homeland. It was also religious persecution -- Cromwell was shipping pagans (non Christians) out to the West Indies. But it had nothing to do with "race" in a sense of skin color (racism).

 

[Asclepias]

I read all your post and you haven't stated equivocally one way or the other. A simple yes or no is all that is asked.

Bullshit. I was the FIRST to answer it. Post 3. And then it goes on to background. You know -- what you DIDN'T do. Learn to read.
And learn to write while you're at it, for it's true I haven't stated equivocally -- I stated UNequivocally. Illiterate hack.

Leave it to lonely star to lower the collective IQ in the thread.

Defend your idiot friend. He needs all the help he can get.

There is no need to defend anyone. Your own comments show you to be an idiot. You were helping him out much better than I ever could.

You are a liar, not to be trusted or believed.

Now hurl more insults since that is all you can do.

I asked for a yes or no answer and that seemed to difficult for your moronic friend.

Doest matter what you asked for. You are not the OP. Go blow yourself idiot.

 

[Asclepias]

NO ONE asked you to speak for everybody. The OP asked you to speak for YOURSELF.

He's afraid to commit and be tied down to one side or the other. So he waffles.

IMO Blacks use slavery to justify their hatred toward whites. They will always harbor resentment toward whites no amount of reparations would stop that.

The question , should they still be upset? No they shouldn't. But they will because they have to.

What the flying FUCK dood?? I was the first one to offer any comment at all, while your wangly ass was watching. And I went into way more historical context than anybody else, certainly more than your lazy dismissive wankjob here. You gave none whatsoever.

What did you do, post when a commercial came on? Don't break a brain sweat or anything -- you might pull a muscle.

Meanwhile boldface-boy you're circle jerking with came running in going "hey, looka me!! White slaves! White slaves! I found a YouTube video!" So don't come oozing in here telling ME I didn't answer the question, ya lazy ass FUCK.

Question: Why the need for historical context for blacks but not for others? There is virtually no group on Earth that has not been enslaved or abused at some point.

I know you have mentioned having Irish ancestry.....so do I. Surely you must be aware of the history of the Irish and the genocide and slavery perpetrated by the British for centuries.

Is our history no less compelling? Does our shared history provide an excuse or cover if we suffer personal failures?

Because that's what the question was specifically about --- black slaves.

There's no exclusion of anybody else; yes I'm Irish on both sides (black Irish on one in fact) and we can go into that where that's brought up as a question. But that slavery was (a) not race-based, (b) has no lasting repercussions in the present, and (c) not well known. Nor did it result in the construction of a socioeconomic class. Yet all of those apply to the question of African slavery.

I explore that historical context because it's crucial when one draws a conclusion to know how one got there. When I draw a conclusion, you get the entire map with turn-by-turn directions, so that when you get to the end, where you ended up makes sense.

Okay. But the British did consider the Irish to be of an inferior "race" and religion. The Irish were not allowed to be educated under penalty of death. Northern Ireland was virtually wiped out.

The parallels with the black experience in America are many.

Not really. Irish never lost their foundation. Blacks did. That one aspect puts the two experiences on different levels and they have nothing to do with each other.

 

[WelfareQueen]

He's afraid to commit and be tied down to one side or the other. So he waffles.

IMO Blacks use slavery to justify their hatred toward whites. They will always harbor resentment toward whites no amount of reparations would stop that.

The question , should they still be upset? No they shouldn't. But they will because they have to.

What the flying FUCK dood?? I was the first one to offer any comment at all, while your wangly ass was watching. And I went into way more historical context than anybody else, certainly more than your lazy dismissive wankjob here. You gave none whatsoever.

What did you do, post when a commercial came on? Don't break a brain sweat or anything -- you might pull a muscle.

Meanwhile boldface-boy you're circle jerking with came running in going "hey, looka me!! White slaves! White slaves! I found a YouTube video!" So don't come oozing in here telling ME I didn't answer the question, ya lazy ass FUCK.

Question: Why the need for historical context for blacks but not for others? There is virtually no group on Earth that has not been enslaved or abused at some point.

I know you have mentioned having Irish ancestry.....so do I. Surely you must be aware of the history of the Irish and the genocide and slavery perpetrated by the British for centuries.

Is our history no less compelling? Does our shared history provide an excuse or cover if we suffer personal failures?

Because that's what the question was specifically about --- black slaves.

There's no exclusion of anybody else; yes I'm Irish on both sides (black Irish on one in fact) and we can go into that where that's brought up as a question. But that slavery was (a) not race-based, (b) has no lasting repercussions in the present, and (c) not well known. Nor did it result in the construction of a socioeconomic class. Yet all of those apply to the question of African slavery.

I explore that historical context because it's crucial when one draws a conclusion to know how one got there. When I draw a conclusion, you get the entire map with turn-by-turn directions, so that when you get to the end, where you ended up makes sense.

Okay. But the British did consider the Irish to be of an inferior "race" and religion. The Irish were not allowed to be educated under penalty of death. Northern Ireland was virtually wiped out.

The parallels with the black experience in America are many.

The word "race" is used there differently from the way it's used as a skin color. You can't pick Irish out of a lineup based on skin color. That was the whole point of inventing racism as a concept -- to justify the transatlantic shipping of slaves-for-life on the basis that they were some "inferior" species, readily identifiable by a color code. Before that transatlantic trade (before he knowledge of the Americas in Europe), black Africans were known there with no particular stigma attached to skin color. That was invented later -- for the slave trade. As usual it's derived of economic greed.

As far as the "Irish race", that's a use of "race" to mean nationality or ethnicity. Not the sort of race used to invent racism. The English persecution of the Irish (and many others) was political, the English doing what they do best -- kicking people out of their homeland. It was also religious persecution -- Cromwell was shipping pagans (non Christians) out to the West Indies. But it had nothing to do with "race" in a sense of skin color (racism).

No. The British persecution of the Irish was about religion, and perceived racial differences. The politics grew out of the hatred (as it did in America).

 

[Asclepias]

What the flying FUCK dood?? I was the first one to offer any comment at all, while your wangly ass was watching. And I went into way more historical context than anybody else, certainly more than your lazy dismissive wankjob here. You gave none whatsoever.

What did you do, post when a commercial came on? Don't break a brain sweat or anything -- you might pull a muscle.

Meanwhile boldface-boy you're circle jerking with came running in going "hey, looka me!! White slaves! White slaves! I found a YouTube video!" So don't come oozing in here telling ME I didn't answer the question, ya lazy ass FUCK.

Question: Why the need for historical context for blacks but not for others? There is virtually no group on Earth that has not been enslaved or abused at some point.

I know you have mentioned having Irish ancestry.....so do I. Surely you must be aware of the history of the Irish and the genocide and slavery perpetrated by the British for centuries.

Is our history no less compelling? Does our shared history provide an excuse or cover if we suffer personal failures?

Because that's what the question was specifically about --- black slaves.

There's no exclusion of anybody else; yes I'm Irish on both sides (black Irish on one in fact) and we can go into that where that's brought up as a question. But that slavery was (a) not race-based, (b) has no lasting repercussions in the present, and (c) not well known. Nor did it result in the construction of a socioeconomic class. Yet all of those apply to the question of African slavery.

I explore that historical context because it's crucial when one draws a conclusion to know how one got there. When I draw a conclusion, you get the entire map with turn-by-turn directions, so that when you get to the end, where you ended up makes sense.

Okay. But the British did consider the Irish to be of an inferior "race" and religion. The Irish were not allowed to be educated under penalty of death. Northern Ireland was virtually wiped out.

The parallels with the black experience in America are many.

The word "race" is used there differently from the way it's used as a skin color. You can't pick Irish out of a lineup based on skin color. That was the whole point of inventing racism as a concept -- to justify the transatlantic shipping of slaves-for-life on the basis that they were some "inferior" species, readily identifiable by a color code. Before that transatlantic trade (before he knowledge of the Americas in Europe), black Africans were known there with no particular stigma attached to skin color. That was invented later -- for the slave trade. As usual it's derived of economic greed.

As far as the "Irish race", that's a use of "race" to mean nationality or ethnicity. Not the sort of race used to invent racism. The English persecution of the Irish (and many others) was political, the English doing what they do best -- kicking people out of their homeland. It was also religious persecution -- Cromwell was shipping pagans (non Christians) out to the West Indies. But it had nothing to do with "race" in a sense of skin color (racism).

No. The British persecution of the Irish was about religion, and perceived racial differences. The politics grew out of the hatred (as it did in America).

Thats not what the OP is about. Concentrate.

 

[Pogo]

What the flying FUCK dood?? I was the first one to offer any comment at all, while your wangly ass was watching. And I went into way more historical context than anybody else, certainly more than your lazy dismissive wankjob here. You gave none whatsoever.

What did you do, post when a commercial came on? Don't break a brain sweat or anything -- you might pull a muscle.

Meanwhile boldface-boy you're circle jerking with came running in going "hey, looka me!! White slaves! White slaves! I found a YouTube video!" So don't come oozing in here telling ME I didn't answer the question, ya lazy ass FUCK.

Question: Why the need for historical context for blacks but not for others? There is virtually no group on Earth that has not been enslaved or abused at some point.

I know you have mentioned having Irish ancestry.....so do I. Surely you must be aware of the history of the Irish and the genocide and slavery perpetrated by the British for centuries.

Is our history no less compelling? Does our shared history provide an excuse or cover if we suffer personal failures?

Because that's what the question was specifically about --- black slaves.

There's no exclusion of anybody else; yes I'm Irish on both sides (black Irish on one in fact) and we can go into that where that's brought up as a question. But that slavery was (a) not race-based, (b) has no lasting repercussions in the present, and (c) not well known. Nor did it result in the construction of a socioeconomic class. Yet all of those apply to the question of African slavery.

I explore that historical context because it's crucial when one draws a conclusion to know how one got there. When I draw a conclusion, you get the entire map with turn-by-turn directions, so that when you get to the end, where you ended up makes sense.

Okay. But the British did consider the Irish to be of an inferior "race" and religion. The Irish were not allowed to be educated under penalty of death. Northern Ireland was virtually wiped out.

The parallels with the black experience in America are many.

The word "race" is used there differently from the way it's used as a skin color. You can't pick Irish out of a lineup based on skin color. That was the whole point of inventing racism as a concept -- to justify the transatlantic shipping of slaves-for-life on the basis that they were some "inferior" species, readily identifiable by a color code. Before that transatlantic trade (before he knowledge of the Americas in Europe), black Africans were known there with no particular stigma attached to skin color. That was invented later -- for the slave trade. As usual it's derived of economic greed.

As far as the "Irish race", that's a use of "race" to mean nationality or ethnicity. Not the sort of race used to invent racism. The English persecution of the Irish (and many others) was political, the English doing what they do best -- kicking people out of their homeland. It was also religious persecution -- Cromwell was shipping pagans (non Christians) out to the West Indies. But it had nothing to do with "race" in a sense of skin color (racism).

No. The British persecution of the Irish was about religion, and perceived racial differences. The politics grew out of the hatred (as it did in America).

There really aren't racial differences. What, are the English more Teutonic than Celtic? In some way that's as readily identifiable as skin colour? Splitting hairs a bit much aren't we?

Not the topic here, but if we want to make one elsewhere I'll jump in. Leave us not derail.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Question: Why the need for historical context for blacks but not for others? There is virtually no group on Earth that has not been enslaved or abused at some point.

I know you have mentioned having Irish ancestry.....so do I. Surely you must be aware of the history of the Irish and the genocide and slavery perpetrated by the British for centuries.

Is our history no less compelling? Does our shared history provide an excuse or cover if we suffer personal failures?

Because that's what the question was specifically about --- black slaves.

There's no exclusion of anybody else; yes I'm Irish on both sides (black Irish on one in fact) and we can go into that where that's brought up as a question. But that slavery was (a) not race-based, (b) has no lasting repercussions in the present, and (c) not well known. Nor did it result in the construction of a socioeconomic class. Yet all of those apply to the question of African slavery.

I explore that historical context because it's crucial when one draws a conclusion to know how one got there. When I draw a conclusion, you get the entire map with turn-by-turn directions, so that when you get to the end, where you ended up makes sense.

Okay. But the British did consider the Irish to be of an inferior "race" and religion. The Irish were not allowed to be educated under penalty of death. Northern Ireland was virtually wiped out.

The parallels with the black experience in America are many.

The word "race" is used there differently from the way it's used as a skin color. You can't pick Irish out of a lineup based on skin color. That was the whole point of inventing racism as a concept -- to justify the transatlantic shipping of slaves-for-life on the basis that they were some "inferior" species, readily identifiable by a color code. Before that transatlantic trade (before he knowledge of the Americas in Europe), black Africans were known there with no particular stigma attached to skin color. That was invented later -- for the slave trade. As usual it's derived of economic greed.

As far as the "Irish race", that's a use of "race" to mean nationality or ethnicity. Not the sort of race used to invent racism. The English persecution of the Irish (and many others) was political, the English doing what they do best -- kicking people out of their homeland. It was also religious persecution -- Cromwell was shipping pagans (non Christians) out to the West Indies. But it had nothing to do with "race" in a sense of skin color (racism).

No. The British persecution of the Irish was about religion, and perceived racial differences. The politics grew out of the hatred (as it did in America).

There really aren't racial differences. What, are the English more Teutonic than Celtic? In some way that's as readily identifiable as skin colour? Splitting hairs a bit much aren't we?

Not the topic here, but if we want to make one elsewhere I'll jump in. Leave us not derail.

Celtic peoples were seen as inferior to the Anglo-Saxons. This applied to the Welsh, Scots, and Irish. But I digress.

Back to reparations.

 

[Pogo]

He's afraid to commit and be tied down to one side or the other. So he waffles.

IMO Blacks use slavery to justify their hatred toward whites. They will always harbor resentment toward whites no amount of reparations would stop that.

The question , should they still be upset? No they shouldn't. But they will because they have to.

What the flying FUCK dood?? I was the first one to offer any comment at all, while your wangly ass was watching. And I went into way more historical context than anybody else, certainly more than your lazy dismissive wankjob here. You gave none whatsoever.

What did you do, post when a commercial came on? Don't break a brain sweat or anything -- you might pull a muscle.

Meanwhile boldface-boy you're circle jerking with came running in going "hey, looka me!! White slaves! White slaves! I found a YouTube video!" So don't come oozing in here telling ME I didn't answer the question, ya lazy ass FUCK.

Question: Why the need for historical context for blacks but not for others? There is virtually no group on Earth that has not been enslaved or abused at some point.

I know you have mentioned having Irish ancestry.....so do I. Surely you must be aware of the history of the Irish and the genocide and slavery perpetrated by the British for centuries.

Is our history no less compelling? Does our shared history provide an excuse or cover if we suffer personal failures?

Because that's what the question was specifically about --- black slaves.

There's no exclusion of anybody else; yes I'm Irish on both sides (black Irish on one in fact) and we can go into that where that's brought up as a question. But that slavery was (a) not race-based, (b) has no lasting repercussions in the present, and (c) not well known. Nor did it result in the construction of a socioeconomic class. Yet all of those apply to the question of African slavery.

I explore that historical context because it's crucial when one draws a conclusion to know how one got there. When I draw a conclusion, you get the entire map with turn-by-turn directions, so that when you get to the end, where you ended up makes sense.

Okay. But the British did consider the Irish to be of an inferior "race" and religion. The Irish were not allowed to be educated under penalty of death. Northern Ireland was virtually wiped out.

The parallels with the black experience in America are many.

Not really. Irish never lost their foundation. Blacks did. That one aspect puts the two experiences on different levels and they have nothing to do with each other.

Africans lost their foundation as far as being herded into what might as well have been for them a spaceship and shipped off to a completely unknown land with other Africans with whom they might have had little in common culturally, religiously, linguistically. But they did manage to piece together Flashes of the Spirit from what they could re-member commonly, and come up with Santeria/Candomblé, syncopation and jazz music, and a lot of our contemporary cuisine among other things as echoes of Africa.

Here's an excellent historical essay on all this -- for those who have the ability to chew on more than "a simple yes or no".

 

[Pogo]

Because that's what the question was specifically about --- black slaves.

There's no exclusion of anybody else; yes I'm Irish on both sides (black Irish on one in fact) and we can go into that where that's brought up as a question. But that slavery was (a) not race-based, (b) has no lasting repercussions in the present, and (c) not well known. Nor did it result in the construction of a socioeconomic class. Yet all of those apply to the question of African slavery.

I explore that historical context because it's crucial when one draws a conclusion to know how one got there. When I draw a conclusion, you get the entire map with turn-by-turn directions, so that when you get to the end, where you ended up makes sense.

Okay. But the British did consider the Irish to be of an inferior "race" and religion. The Irish were not allowed to be educated under penalty of death. Northern Ireland was virtually wiped out.

The parallels with the black experience in America are many.

The word "race" is used there differently from the way it's used as a skin color. You can't pick Irish out of a lineup based on skin color. That was the whole point of inventing racism as a concept -- to justify the transatlantic shipping of slaves-for-life on the basis that they were some "inferior" species, readily identifiable by a color code. Before that transatlantic trade (before he knowledge of the Americas in Europe), black Africans were known there with no particular stigma attached to skin color. That was invented later -- for the slave trade. As usual it's derived of economic greed.

As far as the "Irish race", that's a use of "race" to mean nationality or ethnicity. Not the sort of race used to invent racism. The English persecution of the Irish (and many others) was political, the English doing what they do best -- kicking people out of their homeland. It was also religious persecution -- Cromwell was shipping pagans (non Christians) out to the West Indies. But it had nothing to do with "race" in a sense of skin color (racism).

No. The British persecution of the Irish was about religion, and perceived racial differences. The politics grew out of the hatred (as it did in America).

There really aren't racial differences. What, are the English more Teutonic than Celtic? In some way that's as readily identifiable as skin colour? Splitting hairs a bit much aren't we?

Not the topic here, but if we want to make one elsewhere I'll jump in. Leave us not derail.

Celtic peoples were seen as inferior to the Anglo-Saxons. This applied to the Welsh, Scots, and Irish. But I digress.

Back to reparations.

Ah, the Sassuns are foinally sending us reparations, is it?

 

[Asclepias]

What the flying FUCK dood?? I was the first one to offer any comment at all, while your wangly ass was watching. And I went into way more historical context than anybody else, certainly more than your lazy dismissive wankjob here. You gave none whatsoever.

What did you do, post when a commercial came on? Don't break a brain sweat or anything -- you might pull a muscle.

Meanwhile boldface-boy you're circle jerking with came running in going "hey, looka me!! White slaves! White slaves! I found a YouTube video!" So don't come oozing in here telling ME I didn't answer the question, ya lazy ass FUCK.

Question: Why the need for historical context for blacks but not for others? There is virtually no group on Earth that has not been enslaved or abused at some point.

I know you have mentioned having Irish ancestry.....so do I. Surely you must be aware of the history of the Irish and the genocide and slavery perpetrated by the British for centuries.

Is our history no less compelling? Does our shared history provide an excuse or cover if we suffer personal failures?

Because that's what the question was specifically about --- black slaves.

There's no exclusion of anybody else; yes I'm Irish on both sides (black Irish on one in fact) and we can go into that where that's brought up as a question. But that slavery was (a) not race-based, (b) has no lasting repercussions in the present, and (c) not well known. Nor did it result in the construction of a socioeconomic class. Yet all of those apply to the question of African slavery.

I explore that historical context because it's crucial when one draws a conclusion to know how one got there. When I draw a conclusion, you get the entire map with turn-by-turn directions, so that when you get to the end, where you ended up makes sense.

Okay. But the British did consider the Irish to be of an inferior "race" and religion. The Irish were not allowed to be educated under penalty of death. Northern Ireland was virtually wiped out.

The parallels with the black experience in America are many.

Not really. Irish never lost their foundation. Blacks did. That one aspect puts the two experiences on different levels and they have nothing to do with each other.

Africans lost their foundation as far as being herded into what might as well have been for them a spaceship and shipped off to a completely unknown land with other Africans with whom they might have had little in common culturally, religiously, linguistically. But they did manage to piece together Flashes of the Spirit from what they could re-member commonly, and come up with Santeria/Candomblé, syncopation and jazz music, and a lot of our contemporary cuisine among other things as echoes of Africa.

Here's an excellent historical essay on all this -- for those who have the ability to chew on more than "a simple yes or no".

Also you have to remember that the slavery practice back then was to make sure that slaves from different regions were placed together to cause language barriers on top of being punished for speaking any African languages. The slave population was not homogeneous in any area with the exception of being from the continent of Africa.

 

[DarkFury]

You might want to go back and re-read your comment because NO you did not. It started off "I don't think" but there was NO direct reply to the question as in yes or no.

I don't need to re-read shit; I was posting my view, which must be a statement of what I think. To state "yes" or "no" directly would be arrogant. Even if I were black, to pretend my view represented everybody in "my people" would be fallacious, presumptuous and similarly arrogant. I just don't swing that way.

NO ONE asked you to speak for everybody. The OP asked you to speak for YOURSELF.

He's afraid to commit and be tied down to one side or the other. So he waffles.

IMO Blacks use slavery to justify their hatred toward whites. They will always harbor resentment toward whites no amount of reparations would stop that.

The question , should they still be upset? No they shouldn't. But they will because they have to.

What the flying FUCK dood?? I was the first one to offer any comment at all, while your wangly ass was watching. And I went into way more historical context than anybody else, certainly more than your lazy dismissive wankjob here. You gave none whatsoever.

What did you do, post when a commercial came on? Don't break a brain sweat or anything -- you might pull a muscle.

Meanwhile boldface-boy you're circle jerking with came running in going "hey, looka me!! White slaves! White slaves! I found a YouTube video!" So don't come oozing in here telling ME I didn't answer the question, ya lazy ass FUCK.

Question: Why the need for historical context for blacks but not for others? There is virtually no group on Earth that has not been enslaved or abused at some point.

I know you have mentioned having Irish ancestry.....so do I. Surely you must be aware of the history of the Irish and the genocide and slavery perpetrated by the British for centuries.

Is our history no less compelling? Does our shared history provide an excuse or cover if we suffer personal failures?

No, not a cover, not at all. But to expose a thinking and where it came from. NO country or group has been free from slavery even going back to the time of Christ.

Slavery is not a practice restricted to color but a restriction of thought and control. I did my paper on the "Willie Lynch" style of thinking and while no defining proof can show Willie Lynch truly lived his practice is certainly backed up by thousands of years of documents.

 

[S.J.]

Black people love the fact that their ancestors were slaves. For one, they get to live here instead of Liberia. It also gives them what they think is an excuse for their conduct in life. They can justify their racism by pointing to slavery, they can blame their ignorance on it, they can blame their high crime rate on it, their dependence on government, their poor academic performance, their alcoholism, their drug addiction, their teen pregnancy rate, dropout rate, every failure in life. Where would they be if they didn't have slavery in their past? They would be living in the jungle, killing each other (sort of like they do now in Detroit). They ARE making progress though, at least they're not still eating each other.

 

[Adiodato]

No, they should not be angry. No living person was in any way involved in those slave trades, on either side. White people today owe the black community absolutely nothing, nor do they owe the white community.

What the black community should be mad at is the Obama administration and the DHS/Welfare Departments for essentially holding them back by making government "assistance" so readily and easily available to them which actually serves to keep them poor. Not to mention our government and media outlets seem intent on driving a wedge between all races, at any cost. (united we stand, divided we fall) It's easier for them to control us if we are to busy squabbling with each other to actually pay good attention to whats really happening out there.

I can't believe mf (my friend) SJ hasn't taken you to task for your attempt to portray the entire Black community as poor and hooked on welfare. That is a lie. SJ knows that is not true after all the times I have schooled him on that topic but he still does nothing to counter the same lies from ignorant people like you. Sure, the statistics generated in White think tanks indicate that 39.8% of welfare recipients for a given year were Black and since Blacks make up only about 14% of the population the incidence of blacks on welfare is disproportionate. Well, ok, out of a population of about 35 million Blacks how many are on welfare? Lets get busy and figure this out in RAW numbers

The 39.8% of Blacks on welfare comes out to about 4 1/2 million people. Since there are about 35 million Blacks, more than 30.5 million are NOT on the welfare rolls. But from what we are seeing and hearing all over the Internet and in the media, one would think the figures were reversed.

There are over 7 million non Blacks on welfare including 38.8% White poor. Where is the concern for them?
Rather than singling Blacks out as the face of welfare due to a disproportional impact Time would be better spent addressing the causal effects of poverty in the USA period!

Trust me, those numbers and failure are nothing to brag about. It really is that simple.

Its amusing how lowly white vermin such as yourself feel the need to put down Blacks. Just remember that inspite of everything our people have been through we are still here and restoring our amazing legacy. I love us.

lol I'm not even white you idiot.