Blacks and whites don't know each other well ... at all.

[flacaltenn]

Paul was talking about the colonization of Africa and you knew exactly when that was. 250 years ago Africa had sovereign nations and were in charge of them. The place we call America had existing nations in it all with their own boundaries with people in charge. The same goes for South America. So your claim of power and control being concentrated in a few hands is historically incorrect.

Absolutely not. I AM historically correct. All that Colonization and indigenous abuse in the Caribbean and Africa happened under Monarchies. Which IS the ultimate form of Power and Authority. Wasn't until 250 years ago or so that MOST of that started to change.

It took awhile to dissipate. Some clinging on into the 20th Century. Like Zimbabwe, South Africa, etc. But the French, German, Spanish, Dutch, Portugese, British Monarchies started to DIE ----- only about 250 years ago..

WHITE people didn't control those Empires. MONARCHS did. And they did it for political and economic domination reasons. Had more to do with Global hegemony and balance of Euro Power, than it did about benefiting any one particular "white person".

Just like "white people" didn't BUILD the segregated govt housing post-war in the US. The Federal Govt made those calls. When you discuss what power any "white" person HAD in those episodes, any one or groups of them had VERY LITTLE influence on those outcomes.

So when you declare the guilt of EVERY White person, you need to realize WHAT POWER they were capable of exerting. AND WHEN they exerted that power.. The role of governments and the evolution of Democracy determined a very key role in systemic abuses that you RIGHTFULLY are angry about.

Lots of White folks decided to forcibly tear the USA from a Monarchy. For damn good reasons. Just like those Euro African colonies had to do. Same general trajectory of History for BOTH of us. The TIMELINE IS important.

Flacaltenn you need to stop making excuses. I know what I am saying. I know full well who had the authority, The Berlin Conference was not 250 years ago. And when I say whites I mean whites. I know exactly what power they were capable of exerting. And when they exerted that power. on a governmental and individual basis. The government did not kill Emmitt Till. for example. The government did not sanction the burning down of Rosewood Florida or Tulsa Oklahoma's black communities. These were acts carried out by individuals most of who had little money and those you would consider powerless.

All Whites.

But you're talking about mostly 20th Century events. And we're arguing about it being necessary to specify TIME periods in order to UNDERSTAND who is responsible for the damages. The damages in the 18th Century do not have the SAME perpetrators and the damages in the 20th Century. That's WHY i weighed in -- when you claimed for Paul --- that TIMELINE DIDN'T MATTER.. It does....

What you want to do is put it ALL in the same racism against ALL whites -- over ALL time.. And that's just a simpleton view of the DAMAGES and the lessons to be learned.

According to the apparent reasoning of the Platinum Victim Card holder, we may consider the following:

If a man robbed a treasury of a great store of gold in around the year 1500, he would have greatly enriched himself and his immediate family. This family may have used the gold to establish a thriving business, or several highly profitable enterprises that could, in theory, have enriched his ancestors considerably over all succeeding generations.

Considering how many descendants that thief would likely have since 1500, by the reasoning of our esteemed card holder's thinking, justice could not be served unless between 1 and 64 million people (more, depending on the calculation and fecundity of the family line) were imprisoned today and made to pay restitution.

The comments I made were about the LAW, AUTHORITY, and POWER to abuse Black people thru history.. Not necessarily about individuals -- but yeah.

SPECIFICALLY it gets away from acts of individuals to the acts of STATES and monarchs and tyrants that BLESSED all that colonization and Empire in the 1st place.

 

[MikeK]

Even in America blacks were made into slaves at first because of religion: they were not Christians. Race as an excuse came later, not till the 1660s.

Blacks did not become slaves in America because they weren't Christians. Black Africans were sold to American settlers in the early sixteenth century by Arab, Dutch, and Portuguese traders who had purchased them from other Black African tribesmen who had initially captured and enslaved them. In fact, Africa is the birthplace of slavery and the practice continues in some parts of Africa, such as Sudan, to this day.

It was only when race became an excuse for keeping blacks as slaves and taking land from the American Indians, only when society was built on skin colour, that racism began to seem part of the “natural” order of things.

What "excuse" was there for powerful Black African tribes to capture, enslave, and then sell members of less powerful tribes to Arab, Dutch, and Portuguese traders for transport across the seas? I'd say the "excuse" was money or other desirable trade materials, wouldn't you?

And if race was an "excuse" used for taking land from native Americans, what excuse did native American tribes have for taking largely the same lands from other, weaker, native American tribes?

"Race" and "excuse" are not the correct words or concepts to explain the circumstances you're referencing. The right words and concepts are conquest and dominance.

 

[beagle9]

Paul was talking about the colonization of Africa and you knew exactly when that was. 250 years ago Africa had sovereign nations and were in charge of them. The place we call America had existing nations in it all with their own boundaries with people in charge. The same goes for South America. So your claim of power and control being concentrated in a few hands is historically incorrect.

Absolutely not. I AM historically correct. All that Colonization and indigenous abuse in the Caribbean and Africa happened under Monarchies. Which IS the ultimate form of Power and Authority. Wasn't until 250 years ago or so that MOST of that started to change.

It took awhile to dissipate. Some clinging on into the 20th Century. Like Zimbabwe, South Africa, etc. But the French, German, Spanish, Dutch, Portugese, British Monarchies started to DIE ----- only about 250 years ago..

WHITE people didn't control those Empires. MONARCHS did. And they did it for political and economic domination reasons. Had more to do with Global hegemony and balance of Euro Power, than it did about benefiting any one particular "white person".

Just like "white people" didn't BUILD the segregated govt housing post-war in the US. The Federal Govt made those calls. When you discuss what power any "white" person HAD in those episodes, any one or groups of them had VERY LITTLE influence on those outcomes.

So when you declare the guilt of EVERY White person, you need to realize WHAT POWER they were capable of exerting. AND WHEN they exerted that power.. The role of governments and the evolution of Democracy determined a very key role in systemic abuses that you RIGHTFULLY are angry about.

Lots of White folks decided to forcibly tear the USA from a Monarchy. For damn good reasons. Just like those Euro African colonies had to do. Same general trajectory of History for BOTH of us. The TIMELINE IS important.

Flacaltenn you need to stop making excuses. I know what I am saying. I know full well who had the authority, The Berlin Conference was not 250 years ago. And when I say whites I mean whites. I know exactly what power they were capable of exerting. And when they exerted that power. on a governmental and individual basis. The government did not kill Emmitt Till. for example. The government did not sanction the burning down of Rosewood Florida or Tulsa Oklahoma's black communities. These were acts carried out by individuals most of who had little money and those you would consider powerless.

All Whites.

But you're talking about mostly 20th Century events. And we're arguing about it being necessary to specify TIME periods in order to UNDERSTAND who is responsible for the damages. The damages in the 18th Century do not have the SAME perpetrators and the damages in the 20th Century. That's WHY i weighed in -- when you claimed for Paul --- that TIMELINE DIDN'T MATTER.. It does....

What you want to do is put it ALL in the same racism against ALL whites -- over ALL time.. And that's just a simpleton view of the DAMAGES and the lessons to be learned.

According to the apparent reasoning of the Platinum Victim Card holder, we may consider the following:

If a man robbed a treasury of a great store of gold in around the year 1500, he would have greatly enriched himself and his immediate family. This family may have used the gold to establish a thriving business, or several highly profitable enterprises that could, in theory, have enriched his ancestors considerably over all succeeding generations.

Considering how many descendants that thief would likely have since 1500, by the reasoning of our esteemed card holder's thinking, justice could not be served unless between 1 and 64 million people (more, depending on the calculation and fecundity of the family line) were imprisoned today and made to pay restitution.

I have no idea how your fiction has ANY bearing on the comments I made about the LAW, AUTHORITY, and POWER to abuse Black people thru history.. None at all.

Go re--read my point again. SPECIFICALLY it gets away from acts of individuals to the acts of STATES and monarchs and tyrants that BLESSED all that colonization and Empire in the 1st place.

. I think you may have mis-interpreted his post maybe. I think he is talking about one of the victim card holders here, that keep wanting to blame the whites forever for their ancestors woes and crimes. Did you think he was referring to you as the victim card holder ?

 

[flacaltenn]

Absolutely not. I AM historically correct. All that Colonization and indigenous abuse in the Caribbean and Africa happened under Monarchies. Which IS the ultimate form of Power and Authority. Wasn't until 250 years ago or so that MOST of that started to change.

It took awhile to dissipate. Some clinging on into the 20th Century. Like Zimbabwe, South Africa, etc. But the French, German, Spanish, Dutch, Portugese, British Monarchies started to DIE ----- only about 250 years ago..

WHITE people didn't control those Empires. MONARCHS did. And they did it for political and economic domination reasons. Had more to do with Global hegemony and balance of Euro Power, than it did about benefiting any one particular "white person".

Just like "white people" didn't BUILD the segregated govt housing post-war in the US. The Federal Govt made those calls. When you discuss what power any "white" person HAD in those episodes, any one or groups of them had VERY LITTLE influence on those outcomes.

So when you declare the guilt of EVERY White person, you need to realize WHAT POWER they were capable of exerting. AND WHEN they exerted that power.. The role of governments and the evolution of Democracy determined a very key role in systemic abuses that you RIGHTFULLY are angry about.

Lots of White folks decided to forcibly tear the USA from a Monarchy. For damn good reasons. Just like those Euro African colonies had to do. Same general trajectory of History for BOTH of us. The TIMELINE IS important.

Flacaltenn you need to stop making excuses. I know what I am saying. I know full well who had the authority, The Berlin Conference was not 250 years ago. And when I say whites I mean whites. I know exactly what power they were capable of exerting. And when they exerted that power. on a governmental and individual basis. The government did not kill Emmitt Till. for example. The government did not sanction the burning down of Rosewood Florida or Tulsa Oklahoma's black communities. These were acts carried out by individuals most of who had little money and those you would consider powerless.

All Whites.

But you're talking about mostly 20th Century events. And we're arguing about it being necessary to specify TIME periods in order to UNDERSTAND who is responsible for the damages. The damages in the 18th Century do not have the SAME perpetrators and the damages in the 20th Century. That's WHY i weighed in -- when you claimed for Paul --- that TIMELINE DIDN'T MATTER.. It does....

What you want to do is put it ALL in the same racism against ALL whites -- over ALL time.. And that's just a simpleton view of the DAMAGES and the lessons to be learned.

According to the apparent reasoning of the Platinum Victim Card holder, we may consider the following:

If a man robbed a treasury of a great store of gold in around the year 1500, he would have greatly enriched himself and his immediate family. This family may have used the gold to establish a thriving business, or several highly profitable enterprises that could, in theory, have enriched his ancestors considerably over all succeeding generations.

Considering how many descendants that thief would likely have since 1500, by the reasoning of our esteemed card holder's thinking, justice could not be served unless between 1 and 64 million people (more, depending on the calculation and fecundity of the family line) were imprisoned today and made to pay restitution.

I have no idea how your fiction has ANY bearing on the comments I made about the LAW, AUTHORITY, and POWER to abuse Black people thru history.. None at all.

Go re--read my point again. SPECIFICALLY it gets away from acts of individuals to the acts of STATES and monarchs and tyrants that BLESSED all that colonization and Empire in the 1st place.

. I think you may have mis-interpreted his post maybe. I think he is talking about one of the victim card holders here, that keep wanting to blame the whites forever for their ancestors woes and crimes. Did you think he was referring to you as the victim card holder ?

I screwed up. You're right. At 1st I thought he was responding to me. I went back and edited my post. And I'm sorry for leaping to conclusions. Trying to do too many things at once here.

 

[IM2]

Absolutely not. I AM historically correct. All that Colonization and indigenous abuse in the Caribbean and Africa happened under Monarchies. Which IS the ultimate form of Power and Authority. Wasn't until 250 years ago or so that MOST of that started to change.

It took awhile to dissipate. Some clinging on into the 20th Century. Like Zimbabwe, South Africa, etc. But the French, German, Spanish, Dutch, Portugese, British Monarchies started to DIE ----- only about 250 years ago..

WHITE people didn't control those Empires. MONARCHS did. And they did it for political and economic domination reasons. Had more to do with Global hegemony and balance of Euro Power, than it did about benefiting any one particular "white person".

Just like "white people" didn't BUILD the segregated govt housing post-war in the US. The Federal Govt made those calls. When you discuss what power any "white" person HAD in those episodes, any one or groups of them had VERY LITTLE influence on those outcomes.

So when you declare the guilt of EVERY White person, you need to realize WHAT POWER they were capable of exerting. AND WHEN they exerted that power.. The role of governments and the evolution of Democracy determined a very key role in systemic abuses that you RIGHTFULLY are angry about.

Lots of White folks decided to forcibly tear the USA from a Monarchy. For damn good reasons. Just like those Euro African colonies had to do. Same general trajectory of History for BOTH of us. The TIMELINE IS important.

Flacaltenn you need to stop making excuses. I know what I am saying. I know full well who had the authority, The Berlin Conference was not 250 years ago. And when I say whites I mean whites. I know exactly what power they were capable of exerting. And when they exerted that power. on a governmental and individual basis. The government did not kill Emmitt Till. for example. The government did not sanction the burning down of Rosewood Florida or Tulsa Oklahoma's black communities. These were acts carried out by individuals most of who had little money and those you would consider powerless.

All Whites.

But you're talking about mostly 20th Century events. And we're arguing about it being necessary to specify TIME periods in order to UNDERSTAND who is responsible for the damages. The damages in the 18th Century do not have the SAME perpetrators and the damages in the 20th Century. That's WHY i weighed in -- when you claimed for Paul --- that TIMELINE DIDN'T MATTER.. It does....

What you want to do is put it ALL in the same racism against ALL whites -- over ALL time.. And that's just a simpleton view of the DAMAGES and the lessons to be learned.

According to the apparent reasoning of the Platinum Victim Card holder, we may consider the following:

If a man robbed a treasury of a great store of gold in around the year 1500, he would have greatly enriched himself and his immediate family. This family may have used the gold to establish a thriving business, or several highly profitable enterprises that could, in theory, have enriched his ancestors considerably over all succeeding generations.

Considering how many descendants that thief would likely have since 1500, by the reasoning of our esteemed card holder's thinking, justice could not be served unless between 1 and 64 million people (more, depending on the calculation and fecundity of the family line) were imprisoned today and made to pay restitution.

I have no idea how your fiction has ANY bearing on the comments I made about the LAW, AUTHORITY, and POWER to abuse Black people thru history.. None at all.

Go re--read my point again. SPECIFICALLY it gets away from acts of individuals to the acts of STATES and monarchs and tyrants that BLESSED all that colonization and Empire in the 1st place.

. I think you may have mis-interpreted his post maybe. I think he is talking about one of the victim card holders here, that keep wanting to blame the whites forever for their ancestors woes and crimes. Did you think he was referring to you as the victim card holder ?

There are no victim card holders here with the exception of whites who claim there is white genocide complaining about diversity or multiculturalism or those who cry about people pointing out wrongs whites have done whereby the damages have not been fixed.

 

[IM2]

Paul was talking about the colonization of Africa and you knew exactly when that was. 250 years ago Africa had sovereign nations and were in charge of them. The place we call America had existing nations in it all with their own boundaries with people in charge. The same goes for South America. So your claim of power and control being concentrated in a few hands is historically incorrect.

Absolutely not. I AM historically correct. All that Colonization and indigenous abuse in the Caribbean and Africa happened under Monarchies. Which IS the ultimate form of Power and Authority. Wasn't until 250 years ago or so that MOST of that started to change.

It took awhile to dissipate. Some clinging on into the 20th Century. Like Zimbabwe, South Africa, etc. But the French, German, Spanish, Dutch, Portugese, British Monarchies started to DIE ----- only about 250 years ago..

WHITE people didn't control those Empires. MONARCHS did. And they did it for political and economic domination reasons. Had more to do with Global hegemony and balance of Euro Power, than it did about benefiting any one particular "white person".

Just like "white people" didn't BUILD the segregated govt housing post-war in the US. The Federal Govt made those calls. When you discuss what power any "white" person HAD in those episodes, any one or groups of them had VERY LITTLE influence on those outcomes.

So when you declare the guilt of EVERY White person, you need to realize WHAT POWER they were capable of exerting. AND WHEN they exerted that power.. The role of governments and the evolution of Democracy determined a very key role in systemic abuses that you RIGHTFULLY are angry about.

Lots of White folks decided to forcibly tear the USA from a Monarchy. For damn good reasons. Just like those Euro African colonies had to do. Same general trajectory of History for BOTH of us. The TIMELINE IS important.

Flacaltenn you need to stop making excuses. I know what I am saying. I know full well who had the authority, The Berlin Conference was not 250 years ago. And when I say whites I mean whites. I know exactly what power they were capable of exerting. And when they exerted that power. on a governmental and individual basis. The government did not kill Emmitt Till. for example. The government did not sanction the burning down of Rosewood Florida or Tulsa Oklahoma's black communities. These were acts carried out by individuals most of who had little money and those you would consider powerless.

All Whites.

But you're talking about mostly 20th Century events. And we're arguing about it being necessary to specify TIME periods in order to UNDERSTAND who is responsible for the damages. The damages in the 18th Century do not have the SAME perpetrators and the damages in the 20th Century. That's WHY i weighed in -- when you claimed for Paul --- that TIMELINE DIDN'T MATTER.. It does....

What you want to do is put it ALL in the same racism against ALL whites -- over ALL time.. And that's just a simpleton view of the DAMAGES and the lessons to be learned.

According to the apparent reasoning of the Platinum Victim Card holder, we may consider the following:

If a man robbed a treasury of a great store of gold in around the year 1500, he would have greatly enriched himself and his immediate family. This family may have used the gold to establish a thriving business, or several highly profitable enterprises that could, in theory, have enriched his ancestors considerably over all succeeding generations.

Considering how many descendants that thief would likely have since 1500, by the reasoning of our esteemed card holder's thinking, justice could not be served unless between 1 and 64 million people (more, depending on the calculation and fecundity of the family line) were imprisoned today and made to pay restitution.

The comments I made were about the LAW, AUTHORITY, and POWER to abuse Black people thru history.. Not necessarily about individuals -- but yeah.

SPECIFICALLY it gets away from acts of individuals to the acts of STATES and monarchs and tyrants that BLESSED all that colonization and Empire in the 1st place.

I know what your were trying to refer to, but the fact remains that the government or those in power are not responsible for all the wrongs that have been or continue to be done. It's funny how your argument is being used here.

 

[IM2]

Even in America blacks were made into slaves at first because of religion: they were not Christians. Race as an excuse came later, not till the 1660s.

Blacks did not become slaves in America because they weren't Christians. Black Africans were sold to American settlers in the early sixteenth century by Arab, Dutch, and Portuguese traders who had purchased them from other Black African tribesmen who had initially captured and enslaved them. In fact, Africa is the birthplace of slavery and the practice continues in some parts of Africa, such as Sudan, to this day.

It was only when race became an excuse for keeping blacks as slaves and taking land from the American Indians, only when society was built on skin colour, that racism began to seem part of the “natural” order of things.

What "excuse" was there for powerful Black African tribes to capture, enslave, and then sell members of less powerful tribes to Arab, Dutch, and Portuguese traders for transport across the seas? I'd say the "excuse" was money or other desirable trade materials, wouldn't you?

And if race was an "excuse" used for taking land from native Americans, what excuse did native American tribes have for taking largely the same lands from other, weaker, native American tribes?

"Race" and "excuse" are not the correct words or concepts to explain the circumstances you're referencing. The right words and concepts are conquest and dominance.

Again you need to refer t o those Africans as nations or tribes. Because those Africans did not know one another, they were enemies and rivals no different that the different nations of Europe. So then your argument is disingenuous and only used to make EXCUSES for RACISM by whites. After all WHITES did buy the slaves when they did not have to.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Even in America blacks were made into slaves at first because of religion: they were not Christians. Race as an excuse came later, not till the 1660s.

Blacks did not become slaves in America because they weren't Christians. Black Africans were sold to American settlers in the early sixteenth century by Arab, Dutch, and Portuguese traders who had purchased them from other Black African tribesmen who had initially captured and enslaved them. In fact, Africa is the birthplace of slavery and the practice continues in some parts of Africa, such as Sudan, to this day.

It was only when race became an excuse for keeping blacks as slaves and taking land from the American Indians, only when society was built on skin colour, that racism began to seem part of the “natural” order of things.

What "excuse" was there for powerful Black African tribes to capture, enslave, and then sell members of less powerful tribes to Arab, Dutch, and Portuguese traders for transport across the seas? I'd say the "excuse" was money or other desirable trade materials, wouldn't you?

And if race was an "excuse" used for taking land from native Americans, what excuse did native American tribes have for taking largely the same lands from other, weaker, native American tribes?

"Race" and "excuse" are not the correct words or concepts to explain the circumstances you're referencing. The right words and concepts are conquest and dominance.

EXCUSES for RACISM by whites. After all WHITES did buy the slaves when they did not have to.

Sure, because all racists really want to import Blacks into their own backyards for cheap labor.

Does that sound like White racists, or more like the multiculturalist Capitalists who hire illegal Mexicans for cheap labor?

 

[IM2]

Even in America blacks were made into slaves at first because of religion: they were not Christians. Race as an excuse came later, not till the 1660s.

Blacks did not become slaves in America because they weren't Christians. Black Africans were sold to American settlers in the early sixteenth century by Arab, Dutch, and Portuguese traders who had purchased them from other Black African tribesmen who had initially captured and enslaved them. In fact, Africa is the birthplace of slavery and the practice continues in some parts of Africa, such as Sudan, to this day.

It was only when race became an excuse for keeping blacks as slaves and taking land from the American Indians, only when society was built on skin colour, that racism began to seem part of the “natural” order of things.

What "excuse" was there for powerful Black African tribes to capture, enslave, and then sell members of less powerful tribes to Arab, Dutch, and Portuguese traders for transport across the seas? I'd say the "excuse" was money or other desirable trade materials, wouldn't you?

And if race was an "excuse" used for taking land from native Americans, what excuse did native American tribes have for taking largely the same lands from other, weaker, native American tribes?

"Race" and "excuse" are not the correct words or concepts to explain the circumstances you're referencing. The right words and concepts are conquest and dominance.

EXCUSES for RACISM by whites. After all WHITES did buy the slaves when they did not have to.

Sure, because all racists really want to import Blacks into their own backyards for cheap labor.

Does that sound like White racists, or more like the multiculturalist Capitalists who hire illegal Mexicans for cheap labor?

Given that what you just posted had nothing to do with what was being discussed........

 

[MikeK]

OK. So are you saying that Muslims are going to take over European nations ?

No. I'm saying they are going to try -- and it won't be the first time.

 

[IM2]

OK. So are you saying that Muslims are going to take over European nations ?

No. I'm saying they are going to try -- and it won't be the first time.

Do ya think that maybe they are just defending themselves from the euros trying to take control of their oil?

 

[beagle9]

Even in America blacks were made into slaves at first because of religion: they were not Christians. Race as an excuse came later, not till the 1660s.

Blacks did not become slaves in America because they weren't Christians. Black Africans were sold to American settlers in the early sixteenth century by Arab, Dutch, and Portuguese traders who had purchased them from other Black African tribesmen who had initially captured and enslaved them. In fact, Africa is the birthplace of slavery and the practice continues in some parts of Africa, such as Sudan, to this day.

It was only when race became an excuse for keeping blacks as slaves and taking land from the American Indians, only when society was built on skin colour, that racism began to seem part of the “natural” order of things.

What "excuse" was there for powerful Black African tribes to capture, enslave, and then sell members of less powerful tribes to Arab, Dutch, and Portuguese traders for transport across the seas? I'd say the "excuse" was money or other desirable trade materials, wouldn't you?

And if race was an "excuse" used for taking land from native Americans, what excuse did native American tribes have for taking largely the same lands from other, weaker, native American tribes?

"Race" and "excuse" are not the correct words or concepts to explain the circumstances you're referencing. The right words and concepts are conquest and dominance.

Again you need to refer t o those Africans as nations or tribes. Because those Africans did not know one another, they were enemies and rivals no different that the different nations of Europe. So then your argument is disingenuous and only used to make EXCUSES for RACISM by whites. After all WHITES did buy the slaves when they did not have to.

. How hard would it be for you to take your message of hate, and apply it back to Africa ?? Nothing to gain by that eh ?? Whites best hold onto their wallets here, because IM2 is on the loose. LOL.

 

[flacaltenn]

Absolutely not. I AM historically correct. All that Colonization and indigenous abuse in the Caribbean and Africa happened under Monarchies. Which IS the ultimate form of Power and Authority. Wasn't until 250 years ago or so that MOST of that started to change.

It took awhile to dissipate. Some clinging on into the 20th Century. Like Zimbabwe, South Africa, etc. But the French, German, Spanish, Dutch, Portugese, British Monarchies started to DIE ----- only about 250 years ago..

WHITE people didn't control those Empires. MONARCHS did. And they did it for political and economic domination reasons. Had more to do with Global hegemony and balance of Euro Power, than it did about benefiting any one particular "white person".

Just like "white people" didn't BUILD the segregated govt housing post-war in the US. The Federal Govt made those calls. When you discuss what power any "white" person HAD in those episodes, any one or groups of them had VERY LITTLE influence on those outcomes.

So when you declare the guilt of EVERY White person, you need to realize WHAT POWER they were capable of exerting. AND WHEN they exerted that power.. The role of governments and the evolution of Democracy determined a very key role in systemic abuses that you RIGHTFULLY are angry about.

Lots of White folks decided to forcibly tear the USA from a Monarchy. For damn good reasons. Just like those Euro African colonies had to do. Same general trajectory of History for BOTH of us. The TIMELINE IS important.

Flacaltenn you need to stop making excuses. I know what I am saying. I know full well who had the authority, The Berlin Conference was not 250 years ago. And when I say whites I mean whites. I know exactly what power they were capable of exerting. And when they exerted that power. on a governmental and individual basis. The government did not kill Emmitt Till. for example. The government did not sanction the burning down of Rosewood Florida or Tulsa Oklahoma's black communities. These were acts carried out by individuals most of who had little money and those you would consider powerless.

All Whites.

But you're talking about mostly 20th Century events. And we're arguing about it being necessary to specify TIME periods in order to UNDERSTAND who is responsible for the damages. The damages in the 18th Century do not have the SAME perpetrators and the damages in the 20th Century. That's WHY i weighed in -- when you claimed for Paul --- that TIMELINE DIDN'T MATTER.. It does....

What you want to do is put it ALL in the same racism against ALL whites -- over ALL time.. And that's just a simpleton view of the DAMAGES and the lessons to be learned.

According to the apparent reasoning of the Platinum Victim Card holder, we may consider the following:

If a man robbed a treasury of a great store of gold in around the year 1500, he would have greatly enriched himself and his immediate family. This family may have used the gold to establish a thriving business, or several highly profitable enterprises that could, in theory, have enriched his ancestors considerably over all succeeding generations.

Considering how many descendants that thief would likely have since 1500, by the reasoning of our esteemed card holder's thinking, justice could not be served unless between 1 and 64 million people (more, depending on the calculation and fecundity of the family line) were imprisoned today and made to pay restitution.

The comments I made were about the LAW, AUTHORITY, and POWER to abuse Black people thru history.. Not necessarily about individuals -- but yeah.

SPECIFICALLY it gets away from acts of individuals to the acts of STATES and monarchs and tyrants that BLESSED all that colonization and Empire in the 1st place.

I know what your were trying to refer to, but the fact remains that the government or those in power are not responsible for all the wrongs that have been or continue to be done. It's funny how your argument is being used here.

Guess I'm wasting time by not lumping "ALL the wrongs" in some nicely wrapped package like you do. With no other variables other than an INNATE tendency to hate Black people. I'll defer to your simpler less analytical "results" that ALL white people suck at ANY time in History.

Right now --- my biggest racist evidence of abuse is from my grocery shopping tonight. Where I discovered that the racist bigots in HillBilly Hollywood where I live -- didn't buy enough Aunt Jehmima's Breakfast plates which I love. And now all I can get is some crappy WhiteMan Jimmy Dean garbage. I tell ya -- it's EVERY damn white person avoiding foods with Black people on the labels...

 

[beagle9]

Even in America blacks were made into slaves at first because of religion: they were not Christians. Race as an excuse came later, not till the 1660s.

Blacks did not become slaves in America because they weren't Christians. Black Africans were sold to American settlers in the early sixteenth century by Arab, Dutch, and Portuguese traders who had purchased them from other Black African tribesmen who had initially captured and enslaved them. In fact, Africa is the birthplace of slavery and the practice continues in some parts of Africa, such as Sudan, to this day.

It was only when race became an excuse for keeping blacks as slaves and taking land from the American Indians, only when society was built on skin colour, that racism began to seem part of the “natural” order of things.

What "excuse" was there for powerful Black African tribes to capture, enslave, and then sell members of less powerful tribes to Arab, Dutch, and Portuguese traders for transport across the seas? I'd say the "excuse" was money or other desirable trade materials, wouldn't you?

And if race was an "excuse" used for taking land from native Americans, what excuse did native American tribes have for taking largely the same lands from other, weaker, native American tribes?

"Race" and "excuse" are not the correct words or concepts to explain the circumstances you're referencing. The right words and concepts are conquest and dominance.

EXCUSES for RACISM by whites. After all WHITES did buy the slaves when they did not have to.

Sure, because all racists really want to import Blacks into their own backyards for cheap labor.

Does that sound like White racists, or more like the multiculturalist Capitalists who hire illegal Mexicans for cheap labor?

. Yep, and if IM2 thinks that black people who own businesses wouldn't exploit for profit certain characteristic's found in individuals or groups, then he is living in a bubble made out of the thinist material in the world. Hate to pop his bubble, but ohhh well many will until he wakes up in life..

 

[IM2]

Flacaltenn you need to stop making excuses. I know what I am saying. I know full well who had the authority, The Berlin Conference was not 250 years ago. And when I say whites I mean whites. I know exactly what power they were capable of exerting. And when they exerted that power. on a governmental and individual basis. The government did not kill Emmitt Till. for example. The government did not sanction the burning down of Rosewood Florida or Tulsa Oklahoma's black communities. These were acts carried out by individuals most of who had little money and those you would consider powerless.

All Whites.

But you're talking about mostly 20th Century events. And we're arguing about it being necessary to specify TIME periods in order to UNDERSTAND who is responsible for the damages. The damages in the 18th Century do not have the SAME perpetrators and the damages in the 20th Century. That's WHY i weighed in -- when you claimed for Paul --- that TIMELINE DIDN'T MATTER.. It does....

What you want to do is put it ALL in the same racism against ALL whites -- over ALL time.. And that's just a simpleton view of the DAMAGES and the lessons to be learned.

According to the apparent reasoning of the Platinum Victim Card holder, we may consider the following:

If a man robbed a treasury of a great store of gold in around the year 1500, he would have greatly enriched himself and his immediate family. This family may have used the gold to establish a thriving business, or several highly profitable enterprises that could, in theory, have enriched his ancestors considerably over all succeeding generations.

Considering how many descendants that thief would likely have since 1500, by the reasoning of our esteemed card holder's thinking, justice could not be served unless between 1 and 64 million people (more, depending on the calculation and fecundity of the family line) were imprisoned today and made to pay restitution.

The comments I made were about the LAW, AUTHORITY, and POWER to abuse Black people thru history.. Not necessarily about individuals -- but yeah.

SPECIFICALLY it gets away from acts of individuals to the acts of STATES and monarchs and tyrants that BLESSED all that colonization and Empire in the 1st place.

I know what your were trying to refer to, but the fact remains that the government or those in power are not responsible for all the wrongs that have been or continue to be done. It's funny how your argument is being used here.

Guess I'm wasting time by not lumping "ALL the wrongs" in some nicely wrapped package like you do. With no other variables other than an INNATE tendency to hate Black people. I'll defer to your simpler less analytical "results" that ALL white people suck at ANY time in History.

Right now --- my biggest racist evidence of abuse is from my grocery shopping tonight. Where I discovered that the racist bigots in HillBilly Hollywood where I live -- didn't buy enough Aunt Jehmima's Breakfast plates which I love. And now all I can get is some crappy WhiteMan Jimmy Dean garbage. I tell ya -- it's EVERY damn white person avoiding foods with Black people on the labels...

Yawn! I know you would like to imagine racism doesn't exist. But it does. I have not wrapped anything into one category, but you see flacaltenn, you want to' revise history. My analysis is not simple nor have you seen me say all whites have sucked throughout history. You like most white conservatives, get bent out of shape and defensive when we start talking about racism and it gets even worse as we who are black and have endured it reject your opinions based on the reality that you have not seen.

I know exactly who made the call to colonize, yet I do know that the money made from the colonization made white nations rich and that additional wealth did trickle down to the average citizen meaning they benefitted from the colonization whether or not they were a fucking racist or not. You are forever looking for ways to deny things relative to racial matters. I'm quite sure not everybody associated with the Anglo Saxon Diamond Mining Company are racists. I am sure not everybody working for De Beers is either. However both these companies are a result of colonialism. People have worked, fed their families and provided comfortable lives for them even as they did not make the call and were not racists. Yet they benefitted. And this is your problem in these discussions. I have studied these things in great detail. I have continued to study the psychological damage created by colonization and other forms of white racism. Have you?

Like I have said, I have 32 years of studying this and have built programs that have succeeded in black communities. Have you? But you want to argue with me like your simpleminded analysis is equal to what I have found.

 

[IM2]

Even in America blacks were made into slaves at first because of religion: they were not Christians. Race as an excuse came later, not till the 1660s.

Blacks did not become slaves in America because they weren't Christians. Black Africans were sold to American settlers in the early sixteenth century by Arab, Dutch, and Portuguese traders who had purchased them from other Black African tribesmen who had initially captured and enslaved them. In fact, Africa is the birthplace of slavery and the practice continues in some parts of Africa, such as Sudan, to this day.

It was only when race became an excuse for keeping blacks as slaves and taking land from the American Indians, only when society was built on skin colour, that racism began to seem part of the “natural” order of things.

What "excuse" was there for powerful Black African tribes to capture, enslave, and then sell members of less powerful tribes to Arab, Dutch, and Portuguese traders for transport across the seas? I'd say the "excuse" was money or other desirable trade materials, wouldn't you?

And if race was an "excuse" used for taking land from native Americans, what excuse did native American tribes have for taking largely the same lands from other, weaker, native American tribes?

"Race" and "excuse" are not the correct words or concepts to explain the circumstances you're referencing. The right words and concepts are conquest and dominance.

EXCUSES for RACISM by whites. After all WHITES did buy the slaves when they did not have to.

Sure, because all racists really want to import Blacks into their own backyards for cheap labor.

Does that sound like White racists, or more like the multiculturalist Capitalists who hire illegal Mexicans for cheap labor?

. Yep, and if IM2 thinks that black people who own businesses wouldn't exploit for profit certain characteristic's found in individuals or groups, then he is living in a bubble made out of the thinist material in the world. Hate to pop his bubble, but ohhh well many will until he wakes up in life..

Well given that we out numbered your asses in Africa and did not male you slaves, I think I can safely say you are wrong.

 

[beagle9]

But you're talking about mostly 20th Century events. And we're arguing about it being necessary to specify TIME periods in order to UNDERSTAND who is responsible for the damages. The damages in the 18th Century do not have the SAME perpetrators and the damages in the 20th Century. That's WHY i weighed in -- when you claimed for Paul --- that TIMELINE DIDN'T MATTER.. It does....

What you want to do is put it ALL in the same racism against ALL whites -- over ALL time.. And that's just a simpleton view of the DAMAGES and the lessons to be learned.

According to the apparent reasoning of the Platinum Victim Card holder, we may consider the following:

If a man robbed a treasury of a great store of gold in around the year 1500, he would have greatly enriched himself and his immediate family. This family may have used the gold to establish a thriving business, or several highly profitable enterprises that could, in theory, have enriched his ancestors considerably over all succeeding generations.

Considering how many descendants that thief would likely have since 1500, by the reasoning of our esteemed card holder's thinking, justice could not be served unless between 1 and 64 million people (more, depending on the calculation and fecundity of the family line) were imprisoned today and made to pay restitution.

The comments I made were about the LAW, AUTHORITY, and POWER to abuse Black people thru history.. Not necessarily about individuals -- but yeah.

SPECIFICALLY it gets away from acts of individuals to the acts of STATES and monarchs and tyrants that BLESSED all that colonization and Empire in the 1st place.

I know what your were trying to refer to, but the fact remains that the government or those in power are not responsible for all the wrongs that have been or continue to be done. It's funny how your argument is being used here.

Guess I'm wasting time by not lumping "ALL the wrongs" in some nicely wrapped package like you do. With no other variables other than an INNATE tendency to hate Black people. I'll defer to your simpler less analytical "results" that ALL white people suck at ANY time in History.

Right now --- my biggest racist evidence of abuse is from my grocery shopping tonight. Where I discovered that the racist bigots in HillBilly Hollywood where I live -- didn't buy enough Aunt Jehmima's Breakfast plates which I love. And now all I can get is some crappy WhiteMan Jimmy Dean garbage. I tell ya -- it's EVERY damn white person avoiding foods with Black people on the labels...

Yawn! I know you would like to imagine racism doesn't exist. But it does. I have not wrapped anything into one category, but you see flacaltenn, you want to' revise history. My analysis is not simple nor have you seen me say all whites have sucked throughout history. You like most white conservatives, get bent out of shape and defensive when we start talking about racism and it gets even worse as we who are black and have endured it reject your opinions based on the reality that you have not seen.

I know exactly who made the call to colonize, yet I do know that the money made from the colonization made white nations rich and that additional wealth did trickle down to the average citizen meaning they benefitted from the colonization whether or not they were a fucking racist or not. You are forever looking for ways to deny things relative to racial matters. I'm quite sure not everybody associated with the Anglo Saxon Diamond Mining Company are racists. I am sure not everybody working for De Beers is either. However both these companies are a result of colonialism. People have worked, fed their families and provided comfortable lives for them even as they did not make the call and were not racists. Yet they benefitted. And this is your problem in these discussions. I have studied these things in great detail. I have continued to study the psychological damage created by colonization and other forms of white racism. Have you?

Like I have said, I have 32 years of studying this and have built programs that have succeeded in black communities. Have you? But you want to argue with me like your simpleminded analysis is equal to what I have found.

. Well, I have experienced racism by the blacks who were a majority in my middle school, so spare us your whining and crying about white people already. Both groups are capable of the same things given the settings to do it in have been made ripe, and once you understand that fact, then you can become a better debator, and become better educated in life.

 

[beagle9]

Even in America blacks were made into slaves at first because of religion: they were not Christians. Race as an excuse came later, not till the 1660s.

Blacks did not become slaves in America because they weren't Christians. Black Africans were sold to American settlers in the early sixteenth century by Arab, Dutch, and Portuguese traders who had purchased them from other Black African tribesmen who had initially captured and enslaved them. In fact, Africa is the birthplace of slavery and the practice continues in some parts of Africa, such as Sudan, to this day.

It was only when race became an excuse for keeping blacks as slaves and taking land from the American Indians, only when society was built on skin colour, that racism began to seem part of the “natural” order of things.

What "excuse" was there for powerful Black African tribes to capture, enslave, and then sell members of less powerful tribes to Arab, Dutch, and Portuguese traders for transport across the seas? I'd say the "excuse" was money or other desirable trade materials, wouldn't you?

And if race was an "excuse" used for taking land from native Americans, what excuse did native American tribes have for taking largely the same lands from other, weaker, native American tribes?

"Race" and "excuse" are not the correct words or concepts to explain the circumstances you're referencing. The right words and concepts are conquest and dominance.

EXCUSES for RACISM by whites. After all WHITES did buy the slaves when they did not have to.

Sure, because all racists really want to import Blacks into their own backyards for cheap labor.

Does that sound like White racists, or more like the multiculturalist Capitalists who hire illegal Mexicans for cheap labor?

. Yep, and if IM2 thinks that black people who own businesses wouldn't exploit for profit certain characteristic's found in individuals or groups, then he is living in a bubble made out of the thinist material in the world. Hate to pop his bubble, but ohhh well many will until he wakes up in life..

Well given that we out numbered your asses in Africa and did not male you slaves, I think I can safely say you are wrong.

. Who is we ?? You and your tribal salesman ? Tell them you want your money back or a cut off their proceeds from the years your people were being sold from there.

 

[IM2]

According to the apparent reasoning of the Platinum Victim Card holder, we may consider the following:

If a man robbed a treasury of a great store of gold in around the year 1500, he would have greatly enriched himself and his immediate family. This family may have used the gold to establish a thriving business, or several highly profitable enterprises that could, in theory, have enriched his ancestors considerably over all succeeding generations.

Considering how many descendants that thief would likely have since 1500, by the reasoning of our esteemed card holder's thinking, justice could not be served unless between 1 and 64 million people (more, depending on the calculation and fecundity of the family line) were imprisoned today and made to pay restitution.

The comments I made were about the LAW, AUTHORITY, and POWER to abuse Black people thru history.. Not necessarily about individuals -- but yeah.

SPECIFICALLY it gets away from acts of individuals to the acts of STATES and monarchs and tyrants that BLESSED all that colonization and Empire in the 1st place.

I know what your were trying to refer to, but the fact remains that the government or those in power are not responsible for all the wrongs that have been or continue to be done. It's funny how your argument is being used here.

Guess I'm wasting time by not lumping "ALL the wrongs" in some nicely wrapped package like you do. With no other variables other than an INNATE tendency to hate Black people. I'll defer to your simpler less analytical "results" that ALL white people suck at ANY time in History.

Right now --- my biggest racist evidence of abuse is from my grocery shopping tonight. Where I discovered that the racist bigots in HillBilly Hollywood where I live -- didn't buy enough Aunt Jehmima's Breakfast plates which I love. And now all I can get is some crappy WhiteMan Jimmy Dean garbage. I tell ya -- it's EVERY damn white person avoiding foods with Black people on the labels...

Yawn! I know you would like to imagine racism doesn't exist. But it does. I have not wrapped anything into one category, but you see flacaltenn, you want to' revise history. My analysis is not simple nor have you seen me say all whites have sucked throughout history. You like most white conservatives, get bent out of shape and defensive when we start talking about racism and it gets even worse as we who are black and have endured it reject your opinions based on the reality that you have not seen.

I know exactly who made the call to colonize, yet I do know that the money made from the colonization made white nations rich and that additional wealth did trickle down to the average citizen meaning they benefitted from the colonization whether or not they were a fucking racist or not. You are forever looking for ways to deny things relative to racial matters. I'm quite sure not everybody associated with the Anglo Saxon Diamond Mining Company are racists. I am sure not everybody working for De Beers is either. However both these companies are a result of colonialism. People have worked, fed their families and provided comfortable lives for them even as they did not make the call and were not racists. Yet they benefitted. And this is your problem in these discussions. I have studied these things in great detail. I have continued to study the psychological damage created by colonization and other forms of white racism. Have you?

Like I have said, I have 32 years of studying this and have built programs that have succeeded in black communities. Have you? But you want to argue with me like your simpleminded analysis is equal to what I have found.

. Well, I have experienced racism by the blacks who were a majority in my middle school, so spare us your whining and crying about white people already. Both groups are capable of the same things given the settings to do it in have been made ripe, and once you understand that fact, then you can become a better debator, and become better educated in life.

You have not experienced racism. What you described was not racism.

 

[IM2]

Blacks did not become slaves in America because they weren't Christians. Black Africans were sold to American settlers in the early sixteenth century by Arab, Dutch, and Portuguese traders who had purchased them from other Black African tribesmen who had initially captured and enslaved them. In fact, Africa is the birthplace of slavery and the practice continues in some parts of Africa, such as Sudan, to this day.


What "excuse" was there for powerful Black African tribes to capture, enslave, and then sell members of less powerful tribes to Arab, Dutch, and Portuguese traders for transport across the seas? I'd say the "excuse" was money or other desirable trade materials, wouldn't you?

And if race was an "excuse" used for taking land from native Americans, what excuse did native American tribes have for taking largely the same lands from other, weaker, native American tribes?

"Race" and "excuse" are not the correct words or concepts to explain the circumstances you're referencing. The right words and concepts are conquest and dominance.

EXCUSES for RACISM by whites. After all WHITES did buy the slaves when they did not have to.

Sure, because all racists really want to import Blacks into their own backyards for cheap labor.

Does that sound like White racists, or more like the multiculturalist Capitalists who hire illegal Mexicans for cheap labor?

. Yep, and if IM2 thinks that black people who own businesses wouldn't exploit for profit certain characteristic's found in individuals or groups, then he is living in a bubble made out of the thinist material in the world. Hate to pop his bubble, but ohhh well many will until he wakes up in life..

Well given that we out numbered your asses in Africa and did not male you slaves, I think I can safely say you are wrong.

. Who is we ?? You and your tribal salesman ? Tell them you want your money back or a cut off their proceeds from the years your people were being sold from there.

No. That won't be done since whites bought the slaves then sold them for a profit here in America.