Unkotare
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2011
- 137,041
- 28,500
- 2,180
It isn't about what the blacks wanted. It is about what the abolitionists wanted(pretty much all of them were opposed to integration). Lincoln wanted blacks to go back as well. Without the abolitionists the blacks would have been slaves for much longer.The separate but equal thing was about preserving segregation so that blacks could eventually be sent back. The dogs and fire houses and political lynchings came out of desperation to preserve even the possibility of sending blacks back."Their parents" are the rebels I am talking about, moron. Baby boomers fucked everything up with their mindless counter-culture nonsense.Bullshit. White graduation rates dropped because their parents weren't around and they were raised by after school care workers making minimum wage, and because they weren't taught to work for what they wanted. The "egalitarian bullshit and the endless rebellion against societal norms" are just excuses. Oh, and some of the rebellions were righteous. The idea that women couldn't have their own credit cards or that blacks had to remain separate but equal are NOT libertarian ideals either. And neither is sending our young men & women to die in foreign lands to fund the Military Industrial Complex. And before you try that "YOu libtard leftist" nonsense, we were warned about that by an actual conservative republican president.
The fact that Asians are not European is not even close to a reason. If you want to live in an exclusively European culture, go to Europe.
Segregation was supposed to be a temporary measure until the "back to Africa" movement picked up steam, but instead that entire movement turned into merely trying to preserve segregation until they fell completely.
Women also couldn't vote at one point because they weren't the drivers of the economy and they weren't learned or educate enough at that time to make decisions outside of the household.
Learn about the demographic replacement of indigenous Europeans(who aren't afforded the status of indigenous peoples)before claiming I can go to Europe to live in an exclusively European culture.
The separate but equal was about keeping blacks in their place. That is why they had dogs set on them and fire hoses turned on them when trying to get people registered to vote. Or why people were murdered by cowards when they tried to get people registered to vote.
And if you are going to try and chastise me for not knowing, at least actually read what I post. I didn't say anything about women voting. I was referring to more recent things women were denied.
Like the fact that the US Supreme court ruled in 1974 that states could not exclude women from juries.
It was also 1974 that the Equal Opportunity Credit Act meant women could apply for a credit card without their husband's name on the bill.
And the first time the courts recognized sexual harassment in the workplace was 1975.
It was in the 1970s that the courts allowed that women could refuse to have sex with their husbands. Before that there was no such law in most states against marital rape.
So, like I said, some of those "rebellions against the norm" were actually justice in action.
Women's suffrage has to do with all of the later women's rights events. Women originally were not needed to do anything but keep up the home.
Marital rape is a nonsensical idea to everyone but the dumbest of the dumb. You can't rape your spouse when sex is an unspoken condition of marriage.
I guess if the blacks wanted to go back to Africa that would make sense. They didn't. They wanted to be treated equally in the nation that they, their parents, their grandparents, and their great-grandparents helped to build. They wanted their constitutional rights. They wanted to vote on the leaders that would determine the direction of their nation.
If a woman wants to be a homemaker, I have no problem with it. But t o tell her she HAS to do that, or that she only has what her husband gives her is simply wrong.
Marital rape is not nonsense. Marriage does not guarantee a husband that he will get sex anytime he wants, even if she doesn't want it. She is an American citizen, not her husband's property.
It is not any more unfair to the woman than it is to the man who has to use his masculine mind and body to make money to support the family, instead of staying at home.
Sticking your penis in your wife's vagina when she isn't up for sex at the time isn't rape. It may be grounds for divorce and possibly legal action like a restraining order or something, but it isn't rape. Physically harming your spouse and/or forcing them to perform actions that are harmful to them is very different from pouncing on your wife when she has a mental chastity belt on.
This ^^^^^^^ is off-topic trolling, and the worthless spittle of the lowest kind of pathetic weakling scum. No real man believes that ^^^^^^ kind of bullshit, and no weakling loser would ever say it in the presence of a real man (or real woman for that matter).