Happy Columbus Day!

[el midgetron]

I don't care about the races at all. So, you can call me a racist all you want. It is you guys who were running around with a magnifier peering into 'a one drop of blood', and debating how many 'drops' some candidates into the office had.

Is that why you are pontificating about “historical justice” through “diversity”? And returning North America America to “Latinos”?

 

[el midgetron]

One can't prove a negative. I already expressed my reasoning that your claim was wrong. At first you tried to hide behind grammar. And now you try to hide behind names of famous American abolitionists.

You were the one who didn’t understand plain English. I posted something worded properly and you didn’t read it correctly. You are the one with an issue there, not me. If you have a learning disability or are dyslexic or something, that’s your problem. Not mine.

Douglas and Tubman began their active lives when slavery was already prohibited in Britain and France and parts of Latin America. They were part of mainstream. Wilberforce was an Englishman. Their views and stories were promoted in Britain because it is where a true leader was.

Your silly American exceptionalism is what it is. Silly American exceptionalism. At that time America was a large countryside somewhere behind the seas.

And in your semi-literate mind that’s the simplistic version of history you are capable of comprehending. However, as explained you already, the “first” isn’t the only parameter, nor is it a particularly significant one. It wasn’t an “athletic race”, it’s far a more complex issue than that. The abolition movement didn’t end when Britain or the United States abolished slavery and neither did their efforts to end slavery beyond their boarders.

By your simplistic understanding, after Britain abolished slavery, they apparently made no contribution to the abolition movement. Or at least none that you can bother to recognize. The same is true for the American abolitionists who you dismiss. It’s not a finish line, that once crossed it’s over. It’s not an issue encapsulated within one country’s history. It was a global issue. There were on going efforts by both countries, to abolish slavery beyond their boarders. That’s what sets Britain and the US apart from countries in “Latin America” which weren’t even self governed.

You can try to dumb it down like that, but the documented history is more complex than you and your “finish line” mentality will ever admit. The only one bringing “American exceptionalism” in to it is your triggered woke self. Acknowledging actual history and the significants of actual events and actual people is not engaging in some nationalistic rhetoric. You are the one who has to down-play the impact of figures like Frederick Douglass to maintain the delusion of your woke gender-studies world view.

 

[el midgetron]

One can't prove a negative.

Who the leaders of the abolition movement were is not a “negative”. You already claimed “Latin American” countries were more of a leader than the US. So prove it. Put on your big-boy pants and construct an argument of why that is. Use citations to support your claims.

 

[ESay]

You were the one who didn’t understand plain English. I posted something worded properly and you didn’t read it correctly. You are the one with an issue there, not me. If you have a learning disability or are dyslexic or something, that’s your problem. Not mine.


And in your semi-literate mind that’s the simplistic version of history you are capable of comprehending. However, as explained you already, the “first” isn’t the only parameter, nor is it a particularly significant one. It wasn’t an “athletic race”, it’s far a more complex issue than that. The abolition movement didn’t end when Britain or the United States abolished slavery and neither did their efforts to end slavery beyond their boarders.

By your simplistic understanding, after Britain abolished slavery, they apparently made no contribution to the abolition movement. Or at least none that you can bother to recognize. The same is true for the American abolitionists who you dismiss. It’s not a finish line, that once crossed it’s over. It’s not an issue encapsulated within one country’s history. It was a global issue. There were on going efforts by both countries, to abolish slavery beyond their boarders. That’s what sets Britain and the US apart from countries in “Latin America” which weren’t even self governed.

You can try to dumb it down like that, but the documented history is more complex than you and your “finish line” mentality will ever admit. The only one bringing “American exceptionalism” in to it is your triggered woke self. Acknowledging actual history and the significants of actual events and actual people is not engaging in some nationalistic rhetoric. You are the one who has to down-play the impact of figures like Frederick Douglass to maintain the delusion of your woke gender-studies world view.

I repeat this once again, because you seem to be a little bit slow. America came to this 'finish line' among the last ones. The West (whatever that meant back then) had already come to conception that slavery was a bad thing, it involved some atrocities, and thus was needed to be abolished. America was never unique in this case and can be considered 'a leader' in this process only with some reservations.

If we are talking about what happened after the 'finish line', then American oppressive laws against some minorities (the policy of segregation and 'reservations') indicate that it remained on the wrong side of history, and was 'a leader' in reverse.

 

[ESay]

Who the leaders of the abolition movement were is not a “negative”. You already claimed “Latin American” countries were more of a leader than the US. So prove it. Put on your big-boy pants and construct an argument of why that is. Use citations to support your claims.

I claimed that your definition of 'a leader' can be applied to almost every one. Of course I can browse the Web and write a bunch of names here related to the abolition movement in Latin America. But what for? To waste my time and prove you nothing? It wastes more than enough on this fruitless 'discussion' even without that.

 

[ESay]

Is that why you are pontificating about “historical justice” through “diversity”? And returning North America America to “Latinos”?

Yes, of course. You can't be 'racially blind' only when it suits you.

 

[el midgetron]

I repeat this once again, because you seem to be a little bit slow. America came to this 'finish line' among the last ones.

And you are stuck in your America centric view of world history. The American contribution to freedom and equality did not end there. And the “Finish line” does not define the contribution to abolition. That’s your claim, prove your case.

Obviously you are not arguing on a genuine point. Your poor reading comprehension has exposed this. You conceded if I was only referring to America as “one of the leaders” your faggy liberal ass wouldn’t have been so triggered. But even after having the English language explained to you, you continue to be triggered like the faggy liberal ***** you are.

 

[el midgetron]

I claimed that your definition of 'a leader' can be applied to almost every one.

But it can’t. You are again just making shit up. All this does is demonstrate that you don’t know what you are talking about. There are no abolitionist out of Latin American that had a bigger impact than the American abolitionists. This is your claim, prove it.

 

[el midgetron]

Yes, of course. You can't be 'racially blind' only when it suits you.

What kind of racist monster are you? Did your subscription to woke-****** monthly expire? Don’t you know woke liberals don’t take kindly to “color blindness”? I understand you have a learning disability and are legally illiterate but I assumed you at least kept up with the latests trends in gender studies.

FFS even I know being “color blind” means you are ignoring what might be an important part of someone’s cultural identity. Sorry you didn’t get the memo.

Obviously, if you don’t even know what’s going on today, then you grasp of history probably isn’t much better. Just saying.

Why saying “I don’t see race at all” just makes racism worse

When writer Heather McGhee was growing up in the 1980s, many Americans were taught the way to be a good person was to swear that race didn’t matter. Today we’re paying a price for that …

ideas.ted.com

Colorblindness: the New Racism?

Kawania Wooten’s voice tightens when she describes the struggle she’s having at the school her son attends. When his class created a timeline of civilization, Wooten saw the Greeks, the Romans and the Incas. But nothing was said about Africa, even though the class has several African American...

www.learningforjustice.org

If You Don’t See Race, How Can You See Racial Inequality?

Many sociologists argue that ideologies claiming not to see race risk ignoring discrimination.

www.theatlantic.com

Color-Blindness Perpetuates Structural Racism

New research shows psychologists, counselors, educators, and other helping professionals can play an important role in dismantling systemic racism by first helping people better understand what creates it.

www.forbes.com

 

[el midgetron]

ESay you keep referring to the “finish line” as criteria of being a “leader” but ignoring the global context. Neither the US of Britain’s contribution ended at their finish line. It’s not the end of the story, it’s not an absolute metric of a contribution. But it’s really all you have in your delusional woke ideological view of history. So, to compensate you disparage figures like Frederick Douglass.

 

[ESay]

And you are stuck in your America centric view of world history. The American contribution to freedom and equality did not end there. And the “Finish line” does not define the contribution to abolition. That’s your claim, prove your case.

Obviously you are not arguing on a genuine point. Your poor reading comprehension has exposed this. You conceded if I was only referring to America as “one of the leaders” your faggy liberal ass wouldn’t have been so triggered. But even after having the English language explained to you, you continue to be triggered like the faggy liberal ***** you are.

On the contrary, I think that American role is too much overestimated. American contribution to freedom and equality sounds like a sad joke. America was an oppressive state for the most part of its history.

 

[ESay]

But it can’t. You are again just making shit up. All this does is demonstrate that you don’t know what you are talking about. There are no abolitionist out of Latin American that had a bigger impact than the American abolitionists. This is your claim, prove it.

Do you want me to write some Latin American names here? Okay, Luis Gama and Antonio de Castro Alves. Both from Brazil.

 

[ESay]

What kind of racist monster are you? Did your subscription to woke-****** monthly expire? Don’t you know woke liberals don’t take kindly to “color blindness”? I understand you have a learning disability and are legally illiterate but I assumed you at least kept up with the latests trends in gender studies.

FFS even I know being “color blind” means you are ignoring what might be an important part of someone’s cultural identity. Sorry you didn’t get the memo.

Obviously, if you don’t even know what’s going on today, then you grasp of history probably isn’t much better. Just saying.

Why saying “I don’t see race at all” just makes racism worse

When writer Heather McGhee was growing up in the 1980s, many Americans were taught the way to be a good person was to swear that race didn’t matter. Today we’re paying a price for that …

ideas.ted.com

Colorblindness: the New Racism?

Kawania Wooten’s voice tightens when she describes the struggle she’s having at the school her son attends. When his class created a timeline of civilization, Wooten saw the Greeks, the Romans and the Incas. But nothing was said about Africa, even though the class has several African American...

www.learningforjustice.org

If You Don’t See Race, How Can You See Racial Inequality?

Many sociologists argue that ideologies claiming not to see race risk ignoring discrimination.

www.theatlantic.com

Color-Blindness Perpetuates Structural Racism

New research shows psychologists, counselors, educators, and other helping professionals can play an important role in dismantling systemic racism by first helping people better understand what creates it.

www.forbes.com

What I know is 'woke liberals' want to use racial divisions for their own benefit. As like American conservatives do. As a result, America is politically and even racially deeply divided. But demography plays against your ilk in this game.

 

[ESay]

ESay you keep referring to the “finish line” as criteria of being a “leader” but ignoring the global context. Neither the US of Britain’s contribution ended at their finish line. It’s not the end of the story, it’s not an absolute metric of a contribution. But it’s really all you have in your delusional woke ideological view of history. So, to compensate you disparage figures like Frederick Douglass.

Global context is America ended slavery among the last on the continent, and after that for a century it was an oppressive state with legal racial discrimination and segregation.

 

[el midgetron]

On the contrary, I think that American role is too much overestimated. American contribution to freedom and equality sounds like a sad joke. America was an oppressive state for the most part of its history.

All countries were oppressive states for most of their history. That’s your American-centric view of world history again.

 

[el midgetron]

Do you want me to write some Latin American names here? Okay, Luis Gama and Antonio de Castro Alves. Both from Brazil.

Which one of the names you had to Google had a greater impact on the abolition movement than Frederick Douglas?

 

[el midgetron]

Global context is America ended slavery among the last on the continent, and after that for a century it was an oppressive state with legal racial discrimination and segregation.

Segregation and discrimination were common if not universal world wide, especially among former slave states. It wasn’t always enforced by law, nor were there any legal protections against it. You might as well condemn the US for having blue skies. Again few if any countries did more to promote equality than America and it’s civil rights leaders (I know the plural form of that word confuses you).

In the United Kingdom, racial segregationoccurred in pubs, workplaces, shops and other commercial premises, which operated a colour bar where non-white customers were banned from using certain rooms and facilities.[1]Segregation also operated in the 20th century in certain professions,[2] in housing[3] and at Buckingham Palace.[4] There were no British laws requiring racial segregation, but until 1965, there were no laws prohibiting racial segregation either

Racial segregation in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Latin America-

Racism in South America - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The hidden racism in Latin America

The cases of racism in some European contexts show that this problem is growing in the world, and Latin America is no exception.

globalvoices.org

 

[Curried Goats]

Segregation and discrimination were common if not universal world wide, especially among former slave states. It wasn’t always enforced by law, nor were there any legal protections against it. You might as well condemn the US for having blue skies. Again few if any countries did more to promote equality than America and it’s civil rights leaders (I know the plural form of that word confuses you).

In the United Kingdom, racial segregationoccurred in pubs, workplaces, shops and other commercial premises, which operated a colour bar where non-white customers were banned from using certain rooms and facilities.[1]Segregation also operated in the 20th century in certain professions,[2] in housing[3] and at Buckingham Palace.[4] There were no British laws requiring racial segregation, but until 1965, there were no laws prohibiting racial segregation either

Racial segregation in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Latin America-

Racism in South America - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The hidden racism in Latin America

The cases of racism in some European contexts show that this problem is growing in the world, and Latin America is no exception.

globalvoices.org

What kind of dipshit logic is that?

We don't blame natural processes because they aren't making choices. People get blamed for the shit they do and even children can recognize everyone else was doing it too isn't a valid excuse. What's your excuse Chump?

 

[ESay]

All countries were oppressive states for most of their history. That’s your American-centric view of world history again.

Yes, they were. But only one country is uttering nonsense about being a beacon of freedom and civil rights.

 

[ESay]

Which one of the names you had to Google had a greater impact on the abolition movement than Frederick Douglas?

Now I am supposed to measure vacuum? How are you going to measure 'a greater impact', without it being your subjective biased opinion?