Is This Racist?

[Moonglow]

Wow, I dont know. What is the KKK? And what are they all about? I wish I knew because not knowing their history makes it so hard to judge if this is indeed racist

The KKK in our little town is for Kathy's Kountry Kitchen...

 

[Nutz]

KKK Billboard Causes Stir - Ozarksfirst

Considering this place is about 60 miles to the west, it's not unusual to see this...

They just want all of the welfare money for the white race.

 

[Asclepias]

Washington and Jefferson owned slaves. What did they do that was honorable that had anything to do with them being white?

Jefferson wrote down principles in the Declaration of Independence in English,
which is the language we use today to reach agreement on democratic principles,
where two the most credited sources of the politics we use today being
* Rousseau who is identified with the Radical Liberalism carried on by Liberals today
* Locke who is identified with the Classic Liberalism carried on by Conservatives today
Both being European or White.

The Declaration of Independence is the only founding document that specifically
cites "consent of the governed" as the source of authority for civil governance.

I see this as a spiritual process by which the Natural Laws given by God
were made Statutory in Writing by the Founding Fathers who drew up
the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and other historical arguments defending
and defining checks and balances and separation of power to structure
a govt and democratic process through which Equal Justice could eventually be realized.

So this spirit of these laws, coming from God, were given to the world
through our Founding Fathers using European terms and English language
that we could use to hash out the rest of our process of fulfilling democratic
principles of self-government, left to future generations to work out as we evolved.

This linear process of reforming laws in writing, through a system of govt
that is designed to check itself, including protecting free speech and free press
as a check on govt, is something we inherited from our European and American
ancestors.

And yes, the structure is designed to incorporate change and reform when used correctly.

So ALL cultures, all religions, all groups can exercise free speech, free press, right to
petition and due process of law to improve upon what we have, and take it to the next level
of social and political development by civil/democratic means.

I dont get why Jefferson being white enabled him to write down something? People from ever race have written laws down. There is nothing unique about these laws.He was espousing an ideology. He didnt dream up this ideology because he was white. Now add to this that he was a hypocrite regarding these same laws. What have whites done that is specifically something only whites have done and have reason to be proud of?

He rose to the position he was in from his spiritual, cultural and social background and lineage.
Being White or European is part of that heritage.
You can't take that factor out of the equation and have the same person.

We are a mix of all the things that make up our spiritual DNA.
It's how we use it that defines us and our path in life.

I tend to focus on Jefferson because I feel I have also inherited
karma spiritually from either Jefferson or other Founding Fathers.
I have this weird Constitutional thread running through the fibre of my being.

I could trace some of my political poetry to my father's father who was
a law professor and political poet in Vietnam. But the part of me that
rails on and on about Constitutional equal inclusion and whatnot,
I would like to trace this back to Jefferson or wherever it came from.

I probably have as much karma with the Christian church as much as I go on and on about that.

So I understand what you mean, that some of this can be independent of race.
But in Jefferson's case, can you really argue that he would not have risen to power
as President and Secretary of State without being White at that time.

If that is the role he needed to play, and the image he needed to represent to get
certain jobs done, then God would incarnate him as White, Deist, male etc.

Just like to get other things done, I am incarnated as Asian American female
both a Democrat and Constitutionalist. English speaking only. Born and living in Texas.

All of this is part of who I am in order to meet my purpose in life.

Same with you, same with Jefferson, Buddha or Einstein.
The little old lady across the street from me, or the young
black boy adopted and made famous by his hug with a white police officer.

All those factors make up part of the story.
To me it is spiritual first, and then it manifests in these different ways.
Fascinating, really.

Has nothing to do with him being white though. There has been royalty of every race that rose to greatness from poverty. The disconnect for whites seems to be in believing a man who said the following is a great man and have a hard time seeing him for what he was.

"I advance it therefore as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind. … This unfortunate difference of colour, and perhaps of faculty, is a powerful obstacle to the emancipation of these people."
-Thomas Jefferson

This is the same guy that said Black people smell bad but it must not have been that bad since he had sex with his slaves.

A. You can see both the good and the bad without denying one or the other.
Are you trying to deny the good, and yet criticize people for denying the bad?

Someone pointed out bad things about Dr. King.

Someone criticized Jesus for causing a tree to wither and die just to show off his power,
and for what he said to a woman, the only person BTW recorded in the Bible as talking back to Jesus where he accepted her answer.

From what I understand, Buddha at first did not want women in the fold, and had to be argued and talked into it.

People make fun of Einstein all the time, point to negative things about him.

Are you going to justify pulling people down just because you don't think they should be pulled up?

Why not credit both the good and the bad, and not fight over which is more predominant?

As for Jefferson and his views of slavery, I think he foresaw that slaves were not in a position
to merge into society at an equal level, and he argued for returning them to Africa and/or gradual abolition.

Given the mess we are still facing from not providing means of equal ownership of land and businesses,
I think he was right that we were not prepared to bring everyone up to equality.

i don't agree with his solution of forced deportation of slaves back to Africa, but I do believe people should have free and equal choice to colonize and claim equal land ownership
where they can develop to self-government as equals, and not be forever under the lordship of others.

B. I disagree that the same things could have happened if
Jefferson and the Founding Fathers weren't White.

You would be talking about a different time and place.

Just like Mandela and Tutu were able to lead the people in Africa because they are black. White men could not have achieved that same unity in that context at that time.

I'm not saying White or Black or superior or inferior.
I'm saying that to lead in certain circumstances, the people they needed to
identify with were of a particular race for a reason.

All cultures and generations need to go through stages of development,
so how the Native Americans evolve in their spiritual and cultural lineage
and how the Blacks and Whites and Asians etc. do
is part of the bigger picture. We do identify by race as part of our identity,
so that is a factor. It doesn't make one better than the other, just different.

Jefferson was a pedophile that took advantage of his slaves while espousing all men were created equal. I dont recall MLK doing that. You cant seperate what Jefferson did from his words. He was supposedly about equal rights just as MLK was but he owned slaves. MLK didnt own any slaves.

The Enigma Of Jefferson Mind and Body In Conflict - New York Times

Sorry but I just dont see him as a great person. If the founding fathers were not white I dont see how that would have a changed anything other than there being no white people here. There is nothing specifically unique about whites that no other race has done.

 

[FA_Q2]

Oh, the code isn't secret. The words "white pride" may literally mean proud of the white race, but what it really means is other races are inferior to the white race. You can pretend that isn't it's meaning, but...

Its not secrete code - it is plain English and is still racist.

I think your standards are too strict. I see nothing wrong in feeling pride in your race as long as you Long as you don't believe that other races are inferior. I feel proud of my heritage without perceiving others' heritages as inferior to mine. I think its weird to feel racial pride, but not inherently racist.

His standards are his alone to deal with. I have no problem with people having racial pride. I am just asking what do whites have to be proud of due to being white. No one can seem to give me an answer on that.

most modern science was discovered by whites. The most powerful and wealthy nation on the planet was founded by whites. Einstein, Newton Hawking - all white all advanced our understanding of the universe more than anyone else in their time.

I can come up with dozens of examples. none of it has a whit to do with race though - race was just a coincidence in what they accomplished.

Most modern science should be discovered by whites. They are the ones that own the systems. People from other cultures made scientific discoveries while white people were still living in caves. They didnt do that because of their race. What did whites do that was because of or inspite of them being white? You do realize white people only made those discoveries because they were taught a foundation of knowledge from other cultures right?

Of course. Which is also why I don't attribute that to race.

You, OTOH, seem to attribute several things to race.

It is interesting that while talking about surviving slavery as a race you seem to forget there were also quite a few white slaves as well.

 

[FA_Q2]

I think your standards are too strict. I see nothing wrong in feeling pride in your race as long as you Long as you don't believe that other races are inferior. I feel proud of my heritage without perceiving others' heritages as inferior to mine. I think its weird to feel racial pride, but not inherently racist.

His standards are his alone to deal with. I have no problem with people having racial pride. I am just asking what do whites have to be proud of due to being white. No one can seem to give me an answer on that.

I gave you examples.
if you can say Dr. King, Tutu and Mandela are Black leaders to be proud of
you can say that Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln are White leaders to be proud of.

The Natural laws that were written down and established in writing by the Constitutional founders
could be credited to the White Americans of European descendants if you want to identify them by race.

These laws came from God, from Nature, not White men
and as you pointed out, some of the criticial govt ideas were influenced by Native Americans
who had tribal structures.

But if you are going to identify the Founding Fathers as White,
you can give as much credit for the good side as you can blame them for the genocide and bad side of
setting up America as it was back then to grow to a better place where equal justice could later be realized.

It looks to me like it takes equal contribution of ALL people from ALL races, nations, religions and ethnic cultures
to put the best ideas together for society to mature to its maximum ideal state.

I don't see any need to demonize one group or another which doesn't help but just distracts with division and ill will.

Washington and Jefferson owned slaves. What did they do that was honorable that had anything to do with them being white?

Jefferson wrote down principles in the Declaration of Independence in English,
which is the language we use today to reach agreement on democratic principles,
where two the most credited sources of the politics we use today being
* Rousseau who is identified with the Radical Liberalism carried on by Liberals today
* Locke who is identified with the Classic Liberalism carried on by Conservatives today
Both being European or White.

The Declaration of Independence is the only founding document that specifically
cites "consent of the governed" as the source of authority for civil governance.

I see this as a spiritual process by which the Natural Laws given by God
were made Statutory in Writing by the Founding Fathers who drew up
the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and other historical arguments defending
and defining checks and balances and separation of power to structure
a govt and democratic process through which Equal Justice could eventually be realized.

So this spirit of these laws, coming from God, were given to the world
through our Founding Fathers using European terms and English language
that we could use to hash out the rest of our process of fulfilling democratic
principles of self-government, left to future generations to work out as we evolved.

This linear process of reforming laws in writing, through a system of govt
that is designed to check itself, including protecting free speech and free press
as a check on govt, is something we inherited from our European and American
ancestors.

And yes, the structure is designed to incorporate change and reform when used correctly.

So ALL cultures, all religions, all groups can exercise free speech, free press, right to
petition and due process of law to improve upon what we have, and take it to the next level
of social and political development by civil/democratic means.

I dont get why Jefferson being white enabled him to write down something? People from ever race have written laws down. There is nothing unique about these laws.He was espousing an ideology. He didnt dream up this ideology because he was white. Now add to this that he was a hypocrite regarding these same laws. What have whites done that is specifically something only whites have done and have reason to be proud of?

And right back at you.

What have blacks done that is only something blacks have done?

 

[Moonglow]

KKK Billboard Causes Stir - Ozarksfirst

Considering this place is about 60 miles to the west, it's not unusual to see this...

They just want all of the welfare money for the white race.

Us Indians prefer only we have all the welfare wampum....

 

[emilynghiem]

I didn't say I agreed with the Muslim claim. I said they had one in their beliefs.

Yes I understand you were just saying both sides have their respective belief. This does not require you to agree with it,
and I thought it was clear theirs is not your belief.

What I mean is that most people will not even acknowledge there is a reason for their beliefs and claim to the land, unless they agree. So that's why I found this exceptional, that even when it doesn't serve your purpose, and you may not agree at all,
you are educated enough on the history to understand where that is coming from. I wish more people had that knowledge!

You are likely more level headed about this issue, because you have a broader scope on the history, while others get more emotional and angry who don't understand where the claim comes from, but thinks they are just making it up to justify war.

Since you used blacks as an example, so will I. I don't focus on things like that. However, I've made the statement that a black child has a greater liklihood of being illegitimate than not, using the correct term of bastard, only to be called racist. When over 70% meet that, it's not a stereotype.

Well, I disagree. Even if it applies, it can still be a stereotype.

Another example, is saying that women tend to be conditioned, either socially or spiritually, to
see things "relatively" in terms of "relationships with others" while men tend to compartmentalize
and divide things in terms of "autonomy" as to what is their space, their responsibility, and what belongs to someone else?

Science will show that women's brains operate different from men's.
So there is truth to the "stereotype" that women are more emotionally expressive in certain ways than men are.
(Actually I've pointed out that women are allowed or expected to cry, but not be angry without being called names for that, and men are allowed or expected to be angry, but not allowed to cry without being called names for that; so the social expectations are different but both are emotions.)

However to look at women in a negative way, based on this "stereotype" ends up causing more problems than it solves.

So I find it depends how the "stereotype" is used, that makes it helpful or hurtful.

If you know a large number of Black people don't have the same
experience and knowledge of land ownership and business management,
you can either use this to BLAME Blacks and liberals for "keeping people poor and dependent"
or you can use this to PROMOTE programs such as microlending and business training
among the poor minorities, whether Black, Latino, women, etc.

Obama even pointed this out, that although reparations couldn't be done logistically at this point literally,
by focusing on uplifting the poor through education, then of course the Blacks would naturally get the
support they need as the reparations they ask for. Just by helping all the poor break the cycle of poverty.

I agree that indirectly this would cover the needs of Blacks who were affected over generations by slavery and its repercussions. if we sought reparations or restitution for all wrongs, then we would cover all the bases and factors.

I fully understand both historically and Biblically why both sides stake a claim. Because of my religious beliefs, I side with the Jews. I also understand, because of religious beliefs, why Muslims disagree.

When it applies to such a large number, it's no longer a stereotype. Stereotypes are oversimplified images. In other words, they are something that apply to a small number but attributed to the whole. The illegitmate birth rate isn't a small number.

Again that is why I find you so remarkable, because the Muslim beliefs disagree with yours, and you still acknowledge these beliefs have reason behind them, even though that's not the side you align with. Compared with people who see no reason behind this at all, and just think it is hatred against Jews when there is history behind it.

I think your position has a better chance of putting out the fires,
while ignoring the reasons just puts on more heat and pressure to an already volatile situation.

As for stereotypes I see that I am using the term differently.

Even if it is predominant, such as saying most Democrats do not go around citing the Constitution
and arguing equally to defend prolife beliefs equally as prochoice beliefs as I do by Constitutional equal protections,
or progay marriage equally as antigay marriage beliefs, or pro-ACA mandates as anti-ACA mandates, death penalty, etc.

It is HURTFUL as a "stereotype" to treat ME as one of the 99% of Democrats who is NOT a Constitutionalist
and to deny the fact that I am a Constitutionalist and a Democrat.

Even if you would be right in 99% of the cases,
it is hurtful to punish and blame me when I am in the 1% who stands for the Constitution before political party.

I am worried it could be .01% or less.

John Cusack seems to be the only Democrat I've seen in the media
raising Constitutional issues about anything to do with Obama and the govt.

You are going by if that generalization applies to a large enough proportion to be significant as a trait for that group.

I am going by whether or not it applies to a particular case or person,
or if something is being assumed to "represent" an entire group as a class.

In the case of being a prochoice Constitutionalist
it would be applying a stereotype on Democrats to say I am proabortion or anti-life when I am not.
I am both prolife, anti abortion and prochoice where I believe abortion can best be prevented by free choice,
and should be in order to protect both prolife and prochoice interests equally.

 

[Asclepias]

Its not secrete code - it is plain English and is still racist.

I think your standards are too strict. I see nothing wrong in feeling pride in your race as long as you Long as you don't believe that other races are inferior. I feel proud of my heritage without perceiving others' heritages as inferior to mine. I think its weird to feel racial pride, but not inherently racist.

His standards are his alone to deal with. I have no problem with people having racial pride. I am just asking what do whites have to be proud of due to being white. No one can seem to give me an answer on that.

most modern science was discovered by whites. The most powerful and wealthy nation on the planet was founded by whites. Einstein, Newton Hawking - all white all advanced our understanding of the universe more than anyone else in their time.

I can come up with dozens of examples. none of it has a whit to do with race though - race was just a coincidence in what they accomplished.

Most modern science should be discovered by whites. They are the ones that own the systems. People from other cultures made scientific discoveries while white people were still living in caves. They didnt do that because of their race. What did whites do that was because of or inspite of them being white? You do realize white people only made those discoveries because they were taught a foundation of knowledge from other cultures right?

Of course. Which is also why I don't attribute that to race.

You, OTOH, seem to attribute several things to race.

It is interesting that while talking about surviving slavery as a race you seem to forget there were also quite a few white slaves as well.

Quite a few is a subjective term. There were never more white slaves than Black, it was never claimed those few white slaves were subhuman, and they didnt have to survive several generations of slavery. Totally different dynamic and I am guessing you cannot locate even one of them that did anything great.

 

[emilynghiem]

His standards are his alone to deal with. I have no problem with people having racial pride. I am just asking what do whites have to be proud of due to being white. No one can seem to give me an answer on that.

I gave you examples.
if you can say Dr. King, Tutu and Mandela are Black leaders to be proud of
you can say that Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln are White leaders to be proud of.

The Natural laws that were written down and established in writing by the Constitutional founders
could be credited to the White Americans of European descendants if you want to identify them by race.

These laws came from God, from Nature, not White men
and as you pointed out, some of the criticial govt ideas were influenced by Native Americans
who had tribal structures.

But if you are going to identify the Founding Fathers as White,
you can give as much credit for the good side as you can blame them for the genocide and bad side of
setting up America as it was back then to grow to a better place where equal justice could later be realized.

It looks to me like it takes equal contribution of ALL people from ALL races, nations, religions and ethnic cultures
to put the best ideas together for society to mature to its maximum ideal state.

I don't see any need to demonize one group or another which doesn't help but just distracts with division and ill will.

Washington and Jefferson owned slaves. What did they do that was honorable that had anything to do with them being white?

Jefferson wrote down principles in the Declaration of Independence in English,
which is the language we use today to reach agreement on democratic principles,
where two the most credited sources of the politics we use today being
* Rousseau who is identified with the Radical Liberalism carried on by Liberals today
* Locke who is identified with the Classic Liberalism carried on by Conservatives today
Both being European or White.

The Declaration of Independence is the only founding document that specifically
cites "consent of the governed" as the source of authority for civil governance.

I see this as a spiritual process by which the Natural Laws given by God
were made Statutory in Writing by the Founding Fathers who drew up
the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and other historical arguments defending
and defining checks and balances and separation of power to structure
a govt and democratic process through which Equal Justice could eventually be realized.

So this spirit of these laws, coming from God, were given to the world
through our Founding Fathers using European terms and English language
that we could use to hash out the rest of our process of fulfilling democratic
principles of self-government, left to future generations to work out as we evolved.

This linear process of reforming laws in writing, through a system of govt
that is designed to check itself, including protecting free speech and free press
as a check on govt, is something we inherited from our European and American
ancestors.

And yes, the structure is designed to incorporate change and reform when used correctly.

So ALL cultures, all religions, all groups can exercise free speech, free press, right to
petition and due process of law to improve upon what we have, and take it to the next level
of social and political development by civil/democratic means.

I dont get why Jefferson being white enabled him to write down something? People from ever race have written laws down. There is nothing unique about these laws.He was espousing an ideology. He didnt dream up this ideology because he was white. Now add to this that he was a hypocrite regarding these same laws. What have whites done that is specifically something only whites have done and have reason to be proud of?

And right back at you.

What have blacks done that is only something blacks have done?

Invented Kwanzaa?

 

[Conservative65]

I didn't say I agreed with the Muslim claim. I said they had one in their beliefs.

Yes I understand you were just saying both sides have their respective belief. This does not require you to agree with it,
and I thought it was clear theirs is not your belief.

What I mean is that most people will not even acknowledge there is a reason for their beliefs and claim to the land, unless they agree. So that's why I found this exceptional, that even when it doesn't serve your purpose, and you may not agree at all,
you are educated enough on the history to understand where that is coming from. I wish more people had that knowledge!

You are likely more level headed about this issue, because you have a broader scope on the history, while others get more emotional and angry who don't understand where the claim comes from, but thinks they are just making it up to justify war.

Since you used blacks as an example, so will I. I don't focus on things like that. However, I've made the statement that a black child has a greater liklihood of being illegitimate than not, using the correct term of bastard, only to be called racist. When over 70% meet that, it's not a stereotype.

Well, I disagree. Even if it applies, it can still be a stereotype.

Another example, is saying that women tend to be conditioned, either socially or spiritually, to
see things "relatively" in terms of "relationships with others" while men tend to compartmentalize
and divide things in terms of "autonomy" as to what is their space, their responsibility, and what belongs to someone else?

Science will show that women's brains operate different from men's.
So there is truth to the "stereotype" that women are more emotionally expressive in certain ways than men are.
(Actually I've pointed out that women are allowed or expected to cry, but not be angry without being called names for that, and men are allowed or expected to be angry, but not allowed to cry without being called names for that; so the social expectations are different but both are emotions.)

However to look at women in a negative way, based on this "stereotype" ends up causing more problems than it solves.

So I find it depends how the "stereotype" is used, that makes it helpful or hurtful.

If you know a large number of Black people don't have the same
experience and knowledge of land ownership and business management,
you can either use this to BLAME Blacks and liberals for "keeping people poor and dependent"
or you can use this to PROMOTE programs such as microlending and business training
among the poor minorities, whether Black, Latino, women, etc.

Obama even pointed this out, that although reparations couldn't be done logistically at this point literally,
by focusing on uplifting the poor through education, then of course the Blacks would naturally get the
support they need as the reparations they ask for. Just by helping all the poor break the cycle of poverty.

I agree that indirectly this would cover the needs of Blacks who were affected over generations by slavery and its repercussions. if we sought reparations or restitution for all wrongs, then we would cover all the bases and factors.

I fully understand both historically and Biblically why both sides stake a claim. Because of my religious beliefs, I side with the Jews. I also understand, because of religious beliefs, why Muslims disagree.

When it applies to such a large number, it's no longer a stereotype. Stereotypes are oversimplified images. In other words, they are something that apply to a small number but attributed to the whole. The illegitmate birth rate isn't a small number.

Again that is why I find you so remarkable, because the Muslim beliefs disagree with yours, and you still acknowledge these beliefs have reason behind them, even though that's not the side you align with. Compared with people who see no reason behind this at all, and just think it is hatred against Jews when there is history behind it.

I think your position has a better chance of putting out the fires,
while ignoring the reasons just puts on more heat and pressure to an already volatile situation.

As for stereotypes I see that I am using the term differently.

Even if it is predominant, such as saying most Democrats do not go around citing the Constitution
and arguing equally to defend prolife beliefs equally as prochoice beliefs as I do by Constitutional equal protections,
or progay marriage equally as antigay marriage beliefs, or pro-ACA mandates as anti-ACA mandates, death penalty, etc.

It is HURTFUL as a "stereotype" to treat ME as one of the 99% of Democrats who is NOT a Constitutionalist
and to deny the fact that I am a Constitutionalist and a Democrat.

Even if you would be right in 99% of the cases,
it is hurtful to punish and blame me when I am in the 1% who stands for the Constitution before political party.

I am worried it could be .01% or less.

John Cusack seems to be the only Democrat I've seen in the media
raising Constitutional issues about anything to do with Obama and the govt.

You are going by if that generalization applies to a large enough proportion to be significant as a trait for that group.

I am going by whether or not it applies to a particular case or person,
or if something is being assumed to "represent" an entire group as a class.

In the case of being a prochoice Constitutionalist
it would be applying a stereotype on Democrats to say I am proabortion or anti-life when I am not.
I am both prolife, anti abortion and prochoice where I believe abortion can best be prevented by free choice,
and should be in order to protect both prolife and prochoice interests equally.

It's like I tell people on anything, if you know why you believe what you believe, go for it. My disagreement doesn't change that you have reasons for why. When the why gets emotional rather than logical, the acknoledgment of the why goes away.

 

[Nutz]

Jefferson wrote down principles in the Declaration of Independence in English,
which is the language we use today to reach agreement on democratic principles,
where two the most credited sources of the politics we use today being
* Rousseau who is identified with the Radical Liberalism carried on by Liberals today
* Locke who is identified with the Classic Liberalism carried on by Conservatives today
Both being European or White.

The Declaration of Independence is the only founding document that specifically
cites "consent of the governed" as the source of authority for civil governance.

I see this as a spiritual process by which the Natural Laws given by God
were made Statutory in Writing by the Founding Fathers who drew up
the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and other historical arguments defending
and defining checks and balances and separation of power to structure
a govt and democratic process through which Equal Justice could eventually be realized.

So this spirit of these laws, coming from God, were given to the world
through our Founding Fathers using European terms and English language
that we could use to hash out the rest of our process of fulfilling democratic
principles of self-government, left to future generations to work out as we evolved.

This linear process of reforming laws in writing, through a system of govt
that is designed to check itself, including protecting free speech and free press
as a check on govt, is something we inherited from our European and American
ancestors.

And yes, the structure is designed to incorporate change and reform when used correctly.

So ALL cultures, all religions, all groups can exercise free speech, free press, right to
petition and due process of law to improve upon what we have, and take it to the next level
of social and political development by civil/democratic means.

I dont get why Jefferson being white enabled him to write down something? People from ever race have written laws down. There is nothing unique about these laws.He was espousing an ideology. He didnt dream up this ideology because he was white. Now add to this that he was a hypocrite regarding these same laws. What have whites done that is specifically something only whites have done and have reason to be proud of?

He rose to the position he was in from his spiritual, cultural and social background and lineage.
Being White or European is part of that heritage.
You can't take that factor out of the equation and have the same person.

We are a mix of all the things that make up our spiritual DNA.
It's how we use it that defines us and our path in life.

I tend to focus on Jefferson because I feel I have also inherited
karma spiritually from either Jefferson or other Founding Fathers.
I have this weird Constitutional thread running through the fibre of my being.

I could trace some of my political poetry to my father's father who was
a law professor and political poet in Vietnam. But the part of me that
rails on and on about Constitutional equal inclusion and whatnot,
I would like to trace this back to Jefferson or wherever it came from.

I probably have as much karma with the Christian church as much as I go on and on about that.

So I understand what you mean, that some of this can be independent of race.
But in Jefferson's case, can you really argue that he would not have risen to power
as President and Secretary of State without being White at that time.

If that is the role he needed to play, and the image he needed to represent to get
certain jobs done, then God would incarnate him as White, Deist, male etc.

Just like to get other things done, I am incarnated as Asian American female
both a Democrat and Constitutionalist. English speaking only. Born and living in Texas.

All of this is part of who I am in order to meet my purpose in life.

Same with you, same with Jefferson, Buddha or Einstein.
The little old lady across the street from me, or the young
black boy adopted and made famous by his hug with a white police officer.

All those factors make up part of the story.
To me it is spiritual first, and then it manifests in these different ways.
Fascinating, really.

Has nothing to do with him being white though. There has been royalty of every race that rose to greatness from poverty. The disconnect for whites seems to be in believing a man who said the following is a great man and have a hard time seeing him for what he was.

"I advance it therefore as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind. … This unfortunate difference of colour, and perhaps of faculty, is a powerful obstacle to the emancipation of these people."
-Thomas Jefferson

This is the same guy that said Black people smell bad but it must not have been that bad since he had sex with his slaves.

A. You can see both the good and the bad without denying one or the other.
Are you trying to deny the good, and yet criticize people for denying the bad?

Someone pointed out bad things about Dr. King.

Someone criticized Jesus for causing a tree to wither and die just to show off his power,
and for what he said to a woman, the only person BTW recorded in the Bible as talking back to Jesus where he accepted her answer.

From what I understand, Buddha at first did not want women in the fold, and had to be argued and talked into it.

People make fun of Einstein all the time, point to negative things about him.

Are you going to justify pulling people down just because you don't think they should be pulled up?

Why not credit both the good and the bad, and not fight over which is more predominant?

As for Jefferson and his views of slavery, I think he foresaw that slaves were not in a position
to merge into society at an equal level, and he argued for returning them to Africa and/or gradual abolition.

Given the mess we are still facing from not providing means of equal ownership of land and businesses,
I think he was right that we were not prepared to bring everyone up to equality.

i don't agree with his solution of forced deportation of slaves back to Africa, but I do believe people should have free and equal choice to colonize and claim equal land ownership
where they can develop to self-government as equals, and not be forever under the lordship of others.

B. I disagree that the same things could have happened if
Jefferson and the Founding Fathers weren't White.

You would be talking about a different time and place.

Just like Mandela and Tutu were able to lead the people in Africa because they are black. White men could not have achieved that same unity in that context at that time.

I'm not saying White or Black or superior or inferior.
I'm saying that to lead in certain circumstances, the people they needed to
identify with were of a particular race for a reason.

All cultures and generations need to go through stages of development,
so how the Native Americans evolve in their spiritual and cultural lineage
and how the Blacks and Whites and Asians etc. do
is part of the bigger picture. We do identify by race as part of our identity,
so that is a factor. It doesn't make one better than the other, just different.

Jefferson was a pedophile that took advantage of his slaves while espousing all men were created equal. I dont recall MLK doing that. You cant seperate what Jefferson did from his words. He was supposedly about equal rights just as MLK was but he owned slaves. MLK didnt own any slaves.

The Enigma Of Jefferson Mind and Body In Conflict - New York Times

Sorry but I just dont see him as a great person. If the founding fathers were not white I dont see how that would have a changed anything other than there being no white people here. There is nothing specifically unique about whites that no other race has done.

I am going to disagree with you on the one Asclepias...a lot of our heroes from the past have some skeletons in their closets...even MLK is accused of being a pedophile. Sometimes it is necessary to look at the overall good as opposed to the individuals sins that came into light AFTER the fact. We also can't blame the past for its norms.

 

[Conservative65]

I think your standards are too strict. I see nothing wrong in feeling pride in your race as long as you Long as you don't believe that other races are inferior. I feel proud of my heritage without perceiving others' heritages as inferior to mine. I think its weird to feel racial pride, but not inherently racist.

His standards are his alone to deal with. I have no problem with people having racial pride. I am just asking what do whites have to be proud of due to being white. No one can seem to give me an answer on that.

most modern science was discovered by whites. The most powerful and wealthy nation on the planet was founded by whites. Einstein, Newton Hawking - all white all advanced our understanding of the universe more than anyone else in their time.

I can come up with dozens of examples. none of it has a whit to do with race though - race was just a coincidence in what they accomplished.

Most modern science should be discovered by whites. They are the ones that own the systems. People from other cultures made scientific discoveries while white people were still living in caves. They didnt do that because of their race. What did whites do that was because of or inspite of them being white? You do realize white people only made those discoveries because they were taught a foundation of knowledge from other cultures right?

Of course. Which is also why I don't attribute that to race.

You, OTOH, seem to attribute several things to race.

It is interesting that while talking about surviving slavery as a race you seem to forget there were also quite a few white slaves as well.

Quite a few is a subjective term. There were never more white slaves than Black, it was never claimed those few white slaves were subhuman, and they didnt have to survive several generations of slavery. Totally different dynamic and I am guessing you cannot locate even one of them that did anything great.

Perhaps you should look up how the peasants were treated where my family came from. Not much different than slaves and went on for a lot longer.

Saying whites owned slaves is quite subjective since only a small percentage ever did. There were many times more whites that didn't own slaves than did.

 

[Asclepias]

I dont get why Jefferson being white enabled him to write down something? People from ever race have written laws down. There is nothing unique about these laws.He was espousing an ideology. He didnt dream up this ideology because he was white. Now add to this that he was a hypocrite regarding these same laws. What have whites done that is specifically something only whites have done and have reason to be proud of?

He rose to the position he was in from his spiritual, cultural and social background and lineage.
Being White or European is part of that heritage.
You can't take that factor out of the equation and have the same person.

We are a mix of all the things that make up our spiritual DNA.
It's how we use it that defines us and our path in life.

I tend to focus on Jefferson because I feel I have also inherited
karma spiritually from either Jefferson or other Founding Fathers.
I have this weird Constitutional thread running through the fibre of my being.

I could trace some of my political poetry to my father's father who was
a law professor and political poet in Vietnam. But the part of me that
rails on and on about Constitutional equal inclusion and whatnot,
I would like to trace this back to Jefferson or wherever it came from.

I probably have as much karma with the Christian church as much as I go on and on about that.

So I understand what you mean, that some of this can be independent of race.
But in Jefferson's case, can you really argue that he would not have risen to power
as President and Secretary of State without being White at that time.

If that is the role he needed to play, and the image he needed to represent to get
certain jobs done, then God would incarnate him as White, Deist, male etc.

Just like to get other things done, I am incarnated as Asian American female
both a Democrat and Constitutionalist. English speaking only. Born and living in Texas.

All of this is part of who I am in order to meet my purpose in life.

Same with you, same with Jefferson, Buddha or Einstein.
The little old lady across the street from me, or the young
black boy adopted and made famous by his hug with a white police officer.

All those factors make up part of the story.
To me it is spiritual first, and then it manifests in these different ways.
Fascinating, really.

Has nothing to do with him being white though. There has been royalty of every race that rose to greatness from poverty. The disconnect for whites seems to be in believing a man who said the following is a great man and have a hard time seeing him for what he was.

"I advance it therefore as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind. … This unfortunate difference of colour, and perhaps of faculty, is a powerful obstacle to the emancipation of these people."
-Thomas Jefferson

This is the same guy that said Black people smell bad but it must not have been that bad since he had sex with his slaves.

A. You can see both the good and the bad without denying one or the other.
Are you trying to deny the good, and yet criticize people for denying the bad?

Someone pointed out bad things about Dr. King.

Someone criticized Jesus for causing a tree to wither and die just to show off his power,
and for what he said to a woman, the only person BTW recorded in the Bible as talking back to Jesus where he accepted her answer.

From what I understand, Buddha at first did not want women in the fold, and had to be argued and talked into it.

People make fun of Einstein all the time, point to negative things about him.

Are you going to justify pulling people down just because you don't think they should be pulled up?

Why not credit both the good and the bad, and not fight over which is more predominant?

As for Jefferson and his views of slavery, I think he foresaw that slaves were not in a position
to merge into society at an equal level, and he argued for returning them to Africa and/or gradual abolition.

Given the mess we are still facing from not providing means of equal ownership of land and businesses,
I think he was right that we were not prepared to bring everyone up to equality.

i don't agree with his solution of forced deportation of slaves back to Africa, but I do believe people should have free and equal choice to colonize and claim equal land ownership
where they can develop to self-government as equals, and not be forever under the lordship of others.

B. I disagree that the same things could have happened if
Jefferson and the Founding Fathers weren't White.

You would be talking about a different time and place.

Just like Mandela and Tutu were able to lead the people in Africa because they are black. White men could not have achieved that same unity in that context at that time.

I'm not saying White or Black or superior or inferior.
I'm saying that to lead in certain circumstances, the people they needed to
identify with were of a particular race for a reason.

All cultures and generations need to go through stages of development,
so how the Native Americans evolve in their spiritual and cultural lineage
and how the Blacks and Whites and Asians etc. do
is part of the bigger picture. We do identify by race as part of our identity,
so that is a factor. It doesn't make one better than the other, just different.

Jefferson was a pedophile that took advantage of his slaves while espousing all men were created equal. I dont recall MLK doing that. You cant seperate what Jefferson did from his words. He was supposedly about equal rights just as MLK was but he owned slaves. MLK didnt own any slaves.

The Enigma Of Jefferson Mind and Body In Conflict - New York Times

Sorry but I just dont see him as a great person. If the founding fathers were not white I dont see how that would have a changed anything other than there being no white people here. There is nothing specifically unique about whites that no other race has done.

I am going to disagree with you on the one Asclepias...a lot of our heroes from the past have some skeletons in their closets...even MLK is accused of being a pedophile. Sometimes it is necessary to look at the overall good as opposed to the individuals sins that came into light AFTER the fact. We also can't blame the past for its norms.

If MLK was a pedo then that takes him down as a hero to me. Do you have any good links on that? I have to disagree that what Jefferson did was a greater good as he never intended that good to benefit me. It may have been a greater good for whites but he by no means meant for Black people to benefit from these ideas.

 

[Asclepias]

His standards are his alone to deal with. I have no problem with people having racial pride. I am just asking what do whites have to be proud of due to being white. No one can seem to give me an answer on that.

I gave you examples.
if you can say Dr. King, Tutu and Mandela are Black leaders to be proud of
you can say that Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln are White leaders to be proud of.

The Natural laws that were written down and established in writing by the Constitutional founders
could be credited to the White Americans of European descendants if you want to identify them by race.

These laws came from God, from Nature, not White men
and as you pointed out, some of the criticial govt ideas were influenced by Native Americans
who had tribal structures.

But if you are going to identify the Founding Fathers as White,
you can give as much credit for the good side as you can blame them for the genocide and bad side of
setting up America as it was back then to grow to a better place where equal justice could later be realized.

It looks to me like it takes equal contribution of ALL people from ALL races, nations, religions and ethnic cultures
to put the best ideas together for society to mature to its maximum ideal state.

I don't see any need to demonize one group or another which doesn't help but just distracts with division and ill will.

Washington and Jefferson owned slaves. What did they do that was honorable that had anything to do with them being white?

Jefferson wrote down principles in the Declaration of Independence in English,
which is the language we use today to reach agreement on democratic principles,
where two the most credited sources of the politics we use today being
* Rousseau who is identified with the Radical Liberalism carried on by Liberals today
* Locke who is identified with the Classic Liberalism carried on by Conservatives today
Both being European or White.

The Declaration of Independence is the only founding document that specifically
cites "consent of the governed" as the source of authority for civil governance.

I see this as a spiritual process by which the Natural Laws given by God
were made Statutory in Writing by the Founding Fathers who drew up
the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and other historical arguments defending
and defining checks and balances and separation of power to structure
a govt and democratic process through which Equal Justice could eventually be realized.

So this spirit of these laws, coming from God, were given to the world
through our Founding Fathers using European terms and English language
that we could use to hash out the rest of our process of fulfilling democratic
principles of self-government, left to future generations to work out as we evolved.

This linear process of reforming laws in writing, through a system of govt
that is designed to check itself, including protecting free speech and free press
as a check on govt, is something we inherited from our European and American
ancestors.

And yes, the structure is designed to incorporate change and reform when used correctly.

So ALL cultures, all religions, all groups can exercise free speech, free press, right to
petition and due process of law to improve upon what we have, and take it to the next level
of social and political development by civil/democratic means.

I dont get why Jefferson being white enabled him to write down something? People from ever race have written laws down. There is nothing unique about these laws.He was espousing an ideology. He didnt dream up this ideology because he was white. Now add to this that he was a hypocrite regarding these same laws. What have whites done that is specifically something only whites have done and have reason to be proud of?

And right back at you.

What have blacks done that is only something blacks have done?

Survived and progressed despite slavery, failed Reconstruction, reneged upon promises of land, Jim Crow, racial cleansing, and being erased from the history books. Since you couldnt answer why did you try to deflect?

 

[Asclepias]

I gave you examples.
if you can say Dr. King, Tutu and Mandela are Black leaders to be proud of
you can say that Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln are White leaders to be proud of.

The Natural laws that were written down and established in writing by the Constitutional founders
could be credited to the White Americans of European descendants if you want to identify them by race.

These laws came from God, from Nature, not White men
and as you pointed out, some of the criticial govt ideas were influenced by Native Americans
who had tribal structures.

But if you are going to identify the Founding Fathers as White,
you can give as much credit for the good side as you can blame them for the genocide and bad side of
setting up America as it was back then to grow to a better place where equal justice could later be realized.

It looks to me like it takes equal contribution of ALL people from ALL races, nations, religions and ethnic cultures
to put the best ideas together for society to mature to its maximum ideal state.

I don't see any need to demonize one group or another which doesn't help but just distracts with division and ill will.

Washington and Jefferson owned slaves. What did they do that was honorable that had anything to do with them being white?

Jefferson wrote down principles in the Declaration of Independence in English,
which is the language we use today to reach agreement on democratic principles,
where two the most credited sources of the politics we use today being
* Rousseau who is identified with the Radical Liberalism carried on by Liberals today
* Locke who is identified with the Classic Liberalism carried on by Conservatives today
Both being European or White.

The Declaration of Independence is the only founding document that specifically
cites "consent of the governed" as the source of authority for civil governance.

I see this as a spiritual process by which the Natural Laws given by God
were made Statutory in Writing by the Founding Fathers who drew up
the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and other historical arguments defending
and defining checks and balances and separation of power to structure
a govt and democratic process through which Equal Justice could eventually be realized.

So this spirit of these laws, coming from God, were given to the world
through our Founding Fathers using European terms and English language
that we could use to hash out the rest of our process of fulfilling democratic
principles of self-government, left to future generations to work out as we evolved.

This linear process of reforming laws in writing, through a system of govt
that is designed to check itself, including protecting free speech and free press
as a check on govt, is something we inherited from our European and American
ancestors.

And yes, the structure is designed to incorporate change and reform when used correctly.

So ALL cultures, all religions, all groups can exercise free speech, free press, right to
petition and due process of law to improve upon what we have, and take it to the next level
of social and political development by civil/democratic means.

I dont get why Jefferson being white enabled him to write down something? People from ever race have written laws down. There is nothing unique about these laws.He was espousing an ideology. He didnt dream up this ideology because he was white. Now add to this that he was a hypocrite regarding these same laws. What have whites done that is specifically something only whites have done and have reason to be proud of?

And right back at you.

What have blacks done that is only something blacks have done?

Invented Kwanzaa?

White people made up Xmas. Inventing Kwanzaa has nothing to do with anyones color. People have always made up holidays.

 

[Nutz]

He rose to the position he was in from his spiritual, cultural and social background and lineage.
Being White or European is part of that heritage.
You can't take that factor out of the equation and have the same person.

We are a mix of all the things that make up our spiritual DNA.
It's how we use it that defines us and our path in life.

I tend to focus on Jefferson because I feel I have also inherited
karma spiritually from either Jefferson or other Founding Fathers.
I have this weird Constitutional thread running through the fibre of my being.

I could trace some of my political poetry to my father's father who was
a law professor and political poet in Vietnam. But the part of me that
rails on and on about Constitutional equal inclusion and whatnot,
I would like to trace this back to Jefferson or wherever it came from.

I probably have as much karma with the Christian church as much as I go on and on about that.

So I understand what you mean, that some of this can be independent of race.
But in Jefferson's case, can you really argue that he would not have risen to power
as President and Secretary of State without being White at that time.

If that is the role he needed to play, and the image he needed to represent to get
certain jobs done, then God would incarnate him as White, Deist, male etc.

Just like to get other things done, I am incarnated as Asian American female
both a Democrat and Constitutionalist. English speaking only. Born and living in Texas.

All of this is part of who I am in order to meet my purpose in life.

Same with you, same with Jefferson, Buddha or Einstein.
The little old lady across the street from me, or the young
black boy adopted and made famous by his hug with a white police officer.

All those factors make up part of the story.
To me it is spiritual first, and then it manifests in these different ways.
Fascinating, really.

Has nothing to do with him being white though. There has been royalty of every race that rose to greatness from poverty. The disconnect for whites seems to be in believing a man who said the following is a great man and have a hard time seeing him for what he was.

"I advance it therefore as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind. … This unfortunate difference of colour, and perhaps of faculty, is a powerful obstacle to the emancipation of these people."
-Thomas Jefferson

This is the same guy that said Black people smell bad but it must not have been that bad since he had sex with his slaves.

A. You can see both the good and the bad without denying one or the other.
Are you trying to deny the good, and yet criticize people for denying the bad?

Someone pointed out bad things about Dr. King.

Someone criticized Jesus for causing a tree to wither and die just to show off his power,
and for what he said to a woman, the only person BTW recorded in the Bible as talking back to Jesus where he accepted her answer.

From what I understand, Buddha at first did not want women in the fold, and had to be argued and talked into it.

People make fun of Einstein all the time, point to negative things about him.

Are you going to justify pulling people down just because you don't think they should be pulled up?

Why not credit both the good and the bad, and not fight over which is more predominant?

As for Jefferson and his views of slavery, I think he foresaw that slaves were not in a position
to merge into society at an equal level, and he argued for returning them to Africa and/or gradual abolition.

Given the mess we are still facing from not providing means of equal ownership of land and businesses,
I think he was right that we were not prepared to bring everyone up to equality.

i don't agree with his solution of forced deportation of slaves back to Africa, but I do believe people should have free and equal choice to colonize and claim equal land ownership
where they can develop to self-government as equals, and not be forever under the lordship of others.

B. I disagree that the same things could have happened if
Jefferson and the Founding Fathers weren't White.

You would be talking about a different time and place.

Just like Mandela and Tutu were able to lead the people in Africa because they are black. White men could not have achieved that same unity in that context at that time.

I'm not saying White or Black or superior or inferior.
I'm saying that to lead in certain circumstances, the people they needed to
identify with were of a particular race for a reason.

All cultures and generations need to go through stages of development,
so how the Native Americans evolve in their spiritual and cultural lineage
and how the Blacks and Whites and Asians etc. do
is part of the bigger picture. We do identify by race as part of our identity,
so that is a factor. It doesn't make one better than the other, just different.

Jefferson was a pedophile that took advantage of his slaves while espousing all men were created equal. I dont recall MLK doing that. You cant seperate what Jefferson did from his words. He was supposedly about equal rights just as MLK was but he owned slaves. MLK didnt own any slaves.

The Enigma Of Jefferson Mind and Body In Conflict - New York Times

Sorry but I just dont see him as a great person. If the founding fathers were not white I dont see how that would have a changed anything other than there being no white people here. There is nothing specifically unique about whites that no other race has done.

I am going to disagree with you on the one Asclepias...a lot of our heroes from the past have some skeletons in their closets...even MLK is accused of being a pedophile. Sometimes it is necessary to look at the overall good as opposed to the individuals sins that came into light AFTER the fact. We also can't blame the past for its norms.

If MLK was a pedo then that takes him down as a hero to me. Do you have any good links on that? I have to disagree that what Jefferson did was a greater good as he never intended that good to benefit me. It may have been a greater good for whites but he by no means meant for Black people to benefit from these ideas.

You know what, I don't have any direct links and I am too lazy to gGoogle it right now. U was told that story by a bitter white man a couple of years ago...I checked it out, and the accusations are out there.

As for Jefferson...he and the rest of them were out for their own good. In their case...I have to respect their ideals and seperate slavery and hate....and assume it was God;s plan to ensure freedom for all in the end. I could be wrong, I could be an idealist...but I think if he were alive today...his opinions on race and slavery would be reversed.

 

[Nutz]

I gave you examples.
if you can say Dr. King, Tutu and Mandela are Black leaders to be proud of
you can say that Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln are White leaders to be proud of.

The Natural laws that were written down and established in writing by the Constitutional founders
could be credited to the White Americans of European descendants if you want to identify them by race.

These laws came from God, from Nature, not White men
and as you pointed out, some of the criticial govt ideas were influenced by Native Americans
who had tribal structures.

But if you are going to identify the Founding Fathers as White,
you can give as much credit for the good side as you can blame them for the genocide and bad side of
setting up America as it was back then to grow to a better place where equal justice could later be realized.

It looks to me like it takes equal contribution of ALL people from ALL races, nations, religions and ethnic cultures
to put the best ideas together for society to mature to its maximum ideal state.

I don't see any need to demonize one group or another which doesn't help but just distracts with division and ill will.

Washington and Jefferson owned slaves. What did they do that was honorable that had anything to do with them being white?

Jefferson wrote down principles in the Declaration of Independence in English,
which is the language we use today to reach agreement on democratic principles,
where two the most credited sources of the politics we use today being
* Rousseau who is identified with the Radical Liberalism carried on by Liberals today
* Locke who is identified with the Classic Liberalism carried on by Conservatives today
Both being European or White.

The Declaration of Independence is the only founding document that specifically
cites "consent of the governed" as the source of authority for civil governance.

I see this as a spiritual process by which the Natural Laws given by God
were made Statutory in Writing by the Founding Fathers who drew up
the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and other historical arguments defending
and defining checks and balances and separation of power to structure
a govt and democratic process through which Equal Justice could eventually be realized.

So this spirit of these laws, coming from God, were given to the world
through our Founding Fathers using European terms and English language
that we could use to hash out the rest of our process of fulfilling democratic
principles of self-government, left to future generations to work out as we evolved.

This linear process of reforming laws in writing, through a system of govt
that is designed to check itself, including protecting free speech and free press
as a check on govt, is something we inherited from our European and American
ancestors.

And yes, the structure is designed to incorporate change and reform when used correctly.

So ALL cultures, all religions, all groups can exercise free speech, free press, right to
petition and due process of law to improve upon what we have, and take it to the next level
of social and political development by civil/democratic means.

I dont get why Jefferson being white enabled him to write down something? People from ever race have written laws down. There is nothing unique about these laws.He was espousing an ideology. He didnt dream up this ideology because he was white. Now add to this that he was a hypocrite regarding these same laws. What have whites done that is specifically something only whites have done and have reason to be proud of?

And right back at you.

What have blacks done that is only something blacks have done?

Survived and progressed despite slavery, failed Reconstruction, reneged upon promises of land, Jim Crow, racial cleansing, and being erased from the history books. Since you couldnt answer why did you try to deflect?

Because he hates black people!

 

[Nutz]

Washington and Jefferson owned slaves. What did they do that was honorable that had anything to do with them being white?

Jefferson wrote down principles in the Declaration of Independence in English,
which is the language we use today to reach agreement on democratic principles,
where two the most credited sources of the politics we use today being
* Rousseau who is identified with the Radical Liberalism carried on by Liberals today
* Locke who is identified with the Classic Liberalism carried on by Conservatives today
Both being European or White.

The Declaration of Independence is the only founding document that specifically
cites "consent of the governed" as the source of authority for civil governance.

I see this as a spiritual process by which the Natural Laws given by God
were made Statutory in Writing by the Founding Fathers who drew up
the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and other historical arguments defending
and defining checks and balances and separation of power to structure
a govt and democratic process through which Equal Justice could eventually be realized.

So this spirit of these laws, coming from God, were given to the world
through our Founding Fathers using European terms and English language
that we could use to hash out the rest of our process of fulfilling democratic
principles of self-government, left to future generations to work out as we evolved.

This linear process of reforming laws in writing, through a system of govt
that is designed to check itself, including protecting free speech and free press
as a check on govt, is something we inherited from our European and American
ancestors.

And yes, the structure is designed to incorporate change and reform when used correctly.

So ALL cultures, all religions, all groups can exercise free speech, free press, right to
petition and due process of law to improve upon what we have, and take it to the next level
of social and political development by civil/democratic means.

I dont get why Jefferson being white enabled him to write down something? People from ever race have written laws down. There is nothing unique about these laws.He was espousing an ideology. He didnt dream up this ideology because he was white. Now add to this that he was a hypocrite regarding these same laws. What have whites done that is specifically something only whites have done and have reason to be proud of?

And right back at you.

What have blacks done that is only something blacks have done?

Invented Kwanzaa?

White people made up Xmas. Inventing Kwanzaa has nothing to do with anyones color. People have always made up holidays.

Happy Valentines Day.

 

[Asclepias]

Has nothing to do with him being white though. There has been royalty of every race that rose to greatness from poverty. The disconnect for whites seems to be in believing a man who said the following is a great man and have a hard time seeing him for what he was.

"I advance it therefore as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind. … This unfortunate difference of colour, and perhaps of faculty, is a powerful obstacle to the emancipation of these people."
-Thomas Jefferson

This is the same guy that said Black people smell bad but it must not have been that bad since he had sex with his slaves.

A. You can see both the good and the bad without denying one or the other.
Are you trying to deny the good, and yet criticize people for denying the bad?

Someone pointed out bad things about Dr. King.

Someone criticized Jesus for causing a tree to wither and die just to show off his power,
and for what he said to a woman, the only person BTW recorded in the Bible as talking back to Jesus where he accepted her answer.

From what I understand, Buddha at first did not want women in the fold, and had to be argued and talked into it.

People make fun of Einstein all the time, point to negative things about him.

Are you going to justify pulling people down just because you don't think they should be pulled up?

Why not credit both the good and the bad, and not fight over which is more predominant?

As for Jefferson and his views of slavery, I think he foresaw that slaves were not in a position
to merge into society at an equal level, and he argued for returning them to Africa and/or gradual abolition.

Given the mess we are still facing from not providing means of equal ownership of land and businesses,
I think he was right that we were not prepared to bring everyone up to equality.

i don't agree with his solution of forced deportation of slaves back to Africa, but I do believe people should have free and equal choice to colonize and claim equal land ownership
where they can develop to self-government as equals, and not be forever under the lordship of others.

B. I disagree that the same things could have happened if
Jefferson and the Founding Fathers weren't White.

You would be talking about a different time and place.

Just like Mandela and Tutu were able to lead the people in Africa because they are black. White men could not have achieved that same unity in that context at that time.

I'm not saying White or Black or superior or inferior.
I'm saying that to lead in certain circumstances, the people they needed to
identify with were of a particular race for a reason.

All cultures and generations need to go through stages of development,
so how the Native Americans evolve in their spiritual and cultural lineage
and how the Blacks and Whites and Asians etc. do
is part of the bigger picture. We do identify by race as part of our identity,
so that is a factor. It doesn't make one better than the other, just different.

Jefferson was a pedophile that took advantage of his slaves while espousing all men were created equal. I dont recall MLK doing that. You cant seperate what Jefferson did from his words. He was supposedly about equal rights just as MLK was but he owned slaves. MLK didnt own any slaves.

The Enigma Of Jefferson Mind and Body In Conflict - New York Times

Sorry but I just dont see him as a great person. If the founding fathers were not white I dont see how that would have a changed anything other than there being no white people here. There is nothing specifically unique about whites that no other race has done.

I am going to disagree with you on the one Asclepias...a lot of our heroes from the past have some skeletons in their closets...even MLK is accused of being a pedophile. Sometimes it is necessary to look at the overall good as opposed to the individuals sins that came into light AFTER the fact. We also can't blame the past for its norms.

If MLK was a pedo then that takes him down as a hero to me. Do you have any good links on that? I have to disagree that what Jefferson did was a greater good as he never intended that good to benefit me. It may have been a greater good for whites but he by no means meant for Black people to benefit from these ideas.

You know what, I don't have any direct links and I am too lazy to gGoogle it right now. U was told that story by a bitter white man a couple of years ago...I checked it out, and the accusations are out there.

As for Jefferson...he and the rest of them were out for their own good. In their case...I have to respect their ideals and seperate slavery and hate....and assume it was God;s plan to ensure freedom for all in the end. I could be wrong, I could be an idealist...but I think if he were alive today...his opinions on race and slavery would be reversed.

Maybe he would be I doubt it. He didnt think very highly of Black people at all. One of the main reasons was because it was easier for him to believe Blacks were subhuman in order to maintain his economic status and his sexual escapades. He said Blacks didnt feel grief like whites did. He had to think that way to ease his conscious when he sold of the family members of slaves.

 

[Asclepias]

Jefferson wrote down principles in the Declaration of Independence in English,
which is the language we use today to reach agreement on democratic principles,
where two the most credited sources of the politics we use today being
* Rousseau who is identified with the Radical Liberalism carried on by Liberals today
* Locke who is identified with the Classic Liberalism carried on by Conservatives today
Both being European or White.

The Declaration of Independence is the only founding document that specifically
cites "consent of the governed" as the source of authority for civil governance.

I see this as a spiritual process by which the Natural Laws given by God
were made Statutory in Writing by the Founding Fathers who drew up
the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and other historical arguments defending
and defining checks and balances and separation of power to structure
a govt and democratic process through which Equal Justice could eventually be realized.

So this spirit of these laws, coming from God, were given to the world
through our Founding Fathers using European terms and English language
that we could use to hash out the rest of our process of fulfilling democratic
principles of self-government, left to future generations to work out as we evolved.

This linear process of reforming laws in writing, through a system of govt
that is designed to check itself, including protecting free speech and free press
as a check on govt, is something we inherited from our European and American
ancestors.

And yes, the structure is designed to incorporate change and reform when used correctly.

So ALL cultures, all religions, all groups can exercise free speech, free press, right to
petition and due process of law to improve upon what we have, and take it to the next level
of social and political development by civil/democratic means.

I dont get why Jefferson being white enabled him to write down something? People from ever race have written laws down. There is nothing unique about these laws.He was espousing an ideology. He didnt dream up this ideology because he was white. Now add to this that he was a hypocrite regarding these same laws. What have whites done that is specifically something only whites have done and have reason to be proud of?

And right back at you.

What have blacks done that is only something blacks have done?

Invented Kwanzaa?

White people made up Xmas. Inventing Kwanzaa has nothing to do with anyones color. People have always made up holidays.

Happy Valentines Day.

Happy Arbor Day