Racism: The biggest fraud ever?

[MizMolly]

No MizMolly, you're the one who keeps claiming that ALL women have their jobs because of AA. You strongly objected when you thought someone was claiming that white women did not get their jobs based on merit (when no one stated they had) and you all have no problems at all claiming that any black person didn't obtain jobs based on merit but only due to affirmative action.

Even when things are working in your favor you all are so afraid that you're being left out of something or that someone else is getting something you aren't, you can't even acknowledge something that can be helpful to you.

I know, I know, you don't WANT or NEED the help

By the way, try reading IM2s post rather that agreeing because he is black. He quite often brings up how us women benefit the most thru AA, isn’t that saying women don’t deserve their jobs or anything they have thru hard work, education and skills?

 

[IM2]

It's funny how only right wing whites keep trying to tell us how racism is a fraud.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

It sounds like A. Lincoln.
What you and all those who think like you need to realize is how far Whites have come from that attitude. To almost all of us race is something inconsequential, we simply don’t care about it any more. Race is important to you, not us, we are evolving and growing, you are not.
And it wasn’t just blacks being singled out. Asians, East Asians, Arabs, Blacks, Irish, Eastern Europeans Native Americans from both hemispheres. You name the group, religion or race and they were considered inferior AND discriminated against.

No, it wasn't Abraham Lincoln. It was U.S. Supreme Court CHIEF Justice Roger Taney.

And while other races were indeed discriminated against, that is not the same thing as having a Supreme Court decision, which is the final word in the ultimate law of the land, tell the rest of the world, that you as a black person have no rights that a white person need respect.

Can you imagine living in a society that has just been told by SCOTUS that black people don't have any rights you have to respect - not a right to freedom, to life, to protect themselves, to seek redress for grievances, etc.

 

[woodwork201]

Was I supposed to take what the pro-slavery people wrote as gospel? The pro-SLAVERY people?

You quoted them, not me. I guess if you're challenging the confessed evil of your own source then you're asking me to believe they're not the evil they said themselves to be. Ok. You convinced me.

 

[woodwork201]

The law is on my side and I don't have to show you anything. You seem to think you can trot out that dumb ass show me you were a slave argument like it stops something. Son, I have all the evidence on earth to support what I say. You're just arguing to run your mouth and you think that because your ass is white that somehow your opinion means more than fact coming from someone black.

Take this and then shut your mouth.

The quote is written by members of the National Conference of Black Lawyers, the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, and the National Lawyers Guild as part of the Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Systemic Racist Police Violence against People of African Descent in the U.S., on page sixteen:

"The Commissioners find a prima facie case of Crimes against Humanity warranting an investigation by the International Criminal Court (ICC). The crimes under the Rome Statute include: Murder, Severe Deprivation of Physical Liberty, Torture, Persecution of people of African descent, and other Inhumane Acts, which occurred in the context of a widespread or systematic attack directed against the civilian population of Black people in the U.S."

Crimes against humanity junior. That is what this government faces should blacks choose to push it. We do have the law on our side. And these guys are not talking about slavery. They are talking about modern acts of racism by police in America.

If those groups believed they could win they'd take it to the international courts. THen do you expect UN peace keepers to come in and protect our inner cities from cops?

What a joke. First off, the international courts have no authority over our Constitution. And if black Americans thought they had a case they'd file it instead of saying if we wanted to file it. You're a joke of a human being.

 

[IM2]

You quoted them, not me. I guess if you're challenging the confessed evil of your own source then you're asking me to believe they're not the evil they said themselves to be. Ok. You convinced me.

I believe you posted that. Why do you racists try this shit?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

By the way, try reading IM2s post rather that agreeing because he is black. He quite often brings up how us women benefit the most thru AA, isn’t that saying women don’t deserve their jobs or anything they have thru hard work, education and skills?

NO! That's not what he or anyone else means when it is pointed out that white women have benefited more from affirmative action than anyone else. But the way you automatically considered that statement as meaning something NEGATIVE about you or other white women speaks volumes.

That automatic reaction you have is in all likelihood due to the fact that you believe the government requiring companies take affirmative action to ensure that people are not discriminated against due to their race, ethnicity, gender, religions, etc. is something NEGATIVE and that the people who are afforded [more] equal opportunity did not have the required merit.

What affirmative action affords people is equal "opportunity". What one does with that opportunity is up to each individual. Opportunity is all many needed, they already possessed the required experience, skills, and knowledge but were not allowed the opportunity to compete, nor succeed or fail on their own merits.

 

[IM2]

If those groups believed they could win they'd take it to the international courts. THen do you expect UN peace keepers to come in and protect our inner cities from cops?

What a joke. First off, the international courts have no authority over our Constitution. And if black Americans thought they had a case they'd file it instead of saying if we wanted to file it. You're a joke of a human being.

Lol! A racist trying to tell me something. The U.S. government has a habit of killing or imprisoning people who go that far to question the system. I know that you wouldn't understand that because in Pleasantville the law, the courts and the system operates as the constitution dictates.

The UN peacekeepers have that ability. If the situation is deemed as such, that can happen here. We joined the UN, in fact America is a founding member, so we are not above the rules. You need to understand that America is not above international law. You need to stop watching those Clint Eastwood movies junior.

Families of people killed by police went before the UN in 2020 to get a commission but due to pressure from the trump government, the investigation did not happen as requested. The case is set, the UN Human Rights Council says we are owed reparations. So what is going to happen is that blacks will eventually get reparations. And there is nothing you are going to be able to do about it.

 

[IM2]

NO! That's not what he or anyone else means when it is pointed out that white women have benefited more from affirmative action than anyone else. But the way you automatically considered that statement as meaning something NEGATIVE about you or other white women speaks volumes.

That automatic reaction you have is in all likelihood due to the fact that you believe the government requiring companies take affirmative action to ensure that people are not discriminated against due to their race, ethnicity, gender, religions, etc. is something NEGATIVE and that the people who are afforded [more] equal opportunity did not have the required merit.

What affirmative action affords people is equal "opportunity". What one does with that opportunity is up to each individual. Opportunity is all many needed, they already possessed the required experience, skills, and knowledge but were not allowed the opportunity to compete, nor succeed or fail on their own merits.

Molly is ignorant. I created a thread about things that happened to women and aske why fool females like Molly exist given that history. White women benefit the most from AA and I say that because idiots like Molly and Lisa exist who claim how unfair it is for unqualified blacks to get such favoritism. So they need to understand just exactly who is most favored.

It ain't blacks, asians, pacific islanders, hispanics, or Native Americans.

It's white women like them. So if unqualified people are being favored according to them, well...

Learn how to read Molly.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Black people - those who remain in poverty, that is, as most have moved forward - should emulate Jews, rather than resent them. Here, a tiny minority, persecuted for millennia, managed to overcome the murders of their own families, and within that same generation move from poverty to the comfortable middle class.

A big swarm of impoverished, uneducated Jews arrived here around the turn of the last century, fleeing religious persecution in Europe and pograms In Russia. They arrived with NOTHING, but knowledge of how much they were despised, and $10 in their pocket. They worked 12 hours a day in sweatshops and lived crowded in hot tenements. And yet.….their kids went on to college or started successful businesses. ONE generation.

What blacks face these days is nothing like that. All they need to do is to get out of poverty is:

1. No babies before marriage
2. Finish high school (for a working class life, but not poverty), or
3. Get a Pell Grant for vocational job training (for a bit better life), or
4. If they’re smart and motivated, use the Pell Grant for CC and then earn an academic transfer scholarship to the state college (for a comfortable, middle class life)

Lots of wasted energy looking back to what happened to ancestors before they were even born. The way forward is to look….FORWARD….and make responsible choices.

I called a friend of mine on Friday evening because she has a lot of insight into things going on in our country and I need her perspective on something odd that had occurred. Because she was in such a good mood, I asked her how life was going for her.

She told me that her youngest daughter is graduating from college next week. And she reminded me that she and her husband raised 7 children, the last of which is just graduating.

She came from a family of sharecroppers, so she came from poverty yet she did all of the following while raising 7 children, one of which is her younger brother who she raised as her own

• She graduated from law school
• She passed the bar while serving in the U.S. military in Iraq
• She started her own private practice around 2000
• She and her family rose to upper middle class
• She saw all six plus one of her children graduate from college
• Her brother recently earned his bachelor's degree in cybersecurity and it was because of her recommendation that I am currently working on my Master of Science degree in Cybersecurity and Data Assurance
• She is no longer allowed to practice law much to the distress of many, because she was a fierce defender of children and those members of society who are disenfranchised
• The reason she is no longer allowed to practice law is because she is now a superior court judge
• I told her the thing I love most about her being a judge is that she was elected, not appointed
• Washington State is a pretty white state population wise, yet in a county were the black population is just over 3%, the white populous elected her as one of their superior court judges
• And let's not forget that she did all of this while putting 7 offspring through college
• She and her family are now affluent and still just as down to earth as ever

She didn't follow your cockamamie "rules for success" and getting out of poverty Lisa. She didn't do things in exactly the way others perhaps thought she should and she is very outspoken. So much so that it is quite possible that she has been passed over because she wasn't the "right kind of black person' for whatever they had in mind when wanting to "promote" or do their part for diversity. And while she taught me a great deal over the last few decades that we have known one another, the thing that she taught me that I use the most each and every day is that no matter what these people throw at you or put in your way, you just find a way over, around or under it.

Both you and MizMolly misunderstand something IM2 stated. I don't have to reread what he wrote because I know for a fact what he didn't say because I know him and just like my friend, I've learned much from IM2.

I made the effort to show you that we understand what happened to your people was unspeakably horrible yet here you are still making that pitiful claim that nothing that black people have suffered today compares to what you dad and/or other family members or Jewish friends suffered. Hell, what happened to them didn't happen "today" so what point are you really trying to make?

Just answer one question for me honestly.

How would you feel if someone bombed one of your synagogues or temples while there were congregants inside worshiping? And everyone knew who did it but no one would prosecute the perpetrators?

How do you think my family members felt when that exact thing happened to our family?

16th Street Baptist Church Bombing in Birmingham [Bombingham], Alabama
t was a quiet Sunday morning in Birmingham, Alabama—around 10:24 on September 15, 1963—when a dynamite bomb exploded in the back stairwell of the downtown Sixteenth Street Baptist Church.
The violent blast ripped through the wall, killing four African-American girls on the other side and injuring more than 20 inside the church.
It was a clear act of racial hatred: the church was a key civil rights meeting place and had been a frequent target of bomb threats.

---

Our Birmingham office launched an immediate investigation and wired the FBI Director about the crime. FBI bomb experts raced to the scene—via military jet—and an additional dozen personnel from other offices were sent to assist Birmingham.
At 10:00 p.m. that night, Assistant Director Al Rosen assured Assistant Attorney General Katzenbach that “the Bureau considered this a most heinous offense…[and]…we had entered the investigation with no holds barred.”

And we backed that promise up. Dozens of FBI agents worked the case throughout September and October and into the new year—as many as 36 at one point. One internal memo noted that:

“…we have practically torn Birmingham apart and have interviewed thousands of persons. We have seriously disrupted Klan activities by our pressure and interviews so that these organizations have lost members and support. …We have made extensive use of the polygraph, surveillances, microphone surveillances and technical surveillances…”​

By 1965, we had serious suspects—namely, Robert E. Chambliss, Bobby Frank Cherry, Herman Frank Cash, and Thomas E. Blanton, Jr., all KKK members—but witnesses were reluctant to talk and physical evidence was lacking. Also, at that time, information from our surveillances was not admissible in court. As a result, no federal charges were filed in the ‘60s.
It has been claimed that Director Hoover held back evidence from prosecutors in the ‘60s or even tried to block prosecution. But it’s simply not true. His concern was to prevent leaks, not to stifle justice. In one memo concerning a Justice Department prosecutor seeking information, he wrote, “Haven’t these reports already been furnished to the Dept.?” In 1966, Hoover overruled his staff and made transcripts of wiretaps available to Justice. And he couldn’t have blocked the prosecution and didn’t—he simply didn’t think the evidence was there to convict.

---

In the end, justice was served.

Chambliss received life in prison in 1977 following a case led by Alabama Attorney General Robert Baxley. And eventually the fear, prejudice, and reticence that kept witnesses from coming forward began to subside. We re-opened our case in the mid-1990s, and Blanton and Cherry were indicted in May 2000. Both were convicted at trial and sentenced to life in prison.

The fourth man, Herman Frank Cash, had died in 1994.

Baptist Street Church Bombing | Federal Bureau of Investigation

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Sorry, but after you jumped down by my throat for saying something that IM2 said, I realize you are too full of hate to have a normal discussion.

And stop with the historical stories. The point is that what my father dealt with is much, much worse than what blacks TODAY are dealing with. The black subclass is mired in poverty due to their own choices. The majority of blacks who aren’t made good choices.

1962 Lisa, these events happened during my lifetime, don't like it too bad.

What happened to your dad happened even further back.

 

[Persuader]

No, it wasn't Abraham Lincoln. It was U.S. Supreme Court CHIEF Justice Roger Taney.

And while other races were indeed discriminated against, that is not the same thing as having a Supreme Court decision, which is the final word in the ultimate law of the land, tell the rest of the world, that you as a black person have no rights that a white person need respect.

Can you imagine living in a society that has just been told by SCOTUS that black people don't have any rights you have to respect - not a right to freedom, to life, to protect themselves, to seek redress for grievances, etc.

That is not what the Supreme Ct. decision you refer to said.

That was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that the United States Constitution was not meant to include American citizenship for people of African descent.

They still had rights....just not the right to be a citizen until
the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Where did I ever mention black people getting AA? More lies. And where have I ever said all white women have their jobs due to AA? Quite the opposite, since myself and all the women I worked with earned their paychecks, not thru AA. What’s your next lie?

Why is it that you and all white women earned what you have, allegedly SOLELY by merit, but black people are all suspected of being affirmative action recipients which translates into (in your minds) no merit being involved at all and nothing earned?

Let's see how the statement you made elsewhere would read if we were talking about black people.

Your original statement (Affirmative Action-for whites)

According to you, white women can't get ahead by merit and hard work. Just because a woman goes to college to better herself and gets a better job, you really think it is AA? It is more likely because she damn well earned it.​

Yet it seems that when it comes to black people you don't apply the same standard

According to you, white women black people can't get ahead by merit and hard work. Just because a woman black person goes to college to better herself themself and gets a better job, you really think it is AA? It is more likely because she they damn well earned it.​

​

Then you said this about black people at the link below
A double standard

Wrong again. If you are unemployed it is usually because you are not qualified, not presenting yourself appropriately (dressing or speaking professionally), or you have a shitty attitude or resume.​

​

And you also said this (when no one did what you claimed while there is plenty of evidence of AA helping white women get into managerial positions particularly)
More Tales Of White Supremacy And White Privilege

There is no evidence of white women being hired because if AA. What you are saying is that white women aren’t hired for their skills,which is ridiculous.​

 

[IM2]

That is not what the Supreme Ct. decision you refer to said.

That was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that the United States Constitution was not meant to include American citizenship for people of African descent.

They still had rights....just not the right to be a citizen until
the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868.

Look fool the decision was that blacks had no rights a white had to respect. That meant blacks had no rights.

 

[IM2]

Why is it that you and all white women earned what you have, allegedly SOLELY by merit, but black people are all suspected of being affirmative action recipients which translates into (in your minds) no merit being involved at all and nothing earned?

Let's see how the statement you made elsewhere would read if we were talking about black people.

Your original statement (Affirmative Action-for whites)

According to you, white women can't get ahead by merit and hard work. Just because a woman goes to college to better herself and gets a better job, you really think it is AA? It is more likely because she damn well earned it.​

Yet it seems that when it comes to black people you don't apply the same standard

According to you, white women black people can't get ahead by merit and hard work. Just because a woman black person goes to college to better herself themself and gets a better job, you really think it is AA? It is more likely because she they damn well earned it.​

​

Then you said this about black people at the link below
A double standard

Wrong again. If you are unemployed it is usually because you are not qualified, not presenting yourself appropriately (dressing or speaking professionally), or you have a shitty attitude or resume.​

​

And you also said this (when no one did what you claimed while there is plenty of evidence of AA helping white women get into managerial positions particularly)
More Tales Of White Supremacy And White Privilege

There is no evidence of white women being hired because if AA. What you are saying is that white women aren’t hired for their skills,which is ridiculous.​

Because Molly is a racist...(shut your mouth).

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

That is not what the Supreme Ct. decision you refer to said.

That was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that the United States Constitution was not meant to include American citizenship for people of African descent.

They still had rights....just not the right to be a citizen until
the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868.

What rights did slaves have? Or even freedman while slavery was still lawful and a part of the landscape?

No right to keep and bear arms? Or petition the government for a redress of grievances? Or 5th 6th amendment rights to face their accusers and have a speedy trial? How about freedom from unreasonable search & seizure and to be secure in one's homes, papers, effects, etc.?

The quote is EXACTLY what chief just taney stated in his opinion and was the grounds for saying that Scott had no legal right to sue for his freedom.

I don't care what kind of word games you play, his opinion is as bad as it sounds and is considered the worse Supreme Court opinion ever rendered.

Taney cited two main rationales for ruling against Scott; first, as an African American, Scott "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect," and was therefore not eligible bring a suit to court. Second, slaves were property, the same as any other, so by prohibiting slavery north of the 36'30?

​

The question is simply this: Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied by that instrument to the citizen? One of which rights is the privilege of suing in a court of the United States in the cases specified in the Constitution....​

​

We think [people of African ancestry] are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States…​

​

They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery. . . . He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it. This opinion was at that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race.​

​

For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.​

​

The act of Congress, upon which the plaintiff relies, declares that slavery and involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, shall be forever prohibited in all that part of the territory ceded by France, under the name of Louisiana, which lies northand not included within the limits of Missouri. And the difficulty which meets us at the threshold of this part of the inquiry is, whether Congress was authorized to pass this law under any of the powers granted to it by the Constitution; for if the authority is not given by that instrument, it is the duty of this court to declare it void and inoperative, and incapable of conferring freedom upon any one who is held as a slave under the laws of any one of the States.​

​

The power to expand the territory of the United States by the admission of new states is plainly given. But the power of Congress over the person or property of a citizen [is] regulated and plainly defined by the Constitution itself. And when the Territory becomes a part of the United States, the Federal Government enters upon it with its powers over the citizen strictly defined, and limited by the Constitution.It has no power of any kind beyond it; and it cannot, when it enters a Territory of the United States, put off its character, and assume discretionary or despotic powers which the Constitution has denied to it.​

​

. . . [T]he rights of private property have been guarded with . . . care. Thus the rights of property are united with the rights of person, and placed on the same ground by the fifth amendment to the Constitution, which provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property, without due process of law. And an act of Congress which deprives a citizen of the United States of his liberty or property, merely because he came himself or brought his property into a particular Territory of the United States, and who had committed no offence against the laws, could hardly be dignified with the name of due process of law.​

​

Upon these considerations, it is the opinion of the court that the act of Congress which prohibited a citizen from holding and owning property of this kind in the territory of the United States north of the line therein mentioned, is not warranted by the Constitution, and is therefore void; and that neither Dred Scott himself, nor any of his family, were made free by being carried into this territory; even if they had been carried there by the owner, with the intention of becoming a permanent resident.​

 

[IM2]

What most do not get due to being well indoctrinated by the public schools, hollywood, and the entertainment industry as a whole....not to forget the MSM is that unfortunately blacks have problems that prevent many if not most of them from being able to compete with others in a free society.

These problems are not the result of racism, whatever that is or is not.... they are a result of genetics.

Liberals do believe genetics determines ones sexuality but they will not admit genetics determines anything else......the truth is just about everything regarding the talents, behavior, and potential of human beings....and not only human beings but the whole of all lifeforms be they animal or plants is determined by genetics.

Why is it that blacks excell at such sports as basketball and football...it is because of their color?

That is how ridiculous liberal logic would explain it but anyone with common sense knows it is because of things determined by genetics.

They are simply born with the physical attributes that allows them to excell in certain sports such as basketball and football. That is why they dominate those two sports.

Color is more than skin deep.

J. Rushton says Color is more than Skin Deep.

Liberals doggedly ignoring science --claim that environment is what shapes human poential...it has a role but that role pales in significance to the influence of genes.

The government recognizes this and that is why they step in with programs such as affirmative action to try and make blacks competetive ---yet fallaciously blaming all the problems on the myth of racism.

What needs to be done and is beginning to be done is to alter genetic potential...this is the ultimate answer to so many problems of society....though it has lots of potential danger...aka the creation of monsters ---as China is known to be experimenting with....Stalin was the first world leader to attempt to alter human beings but at that time they did not have the scientific knowledge required.

Stalin wanted to create super warriors by mixing human and gorilla dna.

Stalin's half-man, half-ape super-warriors

Irregardless of what science can or may do....human nature is stepping in big time to alter our racial makeup....huge numbers of so called blacks now have white genes....perhaps this will be the solution though few blacks will admit it may be the answer....look at Obama....half white but according to most he was black....no consideration was given to the fact he was half white.

Mixed Race America - Who Is Black? One Nation's Definition | Jefferson's Blood | FRONTLINE | PBS

#sillyseason.

 

[IM2]

What rights did slaves have? Or even freedman while slavery was still lawful and a part of the landscape?

No right to keep and bear arms? Or petition the government for a redress of grievances? Or 5th amendment rights to face their accusers and have a speedy trial? How about freedom from unreasonable search & seizure and to be secure in one's homes, papers, effects, etc.?

The quote is EXACTLY what chief just taney stated in his opinion and was the grounds for saying that Scott had no legal right to sue for his freedom.

I don't care what kind of word games you play, his opinion is as bad as it sounds and is considered the worse Supreme Court opinion ever rendered.

Taney cited two main rationales for ruling against Scott; first, as an African American, Scott "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect," and was therefore not eligible bring a suit to court. Second, slaves were property, the same as any other, so by prohibiting slavery north of the 36'30?

​

The question is simply this: Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied by that instrument to the citizen? One of which rights is the privilege of suing in a court of the United States in the cases specified in the Constitution....​

​

We think [people of African ancestry] are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States…​

​

They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery. . . . He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it. This opinion was at that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race.​

​

For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.​

​

The act of Congress, upon which the plaintiff relies, declares that slavery and involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, shall be forever prohibited in all that part of the territory ceded by France, under the name of Louisiana, which lies northand not included within the limits of Missouri. And the difficulty which meets us at the threshold of this part of the inquiry is, whether Congress was authorized to pass this law under any of the powers granted to it by the Constitution; for if the authority is not given by that instrument, it is the duty of this court to declare it void and inoperative, and incapable of conferring freedom upon any one who is held as a slave under the laws of any one of the States.​

​

The power to expand the territory of the United States by the admission of new states is plainly given. But the power of Congress over the person or property of a citizen [is] regulated and plainly defined by the Constitution itself. And when the Territory becomes a part of the United States, the Federal Government enters upon it with its powers over the citizen strictly defined, and limited by the Constitution.It has no power of any kind beyond it; and it cannot, when it enters a Territory of the United States, put off its character, and assume discretionary or despotic powers which the Constitution has denied to it.​

​

. . . [T]he rights of private property have been guarded with . . . care. Thus the rights of property are united with the rights of person, and placed on the same ground by the fifth amendment to the Constitution, which provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property, without due process of law. And an act of Congress which deprives a citizen of the United States of his liberty or property, merely because he came himself or brought his property into a particular Territory of the United States, and who had committed no offence against the laws, could hardly be dignified with the name of due process of law.​

​

Upon these considerations, it is the opinion of the court that the act of Congress which prohibited a citizen from holding and owning property of this kind in the territory of the United States north of the line therein mentioned, is not warranted by the Constitution, and is therefore void; and that neither Dred Scott himself, nor any of his family, were made free by being carried into this territory; even if they had been carried there by the owner, with the intention of becoming a permanent resident.​

These racists are forever trying to gaslight.

 

[Persuader]

Facts about Slavery They Don’t Want You To Know​

Not all blacks were slaves in America ....there were many free blacks.


– The first legal slave owner in American history was a black tobacco farmer named Anthony Johnson.

– North Carolina’s largest slave holder in 1860 was a black plantation owner named William Ellison.

– American Indians owned thousands of black slaves.

– In 1830 there were 3,775 free black people who owned 12,740 black slaves.

– Many black slaves were allowed to hold jobs, own businesses, and own real estate.

– Brutal black-on-black slavery was common in Africa for thousands of years.

– Most slaves brought to America from Africa were purchased from black slave owners.

– Slavery was common for thousands of years.

– White people ended legal chattel slavery.

Unfortunately many blacks have been indoctrinated into believing they have suffered more than any other race.....well they can hardly be blamed as the public schools teach this nonsense.

The forgotten story of the thousands of white Britons who lived and died in bondage in Britain’s American colonies

In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, more than 300,000 white people were shipped to America as slaves. Urchins were swept up from London’s streets to labor in the tobacco fields, where life expectancy was no more than two years. Brothels were raided to provide “breeders” for Virginia. Hopeful migrants were duped into signing as indentured servants, unaware they would become personal property who could be bought, sold, and even gambled away. Transported convicts were paraded for sale like livestock.

Drawing on letters crying for help, diaries, and court and government archives, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh demonstrate that the brutalities usually associated with black slavery alone were perpetrated on whites throughout British rule. The trade ended with American independence, but the British still tried to sell convicts in their former colonies, which prompted one of the most audacious plots in Anglo-American history.

This is a saga of exploration and cruelty spanning 170 years that has been submerged under the overwhelming memory of black slavery. White Cargo brings the brutal, uncomfortable story to the surface.

Read more

Also the ancestors of most whites in America today came over by a method known as indentured servitude.

A polite name for slavery......indentured servitude was a very harsh system.....whilst the indentured servants supposedly had rights.....in reality they were at the mercy of their Master.

How Were Indentured Servants Treated by the English?​

ByLori Garrett-Hatfield


Nearly as quickly as there were people brought to the Colonies to settle the land, there were extra people needed to work the land. Indentured servants, people who agreed to a term of service in exchange for passage to the New World, were brought over from England to provide this labor. While some indentured servants were treated kindly, others reported harsh treatment -- which included physical abuse.

A Desperate Choice​

Many indentured servants chose to come to the Colonies from England because they were destitute. Workers who could not find work in England signed on with a company for passage to the Colonies overseas in exchange for a time of service. Terms of servitude varied by age of the indentured servant, but most terms of service lasted four to six years. While the promise of land and freedom allowed companies to fill ships with indentured servants, only 40 percent of those brought over lived to fulfill their contracts. In addition, women who became pregnant during their term of service often had years added to the end of their contracts.

Treated as Chattel​

Indentured servants were no better than property. An indentured servant's contract could be bought or sold like currency -- which meant that masters could buy or sell servants as punishment or retribution. While the servant was under contract, they were forbidden to marry or conceive. Masters could also forbid the servant from travel, keeping any personal money or working for someone else to earn extra money. The living conditions for indentured servants were less than ideal. Many indentured servants did not live long enough to serve out their term, having died from what was called the "summer seasoning" -- illnesses that were not found in Europe that killed many new arrivals to the Colonies. Some indentured servants found themselves on small farms with decent living conditions. Servants whose masters needed specialized workers also were treated well. The worst living conditions were found on the Southern plantations.

Harsh Environment​

Indentured servants were frequently overworked, especially on the Southern plantations during planting and harvesting season. Corporal punishment of indentured servants was expected for rule infractions but some servants were beaten so severely they later died. Many servants were disfigured or disabled. Masters were rarely punished for killing or severely injuring their servants. Other indentured servants did not get enough to eat, subsisting on bread and water, which contributed to their overall poor health. If indentured servants ran away to escape their horrible conditions, they could be punished with additional time added on to their contracts. When indentured servants finished their contracts, many were promised land. However, only one in 10 servants actually received the land they were promised. Some servants sold their land for cash, some opted for a business arrangement in lieu of land and others were "unaccounted for." When they did receive land, some servants found that the land they received was barren and uninhabitable.

Anyone who has read much history knows that all people have suffered greatly....no one race can legitimately claim to be the only one that has suffered or that they have suffered more than anyone else....only God knows who has suffered the most.

Yet today we see one race doing exactly that and they are supported in these claims of victimhood by the government, public schools, the media and the entertainment history.

The demand for reparations is growing and the democratic party is responsible for a lot of it.

The democratic party and the media work together to divide this nation --which is having disastrous results for our Nation as a whole.

Amazon product

 

[IM2]

Facts about Slavery They Don’t Want You To Know​

Not all blacks were slaves in America ....there were many free blacks.

– The first legal slave owner in American history was a black tobacco farmer named Anthony Johnson.

– North Carolina’s largest slave holder in 1860 was a black plantation owner named William Ellison.

– American Indians owned thousands of black slaves.

– In 1830 there were 3,775 free black people who owned 12,740 black slaves.

– Many black slaves were allowed to hold jobs, own businesses, and own real estate.

– Brutal black-on-black slavery was common in Africa for thousands of years.

– Most slaves brought to America from Africa were purchased from black slave owners.

– Slavery was common for thousands of years.

– White people ended legal chattel slavery.

Try not thinking you can tell us things.

And don't use that stale ass bs link again.

The first English slave owner was Hugh Gwynn in 1641. Spanish had slaves before 1641. Anthony Johnson was not the first black slaveowner. In 1830 there were over 2 million slaves in the United States. Those 3,775 free people mostly purchased wives, children and in laws. Many blacks were not able to own jack squat. It was illegal for that to happen. There was no brutal slavery in Africa, slavery was primarily punishment for crimes. Europeans would arm certain tribes with guns and create strife to start wars, then buy the captives. Slavery was first ended in Haiti by blacks. Slavery in the US turned into sharecropping and convict leasing.

Now please refrain from repeating this dumb shit I've read a million times from white racists trying to excuse 245 plus years of American white racism from 1776 until this very second.