Whites do have a role in stopping racism

[Asclepias]

I've never claimed to be a racist but this thread really isnt about me.

Would you agree that you are a racist? Do you agree that the black race is morally superior to the white race?

Yes I agree the Black race is morally superior to the white race. Blacks taught the white race civilization on two occasions. Blacks never attempted to enslave whites nor hold them back in any manner like whites did and still do.

According to your history no. But according to history that is generally accepted, blacks sold their brothers into slavery.

I'm curious, do you have any evidence to the contrary?

And that's white history. Drunk history is more accurate.

11 pages of white irresponsibility.

Do you have an accurate history book for us to read?

I have several. What topic specifically?

 

[Votto]

Would you agree that you are a racist? Do you agree that the black race is morally superior to the white race?

Yes I agree the Black race is morally superior to the white race. Blacks taught the white race civilization on two occasions. Blacks never attempted to enslave whites nor hold them back in any manner like whites did and still do.

According to your history no. But according to history that is generally accepted, blacks sold their brothers into slavery.

I'm curious, do you have any evidence to the contrary?

And that's white history. Drunk history is more accurate.

11 pages of white irresponsibility.

Do you have an accurate history book for us to read?

I have several. What topic specifically?

Just wondered if you had a history book that explained how blacks did not sell their brothers into slavery, or how the genocides in Africa should all be blamed on ******.

 

[MarcATL]

The only thing that will stop the eternal whining of black people about who done dem wrong is a nice race war, to the death.

I like this guy. You can see him coming from miles away. In fact, you can smell him coming from at least 2 miles.

 

[Votto]

The only thing that will stop the eternal whining of black people about who done dem wrong is a nice race war, to the death.

I like this guy. You can see him coming from miles away. In fact, you can smell him coming from at least 2 miles.

Is this what you want? A race war?

 

[Asclepias]

No. I am only trying to make the point that race is not the issue. The issue is greed.

Blacks kidnapped and sold their brothers for money, and then whites came and took them as slaves to make money.

It's just that simple.

Sounds like you're trying to jump, hop and skip past the insidious bigotry and racism that America's known for.

Did those blacks who sold their brothers due to greed, according to your theory, did they consider them to be less than human, say, 3/5ths of a human too?

Its really not that simple.

Not everyone who causes people injury or harm tries to rationalize it. Most just try to keep it secret.

However, slavery was institutionalized and legal. Therefore, hiding it was a big problem.

So who took the better approach? Was it Martin Luther King or Malcolm X?

One thought ****** was the devil as where the other knew that the real Devil wanted blacks to hate ******.

Malcolm ultimately took the better approach but MLK was quickly evolving his views to match Malcolms.

 

[Asclepias]

Yes I agree the Black race is morally superior to the white race. Blacks taught the white race civilization on two occasions. Blacks never attempted to enslave whites nor hold them back in any manner like whites did and still do.

According to your history no. But according to history that is generally accepted, blacks sold their brothers into slavery.

I'm curious, do you have any evidence to the contrary?

And that's white history. Drunk history is more accurate.

11 pages of white irresponsibility.

Do you have an accurate history book for us to read?

I have several. What topic specifically?

Just wondered if you had a history book that explained how blacks did not sell their brothers into slavery, or how the genocides in Africa should all be blamed on ******.

Yes I do. Let me find it.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B009NLFTRG/?tag=usmb-20

 

[Votto]

No. I am only trying to make the point that race is not the issue. The issue is greed.

Blacks kidnapped and sold their brothers for money, and then whites came and took them as slaves to make money.

It's just that simple.

Sounds like you're trying to jump, hop and skip past the insidious bigotry and racism that America's known for.

Did those blacks who sold their brothers due to greed, according to your theory, did they consider them to be less than human, say, 3/5ths of a human too?

Its really not that simple.

Not everyone who causes people injury or harm tries to rationalize it. Most just try to keep it secret.

However, slavery was institutionalized and legal. Therefore, hiding it was a big problem.

So who took the better approach? Was it Martin Luther King or Malcolm X?

One thought ****** was the devil as where the other knew that the real Devil wanted blacks to hate ******.

Malcolm ultimately took the better approach but MLK was quickly evolving his views to match Malcolms.

Malcolm took his approach from Mohammad and MLK took his from Christ. Both men followed "brown" men, not black men.

I would then assume you favor the approach of Mohammad instead of Christ.

 

[MarcATL]

Not everyone who causes people injury or harm tries to rationalize it. Most just try to keep it secret.

However, slavery was institutionalized and legal. Therefore, hiding it was a big problem.

So who took the better approach? Was it Martin Luther King or Malcolm X?

One thought ****** was the devil as where the other knew that the real Devil wanted blacks to hate ******.

I like Malcolm's approach better.

It's similar to the Tea Party's "Get your hands off my MEDICAID!" rhetoric.

You liked that, didn't you?

You folk pretend to like MLK, but you do only do so because his approach was docile in comparison, and you still gunned him down in cold blood for it.

BTW, you wouldn't be suggesting that Brother Minister Malcolm X was wrong for treating a group of people who acted like demons on earth as they should be treated, would you?

 

[hunarcy]

No. I am only trying to make the point that race is not the issue. The issue is greed.

Blacks kidnapped and sold their brothers for money, and then whites came and took them as slaves to make money.

It's just that simple.

Sounds like you're trying to jump, hop and skip past the insidious bigotry and racism that America's known for.

Did those blacks who sold their brothers due to greed, according to your theory, did they consider them to be less than human, say, 3/5ths of a human too?

Its really not that simple.

The 3/5 compromise was forced on the Southern states because the Northern states didn't want all slaves counted for the purpose of representation. It had nothing to do with whether they are less than human. However, the Southern slave owners did delude themselves into thinking slaves were not human because slavery was such a disgusting institution that they did not want to force themselves to face the moral consequences of their actions.

 

[TNHarley]

I've never claimed to be a racist but this thread really isnt about me.

Would you agree that you are a racist? Do you agree that the black race is morally superior to the white race?

Yes I agree the Black race is morally superior to the white race. Blacks taught the white race civilization on two occasions. Blacks never attempted to enslave whites nor hold them back in any manner like whites did and still do.

According to your history no. But according to history that is generally accepted, blacks sold their brothers into slavery.

I'm curious, do you have any evidence to the contrary?

Even if that was true whites sold their brothers into slavery as well. Thats where we get the term "slave" in the first place. Whites selling other whites.

Wrong. Slav s existed throughout Africa and Egypt for thousands of years.

Still do.
Hell there are more slaves in africa right now than there ever was in America.
When you are a hack and have to come up with excuses constantly, you tend to cherry pick history and lie your ass off.

 

[IM2]

The only thing that will stop the eternal whining of black people about who done dem wrong is a nice race war, to the death.

And do you really think white racists can win one of those? Because you would be venturing into a realm that you are probably not going to be prepared for. You talk like this because you are overconfident that whites can just wipe us out. But if it as to come to this, you are up against this kind of thinking:

“And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”​

 

[Asclepias]

No. I am only trying to make the point that race is not the issue. The issue is greed.

Blacks kidnapped and sold their brothers for money, and then whites came and took them as slaves to make money.

It's just that simple.

Sounds like you're trying to jump, hop and skip past the insidious bigotry and racism that America's known for.

Did those blacks who sold their brothers due to greed, according to your theory, did they consider them to be less than human, say, 3/5ths of a human too?

Its really not that simple.

Not everyone who causes people injury or harm tries to rationalize it. Most just try to keep it secret.

However, slavery was institutionalized and legal. Therefore, hiding it was a big problem.

So who took the better approach? Was it Martin Luther King or Malcolm X?

One thought ****** was the devil as where the other knew that the real Devil wanted blacks to hate ******.

Malcolm ultimately took the better approach but MLK was quickly evolving his views to match Malcolms.

Malcolm took his approach from Mohammad and MLK took his from Christ. Both men followed "brown" men, not black men.

I would then assume you favor the approach of Mohammad instead of Christ.

Yes I really admire Malcolms evolution and approach. Both Mohammad and JC were Black men. I think JC was a fictional story made up by Black people before they encountered the white race. I dont think JC's approach is relevant when dealing with whites.

 

[Votto]

Not everyone who causes people injury or harm tries to rationalize it. Most just try to keep it secret.

However, slavery was institutionalized and legal. Therefore, hiding it was a big problem.

So who took the better approach? Was it Martin Luther King or Malcolm X?

One thought ****** was the devil as where the other knew that the real Devil wanted blacks to hate ******.

I like Malcolm's approach better.

It's similar to the Tea Party's "Get your hands off my MEDICAID!" rhetoric.

You liked that, didn't you?

You folk pretend to like MLK, but you do only do so because his approach was docile in comparison, and you still gunned him down in cold blood for it.

BTW, you wouldn't be suggesting that Brother Minister Malcolm X was wrong for treating a group of people who acted like demons on earth as they should be treated, would you?

Had it not been for MLK, would we have Civil Rights?

I say no. I say that blacks fighting and dying in the streets would have either ended Civil Rights, or retarded the movement by decades.

I ask this because I see the Mohammad approach of hate for hate seen in the streets of Israel everyday as children go blow themselves up to fight their "oppressor"

Unfortunately, they never get anywhere but killed or oppressed.

Also look at Gandhi. He took the example of Christ and used it in his fight.

Shrug, it works.

The idea is to take the moral high ground and not let yourself sink to the morality of your enemies until you become no better, or worse, than those that oppress you. Then the weight of your moral superiority will eventually crush you adversary.

 

[IM2]

No. I am only trying to make the point that race is not the issue. The issue is greed.

Blacks kidnapped and sold their brothers for money, and then whites came and took them as slaves to make money.

It's just that simple.

Sounds like you're trying to jump, hop and skip past the insidious bigotry and racism that America's known for.

Did those blacks who sold their brothers due to greed, according to your theory, did they consider them to be less than human, say, 3/5ths of a human too?

Its really not that simple.

The 3/5 compromise was forced on the Southern states because the Northern states didn't want all slaves counted for the purpose of representation. It had nothing to do with whether they are less than human. However, the Southern slave owners did delude themselves into thinking slaves were not human because slavery was such a disgusting institution that they did not want to force themselves to face the moral consequences of their actions.

Actually to think a person is counted as 3/5ths human does mean they think of a person as less than human.

 

[Asclepias]

Not everyone who causes people injury or harm tries to rationalize it. Most just try to keep it secret.

However, slavery was institutionalized and legal. Therefore, hiding it was a big problem.

So who took the better approach? Was it Martin Luther King or Malcolm X?

One thought ****** was the devil as where the other knew that the real Devil wanted blacks to hate ******.

I like Malcolm's approach better.

It's similar to the Tea Party's "Get your hands off my MEDICAID!" rhetoric.

You liked that, didn't you?

You folk pretend to like MLK, but you do only do so because his approach was docile in comparison, and you still gunned him down in cold blood for it.

BTW, you wouldn't be suggesting that Brother Minister Malcolm X was wrong for treating a group of people who acted like demons on earth as they should be treated, would you?

Had it not been for MLK, would we have Civil Rights?

I ask this because I see the Mohammad approach of hate for hate seen in the streets of Israel everyday as children go blow themselves up to fight their "oppressor"

Unfortunately, they never get anywhere but killed or oppressed.

Also look at Gandhi. He took the example of Christ and used it in his fight.

Shrug, it works.

The idea is to take the moral high ground and not let yourself sink to the morality of your enemies until you become no better, or worse, than those that oppress you. Then the weight of your moral superiority will eventually crush you adversary.

If it had not been for Malcolm there would be no civil rights. Both men were important in the civil rights struggle but the threat of Malcolms ideology is what forced civil rights.

Also Gandhi was a ******* racist.

 

[Votto]

No. I am only trying to make the point that race is not the issue. The issue is greed.

Blacks kidnapped and sold their brothers for money, and then whites came and took them as slaves to make money.

It's just that simple.

Sounds like you're trying to jump, hop and skip past the insidious bigotry and racism that America's known for.

Did those blacks who sold their brothers due to greed, according to your theory, did they consider them to be less than human, say, 3/5ths of a human too?

Its really not that simple.

Not everyone who causes people injury or harm tries to rationalize it. Most just try to keep it secret.

However, slavery was institutionalized and legal. Therefore, hiding it was a big problem.

So who took the better approach? Was it Martin Luther King or Malcolm X?

One thought ****** was the devil as where the other knew that the real Devil wanted blacks to hate ******.

Malcolm ultimately took the better approach but MLK was quickly evolving his views to match Malcolms.

Malcolm took his approach from Mohammad and MLK took his from Christ. Both men followed "brown" men, not black men.

I would then assume you favor the approach of Mohammad instead of Christ.

Yes I really admire Malcolms evolution and approach. Both Mohammad and JC were Black men. I think JC was a fictional story made up by Black people before they encountered the white race. I dont think JC's approach is relevant when dealing with whites.

So you think that Mohammad believed in a fictional man?

Mohammad said Christ was a prophet of God.

 

[Votto]

Not everyone who causes people injury or harm tries to rationalize it. Most just try to keep it secret.

However, slavery was institutionalized and legal. Therefore, hiding it was a big problem.

So who took the better approach? Was it Martin Luther King or Malcolm X?

One thought ****** was the devil as where the other knew that the real Devil wanted blacks to hate ******.

I like Malcolm's approach better.

It's similar to the Tea Party's "Get your hands off my MEDICAID!" rhetoric.

You liked that, didn't you?

You folk pretend to like MLK, but you do only do so because his approach was docile in comparison, and you still gunned him down in cold blood for it.

BTW, you wouldn't be suggesting that Brother Minister Malcolm X was wrong for treating a group of people who acted like demons on earth as they should be treated, would you?

Had it not been for MLK, would we have Civil Rights?

I ask this because I see the Mohammad approach of hate for hate seen in the streets of Israel everyday as children go blow themselves up to fight their "oppressor"

Unfortunately, they never get anywhere but killed or oppressed.

Also look at Gandhi. He took the example of Christ and used it in his fight.

Shrug, it works.

The idea is to take the moral high ground and not let yourself sink to the morality of your enemies until you become no better, or worse, than those that oppress you. Then the weight of your moral superiority will eventually crush you adversary.

If it had not been for Malcolm there would be no civil rights. Both men were important in the civil rights struggle but the threat of Malcolms ideology is what forced civil rights.

How did Malcolm bring about Civil Rights?

I recall the nation celebrating MLK day, but not Malcolm day.

Why is that?

 

[MarcATL]

The 3/5 compromise was forced on the Southern states because the Northern states didn't want all slaves counted for the purpose of representation. It had nothing to do with whether they are less than human. However, the Southern slave owners did delude themselves into thinking slaves were not human because slavery was such a disgusting institution that they did not want to force themselves to face the moral consequences of their actions.

That's a lie straight from the pits of hell.

There's over two centuries worth of evidence documenting how inhumane whites treated blacks, from the inception of them literally stacking them up in ships, killing up to half if not more while on the way to the continent, to how they treated them, ripping them from their children, from their mothers, fathers, husbands from wives, whipping them, breeding them, the list goes on.

All before this BOGUS claptrap you're spewing about "Northern Aggression."

C'mon man, seriously.

 

[Votto]

No. I am only trying to make the point that race is not the issue. The issue is greed.

Blacks kidnapped and sold their brothers for money, and then whites came and took them as slaves to make money.

It's just that simple.

Sounds like you're trying to jump, hop and skip past the insidious bigotry and racism that America's known for.

Did those blacks who sold their brothers due to greed, according to your theory, did they consider them to be less than human, say, 3/5ths of a human too?

Its really not that simple.

The 3/5 compromise was forced on the Southern states because the Northern states didn't want all slaves counted for the purpose of representation. It had nothing to do with whether they are less than human. However, the Southern slave owners did delude themselves into thinking slaves were not human because slavery was such a disgusting institution that they did not want to force themselves to face the moral consequences of their actions.

Actually to think a person is counted as 3/5ths human does mean they think of a person as less than human.

Are whites 3/5 of a black?

 

[Asclepias]

Sounds like you're trying to jump, hop and skip past the insidious bigotry and racism that America's known for.

Did those blacks who sold their brothers due to greed, according to your theory, did they consider them to be less than human, say, 3/5ths of a human too?

Its really not that simple.

Not everyone who causes people injury or harm tries to rationalize it. Most just try to keep it secret.

However, slavery was institutionalized and legal. Therefore, hiding it was a big problem.

So who took the better approach? Was it Martin Luther King or Malcolm X?

One thought ****** was the devil as where the other knew that the real Devil wanted blacks to hate ******.

Malcolm ultimately took the better approach but MLK was quickly evolving his views to match Malcolms.

Malcolm took his approach from Mohammad and MLK took his from Christ. Both men followed "brown" men, not black men.

I would then assume you favor the approach of Mohammad instead of Christ.

Yes I really admire Malcolms evolution and approach. Both Mohammad and JC were Black men. I think JC was a fictional story made up by Black people before they encountered the white race. I dont think JC's approach is relevant when dealing with whites.

So you think that Mohammad believed in a fictional man?

Mohammad said Christ was a prophet of God.

I dont know what confused you. IMO JC was fictional.