Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Racism against whites throughout time.

blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2014 8:31:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This is something I read that I found very interesting. It discusses racism against the caucasian race throughout time and the influence on ancient civilizations by the caucasian race. It's something to think about considering that people always associate racism as coming from caucasian people.

http://tomatobubble.com...
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2014 8:45:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/28/2014 8:31:23 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
This is something I read that I found very interesting. It discusses racism against the caucasian race throughout time and the influence on ancient civilizations by the caucasian race. It's something to think about considering that people always associate racism as coming from caucasian people.

http://tomatobubble.com...

That could be the most ridiculous, asinine, ignorant, racist, illogical, and un-sourced article I have ever read in my life. Wow. I'm sorry to see someone stumbled across such a slime-hole of a website.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 12:51:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/28/2014 8:45:23 PM, HPWKA wrote:
At 1/28/2014 8:31:23 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
This is something I read that I found very interesting. It discusses racism against the caucasian race throughout time and the influence on ancient civilizations by the caucasian race. It's something to think about considering that people always associate racism as coming from caucasian people.

http://tomatobubble.com...

That could be the most ridiculous, asinine, ignorant, racist, illogical, and un-sourced article I have ever read in my life. Wow. I'm sorry to see someone stumbled across such a slime-hole of a website.

Do you think s/he is a neo-Nazi, or KKK? S/He said in another poll that the South has the "moral high ground." So racist...
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 8:19:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 12:51:17 AM, kbub wrote:
At 1/28/2014 8:45:23 PM, HPWKA wrote:
At 1/28/2014 8:31:23 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
This is something I read that I found very interesting. It discusses racism against the caucasian race throughout time and the influence on ancient civilizations by the caucasian race. It's something to think about considering that people always associate racism as coming from caucasian people.

http://tomatobubble.com...

That could be the most ridiculous, asinine, ignorant, racist, illogical, and un-sourced article I have ever read in my life. Wow. I'm sorry to see someone stumbled across such a slime-hole of a website.

Do you think s/he is a neo-Nazi, or KKK? S/He said in another poll that the South has the "moral high ground." So racist...

True story
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 2:14:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/28/2014 8:45:23 PM, HPWKA wrote:
That could be the most ridiculous, asinine, ignorant, racist, illogical, and un-sourced article I have ever read in my life. Wow. I'm sorry to see someone stumbled across such a slime-hole of a website.

Clearly, you did not look at this with any kind of an objective view point. Every claim made is very clearly sourced. They're highlighted blue and clicking it sends you to a source. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to have seen that the article supported caucasians not being ashamed of being caucasian and immediately assumed that it had to be factually wrong, racist, and just scummy in every way.
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 2:27:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 12:51:17 AM, kbub wrote:
Do you think s/he is a neo-Nazi, or KKK? S/He said in another poll that the South has the "moral high ground." So racist...

Neo-Nazi or KKK? Try neither. I have never once judged a person based on the color of their skin, and I never will. In that post where I said the south had the moral high ground, I very clearly supported my claim with fact. The only moral blemish of the south during the Civil war is the fact that they had slavery at all. However, as I said before, the cause of secession was not slavery. There was an amendment that would have protected slavery from the federal government that would have been ratified if the south hadn't seceded. They seceded from over taxation from the north and a desire for strong states rights and a weaker federal government. Did they keep slavery? Yes. So did the North. There were four border states during the war that all held slaves. So in terms of slavery, the south is a little behind solely in numbers of slaves kept. They both kept slaves, and they both treated people of african descent horribly. Now let's look at the rest of the war. The north shut down anti-Union newspapers, imprisoned political dissidents, and launched a scorched earth campaign where they burned or killed everything in their path. So yes, the South did have the moral high ground, and that's not an opinion based on "oh the south had slaves, they're bad". That opinion is based solely on historical fact.
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 2:31:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 2:27:25 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
At 1/29/2014 12:51:17 AM, kbub wrote:
Do you think s/he is a neo-Nazi, or KKK? S/He said in another poll that the South has the "moral high ground." So racist...

Neo-Nazi or KKK? Try neither. I have never once judged a person based on the color of their skin, and I never will. In that post where I said the south had the moral high ground, I very clearly supported my claim with fact. The only moral blemish of the south during the Civil war is the fact that they had slavery at all. However, as I said before, the cause of secession was not slavery. There was an amendment that would have protected slavery from the federal government that would have been ratified if the south hadn't seceded. They seceded from over taxation from the north and a desire for strong states rights and a weaker federal government. Did they keep slavery? Yes. So did the North. There were four border states during the war that all held slaves. So in terms of slavery, the south is a little behind solely in numbers of slaves kept. They both kept slaves, and they both treated people of african descent horribly. Now let's look at the rest of the war. The north shut down anti-Union newspapers, imprisoned political dissidents, and launched a scorched earth campaign where they burned or killed everything in their path. So yes, the South did have the moral high ground, and that's not an opinion based on "oh the south had slaves, they're bad". That opinion is based solely on historical fact.

This is a perspective called the "Lost Cause," that the South didn't secede because of slavery. Refer to the other forum. http://www.debate.org...

And oh my gosh; your link is very racist.
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 2:45:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 2:31:45 PM, kbub wrote:
This is a perspective called the "Lost Cause," that the South didn't secede because of slavery. Refer to the other forum. http://www.debate.org...

And oh my gosh; your link is very racist.

You're saying my argument is a lost cause? Even when it can very clearly be completely supported based on historical events? The fact that most (possibly all) people are provided with a biased education does not mean that the argument is wrong or a lost cause.

As for the link, I never said it wasn't. What I said is that I had read it and it was thought provoking. Here're some questions for you, though? Would you have reacted the same if the races were flipped so that it was the african race influencing caucasian race? Would you have reacted the same if it was an article praising the contributions to culture from the african race? If you say yes, you're going to have a very hard time convincing me that you're not lying. Have you ever considered that there is a holiday for the african race, a month celebrating it, and a day set aside for a leader from that race? At the same time, there is one day for every US president combined, if anyone suggested a holiday or month for caucasians, they'd probably be stoned to death, and there is not day dedicated to a caucasian for their leadership or contribution to society. Just think about that.
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 2:52:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/28/2014 8:31:23 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
This is something I read that I found very interesting. It discusses racism against the caucasian race throughout time and the influence on ancient civilizations by the caucasian race. It's something to think about considering that people always associate racism as coming from caucasian people.

http://tomatobubble.com...

"Meet witch doctor Matuno Luta Kinga" Clarence said. "He never became Dr. Martin Luther King because there were no universities or seminaries built to educate him. Europeans weren't there to create such opportunities. But he did become the tribe's spiritual leader. He specializes in casting spells. Perhaps he can help you?"

The "doctor" gazed in wonder at George. Then he motioned to his henchmen to seize young George. The tribesmen grabbed George and tied him to a tree. .
.

"Stop it! Let me go! What are they going to do to me?" cried George hysterically.

"They're going to cut your balls off George. The good doctor King...I mean Kinga -- believes that by castrating you while you are still alive, it will bring good fortune and fertility to his tribe. Ah the benefits of modern medicine." laughed Clarence.

"Clarence! Clarence! Help me, Clarence! Help me!"

Oh God. This is the most horrid and ignorant thing I've read. There's so much I could say. First, assuming Africans are witch doctors is classic, not even contemporary racism. Second, saying that white people were responsible for giving rights to persons of color is 1. Ridiculous, since it was whites who were oppressing them and 2. Disrespectful to the persons of color who fought tooth and nail for their rights.

Then, there's the idea that Europeans were somehow responsible for bringing prosperity to Africa. That's not how it happened. European colonialization brought massive poverty to once powerful continent.

http://exhibitions.nypl.org...
http://exploringafrica.matrix.msu.edu...

http://www.jstor.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.loc.gov...
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 3:01:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 2:45:15 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
At 1/29/2014 2:31:45 PM, kbub wrote:
This is a perspective called the "Lost Cause," that the South didn't secede because of slavery. Refer to the other forum. http://www.debate.org...

And oh my gosh; your link is very racist.

You're saying my argument is a lost cause? Even when it can very clearly be completely supported based on historical events? The fact that most (possibly all) people are provided with a biased education does not mean that the argument is wrong or a lost cause.

No, "Lost Cause" refers to the idea that history actually forgot the original reason for the Civil War (State's Rights, taxes, etc). Modern scholarship has nearly unanimously rejected the "Lost Cause" explanation.


As for the link, I never said it wasn't. What I said is that I had read it and it was thought provoking. Here're some questions for you, though? Would you have reacted the same if the races were flipped so that it was the african race influencing caucasian race? Would you have reacted the same if it was an article praising the contributions to culture from the african race? If you say yes, you're going to have a very hard time convincing me that you're not lying. Have you ever considered that there is a holiday for the african race, a month celebrating it, and a day set aside for a leader from that race? At the same time, there is one day for every US president combined, if anyone suggested a holiday or month for caucasians, they'd probably be stoned to death, and there is not day dedicated to a caucasian for their leadership or contribution to society. Just think about that.

African is not a race. Black is. Black people in America for example are not necessarily Africans. I think that there should be equality between races, because race shouldn't matter. However, white people wrote the history books. Black history month is important. White history month is stupid, because that is the other 11 months already. Virtually all history textbooks come from the European history perspective. Virtually none relay what was happening in Africa during the Renaissance for example, which is ridiculous and eurocentric.
This website is an attempt to assuage "white guilt" by blaming the victims. By trying to make whites seem like the victims, the actual racism that is still occurring is covered up and whites are justified in holding negative attitudes toward persons of color.
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 3:08:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 2:52:04 PM, kbub wrote:
"Meet witch doctor Matuno Luta Kinga" Clarence said. "He never became Dr. Martin Luther King because there were no universities or seminaries built to educate him. Europeans weren't there to create such opportunities. But he did become the tribe's spiritual leader. He specializes in casting spells. Perhaps he can help you?"

The "doctor" gazed in wonder at George. Then he motioned to his henchmen to seize young George. The tribesmen grabbed George and tied him to a tree. .
.

"Stop it! Let me go! What are they going to do to me?" cried George hysterically.

"They're going to cut your balls off George. The good doctor King...I mean Kinga -- believes that by castrating you while you are still alive, it will bring good fortune and fertility to his tribe. Ah the benefits of modern medicine." laughed Clarence.

"Clarence! Clarence! Help me, Clarence! Help me!"


Oh God. This is the most horrid and ignorant thing I've read. There's so much I could say. First, assuming Africans are witch doctors is classic, not even contemporary racism. Second, saying that white people were responsible for giving rights to persons of color is 1. Ridiculous, since it was whites who were oppressing them and 2. Disrespectful to the persons of color who fought tooth and nail for their rights.

Just google witch doctors in Africa. Then try and tell me they aren't real and that they stem from racism. Second, what you quoted doesn't say that caucasians gave Africans rights. It says their culture provided the universities and high end schools that provide the type of education that is available to the western world and slowly becoming somewhat available in less developed nations. Also, caucasians also oppressed caucasians. Look at feudal societies in early Europe. Why is it worse just because those being oppressed are african? Also, why don't we acknowledge any white leaders that fought against oppression? Why isn't William Wallace recognized as much for his fight against foreign oppression? I'm not saying this article is the Bible or completely right, which you seem to continually miss. I'm saying it's thought provoking.

Then, there's the idea that Europeans were somehow responsible for bringing prosperity to Africa. That's not how it happened. European colonialization brought massive poverty to once powerful continent.

First of all, Africa was not a powerful continent when Europeans settled. People there still lived in tribes and enslaved members of other tribes. There's a reason the Europeans took over like they did. They were technologically and militarily superior. Second of all, this article isn't saying that it was European influence that brought everything great to Africa. It's saying that it was caucasian influence that brought the rise of powerful early nations such as Egypt. European and caucasian are not the same thing.

Also, just something I want to add, I'm not looking for people to read this and think "oh wow, caucasians are better than everyone else." I'm primarily looking for people to read this and think "wow, I never realized that caucasians were also treated poorly because of their race. Let's just call it even and let bygones be bygones."
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 3:21:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 3:08:51 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
At 1/29/2014 2:52:04 PM, kbub wrote:
"Meet witch doctor Matuno Luta Kinga" Clarence said. "He never became Dr. Martin Luther King because there were no universities or seminaries built to educate him. Europeans weren't there to create such opportunities. But he did become the tribe's spiritual leader. He specializes in casting spells. Perhaps he can help you?"

The "doctor" gazed in wonder at George. Then he motioned to his henchmen to seize young George. The tribesmen grabbed George and tied him to a tree. .
.

"Stop it! Let me go! What are they going to do to me?" cried George hysterically.

"They're going to cut your balls off George. The good doctor King...I mean Kinga -- believes that by castrating you while you are still alive, it will bring good fortune and fertility to his tribe. Ah the benefits of modern medicine." laughed Clarence.

"Clarence! Clarence! Help me, Clarence! Help me!"


Oh God. This is the most horrid and ignorant thing I've read. There's so much I could say. First, assuming Africans are witch doctors is classic, not even contemporary racism. Second, saying that white people were responsible for giving rights to persons of color is 1. Ridiculous, since it was whites who were oppressing them and 2. Disrespectful to the persons of color who fought tooth and nail for their rights.

Just google witch doctors in Africa. Then try and tell me they aren't real and that they stem from racism. Second, what you quoted doesn't say that caucasians gave Africans rights. It says their culture provided the universities and high end schools that provide the type of education that is available to the western world and slowly becoming somewhat available in less developed nations. Also, caucasians also oppressed caucasians. Look at feudal societies in early Europe. Why is it worse just because those being oppressed are african? Also, why don't we acknowledge any white leaders that fought against oppression? Why isn't William Wallace recognized as much for his fight against foreign oppression? I'm not saying this article is the Bible or completely right, which you seem to continually miss. I'm saying it's thought provoking.

I did not say they aren't real. I'm saying they are racist to assume that without white people black people would all be witch doctors.

Yes, the world sucks. That doesn't make African Colonization any less of an atrocity.


Then, there's the idea that Europeans were somehow responsible for bringing prosperity to Africa. That's not how it happened. European colonialization brought massive poverty to once powerful continent.

First of all, Africa was not a powerful continent when Europeans settled. People there still lived in tribes and enslaved members of other tribes. There's a reason the Europeans took over like they did. They were technologically and militarily superior. Second of all, this article isn't saying that it was European influence that brought everything great to Africa. It's saying that it was caucasian influence that brought the rise of powerful early nations such as Egypt. European and caucasian are not the same thing.

You realize that there's no real race right? All ancestry is linked. Of course if billions of people never existed the world would be worse. No one is saying that white people are better off dead. That is the imagination of the author.


Also, just something I want to add, I'm not looking for people to read this and think "oh wow, caucasians are better than everyone else." I'm primarily looking for people to read this and think "wow, I never realized that caucasians were also treated poorly because of their race. Let's just call it even and let bygones be bygones."

Exactly. As I noted earlier, I figured the purpose of this was to cover up the atrocities of the past instead of taking responsibility for them. We right now have systematic oppression for non-whites. By ignoring the past, one can pretend that it is their own fault and continue to blame the victims.

Anyway, I'm going to stop arguing this in a bit.
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 3:32:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 3:01:14 PM, kbub wrote:
No, "Lost Cause" refers to the idea that history actually forgot the original reason for the Civil War (State's Rights, taxes, etc). Modern scholarship has nearly unanimously rejected the "Lost Cause" explanation.

That doesn't make them right. Ultimately, it's an opinion, and there's no way to get the reason 100% unless you go back and ask the politicians that seceded. The facts that the US government would have protected slavery and that the were large slave owners that didn't want to secede both give credit to the idea that war wasn't based on race.

African is not a race. Black is. Black people in America for example are not necessarily Africans. I think that there should be equality between races, because race shouldn't matter. However, white people wrote the history books. Black history month is important. White history month is stupid, because that is the other 11 months already. Virtually all history textbooks come from the European history perspective. Virtually none relay what was happening in Africa during the Renaissance for example, which is ridiculous and eurocentric.

I just assumed that "black" was the same as "white" in that it's not actually a race. Forgive me for being incorrect. Going on your argument of caucasian people wrote history books, why aren't they praising caucasian history? History books aren't irrefutable fact. There is clear bias present in them that makes them lean in directions such as caucasian people feeling guilty for the history of the race. There is not a single month of the year dedicated to caucasian history. You can't claim that, because they aren't black history month, they must be white history month. That's like saying that, because I'm not a dog, I must be a cat. That's not true. I could be a bird, a fish, or a human. You're trying to paint a scenario where each month is dedicated to either black history or caucasian history when they could be latino history, indian history, another race, or in the case of 11/12 months, nothing. No, they don't. That doesn't mean that African nations were powerful, though. The fact remains that European technology was better and the militaries were stronger. The European countries were powerful. The African countries were not.

This website is an attempt to assuage "white guilt" by blaming the victims. By trying to make whites seem like the victims, the actual racism that is still occurring is covered up and whites are justified in holding negative attitudes toward persons of color.

How about you look at it a different way? Maybe, both groups have been victims, but only one still complains about it.

Consider this:
Person 1: "We were enslaved by your race 100 years ago. You suck. Feel bad about what you've done."
Person 2: "Yeah, but we were pretty much bred out or slaughtered on every continent except Europe. We don't complain about it and tell you to feel bad. Let it go. It's in the past. Also, people of your race were enslaving other members of your race before we did."
Person 1: "No. You should feel bad for what you did regardless of anything else."

That's about what the current situation boils down to. Why should caucasians feel guilty for blemishes in their past when no other race needs to feel guilty for the blemishes in its past?
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 3:43:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 3:21:49 PM, kbub wrote:
I did not say they aren't real. I'm saying they are racist to assume that without white people black people would all be witch doctors.

It didn't say they were all witch doctors. It made 1 person a witch doctor.

Yes, the world sucks. That doesn't make African Colonization any less of an atrocity.

No, but you're trying to spin it that the oppression of peoples in Africa is worse than the oppression of peoples elsewhere. That is racism. Oppression is oppression regardless of where it is happening, but you, and others, fixate on oppression in Africa because they are a different race.

Then, there's the idea that Europeans were somehow responsible for bringing prosperity to Africa. That's not how it happened. European colonialization brought massive poverty to once powerful continent.

First of all, Africa was not a powerful continent when Europeans settled. People there still lived in tribes and enslaved members of other tribes. There's a reason the Europeans took over like they did. They were technologically and militarily superior. Second of all, this article isn't saying that it was European influence that brought everything great to Africa. It's saying that it was caucasian influence that brought the rise of powerful early nations such as Egypt. European and caucasian are not the same thing.

You realize that there's no real race right? All ancestry is linked. Of course if billions of people never existed the world would be worse. No one is saying that white people are better off dead. That is the imagination of the author.

There are people that wish caucasians had never existed. Second, this is arguing that removal of one race would be more detrimental to the course of human history than the removal of a different race.

Also, just something I want to add, I'm not looking for people to read this and think "oh wow, caucasians are better than everyone else." I'm primarily looking for people to read this and think "wow, I never realized that caucasians were also treated poorly because of their race. Let's just call it even and let bygones be bygones."

Exactly. As I noted earlier, I figured the purpose of this was to cover up the atrocities of the past instead of taking responsibility for them. We right now have systematic oppression for non-whites. By ignoring the past, one can pretend that it is their own fault and continue to blame the victims.

Anyway, I'm going to stop arguing this in a bit.

If I understand what your saying, most of this argument came from a difference in interpretation. You seem to have interpreted the article as saying that caucasians shouldn't feel bad about anything because they were treated poorly first while I interpreted it as saying that you shouldn't be ashamed solely because you're a caucasian, and that every race has been wronged and we all need to just move on.
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 3:53:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 3:32:42 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
At 1/29/2014 3:01:14 PM, kbub wrote:
No, "Lost Cause" refers to the idea that history actually forgot the original reason for the Civil War (State's Rights, taxes, etc). Modern scholarship has nearly unanimously rejected the "Lost Cause" explanation.

That doesn't make them right. Ultimately, it's an opinion, and there's no way to get the reason 100% unless you go back and ask the politicians that seceded. The facts that the US government would have protected slavery and that the were large slave owners that didn't want to secede both give credit to the idea that war wasn't based on race.

African is not a race. Black is. Black people in America for example are not necessarily Africans. I think that there should be equality between races, because race shouldn't matter. However, white people wrote the history books. Black history month is important. White history month is stupid, because that is the other 11 months already. Virtually all history textbooks come from the European history perspective. Virtually none relay what was happening in Africa during the Renaissance for example, which is ridiculous and eurocentric.

I just assumed that "black" was the same as "white" in that it's not actually a race. Forgive me for being incorrect. Going on your argument of caucasian people wrote history books, why aren't they praising caucasian history? History books aren't irrefutable fact. There is clear bias present in them that makes them lean in directions such as caucasian people feeling guilty for the history of the race. There is not a single month of the year dedicated to caucasian history. You can't claim that, because they aren't black history month, they must be white history month. That's like saying that, because I'm not a dog, I must be a cat. That's not true. I could be a bird, a fish, or a human. You're trying to paint a scenario where each month is dedicated to either black history or caucasian history when they could be latino history, indian history, another race, or in the case of 11/12 months, nothing. No, they don't. That doesn't mean that African nations were powerful, though. The fact remains that European technology was better and the militaries were stronger. The European countries were powerful. The African countries were not.


Yes. Europe did have better weapons. And they used them on those who didn't. Hardly a blessing.

And yes, European is not a race.

This website is an attempt to assuage "white guilt" by blaming the victims. By trying to make whites seem like the victims, the actual racism that is still occurring is covered up and whites are justified in holding negative attitudes toward persons of color.

How about you look at it a different way? Maybe, both groups have been victims, but only one still complains about it.

Consider this:
Person 1: "We were enslaved by your race 100 years ago. You suck. Feel bad about what you've done."
Person 2: "Yeah, but we were pretty much bred out or slaughtered on every continent except Europe. We don't complain about it and tell you to feel bad. Let it go. It's in the past. Also, people of your race were enslaving other members of your race before we did."
Person 1: "No. You should feel bad for what you did regardless of anything else."

That's about what the current situation boils down to. Why should caucasians feel guilty for blemishes in their past when no other race needs to feel guilty for the blemishes in its past?

I am neither person 1 nor person 2. I'm not looking for anyone to feel guilty about anything they didn't do. I'm not looking for anyone to feel guilty.

What I am looking for is responsibility. Pretending the the past didn't happen or downplaying hate means that we won't be able to change our attitudes or policies. We can pretend blacks are not oppressed and call them lazy. We can pretend that women are oppressed and call them hypocrites. We can pretend that Western European culture is a blessing to the world and launch a new wave of colonialism. But all of these things would simply perpetuate the same systematic sins of past. No one needs to feel guilty, but we must work to change the future.
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 4:16:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Your post called Native Americans "brutal savages."
Your post claims that the pure white race is under attack.
Your post implies that studying something makes you more ignorant of it.
Your post implies that it matters how much melanin is in one's skin.
Your post implies that race isn't a social construct.
Your post claimed that diversity is dangerous.
Your post claimed that Africans were responsible for their being enslaved.
Your post claims that guns are blessings because they are useful for killing Native Americans..
Your post claims that identifying other racial groups as "these people" is ok
Your post implies that all Africans are mystical simpletons and witch doctors.
Your post implied that whites were responsible for black rights.
Your post claimed that the European invasion of Africa was a blessing to the Africans.
Your post claimed that there would be no great black persons without white persons.
Your post implied that the common human ancestor was European.
Your post claimed that races are genetic-based distinctions (they are not. Btw, did you know that they Irish used to be considered not white?).
Your post implied white people (is this skin, genetic, or European now?) were responsible for the "Orientals'" not being a "simple people."
Josh_b
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 4:28:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
after careful consideration. I have concluded that the article you posted is extremely racist in that it means to portray all other nations as savages without influence of white people, and it means to say that all countries colonized by whites are more advanced than other nations. It never mentions Japan, and gives no rationalization for the Egyptians or for the Mayans. What it does say about the pyramids is somehow supposed to make us believe that they were all built by white people.

It is very hard to find a balance in history from the stand point of "What if there were no whites?" It is very likely that a black man would have invented the telephone and no white person would have been there to steal his idea.

There is still a need for people to understand racism in all its forms. One of the most prolific forms racism is self race hate. It's the reason why many minority groups are still calling each other slaves and focusing their musical talents on dehumanizing women. This is one of the most curious structures of the Human Psyche that I know of.

Even though in many ways the oppressor has been removed, the oppressed still remain oppressed. Sure its easy to see in battered women, but why can it be so wide spread for a whole race?
Maybe we can figure it out with this story about monkeys, but it still doesn't change the truth.
http://www.proliberty.com...
Scrutiny Welcome

AMAA http://www.debate.org...
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 6:43:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 4:28:35 PM, Josh_b wrote:
after careful consideration. I have concluded that the article you posted is extremely racist in that it means to portray all other nations as savages without influence of white people, and it means to say that all countries colonized by whites are more advanced than other nations. It never mentions Japan, and gives no rationalization for the Egyptians or for the Mayans. What it does say about the pyramids is somehow supposed to make us believe that they were all built by white people.

It is very hard to find a balance in history from the stand point of "What if there were no whites?" It is very likely that a black man would have invented the telephone and no white person would have been there to steal his idea.

There is still a need for people to understand racism in all its forms. One of the most prolific forms racism is self race hate. It's the reason why many minority groups are still calling each other slaves and focusing their musical talents on dehumanizing women. This is one of the most curious structures of the Human Psyche that I know of.

Even though in many ways the oppressor has been removed, the oppressed still remain oppressed. Sure its easy to see in battered women, but why can it be so wide spread for a whole race?
Maybe we can figure it out with this story about monkeys, but it still doesn't change the truth.
http://www.proliberty.com...

Yes. Probably a better question would be: "What if everyone was black? "

History probably wouldn't be very different at all. We might not have even accomplished quite so much evil, although I'd bet there would be a host of other artificial constructs we'd use to distinguish ourselves. The story talks about what would happen if billions of people hadn't existed, which doesn't really address race at all.

Also, the kid never got many of his points addressed. "There's only one race: The human race." I thought that was a great point. I suppose the article did imply that some races are more superior/inferior than others. "Race is a social construct." That's true. There is no DNA connection to distinct racial ancestries. People categorized others in terms of race, but in fact these categories were not even close to being biologically valid.

Besides, if we were to follow the same logic as the article in tracing one's ancestors to find their "true race," one would discover that all human life seems to have originated in Africa. There is indeed one race: The human race. And yet, there are so many crimes that have lead up this irreconcilable assumption of ethnic superiority that we can clearly trace throughout history.

One can live in a fantasy world denying these patterned crimes and justifying their unimportance through the bad faith argument that "everyone is oppressed sometimes," but this ignorant fantasy has severe social ramifications. Like racism, I can also trace these white fantasies through history too, and like many other unsavory details of European history, it ain't pretty.

Unfortunately, we don't live in a color-blind world; however, those who think they do are probably in an advantageous position.

I am not saying that persons of color are superior or inferior to white persons. I do think however that we ought to closely and critically examine the constructs of oppression in our culture and in our hearts.

(Oh, as an aside, I agree with your response but be careful about being too dismissive of what you term "self hate." I naturally do not approve of sexism or racism in any form, but it does seem like a complicated phenomenon with many angles.)
Josh_b
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 11:43:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 6:43:07 PM, kbub wrote:
At 1/29/2014 4:28:35 PM, Josh_b wrote:
after careful consideration. I have concluded that the article you posted is extremely racist in that it means to portray all other nations as savages without influence of white people, and it means to say that all countries colonized by whites are more advanced than other nations. It never mentions Japan, and gives no rationalization for the Egyptians or for the Mayans. What it does say about the pyramids is somehow supposed to make us believe that they were all built by white people.

It is very hard to find a balance in history from the stand point of "What if there were no whites?" It is very likely that a black man would have invented the telephone and no white person would have been there to steal his idea.

There is still a need for people to understand racism in all its forms. One of the most prolific forms racism is self race hate. It's the reason why many minority groups are still calling each other slaves and focusing their musical talents on dehumanizing women. This is one of the most curious structures of the Human Psyche that I know of.

Even though in many ways the oppressor has been removed, the oppressed still remain oppressed. Sure its easy to see in battered women, but why can it be so wide spread for a whole race?
Maybe we can figure it out with this story about monkeys, but it still doesn't change the truth.
http://www.proliberty.com...

Yes. Probably a better question would be: "What if everyone was black? "

History probably wouldn't be very different at all. We might not have even accomplished quite so much evil, although I'd bet there would be a host of other artificial constructs we'd use to distinguish ourselves. The story talks about what would happen if billions of people hadn't existed, which doesn't really address race at all.

Also, the kid never got many of his points addressed. "There's only one race: The human race." I thought that was a great point. I suppose the article did imply that some races are more superior/inferior than others. "Race is a social construct." That's true. There is no DNA connection to distinct racial ancestries. People categorized others in terms of race, but in fact these categories were not even close to being biologically valid.

Besides, if we were to follow the same logic as the article in tracing one's ancestors to find their "true race," one would discover that all human life seems to have originated in Africa. There is indeed one race: The human race. And yet, there are so many crimes that have lead up this irreconcilable assumption of ethnic superiority that we can clearly trace throughout history.

One can live in a fantasy world denying these patterned crimes and justifying their unimportance through the bad faith argument that "everyone is oppressed sometimes," but this ignorant fantasy has severe social ramifications. Like racism, I can also trace these white fantasies through history too, and like many other unsavory details of European history, it ain't pretty.

Unfortunately, we don't live in a color-blind world; however, those who think they do are probably in an advantageous position.

I am not saying that persons of color are superior or inferior to white persons. I do think however that we ought to closely and critically examine the constructs of oppression in our culture and in our hearts.




(Oh, as an aside, I agree with your response but be careful about being too dismissive of what you term "self hate." I naturally do not approve of sexism or racism in any form, but it does seem like a complicated phenomenon with many angles.)

I'm not sure if I was clear, I meant to say that it needs to be recognized among the all races. There's groups for people who have been victims. One group is called Celebrate Recovery. There's a whole branch of psychology that deals only with the cycle of abuse and codependency. It helps individuals, but I'm really not sure how you would enact the recovery concepts across an entire nation, or even the world.
Scrutiny Welcome

AMAA http://www.debate.org...
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 11:48:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 11:43:23 PM, Josh_b wrote:
At 1/29/2014 6:43:07 PM, kbub wrote:
At 1/29/2014 4:28:35 PM, Josh_b wrote:
after careful consideration. I have concluded that the article you posted is extremely racist in that it means to portray all other nations as savages without influence of white people, and it means to say that all countries colonized by whites are more advanced than other nations. It never mentions Japan, and gives no rationalization for the Egyptians or for the Mayans. What it does say about the pyramids is somehow supposed to make us believe that they were all built by white people.

It is very hard to find a balance in history from the stand point of "What if there were no whites?" It is very likely that a black man would have invented the telephone and no white person would have been there to steal his idea.

There is still a need for people to understand racism in all its forms. One of the most prolific forms racism is self race hate. It's the reason why many minority groups are still calling each other slaves and focusing their musical talents on dehumanizing women. This is one of the most curious structures of the Human Psyche that I know of.


(Oh, as an aside, I agree with your response but be careful about being too dismissive of what you term "self hate." I naturally do not approve of sexism or racism in any form, but it does seem like a complicated phenomenon with many angles.)

I'm not sure if I was clear, I meant to say that it needs to be recognized among the all races. There's groups for people who have been victims. One group is called Celebrate Recovery. There's a whole branch of psychology that deals only with the cycle of abuse and codependency. It helps individuals, but I'm really not sure how you would enact the recovery concepts across an entire nation, or even the world.

Oh, sorry! Yes, that makes a ton of sense! I thought you were saying black persons shouldn't use the N word, which I thought was pretty complicated issue.

Please carry on!
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2014 12:09:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
One of the reasons this article is ridiculous at the outset, is because of the way it deals with "race".

Race is largely an artificial construct. There are people with white skin that are genetically/ethnically African. Does that make them white? There are people with black skin that have straight blonde hair, in Europe. What are they?

Depending on where you choose to draw the arbitrary line of "white", can give you extremely different results, as far as this article is concerned.

This isn't even mentioning all the smaller factual problems, false/absent sources, and logical swamps that makes the piece a mess. I just wanted to point out that the author's central premise was ridiculous.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.