Why did they go to such great lengths to try and destroy the black man?

[clkru]

"its true. right now black and brown people are definately producing waay too many people. and for the most part cant even take care of them in the firstplace. just making things worse"

Yet another example of unsubstantiated, institutionalized racism. Who making under $40,000 a year can afford to take care of a child, let alone multiplechildren without any help!? Heck, even if you make a low yet supposedly liveable wage like $40K, it costs anywhere from $6,000 to $12,000 to have a child,depending on what hospital or method you choose. Oh, and guess who gets stuck with the medical bill and/or debt if you don't have health insurance(insurance is another form of financial lynching our society doles out on the brown and the poor)!?

White males (my demographic) are projected to be the minority in our country within the next 40-50 years. Ignorant, racist, elite whities can put that in theirpipes and smoke it!

 

[grandaddypurp415]

Originally Posted by clkru

"its true. right now black and brown people are definately producing waay too many people. and for the most part cant even take care of them in the first place. just making things worse"

Well, white males (my demographic) are projected to be the minority in our country within the next 40-50 years. Ignorant, racist, elite whities can put that in their pipes and smoke it!

if that was aimed at me Im Hispanic for the record. Learn to quote and learn who you talking to round here

 

[clkru]

"if that was aimed at me Im Hispanic for the record"

I accidently posted without finishing my post... its fixed now, and only aimed at those ignorant about or guilty of modern day racism.

 

[grandaddypurp415]

Originally Posted by eNPHAN

Originally Posted by GrandaddyPurp415

Originally Posted by SpringfieldXD

i think if the human race is still around in 150-200 years, white people will be scarce.

the world will be nearly ALL brown or light brown.

deep down, white people know this, and they do what they can to ensure the proliferation of their ethnicity.

like i said, teaspoon of cream in a cup of coffee.

its true. right now black and brown people are definately producing waay too many people. and for the most part cant even take care of them in the first place. just making things worse

yeah, cause there arent any large white families on government assistance, right?

you're off. it's not because "black and brown people are producing way too many people", smart guy

it's because the white gene is a recessive trait....therefore, anytime white reproduces with "black and brown", their traits recess, i.e. the dominant traits "win"


good try tho...

(yes, sarcasm)

that is not my point. maybe I should have left out the "cant take care of them part" Im just talking bout these cats reproducing likerabbits.

 

[stringer bell 32]

Cause it makes money

 

[651akathepaul]

^ That won't be in our lifetime. You can guarantee that.

 

[grandaddypurp415]

Originally Posted by eNPHAN

Originally Posted by GrandaddyPurp415

Originally Posted by eNPHAN

Originally Posted by GrandaddyPurp415

Originally Posted by SpringfieldXD

i think if the human race is still around in 150-200 years, white people will be scarce.

the world will be nearly ALL brown or light brown.

deep down, white people know this, and they do what they can to ensure the proliferation of their ethnicity.

like i said, teaspoon of cream in a cup of coffee.

its true. right now black and brown people are definately producing waay too many people. and for the most part cant even take care of them in the first place. just making things worse

yeah, cause there arent any large white families on government assistance, right?

you're off. it's not because "black and brown people are producing way too many people", smart guy

it's because the white gene is a recessive trait....therefore, anytime white reproduces with "black and brown", their traits recess, i.e. the dominant traits "win"


good try tho...

(yes, sarcasm)

that is not my point. maybe I should have left out the "cant take care of them part" Im just talking bout these cats reproducing like rabbits.

the rabbit reproduction has nothing to do with why the recessive trait will be drowned by the dominant trait.

it's more like this...


eventually, every white guy will have sex with a non-white girl and every white girl will have sex with a non-white guy...


once the last "white" person has mixed with someone who posseses "dominant" traits, their recessive trait, white skin, is lost...

one day, everyone will be noticeably "biracial", i.e. "lightskinned"

EVERYBODY

cool. my whole entire family is like that. please quit trying to school me. But it is funny taht you mention this because I have two female cousins whosfather was a dark black male and their mother (my aunt) is spanish. They are the same skin tone as me, which is light. Then she has kids with another darkhispanic guy and their kids are a lil darker

 

[marleysprotege]

id love everyone to be the same color ... so when you called someone ignorant, you wouldnt be labeled as a racist ...

 

[daytona 5000]

Originally Posted by clkru

"its true. right now black and brown people are definately producing waay too many people. and for the most part cant even take care of them in the first place. just making things worse"

Yet another example of unsubstantiated, institutionalized racism. Who making under $40,000 a year can afford to take care of a child, let alone multiple children without any help!? Heck, even if you make a low yet supposedly liveable wage like $40K, it costs anywhere from $6,000 to $12,000 to have a child, depending on what hospital or method you choose. Oh, and guess who gets stuck with the medical bill and/or debt if you don't have health insurance (insurance is another form of financial lynching our society doles out on the brown and the poor)!?

White males (my demographic) are projected to be the minority in our country within the next 40-50 years. Ignorant, racist, elite whities can put that in their pipes and smoke it!

Wow this is not what I meant for this thread to turn into. A lot of good responses have been posted in here, but to all those who reallydon't understand or empathize with those of us who have been victims of careful precise psychological attacks for centuries, please just don't evenpost.

Thank you clkru for posting answers that I think answer the question that I was asking better than any else so far. Do you believe that the because minoritieswill be a majority in the future, the current majority sets up these conditions to hinder minorities from reaching the upper echelons, so when the time comesfor the former minority to be the majority, the former majority will still posses most of the power that they held?

 

[0cks]

Originally Posted by whiterails

Originally Posted by 0cks

Originally Posted by whiterails

Originally Posted by 0cks

It's BS because it's not in a textbook. Yes I acknowledge there are genralizations, I can't get into an analysis of every past European nation-state. I just gave you some of that realness.

Think about it. How come other people never went on "Explorations"?

You're honestly trying to say that the only people who explored new lands and conquered other people were Europeans?

Well I mean break down the continents, when did Africans just show up in Europe on some "honey I'm home!". Asians? Aborigines? Native Americans? Eskimos? Whereas Europeans showed up out of the blue in every continent! Europe is like somewhat bigger than Texas? You have all those people in such a small area that hate each other. ALL THEY DID WAS FIGHT! Look at the two world wars. As soon as they had the means they managed to have the entire world involved in their little quarrels. Give it up, Europe was the most belligerent continent on this earth.

You're not looking at the entire picture. War has been going on since the beginning of man kind, and for you to say Europeans are more guilty than others is ludicrous. Just because some of the people you listed didn't have the means to conquer other continents does not mean they all got along merrily with each other. You are aware that Genghis Khan had one the largest empires in history, aren't you? You don't think empires are built through conquest? And how is the Japanese conquering parts of China and the Pacific Islands in WWII an example of being them getting drawn into European quarrels?

What you're essentially saying is "I don't know of any examples of non-Europeans fighting and conquering, therefore they must not exist". Read a book before you say things like "Europeans were the most belligerent people"

So why exactly were Europeans so advanced in warfare? They are just much smarter than everyone else? Or they just had more experience thaneveryone else?

Let's look at Native Americans. The idea of owning land is foreign to them. Europeans were fighting for resources because their population density was socrazy. How do you think diseases spread so quickly? Everything they did was based on surviving through warfare. Native Americans fought as well just not asmuch as Europeans.

Also the devisiveness that is now seen in Africa was something also imported from Europe. Europeans introduced the idea that darker skin pigmentation isinferior which was a non-issue in Africa before that.

Good point with Ghenges Khan, why do you think Europeans never had a presence in Asia? Asians told them leave us alone and had the means to keep them at bay.Japan is just like Europe. No resources, high population density, ambitious etc.

 

[clkru]

"Do you believe that the because minorities will be a majority in the future, the current majority sets up these conditions to hinder minorities fromreaching the upper echelons, so when the time comes for the former minority to be the majority, the former majority will still posses most of the power thatthey held?"

Of course. Even if you were to eliminate race as a variable (as impossible as it may seem), virtually no human enjoys relinquishing (or even sharing) poweronce they have it. We might try to pretend we would or do, but c'mon, humans, like other animals, are GENERALLY self-serving entities above all else.

Unfortunately, things like race, religion, education, and class make easy fodder for those in power to manipulate and use to their advantage in order to stayon top. Racism is sadly a great example of this: people cultivating others of their same skin color to not like people of another skin color simply based offof something nobody can (or should) do anything about - the color of their skin. Think of all the oppression that has been perpetuated by those in poweragainst those under power simply based off of skin color... its just terrible.

 

[springfieldxd]

i'm just trying to do to the white women what the white man has done to us for 400 years....

 

[nocomment6]

people are dumb.....

 

[mytmouse76]

thanks for the suggestion Enphan...i never thought about that...i really want to do something on education thought cuz i wanna be an elementary teacher...but iwill def. consider that...

i'm gonna go back and read all this stuff now...

 

[ericberry14]

Originally Posted by eNPHAN

Originally Posted by SpringfieldXD

i'm just trying to do to the white women what the white man has done to us for 400 years....

systematically oppress them?

? i too am confused by what he means

 

[martin and co]

ABH,

I don't think anything I said was inaccurate. I believe there are more sources putting the middle passage death toll at 1.5M-2M than any other #, so myestimation of 4M came from an Afrocentric source. It could potentially be more, as things like that are often purposely not documented. The Death rate throughthe Middle Passage was about 20%, while in the Eastern (Arab/Black Muslim) slave trade it was closer to 80%. There were also a lot of disgusting practices usedin the Eastern slave trade, such as the removal of black male slaves' genitals (not just testes) through genital mutilation, and that procedure had asurvival rate of 3-10%.

--

In regards to labeling Europeans as war mongers exclusively, that just isn't true. Any nation that had the means to do what the Europeans (actually youknow to say European invented war/warfare is a joke) did at one point did it. Darius of Persia, Genghis Khan (the greatest warlord to date, at one point had anempire so large it's size is yet to be recreated), etc. all waged enormous wars.

Also, there was a time in History when blacks enslaved "whites". How do you think the Egyptians built their cities? To say free Egyptians built themis like to say Free white financially supported the USA through Tobacco and Cotton when those was the only exports we had.

 

[springfieldxd]

Originally Posted by ericberry14

Originally Posted by eNPHAN

Originally Posted by SpringfieldXD

i'm just trying to do to the white women what the white man has done to us for 400 years....

systematically oppress them?

? i too am confused by what he means

nah, ***# 'em.

 

[mytmouse76]

Originally Posted by INFAMOUS199

our president is black and were still with this.

i don't get why people say this...what does Obama being black change about our everyday life? don't get it twisted...i'm very proud ofhis accomplishment but lets be real...racists will still be racis...you will still have your rich and your poor...sadly kids will still go to be hungry atnight...so what does Obama being black change about any of that...


devildog1776

to your response about Africanspirituality...we really are a spiritual people and if we could get back to that i believe it would move us in the right direction...

I don't think anything I said was inaccurate. I believe there are more sources putting the middle passage death toll at 1.5M-2M than any other #, so my estimation of 4M came from an Afrocentric source. It could potentially be more, as things like that are often purposely not documented. The Death rate through the Middle Passage was about 20%, while in the Eastern (Arab/Black Muslim) slave trade it was closer to 80%. There were also a lot of disgusting practices used in the Eastern slave trade, such as the removal of black male slaves' genitals (not just testes) through genital mutilation, and that procedure had a survival rate of 3-10%.

i'm not an expert on the East African slave trade so this is an honest question...weren't they able tobecome "free" if they converted to Islam b/c Muslims weren't allowed to own other Muslims? i know that doesn't make it better but that was away out right?

 

[lesfamilia]

Originally Posted by MARTIN AND CO

ABH,

I don't think anything I said was inaccurate. I believe there are more sources putting the middle passage death toll at 1.5M-2M than any other #, so my estimation of 4M came from an Afrocentric source. It could potentially be more, as things like that are often purposely not documented. The Death rate through the Middle Passage was about 20%, while in the Eastern (Arab/Black Muslim) slave trade it was closer to 80%. There were also a lot of disgusting practices used in the Eastern slave trade, such as the removal of black male slaves' genitals (not just testes) through genital mutilation, and that procedure had a survival rate of 3-10%.

--

In regards to labeling Europeans as war mongers exclusively, that just isn't true. Any nation that had the means to do what the Europeans (actually you know to say European invented war/warfare is a joke) did at one point did it. Darius of Persia, Genghis Khan (the greatest warlord to date, at one point had an empire so large it's size is yet to be recreated), etc. all waged enormous wars.

Also, there was a time in History when blacks enslaved "whites". How do you think the Egyptians built their cities? To say free Egyptians built them is like to say Free white financially supported the USA through Tobacco and Cotton when those was the only exports we had.

I don't believe that's a fair comparison. The 'whites' enslaved by the Egyptians didn't suffer nearly as much as the peoplewho through the Middle Passage...

 

[marleysprotege]

what about blacks selling blacks in the slave trade to get themselves rich?

 

[ericberry14]

Originally Posted by MarleysProtege

what about blacks selling blacks in the slave trade to get themselves rich?

Everybody acknowledges that they did so. But they thought by doing so they were selling them into a form of slavery that was similar to the kindthat was practiced in Africa. Not using it as an excuse, but they didnt realize the extent of their actions

 

[martin and co]

les,

Did I paint it as a fair comparison? I mean slavery is just disgusting point blank, and its unjustifiable. To be honest though, what do you know about howEgyptians treated their slaves? Thats a real question because I'm honestly unsure of how Egyptians treated their slaves, but could it have been that muchbetter than American slaves? The worst slave trading was the Eastern Slave trade, in which whites had no direct part of.

Its just that when slavery comes up, only the last 400 years seem to be discussed, which is perfectly understandable, since thats really the only relevantslavery to any American or black residing in North or South America.

--

my t,

To be honest with you, I'm not really an expert either, just an avid reader.

The thing is though, isn't that option to convert kind of a moot point? I mean ok so option or no option, 20 Million still died you know?
I would question if the option to convert was ever presented to these slaves in the first place, because I think you are right about not Muslims being able toown Muslims, but wouldn't you convert to another religion if it meant you could be free, even if the conversion was only symbolic? Also if you think aboutit, if your primary business was slaves, would you really want to give up your lively hood? Would you really just buy all these slaves to resell, or take themtime to raid villages to capture them, and then say, "ok, if you all convert to Islam I will free you". I think not. Slavery wasn't really lookeddown upon then, so I doubt many people who would partake in the slave trade would let people out on a moral ground anyway.

and slavery was different there....they wouldn't be packed into a boat like a can of sardines

The most common slave trade in Africa was the Eastern slave trade, which had about an 80% mortality rate, vs a 20% mortality rate of the middle passage. So,selling slaves to Europeans was actually more beneficial to the slaves (yeah, as if any slavery is beneficial to anyone but the slave master/seller, but youget my point)

 

[springfieldxd]

Originally Posted by ericberry14

Originally Posted by MarleysProtege

what about blacks selling blacks in the slave trade to get themselves rich?

Everybody acknowledges that they did so. But they thought by doing so they were selling them into a form of slavery that was similar to the kind that was practiced in Africa. Not using it as an excuse, but they didnt realize the extent of their actions

and slavery was different there. slaves were allowed to work off their buying price, assimilate into society, and eventually own slaves of their own.

and most slaves were attained through tribal feuds, not with ships packing human beings in like sardines.

 

[mytmouse76]

ericberry14 wrote:

---

MarleysProtege wrote:

---

what about blacks selling blacks in the slave trade to get themselves rich?
Everybody acknowledges that they did so. But they thought by doing so they were selling them into a form of slavery that was similar to the kind that was practiced in Africa. Not using it as an excuse, but they didnt realize the extent of their actions



When one ethnic group sold another ( they were selling other ethnic groups not blacks) it was because they were another ethnic group...it was not motivated byrace...that doesn't make it any less worse but it really wasn't the same...by the time word got back it was to late and the Europeans really didn'tneed one group to sell them another...they just came and did it themselves...

 

[marleysprotege]

Originally Posted by SpringfieldXD


and slavery was different there. slaves were allowed to work off their buying price, assimilate into society, and eventually own slaves of their own.

and most slaves were attained through tribal feuds, not with ships packing human beings in like sardines.

o you mean like indentured servants ... now i see ... ... ... ...