are whites humanitys curse?
- Thread starter askG
- Start date
Most white people are light-skinned. Yes, you can say there is "light"-skinned Asians, North, South, Central American Natives etc. but there is a marked difference between simply having light skin and being posessed of caucasoid features. In other words, you can tell the difference between a white person from Europe and a light-skinned arabic man, or an Asian woman, etc.
And I can tell you white people have caused this destruction because it is a historical fucking fact. Why don't we know as much about African-American or Central American history? Because most non-white peoples did not do much continent crossing in order to enslave, kill, etc. Aztecs did not go to Europe and take slaves. Filipinos did not invade China, etc.
On the other hand, Europeans went to Mexico and took slaves, gold, and land. The American army went to the Phillipines and killed 250,000 people, all in the name of "taming the savage land". The English went to war with China over the right to force Opium on their masses. White people went to Africa, and we know what happened. White people went to India and enslaved a sub-continent and ruled during a famine in which millions died. White people went to America and decimated the local Native population to the point where they were around 95% obliterated. White people seized land in China, the Phillipines, Asia, South America, Africa, central america, southeast Asia. No group or race has ever and probably will ever come close.
The Muslim invasion, the Asian-African slave trade, the wars of the Aztecs and Shaka Zulu, all are nothing, absolutely minute in comparison to white destruction. So yes, white skin, white face, european people, it's all the fucking same. You're getting down to extremely minute, inconsequential details.
And I can tell you white people have caused this destruction because it is a historical fucking fact. Why don't we know as much about African-American or Central American history? Because most non-white peoples did not do much continent crossing in order to enslave, kill, etc. Aztecs did not go to Europe and take slaves. Filipinos did not invade China, etc.
On the other hand, Europeans went to Mexico and took slaves, gold, and land. The American army went to the Phillipines and killed 250,000 people, all in the name of "taming the savage land". The English went to war with China over the right to force Opium on their masses. White people went to Africa, and we know what happened. White people went to India and enslaved a sub-continent and ruled during a famine in which millions died. White people went to America and decimated the local Native population to the point where they were around 95% obliterated. White people seized land in China, the Phillipines, Asia, South America, Africa, central america, southeast Asia. No group or race has ever and probably will ever come close.
The Muslim invasion, the Asian-African slave trade, the wars of the Aztecs and Shaka Zulu, all are nothing, absolutely minute in comparison to white destruction. So yes, white skin, white face, european people, it's all the fucking same. You're getting down to extremely minute, inconsequential details.
IIIIGHHNT!!! WRONG! There is no such thing as "white people" in the sense that you are using the term. You can tell the difference between a person from Europe and an Arabic man... let me be the first to congratulate you! Why is it that you as well as everyone else questioned in this thread have yet to define what a "white" person is, yet you comment on - and throw the word around like it's nothing. Someone decending from Europe... LOL. WRONG! A "white" person is not defined by their country of origin (it is just assumed most derive from Europe), but the color of their skin. White is a *color*, not a country. There are white mexicans, white asians, white arabians, white indians, white natives, and so on and so forth.
*WOW* Now lets see you do "brown" people. Reaaaaddddyyyyy GO! (I'm really waiting).
Actually I'm still talking about the color of skin linked with the will and desire to cause destruction. Can you prove it? If not, then why are you even arguing this point still?
*WOW* Now lets see you do "brown" people. Reaaaaddddyyyyy GO! (I'm really waiting).
Actually I'm still talking about the color of skin linked with the will and desire to cause destruction. Can you prove it? If not, then why are you even arguing this point still?
Bullshit. Haha. White = European. European people are light skinned, not "white", but light skinned. You are fucking taking a small ass detail (the fact that "light" skin does not make you European) and making it into the argument. It's not the argument. If you are from Europe, you will be light skinned, you will be "white", unless your ancestry is mixed. White = European, Anglo, whatever the fuck you want to call it. White skin color...ok Doctor Obvious, the fact that people of multiple races can be light skinned, we will hand that to you and your team of researchers. But when people say "white", they mean specifically European. Not African, Not Asian, Not Middle Eastern. I'm sorry we used incorrect phraseology, doctor specifric. We will change every word/thread in the siccness from White to European, and then you can be satisfied. Mr. Details! You go for biggest big deal over smallest stupid label ever. Clap clap clap!
Woohoo details! Alright Mr. Specific! People with Asian skin (labeled yellow by whites) tend to have more light brown skin. Central, South Americans bronze, Africans black, Middle Easterns dark, etc. White European people have beiege colored skin, and these "beige-skinned" people killed, enslaved, murdered, raped, and stole more than any other color, purple, brown, pink, or blue. You try to dismiss the entire argument with stupid details. That's like saying hey! I'm not wearing this safety belt! The word safety is misspelled on it! You go Nitro...changer of minds...enlightener of souls...nagger of details...go on with your guru ways.
Woohoo details! Alright Mr. Specific! People with Asian skin (labeled yellow by whites) tend to have more light brown skin. Central, South Americans bronze, Africans black, Middle Easterns dark, etc. White European people have beiege colored skin, and these "beige-skinned" people killed, enslaved, murdered, raped, and stole more than any other color, purple, brown, pink, or blue. You try to dismiss the entire argument with stupid details. That's like saying hey! I'm not wearing this safety belt! The word safety is misspelled on it! You go Nitro...changer of minds...enlightener of souls...nagger of details...go on with your guru ways.
1. You say WHITE = EUROPEAN but by what defenition is this? When a Russian moves to the United States what box does he check on his application? What do police write on their report? What do witnesses say when they saw him do something? That is how we (society) difine what it is to be "white". You are one of those people who would say "I'm not white I'm Itilian". You keep talking about small details.. man are you that slow? These are HUGE details, the only ones that are relevant to the discussion. How can determining what "white" people are, be "small", when trying to link "white" people to be a curse of humanity?
2. You say "But when people say "white", they mean specifically European". So are we now saying that Europe is the curse of humanity? Your talking about being specific, but if we are to avoid doing so, isn't this what the question really is? Is Europe the curse of humanity? Maybe now you see the ignorance in your replies and this question.
3. When people say WHITE they *do not* mean European. They mean a human being who has the stereotypical white color skin. This can be mexican, indian, native, etc. I might have been in error when I said Asian, because Asians have facial structures that are easily identified. But for the most part, humans who have this "white" color skin will be classified by it.
4. Changing every word from "white" to European will only make things worse.
1. You're accusing me of going into specific details... okay, thanks?
2. This was your reply to me asking for proof that being "white" will give one the will and desire to cause destruction. You did not even come close to even *TRYING* to do so.
3. You keep on with this "white" people did this, that, and the other thing, more than any other race. Now listen closely.. I.. AM.. NOT.. ARGUING.. THAT. Let me know how many times I should say it, I will do so, you can understand it, then we can move on.
You have responded to these posts without any relevance to what I was asking you (other then your failed attempt to define white people). Your ignorance is displayed through your constant sarcasm, and you have yet to really say much of anything. Unless you can come with something concrete then don't reply at all. I came at you with facts and your talking about seat belts being spelt wrong.
One last thing. Can you tell me all of (okay as much of) the destruction caused by "brown" people throughout history? One would have to be able to answer this in order to know what race is responsible for the most.
2. You say "But when people say "white", they mean specifically European". So are we now saying that Europe is the curse of humanity? Your talking about being specific, but if we are to avoid doing so, isn't this what the question really is? Is Europe the curse of humanity? Maybe now you see the ignorance in your replies and this question.
3. When people say WHITE they *do not* mean European. They mean a human being who has the stereotypical white color skin. This can be mexican, indian, native, etc. I might have been in error when I said Asian, because Asians have facial structures that are easily identified. But for the most part, humans who have this "white" color skin will be classified by it.
4. Changing every word from "white" to European will only make things worse.
1. You're accusing me of going into specific details... okay, thanks?
2. This was your reply to me asking for proof that being "white" will give one the will and desire to cause destruction. You did not even come close to even *TRYING* to do so.
3. You keep on with this "white" people did this, that, and the other thing, more than any other race. Now listen closely.. I.. AM.. NOT.. ARGUING.. THAT. Let me know how many times I should say it, I will do so, you can understand it, then we can move on.
You have responded to these posts without any relevance to what I was asking you (other then your failed attempt to define white people). Your ignorance is displayed through your constant sarcasm, and you have yet to really say much of anything. Unless you can come with something concrete then don't reply at all. I came at you with facts and your talking about seat belts being spelt wrong.
One last thing. Can you tell me all of (okay as much of) the destruction caused by "brown" people throughout history? One would have to be able to answer this in order to know what race is responsible for the most.