Have WHITES/EUROPEANS caused more problems than religion?
- Thread starter HERESY
- Start date
The Black approach to wealth, poverty and ignorance is talked about.
Dee Lee
THEY ARE STILL OUR SLAVES We can continue to reap profits from the Blacks without the effort of physical slavery Look at the current methods of containment that they use on themselves: IGNORANCE, GREED, and SELFISHNESS.
Their IGNORANCE is the primary weapon of containment. A great man once said, "The best way to hide something from Black people is to put it in a book." We now live in the Information Age. They have gained the opportunity to read any book on any subject through the efforts of their fight for freedom, yet they refuse to read. There are numerous books readily available at Borders, Barnes & Noble, and Amazon.com, not to mention their own Black Bookstores that provide solid blueprints to reach economic equality (which should have been their fight all along), but few read consistently, if at all.
GREED is another powerful weapon of containment. Blacks, since the abolition of slavery, have had large amounts of money at their disposal. Last year they spent 10 billion dollars during Christmas, out of their 450 billion dollars in total yearly income (2.22%).
Any of us can use them as our target market, for any business venture we care to dream up, no matter how outlandish, they will buy into it. Being primarily a consumer people, they function totally by greed. They continually want more, with little thought for saving or investing.
They would rather buy some new sneaker than invest in starting a business. Some even neglect their children to have the latest Tommy or FUBU, and they still think that having a Mercedes, and a big house gives them "Status" or that they have achieved their Dream.
They are fools! The vast majority of their people are still in poverty because their greed holds them back from collectively making better communities.
With the help of BET, and the rest of their black media that often broadcasts destructive images into their own homes, we will continue to see huge profits like those of Tommy and Nike. (Tommy Hilfiger has even jeered them, saying he doesn't want their money, and look at how the fools spend more with him than ever before!). They'll continue to show off to each other while we build solid communities with the profits from our businesses that we market to them.
SELFISHNESS, ingrained in their minds through slavery, is one of the major ways we can continue to contain them. One of their own, Dubois said that there was an innate division in their culture. A "Talented Tenth" he called it. He was correct in his deduction that there are segments of their culture that has achieved some "form" of success. However, that segment missed the fullness of his work. They didn't read that the "Talented Tenth" was then responsible to aid The Non-Talented Ninety Percent in achieving a better life. Instead, that segment has created another class, a Buppie class that looks down on their people or aids them in a condescending manner. They will never achieve what we have. Their selfishness does not allow them to be able to work together on any project or endeavor of substance. When they do get together, their selfishness lets their egos get in the way of their goal Their so-called help organizations seem to only want to promote their name without making any real change in their community.
They are content to sit in conferences and conventions in our hotels, and talk about what they will do, while they award plaques to the best speakers, not to the best doers. Is there no end to their selfishness? They steadfastly refuse to see that TOGETHER EACH ACHIEVES MORE (TEAM) They do not understand that they are no better than each other because of what they own, as a matter of fact, most of those Buppies are but one or two pay checks away from poverty. All of which is under the control of our pens in our offices and our rooms.
Yes, we will continue to contain them as long as they refuse to read, continue to buy anything they want, and keep thinking they are "helping" their communities by paying dues to organizations which do little other than hold lavish conventions in our hotels. By the way, don't worry about any of them reading this letter, remember, 'THEY DON'T READ!!!!
(Prove them wrong. Please pass this on! After Reading it..)
http://www.nsbe-ae-stl.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=145
-------------------------------------
And you make the claim that capitalism is not based on race???????
Dee Lee
THEY ARE STILL OUR SLAVES We can continue to reap profits from the Blacks without the effort of physical slavery Look at the current methods of containment that they use on themselves: IGNORANCE, GREED, and SELFISHNESS.
Their IGNORANCE is the primary weapon of containment. A great man once said, "The best way to hide something from Black people is to put it in a book." We now live in the Information Age. They have gained the opportunity to read any book on any subject through the efforts of their fight for freedom, yet they refuse to read. There are numerous books readily available at Borders, Barnes & Noble, and Amazon.com, not to mention their own Black Bookstores that provide solid blueprints to reach economic equality (which should have been their fight all along), but few read consistently, if at all.
GREED is another powerful weapon of containment. Blacks, since the abolition of slavery, have had large amounts of money at their disposal. Last year they spent 10 billion dollars during Christmas, out of their 450 billion dollars in total yearly income (2.22%).
Any of us can use them as our target market, for any business venture we care to dream up, no matter how outlandish, they will buy into it. Being primarily a consumer people, they function totally by greed. They continually want more, with little thought for saving or investing.
They would rather buy some new sneaker than invest in starting a business. Some even neglect their children to have the latest Tommy or FUBU, and they still think that having a Mercedes, and a big house gives them "Status" or that they have achieved their Dream.
They are fools! The vast majority of their people are still in poverty because their greed holds them back from collectively making better communities.
With the help of BET, and the rest of their black media that often broadcasts destructive images into their own homes, we will continue to see huge profits like those of Tommy and Nike. (Tommy Hilfiger has even jeered them, saying he doesn't want their money, and look at how the fools spend more with him than ever before!). They'll continue to show off to each other while we build solid communities with the profits from our businesses that we market to them.
SELFISHNESS, ingrained in their minds through slavery, is one of the major ways we can continue to contain them. One of their own, Dubois said that there was an innate division in their culture. A "Talented Tenth" he called it. He was correct in his deduction that there are segments of their culture that has achieved some "form" of success. However, that segment missed the fullness of his work. They didn't read that the "Talented Tenth" was then responsible to aid The Non-Talented Ninety Percent in achieving a better life. Instead, that segment has created another class, a Buppie class that looks down on their people or aids them in a condescending manner. They will never achieve what we have. Their selfishness does not allow them to be able to work together on any project or endeavor of substance. When they do get together, their selfishness lets their egos get in the way of their goal Their so-called help organizations seem to only want to promote their name without making any real change in their community.
They are content to sit in conferences and conventions in our hotels, and talk about what they will do, while they award plaques to the best speakers, not to the best doers. Is there no end to their selfishness? They steadfastly refuse to see that TOGETHER EACH ACHIEVES MORE (TEAM) They do not understand that they are no better than each other because of what they own, as a matter of fact, most of those Buppies are but one or two pay checks away from poverty. All of which is under the control of our pens in our offices and our rooms.
Yes, we will continue to contain them as long as they refuse to read, continue to buy anything they want, and keep thinking they are "helping" their communities by paying dues to organizations which do little other than hold lavish conventions in our hotels. By the way, don't worry about any of them reading this letter, remember, 'THEY DON'T READ!!!!
(Prove them wrong. Please pass this on! After Reading it..)
http://www.nsbe-ae-stl.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=145
-------------------------------------
And you make the claim that capitalism is not based on race???????
Collateral Damage: Poor Whites and the Unintended Consequences of Racial Privilege
By Tim Wise
A few years ago, a young woman who was an anti-poverty organizer in rural Kentucky asked me how she could infuse her work with an anti-racist analysis.
She knew there was a need to address the connection between institutional racism and white privilege on the one hand and economic oppression on the other; but at the same time, she was aware of the difficulty of relating these issues to the lived experiences of the mostly white poor with whom she was working.
After all, how does one explain--indeed is it even proper to bring up--the existence of white privilege among poor whites, for whom the idea of privilege must seem remote and even absurd? And how could she make poor whites realize the need to fight racism against people of color when they have, to put it mildly, their own problems?
I thought seriously about her questions and promised to get back to her with some ideas; then, as often happens, I got sidetracked and never got around to responding.
Yet, I continued thinking about the issue, finally concluding that not only is it proper to address the reality of white privilege among the white poor, but indeed it is critical to do so, if we ever wish to address not only the misery faced by too many people of color, but even that felt by the white poor themselves. For poor whites, as I’ll explain below, are victims not only of a class system that views them as expendable, but also a racial caste system that favors them, and yet whose favors come at an enormous cost.
Of course, to suggest that poor whites reap the benefits of skin color when they suffer so terribly in class terms seems preposterous to some. But privilege is not merely a monetary term, nor is it solely an absolute concept; rather, it is also relative, and it is this relative meaning of the term "privilege" that concerns us here.
The white poor, for example, clearly reap certain privileges vis-à-vis the poor of color: benefits about which we must be honest. First and foremost, is the more positive way in which they are typically viewed relative to poor folks with darker skin, and how this translates into differential treatment.
Consider the early imagery of the poor in the U.S., and what various changes in that imagery over time have meant in terms of racial positionality.
Not all that long ago, the poor in this country were typically thought of and represented as white, especially white and rural. Images from the Great Depression or the Dust Bowl were among the first mass-distributed visuals of the poor in the U.S., and along with early 1960s media and political attention to conditions in Appalachia, helped frame poverty in a way that was just as likely to conjure up visions of whites as anyone else.
In line with the mostly white representation of the poor, came a significant degree of sympathy for those in poverty. During the Depression and for several decades after, most Americans viewed poverty as something that was at least in large part the result of forces beyond the control of the poor themselves.
But by the 1970’s, the discussion of poverty had shifted dramatically, thanks in large part to a transformation of media imagery. Whereas in 1964, only a little more than one-quarter of all media representations of poor people in the U.S. were representations of blacks, by the early 1970s, over 70 percent were, and three out of every four stories on so-called welfare programs featured African Americans.
This shift in imagery of the poor corresponded with a growing backlash against anti-poverty efforts and the poor themselves, who increasingly became the targets of political scapegoating, and were rarely seen as victims, but rather perpetrators of social decay.
Importantly, the white poor, despite their economic condition, generally escaped the full weight of this emerging invective and were not the ones typified as the harbingers of social pathology. Even though roughly 40 percent of the long-term poor and welfare dependent "underclass" is white, virtually all media stories discussing the underclass--inevitably in highly critical ways--have portrayed people of color, with few if any exceptions.
The white poor, despite the growing backlash, have been able to remain the "salt of the earth" in the eyes of most, buffeted by circumstances not of their own making. In the 1980’s the farm crisis left thousands of white families on the margins of economic survival, and needing government support at record levels (on top of the agricultural subsidies they had already been receiving for years).
Yet few blamed the farmers themselves, recognizing instead the larger structural forces at work. This, in contrast to the decided lack of slack cut to the inner-city poor, even though they too were facing economic forces beyond their control: deindustrialization, the loss of manufacturing jobs, and outsourcing to poor nations by companies seeking higher profits, to say nothing of plain old-fashioned racism.
This difference in the way the poor are viewed based on race is indicative of racial preference: an advantage and immunity extended to the white poor, irrespective of class status, which leaves them several steps above the poor of color in the public’s estimation, and thereby more likely to garner support be it in the form of charity or government expenditure.
This is one reason why the whiter one’s state is demographically, the more generous is one’s welfare system likely to be. States with an overwhelmingly white population tend to have far stronger safety nets for those in need, and have imposed far softer cuts and sanctions under the rubric of welfare reform.
And yet, these benefits and privileges have a flipside: one that demonstrates just how harmful racism against people of color--which generated those privileges in the first place--can be, even for the persons who reap the benefits of it in relative terms.
In other words, white racial privilege and its corollary--anti-black and anti-brown racism--have blowback effects on whites, especially the white poor, and these blowback effects render the white poor a form of "collateral damage" in the ongoing oppression of their darker brethren.
First, because the poverty and welfare issues have been racialized, the white poor have been rendered largely invisible. On the one hand, this extends the privilege of not being the ones scapegoated for the problems of the underclass; but on the other hand, personal invisibility renders one’s very real suffering invisible as well. And if the white poor are off the radar screen--because the public is so angrily focused on the supposed depredations of the black and brown poor--it will become harder to address the economic needs of the white poor too.
Secondly, to be white and poor in a nation that is rooted in the notion of white domination and supremacy is to fail to live up to that society’s expectations; and to fail to live up to those expectations--which because of racial privilege are higher for whites than for others--is to render oneself vulnerable to a special kind of stigma. It is to be an exceptionally spectacular screw-up, which can lead one to not only be shunned by other whites, but to develop a crippling amount of self-doubt as well. In other words, it’s bad enough to be poor and black, but to be poor and white in a land where white folks are expected to excel is to forever brand oneself with a scarlet L, for loser.
Here too, the system of white supremacy and privilege grants benefits on the one hand, but at the same time sets up many whites for a fall. It generates expectations by virtue of systemic racial stratification, which can be sustained for most, but which for some will fall flat, to their absolute detriment. To the extent the society provides substantial extra opportunity for whites to make it is a privilege to be sure; for those who fail however, the promise becomes an especially cruel hoax, precisely because of its magnitude.
Third, to the extent the public identifies poverty and welfare efforts with blacks, that same public will become increasingly hostile to the provision of income support needed by all persons in poverty, including whites. Studies have found that the public perceives the welfare rolls and ranks of the poor to be much blacker than they really are, and that the public perception of blacks and their work ethic is the single strongest predictor of their attitudes towards income support programs.
In other words, if whites think of blacks (especially poor blacks) in negative terms--a kind of racism that provides a measure of privilege to the white poor who can be viewed as more deserving than those of color--this racism will translate into calls for cuts in the safety net, thereby endangering the well-being of the very whites who benefited in relative terms from the racist imagery in the first place.
So once again, privilege has a downside: in this case, it brings with it a more frugal welfare state and system of support for all the poor, because that privilege is the side effect of racism, and that racism limits support for public assistance generally.
Finally, a system of white privilege encourages the white poor not to form alliances with poor and working class people of color, since such a system encourages those whites to think of their race as all they have, when their economic condition is so miserable. The failure then to form such alliances renders the collective strength of poor and working class people below what it would otherwise be, and thus harms all those who could benefit from such an effort.
Historically, this is how both racism and the class system have been maintained, by playing off whites against people of color, offering the former just enough advantage in relative terms to keep them from aligning with the poor of color and rebelling on the basis of their absolute condition.
In the 1700s this meant ending indentured servitude and letting poor whites serve on slave patrols among other things, so as to make them, at least partially, members of the same team as the elite.
In the mid-1800s it meant Southern aristocracy convincing poor whites to ally with the cause of secession and the maintenance of slavery, even though the latter drove down the wages of all low income whites, since they would have to charge for their labor, while black property could be made to work for free.
When people are poor, a little boost is sometimes all it takes to divide them from their natural allies. White privilege has been that boost. In fact, ironically, white privilege ends up mattering more to the poor than the rich. When one is rich, after all, one has enough money to stay warm and buy security. But when one is poor and white, skin is all one has left, and it takes on larger-than-life meaning.
At the end of the day, if we ever hope to eradicate the class injustices of poverty and relative deprivation, organizers like that young woman must confront directly the racism and institutional privilege that has for so long prevented the class unity needed for such an end. Racism cannot be viewed as it often is on the left, as secondary to the "real issue," which in the minds of white leftists is typically class.
The fact is, the issue is both, and without a frontal assault on racism and white privilege, there will be no end to the class system, because there will never be the necessary coalition building needed to fundamentally challenge the existing system of domination and subordination that immiserates poor whites and poor persons of color alike.
Tim Wise is an antiracist activist, essayist and father. He can be reached at (and footnotes procured from) [email protected]
-------------------------
I found both these articles AFTER I made my responses to several of you. Both these articles endorse what I am saying and shed more light on the subject so read them before you reply to me.
By Tim Wise
A few years ago, a young woman who was an anti-poverty organizer in rural Kentucky asked me how she could infuse her work with an anti-racist analysis.
She knew there was a need to address the connection between institutional racism and white privilege on the one hand and economic oppression on the other; but at the same time, she was aware of the difficulty of relating these issues to the lived experiences of the mostly white poor with whom she was working.
After all, how does one explain--indeed is it even proper to bring up--the existence of white privilege among poor whites, for whom the idea of privilege must seem remote and even absurd? And how could she make poor whites realize the need to fight racism against people of color when they have, to put it mildly, their own problems?
I thought seriously about her questions and promised to get back to her with some ideas; then, as often happens, I got sidetracked and never got around to responding.
Yet, I continued thinking about the issue, finally concluding that not only is it proper to address the reality of white privilege among the white poor, but indeed it is critical to do so, if we ever wish to address not only the misery faced by too many people of color, but even that felt by the white poor themselves. For poor whites, as I’ll explain below, are victims not only of a class system that views them as expendable, but also a racial caste system that favors them, and yet whose favors come at an enormous cost.
Of course, to suggest that poor whites reap the benefits of skin color when they suffer so terribly in class terms seems preposterous to some. But privilege is not merely a monetary term, nor is it solely an absolute concept; rather, it is also relative, and it is this relative meaning of the term "privilege" that concerns us here.
The white poor, for example, clearly reap certain privileges vis-à-vis the poor of color: benefits about which we must be honest. First and foremost, is the more positive way in which they are typically viewed relative to poor folks with darker skin, and how this translates into differential treatment.
Consider the early imagery of the poor in the U.S., and what various changes in that imagery over time have meant in terms of racial positionality.
Not all that long ago, the poor in this country were typically thought of and represented as white, especially white and rural. Images from the Great Depression or the Dust Bowl were among the first mass-distributed visuals of the poor in the U.S., and along with early 1960s media and political attention to conditions in Appalachia, helped frame poverty in a way that was just as likely to conjure up visions of whites as anyone else.
In line with the mostly white representation of the poor, came a significant degree of sympathy for those in poverty. During the Depression and for several decades after, most Americans viewed poverty as something that was at least in large part the result of forces beyond the control of the poor themselves.
But by the 1970’s, the discussion of poverty had shifted dramatically, thanks in large part to a transformation of media imagery. Whereas in 1964, only a little more than one-quarter of all media representations of poor people in the U.S. were representations of blacks, by the early 1970s, over 70 percent were, and three out of every four stories on so-called welfare programs featured African Americans.
This shift in imagery of the poor corresponded with a growing backlash against anti-poverty efforts and the poor themselves, who increasingly became the targets of political scapegoating, and were rarely seen as victims, but rather perpetrators of social decay.
Importantly, the white poor, despite their economic condition, generally escaped the full weight of this emerging invective and were not the ones typified as the harbingers of social pathology. Even though roughly 40 percent of the long-term poor and welfare dependent "underclass" is white, virtually all media stories discussing the underclass--inevitably in highly critical ways--have portrayed people of color, with few if any exceptions.
The white poor, despite the growing backlash, have been able to remain the "salt of the earth" in the eyes of most, buffeted by circumstances not of their own making. In the 1980’s the farm crisis left thousands of white families on the margins of economic survival, and needing government support at record levels (on top of the agricultural subsidies they had already been receiving for years).
Yet few blamed the farmers themselves, recognizing instead the larger structural forces at work. This, in contrast to the decided lack of slack cut to the inner-city poor, even though they too were facing economic forces beyond their control: deindustrialization, the loss of manufacturing jobs, and outsourcing to poor nations by companies seeking higher profits, to say nothing of plain old-fashioned racism.
This difference in the way the poor are viewed based on race is indicative of racial preference: an advantage and immunity extended to the white poor, irrespective of class status, which leaves them several steps above the poor of color in the public’s estimation, and thereby more likely to garner support be it in the form of charity or government expenditure.
This is one reason why the whiter one’s state is demographically, the more generous is one’s welfare system likely to be. States with an overwhelmingly white population tend to have far stronger safety nets for those in need, and have imposed far softer cuts and sanctions under the rubric of welfare reform.
And yet, these benefits and privileges have a flipside: one that demonstrates just how harmful racism against people of color--which generated those privileges in the first place--can be, even for the persons who reap the benefits of it in relative terms.
In other words, white racial privilege and its corollary--anti-black and anti-brown racism--have blowback effects on whites, especially the white poor, and these blowback effects render the white poor a form of "collateral damage" in the ongoing oppression of their darker brethren.
First, because the poverty and welfare issues have been racialized, the white poor have been rendered largely invisible. On the one hand, this extends the privilege of not being the ones scapegoated for the problems of the underclass; but on the other hand, personal invisibility renders one’s very real suffering invisible as well. And if the white poor are off the radar screen--because the public is so angrily focused on the supposed depredations of the black and brown poor--it will become harder to address the economic needs of the white poor too.
Secondly, to be white and poor in a nation that is rooted in the notion of white domination and supremacy is to fail to live up to that society’s expectations; and to fail to live up to those expectations--which because of racial privilege are higher for whites than for others--is to render oneself vulnerable to a special kind of stigma. It is to be an exceptionally spectacular screw-up, which can lead one to not only be shunned by other whites, but to develop a crippling amount of self-doubt as well. In other words, it’s bad enough to be poor and black, but to be poor and white in a land where white folks are expected to excel is to forever brand oneself with a scarlet L, for loser.
Here too, the system of white supremacy and privilege grants benefits on the one hand, but at the same time sets up many whites for a fall. It generates expectations by virtue of systemic racial stratification, which can be sustained for most, but which for some will fall flat, to their absolute detriment. To the extent the society provides substantial extra opportunity for whites to make it is a privilege to be sure; for those who fail however, the promise becomes an especially cruel hoax, precisely because of its magnitude.
Third, to the extent the public identifies poverty and welfare efforts with blacks, that same public will become increasingly hostile to the provision of income support needed by all persons in poverty, including whites. Studies have found that the public perceives the welfare rolls and ranks of the poor to be much blacker than they really are, and that the public perception of blacks and their work ethic is the single strongest predictor of their attitudes towards income support programs.
In other words, if whites think of blacks (especially poor blacks) in negative terms--a kind of racism that provides a measure of privilege to the white poor who can be viewed as more deserving than those of color--this racism will translate into calls for cuts in the safety net, thereby endangering the well-being of the very whites who benefited in relative terms from the racist imagery in the first place.
So once again, privilege has a downside: in this case, it brings with it a more frugal welfare state and system of support for all the poor, because that privilege is the side effect of racism, and that racism limits support for public assistance generally.
Finally, a system of white privilege encourages the white poor not to form alliances with poor and working class people of color, since such a system encourages those whites to think of their race as all they have, when their economic condition is so miserable. The failure then to form such alliances renders the collective strength of poor and working class people below what it would otherwise be, and thus harms all those who could benefit from such an effort.
Historically, this is how both racism and the class system have been maintained, by playing off whites against people of color, offering the former just enough advantage in relative terms to keep them from aligning with the poor of color and rebelling on the basis of their absolute condition.
In the 1700s this meant ending indentured servitude and letting poor whites serve on slave patrols among other things, so as to make them, at least partially, members of the same team as the elite.
In the mid-1800s it meant Southern aristocracy convincing poor whites to ally with the cause of secession and the maintenance of slavery, even though the latter drove down the wages of all low income whites, since they would have to charge for their labor, while black property could be made to work for free.
When people are poor, a little boost is sometimes all it takes to divide them from their natural allies. White privilege has been that boost. In fact, ironically, white privilege ends up mattering more to the poor than the rich. When one is rich, after all, one has enough money to stay warm and buy security. But when one is poor and white, skin is all one has left, and it takes on larger-than-life meaning.
At the end of the day, if we ever hope to eradicate the class injustices of poverty and relative deprivation, organizers like that young woman must confront directly the racism and institutional privilege that has for so long prevented the class unity needed for such an end. Racism cannot be viewed as it often is on the left, as secondary to the "real issue," which in the minds of white leftists is typically class.
The fact is, the issue is both, and without a frontal assault on racism and white privilege, there will be no end to the class system, because there will never be the necessary coalition building needed to fundamentally challenge the existing system of domination and subordination that immiserates poor whites and poor persons of color alike.
Tim Wise is an antiracist activist, essayist and father. He can be reached at (and footnotes procured from) [email protected]
-------------------------
I found both these articles AFTER I made my responses to several of you. Both these articles endorse what I am saying and shed more light on the subject so read them before you reply to me.
If that doesn't anwser your question then please eleborate what you are trying to ask with an example of some sort.
But I can asure you I have to wait in line at the cash registre like everybody (other europeans, blacks, latinos, asian and people from the middle east) there are NO special queues or lines for white people ANYWHERE
I believe it did
This is the pot telling the kettle he's black
Still looks like generalizing to me
You can be expected to act or live a certain lifestyle comming from a certain heritage but the way you live your life is still up to one persone, the person living it.
You can have a whole leap of expectations but people make their own decissions I think you fail to graps this. Because going from your standards I as being a white european should be a capitalist swine extorting everyone who is not white trough certain channels and hide myself behind certain religions.
I choose not to do so (with me many other European white people) I do not extort any person, black, brown purple or white.
Alot of people want to have lighter skin if they are self dark skinned yes this is true but this doesn't count of every colored person in the world so this statement isn't completely true there are many with white teens who infact want to be black because of the "gangster rap culture" rich or poor whites..
I think this could be partially true, blacks in Americans are called Tom (I've never been to America so I have to believe you on your statement) But this does not count for colourd people in their own countries, a rich blackman in Afrika isn't looked down up on by other blacks, a rich Arabier is not looked down up on in Arabia, a rich Mexican is not looked down up on by other Mexicans in Mexico and so on and so on
I think this thread is a prime example of you falling down to the majority and starting to generalize other races (if you didn't already did this, I do not know)
Religion is not a white culture I do believe religion is getting extorted and hide behind by a lot of people, if most of them are white I do not know. I know there are also a lot of other cultures practicing relgion (christianity, I think you are reffering to that religion) that not can be excluded from this statement.
Goes twice, lets just discuss, calling eachother names and mocking eachother isn't doing you, me or this thread any good.
I was not there at the time but I believe the Muslims whiped out the Egyptian culture. The Egyptians at their time are also repsonsible for several severe wars in North Afrika.
So is the Osman (Turkish) empire who occupied almost whole of North Afrika at the time of its prime.
Then there are the Chinese Dynasties and Khengis Khan I am sure there are many many more cultures who are responsible for killing of other cultures whitout them being white or whitout whites haveing anything to do with it. but since these cultures are no longer a thread to you I do not hear anything about these points from you.
Cuba did it and Venezuala seems to do a pretty good job at the time reclaiming their lands resources. Now, why can they do this and blacks cannot. It is already proven it can be done so.
If I remember correctly Che Guevarra tried to help several African countries reclaim their lands and resources out after the Cuban revolution he went there with several Cuban millitary man to train Africans and help them with an armed revolution, leading eventually to reclaim power. It didn't work because these blackman where just not capable of doing so because they were not disiplined to form an armed militia.
Not in my own country, I am white but I also get discriminated and disrespected by blacks, marrocan, turkish etc etc for being a "cheesehead" or what ever in my "own" country. And then sometimes by other whites for being socialist, but I still chose to walk this path... because it is my own dissicion which I make for myself.
It is when I visit other countries when people are respecting me for being european. This is mutal because I respect them for being what they are, comming from where they come from. No matter where they are from. (I have been in many other countries, also outside of Europe the respect is always mutal) Your point doesn't make any sense
you are not obligated to do so.
I am off to bed, good night
But I can asure you I have to wait in line at the cash registre like everybody (other europeans, blacks, latinos, asian and people from the middle east) there are NO special queues or lines for white people ANYWHERE
I believe it did
This is the pot telling the kettle he's black
Still looks like generalizing to me
You can be expected to act or live a certain lifestyle comming from a certain heritage but the way you live your life is still up to one persone, the person living it.
You can have a whole leap of expectations but people make their own decissions I think you fail to graps this. Because going from your standards I as being a white european should be a capitalist swine extorting everyone who is not white trough certain channels and hide myself behind certain religions.
I choose not to do so (with me many other European white people) I do not extort any person, black, brown purple or white.
Alot of people want to have lighter skin if they are self dark skinned yes this is true but this doesn't count of every colored person in the world so this statement isn't completely true there are many with white teens who infact want to be black because of the "gangster rap culture" rich or poor whites..
I think this could be partially true, blacks in Americans are called Tom (I've never been to America so I have to believe you on your statement) But this does not count for colourd people in their own countries, a rich blackman in Afrika isn't looked down up on by other blacks, a rich Arabier is not looked down up on in Arabia, a rich Mexican is not looked down up on by other Mexicans in Mexico and so on and so on
I think this thread is a prime example of you falling down to the majority and starting to generalize other races (if you didn't already did this, I do not know)
Religion is not a white culture I do believe religion is getting extorted and hide behind by a lot of people, if most of them are white I do not know. I know there are also a lot of other cultures practicing relgion (christianity, I think you are reffering to that religion) that not can be excluded from this statement.
Goes twice, lets just discuss, calling eachother names and mocking eachother isn't doing you, me or this thread any good.
I was not there at the time but I believe the Muslims whiped out the Egyptian culture. The Egyptians at their time are also repsonsible for several severe wars in North Afrika.
So is the Osman (Turkish) empire who occupied almost whole of North Afrika at the time of its prime.
Then there are the Chinese Dynasties and Khengis Khan I am sure there are many many more cultures who are responsible for killing of other cultures whitout them being white or whitout whites haveing anything to do with it. but since these cultures are no longer a thread to you I do not hear anything about these points from you.
Cuba did it and Venezuala seems to do a pretty good job at the time reclaiming their lands resources. Now, why can they do this and blacks cannot. It is already proven it can be done so.
If I remember correctly Che Guevarra tried to help several African countries reclaim their lands and resources out after the Cuban revolution he went there with several Cuban millitary man to train Africans and help them with an armed revolution, leading eventually to reclaim power. It didn't work because these blackman where just not capable of doing so because they were not disiplined to form an armed militia.
Not in my own country, I am white but I also get discriminated and disrespected by blacks, marrocan, turkish etc etc for being a "cheesehead" or what ever in my "own" country. And then sometimes by other whites for being socialist, but I still chose to walk this path... because it is my own dissicion which I make for myself.
It is when I visit other countries when people are respecting me for being european. This is mutal because I respect them for being what they are, comming from where they come from. No matter where they are from. (I have been in many other countries, also outside of Europe the respect is always mutal) Your point doesn't make any sense
you are not obligated to do so.
I am off to bed, good night
NOOOOOOOOOOOO DOUGH!!!!!!!!!!!
I posted an article for you and everyone else to read. It was the article you should have read before you replied, and I specifically asked that you guys read it before you made your replies.
Read the article, and you'll have a better understanding. In fact, you and others here are proof of what is cited in the article.
Trust me it doesn't, and the only person you won't have a problem convincing is yourself.
I'm not promoting my heritage here, nor am I attempting to look important. Please, next time read before you respond or simply don't respond at all. Here it is I can't even get into your post and feel like stopping my reply now because you have a strange and incomprehensible view on the reality of our world.
see above.
That depends on the persons social mobility and the psychological condition of said person. If you believe the way people live their life is solely up to them and not dictated by environmental factors you need to seek help.
People make descisions based on a variety of factors. SEE ABOVE.
No not at all. Please read the article I asked you to read.
Please read the article I asked you to read.
see above.
Some people in america might take offense to "colourd" so you might want to change that up. I have no problem with it, but I'm just telling you the facts. And yes, it does count for people of color in other countries.
B.S. you have people who look down on the rich because of the way they treat people. You have people who look down upon the rich because they are jealous of them. Where are you from? What country do you live in?
Brother, no one pays you to think. Please read the two articles I posted.
Religion is a part of white culture, and if you deny that you're insane. However, I have not implied or stated that religion was created by whites.
Another cop out.
Please clarify this statement so I may address it.
No it isn't, but when I post something, tell you to read it before you respond, and you do the exact opposite that tells me a lot. There is NO WAY a sane person who read those two articles would ask the questions you did. I apologize if it appears that I am being snide, but thats just the way it is. When I read your responses I get the idea that for whatever reason, you want to make yourself look innocent and as if no problems exist. When I read your responses I get the impression that you truly don't understand what is being said, or you want to fuck things up for everyone else.
With that being said. R-E-A-D the two articles I posted. After you read the two articles you should respond because the two articles go in depth and explain what I am talking about.
If you think I'm going to continue to adress the lunacy you call a post you are SADLY mistaken and misinformed.
I posted an article for you and everyone else to read. It was the article you should have read before you replied, and I specifically asked that you guys read it before you made your replies.
Read the article, and you'll have a better understanding. In fact, you and others here are proof of what is cited in the article.
Trust me it doesn't, and the only person you won't have a problem convincing is yourself.
I'm not promoting my heritage here, nor am I attempting to look important. Please, next time read before you respond or simply don't respond at all. Here it is I can't even get into your post and feel like stopping my reply now because you have a strange and incomprehensible view on the reality of our world.
see above.
That depends on the persons social mobility and the psychological condition of said person. If you believe the way people live their life is solely up to them and not dictated by environmental factors you need to seek help.
People make descisions based on a variety of factors. SEE ABOVE.
No not at all. Please read the article I asked you to read.
Please read the article I asked you to read.
see above.
Some people in america might take offense to "colourd" so you might want to change that up. I have no problem with it, but I'm just telling you the facts. And yes, it does count for people of color in other countries.
B.S. you have people who look down on the rich because of the way they treat people. You have people who look down upon the rich because they are jealous of them. Where are you from? What country do you live in?
Brother, no one pays you to think. Please read the two articles I posted.
Religion is a part of white culture, and if you deny that you're insane. However, I have not implied or stated that religion was created by whites.
Another cop out.
Please clarify this statement so I may address it.
No it isn't, but when I post something, tell you to read it before you respond, and you do the exact opposite that tells me a lot. There is NO WAY a sane person who read those two articles would ask the questions you did. I apologize if it appears that I am being snide, but thats just the way it is. When I read your responses I get the idea that for whatever reason, you want to make yourself look innocent and as if no problems exist. When I read your responses I get the impression that you truly don't understand what is being said, or you want to fuck things up for everyone else.
With that being said. R-E-A-D the two articles I posted. After you read the two articles you should respond because the two articles go in depth and explain what I am talking about.
If you think I'm going to continue to adress the lunacy you call a post you are SADLY mistaken and misinformed.
I could have worded it a lot better I suppose. What I meant was that in addition to the problems that resulted from the religions that whites created, there are also other non religion related problems that whites have created, probably moreso than any other race. However, I am not sold on whites being/creating problems based on their whiteness. Hope that clears it up. probably wasting my time with this post anyway since you got my basic point the first time anyway, but whatever.