# Politics and News > SOCIETY & humanities >  Are Whites Really Superior?

## Irascible Crusader

It's not a rhetorical question.

Charity moves us to think of races as equal.  And perhaps in the eyes of God, all people are of equal worth as human beings.  But does equality mean that all races are equal in every regard?

In my thread http://politicalbullpen.com/bullpen-...e-whites-2796/ "Thank you white people. An Ode to Whites" I make the case that I come from a race that, on the cusp of the European colonial period, was still more primitive than even the ancient Egyptians who lived thousands of years ago.  Without the intervention of white people, I have no doubt we would still be just as recalcitrant, refusing to advance as a race.

The blessings of Christianity have permeated the entire globe through the most evolved race, militarily, economically, technologically, medicinally, and even spiritually.  Even amidst the wars that still rage on, we have a relative world peace brought about by the influence of white western culture.  It hasn't been all roses and certainly accompanying the gospel of Christ and the amenities of Christian culture was a brutal imposition of that culture.  

But what would the world be like without White people?  Think of Africa, particularly tribal Africa where blacks commit genocide daily and remain brutish and primitive.  What advances in medicine comes from Africa and did Africans send us to the moon?  How about the Chinese who, until World War 2, was just a collection of warring tribes and provinces?  Did they bring civilization to the world or was civilization brought to them?  What if the 1000 years of world peace under the reign of Christ prophesied in Revelation was facilitated by the white race and no other?  I shudder to think of what Hawaii would be like if they weren't forcefully settled.

So I ask the questions with no malice or ideological agenda. I ask the question with gratitude for what whites have done for Native Americans..yes, I said done FOR us.  If you can't answer with an open mind, then don't bother.  But my question is, is it possible that whites are equal in regards to worth but superior in regards to intellect, virtue, and the ability to build lasting societies?

----------

Canadianeye (06-19-2013)

----------


## kilgram

Hey, the racist, how are you?

----------


## Coolwalker

Caucasians are not superior to anyone. Caucasians have created or invented more in the last 10,000 years than anyone else however. It is all a matter of need and desire.

----------


## Canadianeye

Interesting.

Given that perspective, and stepping a little beyond the box...whites are the parents who will pass, and are usually reluctant to give up our parental control of our offspring on our way to passing.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Caucasians are not superior to anyone. Caucasians have created or invented more in the last 10,000 years than anyone else however. It is all a matter of need and desire.


Which is why I am trying not to conflate equal with superior.  You make a case for whites having more ambition than other races.  Clearly on issue that can be scored, whites can be said to be superior to other races even if they are equal in intrinsic worth.

----------


## The XL

In before shitstorm.

I don't see any race as superior or inferior.  A lot of positive and negative traits, now and in the past, can be attributed to environment and selective breeding.

----------

KSigMason (06-20-2013)

----------


## The XL

> Hey, the racist, how are you?


I think Crusader is an idiot, but I don't think he's a racist.

----------


## the_diplomat2.0

Answer: No. The term 'white' is antiquated, illusionary, unscientific, overgeneralized, and divisive, resulting in institutional hate, bias, and racism.  As someone who would be identified as 'white', I find the social construct absolutely ridiculous.

----------

KSigMason (06-20-2013)

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Answer: No. The term 'white' is antiquated, illusionary, unscientific, overgeneralized, and divisive, resulting in institutional hate, bias, and racism.


So you want to maintain the illusion, in contravention to history, that all races are equally gifted and there is no difference?  Tell me which hospital was built missionaries sent by Austrailian aboriginals?

----------


## Calypso Jones

God created men equal in his sight although i do believe each race has it's beneficial traits and perhaps share some not so beneficial ones as well.

----------


## Calypso Jones

WHAT is with the automatic hatred of white folk?    Where did that come from?  Envy?   what?

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> God created men equal in his sight although i do believe each race has it's beneficial traits and perhaps share some not so beneficial ones as well.


"Beneficial" being the key word.  For instance, the world benefitted by being saved by Muslim expansionism when white Christian soldiers sacked Jerusalem, crushed the Moorish armies, and ensured they could never again threaten Western civilization, would you agree?

----------


## Guest

> It's not a rhetorical question.
> 
> Charity moves us to think of races as equal.  And perhaps in the eyes of God, all people are of equal worth as human beings.  But does equality mean that all races are equal in every regard?
> 
> In my thread http://politicalbullpen.com/bullpen-...e-whites-2796/ "Thank you white people. An Ode to Whites" I make the case that I come from a race that, on the cusp of the European colonial period, was still more primitive than even the ancient Egyptians who lived thousands of years ago.  Without the intervention of white people, I have no doubt we would still be just as recalcitrant, refusing to advance as a race.
> 
> The blessings of Christianity have permeated the entire globe through the most evolved race, militarily, economically, technologically, medicinally, and even spiritually.  Even amidst the wars that still rage on, we have a relative world peace brought about by the influence of white western culture.  It hasn't been all roses and certainly accompanying the gospel of Christ and the amenities of Christian culture was a brutal imposition of that culture.  
> 
> But what would the world be like without White people?  Think of Africa, particularly tribal Africa where blacks commit genocide daily and remain brutish and primitive.  What advances in medicine comes from Africa and did Africans send us to the moon?  How about the Chinese who, until World War 2, was just a collection of warring tribes and provinces?  Did they bring civilization to the world or was civilization brought to them?  What if the 1000 years of world peace under the reign of Christ prophesied in Revelation was facilitated by the white race and no other?  I shudder to think of what Hawaii would be like if they weren't forcefully settled.
> ...


Why is "primitive" better or worse?  Effectively technology has also given us: porn, chemical weapons, STDs, the destruction of the family unit, television, public education, etc.

What is "better"?  

What is your definition so I can effectively answer what you think is good, better, etc?  Are pyramids a sign that you're superior?  They also used slave labor and worshipped Gods that weighed you against a feather and if your were heavier got fed to celestial crocodiles.

Is the ability to make alcohol and weapons?

I just want to understand what you feel white people brought to the table and why they were wholly great contributions.  I am of the belief that there is a flip side to every coin.  There is no gain without sacrifice.

----------


## the_diplomat2.0

> So you want to maintain the illusion, in contravention to history, that all races are equally gifted and there is no difference?  Tell me which hospital was built missionaries sent by Austrailian aboriginals?


Differences among humans are scientifically known to exist primarily on the basis of individual differences in polymorphisms and the phenotypes that manifest from those genetic differences.  On a larger scale, differences among population groups are also more prevalent.  On the largest scale, differences between population groups do not exist to the extent that traditional conceptualizations of biological classification hold any validity.  The genetic similarity between any two humans is anywhere from 99.7 to 99.9 percent, and to uncover the differences between those two humans lies in examining genetic and phenotype characteristics that differ on an individual and intra-group basis, not an inter-group basis.

With that being said, it is absolutely true that societies that operated on the basis of racial taxonomy and who considered themselves among the 'great races' did engage in incredible feats.  However, they did so through institutions that deliberately divided and conquered other population groups on a false premise.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (06-19-2013)

----------


## Canadianeye

> Which is why I am trying not to conflate equal with superior.  You make a case for whites having more ambition than other races.  Clearly on issue that can be scored, whites can be said to be superior to other races even if they are equal in intrinsic worth.


Wouldn't that be males are superior, or more ambitious? I guess if you travel down the timelines of history males are the architects of civilization itself, no matter the pigmentation.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Why is "primitive" better or worse?  Effectively technology has also given us: porn, chemical weapons, STDs, the destruction of the family unit, television, public education, etc.
> 
> What is "better"?  
> 
> What is your definition so I can effectively answer what you think is good, better, etc?  Are pyramids a sign that you're superior?  They also used slave labor and worshipped Gods that weighed you against a feather and if your were heavier got fed to celestial crocodiles.
> 
> Is the ability to make alcohol and weapons?
> 
> I just want to understand what you feel white people brought to the table and why they were wholly great contributions.  I am of the belief that there is a flip side to every coin.  There is no gain without sacrifice.


Read this article and tell me if you still think that primitive is value neutral to advanced.




> Infanticide rates were enormous in New Guinea, with the first missionaries estimating that two-thirds of the children were murdered by their parents.
> 
> 13 As in other tribal cultures, abstinence and abortion were well known, but infanticide was mainly what was the practice,
> 
> 14 so growing children were routinely traumatized while they watched their mothers strangle or otherwise murder their siblings. Margaret Mead said of her tribe “they are always throwing away infants here”
> 
> 15 and not because of lack of resources to feed them. When tribal mothers were asked why they killed their infants, they stated it was because they were “demon children,” because “children are too much trouble,” because “it was a girl and must be killed,” or “because her husband would go to another woman” for sex if she had to nurse the infant.
> 
> 16 Children watched their mothers bury their siblings live, eat them, or toss them to sows to devour—or else they would force the grown-up children to help them kill their siblings or even sometimes make them kill live infants purchased for murdering from other tribes.
> ...

----------


## Albert Reincarnated

> Answer: No. The term 'white' is antiquated, illusionary, unscientific, overgeneralized, and divisive, resulting in institutional hate, bias, and racism.  As someone who would be identified as 'white', I find the social construct absolutely ridiculous.


At least one hundred million people in this country cling to their white identity.  You have zero compassion for them because you cannot understand their fears.

----------


## kilgram

> Why is "primitive" better or worse?  Effectively technology has also given us: porn, chemical weapons, STDs, the destruction of the family unit, television, public education, etc.
> 
> What is "better"?  
> 
> What is your definition so I can effectively answer what you think is good, better, etc?  Are pyramids a sign that you're superior?  They also used slave labor and worshipped Gods that weighed you against a feather and if your were heavier got fed to celestial crocodiles.
> 
> Is the ability to make alcohol and weapons?
> 
> I just want to understand what you feel white people brought to the table and why they were wholly great contributions.  I am of the belief that there is a flip side to every coin.  There is no gain without sacrifice.


LOL. Porn, TV, public education are bad? O.o

----------


## Albert Reincarnated

Race means little.  Cultural characteristics are controlling.  The old white culture is gone.  The white people around today are an inferior breed because of their lack of character.  The East Asians are going to eat Uncle Sam's lunch.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> God created men equal in his sight although i do believe each race has it's beneficial traits and perhaps share some not so beneficial ones as well.


I actually agree with this completely.

----------


## Dante1

> It's not a rhetorical question.
> 
> Charity moves us to think of races as equal.  And perhaps in the eyes of God, all people are of equal worth as human beings.  But does equality mean that all races are equal in every regard?
> 
> In my thread http://politicalbullpen.com/bullpen-...e-whites-2796/ "Thank you white people. An Ode to Whites" I make the case that I come from a race that, on the cusp of the European colonial period, was still more primitive than even the ancient Egyptians who lived thousands of years ago.  Without the intervention of white people, I have no doubt we would still be just as recalcitrant, refusing to advance as a race.
> 
> The blessings of Christianity have permeated the entire globe through the most evolved race, militarily, economically, technologically, medicinally, and even spiritually.  Even amidst the wars that still rage on, we have a relative world peace brought about by the influence of white western culture.  It hasn't been all roses and certainly accompanying the gospel of Christ and the amenities of Christian culture was a brutal imposition of that culture.  
> 
> But what would the world be like without White people?  Think of Africa, particularly tribal Africa where blacks commit genocide daily and remain brutish and primitive.  What advances in medicine comes from Africa and did Africans send us to the moon?  How about the Chinese who, until World War 2, was just a collection of warring tribes and provinces?  Did they bring civilization to the world or was civilization brought to them?  What if the 1000 years of world peace under the reign of Christ prophesied in Revelation was facilitated by the white race and no other?  I shudder to think of what Hawaii would be like if they weren't forcefully settled.
> ...


You have to analyze the word "superior" very carefully. Is A, a hard-working family man with no criminal record, "superior" to, B, a convicted hit man? I think people would generally say "yes," A is superior to B. Interpersonal comparisons between individuals are certainly possible.

But what about interpersonal comparisons between groups. Is a pack of Eagle Scouts building a homeless shelter "superior" to a group of Latino gang members robbing grocery store? Most would say "yes."

But as the groups get larger, and the attributes of each less discernible, it gets harder to define what "superior" means.

If "superior" refers to the abilities required in the creation of inventions, the production of great art, music and literature, the design of fair and just governmental structures, the development of educational institutions and research, then by that definition, caucasians are hands-down the most "superior" race on earth!

Based upon a long history, that superiority would have to be limited to caucasian MEN.  :Thumbsup20: 

Dante.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Wouldn't that be males are superior, or more ambitious? I guess if you travel down the timelines of history males are the architects of civilization itself, no matter the pigmentation.


Males build cities, females build society, and both are equally important parts of civilization.  Yet racially, civilization consists of warring, primitive tribes that exist only to brutally savage their nearest neighbors or advanced civilization that institute peace which becomes fertile soil for literature, art, sports, and technology.  Which race discovered penicillin or the vaccine for polio?  Which race explored Antarctica and climbed Mt. Everest?

----------


## Calypso Jones

> "Beneficial" being the key word. For instance, the world benefitted by being saved by Muslim expansionism when white Christian soldiers sacked Jerusalem, crushed the Moorish armies, and ensured they could never again threaten Western civilization, would you agree?


would you re-phrase that please?

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

Also, @Irascible Crusader, once again, your knowledge of history is deficient. Some of the earliest examples of technological advancement and invention were Chinese, thousands of years ago.

----------


## the_diplomat2.0

> At least one hundred million people in this country cling to their white identity.  You have zero compassion for them because you cannot understand their fears.


Let them cling to their 'white identity' all they want.  I will not stop them.  All I will say is identification with a population group on the basis of something as arbitrary as skin color (scientifically speaking, people who are 'white' do not have white skin.  It is just an old overgeneralization for a complex genetic makeup resulting from natural selection.) is antiquated and collectivist.  I prefer individual humanity over collectivist humanity.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> Males build cities, females build society, 
> 
> . Which race discovered penicillin or the vaccine for polio? Which race explored Antarctica and climbed Mt. Everest?



I agree about the male/female thing.   Females are not good asx warriors, rulers for the most part, but they do civilize man.  And without woman, man would still be living in the cave with his buds sittin' around the fire drinking their homebrew.

Second question?  which race?

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> You have to analyze the word "superior" very carefully. Is A, a hard-working family man with no criminal record, "superior" to, B, a convicted hit man? I think people would generally say "yes," A is superior to B. Interpersonal comparisons between individuals are certainly possible.
> 
> But what about interpersonal comparisons between groups. Is a pack of Eagle Scouts building a homeless shelter "superior" to a group of Latino gang members robbing grocery store? Most would say "yes."
> 
> But as the groups get larger, and the attributes of each less discernible, it gets harder to define what "superior" means.
> 
> If "superior" refers to the abilities required in the creation of inventions, the production of great art, music and literature, the design of fair and just governmental structures, the development of educational institutions and research, then by that definition, caucasians are hands-down the most "superior" race on earth!
> 
> Based upon a long history, that superiority would have to be limited to caucasian MEN. 
> ...


As I said to Canadianeye, the role of women in an advanced society cannot be overstated.  But your conclusion is correct.  Individually, we are what we make of ourselves, the peaceful and pious Buddhist monks or the savage nomadic German tribes.  But when considering the grand sweeping events that shaped the world today, it takes concerted ignorance to not see that whites have had greater influence in advancing the human race than any other race within it.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Also, @Irascible Crusader, once again, your knowledge of history is deficient. Some of the earliest examples of technological advancement and invention were Chinese, thousands of years ago.


Sorry. I'm not going to take history lessons from somebody who said Columbus was pretty much a Nazi who nearly wiped out all the Carribean tribes.

----------

Kabuki Joe (06-20-2013)

----------


## Albert Reincarnated

> Let them cling to their 'white identity' all they want.  I will not stop them.  All I will say is identification with a population group on the basis of something as arbitrary as skin color (scientifically speaking, people who are 'white' do not have white skin.  It is just an old overgeneralization) is antiquated and collectivist.  I prefer individual humanity over collectivist humanity.


The hundred million perceive themselves to be under attack from all of the institutions of the US.  They will become a separate people and will be the Ghost Within The Machine working at cross-purposes with those who have disempowered them and threaten their identity.

----------

Kabuki Joe (06-20-2013)

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> The hundred million perceive themselves to be under attack from all of the institutions of the US.  They will become a separate people and will be the Ghost Within The Machine working at cross-purposes with those who have disempowered them and threaten their identity.


Put another way, why is it that white people shouldn't take refuge in their racial identity when they are being attacked and discriminated against these days precisely because of their racial identity?

----------

Gemini (06-19-2013),Perianne (06-20-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Sorry. I'm not going to take history lessons from somebody who said Columbus was pretty much a Nazi who nearly wiped out all the Carribean tribes.


Do you also not take math lessons from a mathematician?

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> would you re-phrase that please?


re-phrase what?

----------


## the_diplomat2.0

> The hundred million perceive themselves to be under attack from all of the institutions of the US.  They will become a separate people and will be the Ghost Within The Machine working at cross-purposes with those who have disempowered them and threaten their identity.


We are all under attack by institutions in the USA.  Our government has always been characterized by institutional hate, bias, and racism.  It is not one population group vs. the state; it is individual humanity vs. the state/state-centered international system.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> We are all under attack by institutions in the USA.  Our government has always been characterized by institutional hate, bias, and racism.  It is not one population group vs. the state; it is individual humanity vs. the state/state-centered international system.


We are all under attack, but not equally so.

----------

Gemini (06-19-2013)

----------


## the_diplomat2.0

> Put another way, why is it that white people shouldn't take refuge in their racial identity when they are being attacked and discriminated against these days precisely because of their racial identity?


Clinging to old identities does nothing to rectify hate, bias, racism, and discrimination.  Transcending old identities for new ones, primarily on the basis of individual characteristics, does.  Also, 'white people' are not the only ones being attacked and discriminated against.  Individual humanity is being attacked and discriminated against by the institutions that want to perpetuate collectivist identities, as opposed to allowing us humans to decide of ourselves who we truly are.

----------


## the_diplomat2.0

> We are all under attack, but not equally so.


Of course.  If institutions were attacking individual humanity all on an equal basis, we would have already transcended collectivist identities that divide us.  Nevertheless, because we are all victims, why continue to perpetuate the very identities that are driving individual humanity to ruin?  It is counterproductive.

----------


## Albert Reincarnated

> Put another way, why is it that white people shouldn't take refuge in their racial identity when they are being attacked and discriminated against these days precisely because of their racial identity?


The white working class will adopt a separate identity in opposition to New Amerika because their role in the New Amerika is that of livestock to be milked, sheared, and slaughtered as the New Amerikans decide.

----------


## Canadianeye

> I agree about the male/female thing.   Females are not good asx warriors, rulers for the most part, but they do civilize man.  And without woman, man would still be living in the cave with his buds sittin' around the fire drinking their homebrew.
> 
> Second question?  which race?


I can't say I agree with that.

Males are the architects of civilization. Women were not. One could argue about the fairness of that, given women being deemed as property, simply because of being the breeders and the weaker of the genders, therefore seriously withheld due to male dominance and biological circumstance of gestation periods etc.....but males from the first true recorded histories of Mesopotamia onward, in every single area of this planet, from mathematics to music...were the architects of our civilization.

It is interesting you say women civilized men. Never really thought about it. Sounds like a pearl of wisdom though.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> But what would the world be like without White people?  Think of Africa, particularly tribal Africa where blacks commit genocide daily and remain brutish and primitive.  What advances in medicine comes from Africa and did Africans send us to the moon?  How about the Chinese who, until World War 2, was just a collection of warring tribes and provinces?  Did they bring civilization to the world or was civilization brought to them?  What if the 1000 years of world peace under the reign of Christ prophesied in Revelation was facilitated by the white race and no other?  I shudder to think of what Hawaii would be like if they weren't forcefully settled.



So, genocide is bad when Africans use it to sort things out (especially under the grand auspices of white colonialism), but it's just fine when whites need to "forcefully" settle the heathens?

----------


## Libhater

> So, genocide is bad when Africans use it to sort things out (especially under the grand auspices of white colonialism), but it's just fine when whites need to "forcefully" settle the heathens?


What genocide by whites to settle the heathens? Please be specific.

----------


## Canadianeye

Yes, the great genocide on Africa, that claimed something like 25 million or something...was African in origin (them selling their own out in slavery) until I think the Dutch came along as a purchaser expanding the process.

----------


## Gemini

> Caucasians are not superior to anyone. Caucasians have created or invented more in the last 10,000 years than anyone else however. It is all a matter of need and desire.


While this is true to a point.  It doesn't explain the paradox that afflicts africa.

Africa has both need and desire, but apparently not the ability to do what whites have done.  Why?  Well that is kind of a head scratcher.

----------


## Gemini

> LOL. Porn, TV, public education are bad? O.o


Look at the results on society after their introduction.  That is why they are largely bad.

----------


## Matt

I don't think anyone is superior to anyone else and that it's high time we realize that. Everyone gets the same or no one gets it.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> While this is true to a point.  It doesn't explain the paradox that afflicts africa.
> 
> Africa has both need and desire, but apparently not the ability to do what whites have done.  Why?  Well that is kind of a head scratcher.


We are quite talented dancers, all of us, dancing around the issue of religion.  Africa has been civilized in areas and to the degree it has embraced Christianity.  It isn't just a matter of race, it's a matter of religion, and no race has more thoroughly intimated with Christianity than white people.  Christian missionaries sent into Africa stir up revivals. And where revivals occur, stable governments soon follow, and democracy.  When Christianity is abandoned, roving Muslim militias menace those countries and they become mired in civil war.  God shows no favoritism to any person, and any people who receive him will become recipients of his goodness and all the corollary blessings of a stable society.

----------


## Canadianeye

I guess I've heard over the years that Africa isn't given a fair value for their resources, which means they can never climb completely out. Tea etc.

----------


## Gemini

> We are quite talented dancers, all of us, dancing around the issue of religion.  Africa has been civilized in areas and to the degree it has embraced Christianity.  It isn't just a matter of race, it's a matter of religion, and no race has more thoroughly intimated with Christianity than white people.  Christian missionaries sent into Africa stir up revivals. And where revivals occur, stable governments soon follow, and democracy.  When Christianity is abandoned, roving Muslim militias menace those countries and they become mired in civil war.  God shows no favoritism to any person, and any people who receive him will become recipients of his goodness and all the corollary blessings of a stable society.


I think whites embrace Christianity because it is easier for whites to do so to be frank.  A great deal of it hinges on self-control.  I believe that certain breeds of men have higher innate thresholds of self control whereas others must work harder to attain that same proficiency.

Just like that black guy who smoked me in the quarter 200 meter sprint.

That same black guy I left in the dust during the 2 mile run because he had no endurance.

Not lesser by any degree, but certainly different.  I think this applies to religion as well.

----------


## Guest

> LOL. Porn, TV, public education are bad? O.o


I said nothing bad or good about it.  I said it brought these "shallow" things.  Some people enjoy all of that.  You do, yes?

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> What genocide by whites to settle the heathens? Please be specific.


Hawaiians, Native Americans, Africans, Aborigines, the Indigenous tribes of the Amazons, and the list goes on.

----------


## kilgram

> Look at the results on society after their introduction.  That is why they are largely bad.


True, less sexual crime where the porn is legal. More educated societies with more knowledge that have lead to more democracy. Truely all these things are bad.

----------


## the_diplomat2.0

> Hawaiians, Native Americans, Africans, Aborigines, the Indigenous tribes of the Amazons, and the list goes on.


At the same time, 'white people' have committed genocides against fellow 'white people', and 'other people' have committed genocides against 'white people'.  In other words, we all suck.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Hawaiians, Native Americans, Africans, Aborigines, the Indigenous tribes of the Amazons, and the list goes on.


Those aren't specifics.  Do you know that there are certain Native American tribes that don't have descendants alive today?  And do you know why?  Because they were WIPED OUT!  If you pulled your head out of your politically correct ass, you'd understand that for white people genocide is a seldom event. For other races, it's a way of life.  This had been going on for centuries before white people came and imposed peace on us. Now we all live peacefully and our cultures are celebrated, not militated against each other.

----------


## Gemini

> Hawaiians, Native Americans, Africans, Aborigines, the Indigenous tribes of the Amazons, and the list goes on.


You do realize that this is only a testament to one's superiority in warfare right?  I mean if you want to rag on the white race that is all well and dandy.

But whites do a lot of things really good.  Killing is one of them.

Hawaiians were annexed, not victims of genocide - they are still here.  Same with Native Americans with some exceptions.  A lot of bad blood with some people on that one.

The others?  Not wiped out at all - they are still alive.

Were their bones on display in a museum because there were none left I would agree with you.  But they're not.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> We are quite talented dancers, all of us, dancing around the issue of religion.  Africa has been civilized in areas and to the degree it has embraced Christianity.  It isn't just a matter of race, it's a matter of religion, and no race has more thoroughly intimated with Christianity than white people.  Christian missionaries sent into Africa stir up revivals. And where revivals occur, stable governments soon follow, and democracy.  When Christianity is abandoned, roving Muslim militias menace those countries and they become mired in civil war.  God shows no favoritism to any person, and any people who receive him will become recipients of his goodness and all the corollary blessings of a stable society.


And you call me naive. Listening to you, you'd think no Christian government has ever been atrocious and tyrannical.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> And you call me naive. Listening to you, you'd think no Christian government has ever been atrocious and tyrannical.


No government has ever been Christian.

----------


## Gemini

> No government has ever been Christian.


While technically true, there are those many monarchs who have done terrible evil while perverting Christian doctrine to their own ends.

Hell, at one point there were two popes - they both excommunicated each other to my knowledge.  Don't know exactly how that got reconciled.  I always thought that was weird.  But I am sure the split occurred like normal in religions.  One grows large enough, and a fragment breaks off and does its own thing.

----------


## Dante1

> No government has ever been Christian.


What about England?

Dante.

----------


## Gemini

> What about England?
> 
> Dante.


Was that not a monarchy?

----------


## Dante1

> Was that not a monarchy?


The Anglican Church is the official church of England, and of the monarchy.

If you were referring to the sovereign power residing within a specific religious denomination, the examples that come to mind are the Vatican in Rome, and the muslim theologians who presently control Iran.

Dante.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Was that not a monarchy?


That's right. But an even larger issue that often gets missed is that Jesus is king of a heavenly kingdom and went to great lengths to separate in our minds his kingdom from the kingdoms of men.  Yet despite all the effort Jesus put into clarifying this, we still insist on conflating the two.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> No government has ever been Christian.


The various Christian theocracies of Europe suggest otherwise.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> The various Christian theocracies of Europe suggest otherwise.


This thread is not about white governments, it's about white culture and how it has ameliated the whole world.  If you can't discuss the OP, then start your own thread.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> This thread is not about white governments, it's about white culture and how it has ameliated the whole world.  If you can't discuss the OP, then start your own thread.


No, I'll discuss it here. @Trinnity can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall there being a rule against it.

Besides, this is on topic. "White government" is a part of "white culture." You only want to separate the two because including "white government" is inconvenient to your romantic gushing about how great and righteous "white culture" is.

----------



----------


## Irascible Crusader

> No, I'll discuss it here. @Trinnity can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall there being a rule against it.
> 
> Besides, this is on topic. "White government" is a part of "white culture." You only want to separate the two because including "white government" is inconvenient to your romantic gushing about how great and righteous "white culture" is.


In any event, I answered your question. It's impossible for any government to be a Christian government because it serves the perogatives of the state, not the perogatives of heaven.  The word "theocracy" means "ruled by God" and does not apply to temporal governments, even those heavily influenced by religion.  Moreover, if you're looking for flaws in white Western governments, you found a target rich environment and congratulations. It still is irrelevant to the thrust of my OP that white culture is a superior culture to others and has been responsible for bringing civilization to the entire world.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> In any event, I answered your question. It's impossible for any government to be a Christian government because it serves the perogatives of the state, not the perogatives of heaven.  The word "theocracy" means "ruled by God" and does not apply to temporal governments, even those heavily influenced by religion.  Moreover, if you're looking for flaws in white Western governments, you found a target rich environment and congratulations. It still is irrelevant to the thrust of my OP that white culture is a superior culture to others and has been responsible for bringing civilization to the entire world.


I think I'd rather the world remain uncivilized, than to have that civilization forced on them by death and destruction.

I reject your selective view of white culture. White culture, like all others, has caused irreperable harm to the very world you claim it saved.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (06-19-2013)

----------


## Guest

I looked and looked and the only real evidence I have that whites are possibly superior is this

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (06-19-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> I looked and looked and the only real evidence I have that whites are possibly superior is this


What's it say about me that I knew what it was before the picture even loaded?  :Tongue:

----------



----------


## Irascible Crusader

> I think I'd rather the world remain uncivilized, than to have that civilization forced on them by death and destruction.
> 
> I reject your selective view of white culture. White culture, like all others, has caused irreperable harm to the very world you claim it saved.


It is a viewpoint and nothing more.

----------


## Gemini

> I think I'd rather the world remain uncivilized, than to have that civilization forced on them by death and destruction.


I tend to agree.




> I reject your selective view of white culture. White culture, like all others, has caused irreperable harm to the very world you claim it saved.


Reject it all you like, but ask yourself a question here.

Why are non-whites flooding white countries en masse then?  I can only see the blatantly obvious fact that white countries are better in just about every way possible.  Otherwise, why leave your homeland?  

It makes no sense otherwise.

----------

Irascible Crusader (06-19-2013),Perianne (06-20-2013)

----------


## The XL

> I tend to agree.
> 
> 
> 
> Reject it all you like, but ask yourself a question here.
> 
> Why are non-whites flooding white countries en masse then?  I can only see the blatantly obvious fact that white countries are better in just about every way possible.  Otherwise, why leave your homeland?  
> 
> It makes no sense otherwise.


A lot of 3rd world countries that could have prospered have been held back by their governments that are bought by foreign corporations and the like.

Why do you think a Caucasian Hispanic in a 3rd world country is usually no different than an Afro Hispanic, in terms of IQ and culture?

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> I tend to agree.
> 
> 
> 
> Reject it all you like, but ask yourself a question here.
> 
> Why are non-whites flooding white countries en masse then?  I can only see the blatantly obvious fact that white countries are better in just about every way possible.  Otherwise, why leave your homeland?  
> 
> It makes no sense otherwise.


Wouldn't flooding white countries en masse make them not white countries anymore?

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> I think I'd rather the world remain uncivilized, than to have that civilization forced on them by death and destruction.


You have nothing to lose with such a viewpoint.  I have everything to lose.  If civilization were not imposed on my people, my existence truly would be short, nasty, and brutish, whether your talking about my heritage from the Blackfeet or my heritage from Native Hawaiians on my mother's side.  I would always be at war, on the verge of starvation, and deprived of all the amenities of modern living.  It would suck ass.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> You have nothing to lose with such a viewpoint.  I have everything to lose.  If civilization were not imposed on my people, my existence truly would be short, nasty, and brutish, whether your talking about my heritage from the Blackfeet or my heritage from Native Hawaiians on my mother's side.  I would always be at war, on the verge of starvation, and deprived of all the amenities of modern living.  It would suck ass.


Civilization was only accidentally imposed on your people. You're acting like guys like Andrew Jackson initiated horrible atrocities like the Trail of Tears to HELP your people, when in reality, they just wanted to get rid of you.

----------


## Gemini

> A lot of 3rd world countries that could have prospered have been held back by their governments that are bought by foreign corporations and the like.
> 
> Why do you think a Caucasian Hispanic in a 3rd world country is usually no different than an Afro Hispanic, in terms of IQ and culture?


There are about a thousand different variables to this question.  Rather than enumerate them all I'll say this - I am speaking of the final product of the sum of its moving parts, not its exceptions and outliers.

Indeed there are caucasians who live in third world conditions.  They are a minority in comparison to the bulk of the rest of the breed.  Other races don't have such a small disparity.

People of all breeds have been held back by their governments - whites too.

----------


## Gemini

> Wouldn't flooding white countries en masse make them not white countries anymore?


Fact. 

Ever wondered why europe is in decline?  America as well?

Where whites go, progress follows most of the time.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Fact. 
> 
> Ever wondered why europe is in decline?  America as well?
> 
> Where whites go, progress follows most of the time.


Progress also followed the Arabs and the Chinese at certain points in history.

----------


## Gemini

> Civilization was only accidentally imposed on your people. You're acting like guys like Andrew Jackson initiated horrible atrocities like the Trail of Tears to HELP your people, when in reality, they just wanted to get rid of you.


While true, the initial interactions were anything but benevolent, look at the finished product.  He is typing on a computer, on a forum.  Probably not dying of some easily cured disease.  And as he mentioned, not starving or suffering under the lash by another more powerful brute.  Nor is he out scalping people like his earlier ancestors.

Smells like progress to me.

----------

Irascible Crusader (06-19-2013)

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> While true, the initial interactions were anything but benevolent, look at the finished product.  He is typing on a computer, on a forum.  Probably not dying of some easily cured disease.  And as he mentioned, not starving or suffering under the lash by another more powerful brute.  Nor is he out scalping people like his earlier ancestors.
> 
> Smells like progress to me.


Bien dicho!

----------


## Gemini

> Progress also followed the Arabs and the Chinese at certain points in history.


Indeed it did.  But pales in comparison to what whites have achieved.  

I'm not trying too strike nerves and smash the equality bandwagon.  Nor am I trying to accuse other breeds of men of being inferior and lesser beasts.

But facts are this: we are different.   The varying breeds of mankind have different aptitudes and weaknesses.  Not all of these are conducive to the modern world we live in now.  Running fast, lifting power, and jumping high mean less and less in a world of automation, cars, and fork lifts.  They are not completely sidelined, but they are less useful and marketable.

The whites have created a society in which they can thrive wherever they go, just like any other breed of man.  Blacks, browns, and orientals just roll differently.  They also adopt religions that appeal to their aptitudes more easily.

Bottom line is that we're different.  And one breed will always see another as inferior because they are weak in an area that they themselves are strong in.

----------


## kilgram

Without progress of Arabs and Chinese Europe would not have been what is. All progress goes together.

And I must remember that Japanese are one of the most advanced societies, oh and they are now whites, also Korean...

The fucking nonsense of whites are superior, is pure racist bullshit. And why civilization is the best system? Maybe that societies that you say primitive, were not, just they decided to live in that way, they had access to everything that they needed, then why the necessity to research for new things?

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (06-19-2013)

----------


## The XL

> Fact. 
> 
> Ever wondered why europe is in decline?  America as well?
> 
> Where whites go, progress follows most of the time.


Every race and culture have had thriving civilizations at some point in history.  

When the collapse comes, it will be under a white majority.  The only difference between current whites vs current hispanics and blacks is the starting point they were born into.  Nothing more.

----------


## The XL

I just have a hard time thinking whites are any superior to blacks when  the majority they support the Fed, think some Neocon or Hilary Clinton  is going to save us, and support wars blindly when they have no fucking  clue as to what's really going on.

I can't tell the difference intellectually between the average person of  any color or race.  Vernacular and a subjective test to calculate  intelligence is proof of nothing.

----------


## Gemini

> Every race and culture have had thriving civilizations at some point in history.  
> 
> When the collapse comes, it will be under a white majority.  The only difference between current whites vs current hispanics and blacks is the starting point they were born into.  Nothing more.


Fact.  You'll also notice a ceiling on the time limit and size of those civilizations I bet.

Indeed a collapse will come.  This comes to all nations, this is independent of breed.

Testing scores disagree with you, as does biology.

----------


## Gemini

> I just have a hard time thinking whites are any superior to blacks when  the majority they support the Fed, think some Neocon or Hilary Clinton  is going to save us, and support wars blindly when they have no fucking  clue as to what's really going on.


You can fool all the people some of the people some of the time, some of the people all the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time.  Whoever spoke it first was smart.  It applies here.




> I can't tell the difference intellectually between the average person of  any color or race.  Vernacular and a subjective test to calculate  intelligence is proof of nothing.


Actually it does.  It shows how well your mental processes can adapt to that method of problem solving and thinking.  Those who can do well score high, those who can't score low.

If IQ tests involved things that blacks were generally better at - guess what?  Blacks would be smarter in those categories.

I will agree that most intelligence tests only touch the surface of what intellect truly is though.  We don't have the tools needed to properly assess the potential of a human being - nor will we any time soon.

But the tools we do have work well enough for their intended purpose.

----------


## The XL

> Fact.  You'll also notice a ceiling on the time limit and size of those civilizations I bet.
> 
> Indeed a collapse will come.  This comes to all nations, this is independent of breed.
> 
> Testing scores disagree with you, as does biology.


Tests are subjective.  

Biology?  That can be easily manipulated.  Selectively mate purebred blacks with genius level IQs, and blacks will be geniuses.  Mate Jeremy Lin with the most talented Asian female ballplayer and the NBA will be overrun with Asians.  Selectively mate Brock Lesnar with Ronda Rousey and whites will turn into abnormally athletic and powerful neanderthals.

----------


## Gemini

> Tests are subjective.


Already covered this.  To an extent you are right though.




> Biology?  That can be easily manipulated.  Selectively mate purebred blacks with genius level IQs, and blacks will be geniuses.  Mate Jeremy Lin with the most talented Asian female ballplayer and the NBA will be overrun with Asians.  Selectively mate Brock Lesnar with Ronda Rousey and whites will turn into abnormally athletic and powerful neanderthals.


So you have accepted the fact that biology has a role in it.  That was faster than expected.

Not much left to discuss then is there?

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> While true, the initial interactions were anything but benevolent, look at the finished product.  He is typing on a computer, on a forum.  Probably not dying of some easily cured disease.  And as he mentioned, not starving or suffering under the lash by another more powerful brute.  Nor is he out scalping people like his earlier ancestors.
> 
> Smells like progress to me.


I don't buy the whole "the ends justify the means" philosophy. Sorry.

----------


## The XL

> Already covered this.  To an extent you are right though.
> 
> 
> 
> So you have accepted the fact that biology has a role in it.  That was faster than expected.
> 
> Not much left to discuss then is there?


I never denied that biology plays a role.  Just that biology is  not determined by a specific race or skin color.

----------


## Roadmaster

No I don't it's mostly the culture. For instance, I have two friends that are highly intelligent and happen to be black. They feel more comfortable around whites because many blacks cut them down. Saying things like "she thinks she is white". They have no problem with their skin color, they just wanted better for themselves and if they don't act a certain way blacks are racist towards them.

----------

Kabuki Joe (06-20-2013)

----------


## Gemini

> I don't buy the whole "the ends justify the means" philosophy. Sorry.


I don't buy it either.  And I doubt that was on the minds of the white invaders too.  But even after all that, it seems to have worked out well enough for them despite bad intentions.

----------


## Gemini

> I never denied that biology plays a role.*  Just that biology is  not determined by a specific race or skin color.*


Correct, the latter is influenced by the former.  Why intellect, behavior and such is not linked to biology is basically to not hurt people's feelings.  And it is a foolish outdated notion.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> I don't buy the whole "the ends justify the means" philosophy. Sorry.


Nobody's trying to justify the means.  I would sure like it if Manifest Destiny didn't involve displacing my people from choice lands.  We could have shared the land peacefully and still ameliorated the Indians lives.  The brutality was not necessary for the Red Man to become beneficiaries of white culture.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (06-19-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> I don't buy it either.  And I doubt that was on the minds of the white invaders too.  But even after all that, it seems to have worked out well enough for them despite bad intentions.


Didn't work out so well for the ones you were slaughtered.

----------


## The XL

> Correct, the latter is influenced by the former.  Why intellect, behavior and such is not linked to biology is basically to not hurt people's feelings.  And it is a foolish outdated notion.


Is it?  Those genes would totally disappear if blacks had been selectively mated for intelligence instead of strength and durability.  Slavery, both domestic and foreign, has played a huge hand in some of the black genes we see today.  

Asians are smarter than whites by most calculations of intellect, yet have no where near the power and influence that whites have.  Why is that?

A lot of variables have influenced history.  The two biggest ones imo are geography, and chance.  Sometimes things roll the way they do via flat out luck.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> While true, the initial interactions were anything but benevolent, look at the finished product.  He is typing on a computer, on a forum.  Probably not dying of some easily cured disease.  And as he mentioned, not starving or suffering under the lash by another more powerful brute.  Nor is he out scalping people like his earlier ancestors.
> 
> Smells like progress to me.



And, yet, there are probably fewer of his people alive today than there were before Andrew Jackson got to them. While the end may be good for him, does that justify the means?

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (06-20-2013)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Is it?  Those genes would totally disappear if blacks had been selectively mated for intelligence instead of strength and durability.  Slavery, both domestic and foreign, has played a huge hand in some of the black genes we see today.  
> 
> Asians are smarter than whites by most calculations of intellect, yet have no where near the power and influence that whites have.


Yet.

----------



----------


## Guest

> And, yet, there are probably fewer of his people alive today than there were before Andrew Jackson got to them. While the end may be good for him, does that justify the means?


Yes, I think it is easy for @Irascible Crusader to talk about the modern advantages when he wasn't the one who saw his tribe murdered.  He has the historical muffle.  I can say, certainly, that the Soviet Union wasn't all *that* bad or communist Poland *that* bad because by the time I was a little kid it was nowhere near the communism of Stalin.

Things had lightened up a bit.

He also tends to forget that other than guns, the whites of that time really only brought stationary living and alcoholic beverage to the table.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (06-20-2013)

----------


## Guest

> Nobody's trying to justify the means.  I would sure like it if Manifest Destiny didn't involve displacing my people from choice lands.  We could have shared the land peacefully and still ameliorated the Indians lives.  *The brutality was not necessary for the Red Man to become beneficiaries of white culture.*


How do you know it was not?  Whites have historically forced their way of life on people because sometimes people here the message and go:  _Meh.  I'm not sure.  Some other time, please._

 @Gemini belongs to a church where they go door to door.  Many times, many many times that door is either not opened or slammed in their faces.

You cannot expound upon the virtues of white culture and all that it brings without also acknowledging how we typically bring it.

----------


## Gemini

> How do you know it was not?  Whites have historically forced their way of life on people because sometimes people here the message and go:  _Meh.  I'm not sure.  Some other time, please._
> 
>  @Gemini belongs to a church where they go door to door.  Many times, many many times that door is either not opened or slammed in their faces.
> 
> You cannot expound upon the virtues of white culture and all that it brings without also acknowledging how we typically bring it.


While that is true, the LDS church is the most voluntary organization I have encountered.  Consequently, I'm still a member.

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> Wouldn't that be males are superior, or more ambitious? I guess if you travel down the timelines of history males are the architects of civilization itself, no matter the pigmentation.


...males build empires and females give them away...

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> Read this article and tell me if you still think that primitive is value neutral to advanced.


...and don't forget head hunting and head shrinking, and the unusual sexual practices between younger and older boys...

----------

Irascible Crusader (06-23-2013)

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> At least one hundred million people in this country cling to their white identity. You have zero compassion for them because you cannot understand their fears.



...I know of several different women that when confronted with different issues reply with "you're just being silly"...understand directly parallels relating to an issue...my wife and daughter can't relate to masculine views, which while frustrating, I can't hold against them...

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> Race means little. Cultural characteristics are controlling. The old white culture is gone. The white people around today are an inferior breed because of their lack of character. The East Asians are going to eat Uncle Sam's lunch.


...who has had the biggest influence on technology in recent history?...Nazi Germany...but they took it a little too far with genocide...but would they have made the huge strives in medicine without a constant supply of people to exploit?...probably not...

----------


## Gemini

> And, yet, there are probably fewer of his people alive today than there were before Andrew Jackson got to them. While the end may be good for him, does that justify the means?


I don't think anybody is saying the ends justify the means.  I think what is being postulated is that in spite of the means, some good came about from it.

----------


## Guest

> I don't think anybody is saying the ends justify the means.  I think what is being postulated is that in spite of the means, some good came about from it.


Define good and define bad.  IC speaks for himself only just as I speak for myself only.  What I define "good" is probably very different than what someone else would define it.  

Loss, grave loss, is ultimate clarity.  It puts into perspective what you can live without and what you would never want to live without.

Today I put family and simplicity above technology and wealth.  A few years back my answer would be different.

----------


## Gemini

> Define good and define bad.


That which enables one to further honor and glorify God via Christ and hasten the arrival of the Kingdom of Heaven on earth = Good.  

Anything in opposition to the above = Bad.

Good enough?




> IC speaks for himself only just as I speak for myself only.  What I define "good" is probably very different than what someone else would define it.


True, I suppose having a reference point would have been a valuable precursor to the entire thread.




> Loss, grave loss, is ultimate clarity.  It puts into perspective what you can live without and what you would never want to live without.
> 
> Today I put family and simplicity above technology and wealth.  A few years back my answer would be different.


I concur.  Although having increase quality of life I consider a good thing too.  Air conditioning, while not prerequisite to happiness and fulfillment in one's life - is a divine thing to have in Utah summers.

----------


## Guest

> That which enables one to further honor and glorify God via Christ and hasten the arrival of the Kingdom of Heaven on earth = Good.  
> 
> Anything in opposition to the above = Bad.


How does technology and wealthy do this?  It seems to me the LDS church was more vigorous and devout when persecuted.




> Good enough?


Maybe?




> True, I suppose having a reference point would have been a valuable precursor to the entire thread.


Yep.




> I concur.  Although having increase quality of life I consider a good thing too.  Air conditioning, while not prerequisite to happiness and fulfillment in one's life - is a divine thing to have in Utah summers.


Again, the early church and most churches and movements thrive under adversity.  Wealth and happiness are not synonymous.

I want to know what actual contribution that whites made that didn't come through force, harm, and didn't rely on "the greater good" to see good in it.

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> While this is true to a point. It doesn't explain the paradox that afflicts africa.
> 
> Africa has both need and desire, but apparently not the ability to do what whites have done. Why? Well that is kind of a head scratcher.


...I've thought about this a lot...why do some societies evolve greatly while others don't?...I think it directly relates to warfare and conquest...on a huge scale, not just smaller skirmishes at a tribal level...those that desire to conquer and expand need to evolve, those that don't stay the same...I don't think whites, except over the past couple hundred years, have done a whole bunch that other groups haven't attributed to in one way or another...this all goes by what is white and what is Caucasian...technically everything is Caucasian that isn't Asian, pacific islander and negro...it's a little more complex then just white...

----------


## Dan40

FACT:

No two people are equal in all things. Therefore no two races can possibly be equal in all things.

Every race has some area where they are superior and some where they are inferior.

"EQUALITY" is just more political bullshit to entertasin the masses.

----------


## Gemini

> How does technology and wealthy do this?  It seems to me the LDS church was more vigorous and devout when persecuted.


The printing press allowed for the scriptures to be spread far and wide, thus the gospel went far and wide.

Facebook pages, twitter accounts, and other methods do the exact same thing.  Youtube commercials for religion is not unheard of.  Our ability to do charity is greatly magnified because of technology - so is our ability to do evil.  In the end technology is neither good nor evil by itself, it is the results of what you do with it that matters.




> Maybe?


Blarg.




> Again, the early church and most churches and movements thrive under adversity.  Wealth and happiness are not synonymous.


In this point is most fervently agree.  Often times wealth with purpose or discipline makes one more miserable.




> I want to know what actual contribution that whites made that didn't come through force, harm, and didn't rely on "the greater good" to see good in it.


I suppose the bulk of inventions could be considered.  Advances in medicine as well.  Engineering and the list goes on.

I mean air conditioning is a grand thing after all.  It makes Utah not such a miserable place to live in the summer.

----------


## Guest

> The printing press allowed for the scriptures to be spread far and wide, thus the gospel went far and wide.


So without it God would have no means to speak to mankind?  Is this what you are saying?




> Facebook pages, twitter accounts, and other methods do the exact same thing.  Youtube commercials for religion is not unheard of.  Our ability to do charity is greatly magnified because of technology - so is our ability to do evil.  In the end technology is neither good nor evil by itself, it is the results of what you do with it that matters.


 :Smile:    So these contributions are not necessarily "good".  They just *are*, ergo they cannot be considered a benefit of white culture or a flaw of white culture.




> Blarg.


Meh.




> In this point is most fervently agree.  Often times wealth with purpose or discipline makes one more miserable.


If it cannot bring the dead back to life then it's not all that awesome.  It has limitations.




> I suppose the bulk of inventions could be considered.  Advances in medicine as well.  Engineering and the list goes on.


And some would argue the ancient world had no cancer or that timely death is better than life support.

Again...what is "good"?  It's subjective.




> I mean air conditioning is a grand thing after all.  It makes Utah not such a miserable place to live in the summer.


Ever been inside of Nero's Golden House in the middle of a Roman summer?  It is about 60 degrees.

----------


## Gemini

> ...I've thought about this a lot...why do some societies evolve greatly while others don't?...I think it directly relates to warfare and conquest...on a huge scale, not just smaller skirmishes at a tribal level...those that desire to conquer and expand need to evolve, those that don't stay the same...I don't think whites, except over the past couple hundred years, have done a whole bunch that other groups haven't attributed to in one way or another...this all goes by what is white and what is Caucasian...technically everything is Caucasian that isn't Asian, pacific islander and negro...it's a little more complex then just white...


A brilliant post.

Although many white nationals say "well whites are the most advanced civilization and the modern world came from us" and they would be correct.  What they fail to acknowledge is that there is another unquantifiable element attached to it when you view it through a strictly scientific lens.

They do not acknowledge the hand of the divine in it.  Because whites have this cute little part in history where there was basically not much tech invented or produced.  And genetically speaking, we're not much different that our ancestors of 1000 years ago.

There is a spiritual component that is not acknowledged by many.  I think that whites created the bulk of technology because they were selected to do so and endowed with the ability to do so by our creator.  And frankly, the moment we abandon divinity, we will become more bestial.

There is there is a LDS scriptural reference that says " 36 The aglory of God is bintelligence, or, in other words, clight and truth. "  D&C 93: 36.

I think it applies whether we like it or not.  Obedience to the divine is reciprocated by blessings - happiness, knowledge, technology...  Disobedience brings about its opposites.

It is nothing more than natural law being applied in my opinion, and here we are getting our panties in a twist about the breeding pedigree of our fellow man.  I'll point out facts and such but I am not going to esteem one flesh of greater worth than another because of his or her pedigree - I'm not an aristocratic simpleton...for the most part.  But the honest truth of why africa is the unwiped sphincter of the world is because of their own morality and disobedience to natural law - God's Law, plain and simple.

----------


## Albert Reincarnated

> Clinging to old identities does nothing to rectify hate, bias, racism, and discrimination.  Transcending old identities for new ones, primarily on the basis of individual characteristics, does.  Also, 'white people' are not the only ones being attacked and discriminated against.  Individual humanity is being attacked and discriminated against by the institutions that want to perpetuate collectivist identities, as opposed to allowing us humans to decide of ourselves who we truly are.


The Han Chinese don't feel the need to adopt a new identity.  Neither do the people of India.  Why should I adopt a new identity.  I live under tremendous pressure from latinos to adapt to them.

----------


## Gemini

> So without it God would have no means to speak to mankind?  Is this what you are saying?


You cannot possibly be serious.  I fart in your general direction. :Fart: 

But to address you post: Obviously he can, he has prophets.  But I do think he doesn't like to repeat himself, so he instructs people to write it down and to teach it to others.  Kinda makes sense if you ask me.




> So these contributions are not necessarily "good".  They just *are*, ergo they cannot be considered a benefit of white culture or a flaw of white culture.


Touche.




> If it cannot bring the dead back to life then it's not all that awesome.  It has limitations.


Sure you're not raising the dead, but you can do things with wealth that can multiply your efforts.  But yes, it has limits.




> And some would argue the ancient world had no cancer or that timely death is better than life support.
> 
> Again...what is "good"?  It's subjective.


Argue, but not prove.  Good is subjective to men, not God.  




> Ever been inside of Nero's Golden House in the middle of a Roman summer?  It is about 60 degrees.


Lucky Nero I guess.

----------


## the_diplomat2.0

> The Han Chinese don't feel the need to adopt a new identity.  Neither do the people of India.  Why should I adopt a new identity.  I live under tremendous pressure from latinos to adapt to them.


The fact that the Han Chinese or people of India do not feel the need to adopt a new identity simply indicates to me that a large cross-section of their people have not come to terms with the illusionary nature of their identities.  Many of my friends are of Indian ethnic origins, namely northern Hindu Indian ethnic origins.  Not necessarily them, but a large section of their population group has a horrible streak of hate and bias towards Sikhs, Muslims, and southern Indians.  The fact that the majority of their population group lives in a country in an earlier stage in its political, economic, and social development does not exonerate them from being wrong in their bias and hate.  Also, nobody, including me, is asking you to adopt the identity of another population group, but to transcend the identities of population groups for the identity of an individual human being.

----------


## Guest

Africa has one of the largest _growing_ populations of Christian (Catholics) of anywhere in the world.  So to say it is disobedience to God makes little sense when white nations are losing that.

Moreover, people tend to view brown skinned people's in a vacuum, as though we have never had a hand in their problems.  Whites gave these nations "government" and bureaucracy, the latter being one of the most evil gifts ever bestowed on any culture ever.  It is the force for torture and evil throughout history.

I'm white.  I'm not self-loathing.  I like me.  I think "me" is pretty fucking cool.  I'm neither prejudiced against people of color nor gravitate to them.  I've never dated outside my race (although I wanted to date this Asian dude who was mega hot with long hair...anyway).

However, most of the whites who like to talk about what blacks or latino's didn't do, ignore all the really heinous shit that white people have done.  Yeh, yeh, woooo we have wealth and we can trample nations with our technological mights.

But are we better people?

((shrugs))

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (06-20-2013),The XL (06-20-2013)

----------


## The XL

> Africa has one of the largest _growing_ populations of Christian (Catholics) of anywhere in the world.  So to say it is disobedience to God makes little sense when white nations are losing that.
> 
> Moreover, people tend to view brown skinned people's in a vacuum, as though we have never had a hand in their problems.  Whites gave these nations "government" and bureaucracy, the latter being one of the most evil gifts ever bestowed on any culture ever.  It is the force for torture and evil throughout history.
> 
> I'm white.  I'm not self-loathing.  I like me.  I think "me" is pretty fucking cool.  I'm neither prejudiced against people of color nor gravitate to them.  I've never dated outside my race (although I wanted to date this Asian dude who was mega hot with long hair...anyway).
> 
> However, most of the whites who like to talk about what blacks or latino's didn't do, ignore all the really heinous shit that white people have done.  Yeh, yeh, woooo we have wealth and we can trample nations with our technological mights.
> 
> But are we better people?
> ...


Well said.

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> A brilliant post.
> 
> Although many white nationals say "well whites are the most advanced civilization and the modern world came from us" and they would be correct. What they fail to acknowledge is that there is another unquantifiable element attached to it when you view it through a strictly scientific lens.
> 
> They do not acknowledge the hand of the divine in it. Because whites have this cute little part in history where there was basically not much tech invented or produced. And genetically speaking, we're not much different that our ancestors of 1000 years ago.
> 
> There is a spiritual component that is not acknowledged by many. I think that whites created the bulk of technology because they were selected to do so and endowed with the ability to do so by our creator. _And frankly, the moment we abandon divinity, we will become more bestial._
> 
> There is there is a LDS scriptural reference that says " 36 The aglory of God is bintelligence, or, in other words, clight and truth. " D&C 93: 36.
> ...


...I'm an atheist but I really like that one line...

----------

Gemini (06-20-2013)

----------


## the_diplomat2.0

> Africa has one of the largest _growing_ populations of Christian (Catholics) of anywhere in the world.  So to say it is disobedience to God makes little sense when white nations are losing that.
> 
> Moreover, people tend to view brown skinned people's in a vacuum, as though we have never had a hand in their problems.  Whites gave these nations "government" and bureaucracy, the latter being one of the most evil gifts ever bestowed on any culture ever.  It is the force for torture and evil throughout history.
> 
> I'm white.  I'm not self-loathing.  I like me.  I think "me" is pretty fucking cool.  I'm neither prejudiced against people of color nor gravitate to them.  I've never dated outside my race (although I wanted to date this Asian dude who was mega hot with long hair...anyway).
> 
> However, most of the whites who like to talk about what blacks or latino's didn't do ignore all the really heinous shit that white people have done.  Yeh, yeh, woooo we have wealthy and we can trample nations with our technological mights.
> 
> But are we better people?
> ...


I agree.  Take for example majority Islamic tribal societies like the Kurds.  Their entire societal framework has been undermined by the power of central governments and their bureaucracies.  All the tradition, rites of passage, and customs of Kurdish society are now superseded by the need to survive, which means people take up arms (like the PKK) or enter the modern global economic system.

----------


## The XL

To elaborate, America and European nations have been dicking around in 3rd world hispanic countries and Africa for a long time.  How are they supposed to grow?

----------


## Guest

> To elaborate, America and European nations have been dicking around in 3rd world hispanic countries and Africa for a long time.  How are they supposed to grow?


Why do they have to grow?  Why can't people stay as they are?  Why is it my business?

----------


## The XL

> Why do they have to grow?  Why can't people stay as they are?  Why is it my business?


It's not your business.  Never said it was.  I'm saying, they can't evolve out of poor living standards because of said countries.

----------


## Gemini

> Africa has one of the largest _growing_ populations of Christian (Catholics) of anywhere in the world.  So to say it is disobedience to God makes little sense when white nations are losing that.


Fact.  And if the religion is grasped peace will abound, and when peace and plenty abounds we'll see technology blossom, at the same time, war has a predictable way of bringing about cool technology.  But technology and its understanding doesn't just *poof* when people start disobeying.  It is lost slowly.  And if you noticed, white nations are in decline.  I would postulate that because of their disobedience to God.  Look at the writings and discourse of a 6th grade kid from today, now look at the writings and discourse of a 6th grade kid 40 years ago.  We are getting more bestial by the day.




> Moreover, people tend to view brown skinned people's in a vacuum, as though we have never had a hand in their problems.  Whites gave these nations "government" and bureaucracy, the latter being one of the most evil gifts ever bestowed on any culture ever.  It is the force for torture and evil throughout history.


Most white people never had a hand in this, this is a the result of a small band of corruptible men.  Every breed of men has them.  Sadly, whites appear to be really good at it, historically speaking.




> I'm white.  I'm not self-loathing.  I like me.  I think "me" is pretty fucking cool.  I'm neither prejudiced against people of color nor gravitate to them.  I've never dated outside my race (although I wanted to date this Asian dude who was mega hot with long hair...anyway).
> 
> However, most of the whites who like to talk about what blacks or latino's didn't do, ignore all the really heinous shit that white people have done.  Yeh, yeh, woooo we have wealth and we can trample nations with our technological mights.
> 
> *But are we better people?*
> 
> ((shrugs))


In the eyes of God or man?  Like you said it is subjective, but like I said - it isn't to God.

----------


## the_diplomat2.0

> To elaborate, America and European nations have been dicking around in 3rd world hispanic countries and Africa for a long time.  How are they supposed to grow?


They cannot, so long as we maintain a permanent military presence in these countries where we perpetuate the growth of domestic security apparatuses to protect our own interests, all the while leaving the average civilian to fall through the cracks.  Our 'white b*tch savior' attitude does not help ameliorate the situation either.

----------

The XL (06-20-2013)

----------


## Gemini

> They cannot, so long as we maintain a permanent military presence in these countries where we perpetuate the growth of domestic security apparatuses to protect our own interests, all the while leaving the average civilian to fall through the cracks.  Our 'white b*tch savior' attitude does not help ameliorate the situation either.


I don't think we have ever had a "white savior" attitude.  "White Imperialist" perhaps, with different wrapping paper, but definitely not "white savior".

All of our exploration and contact has been for self interest.

----------


## the_diplomat2.0

> I don't think we have ever had a "white savior" attitude.  "White Imperialist" perhaps, with different wrapping paper, but definitely not "white savior".
> 
> All of our exploration and contact has been for self interest.


Hence why I put the phrase in quotations.  Rudyard Kipling's writings exemplify the 'white b*tch savior' attitude the best. He thought colonial imperialism was a gift to the people the developed world conquered and controlled.  In reality, that attitude is 'white imperialism'.

----------

The XL (06-20-2013)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> I don't think anybody is saying the ends justify the means.  I think what is being postulated is that in spite of the means, some good came about from it.


This implications of this post: http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...ll=1#post88669  does suggest that someone holds that the end justifies the means.

----------


## The XL

I liken it to a race, really.  Hispanic and Black nations would reach the point America and European nations did, but they got beat to the punch, and are now being held back and exploited.

----------


## Guest

> Most white people never had a hand in this, this is a the result of a small band of corruptible men.  Every breed of men has them.  Sadly, whites appear to be really good at it, historically speaking.


And most brown skinned people don't have a hand in it, either.  We are always speaking of the worst and never people's best.

----------

Gemini (06-20-2013)

----------


## Guest

> I liken it to a race, really.  Hispanic and Black nations would reach the point America and European nations did, but they got beat to the punch, and are now being held back and exploited.


Why do you believe they would?  Maybe they never wanted what we wanted?  Maybe they were happy in tribal system?

And...they are not held back any longer or exploited.  They have the same opportunity to be technological terrors that we do now.

----------


## Gemini

> I liken it to a race, really.  Hispanic and Black nations would reach the point America and European nations did, but they got beat to the punch, and are now being held back and exploited.


To a large degree this is true.  But the oppressors are not always white as is commonly thought.

----------


## The XL

> To a large degree this is true.  But the oppressors are not always white as is commonly thought.


Their leaders bend to American and European government and corporations because of promises of wealth, and the fact that they will be overthrown if they do not cooperate.

----------

kilgram (06-20-2013)

----------


## Gemini

> This implications of this post: http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...ll=1#post88669  does suggest that someone holds that the end justifies the means.


He acknowledged the good that came from it, while also denouncing the methods.  But not in that post.

----------

Irascible Crusader (06-23-2013)

----------


## Gemini

> Their leaders bend to American and European government and corporations because of promises of wealth, and the fact that they will be overthrown if they do not cooperate.


Like an abused housewife that continually  returns to an abusive husband.  If you want different results you have to do things differently.  They keep trying to game the system, and they keep losing.  They need to quit playing the games on our terms.

----------


## kilgram

> Like an abused housewife that continually  returns to an abusive husband.  If want different results you have to do things differently.  They keep trying to game the system, and they keep losing.  They need to quit playing the games on our terms.


There has been some tryings and they have been murdered by the Intelligence Services(mainly: USA, British and French)

----------

The XL (06-20-2013)

----------


## The XL

> Like an abused housewife that continually  returns to an abusive husband.  If want different results you have to do things differently.  They keep trying to game the system, and they keep losing.  They need to quit playing the games on our terms.


The leaders don't have much of a choice.  Either you cooperate or you'll be taken out, by any means necessary.

3rd world country citizens, just like 1st world country citizens, and most of humans in general, seem to not have the ability to comprehend when their government and special interests are assfucking them, so that's a no go either.

----------


## The XL

> There has been some tryings and they have been murdered by the Intelligence Services(mainly: USA, British and French)


Yep, either assassinated, bribed, overthrown via war, overthrown via American propped up and funded rebellion, etc.

----------


## the_diplomat2.0

> Yep, either assassinated, bribed, overthrown via war, overthrown via American propped up and funded rebellion, etc.


...the list goes on.  In other words, the state sucks. Crazy idea: eliminate the state and the state-centered international system, and allow individual human society to rectify the divisions between us for ourselves.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (06-20-2013)

----------


## Gemini

> The leaders don't have much of a choice.  Either you cooperate or you'll be taken out, by any means necessary.


There is always a choice.  An ugly choice, but a choice regardless.  The dragon can be slain, many options are on the table as to how to do it.  Let it kill itself, starve it, or fight it.

All are dangerous, but all are possible.




> 3rd world country citizens, just like 1st world country citizens, and most of humans in general, seem to not have the ability to comprehend when their government and special interests are assfucking them, so that's a no go either.


If they are happy getting corn holed on a regular basis, than nothing can be done for them.  Freedom  is only enjoyed by those willing to fight and die for it - sometimes not even then.

----------


## The XL

> There is always a choice.  An ugly choice, but a choice regardless.  The dragon can be slain, many options are on the table as to how to do it.  Let it kill itself, starve it, or fight it.
> 
> All are dangerous, but all are possible.
> 
> 
> 
> If they are happy getting corn holed on a regular basis, than nothing can be done for them.  Freedom  is only enjoyed by those willing to fight and die for it - sometimes not even then.


American and European citizens can't slay the dragon, despite being more wealthy and having access to far more information.

----------


## Gemini

> American and European citizens can't slay the dragon, despite being more wealthy and having access to far more information.


No.  They *won't* slay the dragon because it is *comfortable enough*.  Cost/benefit ratio is still in their favor, at least that is the perception.

But regardless the western dragon will kill itself.  It fed to greedily early on growing to large to quickly.  Its appetite is too voracious to be sustained for much longer.  It will starve and collapse under its own weight.

----------


## The XL

> No.  They *won't* slay the dragon because it is *comfortable enough*.  Cost/benefit ratio is still in their favor, at least that is the perception.
> 
> But regardless the western dragon will kill itself.  It fed to greedily early on growing to large to quickly.  Its appetite is too voracious to be sustained for much longer.  It will starve and collapse under its own weight.


Really?  The majority of the middle class is in the middle of disappearing, we're being taxed to pay for bullshit wars and pay off fraudulent debt to central bankers, had to foot the bill for a bankers bailout while homes got foreclosed, have to deal with inflation, have to deal with being spied on.....I could go on all day.

I know people who are not doing well and who are pissed.  They either feel powerless and don't do anything, or believe one of the two parties will save us.

You can't fix stupid, and the majority are stupid.  Stupid doesn't see color, race, or gender, either.

----------


## Gemini

> Really?  The majority of the middle class is in the middle of disappearing, we're being taxed to pay for bullshit wars and pay off fraudulent debt to central bankers, had to foot the bill for a bankers bailout while homes got foreclosed, have to deal with inflation, have to deal with being spied on.....I could go on all day.


Guess they aren't hungry or cold enough yet.  When the stomach is betrayed, everything changes.




> I know people who are not doing well and who are pissed.  They either feel powerless and don't do anything, or believe one of the two parties will save us.
> 
> *You can't fix stupid, and the majority are stupid.  Stupid doesn't see color, race, or gender, either.*


Fact.  Most refuse to see the danger that lies ahead, knowing full well that it is there.  Denial, it's almost as powerful as the force of stupidity.

----------


## Dan40

> Why do they have to grow? Why can't people stay as they are? Why is it my business?


The human animal is never static.  Humans either grow or die out.

It is your business IF what others do affects you.  We cannot ignore peoples.

----------


## Guest

> The human animal is never static.  Humans either grow or die out.
> 
> It is your business IF what others do affects you.  We cannot ignore peoples.


I've never been affected by an African *in* Africa in my life.

----------


## The XL

> Why do you believe they would?  Maybe they never wanted what we wanted?  Maybe they were happy in tribal system?
> 
> And...they are not held back any longer or exploited.  They have the same opportunity to be technological terrors that we do now.


Tribal countries are not an option anymore for them.

If you are weak, you get controlled and exploited.  This much is apparent.

----------


## Dan40

> I've never been affected by an African *in* Africa in my life.


That is an awareness problem, not a fact.

Ever had a diamond?

----------


## Guest

> That is an awareness problem, not a fact.
> 
> Ever had a diamond?


Nope.  My religious beliefs prevent me from having African diamonds or Hershey's chocolate.  I buy products that don't require the suffering of others to deliver them to me.

Yes, I was a woman who did without a diamond engagement ring.  My engagement ring was an opal from the US.

----------


## Dan40

> Nope. My religious beliefs prevent me from having African diamonds or Hershey's chocolate. I buy products that don't require the suffering of others to deliver them to me.
> 
> Yes, I was a woman who did without a diamond engagement ring. My engagement ring was an opal from the US.


Cute story.  I'll file that in my complete bullshit column.

----------

Kabuki Joe (06-21-2013)

----------


## Guest

> Cute story.  I'll file that in my complete bullshit column.


Whatever Dan.  I still have my engagement ring and always will.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Cute story.  I'll file that in my complete bullshit column.


Because apparently, women would never want any other type of stone.

(My wife's favorite is sapphire, and that was her engagement ring - not diamond)

----------


## Gemini

> Tribal countries are not an option anymore for them.
> 
> If you are weak, you get controlled and exploited.  This much is apparent.


Sort of true.  Afghanistan is giving the US one hell of a time.  So did Vietnam.  Both of which were technologically inferior to us by a great deal.  Terrain is not to be discounted, along with home court advantage during a war.

----------


## Dan40

> Because apparently, women would never want any other type of stone.
> 
> (My wife's favorite is sapphire, and that was her engagement ring - not diamond)


Nothing to do with what women might want or not want.

Everything to do with what I find believable, or not.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Why do you believe they would?  Maybe they never wanted what we wanted?  Maybe they were happy in tribal system?
> 
> And...they are not held back any longer or exploited.  They have the same opportunity to be technological terrors that we do now.


This is my point.  As I said earlier, the people I come from were less advanced than the ancient Egyptians who lived thousands of years earlier.  I can't overstate the significance of that. Egyptians built cities, were advanced in medicine, art, math, astronomy, and architecture.  They had a written language that had a standard bearer status all over the world much like English does today and they built structures that are still around today.  Some people advance and some people go centuries and even millennia without ever evolving as a people.  Some people build civilizations, other settle for the most basic structure, having no opportunity to advance because of the interruption of incessant wars and genocides.

Warrior cultures aren't advanced cultures.  The Athenians and the Spartans both lived in the same country, but the Athenians lived for something greater than war...and achieved it...and the Spartans didn't, being singularly focused on breeding boys into soldiers.  And these are both cultures _within_ the white race!

No, Native Americans would never have advanced without European intervention. Neither would the Aboriginals, the Pacific Islanders, or any other race whose highest societal value is to visit death upon their nearest neighbors.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> This is my point.  As I said earlier, the people I come from were less advanced than the ancient Egyptians who lived thousands of years earlier.  I can't overstate the significance of that. Egyptians built cities, were advanced in medicine, art, math, astronomy, and architecture.  They had a written language that had a standard bearer status all over the world much like English does today and they built structures that are still around today.  Some people advance and some people go centuries and even millennia without ever evolving as a people.  Some people build civilizations, other settle for the most basic structure, having no opportunity to advance because of the interruption of incessant wars and genocides.
> 
> Warrior cultures aren't advanced cultures.  The Athenians and the Spartans both lived in the same country, but the Athenians lived for something greater than war...and achieved it...and the Spartans didn't, being singularly focused on breeding boys into soldiers.  And these are both cultures _within_ the white race!
> 
> No, Native Americans would never have advanced without European intervention. Neither would the Aboriginals, the Pacific Islanders, or any other race whose highest societal value is to visit death upon their nearest neighbors.


One of the earliest forms of democracy came from the African Igbo tribe.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> One of the earliest forms of democracy came from the African Igbo tribe.


Really?  How far did it spread?  How much of the world did it affect?  Did it create a society that lasted for centuries such as the democracies of Greece and Rome?

Even more importantly, is this thread about democracy as a key component of advanced civilizations or is democracy just a detail?

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Really?  How far did it spread?


It inspired other democracies around the world, after the Portuguese discovered them in the 15th century. 




> How much of the world did it affect?


Impossible to say for certain, but why does that matter?




> Did it create a society that lasted for centuries such as the democracies of Greece and Rome?


Not nearly as expansive, but it did endure for centuries and is still around today.




> Even more importantly, is this thread about democracy as a key component of advanced civilizations or is democracy just a detail?


Who cares?

----------


## Guest

An advanced civilization, to me, would be one of nonviolence and liberty.  No one has fully achieved that, ergo I see no advanced civilizations.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (06-23-2013),The XL (06-23-2013)

----------


## the_diplomat2.0

Lets give an example closer to home: the Iroquois Confederacy/League.

Still around today?: Yes
Democratic?: Yes.  There is a Grand Council composing of 56 chiefs.  Those chiefs serve as the final arbiters on decisions, but are subject to direct populist votes requiring 75 percent of the males and 75 percent of the females in order to pass anything of national concern.  This system existed prior to the United States passing laws for the direct election of Senators, ballot initiatives, referendums, and women's suffrage.  In other words, the Iroquois nation's government was more progressive than the United States government for at least 144 years.
Largest territorial influence?: See for yourself
5NationsExpansion.jpg

If we are to use democracy as an indicator of the relative superiority of a civilization, then I would say the Native American/Amerindian civilization of the Iroquois has got to up there.

----------


## Dan40

> Lets give an example closer to home: the Iroquois Confederacy/League.
> 
> Still around today?: Yes
> Democratic?: Yes. There is a Grand Council composing of 56 chiefs. Those chiefs serve as the final arbiters on decisions, but are subject to direct populist votes requiring 75 percent of the males and 75 percent of the females in order to pass anything of national concern. This system existed prior to the United States passing laws for the direct election of Senators, ballot initiatives, referendums, and women's suffrage. In other words, the Iroquois nation's government was more progressive than the United States government for at least 144 years.
> Largest territorial influence?: See for yourself
> 5NationsExpansion.jpg
> 
> If we are to use democracy as an indicator of the relative superiority of a civilization, then I would say the Native American/Amerindian civilization of the Iroquois has got to up there.


Today they are no more than a triva footnote.  Why?  They FAILED to protect their borders.  Sound familiar?

----------


## the_diplomat2.0

> Today they are no more than a triva footnote.  Why?  They FAILED to protect their borders.  Sound familiar?


Not really, as the Iroquois nation also was engaging in an asymmetric fight for its land in which they were vastly outmatched.  The USA is not outmatched in ability to protect its borders.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Today they are no more than a triva footnote.  Why?  They FAILED to protect their borders.  Sound familiar?


That does not invalidate their accomplishment.

----------


## Dan40

> Not really, as the Iroquois nation also was engaging in an asymmetric fight for its land in which they were vastly outmatched. The USA is not outmatched in ability to protect its borders.


Liberals claim we CANNOT close our borders. The challenge is beyong our capabilities. Not either coast, not Canada, not Mexico.  Are you saying they are wrong?  Lying? stupid? 

And the Iroquois nation doesn't amount to a pimple on a gnat's ass in the world scope.

----------

Irascible Crusader (06-24-2013)

----------


## the_diplomat2.0

> Liberals claim we CANNOT close our borders. The challenge is beyong our capabilities. Not either coast, not Canada, not Mexico.  Are you saying they are wrong?  Lying? stupid? 
> 
> And the Iroquois nation doesn't amount to a pimple on a gnat's ass in the world scope.


I am sure we have the logistical capabilities to close our borders, but the reality is that that will not happen, not to mention the idea of a closed border being a horrible idea, unless we want the USA government to emulate the border policies used in the DMZ between North Korea and South Korea, or those used at the Berlin Wall during the Cold War.  In other words, just because our government can do something, does not mean it should.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Liberals claim we CANNOT close our borders. The challenge is beyong our capabilities. Not either coast, not Canada, not Mexico.  Are you saying they are wrong?  Lying? stupid? 
> 
> And the Iroquois nation doesn't amount to a pimple on a gnat's ass in the world scope.


It's not the first time I've had insignificant anecdotes thrown at me in a pathetic attempt to dislodge my argument.  Europeans had a significant presence in North America since the 15th century, long before America became a nation.  To suggest that the Iroquois nation had come up with democracy on their own is absurd and sets aside far more compelling evidence to the contrary, such as how ruthlessly they destroyed their neighbors to become what they did.  Left to their own devices, they would be no more advanced than any other Indian tribe which were all deplorably primitive.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> I am sure we have the logistical capabilities to close our borders, but the reality is that that will not happen, not to mention the idea of a closed border being a horrible idea, unless we want the USA government to emulate the border policies used in the DMZ between North Korea and South Korea, or those used at the Berlin Wall during the Cold War.  In other words, just because our government can do something, does not mean it should.


So those are the two choices?  Either a completely borderless country or installing a heartless communist regime?

Really?

----------


## the_diplomat2.0

> So those are the two choices?  Either a completely borderless country or installing a heartless communist regime?
> 
> Really?


No.  I am just taking the technical definition of a closed border to its logical conclusion.  I think Dan40 actually supports a controlled border rather than closed border, as a closed border is where the government prevents movement in and out of a jurisdiction.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> No.  I am just taking the technical definition of a closed border to its logical conclusion.  I think Dan40 actually supports a controlled border rather than closed border, as a closed border is where the government prevents movement in and out of a jurisdiction.


That makes no sense. Both keep out illegal aliens.  But we have trade agreements with Mexico and so product and people move in an out of our southern border.  It's not necessary to close the border completely in order to secure it.

----------


## the_diplomat2.0

> That makes no sense. Both keep out illegal aliens.  But we have trade agreements with Mexico and so product and people move in an out of our southern border.  It's not necessary to close the border completely in order to secure it.


Yes, but the technical definition of a closed border is a policy where a government prevents the movement of persons in and out of a jurisdiction.  If you want to secure the border and prevent undocumented entrants from coming into the United States, then you believe in a controlled border. That is a perfectly rational approach to immigration policy, and is what I think Dan40 supports.  I just thought I would let him know, albeit implicitly, that closing the border implies preventing the movement of persons in and out of the United States.

----------


## Dan40

> It's not the first time I've had insignificant anecdotes thrown at me in a pathetic attempt to dislodge my argument. Europeans had a significant presence in North America since the 15th century, long before America became a nation. To suggest that the Iroquois nation had come up with democracy on their own is absurd and sets aside far more compelling evidence to the contrary, such as how ruthlessly they destroyed their neighbors to become what they did. Left to their own devices, they would be no more advanced than any other Indian tribe which were all deplorably primitive.


Part opf the Iroquois bullshit "democracy" included killing the warriors of neighboring tribes and enslaving their squaws.. Did the sleves then get the voting rivledges?

Liberal bullshit is endless.

----------


## Dan40

> Yes, but the technical definition of a closed border is a policy where a government prevents the movement of persons in and out of a jurisdiction. If you want to secure the border and prevent undocumented entrants from coming into the United States, then you believe in a controlled border. That is a perfectly rational approach to immigration policy, and is what I think Dan40 supports. I just thought I would let him know, albeit implicitly, that closing the border implies preventing the movement of persons in and out of the United States.


WE already PREVENT the movement o0f AMERICANS in and out of the USA without a $150.00 passport.  Foreigners can travel with impunity, Americans are restricted by the US Govt.  I travel outside the US 2 or 3 times, sometimes more, each year.  I cannot board an international flight without a passport.  Nor can I reenter the US without one.

But if picking fly shit out o0f p[epper makes you happy, secure borders over closed border is correct.  But you knew fucking well that IS what I meant.

----------

Calypso Jones (06-24-2013)

----------


## Irascible Crusader

Some people delight in making the conversation so tedious and nit picky that their opponent throws up their hands in frustration.

----------


## Dan40

> That does not invalidate their accomplishment.


How you see humiltating defeat as an accomplishment is just another of the wierd crap that falls out of your head and shatters on the sidewalk.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Part opf the Iroquois bullshit "democracy" included killing the warriors of neighboring tribes and enslaving their squaws.. Did the sleves then get the voting rivledges?
> 
> Liberal bullshit is endless.


Part of America's bullshit "democracy" included enslaving non-whites, forcibly expelling people from their land so we could have it, and slaughtering hundreds of thousands of natives.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> How you see humiltating defeat as an accomplishment is just another of the wierd crap that falls out of your head and shatters on the sidewalk.


Where did I say defeat was an accomplishment?

----------


## Gemini

> Part of America's bullshit "democracy" included enslaving non-whites, forcibly expelling people from their land so we could have it, and slaughtering hundreds of thousands of natives.


Well if you're going to bring up slavery, you may as well mention that some whites were enslaved too.  Predominately Irish.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> Part of America's bullshit "democracy" included enslaving non-whites, forcibly expelling people from their land so we could have it, and slaughtering hundreds of thousands of natives.



Americans did not do that.   
Slavery was a terrible thing to be sure, but those doing it for centuries were responsible.  Muslim traders, african chieftains and tribes, warring and capturing people for sale to slavers.  Dutch,  others.   Actually, the blacks here today should thank their lucky stars for what their great great great grand parents endured so that they could live fat and happy and free off the backs of working white and Black americans.

----------

Irascible Crusader (06-25-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Well if you're going to bring up slavery, you may as well mention that some whites were enslaved too.  Predominately Irish.


In America?

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Americans did not do that.   
> Slavery was a terrible thing to be sure, but those doing it for centuries were responsible.  Muslim traders, african chieftains and tribes, warring and capturing people for sale to slavers.  Dutch,  others.   Actually, the blacks here today should thank their lucky stars for what their great great great grand parents endured so that they could live fat and happy and free off the backs of working white and Black americans.


Oh, come off it, Calypso. Americans did engage in slavery. Even the founders did. Talk about revisionist history.

----------


## Gemini

> In America?


Yep.  In the good ol' US of A.  History accounts that aren't discussed in the classroom.

----------


## Calypso Jones

yes unfortunately we did buy the slaves...we didn't go get them.  They were brought here.  Do you not hold the africans at least partly responsible for rounding up their own people for slavery?

----------


## Calypso Jones

> In America?


YES in America.  Many of those people coming over here indentured themselves.

----------


## Gemini

> YES in America.  Many of those people coming over here indentured themselves.


It gets worse than that.  Some Irish women were forcibly bred with black slaves because the children inherited the slave status of their mother - despite being temporarily indentured servants for some.  And this also made them non-white so it was and easy reason to keep them as slaves.

Many Irish women served as little more than brood mothers or concubines during their stay in the early America.  It is a dark part of history that is largely overlooked.

White Cargo.

There is a reason why some black people here in America have a lot of "white" names and such.  Sometimes they simply took the last name of their former masters, others it may have been from another culture altogether.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (06-24-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> yes unfortunately we did buy the slaves...we didn't go get them.  They were brought here.  Do you not hold the africans at least partly responsible for rounding up their own people for slavery?


Of course I do, but that doesn't mean we didn't engage in slavery. We didn't have to buy them or keep them.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Oh, come off it, Calypso. Americans did engage in slavery. Even the founders did. Talk about revisionist history.


Come off it yourself, TRAT.  When did CJ deny American slavery?

----------


## Guest

> Come off it yourself, TRAT.  When did CJ deny American slavery?


That's not the argument he's making.  Don't be a weenie.  He's saying that it doesn't matter who sold the slaves, we still engaged in slavery.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> That's not the argument he's making.  Don't be a weenie.  He's saying that it doesn't matter who sold the slaves, we still engaged in slavery.


TRAT accused CJ twice of claiming we didn't engage in slavery. All bullshit.  Are you really that beholden to TRAT that you'll defend him even when he's ass-backwards wrong?

----------


## Guest

> TRAT accused CJ twice of claiming we didn't engage in slavery. All bullshit.  Are you really that beholden to TRAT that you'll defend him even when he's ass-backwards wrong?


Put a cork in it.  He was asking her to accept that regardless of who sold the damn slaves that we engaged in it.  He did this in order to make the point that much of our progress came at the back of slave labor.  If she had said, "True, we did" then he wouldn't have continued.  Instead it became the usual crap where people say: "Well, their own people sold them blabbity blah blah blah".

Whatever.  I hate justifications and moral relativism.  Slavery is just wrong.  White people and black people who engaged in it are both wrong.  BUT when you say that you are filled with the love of Christ and are saved you have absolutely NO BUSINESS engaging in it, I don't care if someone's own mama is selling the person.

Christians and Christianity--those contributions you said that we brought to your people cannot be spread through terror, nor can it be perpetuated in sinful ways.

I love Thomas Jefferson and think he contributed much to America and my own personal codes and ethos, but he was a slave owner.  That is the moral ambiguity that he suffered with and faced.  When you live righteously you don't have to suffer like that.

Anyway...

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (06-25-2013)

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Put a cork in it.  He was asking her to accept that regardless of who sold the damn slaves that we engaged in it.  He did this in order to make the point that much of our progress came at the back of slave labor.  If she had said, "True, we did" then he wouldn't have continued.  Instead it became the usual crap where people say: "Well, their own people sold them blabbity blah blah blah".
> 
> Whatever.  I hate justifications and moral relativism.  Slavery is just wrong.  White people and black people who engaged in it are both wrong.  BUT when you say that you are filled with the love of Christ and are saved you have absolutely NO BUSINESS engaging in it, I don't care if someone's own mama is selling the person.
> 
> Christians and Christianity--those contributions you said that we brought to your people cannot be spread through terror, nor can it be perpetuated in sinful ways.
> 
> I love Thomas Jefferson and think he contributed much to America and my own personal codes and ethos, but he was a slave owner.  That is the moral ambiguity that he suffered with and faced.  When you live righteously you don't have to suffer like that.
> 
> Anyway...


LOL @ put a cork in it! 

The eyes of politically correct history are only on the sins of white people and disregard entirely how those of other races may have contributed to the slave trade.  This isn't moral relativity on the part of CJ, it's setting the record straight with a balanced view.  Here's something they won't tell you in American school history books. Did you know that the first court case that legitimized slavery involved an African American who had both white and black slaves?  He successfully argued that one of his colored indentured servants was in fact his "negro for life". The court decision set the precedent for slavery being legal long before American even became a nation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Casor

----------


## Guest

> LOL @ put a cork in it! 
> 
> The eyes of politically correct history are only on the sins of white people and disregard entirely how those of other races may have contributed to the slave trade.  This isn't moral relativity on the part of CJ, it's setting the record straight with a balanced view.  Here's something they won't tell you in American school history books. Did you know that the first court case that legitimized slavery involved an African American who had both white and black slaves?  He successfully argued that one of his colored indentured servants was in fact his "negro for life". The court decision set the precedent for slavery being legal long before American even became a nation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Casor


Total wank on me not knowing "history".  Tell me where I give black people or Muslim people a pass.  There were blacks in the southern city of Fredericksburg that were never slaves but owned slaves.  I am aware of this.

Sort through my myriad of posts and you will see me give none a free pass.  This thread was on the superiority of the white man.  I call BS.

There is no superiority associated with race.  

Individual people are awesome.  People in groups usually suck.  This is an indisputable fact looking back at history.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (06-25-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Come off it yourself, TRAT.  When did CJ deny American slavery?


Post #117, and I quote: "Americans did not do that." Followed by a justification for how Americans are not to be blamed for holding slaves because, hey, they were just buying a product.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Post #117, and I quote: "Americans did not do that." Followed by a justification for how Americans are not to be blamed for holding slaves because, hey, they were just buying a product.


After saying "Americans did not do that", CJ goes on to say that slavery was a terrible thing but that the slave trade was around for longer than America was a nation.  It's clear that CJ wasn't denying that slavery happened, especially in context with the rest of the conversation.  Purposely misunderstanding people is a Leftist trait, and you are true to the brand!

----------


## Magnum

Are Whites Really Superior? Judging by the ones that post on political forums, no.

----------

The XL (06-26-2013)

----------


## The XL

> Are Whites Really Superior? Judging by the ones that post on political forums, no.


I have absolutely no idea whether you are smart or dumb, what your ideology is, etc, but Goddamn, this post is spot on.

----------


## Magnum

> I have absolutely no idea whether you are smart or dumb, what your ideology is, etc, but Goddamn, this post is spot on.


I fall somewhere between smart and dumb. My ideology is centre-left (if you are British) or so far left it's off the scale (if you are American).

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> I fall somewhere between smart and dumb. My ideology is centre-left (if you are British) or so far left it's off the scale (if you are American).


When I was watching Pirates of the Caribbean, I was rooting for the British Navy and disappointed when they didn't capture and hang every one of the pirates.  I wonder if a movie depicting the true heroes of history would do well in the box office?

----------


## Calypso Jones

it's.   a movie.

----------


## Magnum

> When I was watching Pirates of the Caribbean, I was rooting for the British Navy and disappointed when they didn't capture and hang every one of the pirates. I wonder if a movie depicting the true heroes of history would do well in the box office?


Are kids into war movies anymore? I've probably seen every war movie ever made. Naval adventures are a particular favourite.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> it's.   a movie.


My point is how movies glorify villains and heap aspersions on true heroes.  Ninja movies also irritate me, especially the ones that create the impression that ninjas had a code of honor.  In reality, they were the heartless assassins who would murder their own mother if the price was right, and they were despised in Japanese society as scum.  And then you have these pirate movies.  Never in these movies do you see what pirates were really known for, capturing unarmed merchant vessels, slaughtering the men, raping the women and girls, and impressing the youngest boys into piracy.  They were brutal and vicious and every one that was captured by the British Navy and hung at sea was a tribute to the real heroes who made the seas safe to travel again.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> After saying "Americans did not do that", CJ goes on to say that slavery was a terrible thing but that the slave trade was around for longer than America was a nation.  It's clear that CJ wasn't denying that slavery happened, especially in context with the rest of the conversation.  Purposely misunderstanding people is a Leftist trait, and you are true to the brand!


I actually laughed at that last line. I never said CJ promoted slavery, I said that she said Americans did not engage in slavery (and she did) and then made excuses for Americans engaging in slavery in order to pin the blame on someone else.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> I actually laughed at that last line. I never said CJ promoted slavery, I said that she said Americans did not engage in slavery (and she did) and then made excuses for Americans engaging in slavery in order to pin the blame on someone else.


I'm trying to remember.  Be honest now.  When Hussein Obama said, "you didn't build that" did you defend what he was really saying or did you purposely misrepresent him?  Remember, I can research your statements at the time.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> I'm trying to remember.  Be honest now.  When Hussein Obama said, "you didn't build that" did you defend what he was really saying or did you purposely misrepresent him?  Remember, I can research your statements at the time.


I said he was taken out of context. I know where you're going with this, though. Kinda hard for me to have taken Calypso out of context when I quoted her word for word.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> I actually laughed at that last line. I never said CJ promoted slavery, I said that she said Americans did not engage in slavery (and she did) and then made excuses for Americans engaging in slavery in order to pin the blame on someone else.


I think you have taken me out of context.  I did not mean that Americans did not have slaves. They did...the south as well as the north.   WHat i said was that the slave owning colonist did not bring these slaves over.   The Dutch did, as well as the english.  And these slaves were provided by arabs and africans and i'm sure some europeans slavers.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> I think you have taken me out of context.  I did not mean that Americans did not have slaves. They did...the south as well as the north.   WHat i said was that the slave owning colonist did not bring these slaves over.   The Dutch did, as well as the english.  And these slaves were provided by arabs and africans and i'm sure some europeans slavers.


I said, and I quote:




> Part of America's bullshit "democracy" included enslaving non-whites, forcibly expelling people from their land so we could have it, and slaughtering hundreds of thousands of natives.


You responded with "Americans did not do that." So what of the things I listed did Americans not do?

----------


## usfan

Good thread.  Very controversial.   :Big Grin: 

I had a debate with a south african one time.. he was trying to make the case that blacks were inferior as a race.  I countered with it being a cultural difference, not anything inherent in the 'race'.  I pointed out that american blacks have engaged in the same pursuits as whites, & have not suffered intellectually, either as academians or in industry.  To me, the 'culture' of america, along with education & a good work ethic, has more bearing on the individual than their racial background.  Yes, it is true that leftists have enslaved american blacks in a gulag of poverty & killed their motivation by giving them just enough to survive.  But that is a liberal culture that MAN has made, & is not something due to the race.  There have been many more motivated black people who have worked hard & been productive members of society, in spite of the liberal efforts to keep them poor, uneducated, & dependent.

The south african (who was banned a short time later for continued race baiting) conceded that american blacks have fared better than african ones.  But all he saw was the culture of violence & tribal cult followers in africa.  It so colored his perception of black people that he could not see them any other way.

It is a bit refreshing, though, to see some appreciation for white contributions by the OP, rather than the constant drumming of the evils of white people.  But personally, i don't see any differences in the races, other than upbringing & some genetic variation.  There are smart people of all colors, & plenty of dumb ones, too.  White american liberals are changing the culture here to a 3rd world, govt centered, corrupt, & dependency culture.  They have managed to convince a lot of other races to jump on the bandwagon of free stuff, but those with any sense can see it will not work.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> My point is how movies glorify villains and heap aspersions on true heroes.  Ninja movies also irritate me, especially the ones that create the impression that ninjas had a code of honor.  In reality, they were the heartless assassins who would murder their own mother if the price was right, and they were despised in Japanese society as scum.  And then you have these pirate movies.  Never in these movies do you see what pirates were really known for, capturing unarmed merchant vessels, slaughtering the men, raping the women and girls, and impressing the youngest boys into piracy.  They were brutal and vicious and every one that was captured by the British Navy and hung at sea was a tribute to the real heroes who made the seas safe to travel again.


Your "heros" didn't seem to have any problem hiring those pirates to act as privateers and prey on the vessels of enemy nations.

Was it also heroic of the British Navy to press men into service?

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (06-28-2013),TheTemporaryBG (06-28-2013)

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Your "heros" didn't seem to have any problem hiring those pirates to act as privateers and prey on the vessels of enemy nations.
> 
> Was it also heroic of the British Navy to press men into service?


The military is heroic to the degree that it fills its intended role, to protect the innocent.  Finding fault with other actions of the British Navy doesn't subtract from my point.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> The military is heroic to the degree that it fills its intended role, to protect the innocent.  Finding fault with other actions of the British Navy doesn't subtract from my point.


Militaries rarely ACTUALLY protect the innocent. They are far more often used to crush the innocent.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Good thread.  Very controversial.  
> 
> I had a debate with a south african one time.. he was trying to make the case that blacks were inferior as a race.  I countered with it being a cultural difference, not anything inherent in the 'race'.  I pointed out that american blacks have engaged in the same pursuits as whites, & have not suffered intellectually, either as academians or in industry.  To me, the 'culture' of america, along with education & a good work ethic, has more bearing on the individual than their racial background.  Yes, it is true that leftists have enslaved american blacks in a gulag of poverty & killed their motivation by giving them just enough to survive.  But that is a liberal culture that MAN has made, & is not something due to the race.  There have been many more motivated black people who have worked hard & been productive members of society, in spite of the liberal efforts to keep them poor, uneducated, & dependent.
> 
> The south african (who was banned a short time later for continued race baiting) conceded that american blacks have fared better than african ones.  But all he saw was the culture of violence & tribal cult followers in africa.  It so colored his perception of black people that he could not see them any other way.
> 
> It is a bit refreshing, though, to see some appreciation for white contributions by the OP, rather than the constant drumming of the evils of white people.  But personally, i don't see any differences in the races, other than upbringing & some genetic variation.  There are smart people of all colors, & plenty of dumb ones, too.  White american liberals are changing the culture here to a 3rd world, govt centered, corrupt, & dependency culture.  They have managed to convince a lot of other races to jump on the bandwagon of free stuff, but those with any sense can see it will not work.


These are some good points.  Ultimately I answer the question entitled in this thread by saying that white people aren't superior, but white culture is.  I use white culture and Western civilization almost interchangeably but it should be underscored that those who assimilate into Western culture assimilate into a superior culture.  So blacks in America have benefitted and are superior as a culture than blacks in Africa.  I too come from a race that is superior to those who came before me.  We become grandfathers today because we don't busy ourselves trying to kill our neighbors and today American Indian history is celebrated even though the truth of our history is unenviable. Civilization of the American Indians has a more personal application for me too. I married a white woman and I must say she civilized me!

Africa is a continent who's time has long expired for an imposed civilization.  Though many may hate to admit it, this seems the only way to bring recalcitrant peoples into an era of peace and modernity. The person you talked to from South Africa speaks from experience that we have difficulty understanding here.  In Africa, the distinction between civilized and savage falls along racial lines all too often. This too is a fact that politically charged Americans don't want to face.  The inculcation of white culture in South Africa should be a model for what happens in the entire continent.  Left to their own devices, African blacks will continue their primitive, savage, and murderous ways.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> It gets worse than that.  Some Irish women were forcibly bred with black slaves because the children inherited the slave status of their mother - despite being temporarily indentured servants for some.  And this also made them non-white so it was and easy reason to keep them as slaves.
> 
> Many Irish women served as little more than brood mothers or concubines during their stay in the early America.  It is a dark part of history that is largely overlooked.
> 
> White Cargo.
> 
> There is a reason why some black people here in America have a lot of "white" names and such.  Sometimes they simply took the last name of their former masters, others it may have been from another culture altogether.



I DO have a degree in history and spent time on colonial history. I don't believe I have ever heard such a thing.  Can you provide a link on that.

----------


## Dan40

> I DO have a degree in history and spent time on colonial history. I don't believe I have ever heard such a thing.  Can you provide a link on that.


CJ, you are responding to a 2 year old post that claims that the UK sent 10% of its population then to the US as slave sex partners for black slaves?

----------


## Rutabaga

why not?...

somebody has to be....

----------

