The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: disputeone on February 21, 2018, 12:46:50 AM
-
South Africa has become somewhat of a failed state. They are electing a new leader who will continue on with land confiscation without compensation. Nothing has been done to slow the murders of farmers, the new government wants to pass legislation to make it legal to imprison or shoot farmers who refuse to give up their land for free.
We all turn a blind eye to the horrors happening in South Africa and the failing state there. Our media is especially guilty of lying theough omission. If this continues it will be Zimbabwe 2.0 where they have to beg farmers to come back because their people are starving.
I thought we could discuss it here. We have to help the Boer, this is absolutely discrimination in its purest form. Australia has turned down Boers after losing their farms due to the color of their skin, The Australian government citing that these people who had their land stolen are "racist". What an absolute joke.
The way I see it we have two options.
1. We put sanctions on South Africa until they stop taking peoples land without consent or compensation and they resolve to treat people fairly.
2. We remove all the Boer from South Africa, resettle them in western countries and let South Africa know that every day that their country isn't a radioactive crater in the ground is a gift of the wests generosity and mercy.
I'm rather partial to the second option at this point however I think we could start with the first option.
-
I am sorry, I had no idea this was going on. Last I heard, south Africa was the only place in Africa anyone would want to go to.
I didn't know they were in the middle of a meltdown.
-
It's bad man, our media won't even cover it. It's horrible. I lived with a Boer he opened my eyes to a lot of it.
-
Lauren has been over there on the ground.
There's heaps more content than this online but the video series is a good start.
-
It's bad man, our media won't even cover it. It's horrible. I lived with a Boer he opened my eyes to a lot of it.
What is their excuse for confiscating their land? Also, what are they doing once they get it? Or is it like Zimbabwe where they simply did it for land rights in attempt to keep their currency from hyper inflating (which obviously failed)?
-
It's bad man, our media won't even cover it. It's horrible. I lived with a Boer he opened my eyes to a lot of it.
What is their excuse for confiscating their land? Also, what are they doing once they get it? Or is it like Zimbabwe where they simply did it for land rights in attempt to keep their currency from hyper inflating (which obviously failed)?
The excuse is payback, nothing more.
It's a lot like Zimbabwe, mainly about land rights. The same thing will happen they will take land from farmers and give it to people who dont know how to farm, then they will ask us for help when their people are starving.
-
The excuse is payback, nothing more.
Payback for what??
Did they give them this land? Or loan them funds to build it up?
Or is it just an excuse for a broke ass country?
-
For the Dutch and English settlers that built all of their infrastructure farms and economy.
http://hj2009per7southafrica.weebly.com/colonization.html
I think you nailed it on the third option lol.
-
For the Dutch and English settlers that built all of their infrastructure farms and economy.
http://hj2009per7southafrica.weebly.com/colonization.html
I think you nailed it on the third option lol.
Well damn, that is very disappointing. Not only for the people getting ravaged by the country they call their home and attempt to sow their hard work into.
But for the country that is turning their only beacon of light (and only place in their country anyone in their right mind would want to visit) into destruction. I would say we have another Zimbabwe hyperinflation on it's way, however, being a part of the euro system might save them. Though considering how bad many of the nations using the euro is doing, you never know.
-
For the Dutch and English settlers that built all of their infrastructure farms and economy.
For the Dutch and English colonists who stole their land, you presumably mean. The 1913 Land Act left the native population with only 10% of the land - almost none of it good farmland. And what land they had left was all communal, meaning they couldn't even buy and sell it.
Of course stealing people's land now for the sins of their ancestors is wrong, but it's a much more complicated issue than you make out. Fortunately SA's new leader has spoken out very strongly against it:
"Now you may ask, why am I going through this? Because someone referred to the original sin that was committed in this country, the taking of land from the indigenous people in this country was the original sin."
He was referring to DA leader Mmusi Maimane, who said the 1913 Natives Land Act was apartheid's "original sin" before arguing against land expropriation without compensation.
"It caused divisions, hurt and pain among our people.
"What we need to do is be aware of the fact that we are all called upon to enjoin to heal the divisions and the pain of the past.
"This is a collective task. It is not the task of the ANC alone. It is our task as a nation, it belongs to all of us.
"Yes, Julius Malema, it is just as much your task as it is my task. Yes, Mmusi Maimane, it is your task as it is my task," Ramaphosa said.
'Should we "just say, forget it"?'
The return of the land to the people from whom it was taken could be precisely how South Africa heals the divisions of the past.
"A number of white South Africans and companies have decided they are going to grasp the nettle and seize this as an opportunity to address the injustices of the past, so all of us collectively as South Africans can move forward, knowing we have addressed this issue."
Parliament needed to interrogate the statement that the expropriation of land without compensation was incompatible with a flourishing economy, or that it represented a "violation of the spirit" of the Constitution.
He then cited an example from a Mr Fredrick Alberts in Cape Town, whose house was forcibly taken from him, and who still felt the pain of the loss today.
"Should we just say, 'forget it, that belongs in the past'? He had a beautiful house, wonderful memories, and his dignity was razed to the floor, it was destroyed.
"What should we say to him?"
"Give him a house!" shouted one DA MP.
https://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/we-will-not-allow-smash-and-grab-interventions-ramaphosa-on-land-expropriation-without-compensation-20180220 (https://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/we-will-not-allow-smash-and-grab-interventions-ramaphosa-on-land-expropriation-without-compensation-20180220)
-
Your article is justifying what I brought up you utter moron.
-
If you read past the headline all the ANC is going to do is change the law so there will no longer be smash and grab farm takeovers because they will be done by the military and quite legally. They are trying to change the laws currently. Just because something is legal does not make it justifiable.
The only race, the only race you could be this apathetic towards is your own. You honestly make me sick in ways you could never understand.
-
I've been working with a South African over the last few years, and he describes things pretty much the same as you have.
The police force can be bought off with KFC meal vouchers, ( I'm not kidding) and security is pretty much like the wild west.
Crime is a major problem, and getting worse.
Living is a compound with electric fences is not the way of life.
-
Damn even Rayzor agrees about South Africa.
I was thinking south Africa was the Seoul to Pyongyang...but it turns out it is not.
I don't have any business dealings from Africa or know anyone from there except for a few customers that has visited south Africa. I guess I need to do more research into this shit hole.
-
Telling the truth is a new tactic of yours Rayzor and one I am not used to at all. Well played, credit where it's due, surprisingly effective. I'm rattled now.
-
Telling the truth is a new tactic of yours Rayzor and one I am not used to at all. Well played, credit where it's due, surprisingly effective. I'm rattled now.
He tells some stories, about necklacing, and people disappearing. Pretty violent stuff, he likes the laid back attitude in Australia.
-
Telling the truth is a new tactic of yours Rayzor and one I am not used to at all. Well played, credit where it's due, surprisingly effective. I'm rattled now.
FWIW I don't think you're totally wrong here. Maybe exaggerating a bit. I've heard stories like this when apartheid was ended. There's a couple of things that make trusting regular news sources difficult. 1. Race relations. 2. We pushed very hard to end apartheid so we're really not too keen on learning that it's led to these sort of problems. So you could be right.
On the other hand it's also entirely possible that the situation is being blown out of proportion by the alt-right and "race realists" to justify their worldview. Ending apartheid is a giant shift for a country and there's no way there wouldn't be some problems along the way.
Trying to get a clear picture of the situation would take quite a bit of research.
-
the situation is being blown out of proportion by the alt-right and "race realists" to justify their worldview.
Kek.
Trying to get a clear picture of the situation would take quite a bit of research.
So why not do it instead of shitpost?
-
the situation is being blown out of proportion by the alt-right and "race realists" to justify their worldview.
Kek.
Trying to get a clear picture of the situation would take quite a bit of research.
So why not do it instead of shitpost?
That's seriously what you got out of all of that? This is why people don't bother to usually have a conversation with you. Either we have to agree with everything you say or we're shit posting. Sad.
-
You basically said.
""You might be right, but you might be wrong because you're racist, I haven't done the research.""
What do you want me to say to that mate?
-
You basically said.
""You might be right, but you might be wrong because you're racist, I haven't done the research.""
What do you want me to say to that mate?
He didn't say that, you're just being a dick.
Your desire to reduce every complex problem down to a couple of simplistic bullet points doesn't help.
-
Not at all he gives reasons for why I might be correct while defending the medias lack of coverage. Then he says the situation is being blown out of proportion by the alt-right and "race realists".
He accepts the immutable facts while satisfying his white guilt and justifying the murders of farmers and the confiscation of their land by saying that there's no way there wouldn't be some problems along the way.
All in all not a bad post, designed to make me take his bait and spend the rest of the thread calling me a Nazi.
He's actually very good, better than Rayzor imo.
-
Not at all he gives reasons for why I might be correct while defending the medias lack of coverage. Then he says the situation is being blown out of proportion by the alt-right and "race realists".
He accepts the immutable facts while satisfying his white guilt and justifying the murders of farmers and the confiscation of their land by saying that there's no way there wouldn't be some problems along the way.
You know his post is still there to read, don't you? He literally didn't claim any of that.
-
Telling the truth is a new tactic of yours Rayzor and one I am not used to at all. Well played, credit where it's due, surprisingly effective. I'm rattled now.
FWIW I don't think you're totally wrong here. Maybe exaggerating a bit.
>You might be right.
I've heard stories like this when apartheid was ended. There's a couple of things that make trusting regular news sources difficult. 1. Race relations. 2. We pushed very hard to end apartheid so we're really not too keen on learning that it's led to these sort of problems. So you could be right.
>You could be right, defending the medias lack of coverage.
On the other hand it's also entirely possible that the situation is being blown out of proportion by the alt-right and "race realists" to justify their worldview.
>You are probably wrong because you are racist.
Ending apartheid is a giant shift for a country and there's no way there wouldn't be some problems along the way.
>justification for what's happening currently in South Africa.
Trying to get a clear picture of the situation would take quite a bit of research.
>I haven't done the research.
-
Telling the truth is a new tactic of yours Rayzor and one I am not used to at all. Well played, credit where it's due, surprisingly effective. I'm rattled now.
FWIW I don't think you're totally wrong here. Maybe exaggerating a bit.
>You might be right.
I've heard stories like this when apartheid was ended. There's a couple of things that make trusting regular news sources difficult. 1. Race relations. 2. We pushed very hard to end apartheid so we're really not too keen on learning that it's led to these sort of problems. So you could be right.
>You could be right, defending the medias lack of coverage.
On the other hand it's also entirely possible that the situation is being blown out of proportion by the alt-right and "race realists" to justify their worldview.
>You are probably wrong because you are racist.
Ending apartheid is a giant shift for a country and there's no way there wouldn't be some problems along the way.
>justification for what's happening currently in South Africa.
Trying to get a clear picture of the situation would take quite a bit of research.
>I haven't done the research.
Hey if you're not interested in a discussion, if you're here just to find people that bolster your world view, that's fine. I'll just take the extreme and call you a racist asshole. It's a lot easier.
If you want to try to make this an actual discussion then I can do that too. From a race relations view South Africa is an interesting case. There's probably a lot to learn from an honest study of their history.
-
Telling the truth is a new tactic of yours Rayzor and one I am not used to at all. Well played, credit where it's due, surprisingly effective. I'm rattled now.
FWIW I don't think you're totally wrong here. Maybe exaggerating a bit.
>You might be right.
I've heard stories like this when apartheid was ended. There's a couple of things that make trusting regular news sources difficult. 1. Race relations. 2. We pushed very hard to end apartheid so we're really not too keen on learning that it's led to these sort of problems. So you could be right.
>You could be right, defending the medias lack of coverage.
On the other hand it's also entirely possible that the situation is being blown out of proportion by the alt-right and "race realists" to justify their worldview.
>You are probably wrong because you are racist.
Ending apartheid is a giant shift for a country and there's no way there wouldn't be some problems along the way.
>justification for what's happening currently in South Africa.
Trying to get a clear picture of the situation would take quite a bit of research.
>I haven't done the research.
The issue with you is that you read what you want to read and interpret it the way you want to.
-
Sadly while the Australian media likes to promote that Australia is the most racist country on Earth, we have a humanitarian crisis in South Africa that no one gives a shit about because these particular victims don't have the required melanin content in their skin for people to give a damn about. Then you get disgusting dicks that believe these farmers, who have been responsible, none other than ensuring the prosperity and wealth of South Africa, deserve to have their farms taken and no one gives a damn if they were beaten, tortured, raped and murdered.
You have Presidents from Nelson Mandela to now singing as if its an anthem for the killing of running 'boer' with a machine gun. Now here is an interesting thing. Boer is a derogatory term for white South African in the same way a nigger is derogatory.
South Africa really doesn't see the lack of logic in biting the hand that feeds them. Zimbabwe was once the jewel of Africa and look at it now.
Here is a triggering thought for some..... What do you call a white South African, emigrating to America? An African American. :o
Anyone who feels uneasy at that concept is a racist arsehole. Why is colour so important to you? Why is a black person, who was born in America, and whose parents were born in America, get to call themselves an 'African American' but a white person from Africa is unable to do so?
The liberal media shows their racist side when they refuse to report the unfolding humanitarian crisis is a country simply because of the colour of the victims skin. How many people in Zimbabwe of all colours have died from the same mistakes we see now. Inaction will be complicit in the deaths and suffering of millions to come, but tell us again what dumb thing Trump tweeted today. Clearly that deserves all the focus. ???
-
I'll just call you a racist asshole. It's a lot easier.
Well you got what you wanted in a roundabout way.
There's probably a lot to learn from an honest study of their history.
So study it. What's wrong with you?
-
I'll just call you a racist asshole. It's a lot easier.
Well you got what you wanted in a roundabout way.
There's probably a lot to learn from an honest study of their history.
So study it. What's wrong with you?
I offer you peace, you continue to choose war. Why is that?
-
Because you're not an honest poster you are here to push a narrative.
I will accept your peace. Good luck with your studies.
-
You have Presidents from Nelson Mandela to now singing as if its an anthem for the killing of running 'boer' with a machine gun. Now here is an interesting thing. Boer is a derogatory term for white South African in the same way a nigger is derogatory.
Honestly these things are not really surprising for a country that got out of apartheid a couple of decades back. What really sucks is that it seems like they've got their own populist leaders who are taking advantage of and fueling the rage against the Boers, which is making things worse. So yeah, SA is a pretty racist country right now. Hopefully things will get better over time.
-
I agree it's absolutely not surprising.
Not surprising doesn't make it ok.
-
Sadly while the Australian media likes to promote that Australia is the most racist country on Earth
Our media is in competition with yours apparently.
I was under the impression we are the most racist country on Earth.
-
RACISM OLYMPICS!!!
-
Funnily enough, if you looked at real data and studies on racism, it is the predominant white countries such as Australia, New Zealand, England, the USA and Canada that are the most tolerant countries. But I guess that doesn't make for good click bait or headline.
-
Funnily enough, if you looked at real data and studies on racism, it is the predominant white countries such as Australia, New Zealand, England, the USA and Canada that are the most tolerant countries. But I guess that doesn't make for good click bait or headline.
You know liberals are allergic to facts...
Also don't worry about the leader that says you should kill white people as well as take their land lol.
-
Also don't worry about the leader that says you should kill white people as well as take their land lol.
Isn't that what the American colonists did to the Indians?
-
Usually / Historically the conquering race gets to keep the land they conquered. Wars used to be fought for land and not cosmopolitan bankers. That was a very long time ago Rayzor. It's a foolish comparison to compare that to today.
-
Rayzor thinks repeating the atrocities of history can somehow cancel them out and set it right. What a dumb arse
-
Usually / Historically the conquering race gets to keep the land they conquered. Wars used to be fought for land and not cosmopolitan bankers. That was a very long time ago Rayzor. It's a foolish comparison to compare that to today.
You didn't know BHS is part native american?
-
I didn't to be honest. I don't see how that would change my opinion on him in any way shape or form. Or the comment I just made.
-
Rayzor thinks repeating the atrocities of history can somehow cancel them out and set it right. What a dumb arse
Agreed, No one is justifying genocide, not then and certainly not now.
It's much more complicated than killing whites because their ancestors killed natives in the land they conquered.
-
Rayzor thinks repeating the atrocities of history can somehow cancel them out and set it right. What a dumb arse
Agreed, No one is justifying genocide, not then and certainly not now.
It's much more complicated than killing whites because their ancestors killed natives in the land they conquered.
You can't justify genocide under any terms, Australia is just as guilty as the American colonists who slaughtered the indians and took their land. Australian colonists did much the same to the aborigines, but we pretend it never happened.
Yes it was a long time ago. I'm not sure that makes a difference, is there a statute of limitations on genocide?
-
Rayzor thinks repeating the atrocities of history can somehow cancel them out and set it right. What a dumb arse
Agreed, No one is justifying genocide, not then and certainly not now.
It's much more complicated than killing whites because their ancestors killed natives in the land they conquered.
You can't justify genocide under any terms, Australia is just as guilty as the American colonists who slaughtered the indians and took their land. Australian colonists did much the same to the aborigines, but we pretend it never happened.
Yes it was a long time ago. I'm not sure that makes a difference, is there a statute of limitations on genocide?
Here you go gas lighting a whole nation now. No one pretends it never happened. What the hell are you on about?
-
The most intersting thing to notice is the backflip Rayzor has done in this thread when Crutonius' trap failed.
Gr8 b8 m8 I r8 8/8.
-
Slightly more on topic.
Would you be interested in talking about the heritage of the people that funded and planned the slave trade in Africa Rayzor, maybe nearly all of them have something in common except light skin?
Maybe then you could demonize them as you are demonizing whites?
Or is that something you wouldn't like to do?
-
Slightly more on topic.
Would you be interested in talking about the heritage of the people that funded and planned the slave trade in Africa Rayzor, maybe nearly all of them have something in common except light skin.
Maybe then you could demonize them as you are demonizing whites?
Or is that something you wouldn't like to do?
Why do you think I'm demonizing anybody, all I've said is genocide is wrong. Maybe you are projecting your own white racist slant on that view?
-
Like pottery.
-
You can't justify genocide under any terms, Australia is just as guilty as the American colonists who slaughtered the indians and took their land. Australian colonists did much the same to the aborigines, but we pretend it never happened.
Yes it was a long time ago. I'm not sure that makes a difference, is there a statute of limitations on genocide?
The bolded sections denote emotive language used in order to encourage the reader to have an emotional reaction instead of a logical reaction to your words.
This is why I said demonizing. The Brittish conquered Australia, it's just what happened. Some aboriginals died. There are more aboriginals now than pre colonization and they have full citizenship, some genocide hey?
Anyway back to the point you are hilariously avoiding.
Slightly more on topic.
Would you be interested in talking about the heritage of the people that funded and planned the slave trade in Africa Rayzor, maybe nearly all of them have something in common except light skin?
Or is that something you wouldn't like to do?
-
Slightly more on topic.
Would you be interested in talking about the heritage of the people that funded and planned the slave trade in Africa Rayzor, maybe nearly all of them have something in common except light skin?
Or is that something you wouldn't like to do?
By all means, assail us all with you twisted tales of conspiracies, let me guess, were they all descended from the 13 bloodlines, or illuminati?
-
It's common information, it's not a "conspiracy theory". Nearly all of the biggest funders and profit takers of the African slave trade were Jewish.
That's all.
-
It's common information, it's not a "conspiracy theory". Nearly all of the biggest funders and profit takers of the African slave trade were Jewish.
That's all.
Oy vey, you schmuck, I can just picture those Jewish Southern Slave plantation owners sipping their mint juleps and toasting Nathan Bedford Forrest. Yep, that seems legit.
-
Look it up it's not a secret.
-
Look it up it's not a secret.
I did, and it's just more anti-semitic propaganda, Jews were involved in the slave trade as slave traders and owners, but no more so than any other group.
The propaganda points back to Louis Farakkan ( nation of islam) and David Duke ( KKK ).
I call bs.
-
Look it up it's not a secret.
Jews were involved in the slave trade as slave traders and owners, but no more so than any other group.
Wrong, They were the most over represented group in the profit of the slave trade.
-
Look it up it's not a secret.
Jews were involved in the slave trade as slave traders and owners, but no more so than any other group.
Wrong, They were the most over represented group in the profit of the slave trade.
Prove it.
-
You'll just call it anti-semetic propaganda.
Facts are just facts.
-
You'll just call it anti-semetic propaganda.
Then it probably is.
-
Nearly all of the biggest funders and profit takers of the African slave trade were Jewish.
This is just blatant nonsense.
Not according to scholars that have closely examined the question. Several studies of the Jewish role in the slave trade were conducted in the 1990s. One of them, by John Jay’s Faber, compared available data on Jewish slave ownership and trading activity in British territories in the 18th century to that of the wider population. Faber concludes that the claim of Jewish domination is false and that the Jewish role in slavery was “exceedingly limited.” According to Faber, British Jews were always in the minority of investors in slaving operations and were not known to have been among the primary owners of slave fleets. Faber found that, with few exceptions, Jews were minor figures in brokering the sale of slaves upon their arrival in the Americas, and given the urban-dwelling propensity of most American Jews, few accumulated large rural properties and plantations where slave labor was most concentrated. According to Faber, Jews were more likely than non-Jews to own slaves, but on average they owned fewer of them.
Other studies, by Harold Brackman and Saul Friedman, reached similar conclusions. In a 1994 article in the New York Review of Books, David Brion Davis, an emeritus professor of history at Yale University and author of an award-winning trilogy of books about slavery, noted that Jews were one of countless religious and ethnic groups around the world to participate in the slave trade:
The participants in the Atlantic slave system included Arabs, Berbers, scores of African ethnic groups, Italians, Portuguese, Spaniards, Dutch, Jews, Germans, Swedes, French, English, Danes, white Americans, Native Americans, and even thousands of New World blacks who had been emancipated or were descended from freed slaves but who then became slaveholding farmers or planters themselves.
Davis went on to note that in the American South in 1830 there were “120 Jews among the 45,000 slaveholders owning twenty or more slaves and only twenty Jews among the 12,000 slaveholders owning fifty or more slaves.”
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/jews-and-the-african-slave-trade/ (https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/jews-and-the-african-slave-trade/)
Sorry, no youtube videos. You could actually try some reading..
-
Usually / Historically the conquering race gets to keep the land they conquered.
Unless the locals get their shit together and kick them out. You might not have noticed, but Spain is no longer part of the Caliphate large parts of England aren't ruled by the Vikings.
-
That's the problem South Africa doesn't have it's shit together.
Also I didn't say anything about Jews owning a lot of slaves, that is incorrect.
They were just the most over represented group in profit of the trans Atlantic slave trade.
I'm not sure if that's anti semetic, Jews have historically always been very good businessmen.
-
The Brittish conquered Australia, it's just what happened. Some aboriginals died. There are more aboriginals now than pre colonization and they have full citizenship, some genocide hey?
You can say that for almost every genocide ever.
-
So "almost every genocide ever" resulted in there being an increase in the population, quality of life and technological advancement of that race?
Wow man. Seems like genocide is a good thing after all.
-
So "almost every genocide ever" resulted in there being an increase in the population, quality of life and technological advancement of that race?
Wow man. Seems like genocide is a good thing after all.
You're confused about what "resulted to" means.
-
Colonization was an overall positive experience for the aboriginals, they now live in a first world nation with full citizenship and government sponsored assistance. I disagree with the use of the term "genocide."
The stolen generation was a mistake. The British thought they could raise aboriginals as British children and they would turn out like Brittish men and women. They were wrong because they didn't factor in that tens of thousands of years of being an isolated race of hunter gatherers gave them different strengths and weaknesses.
If the people had understood the reality of race (evolutionary biology) perhaps the stolen generation wouldn't have happened?
-
Did you even put the slightest bit of thought into that post? What if someone invades your country and slaughters your people, but 200 years from now the life quality is better? Would you then call it an "overall positive experience"?? That's so fucked up.
Also please spare us the 4chan genetics. Of course you can raise children of any age as any culture. Not if you steal them from their parents and introduce them to a hostile environment in an attempt to "civilize" them. Oh and if you think the stolen geberation was the only attrocity commited, you're badly mistaken.
-
>muh feels.
I absolutely stand by that colonization was an overall positive experience for the aboriginals. Someone was going to take Australia, there was too much land here that was occupied by a race technologically hundreds of years behind. If it wasn't the British it would have been the Chinese.
We could debate who would have been kinder to the Aboriginal people?
-
I really didn't want this to turn into a "white people are evil" thread but here we go I guess.
The Boer in South Africa really do need help.
-
Is your argument "genocide was good for them because maybe someone would have genocided them worse"?? The issue is not so much that they took over Australia. Yes, that was indeed going to happen. It's their treatment of the indegenous populations. Taking over countries is bad, but there's taking over countries with respect to the indegenous populations and their culture and then there's taking over countries while genociding them, or enslaving them or stealing all they have.
-
Dispute cannot be serious in this. God, please let it rain brain...
-
The most intersting thing to notice is the backflip Rayzor has done in this thread when Crutonius' trap failed.
Gr8 b8 m8 I r8 8/8.
What trap? The only trap in this thread was me thinking that you wanted an honest discussion about this when in fact it seems you only want to shitpost. Which I fell for. So you win this round.
-
We didn't genocide the aboriginals. They are still here, there were mass killings in Tasmania. That was wrong.
And yes sometimes you have to look at the reality of a situation instead of looking at it in the lens of a perfect world.
Do you think Australia would still be a land of hunter gatherer aboriginals after the year 2000 without anyone taking the land?
Seriously.
-
...
You are making a logical fallcy. You are thinking that if at time b things are better than at time a, this means that everything between time a and b had to be good and progressive.
That is wrong.
-
We didn't genocide the aboriginals. They are still here, there were mass killings in Tasmania. That was wrong.
And yes sometimes you have to look at the reality of a situation instead of looking at it in the lens of a perfect world.
Do you think Australia would still be a land of hunter gatherer aboriginals after the year 2000 without anyone taking the land?
Seriously.
Are you under the impression it's not a genocide if there are people left?? And did you even read my post where I said that obviously someone would have taken the land, which isn't an excuse for the attrocities commited?
-
...
You are making a logical fallcy. You are thinking that if at time b things are better than at time a, this means that everything between time a and b had to be good and progressive.
That is wrong.
I'm not. Thats why I said overall it was positive. I didn't say it was wholly positive that would've been a logical fallacy.
We didn't genocide the aboriginals. They are still here, there were mass killings in Tasmania. That was wrong.
And yes sometimes you have to look at the reality of a situation instead of looking at it in the lens of a perfect world.
Do you think Australia would still be a land of hunter gatherer aboriginals after the year 2000 without anyone taking the land?
Seriously.
Are you under the impression it's not a genocide if there are people left?? And did you even read my post where I said that obviously someone would have taken the land, which isn't an excuse for the attrocities commited?
We acknowlege what happened. It's not genocide if there wasn't a policy to exterminate the Aboriginal race, which there wasn't.
They fly their flag alongside the Australian flag today. Aboriginals are treated as Australian citizens in our society which is being treated better than 80% of the world so they're doing just fine.
-
That's not how genocide works. A genocide is an intentional effort to kill off part or whole of a certain ethnic group. Which is exactly what happened in many cases between the 18th and early 20th centuries. It's not like it's not a genocide unless there's a specific policy to kill all of them. I'm not saying they're doing bad now. I'm saying that the fact they're doing good now does not excuse the attrocities commited.
-
They were just the most over represented group in profit of the trans Atlantic slave trade.
You actually said this on page 2:
Nearly all of the biggest funders and profit takers of the African slave trade were Jewish.
Yet you provide no evidence for either assertion. Both are untrue.
-
It would make sense if they were overrepresented. They were overrepresented at trade, and trade included slaves too. That doesn't really say anything.
-
Captain Arthur Phillip who led the settlement here did want to co-exist peacefully with them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Phillip
Phillip also had to adopt a policy towards the Eora Aboriginal people, who lived around the waters of Sydney Harbour. Phillip ordered that they must be well-treated, and that anyone killing Aboriginal people would be hanged. Phillip befriended an Eora man called Bennelong, and later took him to England. On the beach at Manly, a misunderstanding arose and Phillip was speared in the shoulder: but he ordered his men not to retaliate
-
Captain Arthur Phillip who led the settlement here did want to co-exist peacefully with them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Phillip
Phillip also had to adopt a policy towards the Eora Aboriginal people, who lived around the waters of Sydney Harbour. Phillip ordered that they must be well-treated, and that anyone killing Aboriginal people would be hanged. Phillip befriended an Eora man called Bennelong, and later took him to England. On the beach at Manly, a misunderstanding arose and Phillip was speared in the shoulder: but he ordered his men not to retaliate
Lol, phillip was 100% gay af.
He probably wasn't just 'speared' in the shoulder.
-
Captain Arthur Phillip who led the settlement here did want to co-exist peacefully with them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Phillip
Phillip also had to adopt a policy towards the Eora Aboriginal people, who lived around the waters of Sydney Harbour. Phillip ordered that they must be well-treated, and that anyone killing Aboriginal people would be hanged. Phillip befriended an Eora man called Bennelong, and later took him to England. On the beach at Manly, a misunderstanding arose and Phillip was speared in the shoulder: but he ordered his men not to retaliate
Lol, phillip was 100% gay af.
So what if he was. What does that have to do with anything except reveal your homophobia. Odd given your a Swede. I thought you were all closet gays
-
Captain Arthur Phillip who led the settlement here did want to co-exist peacefully with them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Phillip
Phillip also had to adopt a policy towards the Eora Aboriginal people, who lived around the waters of Sydney Harbour. Phillip ordered that they must be well-treated, and that anyone killing Aboriginal people would be hanged. Phillip befriended an Eora man called Bennelong, and later took him to England. On the beach at Manly, a misunderstanding arose and Phillip was speared in the shoulder: but he ordered his men not to retaliate
Lol, phillip was 100% gay af.
So what if he was. What does that have to do with anything except reveal your homophobia. Odd given your a Swede. I thought you were all closet gays
I'm pretty sure most homophobes are closet gays.
-
Even by the minitrue Australias colonization was not a genocide.
Genocide is intentional action to destroy a people (usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group) in whole or in part. The hybrid word "genocide" is a combination of the Greek word génos ("race, people") and the Latin suffix -cide ("act of killing").[1] The United Nations Genocide Convention, which was established in 1948, defines genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group".[2][3]
The term genocide was coined by Raphael Lemkin in his 1944 book Axis Rule in Occupied Europe;[4][5] it has been applied to the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide and many other mass killings including the genocide of indigenous peoples in the Americas, the Greek genocide, the Indonesian killings of 1965–66, the Assyrian genocide, the Serbian genocide, the Holodomor, the 1971 Bangladesh genocide, the Cambodian genocide, the Guatemalan genocide, and, more recently, the Bosnian genocide, the Kurdish genocide, and the Rwandan genocide.[a]
-
Where did everybody go? Tell us more about the Australian """genocide."""
Go on.
-
Where did everybody go? Tell us more about the Australian """genocide."""
Go on.
I do not know the situation in South Africa, but why are you only concerned when people who have the same color like you are suppressed by people who don't?
-
True fact: Aboriginal genocide has zero results when you search it on Google. Try. So it obviously isn't a thing.
-
Where did everybody go? Tell us more about the Australian """genocide."""
Go on.
I do not know the situation in South Africa, but why are you only concerned when people who have the same color like you are suppressed by people who don't?
No I'm concerned with people having their land and farms stolen, not by a conquering army but from politicians.
You don't care about anyone but yourself and virtuebux.
-
Groups of Indigenous Australians were massacred on many occasions between the start of the British colonisation of Australia in 1788 up to the 1920s. These massacres were the fundamental element of the frontier wars.[1]
We wanted their land not the extermination of their race. Calling it genocide is just incorrect.
@User the logical fallacy you were looking for was actually "appeal to emotion" and it's not being used by me.
-
Where did everybody go? Tell us more about the Australian """genocide."""
Go on.
I do not know the situation in South Africa, but why are you only concerned when people who have the same color like you are suppressed by people who don't?
No I'm concerned with people having their land and farms stolen, not by a conquering army but from politicians.
You don't care about anyone but yourself and virtuebux.
No, you are concerned with people having their land and farms stolen, when they have the same colour like you.
-
Where else is this happening currently?
Oh
Only in South Africa.
-
Even by the minitrue Australias colonization was not a genocide.
Genocide is intentional action to destroy a people (usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group) in whole or in part. The hybrid word "genocide" is a combination of the Greek word génos ("race, people") and the Latin suffix -cide ("act of killing").[1] The United Nations Genocide Convention, which was established in 1948, defines genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group".[2][3]
The term genocide was coined by Raphael Lemkin in his 1944 book Axis Rule in Occupied Europe;[4][5] it has been applied to the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide and many other mass killings including the genocide of indigenous peoples in the Americas, the Greek genocide, the Indonesian killings of 1965–66, the Assyrian genocide, the Serbian genocide, the Holodomor, the 1971 Bangladesh genocide, the Cambodian genocide, the Guatemalan genocide, and, more recently, the Bosnian genocide, the Kurdish genocide, and the Rwandan genocide.[a]
I don't quite understand what this is supposed to mean? It doesn't mention aboriginals.
True fact: Aboriginal genocide has zero results when you search it on Google. Try. So it obviously isn't a thing.
It does, actually.
-
Boydster was saying that because some people (communists) incorrectly call it a genocide on goolag then it has to be a genocide.
Again, the logical fallacy is "appeal to emotion."
-
Boydster was saying that because some people (communists) incorrectly call it a genocide on goolag then it has to be a genocide.
Again, the logical fallacy is "appeal to emotion."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_of_Indigenous_Australians
The aboriginal population of Tasmania was wiped out, that's genocide.
-
>Links to article citing massacres.
>Claims it cites genocide.
>Mfw Rayzor.
(https://s18.postimg.org/tiqun4ztl/1514945021520.jpg)
-
It would make sense if they were overrepresented. They were overrepresented at trade, and trade included slaves too. That doesn't really say anything.
European education isn't as censored to fit narratives as western education. I've noticed this in every Eurpoean I've had a good conversation with.
I agree it's not a big deal, funny to see everyones reaction to it tho hey?
I know you're an honest poster DNO, one of the few. Australian colonisation is a sensitive topic but I think you will find I can defend my arguments on it. I hope it didn't offend you more than necessary to have this conversation.
-
Even by the minitrue Australias colonization was not a genocide.
Genocide is intentional action to destroy a people (usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group) in whole or in part. The hybrid word "genocide" is a combination of the Greek word génos ("race, people") and the Latin suffix -cide ("act of killing").[1] The United Nations Genocide Convention, which was established in 1948, defines genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group".[2][3]
The term genocide was coined by Raphael Lemkin in his 1944 book Axis Rule in Occupied Europe;[4][5] it has been applied to the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide and many other mass killings including the genocide of indigenous peoples in the Americas, the Greek genocide, the Indonesian killings of 1965–66, the Assyrian genocide, the Serbian genocide, the Holodomor, the 1971 Bangladesh genocide, the Cambodian genocide, the Guatemalan genocide, and, more recently, the Bosnian genocide, the Kurdish genocide, and the Rwandan genocide.
It doesn't mention aboriginals.
Exactly. In the minitrues list of genocides Australian colonisation is not listed. Most likely because they can't apply the term Genocide to Australain colonisation.
That doesnt stop people screaming genocide at Australians. I'm very proud of the great country we've built in less than three hundred years. I do agree that killing is wrong but as stated in Rayzors links it was war. People die in wars.
Unfortunately when a more technologically advanced race wages a war on a less technologically advanced race the result is usually a very high casualty rate on only one side.
Like the war on terror for example, At what point do we call the war on terror a genocide?
http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/unworthy-victims-western-wars-have-killed-four-million-muslims-1990-39149394
-
Where else is this happening currently?
Oh
Only in South Africa.
No, that's wrong. But who cares? They "only want their land". If they don't want to be second class citizens in an African country, they can go back to Europe. Your logic.
-
>Links to article citing massacres.
>Claims it cites genocide.
>Mfw Rayzor.
So what would you call the killing of the entire population of Tasmanian full blood aborigines?
I call it genocide.
-
Where else is this happening currently?
Oh
Only in South Africa.
No, that's wrong. But who cares? They "only want their land". If they don't want to be second class citizens in an African country, they can go back to Europe. Your logic.
I said that in the OP. We can resettle the Boer in western countries if South Africa wants to kick out all the whites.
-
I'm 100% sure it will be a unparalelled paradise within 200 years without white opression holding them back.
-
Even by the minitrue Australias colonization was not a genocide.
Genocide is intentional action to destroy a people (usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group) in whole or in part. The hybrid word "genocide" is a combination of the Greek word génos ("race, people") and the Latin suffix -cide ("act of killing").[1] The United Nations Genocide Convention, which was established in 1948, defines genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group".[2][3]
The term genocide was coined by Raphael Lemkin in his 1944 book Axis Rule in Occupied Europe;[4][5] it has been applied to the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide and many other mass killings including the genocide of indigenous peoples in the Americas, the Greek genocide, the Indonesian killings of 1965–66, the Assyrian genocide, the Serbian genocide, the Holodomor, the 1971 Bangladesh genocide, the Cambodian genocide, the Guatemalan genocide, and, more recently, the Bosnian genocide, the Kurdish genocide, and the Rwandan genocide.
It doesn't mention aboriginals.
Exactly. In the minitrues list of genocides Australian colonisation is not listed. Most likely because they can't apply the term Genocide to Australain colonisation.
That's not a list of all genocides ever. Here's another Wiki page that DOES reference that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples. I will agree that it's not very easy to apply it to Australia because it wasn't a single coordinated act, but you're not changing history by semantics.
That doesnt stop people screaming genocide at Australians. I'm very proud of the great country we've built in less than three hundred years. I do agree that killing is wrong but as stated in Rayzors links it was war. People die in wars.
No, it wasn't just war. You should look a bit more into the history of your own country.
Also look at the examples of genocide mentioned in that quote. How many of them resulted in the complete extinction of the population? How many of these groups have lower living standards compared to before the genocide? How can you not see how absurd it is to say that it's an "overall positive experience" because now their standards of life are better than 300 years ago and because not all of them died?
-
It was a war for territory.
As I said before wars used to be fought for territory and not international bankers. It's hard to get your head around these days.
-
Also this.
Unfortunately when a more technologically advanced race wages a war on a less technologically advanced race the result is usually a very high casualty rate on only one side.
Like the war on terror for example, At what point do we call the war on terror a genocide?
http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/unworthy-victims-western-wars-have-killed-four-million-muslims-1990-39149394
-
It was a war for territory.
As I said before wars used to be fought for territory and not international bankers. It's hard to get your head around these days.
What I'm saying is that the violence was not always part of war. Women were raped and civilians were murdered in large numbers, mass killings were conducted under the pretense of "pacification", and children were taken away from their families to erase their identity. And make no mistake, all these wars started because of greed and greed only. That's always the motive. I'm not asking you to be guilty. I think it's stupid to feel guilty for something you didn't do and no one involved is still alive anyways. But you can't just pretend there were no crimes commited or that it was an "overall positive experience" because you want to feel that your ancestors could do no wrong.
-
True fact: Aboriginal genocide has zero results when you search it on Google. Try. So it obviously isn't a thing.
It does, actually.
I should have used green text, sorry about that.
-
I never said they did no wrong. I said it was wrong to call it genocide. It is wrong to call it genocide because the definition of genocide doesn't apply.
From your link.
According to Lemkin, colonization was in itself "intrinsically genocidal". He saw this genocide as a two-stage process, the first being the destruction of the indigenous population's way of life. In the second stage, the newcomers impose their way of life on the indigenous group.
This is semantics. If this is true then whites becoming a smaller and smaller minority in western countries is genocide. I know you don't believe that.
-
I never said they did no wrong. I said it was wrong to call it genocide. It is wrong to call it genocide because the definition of genocide doesn't apply.
From your link.
According to Lemkin, colonization was in itself "intrinsically genocidal". He saw this genocide as a two-stage process, the first being the destruction of the indigenous population's way of life. In the second stage, the newcomers impose their way of life on the indigenous group.
This is semantics. If this is true then whites becoming a smaller and smaller minority in western countries is genocide. I know you don't believe that.
Did migrants steal your children and take over your land or something?
-
Semantics again.
Do you accept this definition of genocide.
colonization was in itself "intrinsically genocidal". He saw this genocide as a two-stage process, the first being the destruction of the indigenous population's way of life. In the second stage, the newcomers impose their way of life on the indigenous group.
Or this one.
Genocide is intentional action to destroy a people (usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group) in whole or in part.
-
If we use the first definition that's fine, all mass migration from a different race or religion is genocide. Australias colonization certainly counts.
I disagree with that interpretation of genocide however.
-
Can we please stop pretending that it matters so much which word we're using? Can we please stop pretending that it affects how bad things happening were? Fucking ridiculous.
-
Words have meanings. These meanings are important, if words didn't have meanings then we couldn't communicate except with grunts moans and screams. Which is unfortunately what we are regressing towards.
(https://s18.postimg.org/4ra2i38hl/Sydney-wallpaper-3.jpg)
-
Where else is this happening currently?
Oh
Only in South Africa.
What?!?
Literally millions of people are forcibly displaced from their land ever year. It's a particular problem in South America. India and China aren't so good either. Just a random selection.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3233710/Soaring-suicide-rates-murder-forced-live-roadside-scraps-one-Amazon-s-oldest-tribes-faces-wiped-ranchers-scaring-land-silent-genocide.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3233710/Soaring-suicide-rates-murder-forced-live-roadside-scraps-one-Amazon-s-oldest-tribes-faces-wiped-ranchers-scaring-land-silent-genocide.html)
http://crowdvoice.org/evictionsindia (http://crowdvoice.org/evictionsindia)
http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/2052476/forced-evictions-are-destroying-society-china-and-elsewhere (http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/2052476/forced-evictions-are-destroying-society-china-and-elsewhere)
-
Where else is this happening currently?
Oh
Only in South Africa.
What?!?
Literally millions of people are forcibly displaced from their land ever year. It's a particular problem in South America. India and China aren't so good either. Just a random selection.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3233710/Soaring-suicide-rates-murder-forced-live-roadside-scraps-one-Amazon-s-oldest-tribes-faces-wiped-ranchers-scaring-land-silent-genocide.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3233710/Soaring-suicide-rates-murder-forced-live-roadside-scraps-one-Amazon-s-oldest-tribes-faces-wiped-ranchers-scaring-land-silent-genocide.html)
http://crowdvoice.org/evictionsindia (http://crowdvoice.org/evictionsindia)
http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/2052476/forced-evictions-are-destroying-society-china-and-elsewhere (http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/2052476/forced-evictions-are-destroying-society-china-and-elsewhere)
not white. Doesn't count.
-
not white. Doesn't count.
No, no you don't understand. d1 cares about other people and just wants to fight social injustice wherever he finds it.
SJWs like d1 don't care about skin colour, they just want to fix the planet. ;)
-
Boerewors and biltong are good things.
-
If we use the first definition that's fine, all mass migration from a different race or religion is genocide. Australias colonization certainly counts.
I disagree with that interpretation of genocide however.
To think that migration and colonization are in any way comparable is just plain silly.
-
Where else is this happening currently?
Oh
Only in South Africa.
No, that's wrong. But who cares? They "only want their land". If they don't want to be second class citizens in an African country, they can go back to Europe. Your logic.
I said that in the OP. We can resettle the Boer in western countries if South Africa wants to kick out all the whites.
In "western countries"? The Boers? Who wants that shit?
-
They didn't see this coming?
-
I'm 100% sure it will be a unparalelled paradise within 200 years without white opression holding them back.
I actually laughed out loud on this one.
I am sure it will be an utopia in no time lmao!
-
Imagine if Trump or some other leader of a political party told people at a rally
"I am not calling for the slaughter of Mexican people‚ at least for now"
Everyone would understandably (the world over) lose their shit.
But when a leader of a South African party Julius Malema says
"I am not calling for the slaughter of white people‚ at least for now"
Who the hell cares it seems
Well, the motion to confiscate farms owned by white people without any compensation has overwhelming passed 241 votes to 83 against. These farmers, whose only crime is not having enough melanin in their skin but have provided food on the tables to millions of South Africans will now have nothing. We are seeing another Zimbabwe human rights crisis in the making and no one gives a shit.
Imagine the President or leader of a political party condoning a slaughter of people based on the colour of their skin. Well looks like people are okay with it as long as the victims are white which is pretty short sighted because the real victims will be millions of black South Africans.
-
(http://www.sapeople.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Zuma-and-Malema-Joke.jpg)
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/89/44/5e/89445eb9f7dea14109870d8f70bd9f66--julius-gun-control.jpg)
-
Imagine if Trump or some other leader of a political party told people at a rally
"I am not calling for the slaughter of Mexican people‚ at least for now"
Everyone would understandably (the world over) lose their shit.
But when a leader of a South African party Julius Malema says
"I am not calling for the slaughter of white people‚ at least for now"
Who the hell cares it seems
Well, the motion to confiscate farms owned by white people without any compensation has overwhelming passed 241 votes to 83 against. These farmers, whose only crime is not having enough melanin in their skin but have provided food on the tables to millions of South Africans will now have nothing. We are seeing another Zimbabwe human rights crisis in the making and no one gives a shit.
Imagine the President or leader of a political party condoning a slaughter of people based on the colour of their skin. Well looks like people are okay with it as long as the victims are white which is pretty short sighted because the real victims will be millions of black South Africans.
Be interesting to see the mental gymnastics for certain people to justify this.
-
I think it's time to take them as refugees.
Also this, foolish whypepo.
#WakandaIsReal
-
Imagine if Trump or some other leader of a political party told people at a rally
"I am not calling for the slaughter of Mexican people‚ at least for now"
Everyone would understandably (the world over) lose their shit.
But when a leader of a South African party Julius Malema says
"I am not calling for the slaughter of white people‚ at least for now"
Who the hell cares it seems
Well, the motion to confiscate farms owned by white people without any compensation has overwhelming passed 241 votes to 83 against. These farmers, whose only crime is not having enough melanin in their skin but have provided food on the tables to millions of South Africans will now have nothing. We are seeing another Zimbabwe human rights crisis in the making and no one gives a shit.
Imagine the President or leader of a political party condoning a slaughter of people based on the colour of their skin. Well looks like people are okay with it as long as the victims are white which is pretty short sighted because the real victims will be millions of black South Africans.
Be interesting to see the mental gymnastics for certain people to justify this.
Why would anyone try to justify threats of racial violence?
-
Imagine if Trump or some other leader of a political party told people at a rally
"I am not calling for the slaughter of Mexican people‚ at least for now"
Everyone would understandably (the world over) lose their shit.
But when a leader of a South African party Julius Malema says
"I am not calling for the slaughter of white people‚ at least for now"
Who the hell cares it seems
Well, the motion to confiscate farms owned by white people without any compensation has overwhelming passed 241 votes to 83 against. These farmers, whose only crime is not having enough melanin in their skin but have provided food on the tables to millions of South Africans will now have nothing. We are seeing another Zimbabwe human rights crisis in the making and no one gives a shit.
Imagine the President or leader of a political party condoning a slaughter of people based on the colour of their skin. Well looks like people are okay with it as long as the victims are white which is pretty short sighted because the real victims will be millions of black South Africans.
Be interesting to see the mental gymnastics for certain people to justify this.
Why would anyone try to justify threats of racial violence?
That's a good question, one which I'm sure you have an answer
-
Imagine if Trump or some other leader of a political party told people at a rally
"I am not calling for the slaughter of Mexican people‚ at least for now"
Everyone would understandably (the world over) lose their shit.
But when a leader of a South African party Julius Malema says
"I am not calling for the slaughter of white people‚ at least for now"
Who the hell cares it seems
Well, the motion to confiscate farms owned by white people without any compensation has overwhelming passed 241 votes to 83 against. These farmers, whose only crime is not having enough melanin in their skin but have provided food on the tables to millions of South Africans will now have nothing. We are seeing another Zimbabwe human rights crisis in the making and no one gives a shit.
Imagine the President or leader of a political party condoning a slaughter of people based on the colour of their skin. Well looks like people are okay with it as long as the victims are white which is pretty short sighted because the real victims will be millions of black South Africans.
Be interesting to see the mental gymnastics for certain people to justify this.
Why would anyone try to justify threats of racial violence?
That's a good question, one which I'm sure you have an answer
Because the person making the threat, or trying to justify someone else making the threat is a racist?
-
So the ANC are racists?
I agree.
-
So the ANC are racists?
I agree.
Yes
-
What is the anc?
-
What is the anc?
duh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_National_Congress
-
What is the anc?
duh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_National_Congress
Well I'm not from africa, how could I know that.
-
What is the anc?
duh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_National_Congress (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_National_Congress)
Well I'm not from africa, how could I know that.
Do you have internet access?
-
What is the anc?
duh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_National_Congress (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_National_Congress)
Well I'm not from africa, how could I know that.
Do you have internet access?
Yes.
-
We will find out how good South Africa is in the next few weeks,
First test at Durban starts tomorrow.
They walloped SA Ateam, and Pat Cummins bowled well, so that's a good omen.
Almost forgot, he took 4-32 and was 59 not out at stumps.
-
What is the anc?
duh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_National_Congress (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_National_Congress)
Well I'm not from africa, how could I know that.
Do you have internet access?
Yes.
I think you know where I'm headed here. ;)
-
What is the anc?
duh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_National_Congress (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_National_Congress)
Well I'm not from africa, how could I know that.
Do you have internet access?
Yes.
I think you know where I'm headed here. ;)
I think you're heading right into a corner.
As usual ;)
-
Seriously User324 you should read the news outside your own bubble once in a while. There is a whole world out there to learn about.
So after you have read a little, what are your thoughts Mr User on the ANC and Julius Malema? Or does your news feeds only go through white countries like the US and Europe. Are you a closest racist or do you like to avail yourself of news that matters in the more coloured countries?
-
So after you have read a little, what are your thoughts Mr User on the ANC and Julius Malema? Or does your news feeds only go through white countries like the US and Europe. Are you a closest racist or do you like to avail yourself of news that matters in the more coloured countries?
So can you get me up to speed with news in all the other African countries then? Including the ones without white farmers? I bet you couldn't even find them on a map.
-
So after you have read a little, what are your thoughts Mr User on the ANC and Julius Malema? Or does your news feeds only go through white countries like the US and Europe. Are you a closest racist or do you like to avail yourself of news that matters in the more coloured countries?
So can you get me up to speed with news in all the other African countries then? Including the ones without white farmers? I bet you couldn't even find them on a map.
Why stop at Africa? I also enjoy news from Iceland (oh maybe that's too white a place for you), but also China, Korea and the odd South American country from time to time.
I once time got in the good books with a Nigerian scammer because after stringing him along and pissing him off I knew some news going on in Nigeria. He for some reason trusted me to help him out with his scams going on in Australia. Because it cost him lots of money to make calls to Australia, he had me do it. But rather than encourage his victims the deals were genuine, I warned them it was a scam instead costing this loser thousands.
The world is fascinating. Why restrict yourself to a bubble when you can have the world.
I often catch up on whats going on outside the MSM sphere.... I don't give a shit about Miley twerking or Donald tweeting.
Oh, and believe me, Africa is far more advanced in many respects than you think.... Did you know they have trees and green grass and shit? Housing, internet, shopping malls, cars and even their own version of Hollywood called 'Nollywood' in Nigeria. Growing up the only impression I got of Africa was those 'World Vision' sponsor a child ads on TV. I believe this did far more harm than it did good because it skewed everyone's perceptions in the worst negative way. Sure, much of Africa is a tribal run basket case, but it's much better than what the money hungry charities would lead you to believe
-
Well South Africa has officially fallen to communism. We'll see if it works this time.
There's a first time for everything.
-
Well South Africa has officially fallen to communism. We'll see if it works this time.
There's a first time for everything.
If the constitutional changes go through, and they expropriate the farms, SA will end up being a basket case like Zimbabwe.
-
Sorry if I'm late to the party. This is the first time I've had a chance to skim this thread. I am actually happy that Africa gets a bit of stage time for once. But can we please not use it as an excuse to do the racist blame game? (You know who you are.) The reason South Africa doesn't get much time in Western media isn't because the media is racist against white people. It's because South Africa is in AFRICA. Practically nothing that happens in Africa gets reported. Fun fact: Kenya currently has two competing presidents. I haven't seen a single mention of it on any western media outlet.
Cheers. I'll get around to looking at what is happening in SA eventually.
-
Sorry if I'm late to the party. This is the first time I've had a chance to skim this thread. I am actually happy that Africa gets a bit of stage time for once. But can we please not use it as an excuse to do the racist blame game? (You know who you are.) The reason South Africa doesn't get much time in Western media isn't because the media is racist against white people. It's because South Africa is in AFRICA. Practically nothing that happens in Africa gets reported. Fun fact: Kenya currently has two competing presidents. I haven't seen a single mention of it on any western media outlet.
Cheers. I'll get around to looking at what is happening in SA eventually.
Here's a quick start
https://www.voanews.com/a/south-africa-explores-constitutional-change-allow-land-seizures/4274508.html
JOHANNESBURG —
South Africa's parliament voted Tuesday to examine how to amend the constitution to allow land seizures without compensation, a move that resonates deeply in a nation where the white minority still controls much of the farmland.
They did a similar thing in Zimbabwe. It ended in Zimbabwe becoming a basket case.
-
Here's a quick start
https://www.voanews.com/a/south-africa-explores-constitutional-change-allow-land-seizures/4274508.html
JOHANNESBURG —
South Africa's parliament voted Tuesday to examine how to amend the constitution to allow land seizures without compensation, a move that resonates deeply in a nation where the white minority still controls much of the farmland.
They did a similar thing in Zimbabwe. It ended in Zimbabwe becoming a basket case.
Thanks. I'll do some reading about it soon. Seems like a fun situation for everyone.
-
Well South Africa has officially fallen to communism. We'll see if it works this time.
There's a first time for everything.
If the constitutional changes go through, and they expropriate the farms, SA will end up being a basket case like Zimbabwe.
I agree.
-
Well South Africa has officially fallen to communism. We'll see if it works this time.
There's a first time for everything.
If the constitutional changes go through, and they expropriate the farms, SA will end up being a basket case like Zimbabwe.
I agree.
Especially a country with so many different currencies...we might actually get to see some trillion dollar notes again.
-
Well South Africa has officially fallen to communism. We'll see if it works this time.
There's a first time for everything.
If the constitutional changes go through, and they expropriate the farms, SA will end up being a basket case like Zimbabwe.
I agree.
Especially a country with so many different currencies...we might actually get to see some trillion dollar notes again.
Just think of all the bit coins one could buy. ;D
-
Sorry if I'm late to the party. This is the first time I've had a chance to skim this thread. I am actually happy that Africa gets a bit of stage time for once. But can we please not use it as an excuse to do the racist blame game? (You know who you are.) The reason South Africa doesn't get much time in Western media isn't because the media is racist against white people. It's because South Africa is in AFRICA. Practically nothing that happens in Africa gets reported. Fun fact: Kenya currently has two competing presidents. I haven't seen a single mention of it on any western media outlet.
Cheers. I'll get around to looking at what is happening in SA eventually.
BBC world service. It has segments dedicated solely to Africa news
-
BBC world service. It has segments dedicated solely to Africa news
Meanwhile, in Durban,
https://wwos.nine.com.au/2018/03/01/20/15/bancroft-s-lean-run-continues-in-1st-test?ocid=social-9News
-
You have Presidents from Nelson Mandela to now singing as if its an anthem for the killing of running 'boer' with a machine gun. Now here is an interesting thing. Boer is a derogatory term for white South African in the same way a nigger is derogatory.
Honestly these things are not really surprising for a country that got out of apartheid a couple of decades back. What really sucks is that it seems like they've got their own populist leaders who are taking advantage of and fueling the rage against the Boers, which is making things worse. So yeah, SA is a pretty racist country right now. Hopefully things will get better over time.
When was it not a racist country?
-
You have Presidents from Nelson Mandela to now singing as if its an anthem for the killing of running 'boer' with a machine gun. Now here is an interesting thing. Boer is a derogatory term for white South African in the same way a nigger is derogatory.
Honestly these things are not really surprising for a country that got out of apartheid a couple of decades back. What really sucks is that it seems like they've got their own populist leaders who are taking advantage of and fueling the rage against the Boers, which is making things worse. So yeah, SA is a pretty racist country right now. Hopefully things will get better over time.
When was it not a racist country?
Technically, before there were white people/different races in africa it would have been hard for them to be racist.
-
You have Presidents from Nelson Mandela to now singing as if its an anthem for the killing of running 'boer' with a machine gun. Now here is an interesting thing. Boer is a derogatory term for white South African in the same way a nigger is derogatory.
Honestly these things are not really surprising for a country that got out of apartheid a couple of decades back. What really sucks is that it seems like they've got their own populist leaders who are taking advantage of and fueling the rage against the Boers, which is making things worse. So yeah, SA is a pretty racist country right now. Hopefully things will get better over time.
When was it not a racist country?
Technically, before there were white people/different races in africa it would have been hard for them to be racist.
Tell that to the Tutsi and Hutu people. Or the Nazis and the Slavs.
Racism will find a way.
-
You have Presidents from Nelson Mandela to now singing as if its an anthem for the killing of running 'boer' with a machine gun. Now here is an interesting thing. Boer is a derogatory term for white South African in the same way a nigger is derogatory.
Honestly these things are not really surprising for a country that got out of apartheid a couple of decades back. What really sucks is that it seems like they've got their own populist leaders who are taking advantage of and fueling the rage against the Boers, which is making things worse. So yeah, SA is a pretty racist country right now. Hopefully things will get better over time.
When was it not a racist country?
Technically, before there were white people/different races in africa it would have been hard for them to be racist.
Tell that to the Nazis
I don't think this comparison works with nazis lol.
-
You have Presidents from Nelson Mandela to now singing as if its an anthem for the killing of running 'boer' with a machine gun. Now here is an interesting thing. Boer is a derogatory term for white South African in the same way a nigger is derogatory.
Honestly these things are not really surprising for a country that got out of apartheid a couple of decades back. What really sucks is that it seems like they've got their own populist leaders who are taking advantage of and fueling the rage against the Boers, which is making things worse. So yeah, SA is a pretty racist country right now. Hopefully things will get better over time.
When was it not a racist country?
Technically, before there were white people/different races in africa it would have been hard for them to be racist.
Tell that to the Nazis
I don't think this comparison works with nazis lol.
Really? One group of white people feels they should exterminate a different group of white people who are barely distinguishable?
-
You have Presidents from Nelson Mandela to now singing as if its an anthem for the killing of running 'boer' with a machine gun. Now here is an interesting thing. Boer is a derogatory term for white South African in the same way a nigger is derogatory.
Honestly these things are not really surprising for a country that got out of apartheid a couple of decades back. What really sucks is that it seems like they've got their own populist leaders who are taking advantage of and fueling the rage against the Boers, which is making things worse. So yeah, SA is a pretty racist country right now. Hopefully things will get better over time.
When was it not a racist country?
Technically, before there were white people/different races in africa it would have been hard for them to be racist.
Tell that to the Nazis
I don't think this comparison works with nazis lol.
Really? One group of white people feels they should exterminate a different group of white people who are barely distinguishable?
I'm not sure, but if antisemitism was the same as racism, why would they have invented the word antisemitism in the first place? But yeah, with jews it's a bit a special case, so I'm quite sure you won't find that in africa.
-
You have Presidents from Nelson Mandela to now singing as if its an anthem for the killing of running 'boer' with a machine gun. Now here is an interesting thing. Boer is a derogatory term for white South African in the same way a nigger is derogatory.
Honestly these things are not really surprising for a country that got out of apartheid a couple of decades back. What really sucks is that it seems like they've got their own populist leaders who are taking advantage of and fueling the rage against the Boers, which is making things worse. So yeah, SA is a pretty racist country right now. Hopefully things will get better over time.
When was it not a racist country?
Technically, before there were white people/different races in africa it would have been hard for them to be racist.
Tell that to the Nazis
I don't think this comparison works with nazis lol.
Really? One group of white people feels they should exterminate a different group of white people who are barely distinguishable?
I'm not sure, but if antisemitism was the same as racism, why would they have invented the word antisemitism in the first place? But yeah, with jews it's a bit a special case, so I'm quite sure you won't find that in africa.
They also hated the Slavs on a racial basis
-
You have Presidents from Nelson Mandela to now singing as if its an anthem for the killing of running 'boer' with a machine gun. Now here is an interesting thing. Boer is a derogatory term for white South African in the same way a nigger is derogatory.
Honestly these things are not really surprising for a country that got out of apartheid a couple of decades back. What really sucks is that it seems like they've got their own populist leaders who are taking advantage of and fueling the rage against the Boers, which is making things worse. So yeah, SA is a pretty racist country right now. Hopefully things will get better over time.
When was it not a racist country?
Technically, before there were white people/different races in africa it would have been hard for them to be racist.
Tell that to the Nazis
I don't think this comparison works with nazis lol.
Really? One group of white people feels they should exterminate a different group of white people who are barely distinguishable?
I'm not sure, but if antisemitism was the same as racism, why would they have invented the word antisemitism in the first place? But yeah, with jews it's a bit a special case, so I'm quite sure you won't find that in africa.
They also hated the Slavs on a racial basis
I don't think slav is a race. The nazis basically hated everyone that wasn't a german plus some germans, too.
-
You have Presidents from Nelson Mandela to now singing as if its an anthem for the killing of running 'boer' with a machine gun. Now here is an interesting thing. Boer is a derogatory term for white South African in the same way a nigger is derogatory.
Honestly these things are not really surprising for a country that got out of apartheid a couple of decades back. What really sucks is that it seems like they've got their own populist leaders who are taking advantage of and fueling the rage against the Boers, which is making things worse. So yeah, SA is a pretty racist country right now. Hopefully things will get better over time.
When was it not a racist country?
I didn't say it ever wasn't in recent history, just that it still is.
-
I don't think slav is a race.
The nazis very much thought they were, so this is what counts. Hitler considered the slavic people to be Untermenschen incapable of ruling themselves and controlled by the jews. The plan was to directly kill or starve or sterilize the majority of the "slavic race" and turn the rest into slaves. Eventually, like the Jews, they would be wiped from the earth, to ensure that their tainted blood wouldn't infect the "master race" . See the Generalplan Ost (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost).
The nazis basically hated everyone that wasn't a german plus some germans, too.
They hated plenty of Germans, but actually respected plenty of other countries - if they were of the "correct" race. Most of Northern Europe for example. I don't think you really grasp how much this was about race to Hitler.
-
The nazis very much thought they were, so this is what counts.
Yeah I disagree, I don't think what nazis think matters in any case.
-
Apparently Greeks were sort of Hitler approved, because the nazis thought we had something to do with the ancient ones (joke's on him, we don't).
-
Apparently Greeks were sort of Hitler approved, because the nazis thought we had something to do with the ancient ones (joke's on him, we don't).
Yeah, modern greeks are a joke (not a funny one though).
-
The nazis very much thought they were, so this is what counts.
Yeah I disagree, I don't think what nazis think matters in any case.
You would be wrong then. The Western Front was a war. The Eastern Front was genocide.
But the point I was trying to make is that we're a species prone to tribalism. Racism is just one manifestation of that. We'll always find a way to identify "us" and "them".
-
The nazis very much thought they were, so this is what counts.
Yeah I disagree, I don't think what nazis think matters in any case.
If racism is discrimination based on perceived racial identities, and nazis discriminated against slavics and jews because they believed those people belonged to an inferior race, then how were nazis not racists?
-
You have Presidents from Nelson Mandela to now singing as if its an anthem for the killing of running 'boer' with a machine gun. Now here is an interesting thing. Boer is a derogatory term for white South African in the same way a nigger is derogatory.
Honestly these things are not really surprising for a country that got out of apartheid a couple of decades back. What really sucks is that it seems like they've got their own populist leaders who are taking advantage of and fueling the rage against the Boers, which is making things worse. So yeah, SA is a pretty racist country right now. Hopefully things will get better over time.
When was it not a racist country?
Technically, before there were white people/different races in africa it would have been hard for them to be racist.
Tell that to the Nazis
I don't think this comparison works with nazis lol.
Really? One group of white people feels they should exterminate a different group of white people who are barely distinguishable?
I'm not sure, but if antisemitism was the same as racism, why would they have invented the word antisemitism in the first place? But yeah, with jews it's a bit a special case, so I'm quite sure you won't find that in africa.
They also hated the Slavs on a racial basis
I don't think slav is a race. The nazis basically hated everyone that wasn't a german plus some germans, too.
The nazis certainly considered it a race.
-
The nazis very much thought they were, so this is what counts.
Yeah I disagree, I don't think what nazis think matters in any case.
If racism is discrimination based on perceived racial identities, and nazis discriminated against slavics and jews because they believed those people belonged to an inferior race, then how were nazis not racists?
If I think your mom is her own race and also I think she's ugly as hell, am I a racist? Or just a stupid retard?
-
Anway, since apparently everyone missed it, I guess my point here wasn't quite as obvious as I thought it to be:
I don't think this comparison works with nazis lol.
Point was, africans back in the days didn't know any other race so they couldn't be racist. (Disliking a nearby tribe cannot really be considered as racist, since it's not two races.)
And the nazi comparison doesn't work because the nazis knew and hated other races which makes it a completely different matter.
-
Anway, since apparently everyone missed it, I guess my point here wasn't quite as obvious as I thought it to be:
I don't think this comparison works with nazis lol.
Point was, africans back in the days didn't know any other race so they couldn't be racist. (Disliking a nearby tribe cannot really be considered as racist, since it's not two races.)
And the nazi comparison doesn't work because the nazis knew and hated other races which makes it a completely different matter.
Africans didn't know other races so they can't be racists. Nazis did know them and hated them so they can't be racists?
Sorry I'm really not following you.
I think scientists say there is no real scientific basis for race at all so I guess you could say technically there is no such thing as racism.
But hating, hurting, killing, and descriminating against people buy category is certainly a thing.
I think it's more important what the people involved think, in terms of race.
-
Anway, since apparently everyone missed it, I guess my point here wasn't quite as obvious as I thought it to be:
I don't think this comparison works with nazis lol.
Point was, africans back in the days didn't know any other race so they couldn't be racist. (Disliking a nearby tribe cannot really be considered as racist, since it's not two races.)
And the nazi comparison doesn't work because the nazis knew and hated other races which makes it a completely different matter.
Africans didn't know other races so they can't be racists. Nazis did know them and hated them so they can't be racists?
Sorry I'm really not following you.
I think scientists say there is no real scientific basis for race at all so I guess you could say technically there is no such thing as racism.
But hating, hurting, killing, and descriminating against people buy category is certainly a thing.
I think it's more important what the people involved think, in terms of race.
I think for most people, when talking about race, they are using the term as if it is synonymous with ethnicity
-
Anway, since apparently everyone missed it, I guess my point here wasn't quite as obvious as I thought it to be:
I don't think this comparison works with nazis lol.
Point was, africans back in the days didn't know any other race so they couldn't be racist. (Disliking a nearby tribe cannot really be considered as racist, since it's not two races.)
And the nazi comparison doesn't work because the nazis knew and hated other races which makes it a completely different matter.
Africans didn't know other races so they can't be racists. Nazis did know them and hated them so they can't be racists?
Sorry I'm really not following you.
I think scientists say there is no real scientific basis for race at all so I guess you could say technically there is no such thing as racism.
But hating, hurting, killing, and descriminating against people buy category is certainly a thing.
I think it's more important what the people involved think, in terms of race.
I think for most people, when talking about race, they are using the term as if it is synonymous with ethnicity
I agree. I thinks that's exactly what it is.
-
You have Presidents from Nelson Mandela to now singing as if its an anthem for the killing of running 'boer' with a machine gun. Now here is an interesting thing. Boer is a derogatory term for white South African in the same way a nigger is derogatory.
Honestly these things are not really surprising for a country that got out of apartheid a couple of decades back. What really sucks is that it seems like they've got their own populist leaders who are taking advantage of and fueling the rage against the Boers, which is making things worse. So yeah, SA is a pretty racist country right now. Hopefully things will get better over time.
When was it not a racist country?
I didn't say it ever wasn't in recent history, just that it still is.
When you said it's a pretty racist country right now, I took that to mean as opposed to some other time.
-
I think for most people, when talking about race, they are using the term as if it is synonymous with ethnicity
That's the way racism works, it's more akin to perception of difference than purely racial genetics. The same attitudes of discrimination can be applied across the whole spectrum. We are programmed genetically to preferentially favor people who are most like us, we are programmed protect our closest genetic relatives.
Tribalism.
-
I think for most people, when talking about race, they are using the term as if it is synonymous with ethnicity
That's the way racism works, it's more akin to perception of difference than purely racial genetics. The same attitudes of discrimination can be applied across the whole spectrum. We are programmed genetically to preferentially favor people who are most like us, we are programmed protect our closest genetic relatives.
Tribalism.
That makes sense.
-
We are programmed genetically to preferentially favor people who are most like us, we are programmed protect our closest genetic relatives.
We attach to and identify with the people who raise us. Looks don't matter. Genetics matter even less.
-
We are programmed genetically to preferentially favor people who are most like us, we are programmed protect our closest genetic relatives.
We attach to and identify with the people who raise us. Looks don't matter. Genetics matter even less.
Actually looks do matter when it comes to tribalism, Often it's looks that become a point of difference, even down to style of clothes and what color your shoelaces are.
I'm aware that I'm expanding the discussion beyond the original black vs white question, but I think it runs deeper than just color difference, it applies more or less to the discrimination based on perception of kinds of differences. But to varying degrees.
-
if antisemitism was the same as racism, why would they have invented the word antisemitism in the first place?
Oho.
-
We are programmed genetically to preferentially favor people who are most like us, we are programmed protect our closest genetic relatives.
That's true, can't argue against that. That's why we're seeing such discrimination in South Africa currently.
-
We are programmed genetically to preferentially favor people who are most like us, we are programmed protect our closest genetic relatives.
We attach to and identify with the people who raise us. Looks don't matter. Genetics matter even less.
Actually looks do matter when it comes to tribalism, Often it's looks that become a point of difference, even down to style of clothes and what color your shoelaces are.
I'm aware that I'm expanding the discussion beyond the original black vs white question, but I think it runs deeper than just color difference, it applies more or less to the discrimination based on perception of kinds of differences. But to varying degrees.
I read about a study, many years ago, about the idea that "they" all look the same to me. Turns out, it's true. Whatever race/ethnicity, you are raised with you can see all the subtle differences in faces etc. but other races are not as easy to see the differences in.
-
We are programmed genetically to preferentially favor people who are most like us, we are programmed protect our closest genetic relatives.
We attach to and identify with the people who raise us. Looks don't matter. Genetics matter even less.
Actually looks do matter when it comes to tribalism, Often it's looks that become a point of difference, even down to style of clothes and what color your shoelaces are.
I'm aware that I'm expanding the discussion beyond the original black vs white question, but I think it runs deeper than just color difference, it applies more or less to the discrimination based on perception of kinds of differences. But to varying degrees.
I read about a study, many years ago, about the idea that "they" all look the same to me. Turns out, it's true. Whatever race/ethnicity, you are raised with you can see all the subtle differences in faces etc. but other races are not as easy to see the differences in.
I'm getting to the point where I can't tell teenagers apart. I might be racist against teenagers.
-
Whatever race/ethnicity, you are raised with you can see all the subtle differences in faces etc. but other races are not as easy to see the differences in.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/04/the-underlying-bias-of-facial-recognition-systems/476991/
It's actually more about how our cameras work on reflected light.
-
It's actually more about how our cameras work on reflected light.
Just filter out reflected light. Problem solved.
-
Africans didnt know other races so they can't be racists. Nazis did know them and hated them so they can't be racists?
Are you randomly making up stuff now?
-
Africans didnt know other races so they can't be racists. Nazis did know them and hated them so they can't be racists?
Are you randomly making up stuff now?
No I was asking for clarification for what you said. I honestly didn't understand it.
-
Africans didnt know other races so they can't be racists. Nazis did know them and hated them so they can't be racists?
Are you randomly making up stuff now?
No I was asking for clarification for what you said. I honestly didn't understand it.
That's how it should be:
Africans didnt know other races so they can't be racists. Nazis did know them and hated them so they can be racists?
-
Africans didnt know other races so they can't be racists. Nazis did know them and hated them so they can't be racists?
Are you randomly making up stuff now?
No I was asking for clarification for what you said. I honestly didn't understand it.
That's how it should be:
Africans didnt know other races so they can't be racists. Nazis did know them and hated them so they can be racists?
Ok, if that's what your point was then fine. It just didn't read that way to me in your earlier posts. That's all.
-
Ok no problem.
-
The nazis very much thought they were, so this is what counts.
Yeah I disagree, I don't think what nazis think matters in any case.
If racism is discrimination based on perceived racial identities, and nazis discriminated against slavics and jews because they believed those people belonged to an inferior race, then how were nazis not racists?
If I think your mom is her own race and also I think she's ugly as hell, am I a racist? Or just a stupid retard?
You are both. They are not mutually exclusive, in fact I'd say that they are correlated ;)
-
The nazis very much thought they were, so this is what counts.
Yeah I disagree, I don't think what nazis think matters in any case.
If racism is discrimination based on perceived racial identities, and nazis discriminated against slavics and jews because they believed those people belonged to an inferior race, then how were nazis not racists?
If I think your mom is her own race and also I think she's ugly as hell, am I a racist? Or just a stupid retard?
You are both. They are not mutually exclusive, in fact I'd say that they are correlated ;)
I think the keyword was the 'just'.
-
I think the keyword was the 'just'.
Then you are not both racist and just a stupid retard, since that would be contradictory. You are both racist and a stupid retard, if you think that my mom is a separate race, and that she is ugly as hell because of that reason.
-
I think the keyword was the 'just'.
Then you are not both racist and just a stupid retard, since that would be contradictory. You are both racist and a stupid retard, if you think that my mom is a separate race, and that she is ugly as hell because of that reason.
If you think calling one specific person a race is racism, you're dumb as fuck.
-
If you think calling one specific person a race is racism, you're dumb as fuck.
Well, when the word first appeared it was used to describe anyone that believes in the existence of human races. Given that human races do not exist (although obviously there are substantial genetic groups) one can still use the word that way. However, I was clear how I defined the word at the beginning of our discussion: discrimination based on perceived racial belonging, which I think most of us can agree on. If you're calling one specific person a race, and as a result of that starts treating them as a lesser human being, then you are racist.
-
If you think calling one specific person a race is racism, you're dumb as fuck.
Well, when the word first appeared it was used to describe anyone that believes in the existence of human races. Given that human races do not exist (although obviously there are substantial genetic groups) one can still use the word that way. However, I was clear how I defined the word at the beginning of our discussion: discrimination based on perceived racial belonging, which I think most of us can agree on. If you're calling one specific person a race, and as a result of that starts treating them as a lesser human being, then you are racist.
Even if we are all the same colour, you will still have discrimination. You will still have gangs and tribes. I'm sure Africans, before they knew white people existed, used to shit on their 'own' people all the time. 'Oh, he belongs to 'x' tribe? Kill him!'
It's human nature.
-
Even if we are all the same colour, you will still have discrimination. You will still have gangs and tribes. I'm sure Africans, before they knew white people existed, used to shit on their 'own' people all the time. 'Oh, he belongs to 'x' tribe? Kill him!'
It's human nature.
Yeah. On the grand scale of things it's all down to xenophobia, fear and hatred towards other groups of people. How the groups are defined mostly don't matter, it's all quite bad.
-
If you think calling one specific person a race is racism, you're dumb as fuck.
Well, when the word first appeared it was used to describe anyone that believes in the existence of human races. Given that human races do not exist (although obviously there are substantial genetic groups) one can still use the word that way. However, I was clear how I defined the word at the beginning of our discussion: discrimination based on perceived racial belonging, which I think most of us can agree on. If you're calling one specific person a race, and as a result of that starts treating them as a lesser human being, then you are racist.
Even if we are all the same colour, you will still have discrimination. You will still have gangs and tribes. I'm sure Africans, before they knew white people existed, used to shit on their 'own' people all the time. 'Oh, he belongs to 'x' tribe? Kill him!'
It's human nature.
The slave industry was alive and well in Africa before white men ever landed on it's shores.
The Rwanda genocide was a genocode of Africans by Africans.
-
Also Australia NO!!!!
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/mar/14/dutton-considers-fast-track-visas-for-white-south-african-farmers
Lol good work cobber.
-
The slave industry was alive and well in Africa before white men ever landed on it's shores.
Oh nice so white men are innocent. Good.
-
The slave industry was alive and well in Africa before white men ever landed on it's shores.
Oh nice so white men are innocent. Good.
Almost no one is.
-
The slave industry was alive and well in Africa before white men ever landed on it's shores.
Oh nice so white men are innocent. Good.
Almost no one is.
I think I am.
-
The slave industry was alive and well in Africa before white men ever landed on it's shores.
Oh nice so white men are innocent. Good.
Almost no one is.
I think I am.
I wouldn't know, but I was thinking more in terms of cultures.
-
The slave industry was alive and well in Africa before white men ever landed on it's shores.
Oh nice so white men are innocent. Good.
Almost no one is.
I think I am.
I wouldn't know, but I was thinking more in terms of cultures.
I identify as my own culture tho.
-
The slave industry was alive and well in Africa before white men ever landed on it's shores.
Oh nice so white men are innocent. Good.
We've been through this already. All the largest financers, profit takers and slave ship owners in the trans atlantic slave trade were ethnically Jewish.
People see this fact as anti-semitic somehow.
-
The slave industry was alive and well in Africa before white men ever landed on it's shores.
Oh nice so white men are innocent. Good.
We've been through this already. All the largest financers, profit takers and slave ship owners in the trans atlantic slave trade were ethnically Jewish.
People see this fact as anti-semitic somehow.
Not true, the Jews were not over represented in financing/running the slave trade any more than anyone else. We settled this already. Don't keep repeating rubbish.
-
Wrong.
The percentage of jews in the slave trade made the most profit and owned the most ships.
I am sorry you find it upsetting.
-
Let's quickly check Jewish views on slavery. I am sure they are totally against it.
Oh-oh my.
Well, at least I am sure the Talmud doesnt support this view.
Oh-oh no...
-
Wrong.
The percentage of jews in the slave trade made the most profit and owned the most ships.
I am sorry you find it upsetting.
Citation from a reputable source is what's required, not repeating unfounded assertions. You should know better.
-
I have factual citations, you call me an anti semite and make an appeal to emotion.
A stalemate it seems...
-
Name Of Slave Ships And Their Owners:
The 'Abigail-Caracoa' - Aaron Lopez, Moses Levy, Jacob Crown
Isaac Levy and Nathan Simpson
The'Nassau' - Moses Levy
The 'Four Sisters' - Moses Levy
The 'Anne' & The 'Eliza' - Justus Bosch and John Abrams
The 'Prudent Betty' - Henry Cruger and Jacob Phoenix
The 'Hester' - Mordecai and David Gomez
The 'Elizabeth' - Mordecai and David Gomez
The 'Antigua' - Nathan Marston and Abram Lyell
The 'Betsy' - Wm. De Woolf
The 'Polly' - James De Woolf
The 'White Horse' - Jan de Sweevts
The 'Expedition' - John and Jacob Roosevelt
The 'Charlotte' - Moses and Sam Levy and Jacob Franks
The 'Franks' - Moses and Sam Levy
-
Name Of Slave Ships And Their Owners:
The 'Abigail-Caracoa' - Aaron Lopez, Moses Levy, Jacob Crown
Isaac Levy and Nathan Simpson
The'Nassau' - Moses Levy
The 'Four Sisters' - Moses Levy
The 'Anne' & The 'Eliza' - Justus Bosch and John Abrams
The 'Prudent Betty' - Henry Cruger and Jacob Phoenix
The 'Hester' - Mordecai and David Gomez
The 'Elizabeth' - Mordecai and David Gomez
The 'Antigua' - Nathan Marston and Abram Lyell
The 'Betsy' - Wm. De Woolf
The 'Polly' - James De Woolf
The 'White Horse' - Jan de Sweevts
The 'Expedition' - John and Jacob Roosevelt
The 'Charlotte' - Moses and Sam Levy and Jacob Franks
The 'Franks' - Moses and Sam Levy
A list of ships and owners is not a citation, if you want to make a claim you need documentation,
In any event you made a few mistakes, the De Woolf's are episcopalian not Jewish, not only that but the Atlantic slave trade involved around 16,000 ships, I'd hardly regard a dozen ships as a significant number.
-
The slave industry was alive and well in Africa before white men ever landed on it's shores.
Oh nice so white men are innocent. Good.
We've been through this already. All the largest financers, profit takers and slave ship owners in the trans atlantic slave trade were ethnically Jewish.
People see this fact as anti-semitic somehow.
No. Some were, but not all. Trying to claim so is anti-Semitic.
-
>The largest.
Not everyone.
Lol.
Let me try a quick question for lulz, well two.
Are jews over represented in international finance?
Is it anti-semitic to ask?
-
Are jews over represented in international finance?
They were historically. I don't know about nowdays, I doubt they are meaningfully overrepreseted. Do you have statistics?
Is it anti-semitic to ask?
Yes, you are literally hitler now. I sent this to the fbi, nsa, cia and the german anti-nazi police.
-
Lulz.
-
Lulz = Laughing upwards like a zebra?
(https://thumb7.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/3276278/717188491/stock-photo-portrait-of-a-funny-laughing-zebra-with-an-open-mouth-reaching-the-viewer-717188491.jpg)
Is that a 4clan thing?
-
Name Of Slave Ships And Their Owners:
The 'Abigail-Caracoa' - Aaron Lopez, Moses Levy, Jacob Crown
Isaac Levy and Nathan Simpson
The'Nassau' - Moses Levy
The 'Four Sisters' - Moses Levy
The 'Anne' & The 'Eliza' - Justus Bosch and John Abrams
The 'Prudent Betty' - Henry Cruger and Jacob Phoenix
The 'Hester' - Mordecai and David Gomez
The 'Elizabeth' - Mordecai and David Gomez
The 'Antigua' - Nathan Marston and Abram Lyell
The 'Betsy' - Wm. De Woolf
The 'Polly' - James De Woolf
The 'White Horse' - Jan de Sweevts
The 'Expedition' - John and Jacob Roosevelt
The 'Charlotte' - Moses and Sam Levy and Jacob Franks
The 'Franks' - Moses and Sam Levy
A list of ships and owners is not a citation, if you want to make a claim you need documentation,
In any event you made a few mistakes, the De Woolf's are episcopalian not Jewish, not only that but the Atlantic slave trade involved around 16,000 ships, I'd hardly regard a dozen ships as a significant number.
D1 sez 2+2=4
Round up to a dozen.
Subtract logic.
Multiply by conjecture.
Divide by racism.
Blame nonanons.
Reject reality.
Yep, SMRT!
-
I have factual citations, you call me an anti semite and make an appeal to emotion.
A stalemate it seems...
So far you've just made assertions. Unless I've missed it you have not actually backed it up by any valid source.
-
I have factual citations, you call me an anti semite and make an appeal to emotion.
A stalemate it seems...
So far you've just made assertions. Unless I've missed it you have not actually backed it up by any valid source.
Hey, he listed 12 ship names that were apparently owned by jews, what more do you want?
Always suspicious when somebody doesn't for their data - in this case he just it was just copy pasta from the Institute for Contemporary Islamic Thought. ::)
https://crescent.icit-digital.org/articles/who-brought-slaves-to-america (https://crescent.icit-digital.org/articles/who-brought-slaves-to-america)
This is apparently lifted from some work called "Documents Illustrative of the History of the Slave Trade to America" - which is online, but good luck searching it. If these were the only Jewish owned ships they could find (if they in fact were) then that would tend to suggest the Jews weren't over-represented.
Anyway, we've been over all this already - he's just parroting a Nation of Islam meme - there's no academic support for it whatsoever.
-
I have factual citations, you call me an anti semite and make an appeal to emotion.
A stalemate it seems...
So far you've just made assertions. Unless I've missed it you have not actually backed it up by any valid source.
Hey, he listed 12 ship names that were apparently owned by jews, what more do you want?
Always suspicious when somebody doesn't for their data - in this case he just it was just copy pasta from the Institute for Contemporary Islamic Thought. ::)
https://crescent.icit-digital.org/articles/who-brought-slaves-to-america (https://crescent.icit-digital.org/articles/who-brought-slaves-to-america)
This is apparently lifted from some work called "Documents Illustrative of the History of the Slave Trade to America" - which is online, but good luck searching it. If these were the only Jewish owned ships they could find (if they in fact were) then that would tend to suggest the Jews weren't over-represented.
Anyway, we've been over all this already - he's just parroting a Nation of Islam meme - there's no academic support for it whatsoever.
Thanks for that! I suspected it would be something like that.
-
I just sent this to a mate. It dawned on me a while ago now but I think it should be said.
Been reading the news and thinking. South Africa is currently really close to a national socialist government there's only a few elements missing.
I don't think anyone's said it yet so figured I would.
It can't be marxist socialism because the redistribution of wealth is focussed on race and not class.
-
I have factual citations, you call me an anti semite and make an appeal to emotion.
A stalemate it seems...
So far you've just made assertions. Unless I've missed it you have not actually backed it up by any valid source.
Hey, he listed 12 ship names that were apparently owned by jews, what more do you want?
(https://s18.postimg.org/talxwg4kp/1521438344626m.jpg)
As always when comparing a group of 10 and a group of 100 000 the larger number doesn't always represent a larger percentage.
-
If group A of 10 people have 5 people profiting off slavery.
And group B of 100 000 have 10 people profiting off slavery.
Is it fair to say that group B was over represented because 10 is a larger number than 5?
Or would we compare 50% to 0.001%?
Silly me, 10 is a bigger number than 5, lol, damn math challenged anti-semites...
Wait...
-
Debunking the latest fake data from disputeone.
Figuring out what proportion of Southern families owned slaves is really quite simple. The University of Virginia has a Historical Census Browser that allows one to search, map, and calculate figures associated with various censuses (the calculator for the Census of 1860 is here). One Thing after Another has run the figures, but for convenience’s sake, we refer you to Andrew Hall at Dead Confederates: A Civil War Era Blog who has presented them in a tidy table. As you can see, about 31% of the families in the states that seceded owned slaves. The range runs from 49% of families in Mississippi to 20% of families in Arkansas. In some ways, these figures don’t even begin to capture slavery’s centrality to Southern social and economic life. Let us push to the side that slaves were responsible for producing the South’s main cash crops or that slaveowners often rented out slaves to those who did not have them. Let us just focus on the fact that almost a third of families in the Confederate states owned slaves. That figure gives one a much better sense of slavery’s gravity than “1.6%.”
-
That actually supports my statistics. Nothing in that debunks anything I have said.
1.6% of Americans in total owned slaves.
31% of Americans in confederate states owned slaves.
40% of Jewish Americans owned slaves.
Lol 10 really is a bigger number than 5 hey Rayzor.
Moron.
-
Also please cite sources for your pasta.
https://saintanselmhistory.wordpress.com/tag/american-civil-war/
-
Also please cite sources for your pasta.
https://saintanselmhistory.wordpress.com/2016/02/05/lies-damn-lies-and-statistics-slavery-and-the-1-6/
The following is a tale of memes, bad history, poor logic, and misleading statistics. It is also a story about how information on Facebook can come unmoored from its original context and find itself applied in startlingly different directions. Above all, this narrative has to do with the way in which parts of the internet have helped perpetuate a culture of partisanship and intellectual sloppiness.
-
Appeals to emotion don't debunk hard data.
1.6% of Americans in total owned slaves.
31% of Americans in confederate states owned slaves.
40% of Jewish Americans owned slaves.
Now, where were we?
Ah yes.
I have factual citations, you call me an anti semite and make an appeal to emotion.
A stalemate it seems...
Right were we left it.
-
Appeals to emotion don't debunk hard data.
1.6% of Americans in total owned slaves.
31% of Americans in confederate states owned slaves.
40% of Jewish Americans owned slaves.
Now, where were we?
Ah yes.
I have factual citations, you call me an anti semite and make an appeal to emotion.
A stalemate it seems...
Right were we left it.
You appear to be unaware that your memes have been debunked. Try again.
-
Debunk the data then. Show me where it is factually incorrect.
If you can.
1.6% of Americans in total owned slaves.
31% of Americans in confederate states owned slaves.
40% of Jewish Americans owned slaves.
Go on then, do your work.
misleading statistics.
>WHY DON'T THE NUMBERS SUPPORT MY NARRATIVE!!!
Lol.
-
>WHY DON'T THE NUMBERS SUPPORT MY NARRATIVE!!!
I don't know, maybe your narrative is flawed?
-
Is the data correct?
Or incorrect?
1.6% of Americans in total owned slaves.
31% of Americans in confederate states owned slaves.
40% of Jewish Americans owned slaves.
-
Is the data correct?
Or incorrect?
1.6% of Americans in total owned slaves.
31% of Americans in confederate states owned slaves.
40% of Jewish Americans owned slaves.
From the link I posted that you obviously didn't read.
The meme above is not particularly special. In fact, it is exemplary. It is a product of Facebook. It seems incisive, it sounds authoritative, and it appears relevant. It even cites a source in an official-sounding way. Only the dullest or most uninformed person could fail to catch the progressive message that makes an analogy between the 1.6% of 1860 and those who have been labeled the “1%” today. The rich, so the message seems to say, used us for their own purposes then in just the way that they use us now. Yet, like much else on Facebook, this meme is manipulative when it isn’t misleading. Its facts are wrong, its reasoning is faulty, and the analogy it makes is specious. And yet, when you look at the public’s reaction to this meme, you find that nobody is critical or educated enough to call it out.
So are you one of the dullest or one of the most uninformed?
-
So the data is correct.
1.6% of Americans in total owned slaves.
31% of Americans in confederate states owned slaves.
40% of Jewish Americans owned slaves.
Thanks that was like pulling teeth.
-
So the data is correct.
1.6% of Americans in total owned slaves.
31% of Americans in confederate states owned slaves.
40% of Jewish Americans owned slaves.
Thanks that was like pulling teeth.
You understanding of the data is flawed. How much clearer would you like me to be.
-
So the data is correct.
1.6% of Americans in total owned slaves.
31% of Americans in confederate states owned slaves.
40% of Jewish Americans owned slaves.
Thanks that was like pulling teeth.
Your understanding of the data is flawed.
So the data is correct, your claim is that my undertanding of the data is flawed? That's alright but it doesn't debunk the hard data.
For those playing along at home, one of us is using hard data, the other is using emotive language.
Can you tell who is using what?
For bonus points is hard data more credible than emotive language?
It's fine not to play if it upsets you.
-
So the data is correct, your claim is that my undertanding of the data is flawed? That's alright but it doesn't debunk the hard data.
Here is the data you keep referring to.
(https://deadconfederates.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/slaveholdingtable.png)
It doesn't support your conclusions.
-
It doesn't support your conclusions.
But it does support my data. We are using the same source material after all.
I haven't made conclusions merely posted this.
1.6% of Americans in total owned slaves.
31% of Americans in confederate states owned slaves.
40% of Jewish Americans owned slaves.
The fact is Jewish Americans were overrepresented in the slave trade.
-
I shudder to ask what dumb antisemitic crap you are going to come out with next.
-
Is 40% a larger percentage than 31% Rayzor?
-
Is 40% a larger percentage than 31% Rayzor?
It depends on where the 40% figure comes from, you haven't provided any supporting evidence.
-
Is 40% a larger percentage than 31% Rayzor?
It depends.
The memes write themselves.
The sources and citations are at the bottom of the picture.
-
Is 40% a larger percentage than 31% Rayzor?
It depends.
The memes write themselves.
The sources and citations are at the bottom of the picture.
So your authoritative source is a meme you saw on 4chan?
-
It doesn't support your conclusions.
But it does support my data. We are using the same source material after all.
I haven't made conclusions merely posted this.
1.6% of Americans in total owned slaves.
31% of Americans in confederate states owned slaves.
40% of Jewish Americans owned slaves.
The fact is Jewish Americans were overrepresented in the slave trade.
One source is myjewishlearning.com that sure sounds like a biased anti-semitic source to me.
-
One source is myjewishlearning.com that sure sounds like a biased anti-semitic source to me.
Link?
-
The citations are written at the bottom of the picture. Type them into your browser.
-
The citations are written at the bottom of the picture. Type them into your browser.
You type it, it's too small I can't read it.
-
I'll hold your hand then. My god man, sometimes it's like you can't use a computer.
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/jews-and-the-african-slave-trade/
Jacob Rader Marcus, a historian and Reform rabbi, wrote in his four-volume history of Americans Jews that over 75 percent of Jewish families in Charleston, South Carolina; Richmond, Virginia; and Savannah, Georgia, owned slaves, and nearly 40 percent of Jewish households across the country did.
Honestly.
-
I'll hold your hand then. My god man, sometimes it's like you can't use a computer.
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/jews-and-the-african-slave-trade/
Jacob Rader Marcus, a historian and Reform rabbi, wrote in his four-volume history of Americans Jews that over 75 percent of Jewish families in Charleston, South Carolina; Richmond, Virginia; and Savannah, Georgia, owned slaves, and nearly 40 percent of Jewish households across the country did.
Honestly.
Really?
(https://s18.postimg.org/cj9t5b14p/disputesantisemiticref.png)
Anyway. You screwed up again.
Jews acted much like other white Charlestonians, including owning slaves. Jewish auctioneers like Abraham Mendes Seixas sold slaves along with other commodities. According to one study, 83% of Jewish households in Charleston owned at least one slave; this figure was slightly lower than the 87% of all white households in the city that owned slaves.
So Jews were actually less likely to own slaves that others.
-
The other sources cite the same data it's inconsequential, I have read Rader Marcus' book so I knew the 40% number is accurate.
In Charleston Jewish Americans were under-represented. I'll pay that, not gonna argue with hard data and look like a moron.
Lol.
However in total in America it is 40% of Jewish Americans that owned slaves and 1.6% of All Americans.
If you want to go by the confederate states then on average it is around 75% of Jewish Americans that owned slaves and around 31% of all Americans.
Source.
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/jews-and-the-african-slave-trade/
-
Just using the numbers.
A=40% B=1.6%
A=75% B=31%
40 > 1.6 therefore A > B
75 > 31 therefore A > B
Therefore A > B
Group A is over represented in this case.
-
I have read Rader Marcus' book so I knew the 40% number is accurate.
Cough... prove it.
-
40% is accurate whether I have read the books or not. Your opinion means little to me.
I've said this to you enough now but you'd be surprised what I've read. Well, full disclosure I often wear earphones at work and listen to Audiobooks so some of it isn't "read" in a strict sense.
Anyway this is what you are trying to avoid engaging.
In Charleston Jewish Americans were under-represented. I'll pay that, not gonna argue with hard data and look like a moron.
Lol.
However in total in America it is 40% of Jewish Americans that owned slaves and 1.6% of All Americans.
If you want to go by the confederate states then on average it is around 75% of Jewish Americans that owned slaves and around 31% of all Americans.
Source.
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/jews-and-the-african-slave-trade/
-
40% is accurate whether I have read the books or not. Your opinion means little to me.
I've said this to you enough now but you'd be surprised what I've read. Well, full disclosure I often wear earphones at work and listen to Audiobooks so some of it isn't "read" in a strict sense.
Anyway this is what you are trying to avoid engaging.
In Charleston Jewish Americans were under-represented. I'll pay that, not gonna argue with hard data and look like a moron.
Lol.
However in total in America it is 40% of Jewish Americans that owned slaves and 1.6% of All Americans.
If you want to go by the confederate states then on average it is around 75% of Jewish Americans that owned slaves and around 31% of all Americans.
Source.
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/jews-and-the-african-slave-trade/
Did you even bother to read your own source, which directly contradicts your conclusions.
Did Jews dominate the slave trade?
Not according to scholars that have closely examined the question. Several studies of the Jewish role in the slave trade were conducted in the 1990s. One of them, by John Jay’s Faber, compared available data on Jewish slave ownership and trading activity in British territories in the 18th century to that of the wider population. Faber concludes that the claim of Jewish domination is false and that the Jewish role in slavery was “exceedingly limited.” According to Faber, British Jews were always in the minority of investors in slaving operations and were not known to have been among the primary owners of slave fleets. Faber found that, with few exceptions, Jews were minor figures in brokering the sale of slaves upon their arrival in the Americas, and given the urban-dwelling propensity of most American Jews, few accumulated large rural properties and plantations where slave labor was most concentrated. According to Faber, Jews were more likely than non-Jews to own slaves, but on average they owned fewer of them.
Other studies, by Harold Brackman and Saul Friedman, reached similar conclusions. In a 1994 article in the New York Review of Books, David Brion Davis, an emeritus professor of history at Yale University and author of an award-winning trilogy of books about slavery, noted that Jews were one of countless religious and ethnic groups around the world to participate in the slave trade:
The participants in the Atlantic slave system included Arabs, Berbers, scores of African ethnic groups, Italians, Portuguese, Spaniards, Dutch, Jews, Germans, Swedes, French, English, Danes, white Americans, Native Americans, and even thousands of New World blacks who had been emancipated or were descended from freed slaves but who then became slaveholding farmers or planters themselves.
Davis went on to note that in the American South in 1830 there were “120 Jews among the 45,000 slaveholders owning twenty or more slaves and only twenty Jews among the 12,000 slaveholders owning fifty or more slaves.”
What’s the origin of the Jewish domination claim?
The claim of Jewish domination first came to wide attention with the Nation of Islam’s 1991 book, The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, Volume One. (Two other volumes would follow, addressing different aspects of black-Jewish relations.) The heavily footnoted and seemingly scholarly book, which lists no individual author and was self-published by the Nation of Islam, purports to present “irrefutable evidence” that Jews owned slaves “disproportionately more than any other ethnic or religious group in New World history.” The book makes a point of basing its findings on Jewish sources, including Encyclopaedia Judaica and multiple works by Marcus, though it includes no data on non-Jewish slave owners and traders from which to establish whether the Jewish role was in fact disproportionate. It also routinely ignores claims from the Jewish sources it relies on that undermine its thesis. (Marcus, for example, asserts that Jews “were always on the periphery” of the slave trade and that “sales of all Jewish traders lumped together did not equal that of the one Gentile firm dominant in the business” — an observation The Secret Relationship ignores.)
Nonetheless, the notion of Jewish domination of slaving was embraced by, among others, David Duke, who has promoted it on Twitter and on his website, and by the City College of New York professor Leonard Jeffries, whose 1991 speech echoing the claim of Jewish domination provoked a public controversy that led to his ouster as chair of the college’s black studies department. (A federal judge later reinstated him.) Tony Martin, a tenured professor of Africana Studies at Wellesley College drew criticism in 1993 for assigning The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews in his courses. Soon after, Martin published a book entitled The Jewish Onslaught: Despatches from the Wellesley Battlefront. Although the book was condemned by Wellesley’s president and many of Martin’s colleagues, Martin remained on the faculty until his retirement in 2007.
More recently, Jackie Walker, a British activist and major supporter of Labor Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, drew criticism in 2016 for claiming in a Facebook post that Jews were the “chief financiers” of the African slave trade. Walker, who also made other public comments offensive to Jews, was briefly suspended from the party because of her claim, but remained unapologetic and was reinstated within a month. (She was later suspended again for publicly bemoaning Jewish centrality in Holocaust commemorations.)
Busted for failing to read and comprehend.
-
The memes quite literally write themselves.
For those playing along at home, one of us is using hard data, the other is using emotive language.
Can you tell who is using what?
For bonus points is hard data more credible than emotive language?
It's fine not to play if it upsets you.
Also this.
Just using the numbers.
A=40% B=1.6%
A=75% B=31%
40 > 1.6 therefore A > B
75 > 31 therefore A > B
Therefore A > B
Group A is over represented in this case.
-
The memes quite literally write themselves.
Thank god for that, I thought an crazed idiot was writing them.
Oh, and you got busted again for not reading and comprehending your own sources. LOL
-
It just went on to imply anyone that claimed Jews were over-represented in the slave trade is an anti semite, yawn.
That works on most people but not me.
https://writingexplained.org/grammar-dictionary/emotive-language
You can't debunk the data.
Just using the numbers.
A=40% B=1.6%
A=75% B=31%
40 > 1.6 therefore A > B
75 > 31 therefore A > B
Therefore A > B
Group A is over represented in this case.
Show us where I am wrong and why
B > A in this situation.
I'm sure you can, you seem confident.
-
It just went on to imply anyone that claimed Jews were over-represented in the slave trade is an anti semite, yawn.
That works on most people but not me.
https://writingexplained.org/grammar-dictionary/emotive-language
You can't debunk the data.
Just using the numbers.
A=40% B=1.6%
A=75% B=31%
40 > 1.6 therefore A > B
75 > 31 therefore A > B
Therefore A > B
Group A is over represented in this case.
Show us where I am wrong and why
B > A in this situation.
I'm sure you can, you seem confident.
The 1.6% doesn't refer to households the 40% does, and in any case the Jews didn't dominate the slave trade, your own source debunks that notion.
Did Jews dominate the slave trade?
Not according to scholars that have closely examined the question. Several studies of the Jewish role in the slave trade were conducted in the 1990s. One of them, by John Jay’s Faber, compared available data on Jewish slave ownership and trading activity in British territories in the 18th century to that of the wider population. Faber concludes that the claim of Jewish domination is false and that the Jewish role in slavery was “exceedingly limited.” According to Faber, British Jews were always in the minority of investors in slaving operations and were not known to have been among the primary owners of slave fleets. Faber found that, with few exceptions, Jews were minor figures in brokering the sale of slaves upon their arrival in the Americas, and given the urban-dwelling propensity of most American Jews, few accumulated large rural properties and plantations where slave labor was most concentrated. According to Faber, Jews were more likely than non-Jews to own slaves, but on average they owned fewer of them.
Other studies, by Harold Brackman and Saul Friedman, reached similar conclusions. In a 1994 article in the New York Review of Books, David Brion Davis, an emeritus professor of history at Yale University and author of an award-winning trilogy of books about slavery, noted that Jews were one of countless religious and ethnic groups around the world to participate in the slave trade:
The participants in the Atlantic slave system included Arabs, Berbers, scores of African ethnic groups, Italians, Portuguese, Spaniards, Dutch, Jews, Germans, Swedes, French, English, Danes, white Americans, Native Americans, and even thousands of New World blacks who had been emancipated or were descended from freed slaves but who then became slaveholding farmers or planters themselves.
Davis went on to note that in the American South in 1830 there were “120 Jews among the 45,000 slaveholders owning twenty or more slaves and only twenty Jews among the 12,000 slaveholders owning fifty or more slaves.”
-
10 is a bigger number than 5
Yes it is, you're so close.
https://writingexplained.org/grammar-dictionary/emotive-language
http://www.objectivity.com/hard-data-vs-soft-data/
40% > 1.6%
75% > 31%
When you have debunked that please debunk this, if you can debunk the first claim then this one will be easy.
2+2=4
-
https://writingexplained.org/grammar-dictionary/emotive-language
http://www.objectivity.com/hard-data-vs-soft-data/
40% > 1.6%
75% > 31%
When you have debunked that please debunk this, if you can debunk the first claim then this one will be easy.
2+2=4
Ok, lets' play your game, is 120 out of 45,000 a significant majority? Given your outstanding arithmetic ability, it should be easy.
Yes or No.
What about 20 out of 12,000?
Yes or No.
-
10 is a bigger number than 5.
No it's not a significant majority.
My claim is that Jewish Americans were over represented in the slave trade.
Here is my evidence.
40% > 1.6%
75% > 31%
2+2=4
You need to show this to be incorrect.
-
One more time.
If group A of 10 people have 5 people profiting off slavery.
And group B of 100 000 have 10 people profiting off slavery.
Is it fair to say that group B was over represented because 10 is a larger number than 5?
Or would we compare 50% to 0.001%?
Silly me, 10 is a bigger number than 5, lol, damn math challenged anti-semites...
Wait...
-
No it's not a significant majority.
My claim is that Jewish Americans were over represented in the slave trade.
Here is my evidence. I'm a numerically challenged moron.
40% of jewish families is not > 1.6% of all Americans
You need to show this to be incorrect. Duh... it is incorrect.
FTFY
-
Ok lets be very, very generous and say 10 family members lived in each home on average. I would wager it would be only the man of the house who owned slaves in any case.
40% > 16%
75% > 31%
2+2=4
-
And...
Did Jews dominate the slave trade?
Not according to scholars that have closely examined the question. Several studies of the Jewish role in the slave trade were conducted in the 1990s. One of them, by John Jay’s Faber, compared available data on Jewish slave ownership and trading activity in British territories in the 18th century to that of the wider population. Faber concludes that the claim of Jewish domination is false and that the Jewish role in slavery was “exceedingly limited.” According to Faber, British Jews were always in the minority of investors in slaving operations and were not known to have been among the primary owners of slave fleets. Faber found that, with few exceptions, Jews were minor figures in brokering the sale of slaves upon their arrival in the Americas, and given the urban-dwelling propensity of most American Jews, few accumulated large rural properties and plantations where slave labor was most concentrated. According to Faber, Jews were more likely than non-Jews to own slaves, but on average they owned fewer of them.
Other studies, by Harold Brackman and Saul Friedman, reached similar conclusions. In a 1994 article in the New York Review of Books, David Brion Davis, an emeritus professor of history at Yale University and author of an award-winning trilogy of books about slavery, noted that Jews were one of countless religious and ethnic groups around the world to participate in the slave trade:
The participants in the Atlantic slave system included Arabs, Berbers, scores of African ethnic groups, Italians, Portuguese, Spaniards, Dutch, Jews, Germans, Swedes, French, English, Danes, white Americans, Native Americans, and even thousands of New World blacks who had been emancipated or were descended from freed slaves but who then became slaveholding farmers or planters themselves.
Davis went on to note that in the American South in 1830 there were “120 Jews among the 45,000 slaveholders owning twenty or more slaves and only twenty Jews among the 12,000 slaveholders owning fifty or more slaves.”
-
Nice appeal to emotion, however.
Ok lets be very, very generous and say 10 family members lived in each home on average. I would wager it would be only the man of the house who owned slaves in any case.
40% > 16%
75% > 31%
2+2=4
-
Furthermore....
And...
Did Jews dominate the slave trade?
Not according to scholars that have closely examined the question. Several studies of the Jewish role in the slave trade were conducted in the 1990s. One of them, by John Jay’s Faber, compared available data on Jewish slave ownership and trading activity in British territories in the 18th century to that of the wider population. Faber concludes that the claim of Jewish domination is false and that the Jewish role in slavery was “exceedingly limited.” According to Faber, British Jews were always in the minority of investors in slaving operations and were not known to have been among the primary owners of slave fleets. Faber found that, with few exceptions, Jews were minor figures in brokering the sale of slaves upon their arrival in the Americas, and given the urban-dwelling propensity of most American Jews, few accumulated large rural properties and plantations where slave labor was most concentrated. According to Faber, Jews were more likely than non-Jews to own slaves, but on average they owned fewer of them.
Other studies, by Harold Brackman and Saul Friedman, reached similar conclusions. In a 1994 article in the New York Review of Books, David Brion Davis, an emeritus professor of history at Yale University and author of an award-winning trilogy of books about slavery, noted that Jews were one of countless religious and ethnic groups around the world to participate in the slave trade:
The participants in the Atlantic slave system included Arabs, Berbers, scores of African ethnic groups, Italians, Portuguese, Spaniards, Dutch, Jews, Germans, Swedes, French, English, Danes, white Americans, Native Americans, and even thousands of New World blacks who had been emancipated or were descended from freed slaves but who then became slaveholding farmers or planters themselves.
Davis went on to note that in the American South in 1830 there were “120 Jews among the 45,000 slaveholders owning twenty or more slaves and only twenty Jews among the 12,000 slaveholders owning fifty or more slaves.”
-
Yes numerically Jews didn't own a majority of slaves. Percentage wise they were over represented.
See.
40% > 16%
75% > 31%
2+2=4
If group A of 10 people have 5 people profiting off slavery.
And group B of 100 000 have 10 people profiting off slavery.
Is it fair to say that group B was over represented because 10 is a larger number than 5?
Or would we compare 50% to 0.001%?
Silly me, 10 is a bigger number than 5, lol, damn math challenged anti-semites...
Wait...
This has you so worked up lol.
-
Meanwhile, in the real world away from the trolls.
Did Jews dominate the slave trade?
Not according to scholars that have closely examined the question. Several studies of the Jewish role in the slave trade were conducted in the 1990s. One of them, by John Jay’s Faber, compared available data on Jewish slave ownership and trading activity in British territories in the 18th century to that of the wider population. Faber concludes that the claim of Jewish domination is false and that the Jewish role in slavery was “exceedingly limited.” According to Faber, British Jews were always in the minority of investors in slaving operations and were not known to have been among the primary owners of slave fleets. Faber found that, with few exceptions, Jews were minor figures in brokering the sale of slaves upon their arrival in the Americas, and given the urban-dwelling propensity of most American Jews, few accumulated large rural properties and plantations where slave labor was most concentrated. According to Faber, Jews were more likely than non-Jews to own slaves, but on average they owned fewer of them.
Other studies, by Harold Brackman and Saul Friedman, reached similar conclusions. In a 1994 article in the New York Review of Books, David Brion Davis, an emeritus professor of history at Yale University and author of an award-winning trilogy of books about slavery, noted that Jews were one of countless religious and ethnic groups around the world to participate in the slave trade:
The participants in the Atlantic slave system included Arabs, Berbers, scores of African ethnic groups, Italians, Portuguese, Spaniards, Dutch, Jews, Germans, Swedes, French, English, Danes, white Americans, Native Americans, and even thousands of New World blacks who had been emancipated or were descended from freed slaves but who then became slaveholding farmers or planters themselves.
Davis went on to note that in the American South in 1830 there were “120 Jews among the 45,000 slaveholders owning twenty or more slaves and only twenty Jews among the 12,000 slaveholders owning fifty or more slaves.”
-
Yes numerically Jews didn't own a majority of slaves. Percentage wise they were over represented.
People will see how dumb you are playing. Even if they are too scared to admit it.
-
Yes numerically Jews didn't own a majority of slaves. Percentage wise they were over represented.
Not true.
Did Jews dominate the slave trade?
Not according to scholars that have closely examined the question. Several studies of the Jewish role in the slave trade were conducted in the 1990s. One of them, by John Jay’s Faber, compared available data on Jewish slave ownership and trading activity in British territories in the 18th century to that of the wider population. Faber concludes that the claim of Jewish domination is false and that the Jewish role in slavery was “exceedingly limited.” According to Faber, British Jews were always in the minority of investors in slaving operations and were not known to have been among the primary owners of slave fleets. Faber found that, with few exceptions, Jews were minor figures in brokering the sale of slaves upon their arrival in the Americas, and given the urban-dwelling propensity of most American Jews, few accumulated large rural properties and plantations where slave labor was most concentrated. According to Faber, Jews were more likely than non-Jews to own slaves, but on average they owned fewer of them.
Other studies, by Harold Brackman and Saul Friedman, reached similar conclusions. In a 1994 article in the New York Review of Books, David Brion Davis, an emeritus professor of history at Yale University and author of an award-winning trilogy of books about slavery, noted that Jews were one of countless religious and ethnic groups around the world to participate in the slave trade:
The participants in the Atlantic slave system included Arabs, Berbers, scores of African ethnic groups, Italians, Portuguese, Spaniards, Dutch, Jews, Germans, Swedes, French, English, Danes, white Americans, Native Americans, and even thousands of New World blacks who had been emancipated or were descended from freed slaves but who then became slaveholding farmers or planters themselves.
Davis went on to note that in the American South in 1830 there were “120 Jews among the 45,000 slaveholders owning twenty or more slaves and only twenty Jews among the 12,000 slaveholders owning fifty or more slaves.”
-
You have conclusively proven that numerically Jewish Americans didn't own a majoriry of slaves.
I will now conclusively prove they were over-represented in slave ownership percentage wise.
See.
40% > 16%
75% > 31%
2+2=4
We're done now.
-
We're done now.
Yes you are.
Did Jews dominate the slave trade?
Not according to scholars that have closely examined the question. Several studies of the Jewish role in the slave trade were conducted in the 1990s. One of them, by John Jay’s Faber, compared available data on Jewish slave ownership and trading activity in British territories in the 18th century to that of the wider population. Faber concludes that the claim of Jewish domination is false and that the Jewish role in slavery was “exceedingly limited.” According to Faber, British Jews were always in the minority of investors in slaving operations and were not known to have been among the primary owners of slave fleets. Faber found that, with few exceptions, Jews were minor figures in brokering the sale of slaves upon their arrival in the Americas, and given the urban-dwelling propensity of most American Jews, few accumulated large rural properties and plantations where slave labor was most concentrated. According to Faber, Jews were more likely than non-Jews to own slaves, but on average they owned fewer of them.
Other studies, by Harold Brackman and Saul Friedman, reached similar conclusions. In a 1994 article in the New York Review of Books, David Brion Davis, an emeritus professor of history at Yale University and author of an award-winning trilogy of books about slavery, noted that Jews were one of countless religious and ethnic groups around the world to participate in the slave trade:
The participants in the Atlantic slave system included Arabs, Berbers, scores of African ethnic groups, Italians, Portuguese, Spaniards, Dutch, Jews, Germans, Swedes, French, English, Danes, white Americans, Native Americans, and even thousands of New World blacks who had been emancipated or were descended from freed slaves but who then became slaveholding farmers or planters themselves.
Davis went on to note that in the American South in 1830 there were “120 Jews among the 45,000 slaveholders owning twenty or more slaves and only twenty Jews among the 12,000 slaveholders owning fifty or more slaves.”
-
They didn't dominate the slave trade numerically. I've never claimed that and you've torn that strawman to bits, there's no point attacking it further.
As a group they were over-represented in terms of slave ownership percentage.
See.
40% > 16%
75% > 31%
2+2=4
-
They didn't dominate the slave trade numerically. I've never claimed that and you've torn that strawman to bits, there's no point attacking it further.
As a group they were over-represented in terms of slave ownership percentage.
That was fun, we must do it again sometime, got any more easily debunked anti-semitic crap?
-
At this point I'd expect at least one person to point out that 40% really is larger than 16% but alas.
I miss Bhs so much already.
(https://postimg.org/image/72vqosmvp/60197c7e/)
You guys figure it out in your heads, don't need to say it aloud and be judged, which is a larger percentage, 16% or 40%?
It's too tricky for Rayzor, maybe you guys can figure it out?
-
As a group they were over-represented in terms of slave ownership percentage.
That was fun.
Is this you admitting the hard data is actually hard data?
I honestly didn't think you were allowed to.
Edit.
Yes numerically Jews didn't own a majority of slaves. Percentage wise they were over represented.
Not true.
You're flip flopping worse than an Australian politician.
-
I have factual citations, you call me an anti semite and make an appeal to emotion.
A stalemate it seems...
So far you've just made assertions. Unless I've missed it you have not actually backed it up by any valid source.
Hey, he listed 12 ship names that were apparently owned by jews, what more do you want?
(https://s18.postimg.org/talxwg4kp/1521438344626m.jpg)
As always when comparing a group of 10 and a group of 100 000 the larger number doesn't always represent a larger percentage.
Again, what is your source for these numbers?
-
Here.
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/jews-and-the-african-slave-trade/
-
The 1.6% of total slave owners comes from the 1860 census. If you want to only use the confederate states the percentage is 31% Rayzor posted a good infograph / meme that comes to 31%
-
Here.
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/jews-and-the-african-slave-trade/
Thanks for the source. I'm not seeing how this supports your claim that all of the largest slave owners were Jewish.
-
The ones that made the most profit of it were.
Rothschild
Rockefeller
Echo.
I'm not saying we should demonize all Jews for the slave trade, not at all, it should go without saying that we also shouldn't demonise all white Europeans.
-
The ones that made the most profit of it were.
Rothschild
Rockefeller
Echo.
I'm not saying we should demonize all Jews for the slave trade, not at all, it should go without saying that we also shouldn't demonise all white Europeans.
No we shouldn't demonize all white Europeans at all.
But you still have not supported your claim that all the largest slave owners were Jewish. You named Rockefellers but they aren't Jewish so I'm not sure what your point was.
-
Why are you putting words in my mouth duck?
The largest profit takers. You're destroying your strawman, bravo.
I was unaware the Rockefellers publicly denied their ancestry. They are German Ashkenazi Jews.
If wikipedia says they are not then there's no point arguing it.
-
The ones that made the most profit of it were.
Rothschild
Rockefeller
Evidence? Though I'm not sure why I bother asking. Presumably I'll get a meme that literally writes itself. Presumably via some arcane sorcery.
I'm looking forward to the Rockefeller one. John D. Rockefeller was 24 years old when slavery was made illegal - he owned a small business, and had worked before that as an assistant bookkeeper. He was also an abolitionist who sent money to the Union cause and voted for Lincoln.
At what point did he "make the most profit" from slavery? Do tell. :D
The Rothschild's have recently apologised for their indirect involvement in the slave trade - they apparently allowed slaves to be used as collateral in deals. Again, I can't see any evidence of them being major players..
-
Why are you putting words in my mouth duck?
The largest profit takers. You're destroying your strawman, bravo.
I was unaware the Rockefellers publicly denied their ancestry. They are German Ashkenazi Jews.
If wikipedia says they are not then there's no point arguing it.
If you are talking to me, I'm not putting words in your mouth. You said all of the largest slave owners, financiers, etc in the slave trade were Jewish.
There is no evidence the rockefellers are Jewish. The most I could find was that a cousin of John Rockefeller may have married a Jewish woman.
-
There is no evidence the rockefellers are Jewish.
Or had any involvement in the slave trade. Apart from that d1 is as on the money as ever.
-
There is no evidence the rockefellers are Jewish.
Or had any involvement in the slave trade. Apart from that d1 is as on the money as ever.
Yeah, I can't really figure out what his point is.
-
Calling yourself a christian doesn't change your ethnicity.
If I became a Muslim it wouldn't make me an Arab.
My point is that Jewish Americans were over represented in the slave trade.
My evidence is that 1.6% is a smaller percentage than 40%.
Please debunk my assertion that 1.6% is a smaller percentage than 40% at your leisure.
Should be easy.
1.6% of 100 = 1.6
40% of 100 = 40
Damn, ok but I'm sure you guys can debunk basic arithmetic.
Lol.
-
Please don't stop this is too funny.
Show us all how 1.6% is actually a larger percentage than 40%.
Go on then, do your work.
This is just too good. The cognitive dissonance levels most of you are working under must be crippling even in your daily lives.
-
So, you going to explain how you know the abolitionist Methodist Rockefella is really Jewish and made the biggest profits from slavery?
-
Consider that claim retracted then. I don't have a article from CNN stating the Rockefellers ethnicity.
But again, religion and ethnicity aren't the same thing. They are actually different things.
You need to show how and why 1.6% is actually a larger percentage than 40%.
Go on, I'm quite sure you can, you seem so confident.
-
Consider that claim retracted then. I don't have a article from CNN stating the Rockefellers ethnicity.
You don't have anything at all, despite desperate googling. How about the claim that he was one of the biggest profit makers from slavery? I'd really love to see your justification for that.
But again, religion and ethnicity aren't the same thing. They are actually different things.
Religion is, of course, a significant part of ethnicity. Though I've no idea why this is relevant - there doesn't seem to be any evidence that Rockefella's ancestors were Jewish, and he was certainly not Jewish.
You need to show how and why 1.6% is actually a larger percentage than 40%.
It's just a meme you keep parroting, the very article you linked to support it shows that although Jewish families were more likely than non-Jewish families to own a slave, they didn't own many. All the largest slave owners were non-Jewish and the slave trade was dominated by non-Jews.
Lets remember that your original claim was that the Jews dominated the slave trade, something you've now debunked yourself, and so you shift the goalposts.
Not according to scholars that have closely examined the question. Several studies of the Jewish role in the slave trade were conducted in the 1990s. One of them, by John Jay’s Faber, compared available data on Jewish slave ownership and trading activity in British territories in the 18th century to that of the wider population. Faber concludes that the claim of Jewish domination is false and that the Jewish role in slavery was “exceedingly limited.” According to Faber, British Jews were always in the minority of investors in slaving operations and were not known to have been among the primary owners of slave fleets. Faber found that, with few exceptions, Jews were minor figures in brokering the sale of slaves upon their arrival in the Americas, and given the urban-dwelling propensity of most American Jews, few accumulated large rural properties and plantations where slave labor was most concentrated. According to Faber, Jews were more likely than non-Jews to own slaves, but on average they owned fewer of them.
Why are you so obsessed with Jews and the slave trade anyway? Do you have a point?
-
My point is that Jewish Americans were over represented in the slave trade.
My evidence is that 1.6% is a smaller percentage than 40%.
Jews were more likely than non-Jews to own slaves.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/overrepresented
We're done here.
-
You could just say that it's inconsequential that Jewish Americans were twenty five times more likely to own a slave than an average American and I would agree with you.
What's funny is that you are all trying to debunk 2+2=4 by saying that 2+2=5 if it suits the narrative.
Don't let me stop you, please continue.
-
We're done here.
With what?
This was your original statement:
All the largest financers, profit takers and slave ship owners in the trans atlantic slave trade were ethnically Jewish.
Which you've completely failed to support - in fact you completely debunked it with your own links. All you've done is constantly shift the goalposts around.
Presumably you're retracting your statements concerning the Rockefellas and the Rothchilds? You seem to be avoiding that one.
-
Calling yourself a christian doesn't change your ethnicity.
If I became a Muslim it wouldn't make me an Arab.
My point is that Jewish Americans were over represented in the slave trade.
My evidence is that 1.6% is a smaller percentage than 40%.
Please debunk my assertion that 1.6% is a smaller percentage than 40% at your leisure.
Should be easy.
1.6% of 100 = 1.6
40% of 100 = 40
Damn, ok but I'm sure you guys can debunk basic arithmetic.
Lol.
No I'm debunking your assertions that all the largest slave owners were Jewish and that the Rockefellers were Jewish and a major player in the slave trade.
-
If you guys hadn't realised.
The bankers make a profit on all trade in the country they own the banks in.
Therefore the banking families made the largest profit of slavery. Whether or not wikipedia admits it.
-
Presumably you're retracting your statements concerning the Rockefellas.
Learn to read botty boy.
Consider that claim retracted then. I don't have a article from CNN stating the Rockefellers ethnicity.
Take the wins you can grasp on to lol.
-
The bankers make a profit on all trade in the country they own the banks in.
Banks make money by lending money at a higher interest rate than they pay for the money.
This process is called a loan. Business can be transacted without borrowing money from a bank.
Therefor, bankers do not make money on all trade in the country they own the banks in.
-
I wonder who gave out the loans for the slave ships and trade.
Couldn't have been the bankers.
Wait.
-
You are most likely confusing venture capital with banks.
-
If you guys hadn't realised.
The bankers make a profit on all trade in the country they own the banks in.
Therefore the banking families made the largest profit of slavery. Whether or not wikipedia admits it.
Doesn't address my points at all.
-
You win Badxtos, take the win, drink it in.
-
No Jews owned any slaves implying that a Jew owned a slave is anti-semitic.
Implying they were 25 times more likely to own slaves than other Americans is just national socialism.
You win, I am tired now. Go back to your daily life.
-
This may help you . . .
(https://i.imgur.com/NPlKuY5.jpg)
-
How will that help with my anti-semitism caused by being able to do simple maths?
40 > 1.6
-
No Jews owned any slaves implying that a Jew owned a slave is anti-semitic.
Implying they were 25 times more likely to own slaves than other Americans is just national socialism.
You win, I am tired now. Go back to your daily life.
Are you always this dramatic?
-
Only when people are anti semitic.
-
No Jews owned any slaves implying that a Jew owned a slave is anti-semitic.
Implying they were 25 times more likely to own slaves than other Americans is just national socialism.
You win, I am tired now. Go back to your daily life.
Are you always this dramatic?
Have you only just spotted he's the resident drama queen?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/820497116241989634/vd0AbDPr_400x400.jpg)
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/820497116241989634/vd0AbDPr_400x400.jpg)
A pink Burka?
Are you trying to confuse him?
-
Only when people are anti semitic.
Who was anti Semitic? You made some specific statements that I pointed out were either unsupported or simply not true. Then you kind of threw a tantrum.
-
You win, I am tired now.
Pushing false narratives will do that to you after a while.
-
Did actually anyone ever in this thread accuse someone of antisemitism, or is this just a strawman dispute fights against?
-
Did actually anyone ever in this thread accuse someone of antisemitism, or is this just a strawman dispute fights against?
You just realized dispute is anti-semitic? What was the clue that gave it away?
-
Look, I just want to give a big FUCK YOU award to this guy
(http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/cad9fb3c6ba589a221d5b5210b3bc81f)
This guy is actually saying the lives of South Africans (only speaking about black people of course) will be better. I guess he doesn't know about Zimbabwe yet or is hoping none of his people do
And another FUCK YOU award to this hate filled racist arsehat
(https://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/51e7d5fc3fd9958d9d230d416db1bf2e)
Literally telling the people who have put food on his table and part of the prosperity of South Africa over its neighbours to leave the keys to their homes and tractors and to leave South Africa for no other reason than they are white. He is treating anyone who is white as not a South African, despite generations of them being born there.
Trump gets in a lot of shit over children or people (who weren't even born in America) for wanting them to go back to their country. Some of which is deserved but let me put it to you another way
Imagine if Trump, told 'African Americans' (I hate using the 'African' because they are simply 'American' btw) told them they should leave for Africa... Or they weren't allowed to own land and their homes would be taken without compensation because they were black. The entire world in an instant of him saying that would come down and destroy him (rightly so)
These people
(http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/cad9fb3c6ba589a221d5b5210b3bc81f) (https://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/51e7d5fc3fd9958d9d230d416db1bf2e)
are stupid animals. Stupid dumbarse morons. Most of the world is too frightened to step in and call them out despite the clearly unfolding Zimbabwe 2.0.
Of course, these dickheads wont worry about a humanitarian crisis that will inevitably come. The poorer their nation, the richer the elites get as the wealth gap widens. And clearly that scum Mugabe was doing okay for himself.
I know it isn't 'mainstream' to call a black person racist or intolerant, but don't be shy.
-
Look, I just want to give a big FUCK YOU award to this guy
(http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/cad9fb3c6ba589a221d5b5210b3bc81f)
This guy is actually saying the lives of South Africans (only speaking about black people of course) will be better. I guess he doesn't know about Zimbabwe yet or is hoping none of his people do
And another FUCK YOU award to this hate filled racist arsehat
(https://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/51e7d5fc3fd9958d9d230d416db1bf2e)
Literally telling the people who have put food on his table and part of the prosperity of South Africa over its neighbours to leave the keys to their homes and tractors and to leave South Africa for no other reason than they are white. He is treating anyone who is white as not a South African, despite generations of them being born there.
Trump gets in a lot of shit over children or people (who weren't even born in America) for wanting them to go back to their country. Some of which is deserved but let me put it to you another way
Imagine if Trump, told 'African Americans' (I hate using the 'African' because they are simply 'American' btw) told them they should leave for Africa... Or they weren't allowed to own land and their homes would be taken without compensation because they were black. The entire world in an instant of him saying that would come down and destroy him (rightly so)
These people
(http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/cad9fb3c6ba589a221d5b5210b3bc81f) (https://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/51e7d5fc3fd9958d9d230d416db1bf2e)
are stupid animals. Stupid dumbarse morons. Most of the world is too frightened to step in and call them out despite the clearly unfolding Zimbabwe 2.0.
Of course, these dickheads wont worry about a humanitarian crisis that will inevitably come. The poorer their nation, the richer the elites get as the wealth gap widens. And clearly that scum Mugabe was doing okay for himself.
I know it isn't 'mainstream' to call a black person racist or intolerant, but don't be shy.
its almost like if the native Americans in this country suddenly took control and ordered the whites off their land.
-
So you agree with these policies (at least in principle then). Good to know. You realise the people they are kicking out are not invaders and South Africans right?
-
So you agree with these policies (at least in principle then). Good to know. You realise the people they are kicking out are not invaders and South Africans right?
Get a lot of exercise jumping to conclusions do you? I made no statement of support one way or the other.
I merely pointed out what seemed to me to be a fairly obvious observation about a similar situation. If, in my analogy, whites were forced off the land here in the US, they would also not be the ones who invaded either. You don't see it as a similar situation? I mean Native Americans are not in a position to do that but if they were surely you can see the similarities, right?
I do find it interesting that because I pointed this out you immediately jumped to that meaning I supported it.
Look, the history of humanity is, at least in a very large part, the history of one people's conquering another. At what point do we, as modern, supposedly more civilized people say we have to make reparations for this atrocity but that one is too long ago?
I'm not suggesting I have the answer, I'm just looking at the situation from a different perspective.
-
I’d like to say I just got the book ‘We Want What’s Ours’, and it’s refreshing to hear a voice that doesn’t denigrate free post-apartheid South Africa.
http://wewantwhatsours.com
-
A few analogies:
In good ways, Zimbabwe and South Africa seem analogous to Cuba and Venezuela.
South Africa’s land redistribution strikes me as a fulfilment of Union General Sherman’s 1865 unfulfilled promise of 40 acres and a mule to the former slaves and poor whites in the southern US with the seized property of planatation owners and big businesses which was effectively delivered by Lenin to the poor Russians after 1917.
The small angry group of expunged white former landowners and exploiters bring to mind the Dalai Lama and his corrupt retinue waging a failed PR against the fabricated evils of communism when in reality pre-Communist Tibet was an unspeakable fascist horror that communism has vastly improved.
-
A few analogies:
In good ways, Zimbabwe and South Africa seem analogous to Cuba and Venezuela.
South Africa’s land redistribution strikes me as a fulfilment of Union General Sherman’s 1865 unfulfilled promise of 40 acres and a mule to the former slaves and poor whites in the southern US with the seized property of planatation owners and big businesses which was effectively delivered by Lenin to the poor Russians after 1917.
The small angry group of expunged white former landowners and exploiters bring to mind the Dalai Lama and his corrupt retinue waging a failed PR against the fabricated evils of communism when in reality pre-Communist Tibet was an unspeakable fascist horror that communism has vastly improved.
I, myself, have never been to Tibet so I cannot speak with firsthand knowledge, as you seem to. I have, however, met many Tibetan people. This was several years ago while in India. Not a single one of them, especially the older ones, agreed with your assessment.
They did talk about people sent to slave labor camps and about ethnic tibetans were considered "mentally ill" by the Chinese and so were not allowed to have children.
But no one said communism made it better.
-
South of "South Africa" isn't south of Africa.
-
A few analogies:
In good ways, Zimbabwe and South Africa seem analogous to Cuba and Venezuela.
South Africa’s land redistribution strikes me as a fulfilment of Union General Sherman’s 1865 unfulfilled promise of 40 acres and a mule to the former slaves and poor whites in the southern US with the seized property of planatation owners and big businesses which was effectively delivered by Lenin to the poor Russians after 1917.
The small angry group of expunged white former landowners and exploiters bring to mind the Dalai Lama and his corrupt retinue waging a failed PR against the fabricated evils of communism when in reality pre-Communist Tibet was an unspeakable fascist horror that communism has vastly improved.
I, myself, have never been to Tibet so I cannot speak with firsthand knowledge, as you seem to. I have, however, met many Tibetan people. This was several years ago while in India. Not a single one of them, especially the older ones, agreed with your assessment.
They did talk about people sent to slave labor camps and about ethnic tibetans were considered "mentally ill" by the Chinese and so were not allowed to have children.
But no one said communism made it better.
Just to give some context, "17 November" is a reference to a Greek extremist left terrorist organisation.
-
South of "South Africa" isn't south of Africa.
Can you explain how South of "South Africa" isn't south of Africa?
-
South of "South Africa" isn't south of Africa.
Can you explain how South of "South Africa" isn't south of Africa?
Because South Africa has placed wrongly in globe map. South of South Africa isn't south of Africa; but South-east of the South Africa is.
-
South of "South Africa" isn't south of Africa.
It literally is.
-
A few analogies:
In good ways, Zimbabwe and South Africa seem analogous to Cuba and Venezuela.
South Africa’s land redistribution strikes me as a fulfilment of Union General Sherman’s 1865 unfulfilled promise of 40 acres and a mule to the former slaves and poor whites in the southern US with the seized property of planatation owners and big businesses which was effectively delivered by Lenin to the poor Russians after 1917.
The small angry group of expunged white former landowners and exploiters bring to mind the Dalai Lama and his corrupt retinue waging a failed PR against the fabricated evils of communism when in reality pre-Communist Tibet was an unspeakable fascist horror that communism has vastly improved.
I, myself, have never been to Tibet so I cannot speak with firsthand knowledge, as you seem to. I have, however, met many Tibetan people. This was several years ago while in India. Not a single one of them, especially the older ones, agreed with your assessment.
They did talk about people sent to slave labor camps and about ethnic tibetans were considered "mentally ill" by the Chinese and so were not allowed to have children.
But no one said communism made it better.
Just to give some context, "17 November" is a reference to a Greek extremist left terrorist organisation.
Thanks, I didn't realize that.
-
South of "South Africa" isn't south of Africa.
It literally is not.
Corrected.
-
South of "South Africa" isn't south of Africa.
It literally is not.
Corrected.
Only a coward changes other people's quotes. Just because you can't make your case don't make it look like I agree with you.
-
I, myself, have never been to Tibet so I cannot speak with firsthand knowledge, as you seem to. I have, however, met many Tibetan people. This was several years ago while in India. Not a single one of them, especially the older ones, agreed with your assessment.
They did talk about people sent to slave labor camps and about ethnic tibetans were considered "mentally ill" by the Chinese and so were not allowed to have children.
But no one said communism made it better.
The Tibetan community who departed to India in 1959 are the elite who exploited the country. I would expect them to have a negative opinion of communism which disenthroned them. It’s very prejudiced.
Why don’t you ask Tibetans who actually live with communism what they think of it?
A French writer named Máxime Vivas did just that and wrote a book about it:
‘Behind the Smile’
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1592651402?psc=1&ref=yo_pop_mb_yo_pop_mb_pd_t2
-
A characteristically outspoken report by Christopher Hitchens from the days when he wrote from a left perspective against religious corruption: