Racially Motivated Threads of the Social Lounge...

[Plutarch]

....hmmmmmm...

Wouldn't happen to be displaying hypocrisy, eh?

Ok, this is just getting ridiculous. I’m honestly embarrassed for you. Your accusation of hypocrisy is way off. You really seem hell-bent on not listening/reading carefully what the people you are having an argument are saying. Again, you faithfully prove my point that you have no concept of argumentation. You have to be a troll. There’s no other solution.

As in, using sun03 method you attacked-------of just co-signing eh?

The sun03 method that you are referring to is my take on the fact that “she” spent most of her time agreeing with you (the fact that you randomly bring “her” up and defend “her” may be more evidence that you and “her” are actually one in the same) while at the same time offering next to nothing to the discussion at hand (like what you are doing).

Now do I spend most of my time agreeing with And Step? You must be blind if you think that I do. I spent most of my time disagreeing with him more than I have with you. Yet I agree one time about something that doesn’t even have much to do with the discussion at hand and suddenly I’m sun03. Lol. I have spent much more time disagreeing with everyone than agreeing while at the same time offering questions, evidence, and points of discussion in ways sun03 (who is possibly you) have never done.

..lol...see I told you man, your irrational reasoning I exposed here, is the key to...

Lol, this is just sad. Wow, sure you definitely exposed me bruh. You got the win man. You destroyed my argument and premise. Good job. I mean, what the hell are you talking about? You must be a teenager/troll. Can I even take you seriously? Really.

how useless it is to expect you to ever esteem anything that = putting yourself, last, and others first

Another off the wall fallacious comment/insult that seemingly has no basis or substance that, for the first time, I will wisely choose to ignore.

Oh yey:

A certain Ivy League Prof...lol...told me to tell you to come join us in the real America, at anytime...

Oh no. You got me again! You have an Ivy Leage professor here to cosign you (you seem to really rely on cosigners? Try defending yourself sometime buddy) and take me down. Oh, no what will I do now. I give up, you win, you were very right to place your “lol” in that sentence in an attempt to just conceal your excitement that you have an actual Ivy League professor on your side now. What kind of goofy shit is that?

Do I care about your Ivy League professor? Not really. You seem to think that because he’s an Ivy League professor that he somehow lends you credit and that he is right. That’s not always the case my friend. Some of the “smartest” people in this world are some of the dumbest people in this world. And there is and will always be disagreements in the academic community, trust me I know. It’s very possible that another Ivy league professor might downright disagree with your one.

 

[Plutarch]

Yeah, you did.

No, I didn’t. I don’t know which statement you are referring to here but it’s most likely one of two statements.

1. “My aim wasn't to give you an overarching label”. This is true. You can’t tell me what my aim was unless you somehow know my thoughts and intentions. And I doubt that you do. Again, I was not making you into a simple stereotype.

2. “I didn't make an assertion on what kind of person you were”. Again, this is true. I made no assertion, I only made speculations.

That is because you are only concerned with white peoples feelings. If you read my post you would see that I am critical of Black behavior also. But since your in love with white people you take up their defense when it is not warranted. The way you take their defense would lead one to believe that you are either a cracker or a nigga that thinks he is a cracker

I don’t think you even addressed the issue here. Instead, you just went on an insulting tangent. I brought up the point that you may have made some antagonistic, essentialist remarks about white because you are now saying that you respect whites. It seems to me that those two things are contradictory to me. Hence, my confusion.

As for the idea that I am only concerned with whites and love them. That is wholly false and laughable. Well, I guess you can say that I do love white people if you take into consideration that I love all of mankind. But that also means I love black people, brown people, etc. The fact that you are also critical of black people is irrelevant and only shows that you are reasonable and fair. But I am also reasonable and fair but for that, I am a “cracker”? That doesn’t make sense. The fact that I have concerned myself with both blacks and whites on this forum is more evidence that what you are saying is false. I don’t think I have ever taken anything’s defense when it was not warranted. I simply respond to what other people say. Again for the thousandth time, I would invite you to show me evidence to suggest otherwise. I defend all peoples, regardless of race. If that makes me a cracker, so be it.

Duly noted

Cool. Wow, we can finally not disagree on something (unlike one person I know)

Well when ypou put yourself in the intergrationist mode and put me in the segregationist mode and followed it up with respect and admire as your attributes and not mine then you did imply such.

Yes, you’re certainly right in saying so but.. 1. Remember, I was only speculating and made that clear. 2. You have already apparently corrected me on what your values and ideals are, so now I already know better. If you want some kind of apology then ok. I apologize for making an incorrect speculation about you.

My man you should shut it down. This is the most outloud laughable screed I have ever seen. Republicanism and democracy?

As I have done with kingblaze, let me clarify my statements. Perhaps this will allow you to understand my position more clearly. Some of this may not apply but some will:

“When did I say that the Founding Fathers were separatists only[/I for democracy and republicanism?...We were specifically talking about separatism. I was only making the point that “moral” values (such as democracy and republicanism) can guide separatism as well as “immoral” values (such as racism)…Edit: I’m just now thinking that maybe you have misunderstood my usage of the word “separatist/separatism”. I was using that word in the context of my discussion with And Step not to refer to the “separation” between blacks and whites as it pertained to the founding fathers (which I suspect is what you thought), but actually to refer to the “separation” between the 13 colonies (the United States) and its mother nation (Great Britain). There’s a big difference there.”

Really. Well explain the 3/5 of a human being thing?

My brother, I am aware of all of this. I didn’t say that I agree with our collective group of founding fathers nor am I justifying everything they did. And I am certainly not saying that they were saints. My original statement, like I’ve said above is referring to the different values behind separatism.

Ok since we have cleared that up, even though the 3/5 compromise no longer is really relevant to our argument, I’d like to say a few things about that. That issue is very complicated and debatable also. It’s very ironic, but I believe that the exact founding father individuals (not all of them) that I (and you) accuse of being racist and unrepublican were the ones that wanted to grant blacks full citizenship and so they, the racists, were against the 3/5 compromise. Why? Because they wanted to use slaves for their own gain when it came to acquiring political support. If a slave was 3/5 of a person, 5 slaves would count as 3 votes for instance. If a slave was a full person, 5 slaves would count as 5 votes. The “republican” founding fathers, ironically, vied for the 3/5 compromise not because they necessarily thought that blacks were 3/5 of a person but because they didn’t want the Southern founding fathers to gain that the power they would get from establishing and reinforcing slavery.

Explain the millions of Blacks held in chattel slavery?

I think that I have already explained that. If you honestly think that I support slavery, you have seriously misunderstood me.

Explain the genocidal campaign to decimate millions of Red Native Americans.

Again I’ve already cleared up the confusion but let me again branch out into another argument and reiterate myself on this topic which was brought up previously by kingblaze:

“I think that the issue with the relationship between the founding fathers and the Native Americans is also much more complicated. I would first argue that the major atrocities against the Native Americans started after the founding fathers, especially with Andrew Jackson. I would argue that some founding fathers established an amicable relationship with the Native Americans and based that on equality (republicanism). Washington and others actually worked with Native Americans and established programs in an attempt to assimilate (not saying that I agree with this) Native Americans into American society, as opposed to setting them apart from American society in reservations (which you have generally accused the founding fathers of doing). The founding fathers also appeared to, at least initially, have sought the path of business (which will always be shady) and diplomacy in order to acquire Native American land. This is in opposition to your claim that they simply forced the Native Americans out. I am also well aware that there were also wars, but that still doesn't necessarily prove your argument.

 

[Plutarch]

Explain the exclusion and discriminatory practice against certain European immigrants and women? You have lost all credibility to speak on this issue.

I’m not too knowledgeable about this, so could you please drop some knowledge on the apparent xenophobia demonstrated by the founding fathers? I’m well aware of the xenophobia demonstrated by our political leaders during the latter times in America though. And it disgusts me, as it should with any American.

The NOI and other Nationalist movements in the 60's and 70's which you know nothing about were about developing independent institutions since blacks were not allowed to participate equally with whites.

I know nothing about the NOI and other Nationalist movements in the 60’s and 70’s? Your hyperboles are getting very tired and redundant. Yes, I don’t know everything, but I do know many things. You said that “The NOI…were about developing independent institutions since blacks were not allowed to participate equally with whites.” I’m well aware of this and I agree, but what was your point? None of that seems to be any counterclaim to what I have said. Your statement is also very general. The NOI were about a lot of other things too, which has distinguished them from many, other Nationalist movements such as MLK and the Black Panthers. And I never said that the NOI never did any good for blacks. They did.

Their platform was the same as the founding fathers who felt they were being treated equally by the Crown.

Not necessarily true. Yes, they were generally the same because they were both separatist. But as I’ve pointed out before, many of the main values guiding each separatist ideology were vastly different. This is very obvious, no?

The status quo was white racial supremacy. So what sane, intelligent man would not seek to gain a position of advantage after being disenfranchised for centuries.

Sorry, I’m not exactly sure what you are saying here. I’m not going to attempt to guess because I honestly don’t have a real good idea. Could you clarify?

Segregation means being separated but controlled by another. It does not have as a component, independence.

I disagree. Segregation basically means separation. Control, power, freedom, and anything else are nothing more than impositions. And simply put, the NOI believed in racial separation. If you want to use separatism instead of segregation for the sake of clarity, then yes go ahead because that is what I was referring to: separation.

Because you always rush to the defense of white people and take on black people.

Again, please give me evidence of this. This is not a black and white thing, this is a human thing. Justice, equality, reason, etc are values that should be bestowed on all peoples. And I will defend all peoples for this reason.

The question ws discourse in the black community and you come in here with some house nigga nonsense about white people and racism.

Another falsity. Again, I invite you to show me evidence of this. I’m starting to think that you have no evidence and are merely spewing insults and falsities like someone I already know.

Yes, the question was about discourse in the black community but questions branch out to other questions and you already know this, so don’t act like I’m derailing the initial question. Everything is connected to everything. Besides, from this post all the way back to my first post(s), which actually directly dealt with the initial topic (who’s to say that the initial question hasn’t already been answered), mostly all that I have been doing is responding to people. So don’t accuse me of taking an initiative to talk about something else. What kind of person thinks there are hardlined rules to internet threads saying that every poster must stick to one issue anyway? We are still talking about the black community, especially since most of us are the black community so I don’t know what you are talking about.

What can you as a supposed continental African tell me about racism that I don't know or have experienced?

What does this have to do with anything? What does the fact that I am African (I live in America and consider myself American because I have lived in America most of my life by the way) have to do with anything? I don’t get you here. I think that we all can tell each other about racism in ways that we don’t know or have experienced. None of us have reached absolutes and we cant. Though, all of us have different experiences we can learn from and similar experiences we can relate to. When did this become a personal challenge?

 

[Plutarch]

That’s it. I have to step out of my mature self and just say it: 2012, you are a clown! You are a troll. Everything you say is just foolishness and laughable. This is pure comedy to me. You have a long way to go to reach a mature, logical, reasonable, and sensible state of mind. Listen here teenager…

OH YEY: instead of ckock-ckuddling Raymond Burr's gobbledygook about sun03 being An alias of mines...you can easily have mods check and bring you back proof via IP-Addresses, eh? So feel free, at anytime, to stop wasting time on that nonsense you're left to resort to once you get set on the right track after coming at me sideways to begin with.

Like I even care about whether you have an alias or not. I don’t give a flying fuck. You seem to be more concerned about that jawn. What, are you scared that the rumors will hurt your IC reputation? Meh.

Both you two, have to be the weirdest most-dishonest, most-irrational people I've come across.

When people want to validate their stance as real when people want to show how their offline Advocacy is needed, then they bring evidences in the form of real, live, American, respected and esteemed sources to back up their argument or stance, or in my case....my Advocacy!

Very ironic. You have never brought in any evidence or sources as a counter claim to my arguments. And if you have, you just drop them and leave and don’t follow up as if your sources are the Holy Word. That’s not how argumentation goes kid. If you honestly think that your professor saying that I need join reality is anything substantial as evidence, then you are a fool. Substantial sources come in the form of facts, supported opinions, and counter claims. You have none, as far as our argument goes.

I use the top Senator on Capitol Hill, as proof, that many White's in '08 voted for Obama's being light-skinned...and y'all mock me

I use Prof. who's sat with George Bush before/eating him alive, as proof, of White Privilege in America that effects Blackfolk's lives...and yall heckle me

I use ivy-league Prof. Recent findings, validating the annihilation of the Black male, which I've propagated for months now via my own research...and y'all steer clear of it/mindset modification which is fairly, in order for you.

I use Tim Wise, who's certainly distinguished and affluent in this country's Capitalistic democracy to validate my various stances on Racism and the annihilation of the Black male...and y'all marginalize and trivialize it, and claim I don't know how to put forth an argument....lol... As if these people haven't spent millions in research and even more, in Time, to validate the very elements you all spit on me for disseminating to compliment my own hypothesis-proven theorems and scholarship I drop here.

Who is this “ya’ll” you refer to? Heh, what the hell? And why are bringing up other posts and other threads and accusing everyone on some me against the world shit? Focus on this thread young bul. You seem to be getting emotional and this thread would do well without that.

As for the Tim Wise shit you threw at me. If you would’ve taken the time to venture away from your stubborn ego and actually read my response, you would’ve known that I largely agreed with him and you. Again, this is why it’s not possible to have a serious discussion with you.

[/b]Then you'll have nerve to wonder how I say that each time you all post, it's proof, that you hate answers/loathe solutions to real problems...and you merely login to, count member's posts.[/b]

Seems like more emotional babble to me. So I take it that you will draw inspiration from your cowardice (which ironically was something you characterized me as) and not accept my challenge of debate? Hm, I wonder why…

 

[Plutarch]

When all else fails, 2012 uses his professor as some kind of default setting. He seems to think that Prof. Wise is the 'cure all' for what white people should do. 2012, relies on this man for PRACTIALLY every point he makes and considers it the gospel. His constant redundancy is beyond an annoyance & many get SO TIRED of it....they just ignore him. Over time he has toned it down...but it still reeks of the same old shit and I really hope you bring some equitable debate to this forum....GOOD LUCK.

And so more background information revealing the possibility that 2012 is a clown comes out...hm...I see that 2012's reputation for being a clown far precedes him. And I had no idea. It's starting to all add up now.

Indeed it does seem that 2012 heavily depends on other people. He's basically defending (and mind you, incomptently defending ) arguments that essentially come from other people. What kind of shit is that. Maybe the reason why he can't defend his stance well is because that stance never was his to begin with in the first place. My man, you are a nothing more than a prostitute for your big, acclaimed ivy league pimps.

 

[Plutarch]

I can see his point at times,however he never changes his method of madness. As you stated previously mature individuals DON'T act that way. I can't stand people who wanna act like adults.but haven't got enough common sense to see the errors of their ways.

Yes! You know, the funny thing is that I think him and I are very much alike (as far as ideologies go) and actually agree on many if not 90% of most things if not everything.

It's just what you said that seems to irritate everyone: the inability to change his mind, admit any wrong, and his fixation on his opinions as if they were absolute truths. Then if you add the childish behavior, the complete regard of logic and reason, and the blatant inconsideration of others, you have yourself a clown.

My beef is not so much with his ideas, but with the fact that he is a clown and an asshole. And when I say asshole, I mean the bad kind. I fucks with assholes who are cool and so much more mature and reasaonble than this kid.

 

[And Step]

The ignore list is extra lovely.

 

[janklow]

Ethiopia was colonized by Italy

note the technicality: "in the 19th century." Ethiopia wasn't colonized until 1936; they tossed out the Italians on their first attempt in the first war between them.

 

[janklow]

Actually, your argument here puts the cart before the horse...

actually, you're dodging the post you quoted: "so why don't you just state for the record that whatever reprehensible racist beliefs someone has are automatically legitimate if anyone votes in an election based on them and then the person they voted for wins? you can then proceed to never bitch about racism again, as you're sitting here telling us that it's legitimate if supported by random elections."

Skinny: This Past election's TEA PARTY victory vehicles, were more complex than racism in the SPAM email, but the drivers of those 'vehicles' were req'd to possess the mindset in that SPAM email.

[/quote]i know you're firing up the nonsense here, but the thing is, unless you're telling me that you can prove everyone voted against Obama purely out of racism, it's more complex than racism

I'm glad no mod closed this thread, and I say that as the member who gets silenced more than any other in the website's history

gets silenced more than any other in the website's history?

...congratulations, this degree of self-important crying has convinced me to close the thread

 

[HipHopFiend91]

africans were good slaves based on genetics, in America they try to use indians but they died easy.

but slavery took place in many other countries not just America

 

[And Step]

right here the narrative veers into a little bit of fiction, since the majority of deaths of Native Americans were due to the inadvertent spread of disease.

Does inadvertent mean on purpose?

 

[John Prewett]

Does inadvertent mean on purpose?

"all's fair in love and war" ...........

But even the white devils didn't have power to invent the bacteria and virus in the first place.

Indian lack of immunity to certain bacteria carried by Europeans was just tough luck [or God's will] for the Indians.

 

[janklow]

Does inadvertent mean on purpose?

no, that's why i used it

 

[Kushington]

"all's fair in love and war" ...........

But even the white devils didn't have power to invent the bacteria and virus in the first place.

Indian lack of immunity to certain bacteria carried by Europeans was just tough luck [or God's will] for the Indians.

Are you fuckin serious right now?

The europeans knew good and got damn well they had diseases that natives werent immune to

"Settlers" werent naive, they had permission from their mother countries to go to america in the first place....they continually exchanged information about the landscape and people they encountered

Once whites knew they had an advantage they exploited it.

I cant believe you would call the death of millions of people "god's will". So if i take a gun and shoot you in the face and live in your house, yet find a way to get away with it, is it "god's will"?

 

[John Prewett]

Are you fuckin serious right now?
The europeans knew good and got damn well they had diseases that natives werent immune to
"Settlers" werent naive, they had permission from their mother countries to go to america in the first place....
they continually exchanged information about the landscape and people they encountered
Once whites knew they had an advantage they exploited it.

Oh,... so you think when SOME Whites realized Indians were vulnerable to certain diseases [bear in mind 300 years ago the understanding of disease/bacteria etc was not nearly as extensive as it is today,... and we are seeing in hindsight,... EVERYONE see better in hindsight] .....

but if some Whites realized Indians were vulneable to the diseases, that you would expect the Whites to say

"well, we make these people sick, so we will now pack up and go back to Europe" ???

I cant believe you would call the death of millions of people "god's will".
So if i take a gun and shoot you in the face and live in your house,
yet find a way to get away with it, is it "god's will"?

The whole world belongs to God and God can and does give it to whatever group/culture God wants to for as long or short a period of time as God wants to.

As for "death of millions",.... don't you know ?? We're all gonna die.

 

[Kushington]

Oh,... so you think when SOME Whites realized Indians were vulnerable to certain diseases [bear in mind 300 years ago the understanding of disease/bacteria etc was not nearly as extensive as it is today,... and we are seeing in hindsight,... EVERYONE see better in hindsight] .....

but if some Whites realized Indians were vulneable to the diseases, that you would expect the Whites to say

"well, we make these people sick, so we will now pack up and go back to Europe" ???

The whole world belongs to God and God can and does give it to whatever group/culture God wants to for as long or short a period of time as God wants to.

As for "death of millions",.... don't you know ?? We're all gonna die.

the fact remains europeans committed genocide on native americans, you can "look at it" however you want.

I want you to tell me, do you think europeans had a right to steal land and resources from natives?

"The only things worth learning are the things you learn after you know it all"

- Harry S Truman -

IMO Saying you know it for sure doesn't mean you're aware of the real truth about said issue.

What are you talking about?

Were people as knowledgable about disease ad bacteria as they are now? No. Did the settlers knowingly kill natives tho? Its a resounding yes.

I cant believe there are white people that still exist that actually try to deny the brutality of "manifest destiny" . You people do not belong on a hip hop website, you should be on stormfront or some other racist website with your own kind.

 

[janklow]

I cant believe there are white people that still exist that actually try to deny the brutality of "manifest destiny"

however, you don't have to deny the brutality of "manifest destiny" (or whatever it was before that) -- i'm not sure who's doing THAT-- to point out that the vast majority of the deaths were in fact inadvertent

 

[PPLSIntiative]

I got this from Yahoo answers

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters

Manifest Destiny is the historical belief that the United States is destined and divinely ordained by God to expand across the North American continent, from the Atlantic seaboard to the Pacific Ocean. sometimes, Manifest Destiny was interpreted so widely as to include the eventual absorption of all North America: Canada, Mexico, Cuba and Central America. advocates of Manifest Destiny believed that expansion was not only good, but that it was obvious ("manifest") and certain ("destiny"). originally a political catch phrase of the 19th century, "Manifest Destiny" eventually became a standard historical term, sometimes used as a synonym for the expansion of the United States across the North American continent which the belief inspired or was used to justify.

the term was first used primarily by Jacksonian Democrats in the 1840s to promote the annexation of much of what is now the western United States (the Oregon Territory, the Texas Annexation, and the Mexican Cession). it was revived in the 1890s, this time with Republican supporters, as a theoretical justification for US expansion outside of North America. the term fell out of usage by US policy makers early in the 20th century, but some commentators believe that aspects of Manifest Destiny, particularly the belief in an American "mission" to promote and defend democracy throughout the world, continues to have an influence on American political ideology.

President Obama and others seem to think otherwise IE promote and defend democracy throughout the world. BTW how come you still haven't substantiated your claim that the European immigrants knowingly spread diseases. FYI I'm free to doing as I please, whether you're pleased with me and other non-black peoples who chose to frequent this site....DO you understand that or NOT?

Current American foreign policy is derived from the philosophy of late 19th century and 20th century industrialists and capitalists who realized that in order to sustain the economic growth of the united states they would have to expand and find foreign markets. countries that were not willing to co operate would be opened through military coercion i;e Japan and the Philippines. Later on it was China. Before that the U.S. interceded in the first Cuban revolution (which was black led) and made them sign the Platt amendment. The Platt amendment basically turned Cuba into a colony they couldnt do anything without the approval of the u.s.

While manifest destiny was not given its name until the 1840s, it is imistakable that whites held a certain sense of entitlement when it came to land grabbing and dealing with the different nations. Invaders would move onto to clearly distinguished native land and settle. The various nations would complain and the government would act impotent saying it was better for the particular tribe to just sell the land. if the tribe fought the invaders then the government would send in militia and drive them westward or wipe them out. This was the basic premise for every engagement with the indian tribes through the 19th century.

Today the U.S. government still intervenes with the sovereign rights of nations through the use of black ops instead of overt military action. If military action is used then the u.s. will readily say how it was unavoidable, or to protect people out in BFE the so called arab spring, is a ploy by the u.s government to destabilize the various nations of the mid east and set up more friendly governments. the u.s. did the same thing in s. america in the 80s. if country is in the middle of a civil war the us would support which ever side that would be friendly to their interests. US immigration policies also reflected this.

The current U.S. policy is the same as it was pre WWI to protect and establish foreign markets and america interests. Which means to send poor and/or ignorant white, black and brown kids to kill for the interests of the rich. Master class makes the war, servant class fights it.

 

[And Step]

Japan set the stage for there own destruction.....does Pearl Harbor sound familiar?

Boy you really tell it like it ain't.

Some times I feel sad for Caucasian Baby Boomers. They really believe what they have been told.

Pearl Harbor was a response to the Blockade put on the Japanese by Allied forces, as a result of their support of Germany. It was not an arbitrary, unprovoked response.

 

[shootemwon]

lol @ you chumps. You really believe Pearl Harbor actually happened. Gullible sheep.