let's list 'em.
off the top of my head, there's ancient greece (philosophy! sculpture! tragedy!), rome (gladiators), the byzantine empire/constantinople (mosaics, awesome architecture), ancient india (uh.. elephants?), ancient egypt (pyramids and papyrus!) .. ancient china (vases, funny hats and robes), feudal japan (ninjas)
am I missing any? add please.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-16 10:53
You just made every historian in the world cry.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-16 11:03
Kinda shows much is told about Ancient India to masses. Probably cause those Chinamen don't want people to know where they stole their inventions.
Name:
Token2006-09-16 11:37
Don't forget the black civilisation of Nubia who imitated everything the Egyptians did.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-16 12:37
Carthage (first civilization that came with buildings that were more than 3 floors, known for General Hannibal, who invaded Rome)
Babylonia (bible tells the tale of a tower, they were known for inventing and selling weapons and arts to their neighbours)
Macedonia (although grouped with the greeks, this is not the case, the Macedonians actually "united the hellen states" when they invaded and conquered the greeks, using that as a platform to conquer the ancient world. They conquered Egypt, surrounded Carthage, and then started eastward toward China. Unfortunately, they were defeated by the Indians (to get to China, you gotta go through India), and would later collapse, only to have their empire swallowed up by the Romans (they taking fruit from a child).)
Celt
(Similar to the Gauls, not really an empire, just a string of tribes and kingdoms who inhabited the British Isles before the Romans (or "White Man") invaded, best known for their burial practices and artistic sculpting, also known for Bodecia, a warrior queen, whose only military tactic was a blind charge, she was defeated by a roman contigent of infantry at 1/200th her army's size)
If you're meaning ancient, I wonder why you included feudal japan (12th to 19th century). Ancient japan had the people known as the Jomons, who were the first to invent Pottery. They were latered replaced by the Yayoi (known for shamanism), who emigrated from Korea, and later subjugated by Ancient China.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-16 12:47
>>5
Carthage appeared well after the Egyptians had built super-massive temples, fortresses and cities well over 3 storeys.
The Macedonians didn't conquer greece, they helped defeat 1 city state that had caused a civil war and said "lol we're going to invade persia, fight us or fight the persians with us.". They had no intention of going to China, these guys got to the Caspian sea and thought it was an encircling ocean. They hadn't even heard of China. They turned back because their soldiers had marched around 2000s of miles, fought endless battles and sieges. and wanted to go back home with their loot and live in opulent splendour. The Indians that they attacked all had their asses kicked.
The celts were white.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-16 14:59
THE CAANANITES WERE CONQUERED BY ANCIENT HEBREWS WHO CLAIMED THE LAND AS ISRAEL AND CREATED JUDAISM WHICH EVENTUALLY LEAD TO THE RISE OF CHRISTIANITY AND ISLAM
Nubia was before Egypt. I don't know what the fuck people's problem is, but all this shit is basically common knowledge and the reason it seems "unbelievable" is because of what a shithole Africa presently is. Valid point, by my reasoning, but not enough to outright deny what we already know to be true, particalurly about greek philosophers. Didn't Plato and the rest have their induction ceremonies in pyramids? READ HIS WRITINGS BEFORE YOU START TALK SHIT ABOUT ANCIENT AFRICA. Logic dictate that if Modern Man came out of Africa, so did modern thinking. It didn't just fucking "POP UP" when people's skin color changed.
Name:
Xel2006-09-16 15:36
The Carthagians were kinda cool. There was some alter-history book with the premise that the Carthagans handed the Romans their asses and then went on to enslave Germans and Gaules and Nords and whatnot, thereby inverting the black/white relationship. Sometimes I think that *this* current 'now' is really boring, but then I realize it's just as much of an inconceivable utopia as any other.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-16 22:03
>>8
But it's just a theory that man came from Africa. Hell, we don't know for sure where did man came from. He could be from anywhere, until we discover final proof.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-16 22:57
shit guys - i forgot persia. PERSIA.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-17 11:56
BABYLON IS WHERE WE GOT THE TOWER OF BABIL THAT SEPERATED ALL OUR LANGUAGES
"I don't know what the fuck people's problem is"
Criticism is an accepted method of determinning the truth. There is no problem.
"but all this shit is basically common knowledge and the reason it seems "unbelievable" is because of what a shithole Africa presently is."
The fact that Nubia did not arise before Egypt does not reflect on the present situation in Ethiopia and Somalia. I agree.
"Valid point, by my reasoning, but not enough to outright deny what we already know to be true, particalurly about greek philosophers. Didn't Plato and the rest have their induction ceremonies in pyramids? READ HIS WRITINGS BEFORE YOU START TALK SHIT ABOUT ANCIENT AFRICA."
The inhabitants of ancient North Africa were a major influence on the mediteranean world. The inhabitants of sub-saharran Africa were not a major influence on the mediteranean world.
"Logic dictate that if Modern Man came out of Africa, so did modern thinking."
Civilisation began approximately 65000 years after the first homo-sapien-sapiens ventured out of africa. Modern thinking did not necessarily begin in Africa.
"It didn't just fucking "POP UP" when people's skin color changed."
Skin colour is an irrelevant adaption in terms of intelligence. I agree.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-17 14:13
>>9
The CARTHAGINIANS were not black, they were arabian like Egyptians and Morrocans today. The book must have been exagerated since the Romans did not reach as far as Denmark or central Germany. Iberian-celts and gauls joined Hannibal in his invasion of Rome. Carthage was seperated from the rest of Africa which at the time still consisted of hunter gatherers and goat herders who produced very little metal.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-17 14:19
exaggerated*
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-17 14:35
thread just made every historian in the world cry.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-17 16:32
A report by a roman commander, during the pillaging of carthage, stated his admiration for carthaginian architecture, which was able to create buildings that had multiple floors using the common materials of the day and still be structually sound against fire. This was just praise, since this was known as a "lost art" that not even the romans could reproduce (they used concrete instead). Buildings didn't gain this until the 15th century, and even then were not really structually sound.
FYI 3 floors <> 3 stories
Any tall building back in the day was made from stone or some other hard material. Carthaginians used wood and mud. If you tell yourself anyone could make a thatch wood hut, you're right. But ask a qualified structural engineer if he could make a building out of wood that had more than 3 floors above ground, and he'll tell you that it can't be done without reinforcing with harder materials.
You're right, "conquered" should have been replaced with "subjugated", which is what Alexander the Great did.
def. subjugated: to be placed under the laws and judgement to a foreign power; governmental control handled by a foreign power
Remember, Alexander the Great was NOT A GREEK. He controlled the greeks, which makes him a subjugator.
As for China, there were rumours of a great and WEALTHY civilization on the other side of the Indian ocean. He never got there, but if he did, you'd have railways being built at the time of the Great Library.
The celts were never white. Especially compared to the white-skinned romans. Another thing was that the quote "Veni Vidi Vici" (I Came, I Saw, I Conquered) was uttered by Julius Caesar when he set foot on the British Isles. This was really an historic achievement, since the British Isles were nothing more than myth.
Oh, and Babylonia was also the birthplace of the Alphabet. The english alphabet is based on the Latin (used by the Romans) based on the Greek inspired by the Babylonian alphabet.
Historical records show no account of a tower reaching to the heavens in ancient babylonia. However there were some theological arguments in Athens during the age of Antiquity of building a tower to speak with the Gods.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-17 20:00
Japan?
Japan was also perceived as a sophisticated feudal society with a high culture and a strong pre-industrial technology. It was more populated and urbanized than any Western country (in the 16th century, Japan had 26 million inhabitants against 16 million for France and 4.5 million for England). It had Buddhist “universities” larger than any learning institution in the West, such as Salamanca or Coimbra. Prominent European observers of the time seemed to agree that the Japanese "excel not only all the other Oriental peoples, they surpass the Europeans as well" (Alessandro Valignano, 1584, "Historia del Principio y Progreso de la Compañía de Jesús en las Indias Orientales).
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-17 20:01
Anyway, the term ancient is bit vague.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-17 20:09
>>20
and dont forget that today japan is the most technological advanced country and its awesome and kawaii de su
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-17 20:33
>>22
And ancient underwater ruins that are obviously remains of once powerful supercivilization that conquered whole world with animated series, comics, shitty RPGs, pixelated pornography and lolitas, oh wait...
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-17 20:41
>>20
That makes Europe around the 16th century ANCIENT and makes 16th century Japan POST-ancient.
And ancient underwater ruins that are obviously remains of once powerful supercivilization that conquered whole world with animated series, comics, shitty RPGs, pixelated pornography and lolitas, oh wait...
>>19
Oh so they built wooden structures larger than 3 storey using wood and mud. Oh how absolutely marvellous.
"As for China, there were rumours of a great and WEALTHY civilization on the other side of the Indian ocean. He never got there, but if he did, you'd have railways being built at the time of the Great Library."
This is abso-fucking lutely absurd. You are living in a twisted fucked up fantasy world. Alexander's army were worn out and tired, it would take years to tame and develop the nation to train enough hoplites and cavalry to have a chance of denting China who's population was much larger than the middle east and Greece put together at that time and by that time Alexander would be dead and the empire fragmented as usually happens after a great conqueror carves out a huge empire.
>>38
the macedonian army and warfare strategy was the best in it's time during alexander's rule, nothing else comes close. besides, china's was still too busy fighting each other during the warring states period, i doubt alexander would have a hard time dealing with the masses of troops from the seven states combined thrown at him if he decided to push eastward instead of retiring back to babylon and dying a young death.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-18 13:19
>>40
By that time he didn't have enough men, even though they were superioer they could not fight their way across India, march through 500 miles of jungle and then face off armies which outnumberred them considerably more so than Darius at Gaugamela (by this time most of his army must have perished). Theoretically he could defeat the odd Indian state, then threaten and coerce the rest like he did when he was getting the Greeks to side with him. Except the Indians would not be as eager to give him half of their troops since he was some upstart from the other side of the world and they would probably attempt to assassinate him or plot to take his lands when he leaves India to see to the rest of his empire or something.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-18 14:49
>>41
when he reached india his total army size was considerably larger than what he started with after he conquered persia. there were more persians than greeks in his army by then. he won a great victory againts the indian kingdom of hydaspes, he even spared the captured king's life and let him rule on in his name. it was his greek soldiers who refused to go push eastward after 8 years of conquest. and if he did pushed eastward, i doubt anyone could stand in his way.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-18 16:53
>>42
Persian troops consisted mostly of light infantry, some light cavalry and some hastily trained pikemen. Nothing like his elite hoplites. At best he would just be a good general with mediocre troops and sucked into the tapestry of warlords in India. Even if he did become a figurehead and collected imperial tax from the India's states, allied with one of the warring states in China, sent a newly trained army over and carved out a bigger empire, all he would have done is be a figurehead with 100 or so legendary macedonians still alive compared to 100000 mercenaries loyal to machiavellian warlords 100s of miles away.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-18 17:48
>>43
alexander's army strength wasn't just relying on his phalangites, it was through combined arms that he win his battles. in fact, for the different opponents and situations that he encountered, he tackled the problem with a different strategy, utilizing the various unit types available to him. when facing the hill clans he dealed with them with more emphasis on other infantry and little to no use of his phalangites.
"there isn't enough good soldiers left" case wasn't true at all. there were plenty of native macedonian soldiers left at his disposal, his army was never "low" on native macedonian and mercenary greek forces such as phalangites, hypaspists, his various cavalry regiments nor other light infantry. in fact, after his death the succesor states still had plenty of these macedonian soldiers to go around fighting each other and everyone else, right up to the roman conquest of the hellenistic world.
figurehead? hardly so. ever heard of vassal states? sure some problems do occur with the local puppet-kings now and then, but that is something quite inevitable, alexander himself executed a number of his military-governors when they misbehaved in his absence.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-19 5:27
>>44
I don't think you quite understand the scale of the conquests Alexander would need. India is much more densely populated than Persia and the humid environment makes the spread of disease much easier. Defeating some border kingdom wouldn't be enough to topple every warlord in India.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-19 13:17
>>45
and does the idea of the massive amount of conquest required stop conquerors like alexander, genkhis and kublai khan from doing what they did best? beside the romans, alexaner's conquests were the largest the ancient world had ever seen, what he did in less than 10 years took the romans centuries to do. only the mongols under genkhis and kublai managed to surpass him, and it is a widely agreed fact that if death had not stopped alexander, history would be a very different thing that what we know today.
Porus' kingdom wasn't a mere border kingdom either, it was the only indian kingdom that stood and fight instead of merely surrendering everything to the macedonians on their arrival. alexander did not had the chance of marching into Magadha, the last crucial indian kingdom he needed to conquer before he was done with the indus valley and onwards east into southeast asia. (the numerous small kingdoms in the south wasn't as important as Magadha and would be easily subdued.)
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-20 20:41
The inhabitants of sub-saharran Africa were not a major influence on the mediteranean world.
Again: Moderning thinking didn't just pop up once people left Africa. It's innate, it was there already.
Civilisation began approximately 65000 years after the first homo-sapien-sapiens ventured out of africa. Modern thinking did not necessarily begin in Africa.
"not necessarily" leaves so much more room for doubt in that department than you are willing to admit.
go back to race thread. anglos didn't exist and spread until MUCH, MUCH later. look at the pottery and art of ancient cultures. do you think they are stupid, or color blind? anglos used white-like colors to dicpict themselves and everyone else has pretty much done the same since before then. the idea that The CARTHAGINIANS weren't darker than morroccans (who're basically anglos) sounds like the wailings of a racist lunatic.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-21 1:46
>>47
Carthaginians weren't blacks, nor were they white. they resemble the Phonecians, who were the founders of Carthage.
to everyone else, try to do some reasearch on the subject before posting up some complete bullcrap.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-21 5:28
""not necessarily" leaves so much more room for doubt in that department than you are willing to admit."
In your little world maybe. But in my world where accepting you are wrong and criticism are not the most terrible things in the world it isn't. If by modern thinking you mean stone age thinking, then you are right. If by modern thinking you mean large scale organised civilisation then it began in 3 seperate instances in the flood plains of the Euphrates and Tigris, in South China and in Central America. If by modern thinking you mean rational philosophy then it began with the first simple use of mathematics to predict the movement of the stars, moon and sun which again occurred in several seperate instances.
The idea that modern Morrocans are mainly "anglos" is so completely absurd I will leave it up to you whether you prompt me into responding to the notion.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-21 10:04
>>49
what's this large scale South China and Central American civilization you're talking about? the Huang He civilization of China and the Omecs of Central America didn't began until much later.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-21 11:13
One word: KOREA <^_____________________________^>
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-21 11:15
ADAM AND EVE WERE THE FIRST CIVILIZATION THEY MADE CAIN AND ABEL AND ALL THEIR OFFSPRING TO CREATE THE HUMAN RACE LOLOL
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-21 11:40
>>51
korea fails hard. everyone knows japan is superior, even china is superior.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-21 11:50
>>50
Central american and southern chinese civilisation were initiated on their own, they were originators of organised civilisation, they did not imitate the growing empire just over the hills.
You still haven't defined what you mnean by modern thought yet. I am beginning to think you are incapable of modern thought!
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-21 12:50
>>54 >>50 and >>47 are different persons. I'm the poster of >>50 and thanks for the explaination.
Second: "Not nessacarily" leaves a large amount of room when it comes to whether or not sub-saharan africans were capable of "modern thinking" <=== nebulous phrase alert!
Just cut the rhetorical bullshit already, sub-saharans did have the ability to map the stars, organize "civilization" (<=== another nebulous phrase) and all that shit. Don't get up in arms because you've largly remained ignorant of this fact. The very notion that there is a natural and in-born genetic divide between those in Sub-sahara and those who left is going to leave alot of genetics professors shaking their heads at you.
Genetically speaking humankind has not changed one bit since we've come out of Africa, therefore you have absolutely no proof and no reason to believe that "modern thinking" isn't an innate human response or something that naturally occurs regardless of race or environmental stimuli.
Or do you?
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-21 15:24
NIGGERS INVENTED NOTHING YET LAY CLAIM TO EVERYTHING.
TIGER WOODS ISN'T REALLY BLACK OK GUYSE
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-22 5:39
>>53
korea is not fail; they make sum decent stuff. i buy korean most of the time.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-22 6:28
>>58
they fail at imitating japan and make shitty manhwa, shitty pop music, shitty drama, shitty games and shity animation. they're born with shitty names thus the need for pseudonyms like BoA and Rain. they're divided and historically korea get their asses kicked all the time.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-22 8:11
>>56
First: This is what you actually believe and it's in writing.
"The CARTHAGINIANS weren't darker than morroccans (who're basically anglos) sounds like the wailings of a racist lunatic."
You can claim that wasn't you again, but by the standard of writing I'm pretty >>56 and >>47 are the same person.
Second: You are a racist because you want to deny facts and replace them with pseudo-history to "empower" the black race. As a black male who has experienced racism I feel humiliated when people think that I need black role models and to feel "empowerred" with lies. I wouldn't be suprised if you were pretending to be an afrocentrist in order to put across the idea that blacks are less than. All I was doing was stating facts, I'm sorry every single history changing event didn't occur in sub-saharran africa, but you can't change facts because you don't like them or claim anyone who criticises you is a boogeyman because you don't like what they say.
When you are ready to back up your statements with fact, go right ahead, until then stop trolling.
2. Morroccans are basically from a genetic stand point- anglos. Anglos were not a prime race in ancient times and my point (which you refuse to address) because their own ability to point out their skin color still stands. (And don't come up into this joint when some middle-age-era art claiming it Identifies the skin tone of ancient man)
3. Hey. I'm black too, but way to burn the spot you fucking moron, now I'm starting to believe that you're just some white douche.
4. Finally: You addressed nothing in >>56 Come back to this thread when you're are ready to specifically address the points I'm making. You can't just repeat the same shit over and over and insist that you're right. Especially when it's obvious that you haven't done your reasearch and that you don't know what the fuck you're on about.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-22 9:20
anonymous here thinks too many anonymous around is confusing.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-22 9:47
>>61
2: wtf
3: I doubt it, but i don't particularly care either.
4: Oh sorry , I though you'd fill in the blanks when I said
"When you are ready to back up your statements with fact, go right ahead, until then stop trolling."
Well here it is in writing then.
Provide the evidence which backs up your statements.
There. Happy? Will you engage in rational debate now?
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-22 9:58
>>58
when korea isn't trying to do japanese things they excel quite well. but that's neither here nor there.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-22 10:59
jesus christ does every thread need to be a racist thread?
This is (like the post before it) is the equivalent of "NO U". How about this: You respond to the following:
1. "Moderning thinking didn't just pop up once people left Africa. It's innate, it was there already."
The above is self-evident. It's a statement that has the fact that mankind was even able to survive in the subhara that supports it. You use terms "Modern thinking" and "civilization" in a way to indicate that sub-saharn africans lacks these things. The fact of the matter is- that if that were actually true- you and I wouldn't be here. Now what is so fucking hard to admit about that?
2. "Genetically speaking humankind has not changed one bit since we've come out of Africa, therefore you have absolutely no proof and no reason to believe that "modern thinking" isn't an innate human response or something that naturally occurs regardless of race or environmental stimuli."
Again, given what we know (that's called: knowledge) about human genetics it is still proposerous to think that "modern thinking" or the ability to produce "civilization" was beyond the capcity of the sub saharan african. This are things that are written in text books, and the numerous of .edus that were linked in race thread. Or do you want to run "sub-saharan african civilizations" through google?
Just respond. Stop bullshitting and respond with something that's countering what I'm saying or you fail.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-22 14:18
>>68
frankly i would hardly call 99.9% of the present world's population having this so called modern thinking. drop the debate and get back on topic.
Exactly, my point. If we haven't changed genetically since we came out of Africa, then what precisely IS "Modern Thinking" and how exactly did Sub-Saharan Africans not have "civilization"? Clearly they did, or we simply would cease to exist.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-24 2:30
>>70
NO, HUMANS HAVEN'T CHANGED AT ALL SINCE THEY LEFT AFRICA! BLUE EYES, BIG NOSES, PALE SKIN? THAT ALL EVOLVED IN AFRICA! THEY JUST LEFT BECAUSE IT WAS TOO HOT DOWN THERE FOR THEM TO LIVE!
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-24 2:36
>>71
Does this mean that niggers are not humans? I like your theory!
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-24 2:40
I don't know why people insist on saying that humankind hasn't changed at all since leaving africa... Adaptation never stopped. This is obvious in the physical appearance of different populations from different areas. I don't know what this thread is about, but to say that there hasn't been any change is to ignore something basic and obvious.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-24 2:41
>>72
Well, human is an imposed definition of a natural phenomenon. So, if you want to claim they aren't human, go right ahead.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-24 2:46
The debate here seems to hinge on the idea that africans are somehow "not as good" as other races that exist in the world. They're going through a time of strife, as they have at many times during their history, and which all races have gone through at different times. Even the Japanese, venerated as the smartest people in the world by those who study IQ as a genetic phenomenon, had many times of chaos and rampant criminal activity during their history.
You can't point to any single thing that demonstrates without a doubt that africans are inferior to your master races. They have done all the good things you've done, and you've done all the bad things they've done.
End of story.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-24 2:49
Jesus was black. The Egyptians were black. The Greeks were black. The Romans wouldn't even have been so awesome if they didn't steal all their ideas from the Greeks.
>>75
They're not as good because attractive african blacks don't exist, in term of looks that is. Even the ones whom you deem attractive is sub-par compared to the attractive ones of the other races.
they're still going through "a time of strife" that has been going on since like forever while everone else moved on. the sooner people realize and admit they're inferior and improve themselves the sooner they'd be able to redeem themselves of their past failures, just like the japanese.
Name:
bubba2006-09-24 8:53
o laud is dis sum afrocentrism
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-24 10:57
>>78
Africa had empires, dude... Fukken EMPIRES. You can't tell me they're inferior when they had fukken EMPIRES. The Mali Empire, Oba of Benin, the Kanem-Bornu Empire, the Fulani Empire, the Dahomey, Oyo, Aro confederacy, the Ashanti Empire, and the Songhay. How many empires did europe have? Like, three? Fuuuuck, bitches!
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-24 11:08
>>80
Empires usually have their own form of written language and leave archaeology behind.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-24 13:52
>>80
lol wut i hav an empire too right in my own backyard.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-24 15:22
>>80
I took a shit on the ground once, was that an empire too?
By "people" I'm going to assume you mean "scientists". And the reason scientists keep saying that the human race(s) haven't changed since leaving Africa is because on a strictly genetic and empirical level: They haven't.
Perception is not reality. While, to the common-minded it would appear that the Japanese had a long hard look in the mirror and decided that it was inferior and need to "improve", but the actual fact of the matter is that Japanese consider themselves superior and ALWAYS have.
Subhara Africa and Ancient Africa had empires and civilization and were very capable of modern thinking. What you fucking delusional morons refuse to admit is that civilization or modern think would have never even occurs to those who left Africa if that mode of thinking wasn't already INNATE. Understand and Learn: We have not chaned one iota genetically since the human races' exodus from Africa. From a completel biological stand point: Skin color has ZERO correlation or causatation to intellect or "modern thinking" or "the ability to create civilization."
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-25 13:40
>>86
Humans have not seperated into differenet sub-species, but they were well on the way before the white race discoverred how to travel the globe. The Nile, Himalayas, Asian steppes and Bering strait have kept negroes, caucasians and mongoloids seperate for generations with little mixing. Recent advances in genetic science have proven the magnitude of the distinction between the races. In the bottle necks there are mixed races, but the vast majority of the world's population fit into the Negro, Caucasian, Mongoloid and native american categories.
Due to the domination of Africa by white males, the vast majority of sub-saharran Africans and blacks have at least one recent white ancestor. The black race has effectively ceased to exist or at least been reduced to the same satus as eskimos and australian aborignes. This is important for black people to remember.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-25 14:21
"Africa had empires, dude... Fukken EMPIRES. You can't tell me they're inferior when they had fukken EMPIRES. The Mali Empire, Oba of Benin, the Kanem-Bornu Empire, the Fulani Empire, the Dahomey, Oyo, Aro confederacy, the Ashanti Empire, and the Songhay. How many empires did europe have? Like, three? Fuuuuck, bitches!"
First let's define Kingdoms, Confederacies, and Empires, because they are not the same thing.
Kingdom: A politically organized community or major territorial unit having a monarchical form of government headed by a male monarch of a major territorial unit; especially one whose position is hereditary and who rules for life or is a paramount chief.
Empire: major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority; especially : one having an emperor as chief of state.
Confederacy: the body formed by persons, states, or nations united by a league (not an emperor or king, and thus neither a kingdom nor an empire.)
I actually learned a lot about African history by reading the Wikipedia articles I looked about the "empires" you spoke of.
Here's what happened to those empires and I'll even list the ones that aren't empires at all.
Mali Empire: Richest empire in all of Africa. Eventually conquered by the African Muslim group the Songhai.
Oba of Benin: A person not a kingdom. "Kingdom of Benin" however, was an empire and was eventually destroy by the British.
Kanem-Bornu Empire: Pretty much Chad and small bits of other African countries. Declined due to poor administration and attacks from the Fulani, eventually conquered by the Sudanese.
Fulani Empire: One of the most powerful African states in the continent, later colonized by the British.
Dahomey: KINGDOM: NOT AN EMPIRE. Now the Nation of Benin. At one point one of the largest slave exporting nations in all of Africa. (An African King enslaving other Africans, just thought I'd point that out before the "white man keeping down the black man bandwagon" starts rolling. At one point colonized by France and later granted independence.
Oyo: NOT AN EMPIRE, NOT EVEN A KINGDOM. A city in modern day Nigeria, the birthplace of the Mali Empire, I believe (don't quote me on that part about Mali).
Aro Confederacy: NOT AN EMPIRE: I think the name says it all. It was a kingdom comprised of city states. Also a large slave exporting area. Again black people enslave black people, do not hop on the "evil white man bandwagon".
Ashanti Empire: Wikipedia only found Ashanti Confederacy, therefore also: NOT AN EMPIRE. It was a kindom lasting from about 1400-1600 and was later colonized by Britain.
Songhai: An ETHNIC GROUP in Africa, particularly Muslims. Also NOT AN EMPIRE. But they were the people that destroyed the Mali Empire in its decline.
As for European Empires we have: France, England, Spain, Portugal, which makes 4. After I discerned which things you listed were actually empires, Africa also had 4. All of which were later colonized by Britain or France. Yes, that's right, France coquered someone. To your credit, these empires had a lot of great successes on their own, but compared with those of Europe, did not contribute anything to western civilization, and were later colonized by the peasly four empires that Europe had. In that repsect, I can see why people call the African Empires inferior. Thanks for giving me a chance to learn something of Africa, though.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-25 14:57
>>88
you forgot the empires of the ancient and middle ages. Romans, Hellenic, Holy Roman, Byzantine
First of all: The white race didn't discover how to travel the globe first. You should know better than this. Human reaserch indicates the first travelers of the world were African, African Arabs and then the Chinese. (IN THAT ORDER)
Second of all: You don't get to define civilization or modern thinking. These are defined by the dictionary and generally by those who have a higher education and more of an advance intellect than you. So, by that definition Sub-Sahara Africa did have civilization and were exetremely capable of modern thinking. Your refusal to acknowledge the fact that the human race has not genetically changed when it comes to intellect (therefore acknowledging the ability of Subsaharans to "think modern").
Your refusal to acknowledge the fact that the human race has not genetically changed when it comes to intellect (therefore acknowledging the ability of Subsaharans to "think modern") basically hinges on downplaying everything Africa has done and resetting the goaline everytime SubSaharan Africa supasses what little knowledge you have of the subject. You are simply IGNORANT.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-25 20:09
ffs is this the race thread all over again?
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-25 23:18
>>87
Ever heard of race? There's not really sub-species that's called race. Same species, but little bit genetically different. We are humans as species and we have countless of different known races nowadays.
Yeah, yeah, yeah...give it a rest already. You keep saying shit that runs alien to what the science of the matter clearly states: Mankind has not changed genetically, what so ever, since the exodus from Sub-Sahara Africa.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-26 16:14
>>90
haha you fucking retard, european ships were the first to circumnavigate the world and travel across massive oceans, shipping millions of your race across the atlantic
AUSTRALIA IS WHITE FOR FUCK'S SAKE
stop being a retard
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-26 16:17
>>94
BS, we've clearly evolved, skull shape is different, athletic abilities are different (negroes are good runners, caucasians are good weightlifters, mongoloids are good gymnasts), forensic scientists can tell the age, gender and RACE or a person from their tibia or pelvis. There are proven genetic differences. For the 65000 years and at least 20000 generations since Humans left africa to ice age europe and the rest of the world we must have evolved.
Stop saying shit that isn't true and start backing it up with hard genetic evidence. I know what's been said. But words and the actual truth are two seperate things. There's no religion about it. The science of the matter says that we haven't. Therefore, until there's peer reviewed reasearch saying otherwise, you're completely full of shit. Give up...on life.
Ok, then go ahead and prove that. Because I've actually studied history and signs point to other races that traveled the globe before "whites".
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-26 19:30
>>97
1.read up on IQ based on race.
2.humans did change, just like dogs. same species, different breeds.
3.if these other races did "travel the globe", then they must somehow managed to hide the evidence that they did. it was the Colonian Europeans that influnced the modern world more than any other race did, without them i doubt you'd be here having these "modern thoughts".
p.s. i'm not white, but at least i can LEARN TO ACCEPT FACTS.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-26 19:38
>>98
continue on >>98, if your arguments is truly based on facts instead of more political correctness, proof it instead of resulting to insults and more bs.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-26 19:46
>>97
Why people have different shapes, eyes, sizes, skin color etc. Isn't it a clearly genetic difference? I don't say that we have evolved or race is related to intelligence, but there are certainly different races in human species.
1. I did. It's hogwash from the basic premise. How can you base IQ on race and claim it's genetic when IQ tests only test people based on environmental factors of intelligence? Invent a genetic IQ test and maybe I'll start to take the race/IQ correlation, seriously.
2. You clearly don't understand the human genome.
3. History is a shroud. And very often, dependant on the dominating culture of the time. I've seen evidence that is contrary to what alot of european books say, and due to empirical nature of the evidence I've seen...I am supsicious of people or repeat what they read from their home countries textbooks. Perception isn't always reality and it definately isn't always the truth.
P.S - I don't care if you're white. Do as >>99 instructs.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-26 20:00
So a few differences in skin and eyes is suddenly evidence of some great change in genetics? Then how can gorillas in one single forest have greater genetic difference than the entire human species? And look damnably alike?
>>96
"65000 years and at least 20000 generations"
Wow, that makes one generation just under three and a half years. Imagine that, a three-year-old human giving birth!
At least get your numbers straight, will you?
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-26 20:08
>>102
Are you claiming that those traits aren't genetic then? Remember that those gorillas in one forest might be of different races too. Race is universal to animal kingdom and occurs in every species. I'm not claiming that there are lesser or greater human races. I'm not racist, nor I'm the uninformed guy who claims that white race developed modern thinking. I'm just saying that there different races in human species, but by no means it means that should mean we should treat some races different than others.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-26 20:42
Skin tone is skin deep. So is hair color. And eye color.
One word: cosmetic.
That goes for that skull shape thing too; the eyes didn't suddenly swap places with the mouth or something, did it? The same things are in the same places, just with some extremely minor changes largely due to cultural preferances.
Remember, it's been some 2500 generations since that Out Of Africa thing, both for us and the folks back in Africa. The change this has done to us is basically cosmetic. At least I assume that's what those previous posters mean with nothing whatsoever having changed.
Oh, and if anyone's had some 25k+ generations, that'll be those gorillas. And they've been largely stationary. We've gone from endangered (read: genetically largely identical) to global in way less.
IQ based on genetics is a controversial subject and thus is subject to much debate, but the fact that after, to quote >>104, "2500 generations since that Out Of Arica thing" these certain races are still living in primitive societies or in poverty and in third world countries would make anyone speculate their intelligence.
Unlike >>103, I am claiming that there are lesser and greater human races, not based upon genetics(I'll leave it to the experts to decide, and no i don't mean you, anonymous.) but based upon the current situation of these races, socially, politically and economically. I am an asian, but it is no doubt that Europeans left the most influnce in the modern world thus historically i consider them the "winners". Of course, whichever race that dominates the different aspects of social/political/etc and influences the future world would be the greater race in my book. However, I still believe in equality and fair treatment among humans, regardless of race and ethinicity.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-26 22:36
>>104
i am >>105, forgot to add. does the average asian guy's short height and small penises count as cosmetic as well?
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-27 0:16
>>105
Ofcourse Indo-Europeans(aka Aryans) and Anglo-Saxons are winners, but I wouldn't go as far as saying that their racially superior. Culturally and technologically they are "superior" however.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-27 0:34
>>98
Hey now, the asians weren't all that far behind whitey. If they had had the urge (now that was cultural, I'll give you that) to go out sailing and shit, they would have been the horrible oppressors that whitey is made out to be.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-27 0:35
>>98
Hey now, the asians weren't all that far behind whitey. If they had had the urge (now that was cultural, I'll give you that) to go out sailing and shit, they would have been the horrible oppressors that whitey is made out to be.
What so hard for alot of whites (or whoever!) to grasp is that whites aren't labelled opressors for "winning" in history. They're labelled opressors for ACTUALLY OPRESSING PEOPLE. There's a difference.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-27 1:10
>>110
we grasp it. i am the descendent of some of the worst people ever. english, german, irish, spanish. my ancestors kicked your ancesters ass. what a lot of us get mad about is that we are still paying for what they did today, which we ourselves had nothing to do with. rich ass native americans is a prime example. come on, you, your dad, your grandad, and your great grandad never witnessed us take over the US, let it go. Latin America has done it nicely, they dont call themselves native american, they call themselves american. its about time we did too instead of this retarded PC bullshit.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-27 2:20
>>110
I'm the whitest cracker I know, and I never oppressed anyone.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-27 2:24
I suppose the chinese emperors were busy oppressing their own people to go out and oppress foreigners.
No one is blaming you specifically. Anyone who seeks respite merely because you are white is simply confused. What is still damaging to us- is white privalege. If you truly grasp >>110 then you should be able to acknowledge that there are privaleges to being white. That's what we seek to dismantle. If you truly wish to not be lumped in with your forefather,then you'd join us.
>>105 et al
"these certain races are still living in primitive societies or in poverty and in third world countries"
That's actually not intelligence, that's resources. No, not gold or silver or any of that junk (in this case), there's at least 4 (off the top of my head) things a growing empire needs:
1: Crop plants
By that I mean something that can be cultivated on a large scale, to feed huge cities (10k+ might not sound like much now, but we're talking stone and bronze age tech). I'm not aware of all that many such plants coming out of, say, Sub-Saharan Africa.
Remember, civs have perished for ignoring this one. Yes, really!
2: Livestock and pack animals
Once again, I'm not aware of all that many usable animals from SSA. Water buffalos and zebras are too temperamental (cows and horses are zombies by comparison. They're also imported).
Livestock is needed for meat, leather, fur, wool, etc.
Pack animals and riding animals are needed for at least two things: military and trade. Anyone who's seen too many movies like Arthur will see the need for cavalry, but let's not underestimate the need for trade.
Example: The Ghana Empire (that the current Republic of Ghana took their name after) started as a small(ish) kingdom, and didn't really take off until Arabs brought camels and camel caravans. Suddenly they could export salt (expensive in those days), gold, ivory etc, over long enough distances and in big enough amounts to grow big and get rich (enough to attract Almovarid invaders).
3: Building materials
Seriously, a single-story mud hut can only house so many people, you can only administer so much from one. Also, there's stuff like waterproofing the roof.
The very least you can do with a huge building with a smooth surface, is to duly impress subjects and visitors. Then there's housing the bureaucracy an empire will inevitably need, not to mention how much more people you can put into an area with multi-story buildings than one with mud huts and tents.
4: No parasites
Didn't see that one coming, did you?
I'm talking about stuff like mosquitos (malaria) and tsetse flies (sleeping sickness). Tropical areas, especially moist ones like rivers and swamps, are crawling with the stuff. More than just itch for a few days, they can kill both you and the horse you rode in on. Literally.
I sair "at least" and "off the top of my head". That means, by definition, that there's bound to be more. Like, say, the advantage of the main land mass being oriented east-west (like Eurasia) rather than north-south (like America and Africa), as technology, livestock etc will be equally available over a larger area once they pop up in one spot. (hint: try putting up an igloo in Nevada...) (hint2: the horse was tamed in central Asia first. Suddenly "everyone" in Eurasia rode horses.)
Wow. Who are you and where were you in the race thread?
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-27 11:19
>>116
I was moving to a new house and looking for a new internet connection. When I finally got back, this thread had popped up and gone to shit in my absence. In short, time to quit lurking (for a while)...
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-27 13:49
>>115
All non-black civilisations in similiar environments have been succesful. Even those that were at a technological disadvantage, discoverred their own crops, domesticated their own animals and created their own large scale government systems.
Black "civilisations" would have certainly been exposed to plain's crops and domesticated animals from the arabs since the time of ancient egypt. For a brief period when Egypt was being attacked by the Persians, the negroes enslaved by the Egyptian rose up and went north up the nile and set up the last dynasty of Egypt (blacks destroyed the Egyptian empire's status as an independant superpower). For a brief period during the fall of Roman power on the Nile the Aksum Kingdom arose, however this only lastd a few hundred years until the jihad saw arab dominance over modern day Sudan to this day.
This proves without a shadow of a doubt that civilisation was possible in Africa's tropical climate.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-27 13:51
>>115
We must admit that our race is inferior and support eugenics.
Name:
Whatshisname2006-09-27 19:09
>>118
"All non-black civilisations in similiar environments"
And those are?
"Similar environments" would be one where
- what crop plants there are, barely sustain a small village grown in a field where, say, wheat would give a certain surplus (like, say, enough to trade with neigbours, or store for next year, so at least someone can have time to think out better tech and stuff). And potatoes even more so.
- all nearby "domesticatable" animals are the likes of zebras (makes horses look loke zombies), water buffalos (even worse) and elephants. And before you say "India", remember they (and others who domesticated elephants) had tamed other, smaller animals first and knew it could be done, and how to deal with large animals in general. (And I've yet to hear of anyone that breeds elephants; they capture a very young, feral one and break it like a horse). There's that expression about running before you can walk.
- mosquitoes and tsetse flies aren't even the worst parasites around, just the ones with the rep to go with it.
"the negroes enslaved by the Egyptian"
Are you accusing the Egyptians of being white? Then look at the map again; Egypt's in Africa. Also, the first foreigners ever to invade Egypt were the Hyksos, in the mid-2nd millenium BC. By then Dynastic Egypt alone was almost two millenia old. And don't let the skin tone of current egyptians fool you; those are Arabs.
And this isn't even a unique phenomenon. The current population of Asia Minor was Greek, until Turks invaded over half a millenium ago. Constantinople was last to fall in 1453; we now know it as İstanbul (the initial upper-case "i" is actually dotted, for grammatical reasons).
Oh, and that pale, burger-chomping fatso being "real American"? Don't make me laugh! (As for Black Americans, they even say so themselves; they're the ones insisting on the term "African-American". To me, though, they've spent too long in Yankeeland for there to be all that much "African" about them.)
Also, it's not like there haven't been civs in Africa. Egyptians, for one, were just as black as the nubians, whose civ btw is as old as Egypt itself.
>>119
Whatever race you're talking about, the answer's the same: Baaaah!
Problem is, when OP asked about ancient empires, some shit-for-brains racist phucca started pretending African empires somehow, magically, didn't exist just cos we invaded them and not vice versa.
Proof? Because from my understanding (which is naturally, less limited than yours) geographically those environment were few and far between and they were patches of land that were ALWAYS being warred over.
Secondly, putting "civilizations" in quotation marks everytime we speak on SSA-civilizations is a bit rediculous at this point because you seem to have a proclivity for changing the definition to suit your argument.
Third, Egypt as a superpower was well on it's way out before the enslaved Africans (Oh yeah, and Arabs, Iranians, and oh my what else <=== The point is that the last Egyptian dynasty wasn't all "negroes") rose up. The uprising of these peoples was basically a final symptom.
So, how exactly, when there is great dispute over your points does this prove your statement?
I think we should keep something in context of African civilizations and the constant (ancient and modern) ideological, political, economic and military pressure that's been placed on the region.
All hatred for "negroes" trace back to Noah's Ham, and the directive of semitism- meaning Christians, Jews and Islam to attack Africa. Now- historically speaking, I can only see this as an act of revenge. It has suddenly occured to me that the semites may not have left Africa and all it's empires willingly, but instead were forced out.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-27 19:46
>>120 >>121
Give it a est nigras, she/he's right. The descriptions you've given could apply to any neolithic or bronze age village anywhere on the globe. You haven't had a hard time, you're inferior.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-27 19:48
>>122
Actually scratch that, you have had a hard time, except so has everyone else. The difference is they organised what meager resources they had and made the most of it instead of sucking on each other's anuses ad until their cousins who left africa nad evolved higher intelligent came back with aid packets or took them over the atlantic to slave the plantations.
Name:
Whatshisname2006-09-27 20:25
>>121
Actually, the hatred for Blacks came when Euros started enslaving them in such scale that they needed a justification for it. That's when they started making up all that bullcrap about blacks being "unintelligent", "dishonest", and all that piss (in style with what Nazis were later to say about Jews to justify Auschwitz & co).
And they triumphed too; >>123 et al still go around believing those lies. With a straight face, at that.
Oh, and don't get me started on why SSA's shittier now than before. That's politics; USA & USSR were pissing their pants worrying that a successful 3rd World nation possibly supporting the others, so they effectively agreed that SSA et al be trampled into the mud.
Case in point: The biggest man-made artificial lake on the planet, is in Africa. Ghana, to be precise, built in 1961-65. It was a part of a national optimism that with the nation now independant, things would be looking up.
...and then the coups began...
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-27 21:41
>>114
I agree, it is easy for me being white, a man, and from an upper-middle class family. But there is still a dislike of white people from what we've done. There still is racism and discrimination, but many minorities assume it in white people too much. And as I said before, we are still paying Native Americans in the form of casinos, which I don't like. Affirmitive action, too, I feel is overcompensating. If I were black, a woman, or pretty much any race besides white, I could get into Berkeley. But being the ball of majority that I am, I pretty much have no chance.
So what though? You just prefaced your sentence with "It is easy for me being white, a man, and from an upper-middle class family." whatever you have to afterwards just seems like greed, imo.
Point: YOU ALREADY HAVE IT EASY. So why are you complaining about Native Americans and Affirmitive action for minorities who (and you just ADMITTED THIS) obviously don't have it easy as you with guys like >>122,>>123 around. Complaining about Affrimative Action at this point is complaining about not having white privilage anymore.
>>124
No, hatred for blacks is directly traced to what I said. Google it, please and stop with the baseless refutations. Same goes to >>123. Proof or widely available information or it didn't happen.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-27 22:51
>>124
The trouble is the lies I believe in are backed up with fact and the truth has no facts to back it up.
I would have thought lies don't have proof to back them up and the truth has proof to back it up, but I'm white. I must be raist and thus not in a position to question a non-white on the subject of race.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-27 23:02
vedic civilization dates back hundreds of millions of years.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-28 0:52
>>126
I am not entirely against affirmitive action, though. For social class where it brings out the potential of those who were basically brought up to fail, be it rednecks, blacks from the ghetto, illegals, whatever, is a good idea. What I'm saying is, I am in advanced classes, I get good grades and whatnot, andI have black and other ethnic friends in my same situation. When it is made easier for them to get into selective colleges, that's when I have a problem with it.
The biggest part about it being easy for me to do well academically is social class, not being white or male. When AA is for solely race or gender, I consider it to be racist/sexist. I'm not trying to be greedy, I don't doubt that I'll be successful in life, its the college thing that irks me, ivy league was pretty much shot once my GPA went to 3.9.
The main reason I'm complaining about Native Americans is because I know one, who's family owns a Treasure Island, and they are millionares. The whole family is lazy drug addicts, they get a free ride their whole life and they don't do anything with it. All for stuff that happened a couple hundred years ago. Seems backwards to me.
Due to a group of whites making sure all other whites have 100 cakes (and Blacks always having 10) legislature was put in place so that some blacks can get 70 cakes.
You're complaining about a 30 cake difference.
And that's terrible.
And here another problem, you're still complaining about a minority of blacks might have over yourself who has multiple and instituationalized advantages. And did it ever occur to you that those blacks got in on their own merits? Probably not, huh?
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-28 5:48
>>131
The thing is some blacks have 50 cakes and some whites only have 5 cakes. Also not all people who have 50 cakes are thieves and not all people with 5 cakes are victims, some are lazy, some are hard workers and some are just stupid. The race of the individual is an irrelevant demographic, only their merit is important. Eugenics is the answer.
"Some blacks w/ 50" is more like 5%.
"Some whites w/ 5" is more like 3%.
Race will be irrelevant when white privelege is fully dismantled. It will not be "an irrelevant demographic" until then. --Futhermore- this country, actually, no society has proven itself to be 100% a meritocracy yet, so eugenics will not work until then.
>>127
"The trouble is the lies I believe in are backed up with fact and the truth has no facts to back it up."
What facts exactly?
"...but I'm white. I must be raist and thus not in a position to question a non-white on the subject of race."
I'm white too, if that's what you mean. With the type of white looks that the SS would have killed for. However, that doesn't stop me from seing how it takes culture, not race, to dumb people down.
Like, say, enforced illiteracy, by way of nuking the education system through budget cuts so as to service phantastically (sometimes also artificially) high foreign debt (or whatever the excuse-of-the-day is). That kind of illiteracy that allows the superstition you usually need to go for those get-rich-quick schemes, like corruption or cargo cult-type churches (that admittedly gets the priest rich quick).
Like encouraging (or at least not discouraging) a culture that clowns on anyone with interests outside the 2-3 permissable ones (e.g. basketball, hiphop, and guns&drugs).
Like encouraging (or at least not discouraging) a culture that clowns on anyone that wants more education than just about what's needed to make widgets all day, every day, until you retire... or you die before retirement... or the factory moves/goes bust, leaving you with no job, ever again... (whichever comes first)
Like feeding people with distractions that divert people's attention away from important stuff (e.g. presidential fellatio over potentionally imminent peace in the Middle East, for those who remember that far back). (Btw, stuff like pr0n fit very nicely in here...)
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-28 22:15
>>133
Where's the logic? Race is irrelevant, therefore affirmative action is also flawed.
White priviledge: seems to be either the criminal benefits of discrimination (which is already coverred by civil rights) or the state of not being discriminated against (which is not a priviledge but a right); is caused by discrimination. Meritocracy would eliminate the cause of white priviledge.
Enforce civil rights to eliminate discrimination and implement meritocracy so opportunities go to those who will put them to the best use rather than people who possess irrelevant demographical classifications.
No country has achieved 100% anything, however this is no reason to discard all hope of reducing crime, preventing tyranny from arising, reducing poverty etc etc.. The purpose of values is to ensure efforts are used constructively, even if they are not achieved 100% they do a lot of good. Meritocracy is a value that will reduce racism and discrimination.
Protip: Political groups which peddle easy answers are making a mockery of you. You may feel "empowerred", but deep down you will know what you are doing isn't true or right. Only the truth can set you free.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-28 22:16
>>135
you forgot to add 'Like posting on 4chan' amright?
Still, it stands to reason that Meritocracy needs to be 100% for eugenics to work. That's what I'm talking about. I'm all for a meritocracy otherwise, but for now the divide between black and white is so great and so inate in every institution that it'll take quite some time before we implement eugenics based on merit or even meritocracy based on merit.
What good is a meritocracy where just being born white is consider a merit?
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-29 0:01
>>138
I would redefine your argument. You would need all the factors to work 100% perfectly in order for eugenics to work 100% perfectly. This not what I expect as can be extrapolated from my previous statement.
If we add meritocracy and eugenics to our values...
[*ring ring* shoop]
A small point, I don't believe things should be balanced, they should be logically defined. To simplify my argument I will simply state that they need to be balanced reasonably since I can't be botherred to go into absolute detail how the values would be structured and applied scientifically using statistics.
[shoop]
... and balanced them in a reasonable manner with other important values we would not achieve a 100% success rate due to the nature of reality. What we would do is do more good than not botherring with either of these values at all. Eugenics is dependant on meritocracy as meritocracy is needed to determine the natural abilities of a person.
So even though the science will not be 100% precise it is better than nothing, even a low level of eugenics is beneficial. For example parents will be able to select embryos which do not contain dehabilitating genetic disease thus prevent their child from sufferring their entire life.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-29 0:05
>>138
Oh and if you consider irrelevant demographics as merit, then you are incorrect. It's as simple as that.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-29 3:53
Again, you're not getting it. You and I may consider race an
"irrelevant demographic" but how do we keep those who consider race (an irrelevant deomgraphic) as a merit from disabling a meritocracy?
Present-day "Scientific statistics" would be numbers based on the cultural disparities and the re-enforced white privalege-based social gap >>135 mentions. Coldly taking that approach while ingoring history is building the framework for a meritocracy doomed for failure.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-29 6:17
>>141
"how do we keep those who consider race (an irrelevant deomgraphic) as a merit from disabling a meritocracy? "
That's one of the reasons why values cannot be enacted 100%, people commit crime. This doesn't mean the values are not beneficial. Make the distinction between opposing the entire concept and opposing the methods used to put the concept into practice.
Oh and white priviledge is an ambiguous term as I already mentionned.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-29 6:23
>>141
"how do we keep those who consider race (an irrelevant deomgraphic) as a merit from disabling a meritocracy? "
That's one of the reasons why values cannot be enacted 100%, people commit crime. This doesn't mean the values are not beneficial. Make the distinction between opposing the entire concept and opposing a particular method used to put the concept into practice.
Oh and white priviledge is an ambiguous term as I already mentionned.*
fix'd
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-29 8:13
>>137
"(Btw, stuff like pr0n and 4chan fit very nicely in here...)"
Like this? ;-)
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-29 13:18
>>124
The Volta Lake is a man-made lake created after the River Volta was dammed at the Akosombo gorge. The lake is dendritic in shape and has a generally north- south orientation with an average length and width of 400 km and 25 km respectively. It has a catchment of 385,185 km2, excluding its own area of 8,730 km2. Nearly 60% of this area lies outside of Ghana.
The lake was created to store up water primarily to generate hydro- electricity. Additionally it was envisaged that it would improve inland water transport, boost fishing, ensure enough water for domestic and industrial use and for irrigation, etc.
The project was implemented by Impregilo (Italian Civil Engineering Firm) under the supervision of the Volta River Authority of Ghana, at the cost of £ 70 million, and was completed in 1966 (5).
I'm sorry, but that's just not good enough. Of course you're not worried about ramifications such as these, because, well, you're white. Of course things can't be done 100%, but then again that's the point I'm trying to make here. Things apparently can't be done up to even 50%. And that's terrible.
What you are suggesting is total impunity and I'm saying that such an impunity to white priveledge will damage a meritocracy to the point where it would be useless to have one and it would simply be more of the same. Basically, biding time until minorities are reduced further and further into disparity without addressing first, the very real consequences of white privaledge.
If you are saying to me that white privaledge is "ambiguous" then you are a part of what I'm fighting against. Your meritocracy is half-hearted, half-thought out and could only lead to further inequality.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-29 18:48
lol, very nearly every single post in this thread is wrong on some point. I think it's funny when 4chan tries to act like it knows something.
FYI Alexander was greek. His father was greek, and ruled the greek city states, which revolted upon his death. go play Rise of Nations, Empire Earth, or Rise of Legends. Or read a book.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-29 23:47
>>146
My race is irrelevant, I have no choice but to assume you are racist now, sorry.
I'm still not sure what exactly you mean by white priviledge. If you mean outright racism which denies merititious people opportunities, then I agree with you absolutely without exception. However if you think that the state of not being discriminated against is a crime, then your argument is absurd.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-30 1:45
>>148
The individual's race is irrelevant, it's true. An asshole is an asshole, a crook is a crook, a scientist is a scientist. But in large groups, the relevance of race grows.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-30 3:10
>>149
If you use eugenics race ceases to be a problem. The assholes are repatriated, the good people are evacuated and the average people... well their children don't have to have their genes.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-30 6:27
>>147
he's macedonian. macedonians weren't greek, at least that's what the true greeks before alexander's time think of macedonians. by alexander's time the greek city states weren't what they once was and thus is ruled by macedon.
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-01 22:02
What's all this shit about white privilidge? Explain.
It sounds just like something someone makes up to make themselves look like they're being repressed when they're really not.
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-01 22:07
They say treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity. Would treason to blackness be the same thing?
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-02 5:00
>>151
Now that, my dear Watson, is what we call "owned"
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-02 5:29
Treason to whiteness basically means not caring about race. They are not saying you should go around betraying white people, they are saying you should not think "oh this guy is white and that guy isn't white". While there is nothing wrong with this term it's a pointless word, you could simple prove to people that racism is illogical, but liberals like to make new words up for old definitions and pass it off as their creation.
White priviledge however is an attempt to mix the state of not being discriminated against with the act of discriminating against someone. So according to them everyone who was born white is as guilty of white priviledge as a plantation owner in the 1700s. White priviledge is injust.
Over-all all liberals do is whip up paranoia in the black community and call anyone who disagrees with their stupid ideas a racist, regardless of the merits of their argument. I am black, no really I am, and I've been called a white racist already.
White priviledge doesn't exist. Most of what "White priviledge" is is simple flash judgements our society metes out regardless of race. A white trash redneck family in dirty clothes is going to get harassed at a store JUST AS MUCH as a black family in the same situation. I work at wal mart, I've seen it happen. A black guy came through my line wearing a polo shirt and khaki pants, he obviously had a pretty good job, was of good socio economic status etc... My manager didn't ask me to stop him at the door, didn't give him a second look (I was training as a greeter). Later, he told me to check the receopt of a family of white trash coming through.
See, "white priviledge" is just the priviledge of not being poor, not being stupid etc... Why are black people so poor and stupid? Because they give the time of day to the stupid ass leaders who tell them that everything is the white man's fault and that they shouldnt' try to improve themselves because that'd be playing the white man's game or something stupid like that.
Usually, it's your own damn fault you have nothing.
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-02 12:12
Also suspect is the fact that everyone who screams that the white man is keeping them down doesn't usually support the black people doing what they can to improve their lot... It usually involves the black man demanding more welfare and kickbacks. More "help".
The best way to get anywhere is not to rely on the help of people who would really rather leave people well enough alone. The political correctness of always giving in to the things that minorities demand is just a veneer. If you insist on being parasites, you'll be in trouble in a couple of generations when the culture shifts and suddenly, giving loud obnoxious minorities anything they want isn't so popular.
If that happens, guess what? You'll be fucked. The assholes will have to do or die, and suddenly, your minority will become a better group of people, more productive and independent. All you need to do is stop relying on someone else.
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-02 12:13
>>159
So, I'm guessing you favor social darwinism?
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-02 20:25
>>160
Of course he is, he's a fucking White Man born into a good family who has never known hunger, despair, infirmity, or loss and thinks that his skill at popping out of his mom's Vagina is justification for him to bitch out those less fortunate than he is.
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-02 22:10
>>161
So all "White Men" are born into good families who have never known hunger, despair, infirmity, or loss? And all black men have? Fuck off, racist.
No, idiot. Use your brain. Obviously we're not refer to ALL white people- this is a stupid argument used to distract from the fact that white priveledge exists. When compared to other races there is an institutionalized disparity when it comes to money and education, generally speaking.
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-03 0:41
>>163
If there is, how about instead of whipping up paranoia in blacks and whites and causing divisions with this heavy handed affirmative action nonsense and just try to increase funding and the efficiency of current civil rights legislation?
Your argument is completely against reason. From one black guy who has experienced racism and has been denied opportunities to another, I ask you to have a good read of this quote here..
*
Cowardice asks the question, "Is it safe?" Expediency asks the question, "Is it politic?" And Vanity comes along and asks the question, "Is it popular?" But Conscience asks the question "Is it right?" And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must do it because Conscience tells him it is right.
*
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-03 0:53
>>163
If your aren't referring to all white people explain how you know he is "a fucking White Man born into a good family who has never known hunger, despair, infirmity, or loss". I see no where where he stated this, so you must be assuming it because he is white, which is racist.
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-03 2:09
>>163
So... Why do asians and MEXICANS (of all people) do better than the blacks? OMG IT'S ASIAN PRIVILEDGE! Asians fucking do better than whites on average also. Does the white man artificially elevate them above himself?
You're not black, this is proven by the fact that only a white person- deeply emmersed in white privledge would consider affirmative action to be "heavy handed". Why do I have to keep repeating myself here? Considering the *current* disparity between corelative race-class amongs blacks and whites, affirmative action isn't heavy handed. As a matter of fact it doesn't even begin to address 30% of that disparity.
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-03 3:02
White priviledge, it seems, is just the priviledge of being more wealthy on average than black people. It makes sense, in a way, for you to say that you deserve some sort of kickback for generations of poverty. It must be infuriating that thousands of people you see every day were born into wealthier families, who were wealthier seemingly just because those families are white. Sure, I can understand that. I can understand why you want to act like there's a conspiracy to keep the black man down when in reality it's just the state of affairs, fate and all that, that's conspired against you.
You can scream at me that I wasn't born into your class all you want, that you deserve some of what I have because of that. My ancestors were immigrant factory workers (not as low as the black people in that era, but still pretty low) exploited like hell by industrialists. Today's rich people have what they have by my ancestor's labor. Yet I would be laughed back to hell if I went and tried to put a claim on some of that wealth; I wasn't born into one of those families. Oh poor me.
When it comes down to it, we have to make what we can out of what we have. The future can only get better when you build it yourself. There will always be someone who takes more than others, but you can't blame their kids for that. I honestly believe that you gain by the hardships you go through, become better, stronger by it.
I don't think you can say that you never learned anything from living the way you imply you did.
Children from broken homes do better in the business world, are better able to cope with changing situations because their homelife was that way growing up; they know how to function under stress. Kids born rich, with few exceptions, usually end up wasting their fortunes within a few generations, and produce nothing of value. Even if you don't become rich, you still have the ability to find happiness. Parlay your experiences into your future.
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-03 3:03
>>167
It's rich and poor, idiot, not black and white.
Again: You only say as a privledged white person. And you're going to keep running into that wall until the general statistical disparty nears.
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-03 6:12
Hay guyz, I'm a non-priviledged somethingorother person. No matter what arguments you come up with, it doesn't matter. All that matters is my lack of priviledge. That's the answer to everything.
This is the most rediculous and far reaching argument in the history of arguments. Your reply has been "White man's" reply to minorities for the last 3 or 4 centuries. I have to admit, you were smart enough to play this bullshit game in the first place and I conmend you on your ability to keep it up this long. But it's over now.
Sorry.
Your reply is thus: "Don't worry about being rich, successful or powerful. We'll take care it. You'll be happy; you'll see."
"Don't worry about who's shaping your future. It's us. Oh yeah; and also God and your dead big brother who died in Iraq."
We understand that "the future can only get better when you build it yourself"--- and we're saying that white privaledge is systematically preventing minorities from aquiring the proper building materials to secure that future. The problem is that you want to control the future. That actually may have been possible during colonization, but then around 1940 or so the most radical thing happened: You lost control of modernization. You lost control of civilization. Don't be surprised, because civilization isn't something any one race of people can handle by themselves anyway.
Basically what "white man" asserts is that we continue to comply with his rape. From the first crusade it has been this way. And now you're doing the same thing here- trying to sell to me that it's wrong to have an advantage over people who have more advantages than you do (white people) . Double Think is a method of brain washing. And your reply presents to us the two options what we can agree to simultaneously for purposes of self-indoctrinazation. Anyone who requires a brain washing method to confuse and sublimate isn't out for my best interests and is probably taking advantage of me.
So to uphold what "white man" saying is "right", I am to remain subservient and not expect the same advantages that he lords over us.
It's not a matter of perception that whites control a majority of the wealth. It's a fact. It's not politics. It's statistics.
Get it right.
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-03 7:49
>>167
I've already crushed that argument. Here are my 2 main points again.
1: The state of not being discriminated against is a right, not a priviledge.
2: Race is an irrelevant demographic.
Race is an irrelevant demographic therefore any program which helps only poor black people and taxes only non-black people is pointless. The only solution to this problem is to prevent discrimination by enforcing justice.
"You're not black, this is proven by the fact that only a white person- deeply emmersed in white privledge would consider affirmative action to be "heavy handed"."
Wrong. I am simply a black person who prefers a leg up to a hand out. Something you shit for brain RACIST statist liberals can't get your head around.
>>175
Don't just tell me to read another post. Have the common courtesy to at least type out a sentence explaining your point like I do.
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-03 13:24
>>173
The crusades were a fucking joke. They were a ragtag band of religious nuts who wanted Jerusalem to themselves. Europe didn't give a shit about them, and they were beat back almost every time. That's just an example of tribal stupidity, my god's better than yours, if anything. It's not systematic oppression, and DEFINATELY not oppression of black people.
Also, you keep on asserting that it's white people who are panicing over losing power, when if you were a REAL conspiracy nut, you'd be saying it's the Jews.
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-03 13:28
I bet if we could peel back the veil of anonymity, we would find out that >>176 is actually a black man, that >>175 is a white troll, and that >>132 is fucking Japanese.
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-03 13:50
>>178
I bet if we could peel back the veil of anonymity, we would find out that >>176 is actually a white troll, that >>175 is a black troll, and that >>132 is fucking Japanese troll.*
fix'd
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-03 13:50
>>178
I bet if we could peel back the veil of anonymity, we would find out that >>176 is actually a white troll, that >>175 is a black troll, and that >>132 is fucking weeaboo troll.*
I'm talking about the systematic oppression of all non-whites. God, Country, Progress, there's always been some new excuse when it comes to whites threating others like they are naturally inferior.
No. The point I'm making [b]is[/i]>>173. So read it, and respond without repeating your shit argument over and over or there's always option "B" of GTFO.
I know for a fact that >>174 isn't black because he sounds like some other idiotic poster on here that keeps uttering the phrase "statist liberals". That's bullocks. I, an actual black man, knows that "statist liberals" are only a part of a bigger issue of race in this country. Basically, the guy sounds too much like other posters here for me to believe that he's some semi-conservative, libertarian black dude. It's laughable that he would even try to pull something like this.
I'm sick of fucking repeating myself. This doesn't have to do with ALL white people. Just those that continue to defend and support white priveledge. Affirmative Action gives a small advantage to blacks in a world where whites recieve 90% of the advatages.
No, *I* am anti-chan. The real anti-chan doesn't have to trumpet his victory. They are a constant and most of you are mealy mouth mongoloid morons who, in my world, wouldn't even be allowed an opinion because you're too fucking stupid.
>>185
"I'm sick of fucking repeating myself. This doesn't have to do with ALL white people. Just those that continue to defend and support white priveledge. Affirmative Action gives a small advantage to blacks in a world where whites recieve 90% of the advatages."
I've repeated this argument 9 times already.
Not all whites are over priviledged and not all blacks are under priviledged. Affirmative action would be heavy handed because the poor white family will have to pay more tax and wobn't get the same benefits and opportunities as the poor black family next door. They both had a hard time and "white priviledge" or not the white family isn't going to be able to pay for their kids to go to college. If you were truly not racist you wouldn't support this stupid bullshit.
IF you want to end "white priviledge" and all forms of racism you support meritocracy and civil rights.
If you want to help the underpriviledged you support welfare for children (and children only), a few small programs to help to homeless and inform people about adult education and support meritocracy.
"They are a constant and most of you are mealy mouth mongoloid morons who, in my world, wouldn't even be allowed an opinion because you're too fucking stupid."
Don't you think a "mongoloid" might take offense to that? Racist.
I've repeated this argument 9 times already.
No shit? And you've been wrong 9 times already, as well, dumbass. "Not all whites are over priviledged and not all blacks are under priviledged. Affirmative action would be heavy handed because the poor white family will have to pay more tax and wobn't get the same benefits and opportunities as the poor black family next door. They both had a hard time and "white priviledge" or not the white family isn't going to be able to pay for their kids to go to college. If you were truly not racist you wouldn't support this stupid bullshit.
What you keep ignoring is the part where a majority of whites in this country are systematically better off financially than a majority of the blacks. Whites have always had an obvious advantage over blacks (and non-whites) in this country due to events in history. This is STATISTICAL FACT. Not Heresay. Not opinion.
Secondly, the poor white family will not have to pay more tax than anyone else, that's just straight up BULLSHIT. Taxes aren't even an issue You just fail at American Taxation.
Thirdly, I look at it like this: Either help 90% of the American black population with this one small advantage (while whites still have so many other advantages)
OR.
Don't help, because you want to protect 10% of the white population.
You can't help both, so you help the one with the greatest amount of disparity thrown in it's direction. So get this: helping a minority of the white population over the black population makes you a fucking racist. "IF you want to end "white priviledge" and all forms of racism you support meritocracy and civil rights.
I do support meritocracy and civil rights. Affrimative action falls under this line.
P.S
You're the dumbest piece of shit to ever grace these forums. Congrats! You win at failure.
No shit? And you've been wrong 9 times already, as well, dumbass.
"Not all whites are over priviledged and not all blacks are under priviledged. Affirmative action would be heavy handed because the poor white family will have to pay more tax and wobn't get the same benefits and opportunities as the poor black family next door. They both had a hard time and "white priviledge" or not the white family isn't going to be able to pay for their kids to go to college. If you were truly not racist you wouldn't support this stupid bullshit.
What you keep ignoring is the part where a majority of whites in this country are systematically better off financially than a majority of the blacks. Whites have always had an obvious advantage over blacks (and non-whites) in this country due to events in history. This is STATISTICAL FACT. Not Heresay. Not opinion.
Secondly, the poor white family will not have to pay more tax than anyone else, that's just straight up BULLSHIT. Taxes aren't even an issue You just fail at American Taxation.
Thirdly, I look at it like this: Either help 90% of the American black population with this one small advantage (while whites still have so many other advantages)
OR.
Don't help, because you want to protect 10% of the white population.
You can't help both, so you help the one with the greatest amount of disparity thrown in it's direction. So get this: helping a minority of the white population over the black population makes you a fucking racist.
"IF you want to end "white priviledge" and all forms of racism you support meritocracy and civil rights.
I do support meritocracy and civil rights. Affrimative action falls under this line.
P.S
You're the dumbest piece of shit to ever grace these forums. Congrats! You win at failure.
90% of poor whites in America make up 90% of the racist in this country. So FUCKTHEM.
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-05 8:34
>>188
I don't get it, what's your argument?? All you do is keep on repeating your argument. Sure I agree with the facts, whites on aaverage are richer than black people. However that's just it, an average, not ALL white people are richer than the average black person. Thus affirmative action would inevitably discriminate against under priviledged whites and pointless benefit already priviledged black people. It is only logical to say any person who has been denied rights, whether they are black or white, should receive compensation. RACE IS IRRELEVANT.
You might have noticed now, but this is the entire jist of my argument. RACE IS IRRELEVANT. Why don't you get this: I WANT TO HELP ALL PEOPLE DENIED RIGHTS REGARDLESS OF RACE. Even the NAACP have a statement at the front of their site saying they want to help all poor people regardless of race. How on earth am I racist?
You're a supposed anti-racist you cannot even fathom the simplest mathematical principle which proves that generalisation is illogical. Obviously your gradeschool math teacher missed out on something big time...
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-05 14:19
>>190 im poor, im white, but im not raceist so... FUCK YOU!
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-05 15:18
>>190 im rich, im white, but im not raceist so... FUCK YOU!
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-05 15:18
>>190 im poor, im black, but im not raceist so... FUCK YOU!
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-05 15:19
>>190 im poor, im white, but im raceist so... FUCK YOU!
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-05 15:20
>>190 im rich, im black, but im not raceist so... FUCK YOU!
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-05 15:24
>>190 im rich, im white, but im raceist so... FUCK YOU!
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-05 15:50
>>190 im rich, im black, but im not raceist so... FUCK YOU!
You lose. You just generally can't out argue my points. That's why you keep repeating yourself, you're just too dumb to grasp what I'm saying. ---It doesn't matter if YOU think "RACE IS IRRELEVANT", it doesn't matter one fucking bit that *I* think "RACE IS IRRELEVANT".
There's not enough of us yet, so pretending that we can exist in some raceless meritocracy right now at *this* point in human history is a childish dream. Look how fucking deluded your thought process is:
1. Thus affirmative action would inevitably discriminate against under priviledged whites and pointless benefit already priviledged black people.
Ok, so how again, are blacks "already privileged"? That's a racist statement based in IGNORACE. Looking the distribution of wealth in this country and the race-based statistics proves otherwise, so where are you pulling this shit from? Your gut? Do you just have a "gut feeling" that blacks are privileged, so you assume it's true? The only privelge blacks have is Affirmative Action and this is not a big deal compared to the hundreds of other priveleges that come with merely being born white.
2. "I WANT TO HELP ALL PEOPLE DENIED RIGHTS REGARDLESS OF RACE"
That's great! Really it is! But *in this case* you can only help a majority of the black population (poor) or a MINORITY of the white population (poor). You cannot help both at the same time, here. Sorry, you've got to make a CHOICE. If you truly want to help people denied of rights you would help those MOST effected and you would do work that would be EFFECTIVE.
Understand, that there is no way around this: Chosing to help a minority of whites over a majority of blacks is inherantly RACIST and DEFENDS white privilege. <=== This is why you fail.
3. "You're a supposed anti-racist you cannot even fathom the simplest mathematical principle which proves that generalisation is illogical.
No, I clearly understand that generalisation is illogical. And yet, it persists. It doesn't matter what *we* believe, THEY believe it, so we (along with a majority of the black population) WILL BE AFFECTED.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-24 4:03
Everyone is always talking about how white people enslaved the blacks and I just wanted to point out that it was their fellow blacks who sold them to the whites in the first place. And yes there is racism all over the world but its also aganist white people, not just black, or whoever. Most white people in this country are scared to even say the word black but for being accused of being fucking racist. NO whites can't do anything to pay anyone back for what our ANCESTORS have done. I'm a white, middle class person whose family has to choose whether or not to buy food or pay the bills. I will admit that one of my multi-great grandfathers was General Wade Hampton who fought for the Confederacy. But another multi-great grandfather was an American Indian CHIEF. Don't go harping on about your ANCESTORS being slaves and how white people hold you down. YOUR ANCESTORS DIDN'T LIVE IN THE FREE UNITED STATES LIKE WE DO NOW, HERE YOU CHOOSE HOW YOU LIVE YOUR LIFE, YOU MAKE OPPURTUNITIES FOR YOURSELF. I also live in Texas where whites are quickly becoming a minority and english is losing ground, I don't really care if somebody comes over and wants to live a new life with better oppurtunities. But there have been times when it really pisses me off that the people who come here don't want to be here for America and just want free money or whatever. They want what we can give them but still want to live in Mexico. If you want it that bad, go live in Mexico and change it. There is also the jobs, there was this ONE company, just ONE mind you where on the day when they deported 200 workers, the 200 spots were already filled up. And the companies just want the illegals to pay cheap.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-26 16:55
Hey bros, just postan a shoutout to the Indo-Greek kingdoms.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-28 14:48
Don't be racist, don't forget niggers. Niggers had a civilisation before evil capitalist fascist white angle saxon protestant males destroyed it using treachery.