"white pride" vs "black pride"

[Póg mo 1,749]

Just now, Boiler said:

And every white did?

 

Bit racist.

Where did I say that? Please do show me and I'll be happy to correct it.

[eieio 1,594]

36 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

I to struggle with English sometimes. It's all good 

Knot me, I am's one of the best spellers on this hole sight. 

[Póg mo 1,749]

42 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

But oddly enough that segregation was put to and end 

And White too, got to enjoy the back of the bus? They even got to drink from fountains reserved for black people. Lucky ducks.

[Boiler 45,510]

Quote

Racial segregation that blacks had no hand in enforcing or even creating in the first place.

Suggested edit

Racial segregation that blacks and the vast majority of whites had no hand in enforcing or even creating in the first place.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

47 minutes ago, Dianalorena said:

You confuse me, sometimes I like you and sometimes I don't. I super like you now. We could totally be friends or related, since I feel like murdering them half the time. *

 

 

 

*not actual murder, just exaggerating to make a point

 

 

I get you. I say I will kill them , all the time . It's a southern thing. 

 

Southern hick is my primary language. 

[IAMX 3,055]

14 minutes ago, Póg mo said:

And White too, got to enjoy the back of the bus? They even got to drink from fountains reserved for black people. Lucky ducks.

It's really funny we get these pedantic like lessons about heinous acts in history as if we're not aware.

 

But to compare something to this and call it the same, you're kinda missing the essential element of the same thing happening.

 

Racism is not exclusive to the eras of the KKK and Nazis. What makes the KKK the KKK is the systematic murder of blacks, dragging them behind trucks, etc., all dehumanizing acts. What makes the Nazis the Nazis is murdering millions of people, especially in gas chambers and mass executions.

 

That, compared to "makes Heil Hitler gesture", or "hits some people with a car", or "whines about black people". The idea that these petty things even remotely compares to Nazis or the KKK is equal to tantrums by people who can't discuss things like big boys and girls.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

2 hours ago, IAMX said:

So do the white colleges get to keep their white people and change the name/premise to "white college" as long as they use "historically" in front of it? 

  As far as the name, you would have to ask them. I don't think there is any law against how schools refer to themselves, and yet it's fairly obvious why that's not an association they would want to emphasize. Perhaps you should contact the schools if it's a big deal for you. They usually have a page for suggestions, and maybe the responses you get will give you a better insight.

 

   As far as keeping "their white people", I believe that's covered by title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

[JayJayH 546]

3 hours ago, IAMX said:

The lefts line of thinking is only skin deep. Pretty funny since they act like the arbiters of racism and bigotry and often cite MLK. Pretty messed up to make a guy like that a pawn for political gain.

 

Can tell you with the utmost confidence if blacks (and even many whites) listened to MLK, as in, adopted much of the wisdom he espoused about judging peers by quality of character, none of the stupid stuff related to Michael Brown, Trayvon, etc. would have happened. A lot of problems would be solved, but it benefits the left to keep blacks where they are and in a rather subservient mode to leftist political objectives. A lot of unambiguous racism there.

The far left no longer cares about MLK's actual vision. They only care about the MLK brand.

The vision is simple: Judge a person by the content of his/her xir (lol sorry I had to) character. Period.

The brand is malleable to your ideological needs.

 

If they cared about MLK's vision, they wouldn't be sizing people up by skin color, gender and sexual orientation, and there would be no regressive identitarian hierarchy of victimhood.

 

5 hours ago, Eric-Pris said:

Of course, they won't reject your application, they don't want a lawsuit.  But they are called black colleges for a reason, and I'd say that's exclusionary.  I don't see any schools referred to as white colleges.  And that's my point.  Why are black colleges allowed to exist?   We can safely assume that if any school were to call itself a white college, Jesse and Al would be marching up and down screaming racism.

This is the point though - I don't think it would be out of bounds to call a school in Boston a "historically Irish school", or a school in Brooklyn a "historically Jewish school" if it was primarily attended by Irish or Jewish Americans historically. I actually graduated from a Lutheran college that was traditionally and historically Scandinavian. African-American is not just primarily a skin color, but a distinct culture with a shared history, cuisine and linguistic traits. Much like Italian-Americans, Russian-Americans, Japanese-Americans or what have you. I don't like hyphenated Americanism - We're all American first regardless of skin color (not me, because no N-400 yet), but you can't talk about American history without at least some mention of ancestry. Most white Americans can trace their ancestry back to countries, regions, even specific villages in Poland/Sweden/Italy/Croatia/Scotland etc.

 

If most black Americans had arrived through Ellis Island from Nigeria, Congo, Cameroon, Sierra Leone etc., and could trace their ancestry, it would be a different story. There would be no pan-African culture, cuisine or language. There would be Nigerian-Americans, Congolese-Americans etc. That didn't happen. West Africans were gathered by Arab and Atlantic slave traders and sold as slaves to work on plantations in Brazil, harems in the Middle East, cotton fields in the American south etc. Their culture, language and histories were erased.

 

Historically black colleges came about because of racial segregation, and that is why they are still primarily black.

Edited August 17, 2017 by JayJayH

[JayJayH 546]

11 hours ago, Eric-Pris said:

very convenient.

It's not about convenience. It's the truth.

 

If you're European-American or Asian-American, you can often trace your ancestry back to specific villages in Sicily, Ireland, the Philippines etc. If you're Hispanic, it gets a little trickier, but you can be pretty certain that you're a mix of European and indigenous American. If you're African-American, you can trace your ancestry back to the Atlantic Slave Trade. If you're European-American, it's easy to say "I'm Polish and French." If you're Asian-American, it's easy to say "I'm Chinese." If you're black, you have absolutely no clue whether your ancestors came from Senegal, Nigeria, Cameroon or Gabon. The only thing you know for sure about your ancestors is that they were captured and sold to British slave traders to work on cotton fields in the American south. As opposed to the millions that were sold to Portuguese slave traders and brought to Brazil, Spanish slave traders and brought to Cuba, Puerto Rico etc, or Arab slave traders and sold to harems in Istanbul.

 

 

Edited August 17, 2017 by JayJayH

[IAMX 3,055]

2 hours ago, JayJayH said:

The far left no longer cares about MLK's actual vision. They only care about the MLK brand.

The vision is simple: Judge a person by the content of his/her xir (lol sorry I had to) character. Period.

The brand is malleable to your ideological needs.

 

If they cared about MLK's vision, they wouldn't be sizing people up by skin color, gender and sexual orientation, and there would be no regressive identitarian hierarchy of victimhood.

I bow to your articulation. Although, I reserve the right to be offended in the future for your pronoun use, depending on which gender I feel like being on that given day.

[Póg mo 1,749]

21 hours ago, Boiler said:

Suggested edit

Racial segregation that blacks and the vast majority of whites had no hand in enforcing or even creating in the first place.

I get it. Muslims, Blacks, non whites are to be judged as representatives of their race, but whites are all individuals. Typical.

 

P.s. It was never my intention to imply all whites were responsible for Jim Crow laws, and I really don't understand why you concluded otherwise from what I wrote above. 

[Boiler 45,510]

3 minutes ago, Póg mo said:

I get it. Muslims, Blacks, non whites are to be judged as representatives of their race, but whites are all individuals. Typical.

 

P.s. It was never my intention to imply all whites were responsible for Jim Crow laws, and I really don't understand why you concluded otherwise from what I wrote above. 

 

[IAMX 3,055]

13 minutes ago, Póg mo said:

I get it. Muslims, Blacks, non whites are to be judged as representatives of their race, but whites are all individuals. Typical.

 

P.s. It was never my intention to imply all whites were responsible for Jim Crow laws, and I really don't understand why you concluded otherwise from what I wrote above. 

I'd say whites were obviously responsible for Jim Crow laws. Just because they weren't "all" responsible doesn't take away from the rightful criticism. If it rustles the jimmies of white people to hear that criticism, well, sucks for them. As a white person myself, it doesn't bother me to understand history and learn from it, and having it put in a way I'd prefer not to hear it doesn't alter the factual nature of the statement. Still, Jim Crow was 60-120 years ago. Pretty funny to be using this argument today when no Jim Crow laws are in effect nor have they been since well before anyone that posts here was alive.. much like the KKK's prominence, much like the Nazis. The repeated use of this stuff, it should be pointed out, greatly diminishes what people in these eras went through, belittling it in comparison to today's white supremacists or Donald Trump, when it's well established these aren't viable comparisons and are merely tantrums because certain people can't get over an election not going their way. 

Edited August 17, 2017 by IAMX

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

Oh Come on now. Your broken record of tantrums and the election is yet again a straw to grasp and suck through. Yawn.
I see no stimulating intellect shining through the constant rinse and repeats same old same old comments.

No tantrum to be seen except by torch bearing KKK and nazis.
Nobody is saying the holocaust is happening again, you are making the comparisons and projecting them.
Speaking out against the resurfacing nazi movement does not negate any atrociousness by nazis in the past.
How you even reach such a conclusion is beyond me.

But some of us have balls enough to speak out against the nazi movement while you poo poo it away like a mere fly under your nose.

 

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

As to the election have another broken record = electoral not popular vote. 

Bring something new. Be creative. You can do it.

Edited August 18, 2017 by Ebunoluwa

[IAMX 3,055]

Throwing tantrums (instead of moving on)..

"we have balls"

 

Repeating the rules of an election = broken record, throwing fits and creating rules from out our ahem to justify these tantrums = creative. 

 

Good ones. 

 

 

Edited August 18, 2017 by IAMX