...
EgyptSearch Forums Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» EgyptSearch Forums » Deshret » Charlottesville: Race and Terror VIDEO (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Charlottesville: Race and Terror VIDEO
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Charlottesville: Race and Terror

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIrcB1sAN8I

Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
white nationalist from video goes into baby mode

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sX2gSjS2qyU

Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Askia_The_Great
Administrator
Member # 22000

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Askia_The_Great     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And this is suppose to be post racial America...
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's a wonderful time in America. I've been watching quite a few of these videos within the last days. And I have been discussing a lot with them. I can tell I love their ignorance. And all this reminded me of a person who used to express similar opinions here on the website.


Anyway, So they are trying to "eradicate all people of color"? Hmmm interesting.

Charlottesville: Race and Terror – VICE News Tonight on HBO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIrcB1sAN8I


Maddow: Racism Is 'A Persistent Infection' In White American Culture | Rachel Maddow | MSNBC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmZNirYH5eU

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This "fine people" claim has left many people stunned and amazed. So who were these "fine people" who went chanting along?

Anyone there could have walked a way the moment they started chanting:

"Blood and Soil!", in German "Blut und Boden!" refers to a racist ideology that focuses on ethnicity based on two factors, descent blood and territory. The German expression became commonly used in the late 19th century. The slogan became widespread prior to the rise of the Nazis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JsZTGAwuTo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIpE1B7BTvk


BLUT UND BODEN [BLOOD AND SOIL] 1933 ENGLISH SUBTITLES

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9bePhFqzTU

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nice writing:


quote:

The History of ‘Blood and Soil’

At the Friday night tiki torch march of the fascists at the University of Virginia, one of the things they were chanting was “blood and soil.” I assumed they were merely making a reference to spilling blood, but turns out this was a common Nazi slogan in the 1920s.


Blood and Soil (‘Blut und Boden’) was a very important philosophy for Nazi Germany. The issue of ‘blood and soil’ nearly split the Nazi Party after 1925 and was only resolved at the Bamberg Conference of 1926. One side of the Nazi Party wanted to emphasise the relationship between true Aryans and a rural life. Hitler believed that true Germans ‘came from the soil’ – that they had a family background based on farming and life in the countryside. However, men like Gregor and Otto Strasser wanted to move the party away from the belief in ‘Blut und Boden’ and move towards a policy of attracting more support in urban areas. The Strasser brothers were defeated on this issue and Hitler rallied his supporters around ‘Blut und Boden’ while Otto Strasser left to form his own party based outside of Germany. Gregor was murdered on the Night of the Long Knives.

Hitler wanted all Germans to identify themselves with a glorious historic past based on descendants who worked off the land. There was an element of romanticism associated with this belief as it failed to take into account the importance of industry in the rise of Imperial Germany in the late C19th and early C20th. However, Hitler associated industry with socialism, communism and trade unions – even if he was to court the support (and money) of the industrialists in later years…

In 1930 Richard Darré wrote ‘A New Nobility Based on Blood and Soil’. This became a popular read among high ranking Nazis as it associated the ‘master race’ belief alongside ‘blood and soil’. Darré argued that a master race created out of a eugenics programme would lead to a race of people who would be free from illness and full of virtue and good thoughts. The blemishes that he believed blighted German society then would be removed forever once a ‘master race’ had replaced German society as it stood in 1930.


Interesting. But I wonder why today’s neo-Nazis who marched chose that slogan? I doubt most of them have any interest in becoming farmers. And they looked like mostly a collection of frat boys, not some backwoods rednecks that fit the typical KKK stereotype. Richard Spencer doesn’t seem like a guy who is going to be manning a plow anytime soon. So I wonder what the process was by which they chose that as a slogan to chant. Was it just the connection to Hitler? Or is there some deeper meaning, something indicative of some specific goal or ideological position that they think is relevant today?


http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2017/08/14/history-blood-soil/
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I was surprised when the President of America, who many call number 45, asked a journalist what the Alt-Right is.

One of the main faces in this "alt right movement" is Jared Taylor a well known fascist who is trying to ethnicity cleanse America and the rest of the world.


quote:
The Alternative Right, commonly known as the Alt-Right, is a set of far-right ideologies, groups and individuals whose core belief is that “white identity” is under attack by multicultural forces using “political correctness” and “social justice” to undermine white people and “their” civilization. Characterized by heavy use of social media and online memes, Alt-Righters eschew “establishment” conservatism, skew young, and embrace white ethno-nationalism as a fundamental value.


https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/alternative-right
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It is obvious that everybody who singed up for this knew what this was about.


 -


 -

http://www.politicalresearch.org/tag/richard-spencer/#sthash.zFCIPgQe.dpbs

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Donald Trump Is Lying About Charlottesville, Says Witness | All In | MSNBC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFMHFlIozmw

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What is the Southern Confederate flag all about?

quote:
“As a people, we are fighting to maintain the heaven ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race; a white flag would thus be emblematic,”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/06/23/the-confederacys-pathetic-case-of-flag-envy/?utm_term=.39513e387c9a


Confederate States of America : Documents
Declarations of Secession

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/csapage.asp

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
One of the co organizers in this Right Wing event was Richard Spencer, who's hometown is Whitefish, Montana. A place over 93% white.


http://www.city-data.com/city/Whitefish-Montana.html


Suing White Nationalists for Online Harassment: VICE News Tonight (HBO)

Tanya Gersh and the SPLC are suing a neo-Nazi leader for online-turned-real-world harassment. VICE News Tonight correspondent Elle Reeve travels to the resort town of Whitefish, Montana which unexpectedly became the battleground for this white nationalist controversy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiTmTeNYxdk&t=300s

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is what happened on a Friday night, by "fine people" who were "quietly protesting" against the pull down of a statue by an old fascist named Robert E. Lee.


Tyler Magill joined a group of counterprotesters surrounded by white supremacists near UVa's Rotunda. "I figured if they're willing to kill 25 people," he said, "maybe they're not willing to kill 26."


http://www.chronicle.com/article/uva-employee-suffers-a-stroke/240942

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
 -


more info here;


https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/16/us/confederate-monuments-removed.html

Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the questioner
Member
Member # 22195

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the questioner     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
 -


more info here;


https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/16/us/confederate-monuments-removed.html

Does confederate monument removals upset you?

--------------------
Questions expose liars

Posts: 861 | From: usa | Registered: Apr 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the questioner:
Does confederate monument removals upset you?

No I'm happy to see them go
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mena7
Member
Member # 20555

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for mena7   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I dont understand why a country will build monuments and statues to traitors and secessionists that have lost a war. The White supremacists are acting like they are oppressed minority. Let me tell you the truth White supremacists White people rules the world. White people conquered the world from Black and Brown people 600 years ago.

White people control the most powerful country in the world. White people own the most powerful banks in the world. White people own the most powerful corporation in the world. white people own the patents for the majority of modern technology. White people control the world most powerful media. White people control the most powerful armies in the world. I can go on in on. LOL the White supremacists are acting like they are victims, thats a joke.

When the White Supremacist in Charlotteville were screaming 'Jews will not replace us'remind me of a post by Jantahanta stating that during the French Revolution the Black monarchs of Europe were deposed by the White masses and replaced by White monarchs.

--------------------
mena

Posts: 5374 | From: sepedat/sirius | Registered: Jul 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mena7:
[QB] I dont understand why a country will build monuments and statues to traitors and secessionists that have lost a war. The White supremacists are acting like they are oppressed minority. Let me tell you the truth White supremacists White people rules the world. White people conquered the world from Black and Brown people 600 years ago.

White people control the most powerful country in the world. White people own the most powerful banks in the world. White people own the most powerful corporation in the world. white people own the patents for the majority of modern technology. White people control the world most powerful media. White people control the most powerful armies in the world. I can go on in on. LOL the White supremacists are acting like they are victims, thats a joke.


For over ten years it has been reported declining white birth rates,
They are worried that they will become less powerful in the future


https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/in-a-third-of-the-us-more-white-people-are-now-dying-than-being-born/2016/11/29/df671c58-b67d-11e6-b8df-600bd9d38a02_story.html

In a third of the U.S., more white people are now dying than being born
By Tara Bahrampour November 29, 2016
Washington post

quote:

Nationally, the ratio of non-Hispanic white births to deaths is nearly at par, at 1.04 births for every death. The ratio is much higher for minority groups, particularly among Latinos, whose rate is 5.4 births for every death. The ratio for blacks is 1.94 births for every death, and for Asians, it is 1.75 births.



https://www.census.gov/newsroom/facts-for-features/2016/cb16-ff16.html

63.4%
The percentage of those of Hispanic or Latino origin in the United States who were of Mexican origin in 2015. Another 9.5 percent were Puerto Rican, 3.8 percent Salvadoran, 3.7 percent Cuban, 3.3 percent Dominican and 2.4 percent Guatemalan. The remainder were of some other Central American, South American or other Hispanic or Latino origin.


_________________________________________


We haven't seen it yet but if these percentages keep going Mexicans have by far the highest rate of increase. So in future years we may be hearing about more prominent and famous Mexicans becoming more powerful.

But right now there is a black/white dynamic but also political right wing vs left wing

Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mena7:
I dont understand why a country will build monuments and statues to traitors and secessionists that have lost a war. The White supremacists are acting like they are oppressed minority. Let me tell you the truth White supremacists White people rules the world. White people conquered the world from Black and Brown people 600 years ago.

White people control the most powerful country in the world. White people own the most powerful banks in the world. White people own the most powerful corporation in the world. white people own the patents for the majority of modern technology. White people control the world most powerful media. White people control the most powerful armies in the world. I can go on in on. LOL the White supremacists are acting like they are victims, thats a joke.

When the White Supremacist in Charlotteville were screaming 'Jews will not replace us'remind me of a post by Jantahanta stating that during the French Revolution the Black monarchs of Europe were deposed by the White masses and replaced by White monarchs.

I had a post with Rachel Maddow, explaining the power moves by the KKK. She shows the early history and how they've switched parties. Look at it, learn here.

The reason why these monuments were build is because of the same reasons. The KKK gained power, and it needed to ensure their power was seen. From what I understand most have been erected after the First World War. Track the KKK history and things will become clear. The KKK comes from the confederate linage.

It's not a "white people thing". It's a "(white) fascist thing" trying to control the world by eradicating everybody else not like them. This is why they've tried to seize power. This actually has been going on for centuries. The Anti Fa (Anti Fascists) go back centuries as well. They are the once who stood up against the rise of fascism every time it gained momentum.

The Jim Crow, Brown vs Board, Redlining, imprisonment of blacks etc. it's all the work by the fascist movement, known as the KKK and the affiliated.

Now things are becoming clear, why the 17th, 18th, 19th century had these racist scholars etc. it was all "change of power" by the fascist movement. The war against the confederate was the Anti Fa. The confederate fought to keep fascism etc.

This thing is so crazy, it's almost like a movie script, where all scenes now are becoming visible in chronological order. At first we had a box with pictures and a few raw sketches.


Exclusive: Stonewall Jackson's Great-Great-Grandsons Call for Removal of Confederate Monuments

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkRCFogDmGU


Antifa: A Look at the Anti-Fascist Movement Confronting White Supremacists in the Streets

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEhC4AByODE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbADzGwqlsc

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the questioner
Member
Member # 22195

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the questioner     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by the questioner:
Does confederate monument removals upset you?

No I'm happy to see them go
would you like them destroyed or put in museums?

--------------------
Questions expose liars

Posts: 861 | From: usa | Registered: Apr 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the questioner:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by the questioner:
Does confederate monument removals upset you?

No I'm happy to see them go
would you like them destroyed or put in museums?
Sell them as sculptures or for scrap metal.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Brada-Anansi
Member
Member # 16371

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Brada-Anansi   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
 -


more info here;


https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/16/us/confederate-monuments-removed.html

WTF?? What is a Confederate monument doing in Brooklyn, in my neighborhood on my side of the street!!!.
OK I kid, but I did go to Ft. Hamilton High..so same difference.. [Big Grin]

Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://nypost.com/2017/08/15/robert-e-lee-memorial-in-brooklyn-to-be-taken-down/


 -

 -

The South isn’t the only place where Confederate monuments still exist.

New Yorkers need only look to Brooklyn — where a plaque honoring Gen. Robert E. Lee has been affixed to a maple tree outside a church for more than 100 years.

It won’t remain there much longer, though.

Diocese officials announced Tuesday that they would be removing the plaque following the events in Charlottesville, Va., last weekend and renewed concerns over Confederate symbols and statues.

“I think it is the responsible thing for us to do,” Bishop Lawrence Provenzano, of the Episcopal Diocese of Long Island, told Newsday.

“People for whom the Civil War is such a critical moment — and particularly the descendants of former slaves — shouldn’t walk past what they believe is a church building and see a monument to a Confederate general,” he said.

St. John’s Episcopal Church in Fort Hamilton, which is home to the plaque, has been closed since 2014 — but the maple tree has remained.

Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
 -
City University of New York public safety officers monitoring a bust of Robert E. Lee on the Bronx Community College campus. Credit Drew Angerer/Getty Images

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/arts/design/confederate-statues-artists-preservationists-trump.html?mcubz=3


UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS, Bronx (WABC) -- New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is ordering memorials for two Confederate generals to be removed from Bronx Community College's campus.

This is part of a movement across the county to remove Confederate statues and symbols from public places and institutions.

Cuomo issued the order Wednesday. The school has statues of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, and both will be taken down.

Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^ take these bums down
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the questioner
Member
Member # 22195

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the questioner     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by the questioner:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by the questioner:
Does confederate monument removals upset you?

No I'm happy to see them go
would you like them destroyed or put in museums?
Sell them as sculptures or for scrap metal.
Hmm Interesting

What about Thomas Jefferson?

--------------------
Questions expose liars

Posts: 861 | From: usa | Registered: Apr 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mena7:
I dont understand why a country will build monuments and statues to traitors and secessionists that have lost a war. The White supremacists are acting like they are oppressed minority. Let me tell you the truth White supremacists White people rules the world. White people conquered the world from Black and Brown people 600 years ago.

White people control the most powerful country in the world. White people own the most powerful banks in the world. White people own the most powerful corporation in the world. white people own the patents for the majority of modern technology. White people control the world most powerful media. White people control the most powerful armies in the world. I can go on in on. LOL the White supremacists are acting like they are victims, thats a joke.

When the White Supremacist in Charlotteville were screaming 'Jews will not replace us'remind me of a post by Jantahanta stating that during the French Revolution the Black monarchs of Europe were deposed by the White masses and replaced by White monarchs.

What's most interesting is that the major mainstream scholars supporting white Supremacist ideas in genetics , history and etc., were the people White Supremacist in Charlotteville were screaming not to replace them, i.e., 'Jews will not replace us" . It is almost like the 1930's when the Jews considered themselves more German than the non-Jewish Germans. I hope history is not repeating it self.

--------------------
C. A. Winters

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
What's most interesting is that the major mainstream scholars supporting white Supremacist ideas in genetics , history and etc., were the people White Supremacist in Charlotteville were screaming not to replace them, i.e., 'Jews will not replace us" . It is almost like the 1930's when the Jews considered themselves more German than the non-Jewish Germans. I hope history is not repeating it self.

Which mainstream scholars support white supremacist genetics?
Are you referring to the Max Plank institute researchers?

Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lamin
Member
Member # 5777

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for lamin     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Individual Africans were transported to the Americas by sheer unwilled accident from the 1500s onwards.

In the U.S. a sea change occurred in 1865 when the enslaved Africans were set free. Before that a very small number of the Africans, known as "Free persons of Color" made their way to Liberia to found the state of Liberia occurred in 1821.

In 1965, another sea change occurred. Blacks were then LEGALLY free to become millionaires/billionaires in all areas of sports, music entertainment, and
acting. Examples: Michael Jordan, O.J. Simpson, Oprah Winfrey, Denzel Washington, Jay-Z, Beyonce, etc.

OK, one may say, because were already superior in those areas. But again LEGALLY, blacks were free to become acclaimed neurosurgeons(Ben Carson), outstanding mathematicians and scientists--Jonathan Farley and Sylvester James Gates(google them). How come they were admitted and not given F for all their courses--as racist universities are supposed to do--just to validate "white supremacy" and "white privilege".

Some persons from Africa somehow managed to enter the U.S. and were not sent back immediately as expected from "institutional white racism". Those persons were somehow able to obtain Ph.Ds in mathematics and engineering and somehow able to become respected professors in their field in "institutionally racist white supremacy universities". Google the names Akintunde Akinwande, Kunle Olukotun, Adebisi Agboola,Wole Soboyejo, etc. Africa's loss, white supremacy's gains?

For those not so successful, the elixir is to tear down the statues of long-dead Confederate soldiers--as the Antifa supporters claim. But tearing all those statues of racist white personages would be a very tall order. Mount Rushmore will have to be dynamited, and those of FDR, Truman, Jackson, Lincoln, Johnson, Byrd, Gore, Wilson, Kennedy, Clinton, Obama(he is from slave-owning stock on his mother's side), etc.

This is the puzzle: how come Jay-Z and Oprah are billionaires in spite of Lee's statue--the statue of a defeated and long-dead soldier? Another puzzle: how come Jonathan Farley and Sylvester Gates have not been shot to death by racist police or clubbed almost to death just for having vastly superior intellects?

Final puzzle: how come Adebayo Ogunlesi was able to sneak onto Trump's Economic Advisor's team in the first place? White supremacy would have dumped his CV as soon as it came up.

Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the questioner
Member
Member # 22195

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the questioner     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
What's most interesting is that the major mainstream scholars supporting white Supremacist ideas in genetics , history and etc., were the people White Supremacist in Charlotteville were screaming not to replace them, i.e., 'Jews will not replace us" . It is almost like the 1930's when the Jews considered themselves more German than the non-Jewish Germans. I hope history is not repeating it self.

Which mainstream scholars support white supremacist genetics?
Are you referring to the Max Plank institute researchers?

Evolution theory is a white supremacist ideology in mainstream science

mainstream science believes the white race evolved from the black race thus making them superior or more advance

the theory of evolution is about when something evolves it is advancing from the previous species
 -

The Definition of Evolve means to develop gradually, especially from a simple to a more complex form.

synonyms:develop, progress, advance; etc

--------------------
Questions expose liars

Posts: 861 | From: usa | Registered: Apr 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the questioner:
Evolution theory is a white supremacist ideology in mainstream science

mainstream science believes the white race evolved from the black race thus making them superior or more advance


what really happened?
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the questioner
Member
Member # 22195

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the questioner     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by the questioner:
Evolution theory is a white supremacist ideology in mainstream science

mainstream science believes the white race evolved from the black race thus making them superior or more advance


what really happened?
Nobody really knows

some believe that the brown race was the oldest and that the black and white are offshoots from this type due to climate

Darwin and eugenicist invented this interpretation of the out of Africa theory because he believed the "negro" was the missing link between man (white man) and ape

the fact that Africans come from haplogroup E and Africans have no Neanderthal DNA proves whites did not evolve from blacks

--------------------
Questions expose liars

Posts: 861 | From: usa | Registered: Apr 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lamin
Member
Member # 5777

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for lamin     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Neanderthal DNA was found in Kenya and parts of West Africa. Darwin never wrote about any missing link,
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the questioner:


the fact that Africans come from haplogroup E and Africans have no Neanderthal DNA proves whites did not evolve from blacks [/QB]

Neither of those points proves whites did not evolve from blacks
You also mistake that all evolution means that what came later is more advanced. That may be true on very long timelines between
apes and humans however along the way there are many horizontal splits that are adaptations to particular environments rather than general advancements. Also many mutations are random.


On the European continent haplogroup E has the highest concentration in Kosovo (over 45%), Albania and Montenegro (both 27%), Bulgaria (23%), Macedonia and Greece (both 21%), Cyprus (20%), Sicily (20%), South Italy (18.5%), Serbia (18%) and Romania (15%). Ashkenazi Jews have approximately 20% of E1b1b, which falls mostly under specific clades of E-M123.

But all haplogroups are thought to have evolved from African haplogroups anyway.


As for Neanderthal DNA some Yoruba people have small traces of it.
But even if they didn't the fact that Europeans have a small amount, 1-4% Neanderthal DNA does not mean they did not evolve form Africans. All it means is that when people left Africa and went into Europe some did a little mixing with Neanderthals.


quote:


http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_teacherfaq.php#a3

MISCONCEPTION: Evolution results in progress; organisms are always getting better through evolution.

CORRECTION: One important mechanism of evolution, natural selection, does result in the evolution of improved abilities to survive and reproduce; however, this does not mean that evolution is progressive — for several reasons. First, as described in a misconception below, natural selection does not produce organisms perfectly suited to their environments. It often allows the survival of individuals with a range of traits — individuals that are "good enough" to survive. Hence, evolutionary change is not always necessary for species to persist. Many taxa (like some mosses, fungi, sharks, opossums, and crayfish) have changed little physically over great expanses of time. Second, there are other mechanisms of evolution that don't cause adaptive change. Mutation, migration, and genetic drift may cause populations to evolve in ways that are actually harmful overall or make them less suitable for their environments. For example, the Afrikaner population of South Africa has an unusually high frequency of the gene responsible for Huntington's disease because the gene version drifted to high frequency as the population grew from a small starting population. Finally, the whole idea of "progress" doesn't make sense when it comes to evolution. Climates change, rivers shift course, new competitors invade — and an organism with traits that are beneficial in one situation may be poorly equipped for survival when the environment changes. And even if we focus on a single environment and habitat, the idea of how to measure "progress" is skewed by the perspective of the observer. From a plant's perspective, the best measure of progress might be photosynthetic ability; from a spider's it might be the efficiency of a venom delivery system; from a human's, cognitive ability. It is tempting to see evolution as a grand progressive ladder with Homo sapiens emerging at the top. But evolution produces a tree, not a ladder — and we are just one of many twigs on the tree.




Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the questioner
Member
Member # 22195

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the questioner     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lamin:
Neanderthal DNA was found in Kenya and parts of West Africa. Darwin never wrote about any missing link,

Kenyans have contact with Europeans (Kenya is an exception that proves the rule)

the early white supremacist Europeans believed the negro was the missing link between ape and man (white man)
 -

--------------------
Questions expose liars

Posts: 861 | From: usa | Registered: Apr 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the questioner
Member
Member # 22195

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the questioner     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by the questioner:


the fact that Africans come from haplogroup E and Africans have no Neanderthal DNA proves whites did not evolve from blacks

Neither of those points proves whites did not evolve from blacks
You also mistake that all evolution means that what came later is more advanced. That may be true on very long timelines between
apes and humans however along the way there are many horizontal splits that are adaptations to particular environments rather than general advancements. Also many mutations are random.


On the European continent haplogroup E has the highest concentration in Kosovo (over 45%), Albania and Montenegro (both 27%), Bulgaria (23%), Macedonia and Greece (both 21%), Cyprus (20%), Sicily (20%), South Italy (18.5%), Serbia (18%) and Romania (15%). Ashkenazi Jews have approximately 20% of E1b1b, which falls mostly under specific clades of E-M123.

But all haplogroups are thought to have evolved from African haplogroups anyway.


As for Neanderthal DNA some Yoruba people have small traces of it.
But even if they didn't the fact that Europeans have a small amount, 1-4% Neanderthal DNA does not mean they did not evolve form Africans. All it means is that when people left Africa and went into Europe some did a little mixing with Neanderthals.


quote:


http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_teacherfaq.php#a3

MISCONCEPTION: Evolution results in progress; organisms are always getting better through evolution.

CORRECTION: One important mechanism of evolution, natural selection, does result in the evolution of improved abilities to survive and reproduce; however, this does not mean that evolution is progressive — for several reasons. First, as described in a misconception below, natural selection does not produce organisms perfectly suited to their environments. It often allows the survival of individuals with a range of traits — individuals that are "good enough" to survive. Hence, evolutionary change is not always necessary for species to persist. Many taxa (like some mosses, fungi, sharks, opossums, and crayfish) have changed little physically over great expanses of time. Second, there are other mechanisms of evolution that don't cause adaptive change. Mutation, migration, and genetic drift may cause populations to evolve in ways that are actually harmful overall or make them less suitable for their environments. For example, the Afrikaner population of South Africa has an unusually high frequency of the gene responsible for Huntington's disease because the gene version drifted to high frequency as the population grew from a small starting population. Finally, the whole idea of "progress" doesn't make sense when it comes to evolution. Climates change, rivers shift course, new competitors invade — and an organism with traits that are beneficial in one situation may be poorly equipped for survival when the environment changes. And even if we focus on a single environment and habitat, the idea of how to measure "progress" is skewed by the perspective of the observer. From a plant's perspective, the best measure of progress might be photosynthetic ability; from a spider's it might be the efficiency of a venom delivery system; from a human's, cognitive ability. It is tempting to see evolution as a grand progressive ladder with Homo sapiens emerging at the top. But evolution produces a tree, not a ladder — and we are just one of many twigs on the tree.



[/QB]
all of the countries and people you named had contact with African people and this can be proven through physical features and history

if the human evolved from the ape
please explain why the ape had to evolve?

Apes still know how to survive in the same climate as humans

--------------------
Questions expose liars

Posts: 861 | From: usa | Registered: Apr 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the questioner:


if the human evolved from the ape
please explain why the ape had to evolve?

Apes still know how to survive in the same climate as humans [/QB]

The human is a type of ape that went into the savanna, the hair was unnecessary and the upright position was good for seeing over long stretches

Read this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

___________________________________________

Also think about when the earth was all fish and reptile
You have the same question at any stage. Why did mammals come about? Geography evolved too. Around 2.5 billion years ago it is thought oceans covered almost the whole of the planet.

The answer is adaptation. There are small random mutations occurring all the time, the ones that are more advantageous to a given environment have higher survival rates, that is natural selection

Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the questioner
Member
Member # 22195

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the questioner     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by the questioner:


if the human evolved from the ape
please explain why the ape had to evolve?

Apes still know how to survive in the same climate as humans

The human is a type of ape that went into the savanna, the hair was unnecessary and the upright position was good for seeing over long stretches

[/QB]

why does a ape loose hair in savanna but not jungle

they are both the same temperature

how come a human can learn while a monkey has instincts?
what does that have to do with the savanna?

why does cats like fish but hate water?
sometimes nature makes no sense

--------------------
Questions expose liars

Posts: 861 | From: usa | Registered: Apr 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
human beings and chimpanzees share 94% of genes in common


_____________________

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hair#Human_hairlessness

hairlessness of humans


The general hairlessness of humans in comparison to related species may be due to loss of functionality in the pseudogene KRTHAP1 (which helps produce keratin) in the human lineage about 240,000 years ago.[29] On an individual basis, mutations in the gene HR can lead to complete hair loss, though this is not typical in humans.[30] Humans may also lose their hair as a result of hormonal imbalance due to drugs or pregnancy.[31]

In order to comprehend why humans are essentially hairless, it is essential to understand that mammalian body hair is not merely an aesthetic characteristic; it protects the skin from wounds, bites, heat, cold, and UV radiation.[32] Additionally, it can be used as a communication tool and as a camouflage.[33] To this end, it can be concluded that benefits stemming from the loss of human body hair must be great enough to outweigh the loss of these protective functions by nakedness.

Humans are the only primate species that have undergone significant hair loss and of the approximately 5000 extant species of mammal, only a handful are effectively hairless. This list includes elephants, rhinoceroses, hippopotamuses, walruses, some species of pigs, whales and other cetaceans, and naked mole rats.[33] Most mammals have light skin that is covered by fur, and biologists believe that early human ancestors started out this way also. Dark skin probably evolved after humans lost their body fur, because the naked skin was vulnerable to the strong UV radiation as explained in the Out of Africa hypothesis. Therefore, evidence of the time when human skin darkened has been used to date the loss of human body hair, assuming that the dark skin was needed after the fur was gone. It was expected that dating the split of the ancestral human louse into two species, the head louse and the pubic louse, would date the loss of body hair in human ancestors. However, it turned out that the human pubic louse does not descend from the ancestral human louse, but from the gorilla louse, diverging 3.3 million years ago. This suggests that humans had lost body hair (but retained head hair) and developed thick pubic hair prior to this date, were living in or close to the forest where gorillas lived, and acquired pubic lice from butchering gorillas or sleeping in their nests.[34][35] The evolution of the body louse from the head louse, on the other hand, places the date of clothing much later, some 100,000 years ago.[36][37]


The soft, fine hair found on many nonhuman mammals is typically called fur.[38]
The sweat glands in humans could have evolved to spread from the hands and feet as the body hair changed, or the hair change could have occurred to facilitate sweating. Horses and humans are two of the few animals capable of sweating on most of their body, yet horses are larger and still have fully developed fur. In humans, the skin hairs lie flat in hot conditions, as the arrector pili muscles relax, preventing heat from being trapped by a layer of still air between the hairs, and increasing heat loss by convection.

Another hypothesis for the thick body hair on humans proposes that Fisherian runaway sexual selection played a role (as well as in the selection of long head hair), (see types of hair and vellus hair), as well as a much larger role of testosterone in men. Sexual selection is the only theory thus far that explains the sexual dimorphism seen in the hair patterns of men and women. On average, men have more body hair than women. Males have more terminal hair, especially on the face, chest, abdomen, and back, and females have more vellus hair, which is less visible. The halting of hair development at a juvenile stage, vellus hair, would also be consistent with the neoteny evident in humans, especially in females, and thus they could have occurred at the same time.[39] This theory, however, has significant holdings in today's cultural norms. There is no evidence that sexual selection would proceed to such a drastic extent over a million years ago when a full, lush coat of hair would most likely indicate health and would therefore be more likely to be selected for, not against, and not all human populations today have sexual dimorphism in body hair.

A further hypothesis is that human hair was reduced in response to ectoparasites.[40][41] The "ectoparasite" explanation of modern human nakedness is based on the principle that a hairless primate would harbor fewer parasites. When our ancestors adopted group-dwelling social arrangements roughly 1.8 mya, ectoparasite loads increased dramatically. Early humans became the only one of the 193 primate species to have fleas, which can be attributed to the close living arrangements of large groups of individuals. While primate species have communal sleeping arrangements, these groups are always on the move and thus are less likely to harbor ectoparasites. Because of this, selection pressure for early humans would favor decreasing body hair because those with thick coats would have more lethal-disease-carrying ectoparasites and would thereby have lower fitness. However, early humans were able to compensate for the loss of warmth and protection provided by body hair with clothing, and no other mammal lost body hair to reduce parasite loads.

Another view is proposed by James Giles, who attempts to explain hairlessness as evolved from the relationship between mother and child, and as a consequence of bipedalism. Giles also connects romantic love to hairlessness.[42]

Another hypothesis is that humans use of fire caused, or initiated the reduction in human hair.[43]

Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the questioner
Member
Member # 22195

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the questioner     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
human beings and chimpanzees share 94% of genes in common


_____________________

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hair#Human_hairlessness

hairlessness of humans


The general hairlessness of humans in comparison to related species may be due to loss of functionality in the pseudogene KRTHAP1 (which helps produce keratin) in the human lineage about 240,000 years ago.[29] On an individual basis, mutations in the gene HR can lead to complete hair loss, though this is not typical in humans.[30] Humans may also lose their hair as a result of hormonal imbalance due to drugs or pregnancy.[31]

In order to comprehend why humans are essentially hairless, it is essential to understand that mammalian body hair is not merely an aesthetic characteristic; it protects the skin from wounds, bites, heat, cold, and UV radiation.[32] Additionally, it can be used as a communication tool and as a camouflage.[33] To this end, it can be concluded that benefits stemming from the loss of human body hair must be great enough to outweigh the loss of these protective functions by nakedness.

Humans are the only primate species that have undergone significant hair loss and of the approximately 5000 extant species of mammal, only a handful are effectively hairless. This list includes elephants, rhinoceroses, hippopotamuses, walruses, some species of pigs, whales and other cetaceans, and naked mole rats.[33] Most mammals have light skin that is covered by fur, and biologists believe that early human ancestors started out this way also. Dark skin probably evolved after humans lost their body fur, because the naked skin was vulnerable to the strong UV radiation as explained in the Out of Africa hypothesis. Therefore, evidence of the time when human skin darkened has been used to date the loss of human body hair, assuming that the dark skin was needed after the fur was gone. It was expected that dating the split of the ancestral human louse into two species, the head louse and the pubic louse, would date the loss of body hair in human ancestors. However, it turned out that the human pubic louse does not descend from the ancestral human louse, but from the gorilla louse, diverging 3.3 million years ago. This suggests that humans had lost body hair (but retained head hair) and developed thick pubic hair prior to this date, were living in or close to the forest where gorillas lived, and acquired pubic lice from butchering gorillas or sleeping in their nests.[34][35] The evolution of the body louse from the head louse, on the other hand, places the date of clothing much later, some 100,000 years ago.[36][37]


The soft, fine hair found on many nonhuman mammals is typically called fur.[38]
The sweat glands in humans could have evolved to spread from the hands and feet as the body hair changed, or the hair change could have occurred to facilitate sweating. Horses and humans are two of the few animals capable of sweating on most of their body, yet horses are larger and still have fully developed fur. In humans, the skin hairs lie flat in hot conditions, as the arrector pili muscles relax, preventing heat from being trapped by a layer of still air between the hairs, and increasing heat loss by convection.

Another hypothesis for the thick body hair on humans proposes that Fisherian runaway sexual selection played a role (as well as in the selection of long head hair), (see types of hair and vellus hair), as well as a much larger role of testosterone in men. Sexual selection is the only theory thus far that explains the sexual dimorphism seen in the hair patterns of men and women. On average, men have more body hair than women. Males have more terminal hair, especially on the face, chest, abdomen, and back, and females have more vellus hair, which is less visible. The halting of hair development at a juvenile stage, vellus hair, would also be consistent with the neoteny evident in humans, especially in females, and thus they could have occurred at the same time.[39] This theory, however, has significant holdings in today's cultural norms. There is no evidence that sexual selection would proceed to such a drastic extent over a million years ago when a full, lush coat of hair would most likely indicate health and would therefore be more likely to be selected for, not against, and not all human populations today have sexual dimorphism in body hair.

A further hypothesis is that human hair was reduced in response to ectoparasites.[40][41] The "ectoparasite" explanation of modern human nakedness is based on the principle that a hairless primate would harbor fewer parasites. When our ancestors adopted group-dwelling social arrangements roughly 1.8 mya, ectoparasite loads increased dramatically. Early humans became the only one of the 193 primate species to have fleas, which can be attributed to the close living arrangements of large groups of individuals. While primate species have communal sleeping arrangements, these groups are always on the move and thus are less likely to harbor ectoparasites. Because of this, selection pressure for early humans would favor decreasing body hair because those with thick coats would have more lethal-disease-carrying ectoparasites and would thereby have lower fitness. However, early humans were able to compensate for the loss of warmth and protection provided by body hair with clothing, and no other mammal lost body hair to reduce parasite loads.

Another view is proposed by James Giles, who attempts to explain hairlessness as evolved from the relationship between mother and child, and as a consequence of bipedalism. Giles also connects romantic love to hairlessness.[42]

Another hypothesis is that humans use of fire caused, or initiated the reduction in human hair.[43]

"human beings and chimpanzees share 94% of genes in common"
^^^ that still doesn't mean we evolved from apes

humans and apes have commonality in their form that is why the DNA are so close

 -

however why did the human's hair become woolly in the same environment as the monkey? since evolution is about environment
 -

 -

Have you ever seen a kinky headed monkey?

--------------------
Questions expose liars

Posts: 861 | From: usa | Registered: Apr 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
What's most interesting is that the major mainstream scholars supporting white Supremacist ideas in genetics , history and etc., were the people White Supremacist in Charlotteville were screaming not to replace them, i.e., 'Jews will not replace us" . It is almost like the 1930's when the Jews considered themselves more German than the non-Jewish Germans. I hope history is not repeating it self.

Which mainstream scholars support white supremacist genetics?
Are you referring to the Max Plank institute researchers?

If we apply statistical likelihood, Clyde is correct.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Last Confederate Statues (HBO)

VICE News reports on the country's remaining Robert E. Lee statues--and their potential to spark future conflicts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXGd8w1xFgw

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Heritage and Hate: Mississippi’s State Flag

Mississippi’s state flag is the last in the US containing the Confederate battle flag. VICE News and Kal Penn travel to the Magnolia State for a lesson on race relations, barbecue, and the meaning of southern heritage for black and white residents of Mississippi.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkCr-UY5uEE

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
 -
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So a white person with is dreads is racist?
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the questioner
Member
Member # 22195

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the questioner     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
So a white person with is dreads is racist?

 -

maybe

--------------------
Questions expose liars

Posts: 861 | From: usa | Registered: Apr 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
So a white person with is dreads is racist?

Is that your most concern right now, especially in this day and time?

quote:
'SUSPENDING RASTAFARIAN POLICE OFFICER FOR WEARING DREADLOCKS VIOLATES RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, ACLU SAYS"

Suspending Rastafarian Police Officer for Wearing Dreadlocks Violates Religious Liberty, ACLU Says | American Civil Liberties Union


BALTIMORE, MD -- The American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland today called on the Baltimore Police Department to reinstate a suspended Rastafarian police officer who wears his hair in locks for religious reasons.

"Federal, state, and city law prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion," said ACLU staff counsel Nicole Gray Porter. "Punishing a police officer for his religious practices is clearly illegal."

The ACLU also called on the Baltimore Police Department to rescind its rules prohibiting locks, cornrows or braids, noting that these rules prohibit hair styles worn primarily by African Americans.

Officer Antoine Chambers, formerly of the Baltimore Police Department's Northern Division, is a devout Rastafarian. One tenet of the Rastafarian faith is that adherents wear their hair in locks. Officer Chambers has worn his hair in locks for more than a year without incident. Ms. Porter noted that Officer Chambers' locks are "short and well-groomed."

In June, however, the Northern Division's commander issued an instruction forbidding personnel from wearing locks, braids, or cornrows. Officer Chambers told police officials that his religion precluded him from complying with the instruction. He was told to present a letter from a religious authority explaining the significance of locks.

After presenting a letter from Baltimore City Councilman Dr. Norman A. Handy, Sr., explaining the significance of locks, however, Officer Chambers was still ordered to cut them off. When he refused, hewas stripped of his police powers. Other Baltimore Police Department divisions, however, include a religious exception in their grooming standards.

"Officer Chambers wears his hair in locks for religious reasons," said Porter. "Telling him to cut off his locks is no different than telling a devout Jewish police officer that he can't wear a yarmulke in uniform."

The ACLU is exploring the legal remedies available to Officer Chambers, who has a complaint pending before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. But Porter said she hopes the Baltimore Police Department will reinstate Officer Chambers and rescind the policy before the case is litigated in court.

"Returning Antoine Chambers to duty is the right thing to do," she said.

https://www.aclu.org/news/suspending-rastafarian-police-officer-wearing-dreadlocks-violates-religious-liberty-aclu-says


quote:
"Rastafarian Officer Fights for Dreadlocks"

In addition, with the ban specifically focuses on cornrows, dreadlocks and braids, Epstein says that the police department comes dangerously close to not only violating Chambers’ constitutional right to religious freedom but suggesting that “black-looking” hairstyles are dangerous.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=96389&page=1


quote:
"Ohio School Bans Afro Puffs and Braids"

Black Girl With Long Hair by BLACK GIRL WITH LONG HAIR • JUNE 20, 2013

http://blackgirllonghair.com/2013/06/ohio-school-bans-afro-puffs-and-braids/
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
TWO DIFFERENT STATUES IN CHARLOTTESVILLE, THEY ARE STILL THERE


 -
Robert E Lee


 -
Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson

CHARLOTTESVILLE VOTED TO TAKE DOWN ROBERT E. LEE'S STATUE, HERE'S WHY IT'S STILL THERE

In February, the Charlottesville City Council voted to remove a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee, and change the name of the surrounding area from Lee Park to Emancipation Park. “So why is the statue still standing?” you may wonder. As with many large undertakings, it’s complicated.

For starters, the city got slapped with a lawsuit. The Monument Fund, Inc., the Virginia Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, and other plaintiffs sued the city to keep the statue up. NBC 29 reported Charlottesville Circuit Court Judge Richard Moore held a hearing on May 2. In just 25 minutes, Judge Richard Moore issued a six-month injunction to bar the City Council from taking down the statue. He said he made his decision to prevent “irreparable harm” to Robert E. Lee’s likeness, but allowed the park to be renamed.

It appears those who oppose the continued display of Confederate monuments have got their work cut out for them. As Bloomberg Businessweek writes, “Actually Getting Rid of Robert E. Lee Can Be More Difficult Than You’d Think.” It turns out some states see these as historic monuments and have laws on the books to protect them.

Businessweek explains, “The Virginia statute, which specifically applies to tributes to combatants in what the law calls ‘the War Between the States,’ makes it illegal for local authorities ‘to disturb or interfere with any monuments or memorials so erected.'”

Experts say City lawyers are likely to argue the Robert E. Lee statue doesn’t come under that statute because it’s not a tribute to veterans. Businessweek scoffs at that approach as “pretty lame.” Instead, their best hope may be for Gov. Terry McAuliffe to push the state legislature to repeal the law. That way, cities and towns could decide what to do with their Confederate monuments.

Yet The Richmond Times-Dispatch notes there’s yet another obstacle to removing the Robert E. Lee statue: Cost. Last year, they estimated taking down the statue of Gen. Robert E. Lee could cost the city $330,000. Plus there’s the Gen. Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson statue they also voted to remove from nearby Justice Park, which could cost another $370,000. That’s $700,000 plus the costs of their legal battles… We’re looking at a hefty price tag for a small city like Charlottesville.

Charlottesville Mayor Mike Signer now wants the Robert E. Lee statue removed.
Those who want to keep these statues intact say they’re part of our nation’s history. Those who want Robert E. Lee and other Confederate statues removed say they’re symbols of racism and belong in a museum. Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee also have similar laws banning the removal of Confederate statues and monuments.

Charlottesville’s Mayor, Mike Signer, was originally among the latter and voted against taking the Robert E. Lee statue down. CNN now reports he’s changed his tune. “I think everything changed last weekend,” he told CNN‘s Anderson Cooper on Friday. Horrified by the violence at the “Unite the Right” rally and the death of Heather Heyer, he explained, “All of a sudden these statues of Civil War generals installed in the Jim Crow era, they became touchstones of terror.”

Mike Signer also said he plans to propose a memorial to Heather Heyer. In addition, Charlottesville Area Community Foundation started a “Heal Charlottesville Fund” for programs to help residents heal from the terrors and division of that weekend’s violence.

Ironically, General Robert E. Lee was against the idea of Confederate monuments. According to CNN, he weighed in against them in 1869. When invited to an event in honor of a memorial to Confederate soldiers who fought at Gettysburg, he declined. “I think it wiser not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered,” he wrote in his response.

Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lamin
Member
Member # 5777

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for lamin     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Victors in war always get to write history by obliterating the monuments and icons of their enemies.

The issue concerning Robert Lee's statute and other Confederate(meaning "federated" Southern States} seems to mean that the Civil War is not yet over.

But Native Americans could make the same argument against the Stars and Stripes flag and U.S. monuments as opponents to Confederate symbols are making. I would seem that they could vehemently oppose the idea of the U.S. flag on the grounds of the westward expansion of the U.S. from its original 13 colonies all the way to the western shoreline of the U.S.

The statues and monuments they might want to destroy would those of President Andrew Jackson because he was the instigator of the "Indian Wars" that fought and defeated the Native Americans and drove them onto Reservations.

The Americans of Japanese descent could also demonstrate publicly to have all monuments of FDR destroyed because he had them incarcerated in camps because of the WWII war against Japan.


The article above discusses the issue of the costs in having Lee's statues removed on account of the fact that he is seen as someone who fought to maintain the enslavement of blacks in the Southern slave states.

But perhaps the most egregious and living embodiment of slavery in the U.S. are the names of the long dead slave owners who imposed their titles of ownership of the captive Africans with their own personal names. Yet, the names of Jefferson and Washington are seen as legitimate and honored as ex-Obama official, Jeh Johnson claims.


On the basis of probability, there would be at least one African American with the name Robert Lee. What should he do? Or the thousands of blacks who carry the names such as Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Byrd, etc.

The same applies to the French, Spanish and Portuguese slave-owner names that blacks in the Western Hemisphere carry. Do blacks who carry such names endorsing white supremacy?

Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Let's get the nitty gritty

quote:
Small Truth Papering Over a Big Lie

Ta-Nehisi CoatesAug 9, 2010
by Andy Hall

"Ninety-eight percent of Texas Confederate soldiers never owned a slave." So says Texas State Senate Resolution No. 526, designating April as Texas Confederate History and Heritage Month.

This is an extremely common argument among Confederate apologists, part of a larger effort to minimize or eliminate the institution of slavery as a factor in secession and the coming of the war, and thus make it possible to maintain the notion that Southern soldiers, like the Confederacy itself, were driven by the purest and noblest values to defend home and hearth. Slavery played no role it the coming of the war, they say; how could it, when less than two percent (four percent, five percent) actually owned slaves? In fact, they'd say, their ancestors had nothing at all to do with slavery.

Bullshit.

It's true that in an extremely narrow sense, only a very small proportion of Confederate soldiers owned slaves in their own right. That, of course, is to be expected; soldiering is a young man's game, and most young men, then and now, have little in the way of personal wealth. As a crude analogy, how many PFCs and corporals in Iraq and Afghanistan today own their own homes? Not many.

But even if it is narrowly true, it's a deeply, deeply dishonest statistic. It is, as TheRaven would say, a small truth used to paper over a big lie. A majority of those young men who marched off to war in the spring of 1861 were fully vested in the "peculiar institution." Joseph T. Glatthaar, in his magnificent study of the force that eventually became the Army of Northern Virginia, lays out the evidence.

Even more revealing was their attachment to slavery. Among the enlistees in 1861, slightly more than one in ten owned slaves personally. This compared favorably to the Confederacy as a whole, in which one in every twenty white persons owned slaves. Yet more than one in every four volunteers that first year lived with parents who were slaveholders. Combining those soldiers who owned slaves with those soldiers who lived with slaveholding family members, the proportion rose to 36 percent. That contrasted starkly with the 24.9 percent, or one in every four households, that owned slaves in the South, based on the 1860 census. Thus, volunteers in 1861 were 42 percent more likely to own slaves themselves or to live with family members who owned slaves than the general population.

The attachment to slavery, though, was even more powerful. One in every ten volunteers in 1861 did not own slaves themselves but lived in households headed by non family members who did. This figure, combined with the 36 percent who owned or whose family members owned slaves, indicated that almost one of every two 1861 recruits lived with slaveholders. Nor did the direct exposure stop there. Untold numbers of enlistees rented land from, sold crops to, or worked for slaveholders. In the final tabulation, the vast majority of the volunteers of 1861 had a direct connection to slavery. For slaveholder and nonslaveholder alike, slavery lay at the heart of the Confederate nation. The fact that their paper notes frequently depicted scenes of slaves demonstrated the institution's central role and symbolic value to the Confederacy.

More than half the officers in 1861 owned slaves, and none of them lived with family members who were slaveholders. Their substantial median combined wealth ($5,600) and average combined wealth ($8,979) mirrored that high proportion of slave ownership. By comparison, only one in twelve enlisted men owned slaves, but when those who lived with family slave owners were included, the ratio exceeded one in three. That was 40 percent above the tally for all households in the Old South. With the inclusion of those who resided in nonfamily slaveholding households, the direct exposure to bondage among enlisted personnel was four of every nine. Enlisted men owned less wealth, with combined levels of $1,125 for the median and $7,079 for the average, but those numbers indicated a fairly comfortable standard of living. Proportionately, far more officers were likely to be professionals in civil life, and their age difference, about four years older than enlisted men, reflected their greater accumulated wealth.

The prevalence of slaveholding was so pervasive among Southerners who heeded the call to arms in 1861 that it became something of a joke; Glatthaar tells of an Irish-born private in a Georgia regiment who quipped to his messmates that "he bought a negro, he says, to have something to fight for."

While Joe Glatthaar undoubtedly had a small regiment of graduate assistants to help with cross-indexing Confederate muster rolls and the 1860 U.S. Census, there are some basic tools now available online that will allow anyone to at least get a general sense of the validity of his numbers. The Historical Census Browser from the University of Virginia Library allows users to compile, sort and visualize data from U.S. Censuses from 1790 to 1960. For Glatthaar's purposes and ours, the 1860 census, taken a few months before the outbreak of the war, is crucial. It records basic data about the free population, including names, sex, approximate age, occupation and value of real and personal property of each person in a household. A second, separate schedule records the name of each slaveholder and lists the slave he or she owns. Each slave is listed by sex and age; names were not recorded. The data in the UofV online system can be broken down either by state or counties within a state, and make it possible to compare one data element (e.g., households) with another (slaveholders) and calculate the proportions between them.

In the vast majority of cases, each household (termed a "family" in the 1860 document, even when the group consisted of unrelated people living in the same residence) that owned slaves had only one slaveholder listed, the head of the household. It is thus possible to compare the number of slaveholders in a given state to the numbers of families/households, and get a rough estimation of the proportion of free households that owned at least one slave. The numbers varies considerably, ranging from 1 in 5 in Arkansas to 1 in 2 in Mississippi and South Carolina. In the eleven states that formed the Confederacy, there were in aggregate just over 1 million free households, which between them represented 316,632 slaveholders—meaning that just under one-third of households in the Confederate States counted among its assets at least one human being.

The UofV system also makes it possible to generate maps that show graphically the proportion of slaveholding households in a given county. This is particularly useful in revealing political divisions or disputes within a state, although it takes some practice with the online query system to generate maps properly. Here are county maps for all eleven Confederate states, with the proportion of slaveholding families indicated in green -- a darker color indicates a higher density: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, All States. (Note: these links often don't run run the map-generating scripts properly, so be patient and click gently.) Observers will note that the incidence of slaveholding was highest in agricultural lowlands, where rivers provided both transportation for bulk commodities and periodic floods that replenished the soil, and lowest in mountainous regions like Appalachia. The map of Virginia, in particular, goes a long way to explaining the breakup of that state during the war.

You don't have to talk to a Confederate apologist long before before you'll be told that only a tiny fraction of butternuts owned slaves. (This is usually followed immediately by an assertion that the speaker's own Confederate ancestors never owned slaves, either.) The number ascribed to Confederate soldiers as a whole varies—two percent, five percent—but the message is always the same, that those men 150 years had nothing to do with the peculiar institution, they has no stake in it, and that it certainly played no role whatever in their personal motivations or in the Confederacy's goals in the war. But it's simply not true in any meaningful way. Slave labor was as much a part of life in the antebellum South as heat in the summer and hog-killing time in the late fall. Southerners across the Confederacy, from Texas to Florida to Virginia, civilian and soldier alike, were awash in the institution of slavery. They were up to their necks in it. They swam in it, and no amount of willful denial can change that.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/08/small-truth-papering-over-a-big-lie/61136/
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There was no difference between the South or the North when it comes to racism against black folks. Slavery was a secondary issue of the war. The main issue was integrity of the Country. And the issue of slavery was not about concern for the rights of black people as opposed to the desire in the North to move forward with industrialization and end the dependence on slavery. The Northern industrialists planned on using European immigrant and white American skilled labor to replace black slave workers. And this is why there were so many race riots in the North against black folks both during and after the civil war.

The only reason the North made overt gestures in support of black folks was due to the fact that the North was losing the war. So drafting black folks was a logical step to turn the tide. But after the war all those promises made to black folks were eventually forgotten and disregarded and Jim Crow and legal segregation and discrimination became the law in the ENTIRE country. North and South. Because both groups had no interest in making black folks fully integrated members of the country with all the rights and benefits of the country. So in that sense there was no difference in terms of racism or white nationalism between Southern farmers and Northern Industrialists...... Make no mistake about that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGQvKiJi4Jw

Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | EgyptSearch!

(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3