Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
anti racist code for anti white is a propaganda statement started by a white supremacist.
Yeah, that's one of them. Then they have the "mantra":
Asia for asians
Africa for africans
White countries for everyone
Or something like that. Nevermind the fact that many places in Asia and Africa were colonized for decades by white people. Nevermind that millions of white people still live in African and Asian countries. People are going to go where the money and opportunity are, period.
anti racist code for anti white is a propaganda statement started by a white supremacist.
Consider that any time anyone talks about fighting racism, or lists racist groups, they generally seem to target only whites. If people are going to speak out against racism, then they should do so equally toward all groups of all races. If not, then just forget it.
I suppose it's hard for whites not to see anti-racist as being anti-white, when diversity training, set-aside programs, television shows, and laws of the land are set aside for minorities, generally claiming to be the target of whites. Hence, to stop racism against white groups, despite the fact that crime statistics indicate that whites are far less likely to attack blacks and hispanics than the reverse happening, is highly selective in action.
Last edited by Sound of Reason; 01-05-2013 at 01:22 PM..
Yeah, that's one of them. Then they have the "mantra":
Asia for asians
Africa for africans
White countries for everyone
Or something like that. Nevermind the fact that many places in Asia and Africa were colonized for decades by white people. Nevermind that millions of white people still live in African and Asian countries. People are going to go where the money and opportunity are, period.
Very few whites live in locations in Asia colonized by whites. You're talking less than one percent. In Africa, countries that were colonized by European countries are less than one percent white. Most whites have left, or there were few to begin with. South Africa didn't operate under such a setting, but rather as an independent Republic. Furthermore, only perhaps ten percent of South Africa is white.
On the other hand, European/white countries have seen so much immigration from non-white lands that some European countries are as much as fifteen percent non-white, populations exploding at an exponential rate, whereas in the U.S., the non-white population is approaching forty percent. Such a statement, that you listed above, sounds more reasonable, considering that it has more basis in reality than your attempt to make comparisons with European colonization which resulted in minute populations of whites in non-white lands.
Very few whites live in locations in Asia colonized by whites. You're talking less than one percent. In Africa, countries that were colonized by European countries are less than one percent white. Most whites have left, or there were few to begin with. South Africa didn't operate under such a setting, but rather as an independent Republic. Furthermore, only perhaps ten percent of South Africa is white.
On the other hand, European/white countries have seen so much immigration from non-white lands that some European countries are as much as fifteen percent non-white, populations exploding at an exponential rate, whereas in the U.S., the non-white population is approaching forty percent. Such a statement, that you listed above, sounds more reasonable, considering that it has more basis in reality than your attempt to make comparisons with European colonization which resulted in minute populations of whites in non-white lands.
The non-white population in the U.S. use to be 100%.
Here is my question. How come no one is confronting the "New Black Panther Party"? The current "Black Panthers" have nothing to do with the Black Panthers of old.
Nobody cares about them because there are too few of them to confront. They have done nothing to anyone, and they're not going to do anything to anyone. They're irrelevant. Nazis, Neo-Nazis, skinheads and other various and sundry racists need to be stopped and suppressed. We know what they've done and what they want to do.
Yeah, that's one of them. Then they have the "mantra":
Asia for asians
Africa for africans
White countries for everyone
Or something like that. Nevermind the fact that many places in Asia and Africa were colonized for decades by white people. Nevermind that millions of white people still live in African and Asian countries. People are going to go where the money and opportunity are, period.
We also have to remember that many Americans - including some "whites" - trace their heritage to more than one continent. Where are they supposed to go? Any Earthling has the right to live anywhere they want on this planet. Supremacists need to get over it.
Very few whites live in locations in Asia colonized by whites. You're talking less than one percent. In Africa, countries that were colonized by European countries are less than one percent white. Most whites have left, or there were few to begin with. South Africa didn't operate under such a setting, but rather as an independent Republic. Furthermore, only perhaps ten percent of South Africa is white.
On the other hand, European/white countries have seen so much immigration from non-white lands that some European countries are as much as fifteen percent non-white, populations exploding at an exponential rate, whereas in the U.S., the non-white population is approaching forty percent. Such a statement, that you listed above, sounds more reasonable, considering that it has more basis in reality than your attempt to make comparisons with European colonization which resulted in minute populations of whites in non-white lands.
But whites are free to move to most of these places, with few exceptions. If there was money in it, they would. Let us also not forget that North America, New Zealand, and Australia all had non white, indigenous populations, so those are NOT white countries/continents.
Consider that any time anyone talks about fighting racism, or lists racist groups, they generally seem to target only whites. If people are going to speak out against racism, then they should do so equally toward all groups of all races. If not, then just forget it.
I suppose it's hard for whites not to see anti-racist as being anti-white, when diversity training, set-aside programs, television shows, and laws of the land are set aside for minorities, generally claiming to be the target of whites. Hence, to stop racism against white groups, despite the fact that crime statistics indicate that whites are far less likely to attack blacks and hispanics than the reverse happening, is highly selective in action.
The biggest beneficiaries of aa in america were white women. Also, please clarify what you mean in regards to television.
The biggest beneficiaries of aa in america were white women. Also, please clarify what you mean in regards to television.
I believe tbe poster was refering to cbannels like BET,Mundo Latino and such. If I am mistaken I will stand corrected, but these are good examples of race specific programming.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
