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.
They certainly deserve to be here, and it was completely evil that anyone ever was put into the bondage of slavery.
But every one of them in Abe Lincoln's time should have been sent back to Africa (Liberia). It would have saved America an infinite (and unending, to this day...) amount of trouble.
LOL my black ancestors in the 1860s had been in America since the mid 1600s. Why would you think they should be "sent" anywhere when they had over 200 years of lineage in America - more than Lincoln's family himself.
This is the reason why it is always funny to me when people like you claim that whites did or do anything in particular for black people. You all have very strange ideas on where people are "from" especially. You cannot see beyond skin color - which is also funny when some who cannot see beyond it try to say they are "color blind" lol. If people with brown to black skin needed to be sent somewhere in "Lincoln's time" then white people needed to be "sent" back to their respective continent of origin as well and leave the USA to the indigenous people.
On the topic of whether Jews are "white" or not (which a number of posts have referenced), are the Jews not from ASIA?
Since when has anyone from the continent of Asia been considered "white"??
And why is that a "hateful" or controversial position to see them as Asiatic?
I pray to Jesus (a Jew), but yet, the fact that I would call the Jews Asiatic (not white) would get me labeled a "NAZI" or "white supremacist" (which is a strange label since Jews themselves - many times - will say they are "white").
A good analogy is Vijay Singh. He is darker than like 99.99% of black (African) Americans, yet no one over the age of 5 would refer to Vijay Singh as "black". He is Fijian.
Nevertheless, if I went into the "Ask a Jew" thread and said any of this, I would get labeled all manner of unsavory labels.
My great uncle married a half-Jewish woman (Holocaust survivor) so I even have people with Jewish blood as cousins. So, no, it has nothing to do with "hate" (as I'm sure plenty here will say). It just has to do with stating obvious observations.
Just wanted to note that technically Europe itself is a part of Asia (Eurasia).
On your topic of Jews not being white, IMO they are white. Socially they are, just as Russians are white even though Russia is in Asia. Just like people from Lebanon or Syria are white even though they also are in Asia. Hell, many of you also consider North Africans white and US census/labeling documents state as such.
Being white is being a part of a social class based on your outward appearance or known ethnic origins. A majority of Jews in America like your great aunt by marriage, were born in European countries and are white except to racial supremacists sorts of folks.
Just curios, wouldn’t believing in biological race explain a lot to you? I mean literally everything from skull size to organs to illness to iq tests to athletic ability, all of it, falls along racial lines. You do see that right?
All the skull stuff has been debunked by the de-coding of the human genome. You should read the link I posted earlier which details how it has been debunked.
There is no such thing as race from a biological perspective. Race is social and it was created in America in the late 1600s to early 1700s specifically to create an underclass of slaves and servants. Also to provide white men more opportunities in this "new" land than other people here. Note white women in the colonial period were heavily punished and even indentured for live and deemed slaves for having children by a black or indigenous man. White men did not get the same/similar punishments for leaving "mullatto" children. So it really is based upon white male supremacy in America and not biology. The white men had advanced weapons in regards to the title of the thread, starting especially in the 1600s. Due to that they could and did travel the globe and take by force what they could. Some see violence as evidence of being "advanced" but some, including myself, don't see mass violence as evidence of any sort of racial superiority nor of any sort of racial trait.
Would you and others believe and agree with the idea that white people are the most violent people on earth because of their race? White men went around the world warring and pillaging and raping just because they could. Does that mean you have a violence genetic trait? Should we profile you all because of this historic tendency to violence - it is well documented?
IMO the idea that white people are more violent than others is false. All humans are violent and horrible to each other and would do like white men did and exact extreme violence on other people if they had the opportunity to do so.
I personally think it is interesting that the Norwegians by all accounts were the first European travelers to the New World and they set up colonies as well yet they didn't go about a killing and conquering and taking rampage like the Portuguese, Spanish, British, and French did. IMO the issues of violence for the 4 latter groups actually are related to their cultures in their countries and them trying to compete with/out do each other. Also them being dissatisfied with what was in their home country and has nothing to do with them all sharing similar hues of beige skin (i.e. race). If the skin color/race was more at play then other Europeans would have been just as "advanced" in weaponry and war and other subjects as the 4 latter countries. As noted earlier - those are the ones who got advanced and the Spanish were the most advanced in the 1500s I'd add and their superiority along with the Portuguese waned substantially by the 1700s. The British and French today are not as superior as they were in the 1800s and 1900s. Things always change in regards to empires and kingdoms and the most dominate. Prior to the 4 latter countries becoming dominant in the Eastern hemisphere (including Africa, Asia, and Europe) there were many kingdoms/empires in that area that had eras of prowess based on violence and war technology.
Your response is exactly why the CW never should have been fought. Not one life was worth losing, let alone 700K. Slavery would have ended peacefully inevitably, as many know.
The arrogance is astonishing.
With that said, Abe Lincoln should have kept to his plan of repatriation every single freed slave to Liberia. It would have saved this country to this day what has been an unending nightmare.
Nevertheless, the point still stands: across the gl9be, over time, none have ever done more to end the practice of slavery.
No one knows that slavery would have ended peacefully. I personally don't feel it would have just because of the increasing violence that occurred after 1850 in particular.
In regards to Abe Lincoln's repatriation plan - it was thwarted by black Americans, same as black Americans forced Lincoln to admit black soldiers into the war. Same as black activists in the 1830s-1860s in particular becoming more bold and confrontational in the north in response to the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, often in a violent way, was started by black people. I'll note again, there were many white allies of black activists during that era, but they were n ot often willing to literally fight for black freedom and give their lives. Only more prominent one that some know was John Brown and the white people who accompanied him. Quakers were generally non-violent and passive and they were not often involved in physical fights for the liberties of African Americans like black people were. Most Americans are not aware of the large amount of activism of free black people in America (those born free and those who escaped slavery and note there were free black people in southern states as well). You are also not aware of the large degree of escapes of slaves and the resistance that chattel slaves themselves had to enslavement in every part where it existed.
The idea that our people would fight nail and tooth to get freed from slavery just to leave was a ridiculous idea. Lincoln's plan was not well received by free black people, including a number of escaped slaves like Douglass and others of prominence in the black liberation movement. It is funny to me that you'd be okay with expelling people from their own country just to make white people feel better. This idea in and of itself is representative of white supremacy as if the feelings/circumstances of whites is more important and should be more heavily considered and enacted versus any other people. If certain white people have a problem, as I noted they should "go back" to Europe.
If certain white people have a problem, as I noted they should "go back" to Europe.
Do we take back all our contributions/inventions with us when we go back? How about basketball (created by "old white man") or football, or baseball and golf?
Do we take back all our contributions/inventions with us when we go back? How about basketball (created by "old white man") or football, or baseball and golf?
When you've been called out on your chauvinism - I guess that's all you got, man.
Most compelling to me is the European discovery of the new world. It happened around 1500 as well, and produced fabulous riches for Europeans, as well as acting as a population pressure release valve. I don't think any other civilization has had such a stroke of good fortune befall them as a discovery which triples the amount of land available to you. As to why Europeans were pressed to explore and others weren't, we know the reason is the exorbitant cost of the spice trade..
Avon, hi..
I think Columbus' first voyage was more about individual will & determination, than 'good fortune'. Columbus spent years seeking financing & knowledge for his trip. Columbus' discovery didn't befall on Europe. It was earned by a brave man who was almost overthrown my his near mutinous first crew, & was dismissed by multiple royal courts.. it's strange and sad to me how cultural Marxists have largely discredited (and/or diminished) Columbus' accomplishment. The entire West has benefitted from the wealth & opportunities created by New World expansion, and now that legacy is solely viewed/judged by the subsequent sins of conquest, or his unprecedented journey is reduced to essentially dumb luck.. The general sins of conquest pinned on Columbus, often had nothing to do with Columbus or were not initiated by Columbus, but his insubordinate, incompetent subordinates & enemies left/appointed to administer the colonies.
Avon, hi..
I think Columbus' first voyage was more about individual will & determination, than 'good fortune'. Columbus spent years seeking financing & knowledge for his trip. Columbus' discovery didn't befall on Europe. It was earned by a brave man who was almost overthrown my his near mutinous first crew, & was dismissed by multiple royal courts.. it's strange and sad to me how cultural Marxists have largely discredited (and/or diminished) Columbus' accomplishment. The entire West has benefitted from the wealth & opportunities created by New World expansion, and now that legacy is solely viewed/judged by the subsequent sins of conquest, or his unprecedented journey is reduced to essentially dumb luck.. The general sins of conquest pinned on Columbus, often had nothing to do with Columbus or were not initiated by Columbus, but his insubordinate, incompetent subordinates & enemies left/appointed to administer the colonies.
Amen.
You're right...these revisionist cultural Marxist HATE admitting Caucasians have ever done anything, ever, or contributed anything, ever, to humanity. Since to them we are all evil by virtue of our skin color, everything our ancestors have ever done must be stomped on and p----- on.
Do we take back all our contributions/inventions with us when we go back? How about basketball (created by "old white man") or football, or baseball and golf?
LOL - hopefully this was a joke. In case it went over your head, I was just explaining to you that the idea that black people should get "sent" to Africa in 1865 is just as ridiculous as the idea that whites in 1865 should be "sent" to Europe. Both are ridiculous ideas.
The only people who don't have a problem with the idea of sending American black people to Africa, are usually white people who don't consider black Americans to be Americans. As noted, I have ancestry here from the 1600s. I am genealogically "more" American than a majority of white Americans in this country today as are all other black Americans since our ancestors have been here longer. We have more of a claim to this country than most white people. So hopefully that can help you see that just how the black people in 1865 overwhelmingly saw Lincoln's idea as ridiculous - today those of you who have the same/similar idea are much more ridiculous since another 150+ yeas have passed since 1865.
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.
