Europeans are killing off 'african americans'

Baron Max said:
Ahh, so NOW ye're saying there ARE differences? And that even biologists CAN tell the differences between "races"/"breeds" of humans? Why and how did you suddenly change your opinion?

Baron Max

Baron, I think I explained clearly that there not enough differences to declare the human species subdivided into subspecies.

You just ignored everything i said.

Let's not play games here. I gave all the information you required. You just keep ignoring it because it doesn't suite your views.
 
Baron Max said:
Yes, I have. But then a new newscast comes on the tv, or a new article of violence in the paper and it brings me right back to my original thoughts.

Baron Max
hha...original thoughts? you aint got one in yo head. what you mean is--albeit unconsciously--is that the Big MEDia ISyour thoughts. they have got you by the short n curlies. their hype=your hype!
 
Baron Max said:
Why do you say that I'm bitter? From whence did that arise?

Baron Max

I believe your stance on sciforums to stem from a bitter root. If your position was to come from a sweet spring then you would naturally embrace all peoples as extensions of your sweet self. We are all fruits of the same tree.

peace

c20
 
c20H25N3o said:
I believe your stance on sciforums to stem from a bitter root.

So it's only your "belief"? Based on what evidence?

c20H25N3o said:
If your position was to come from a sweet spring then you would naturally embrace all peoples as extensions of your sweet self. We are all fruits of the same tree.

And how do you know that I don't?

Is this just more of your allegations and/or accusations without any evidence or substantive information ...other than a "belief" or other such emotional feeling? "I believe..." is enough evidence for you to convict someone of something? Interesting ....you should apply that same thinking, then, to the way the US treats the prisoners at Gitmo, right?

Baron Max
 
spuriousmonkey said:
Baron, I think I explained clearly that there not enough differences to declare the human species subdivided into subspecies.

Okay ....then like I said earlier ...if there is no different "races", then there can be no such thing as "racism". It's just a few humans disliking/hating a few other humans, which happens every day all day with every human on Earth. ...no "racism" anywhere! Therefore, no one should ever be condemned for it, nor should they be banned for it.

Baron Max
 
James R said:
Time to stop watching Fox as your only news source, Baron... :)

...LOL! Actually, James, I only watch NBC news ...one half-hour newscast each day. The thing of it is, I've been doing that for about 61 yrs, so I've learned a little bit in all that time. Not much, but a little bit.

But I've also learned that the world is not the way we might WANT it to be, but it's how it really is ....but only for those who can actually see it. I.e., those who are willing to open their eyes to the problems. We babble and whine about, say, the Gitmo prisoners' "civil rights" ...WHILE... over 8,000 children starve to death EVERY DAY in Africa. Those little kids would gladly give up ALL of their civil rights for the food and shelter and medicines that the prisoners receive free of charge! But we don't call ourselves hippo-fuckin'-critters, do we? Oh, no, 'cause that's not high-sounding enough.

Baron Max
 
spuriousmonkey said:
Let's admit then that you are responsible for their situation. If we don't want to be a hyppocrite.

Yes, we could have shot those fuckin' prisoners, and used that money and food to feel the 8,000 kids in Africa!

Baron Max
 
I was actually talking about being responsible for the children in africa since the US economy (and all other high flying economies) are based on economical inequality. They cannot systain themselves without abusing poor countries as a source of cheap labour, cheap resources etc. And of course our weapons industry also relies heavily on money pumped in by these countries. The little money they make in this unequal relationship is taken away directly with great profits.

Of course now you are going to say some rightwing like: yeah baby, it's not our fault that we are the strong and they are the weak. blabla. That's just how it is. blabla.

But every time you drive you caddilac of your driveway you basically drive over another child in africa. Only it isn't actually on your driveway dirtying it up with spilled entrails and such. It is nicely quite far away and only visible when a camera crew might be present for some strange reason. But luckily that hardly ever happens.
 
Racism refers to the beliefs and practices that assume inherent and significant differences exist between the genetics of various groups of human beings; that assume these differences can be measured on a scale of "superior" to "inferior"; and that result in the social, political and economic advantage of one group in relation to others.

In general, a racist practices the separation of groups according to race, and considers one's own race the most valuable and others less valuable. The belief that the character and abilities of individuals are correlated with their race is not necessarily racism, since this can be asserted without implying an inequality in value. The application of this belief in dealing with members of that race, especially with little regard for variations within "races", is known as racial prejudice. Granting or withholding rights or privileges based on race or refusing to associate with persons based on race is racial discrimination.

One view of the origins of racism emphasizes stereotypes, which psychologists generally believe are influenced by cultural factors. People generally respond to others differently based on what they know, which may include superficial characteristics often associated with race. A "white" person walking after dark in a primarily "black" neighborhood in an American city might be anxious for a combination of reasons. The same may be said for an African-American walking in a white neighborhood. A police officer who spends most of his day in that same city encountering criminality or hostility among people of a certain ethnic background might be expected to react negatively to a member of that same ethnic group whom he meets off-duty. A law-abiding African-American man is less likely than a law-abiding white man to view that same police officer as an ally and protector, and more as a threat to his or her personal safety and well-being. In both sets of cases, theories of conditioning may apply.

Racism is usually directed against a minority population, but may also be directed against a majority population. Examples include racial apartheid in South Africa, wherein whites (a minority) discriminated against blacks (a majority) or contemporary United States of America wherein federal legislation has been interpreted as mandating preferential treatment for non whites; this form of racism also occurred during the former colonial rule of such countries as Vietnam (by France) and India (by the United Kingdom). This is known in United States politics as "reverse racism".

Apologists mistakenly claim the United States is free of racism. They point to the comparatively positive view Americans have of immigrants,[13] or the lack of racial genocide in US history when compared to the levels seen in Germany or by European imperialists. Jim Crow laws, Japanese internment camps, and the fate of Cheyenne in the Sand Creek massacre may not have been taken into account are but a few examples of the strong racism that has existed in the US.

In colonial America, before colonial slavery became completely based on racial lines, thousands of African slaves served whites, alongside other whites serving a term of indentured servitude. In some cases for African slaves, a term of service meant freedom and a land grant afterward, but these were rarely awarded, and few black Africans became landowners this way. In 1676, Nathaniel Bacon led a revolt against the Governor of Virginia and the system of exploitation he represented: exploitation of poorer colonists by the increasingly wealthy landowners. However, Bacon died, probably of dysentery, and the revolt lost steam.

Historically, when an adversary is identified as "other" based on notions of race or ethnicity (particularly when "other" is construed to mean "inferior"), the means employed by the self-presumed "superior" party to appropriate territory, human chattel, or material wealth often have been more ruthless, more brutal, and less constrained by moral or ethical considerations. Indeed, based on such racist presumptions, the political or moral decision to enter into armed conflict can be made less weighty when one's potential adversaries are "other than," because their lives are perceived as having lesser importance, lesser value. In history, some examples of the brutalizing and dehumanizing effects of racism, are: the trading of smallpox-infested blankets among Native Americans as a biological weapon in order to reduce their population.

White supremacy is an ideology which holds that the white race is superior to other races. White supremacy is most often thought of in connection with anti-black racism and anti-Semitism, though it has also been used to justify discrimination against Native Americans, Chinese, Irish, Southeast Asians, Arabs and others.

For example, politically, socially and economically, the United States before and after Reconstruction was white supremacist, as was apartheid-era South Africa. The extent and nature of white supremacy's continuing influence in Western culture is a subject of ongoing debate.

White supremacy is sometimes used in a more limited sense to indicate a philosophical belief that whites are not only superior to others, but should rule over them. White separatist and white nationalist groups often use this more limited definition in order to distinguish themselves from white supremacists.

White supremacy, as with supremacism in general, is rooted in ethnocentrism and a desire for hegemony. It contains varying degrees of racism and xenophobia. Associations of white supremacy with ethnic cleansing and racial separation are common, but not necessarily intrinsic.

In many states of the United States, non-whites were effectively disenfranchised and prevented from holding government office (or even serving in most government jobs) well into the second half of the 20th century; Native Americans in the U.S. and Canada and Aborigines in Australia were often viewed as little more than obstacles to white settlement, rather than human beings in their own right; many European-settled countries bordering the Pacific Ocean at times severely limited immigration and naturalization from the Asian Pacific countries, usually on an overtly white supremacist basis; the United States allowed individual states to ban interracial marriage as late as 1967 (see Loving v. Virginia); Rhodesia held out as an overtly white supremacist regime until 1979 and South Africa into the 1990s.

In the United States, the ideology of white supremacy was particularly strong. At the time of the nation's founding, there were African American slaves even in such northern states as New York. The U.S. South until the Civil War sustained a plantation economy based on Black slaves. Even in those parts of the South where African Americans constituted the majority, except for the brief period of the Reconstruction (1866-1877), they were routinely disenfranchised; resistance was successfully held down by state and local governments and by organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan who, as late as the early 1960s practiced lynching—extra-judicial execution—with impunity.

Source:Wikipedia
 
Yes, we could have shot those fuckin' prisoners, and used that money and food to feel the 8,000 kids in Africa!

Yeah, and if every American who used money to buy a gun had donated the money to African aid, there probably wouldn't be poverty in Africa, either. Or take the US military spending. Or political advertising monies. etc. etc.
 
I agree, James. And it's also true that if everyone who CLAIMS to love mankind and all that liberal bullshit were to donate a few bucks, Africa would be swimming in money and probably scared of drowning in money! Ahh, but no one actually DOES anything, do they? They talk a big game ...just like the bullshit about Human Rights ..all talk, and no fuckin' action.

But ya' see, I don't do that. I ain't no fuckin' hippo-critter ...I take care of me and those that I love. If everyone else did the same, we'd not have any such problems in the world. I practice what I preach ....which is basically; If they can't do it on their own, fuck 'em!

Baron Max
 
And it's also true that if everyone who CLAIMS to love mankind and all that liberal bullshit were to donate a few bucks, Africa would be swimming in money and probably scared of drowning in money! Ahh, but no one actually DOES anything, do they?

Yes they do. Don't judge everybody by your own "stuff you all, I'm ok" standards.

I take care of me and those that I love. If everyone else did the same, we'd not have any such problems in the world.

Everybody takes care of themselves, so that's nothing to be especially proud of, Baron. It's the default position. It is a pity your moral development hasn't proceeded any further in your 61 years.
 
James R said:
Yes they do. Don't judge everybody by your own "stuff you all, I'm ok" standards.

How many "liberals", as I've described in posts above, are there in the world, James? And if all of those gave just $1 per month for the poor, starving people of the world, there'd be no poor, starving people. So one must conclude that the "liberals" don't actually do as they say, right?

James R said:
Everybody takes care of themselves, so that's nothing to be especially proud of, ....

You missed (purposely?) the most of my quote: "...themselves AND those that they love...."

And once again, at the end of your post, you've seen fit to make a personal attack against me, James. Why? Does that help promote the liberalism of which you speak so eloquently? And isn't it inconsistent with your basic ideals of something like ...."Love thy fellow man"? Or is your ideal, "Love thy fellow man ...but only if they adhere to my way of thinking!"?

Baron Max
 
Baron Max said:
How many "liberals", as I've described in posts above, are there in the world, James? And if all of those gave just $1 per month for the poor, starving people of the world, there'd be no poor, starving people. So one must conclude that the "liberals" don't actually do as they say, right?

Giving handouts will not solve anything. Our luxury is dependent on their poverity. I don't think even liberals want to admit that. But us leftie anarchist communists have no problem seeing that.

It's not that you can't do anything of course. Here are three examples:

1. Back off a cadillac, SUV or Dodge pickup of your driveway and you kill a starving child in africa.

2. Back of a suzuki alto (doubt they even sell them in the US) of your driveway and you just drive over a starving child's leg.

3. back off your bicycle from your porch and you just kick a starving child in africa in the butt.


It's up to us to make a change. Not politicians. They are only interested in a status quo. But just living in the 1st world is going to hurt someone in the 3rd world. There is no escaping that. But you could minimalize the impact.
 
But because she is black, finding a kidney wouldn't be easy. On average, black patients wait nearly five years for a kidney transplant — about 18 months longer than their white counterparts.

The reasons for this disparity, experts say, involve genetics, economics and donor rates. Regardless, the numbers reveal a harsh reality. More than 3,500 patients died last year waiting for a kidney transplant, and one-third of them were black. Yet black Americans make up only 12 percent of the nation's population.

The most common explanation for the difference in wait times is that the needs of the black community far exceed its current donation level, making transplants more difficult because organs tend to transplant better between members of the same ethnic groups. Indeed, only about 700 kidneys were taken from deceased black donors in 2003, compared with 4,000 white donors.
http://www.thejournalnews.com/mindbody/may05/transplant.html
 
James R said:
Yeah, and if every American who used money to buy a gun had donated the money to African aid, there probably wouldn't be poverty in Africa, either. Or take the US military spending. Or political advertising monies. etc. etc.
What you are saying is that it is up to white America to save black Africa.
 
Back
Top