Conservatives Outraged!

Look all I'm saying is you have to look at both sides of a story. Like the other poster pointed out, okay yeah blacks couldn't use whites only bathrooms, but the other side of that? Whites couldn't use blacks only bathrooms.

Another good example would be, we've all heard about blacks having to sit in the back of the bus. But do we hear anything about whites being forced to sit in the front of the bus?

Only one side of the story is ever told. That's why I want a white history month. Maybe there was a white lady who sat in the back of the bus and refused to get up. Where is the white Rosa Parks? How come that lady is ignored?



You know, I think it may be difficult for you to grasp that minorities in those times had very little social power hence is why people like Dr. King, Rosa Parks, Malcolm X were so influential in history because of the fact that racism was so prevalent because of the white male influence upon society. Look when they designed segregated restrooms it wasn't blacks that made such segregated facilities it was whites. Whites wanted no parts with blacks. You asked "Whites weren't forced to sit in the front." No they weren't because those unwritten rules were established long ago. The symbolic gesture of blacks sitting in the back was to demonstrate racial inferiority which was a system set in place by the ruling class: Whites. You also asked "where is our Rosa Parks?" Rosa Parks was a symbolic icon for civil rights. If history has shown anything, it shows that United States American whites in those times and times before to have a track record of not having their civil rights violated (with the exception of white women) how can you look for a "white Rosa Parks" when there wasn't a massive civil rights issues whites had to deal with in those times?
 
You know, I think it may be difficult for you to grasp that minorities in those times had very little social power hence is why people like Dr. King, Rosa Parks, Malcolm X were so influential in history because of the fact that racism was so prevalent because of the white male influence upon society. Look when they designed segregated restrooms it wasn't blacks that made such segregated facilities it was whites. Whites wanted no parts with blacks. You asked "Whites weren't forced to sit in the front." No they weren't because those unwritten rules were established long ago. The symbolic gesture of blacks sitting in the back was to demonstrate racial inferiority which was a system set in place by the ruling class: Whites. You also asked "where is our Rosa Parks?" Rosa Parks was a symbolic icon for civil rights. If history has shown anything, it shows that United States American whites in those times and times before to have a track record of not having their civil rights violated (with the exception of white women) how can you look for a "white Rosa Parks" when there wasn't a massive civil rights issues whites had to deal with in those times?

I'll have to answer this timorrow, I have to fix a sink right now. I'm still laughing over the guy who asked me if I meant the 18th century or the 1800's like there was a difference. Defeating lefties is like shooting crippled fish in a barrel.
 
God Taft you really are a staggering moron. I thought USF was the only poster here who had somehow managed to weaponize stupidity.

"Planters viewed themselves as benevolent"

And I'm certain you view yourself as someone with a functioning brain. However, until I see a recent EEG, I remain unconvinced.

You're just upset that I revealed the fact that you had a coin slot installed in your forehead and when a quarter is inserted, you fall to your knees, you teeth fold back, and you give 20 cents in change. :D
 
Well, the Republican outreach to minority voters is going great guys!

I really want to encourage you fellas in this. In fact, you should put this whole "you can't prove there were no happy slaves" narrative into the 2016 Republican platform. Add it in next to "when a woman is legitimately raped, pregnancy is rare, they have a way of shutting that whole thing down"

I predict sweeping electoral success!

And liberals can unite under the umbrella that all men are rapists, when a woman accuses a man of rape, it's an absolute truth, and that Black men are always the victim(s).
OOPS, I forgot.
It already is the liberal platform.
 
Did anyone EVER claim that this movie was the complete story of any and every slave owner - slave relationship? It is the film depiction of a book, written by one black man about his experience as a slave. Are you suggesting it was an inaccurate depiction of that book? Are you saying the account in the book is inaccurate? What about this movie is propaganda ?

Why did it need to be co-edited, instead of just using his memoirs unedited?
 
I'll have to answer this timorrow, I have to fix a sink right now. I'm still laughing over the guy who asked me if I meant the 18th century or the 1800's like there was a difference. Defeating lefties is like shooting crippled fish in a barrel.

the eighteen century IS the 1700's.... how fucking stupid are you, really?
 
I'll have to answer this timorrow, I have to fix a sink right now. I'm still laughing over the guy who asked me if I meant the 18th century or the 1800's like there was a difference. Defeating lefties is like shooting crippled fish in a barrel.

slaps FactsMac upside the head until he remembers what century it was in 1999.......
 
What is the purpose of Affirmative Action? Let's see in the following:

So not only does Affirmative Action benefit whites, in particular it has benefited white women more than anyone! I know it's easy to play the poor white man routine especially in this thread but if you are going to share sob stories make sure you have sources to back up those claims..

Stop with this old canard.

The most vocal proponents of affirmative action are white women?

Opponents of affirmative action are portrayed as "sexist"?

No.
 
So for a film to tell an accurate and complete account of the slavery era, what are some of the elements that would be needed?

*It would need to include accounts of Africans capturing other Africans and selling them into slavery

*It would need to include accounts of Muslims raiding European seacoast villages, American ships, and capturing and selling over 1 million white people into slavery. When Thomas Jefferson protested this practice, he was told by the Turkish ambassador to Tripoli that it was a Muslim's "right and duty to make war upon them (non-Muslims) wherever they could be found, and to enslave them as many as they could take as prisoners."

Barbary pirates raided Ireland (the sack of Baltimore for example), Iceland (e.g. Grindavik), and all around the Mediterranean.

*It wouldn't scrub out other embarrassing historical anecdotes. Steve Spielberg's "Amistad," for instance, completely omitted the historical accounts of the lead mutineer himself going on to become a slaver.

*It would also acknowledge the United States had a justice system that allowed a fair hearing to the Amistad mutineers, something Africans did not provide for themselves on their own continent.

*It would point out that enslavement of Africans was not begun by the white race, but was recognized as evil and eliminated by the white race.

*It would also point out that slavery continues to this day on the African continent.

But of course, speaking up for my race earns me nothing except the label "racist." African-Americans and Muslims don't have to defend their ancestors' sins, because anyone who dares mention them is dismissed as a "racist."

Which is fine and nothing new. But until liberals are willing to discuss the issue any deeper than their usual Tarzan-like grunts of "Black good, white bad," intelligent discourse is always going to be one-sided.
 
Taft it really bothers me that you really are arguing about the poor white man vs the black slave and truly believe the black slave's position was better than the poor white man's.

Tafffy is beyond racism, and well into the realm of depravity.
 
But your premise of what my argument is.... is mistaken.

And what is affirmative action other than systemic racism?

Those men pulled out of the factories in the 1860s, and off the boats just arriving from Ireland and Germany, and forced to fight in the south and free the slaves.... were rewarded how? What was their thanks? What army stepped up and fought to improve their lot in life?

Their descendants were denied opportunities given to descendants of those they fought to free. Their descendants were given the bill for slavery. Hell, white people who didn't have a single relative in this country until long after slavery was over, are stuck with the bill too. And black people who didn't have a relative in the country until long after was slavery was over also benefit.

It's crazy.

"Yeah, but there's still racism."

Yeah, but not every white person is to blame and should be shouldering the burden. Anyone who thinks that is .... wait for it..... RACIST!

Yes but people who think like you do are to blame for the continued existence of racism.
 
Look all I'm saying is you have to look at both sides of a story. Like the other poster pointed out, okay yeah blacks couldn't use whites only bathrooms, but the other side of that? Whites couldn't use blacks only bathrooms.

Another good example would be, we've all heard about blacks having to sit in the back of the bus. But do we hear anything about whites being forced to sit in the front of the bus?

Only one side of the story is ever told. That's why I want a white history month. Maybe there was a white lady who sat in the back of the bus and refused to get up. Where is the white Rosa Parks? How come that lady is ignored?

White Rosa Parks was your mom. That's why you are an incredible idiot without a clue.
 
Back
Top