I disagree. There were plenty of Black slave owners in the U.S. Besides, slavery is wrong, no matter the color.
African slavery is also racist because slave owners in Africa were historically Caucasian Arabs and it was pure sub-Saharan Africans who were enslaved by their Arab masters. Haplogroup HV is a West Eurasian haplogroup found throughout the Middle East and the Caucasus Mountains and it is also found in parts of East Africa, mainly in the the Sudanese Arabs, who also have a very high frequency of Haplogroup J that is found in approximately 12% of native Europeans. Two 24,000-year-old anatomically modern humans of the Cro-Magnon type from southern Italy also belonged to Haplogroup HV. The Janjaweed people are the Sudanese Arabs who committed genocide against black Africans in Darfur: [video=youtube;CV7lTMvHPRE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CV7lTMvHPRE[/video]
So you are saying there was and is a lot of slavery in Africa that it was instigated by non-white Caucasians, the Arabs. Plus the Arabs were practicing straight up genocide against the blacks. The biggest genocide going on now is the planned elimination of whites by mass non-white immigration and forced assimilation. (bussing etc). Some times it even gets violent, as in the "Knock Out " game and the murder of isolated whites on South African farms. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06Twyq8s2po Check out Gregory Stanton at genocidewatch.net "Genocide Watch was the first international human rights organization to protest the murders and hate crimes committed against farmers in South Africa. Since his research trip in July 2012, Dr. Stanton said that hate crimes against Afrikaner farmers have not declined. The murder rate of the whole South African population remains at over 31 per 100,000. The murder rate of farmers, including Afrikaner farmers, is four times as high. The Institute of Security Studies estimated the farm murder rate at 120 per 100,000 in 2013, and the Transvaal Agricultural Union, using verified names of victims, placed the figure at 130 per 100,000 in 2013, one of the highest murder rates in the world."
Many societies have this dual ruling structure by which the colonisers historically enslaved the colonised. For example, ancient Japan was conquered by a Korean prince named Homuda who later became Emperor Ojin. The Ainu were the original inhabitants of the Japanese archipelago who migrated from southern Siberia from 20,000 to 10,000 years ago and the Korean mass migration to Japan that started 2,300 years ago was similar to 'white genocide' because some anthropologists say the Ainu were proto-Caucasians closely related to the Russians.
The great African-American historian, John Hope Franklin, states this clearly: "The majority of Negro owners of slaves had some personal interest in their property." This means that they bought the slaves with the intentions of freeing them or something along the lines of that. I agree, slavery is wrong no matter what, but the reason the US or white slave owners have been so criticised was because of the issue of skin color and race. The Romans employed a vast quantity of slaves, something like 25% of their population were slaves, but they do not get the same kind of criticism because the issue wasn't race. I went took a college Euro history class, and it went a little bit into Spain's expansion into the Americas. Originally, the Spanish employed Native Americans as slaves, but because the Native Americans looked more European than Blacks did, and also the fact that they were not immune to diseases like small pox led to them not being used as slaves anymore. Blacks were easy to step on, as Africa was not the richest of continents, as it is to this day, and they looked so distinctly different from the rest of the world that it gave some people the notion that they were somehow inferior, so naturally, lots of people subdued them.
*in german doktor accent* Shall I give you a genetics lesson? *peers down from spectacles* (My genetics professor was German and he did this all the time it was so cool but made me feel so inferior )
Its not Hollywood being anti-white per say, but more of the fact that it would be more of a history lesson than it would be a movie if the explained how Africans took rival tribes that they conquered over and sold them to the European traders as slaves in exchange for guns and weapons to wage their wars. The British navy scene also had to be explained. Slave owners would never do that, because getting slaves was so expensive that they would get it over to America no matter what. The British navy was indeed patrolling the waters because they had outlawed slavery in England but not in the American colonies (Im not sure exactly when this movie took place but...), so they used their navy to stop ships from shipping in more slaves, and yes, they were as white as you can get. The movie would have to explain all of these historical details, and it would make the movie like 12 hours long so that's why they didn't do it. Also they wanted to invoke an emotional response from its viewers cuz that's Hollywood.
Look if youre going to make that argument, then you have to accept communism, because anti-commies' only argument is that it has reflected bad in the past.
Queen Isabella ordered native Americans be treated fairly and as an equally of all her subjects. Even when Indian slaves were brought back to Spain to ordered them to be returned and freed. Problem is communication took time back then, if attacked they'd have act and attack back - plus not all orders wouldve been followed to the letter given the distance. But anyway it was she who funded Columbus and her intention was for natives to be treated equally.
That's complete nonsense for several reasons. Falsely equating political ideologies with racial groups, assuming any criticised ideology or group is then morally equivalent just because they received any criticism, and even if it wasn't nonsensical for those reasons, it would be a tu quoque diversion from the point at hand that anti-Whites single out Whites. In addition you could reject communism on ideological rather than historical grounds, which I do. Let's say I criticised Blacks all the time. I only ever printed stories about Black criminals or negative events in history. You called me on that. I said "by that logic you have to accept Satanism". Does that work in your mind? How stupid.
Yeah but....Satanism is literally worshipping the negative aspect of things....so I'm not really sure what your argument is.
You ignore my point, which is not complex, and merely offer an ad hoc and fallacious dismissal of my example. This is too pointless for me to explain any further/give another example.
Yeah no i was merely asking what your point was because i missed it....if its that pointless then its not important...
To quote directly form the UN document. "No. 1021. CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE. ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITED NATIONS ON 9 DECEMBER 1948 Article II In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such : (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." "a coordinated program to reduce the birth rate of a targeted group" is not the same thing as (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; It's the difference between offering birth control and forcing abortion or sterilization. I was unaware of any organized effort to "force" immigration on any nation. There may be those within the nation who oppose it but their government supports it at a certain level. Please cite your source showing a pattern of forced immigration for any nation in the world. Integration/assimilation is not forced interracial marriage or child bearing. If an individual chooses to marry or bear children within their own race, they are free to do so.
If I said "Pakistanis should go home" I'd probably on the receiving end of physical force by the police. But the psychological assault is where it's at. Look at the media/academia. There is a concerted fraudulent operation by largely Jewish groups to push anti-White thinking. I would say this qualifies. Is it ok to launch an ethnically based fraudulent anti-Chinese psyop in China. They would go nuts, and rightly so.
Prevent births within the group is not the same as preventing all births within the group. Also making conditions for preventing some of the births is destruction "in whole or in part". The force is in the forced busing, integration and forced immigration. Opposition to date from the people has caused Obama to attempt to dictate amnesty for illegal aliens since he can't get it through congress. Jim Jones talked the People's Temple congregation into mass suicide in Gyana in 1978. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwhOBbAmWVU Look up more of the documentaries on the Jones Town Massacre on youtube. Jim Jones was another of your "race mixing to the point of racial destruction" hard core Marxist wack jobs. But in your view I guess what Jones did would be o.k. because the suicides were "voluntary". Look at the quote from Noel Ignatiev put up by one poster here; "...until the social construct known as ‘the white race’ is destroyed–not ‘deconstructed’ but destroyed.", that is the tag at the bottom of Jacksters post #261. Get your head out of your a--. Better yet, turn off your Marxist main stream TV news.
Everyone here should listen at least to the first five minutes of this video about the destruction of the white race proposed by Richard Kalergi before WWII. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0NVeLCd4uE
whites should live where they are native(mountains) and every other colour, where they are native (grassland)
just my opinion, imean, if we are going to go down the old segregation route ((that whites promote (because biologically they cannot survive in a multi cultural society)) its the only feasible solution.
its not my opinion that whites cannot function cohesively in a multi cultural society, its a parody of the multitude of racists here who posit such a circumstance and a solution for them.
Mitsuko Aoyama Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi's mother was a Japanese national named Mitsuko Aoyama, who was one of the first Japanese people to emigrate to Europe, after becoming the wife of an Austrian diplomat, Heinrich von Coudenhove-Kalergi, in Tokyo. His photos clearly show his part Japanese heritage and it's hard to understand why he is the revered icon of the Pan-European movement.
