Why are Pro-White advocates always smeared?

My history is alittle fuzzy, but wasn't it the native americans who showed the pilgrims how to survive in a country that was foreign to them.

 

I can’t image the Political Form Management and its Supporters being proud of the many Racist comments being posted on its forum these days. It’s really sad and reflects negatively on its reputation.

 

There is much history to cover here but I have some suggested readings for you By Author. Some of it is embellished BS but if one has a brain (We all do) the truth of things can be seen:

Thomas Harriot
John Smith
William Bradford
Thomas Morton
John Winthrop
Mary Rowland (for the sympathizer of the Natives; My Ancestors)
J. Hector RT. John DE Crevecoeur

And the reason they did not want to use the King James was because H had a funky butt loving addiction. The used the Geneva Bible instead.

The settlers were not perfect but they were influenced otherwise there would have been no revolution. They got sick of paying for England wars. I love history. Do you want to play?

 

I think its the exact opposite actually.

Why do you think this forum is so insanely popular? Why it has lasted so long? Because it has real free speech. How many forums have you been on before that allow the expression of ANY idea, no matter how offensive?

I have been on many political forums over the years, and I can tell you, this is not the norm. Most forums lean heavily towards one ideology or another and censor competing ideas. This forum does not. All it censors is profanity, spam, and personal insults. Thats it.

 

White racists usually have a very selective view of history, mentioning only the accomplishments of Northern Europeans and particularily the British and Germans. So why is the Oriental contribution to society never mentioned? Why is the Mediterranean contribution to society never mentioned? Why is the Middle Eastern contribution to society never mentioned? Why is the Jewish contribution to society never mentioned (in a positive way)? And why is the reason most Blacks ended up in the United States in the first place never mentioned (you know - that whole chattel slavery by Whites thing).

A lot of people don't know that much of Southern Africa had to be colonised by the Negroes, who were located in Northern Africa (but south of the then smaller Sahara). They may not have had towering civilizations but there were several reasonably good civilizations that approached Dark Ages technology (500 to 900 A.D. in Europe). Their expansion was actually quite an accomplishment, which came at the expense of the people already living their (remnants of whom include the pygmies, the bushmen and the Hottentot/Cape Colored). Their bad luck was to be preyed upon first by Arabs and Berbers and then by Europeans.

 

I don't know who H was, or what a funky butt loving addiction is, but the American colonists were not contributing any more to their wars (remember they were Englishmen) than any of their compatriots. And the French and Indian war (1754 to 1763) was largely to protect the American colonists from being blockaded and surrounded by France. The colonists should have been contributing more than anyone else to their own safety.

Yes, history can be very interesting, but it is presented differently according to the nationality and agenda of the historian concerned.

Here are some historical interpretations you may not have seen or heard -

http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/07/02/lessons-from-the-american-revolution/

 

Regardless, America's founders would not have wanted to see their ingenious creation taken over by millions of illiterate Mexicans, Asians, or donut shop, gas station owning clans of Indians and Arabs.


.

 

H was a typo HE (James) was GAY; at least they believed he was. They also did not like the way the state ran the church. A Church is of God not of State.

So Who to believe? Well I will believe the oppressed and not the oppressor. Is any of it 100% true? No; but the truth is in it.

EDIT: The colonists were not getting equal protection. It is long and drawn out but in essence England could not protect all fronts and the Colonies were not getting the protection they were paying for.

 

Simple. The people who denigrate whites are living out their own guilt, which they can't explain or even cognize, so they take it out on others who are like them.

Note that it is mostly white liberals who have this tendency.

 

That is the genius of their creation. The founders of the United States created the structure that allowed the United States to become greater than they were.

The founding fathers of the United States were a product of their times- they were racists, they were misogynists, they were classists. Many of them were religious bigots- all by our standards today. But for their time they were the 'free thinkers' and radicals willing to overthrow the rigid structures of their time that included requiring allegiance to a man(the King) and a state church. And their brilliance was vision and it was ultimately inclusive.

Indeed the Declaration of Independence spells out the brilliance of their vision-

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

All men- not just white men, not excluding Indian, not excluding blacks, Irish, Mohammedens, Orientals, Catholics, Jews or any other subdivision that people might have used to term someone as 'other'.

 

I now know the answer to this question ... because its the year 2012 and it amusing and entertaining to pisssss-off uptight people who whine like beaches over nothing.

 

Surely you don't think they meant that EVERYONE is EQUAL... I didn't think Communism existed in the eighteenth century.

 

The colonists were not being oppressed in any way, shape, or form. They were being asked to pay taxes to defray the considerable cost of the French and Indian war, and in order to maintain a sufficiently sized garrison for their protection. And they were receiving protection, as evinced by the fact that the French had not managed to either isolate or invade any of the colonies.

I neither know nor care if King James I was gay or otherwise, but we were not told that in history class.

 

I said they thought. It was more about the Church though.

I think we are trying to cover 3 things here.

I. The reasons for leaving England in the first place and then coming to America.

II. The conditions in early America.

III. The reasons for the Revolutionary war.

Where do you want to start? It could be interesting but I think we will reach one conclusion. Facts be (*)(*)(*)(*)ed it was about the perception of the Colonists leaving Europe, the Perceptions of the first generation or so of settlers and the perception of the revolutionaries. We have their writings and those are all that really matters because it is how they perceived things.

The federalist papers and Thomas Jefferson's writings will lead to many interesting hours of reading.

 

If everyone were equal we would not be ahead of Europe and the rest of the world.

Communism was created by white people.

They also would not have wanted blacks and women to own land or vote. BFD. They were morally inferior to us, so their opinion no longer matters. We know things they did not.

OUR nation leads the world in every way that matters. THEIR nation did not. Our way is the better way.

 

LOL @ "asked"

 

I disagree. I believe that each "deserves" only that which they are willing to work for and provide for themselves.

 

Hee hee hee.... "asked". Now there's an interesting concept. When the IRS "asks" me to pay taxes this year, I think I'll just answer "no".

I'll let the guy who posted that comment know how it works out- assuming I'll be allowed to post in this forum from PRISON.

 

The founders of the U.S. expanded the territory of the country through colonial aggression against the indigenous population, so even if these claims of ethnic dispossession were true, it would be an example of chickens coming home to roost, so to speak.

Since the claims are not true, however, it's not relevant anyway.

 

Chickens coming home to roost? If that is true them White people have a choice to make. They can go out like Tecumseh or like Sitting Bull. I think Tecumseh is the model. Resistance until death.

 

Again, it is only the false and inaccurate conceptualization of ethnic groups (which are themselves figments of collective imagination), as monolithic hive minded entities that gives way to the idea that "white people" can "make choices" as a unified collective.

The line between "white people" and "Native Americans" cannot even be firmly drawn, since whites generally have slight Indian admixture and Indians have more significant European admixture, as evidenced by these studies.

Skin pigmentation, biogeographical ancestry and admixture mapping: "In European Americans from [Pennsylvania] State College, the west African and native American genetic contribution are low (0.7% and 3.2%, respectively)."

Genetic Admixture, Self-Reported Ethnicity, Self-Estimated Admixture, and Skin Pigmentation Among Hispanics and Native Americans: "Among self-identified NAs, the average NA admixture is 71.8% [European admixture 25.3%]."

 

Hey I am 25%+ Native. Hence my love of Fire Water.

 

People perceive differences. It doesn't matter what science may or may not tell us. Perceptions matter. My wife and I are don't perceive ourselves as belonging to the same race. Thus, we are not members of the same race for all practical purposes.

 

You are correct - all history is written by the victors, and is as much about perception as it is about fact. I was taught about the American Revolution in an English school, and if you are an American, you were no doubt taught about it in an American school. The dates and events will be identical, but the motivations and justifications may well vary according to from which side of the Atlantic comes the perspective.