Re: Racism, Slavery and the Founding Fathers

[Guest guest]

" Racism destroys hearts and minds, it fuels despondencies and

entrenches racial identity groups (minority groups) in social wars

that ultimately result in racial group empowerment. The empowerment

dispels the ignorance of hate in society, depopularizing their

Idiopathology and making unpopular a once popular source of

despondency. "

Part of what fuels racism, , is the behaviors of those who are

discriminated against. I went to a college that had a racially and

ethnically mixed population, and the biggest racial battles going on

were between groups you would not expect:

1) The Burmese and Japanese students here on foreign study programs

hated each other. The Burmese were still holding grudges against the

Japanese due to the atrocities committed against them in WWII. The

Japanese thought the Burmese students were a lesser race and ignored

them or called them names. I've seen examples of this many times

when I tutored a Burmese woman and when she and I went around campus

to classes. The Japanese students would immediately identify her as

being Burmese and call her names and tell me that I should not

be " dating " her. Just for the record, we were not dating.

2) Black people who spoke with a white dialect and black people who

spoke with a black dialect. On my floor, those who spoke the black

dialect accused the blacks who used the white dialect of

being " Tom's " and " Crackers " and " putting on airs " and would say

that where the skin shines, thy are as " n*gger " as anyone else.

, would you tell me how people who have never or who have

seldom encountered these ethnic groups are to learn to respect these

people when they cannot respect themselves?

As it happens, I find much to respect in everyone. Technically, I am

currently involved in an " inter-racial " relationship right now.

But one reason racism persists, I think, is because some of the

cultures being discriminated against are not exactly showing their

best sides, and as such don't give us much to respect.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

I have not been witness to many people in person, especially groups interacting with others.I know that the N word is used by black folk to discribe a friend sometimes, like what's up my N. It is complicated and I don't know why people see color as people.environmental1st2003 <no_reply > wrote: "Racism destroys hearts and minds, it fuels

despondencies and entrenches racial identity groups (minority groups) in social wars that ultimately result in racial group empowerment. The empowerment dispels the ignorance of hate in society, depopularizing their Idiopathology and making unpopular a once popular source of despondency." Part of what fuels racism, , is the behaviors of those who are discriminated against. I went to a college that had a racially and ethnically mixed population, and the biggest racial battles going on were between groups you would not expect: 1) The Burmese and Japanese students here on foreign study programs hated each other. The Burmese were still holding grudges against the Japanese due to the atrocities committed against them in WWII. The Japanese thought the Burmese students were a lesser race and ignored them or called them names. I've seen examples of this many times when I tutored a Burmese

woman and when she and I went around campus to classes. The Japanese students would immediately identify her as being Burmese and call her names and tell me that I should not be "dating" her. Just for the record, we were not dating. 2) Black people who spoke with a white dialect and black people who spoke with a black dialect. On my floor, those who spoke the black dialect accused the blacks who used the white dialect of being "Tom's" and "Crackers" and "putting on airs" and would say that where the skin shines, thy are as "n*gger" as anyone else. , would you tell me how people who have never or who have seldom encountered these ethnic groups are to learn to respect these people when they cannot respect themselves? As it happens, I find much to respect in everyone. Technically, I am currently involved in an "inter-racial" relationship right now. But one reason racism persists, I

think, is because some of the cultures being discriminated against are not exactly showing their best sides, and as such don't give us much to respect. Tom Administrator Turning In Big BrotherMy First Authored BookOnline For Free..http://www.nathanyoung.net __________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

I have not been witness to many people in person, especially groups interacting with others.I know that the N word is used by black folk to discribe a friend sometimes, like what's up my N. It is complicated and I don't know why people see color as people.environmental1st2003 <no_reply > wrote: "Racism destroys hearts and minds, it fuels

despondencies and entrenches racial identity groups (minority groups) in social wars that ultimately result in racial group empowerment. The empowerment dispels the ignorance of hate in society, depopularizing their Idiopathology and making unpopular a once popular source of despondency." Part of what fuels racism, , is the behaviors of those who are discriminated against. I went to a college that had a racially and ethnically mixed population, and the biggest racial battles going on were between groups you would not expect: 1) The Burmese and Japanese students here on foreign study programs hated each other. The Burmese were still holding grudges against the Japanese due to the atrocities committed against them in WWII. The Japanese thought the Burmese students were a lesser race and ignored them or called them names. I've seen examples of this many times when I tutored a Burmese

woman and when she and I went around campus to classes. The Japanese students would immediately identify her as being Burmese and call her names and tell me that I should not be "dating" her. Just for the record, we were not dating. 2) Black people who spoke with a white dialect and black people who spoke with a black dialect. On my floor, those who spoke the black dialect accused the blacks who used the white dialect of being "Tom's" and "Crackers" and "putting on airs" and would say that where the skin shines, thy are as "n*gger" as anyone else. , would you tell me how people who have never or who have seldom encountered these ethnic groups are to learn to respect these people when they cannot respect themselves? As it happens, I find much to respect in everyone. Technically, I am currently involved in an "inter-racial" relationship right now. But one reason racism persists, I

think, is because some of the cultures being discriminated against are not exactly showing their best sides, and as such don't give us much to respect. Tom Administrator Turning In Big BrotherMy First Authored BookOnline For Free..http://www.nathanyoung.net __________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Slavery is only a problem today because certain people won't let go of it. They keep harping about it because it gets them money, time on TV, and other things. It has been 140 years since slavery was ended, and that is plenty of time for us to have moved on.

Some points though.

1. Blacks owned slaves. In my city, there are clear records of many free blacks owning black slaves. This was not uncommon.

2. Slavery could not have happened without the cooperation of African states. Some of those states were very organized and powerful. They could have easily wiped out the handfuls of whites who came to buy slaves. But they didn't. Instead, those states rounded up slaves for the markets. One of those nations, I can't remember which, has apologized for its part in the slave trade.

3. The abolitionist movement was stronger in the South than it was in the North. It was only the political power of the plantation owners, who represented less than 2% of the white population, that kept slavery legal.

4. Contrary to post war Yankee propaganda, slaves were very well treated. Most slave owners owned 1 or two slaves and worked the fields right beside them. It was only the big plantations that had large numbers. Even there, slaves were well treated. You wouldn't see a farmer going out today and cutting the tires off a big tractor when he got mad at it. It was the same monetary equivalent with slaves. Besides, if the owners made a habit of that kind of behavior, they slaves would rise up and kill them and that did happen from time to time. On the other hand, Yankee industrialists treated their workers worse than the machines they labored over. There was no steady employment (they took the first people to get in the door each day), there was no help for the sick or injured, and 14 hour days 7 days a week were not uncommon. Try reading some of the books by the muckrakers to see what it was like.

5. More than 90% of slaves from Africa went to the Carribean and South America. Less than 8% came to the US. That slave trade was run by Yankee ship owners and investors. Southerners owned few ships compared to the Yankees and most of them were for cotton and other cargo.

6. Most anti black racism started after the Civil War. This was largely due to an agency called the Freedmen's Bureau. That agency was supposed to help the former slaves set up new lives but instead it spent most of its time just giving handouts to the slaves and driving whites, even poor whites, off of their land to give to the blacks. The Bureau, backed up by Union troops also often encouraged acts of violence by the blacks against whites, not just former slave owners, but any whites. The Ku Klux Klan was formed in part to fight this activity.

7. After the Civil War, many Northern states passed laws limiting the numbers of blacks that could migrate to them. This was done because blacks would work for less than whites and were taking jobs from them. As you can guess, this was the beginning of Northern distrust of blacks.

I could go on but I think that is enough.

Modern racism and discrimination had its roots there and there are some people, both white and black, who just hate purely on the basis of skin color. Most of the rest is based on behavior.

For most of us in the South, there is a difference between black people and N-people. Black people are generally decent, hard working and law abiding. N-people are basically what rappers glorify: criminals, thugs, drug dealers, etc. The N word can also be used more generally and be applied to blacks who do foolish things like run red lights, drive like crazy people and otherwise to dangerous and stupid things. I've worked with a number of black people and liked them. N-people are another matter.

The problem is that N-people are so much more noticable. You might go through your day seeing lots of black people and not even notice them. But the first N-person thug you see giving you the "are they worth robbing" look and that is what you remember about them. Therefore, black people are cursed by the actions of the N-people in that people don't trust them. That includes other black people. It might have been who once said that he was walking in Washington DC late one night and heard footsteps behind him. He got scared until he looked around and saw it was a white man and he relaxed. I've seen this myself, even amongst blacks. If they hear me behind them, they look over their shoulders with a bit of fear until they see a white person and they relax.

The government has also made the situation worse. From the 1930's on, a welfare state was established. Blacks were heavily recruited into it, they were deliberately targeted for it, especially under Lyndon 's Great Society. Funny thing was, many blacks didn't want anything to do with those programs. So the government turned up the pressure and propaganda and many did sign up. Prior to the Great Society, the black standard of living was rising faster than the white standard of living. Since the Great Society, it has lagged very far behind because of the numbers on welfare. Whites and others, including blacks, saw this and hated it. They hated that all these people were living off them and not having to do anything but vote for the right candidates each cycle. This caused a lot of resentment, even though the Great Society was meant to "equalize wealth."

Government quotas and set asides have also hurt race relations. For example: at most colleges, there are a number of slots set aside specifically for blacks or other racial groups. What this does it keep qualified whites and others from going to college. It also hurt blacks because their failure rate was well over twice as high as that for whites. Quotas also applied to the workplace and just about everywhere. This also had the effect of causing blacks in leadership or other higher positions to be looked at with distrust because it was impossible to tell if they got there by merit or if quotas put them there. I knew a couple of black men who hated the system because they knew fully well that everyone, black people included, thought their positions came only from quotas and not their ability. So the quotas meant to help them instead devalued them as human beings and caused racial tensions.

Tom is correct in saying that racism is being fed by certain groups not acting their best. Black entertainment and culture glorifies the street thug and violence. All you have to do is look at the music, the videos and watch some N-people in the way they dress and act. There are also the white equivalents of N-people that are called white trash, trailer trash, rednecks, etc. They are held up in popular culture too as can be seen with Paris Hilton and Brittany Spears. White trash is not too different really from the N-people. They might not be as violent and into crime, but they are shiftless, lazy and untrustworthy. I have had the misfortune to encounter their like as well, though I did have the pleasure of canceling contracts and hunting leases of theirs.

Simply put, bad behavior, government favoritism and double standards are fueling racism today. They made a big deal about Kramer's little outburst, but how many people know about the Nation of Islam which believes that white people were created by a mad black scientist and they white people should be killed off, or the black professor in North Carolina who has many times said that all whites should be killed for the good of the planet? Let's not forget rap music that is full of violent racism against whites and Jews. All that gets a pass, but have a washed up comedian say the N-word a few times and there are almost riots. This double standard is not unnoticed, merely unspoken.

As for a woman or black as President: if they merited the office then fine, but voting them in just BECAUSE they are black or a woman is every bit as disgusting as saying they can't run because they are black or a woman. Personally, I have strong suspicions about Barak Obama. His voting record and comments mark him as very much a socialist and as someone who would not be beyond strongly playing the race card. I think he would be very bad for the country not because he is black, but because of his beliefs.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/15/2006 3:21:19 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, julie.stevenson16@... writes:

Now I could be incorrect here, but I thought that originally the 'N' word stood for Nigerian gentleman, but has been degraded like so many other words; for instance 'gay' used to mean happy and 'queer' unusual.

The N word is probably a corruption of the Latin word for black, niger. It morphed through French and English into Negro, among other words. The N word came about as a derogatory meaning basically a shiftless, lazy, no account person. It can also apply to whites that one wishes to apply those traits too, but that hasn't been common use for a very long time.

Gay didn't really mean happy. It meant someone who was irresponsible in their pursuit of pleasure.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/15/2006 4:40:08 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, nathaninfortuna@... writes:

In the social subcouncious Nigeria itself is known for it's email scams. The actual "N" word reflects meanings of the act in general, a theif or a theft.

It didn't originally mean a thief. The implication of the word used to be a person of low character and morals. Since the 1960's I would guess it has taken on the connotation or thief and criminal.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/15/2006 7:28:08 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, nathaninfortuna@... writes:

I think your reply was only a deflection of the truth of the oppression, abuse and the theft of black folks freedoms. In fact the founding father, those whom approved of it and anyone whom approved of it was an "N" word. They were theives of freedom..

The Founding Father did not establish slavery but they inherited a system already in existence. It was already a major industry and ending it would have received as much opposition in the North as it would have in the South. Attempting to ban it probably would have prevented the US from ever being formed.

Pointing out the facts about slavery is not deflecting the issue, but pointing out facts most people don't know. If the Africans themselves had refused to participate, there would have been no slave trade. But since they already had slavery, and it was common throughout Africa, then it would not have happened at all. So, if you talk about people stealing freedom, a large portion of that blames goes to the Africans themselves.

There may be some black oppression these days, but a lot of it is self-inflicted by a small percentage of blacks, or I should more correctly say the N-people. At lot of the other supposed oppression is mere trivialities. For example: if a private club does not want to admit blacks, it should have every right not to do so. This is all the more true since blacks clubs, scholarships and other things just for them. If they can have black only clubs and scholarships, then, logically, whites should have whites only clubs and scholarships. That is the double standard that goes unspoken in today's society. The laws only apply to this discrimination by whites but not to the equal discrimination by blacks. It is very condescending to blacks because it says that the only clubs worth joining are the white ones and that black clubs don't need such regulation because they are second rate.

I do agree with you on the illegal immigrant issue though. It is true that they are being exploited for cheap labor. It is also true that the use of illegals is killing the middle class in America. The recent raids at the Swift meat packing plant netting well over 1,000 illegals. Those illegals were hired at the expense of US middle class citizens who had had those very jobs. This is happening all around the country. Illegals aren't just coming to be field workers anymore, but they are getting into what were good paying blue collar jobs like the meat industry and construction. The middle class is being forced to take lower end jobs and is fading away.

There comes a tipping point in an economy when the middle class is too small to balance the rich and the poor. The rich own a large share of the wealth, but that isn't a problem as long as there is a large middle class. But once the middle class gets too small, then there will be trouble. This is largely because the middle class offers stability from a good standard of living and it offers the poor an incentive to work to get ahead because it is much easier to get into the comfortable middle class than to become one of the rich.

We see this with many South American countries where 5% of the people own 95% of the wealth. There is very little room for economic development for the masses and that translates into no hope. No hope means people stop caring and things decline or it means revolution. Unfortunately, most such revolutions simply replace one 5% with another 5% and nothing improves for the masses.

Hopefully we will wise up before we get to that point, but I'm not sure we will. There are strong and violent lobbies that oppose any immigration reform. Speakers on college campuses have been physically assaulted for their views. Unfortunately, the government has not punished those colleges for not punishing those offenders by withholding Federal money or better still, withdrawing accreditation of the college until the matter is handled properly. Of course, those student could be brought up on assault and civil disturbances, but that hasn't happened either. No, I think this is bound to get very nasty because it is so polarized due to political correctness.

[Guest guest]

Now I could be incorrect here, but I thought that originally the 'N'

word stood for Nigerian gentleman, but has been degraded like so many

other words; for instance 'gay' used to mean happy and 'queer'

unusual.

>

> " Racism destroys hearts and minds, it fuels despondencies and

> entrenches racial identity groups (minority groups) in social wars

> that ultimately result in racial group empowerment. The empowerment

> dispels the ignorance of hate in society, depopularizing their

> Idiopathology and making unpopular a once popular source of

> despondency. "

>

> Part of what fuels racism, , is the behaviors of those who

are

> discriminated against. I went to a college that had a racially and

> ethnically mixed population, and the biggest racial battles going

on

> were between groups you would not expect:

>

> 1) The Burmese and Japanese students here on foreign study

programs

> hated each other. The Burmese were still holding grudges against

the

> Japanese due to the atrocities committed against them in WWII. The

> Japanese thought the Burmese students were a lesser race and

ignored

> them or called them names. I've seen examples of this many times

> when I tutored a Burmese woman and when she and I went around

campus

> to classes. The Japanese students would immediately identify her

as

> being Burmese and call her names and tell me that I should not

> be " dating " her. Just for the record, we were not dating.

>

> 2) Black people who spoke with a white dialect and black people

who

> spoke with a black dialect. On my floor, those who spoke the black

> dialect accused the blacks who used the white dialect of

> being " Tom's " and " Crackers " and " putting on airs " and would say

> that where the skin shines, thy are as " n*gger " as anyone else.

>

> , would you tell me how people who have never or who have

> seldom encountered these ethnic groups are to learn to respect

these

> people when they cannot respect themselves?

>

> As it happens, I find much to respect in everyone. Technically, I

am

> currently involved in an " inter-racial " relationship right now.

>

> But one reason racism persists, I think, is because some of the

> cultures being discriminated against are not exactly showing their

> best sides, and as such don't give us much to respect.

>

> Tom

> Administrator

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Turning In Big Brother

> My First Authored Book

> Online For Free..

> http://www.nathanyoung.net

> __________________________________________________

>

[Guest guest]

In the social subcouncious Nigeria itself is known for it's email scams. The actual "N" word reflects meanings of the act in general, a theif or a theft.greebohere <julie.stevenson16@...> wrote: Now I could be incorrect here, but I thought that originally the 'N' word stood for Nigerian gentleman, but has been degraded like so many other words; for instance 'gay' used to mean happy and 'queer' unusual. > > "Racism destroys hearts and minds, it fuels despondencies and > entrenches racial identity groups (minority groups) in social

wars > that ultimately result in racial group empowerment. The empowerment > dispels the ignorance of hate in society, depopularizing their > Idiopathology and making unpopular a once popular source of > despondency." > > Part of what fuels racism, , is the behaviors of those who are > discriminated against. I went to a college that had a racially and > ethnically mixed population, and the biggest racial battles going on > were between groups you would not expect: > > 1) The Burmese and Japanese students here on foreign study programs > hated each other. The Burmese were still holding grudges against the > Japanese due to the atrocities committed against them in WWII. The > Japanese thought the Burmese students were a lesser race and ignored > them or called them names. I've seen examples of this many times

> when I tutored a Burmese woman and when she and I went around campus > to classes. The Japanese students would immediately identify her as > being Burmese and call her names and tell me that I should not > be "dating" her. Just for the record, we were not dating. > > 2) Black people who spoke with a white dialect and black people who > spoke with a black dialect. On my floor, those who spoke the black > dialect accused the blacks who used the white dialect of > being "Tom's" and "Crackers" and "putting on airs" and would say > that where the skin shines, thy are as "n*gger" as anyone else. > > , would you tell me how people who have never or who have > seldom encountered these ethnic groups are to learn to respect these > people when they cannot respect themselves? > > As it happens, I find much to

respect in everyone. Technically, I am > currently involved in an "inter-racial" relationship right now. > > But one reason racism persists, I think, is because some of the > cultures being discriminated against are not exactly showing their > best sides, and as such don't give us much to respect. > > Tom > Administrator > > > > > > > Turning In Big Brother > My First Authored Book > Online For Free.. > http://www.nathanyoung.net > __________________________________________________ >

[Guest guest]

I think your reply was only a deflection of the truth of the oppression, abuse and the theft of black folks freedoms. In fact the founding father, those whom approved of it and anyone whom approved of it was an "N" word. They were theives of freedom.. The oppression of black folks did not end at the civil war, it still has not ended completly but has improved greatly. There are those of the same kind, the same similarit whom would sell out others for the evils of money. Slavery was about money, just like illegal alien employment is.The fonding fathers whom approved of slavery, owned slaves and or did not seek to end it were criminals. VISIGOTH@... wrote: Slavery is only a problem today because certain people won't let go of it. They keep harping about it because it gets them money, time on TV, and other things. It has been 140 years since slavery was ended, and that is plenty of time for us to have moved on. Some points though. 1. Blacks owned slaves. In my city, there are clear records of many free blacks owning black slaves. This was not uncommon. 2. Slavery could not have happened without the cooperation of African states. Some of those states were very organized and powerful. They could have easily wiped out the handfuls of

whites who came to buy slaves. But they didn't. Instead, those states rounded up slaves for the markets. One of those nations, I can't remember which, has apologized for its part in the slave trade. 3. The abolitionist movement was stronger in the South than it was in the North. It was only the political power of the plantation owners, who represented less than 2% of the white population, that kept slavery legal. 4. Contrary to post war Yankee propaganda, slaves were very well treated. Most slave owners owned 1 or two slaves and worked the fields right beside them. It was only the big plantations that had large numbers. Even there, slaves were well treated. You wouldn't see a farmer going out today and cutting the tires off a big tractor when he got mad at it. It was the same monetary equivalent with slaves. Besides, if the owners made a habit of that kind of behavior, they slaves would rise up and kill them

and that did happen from time to time. On the other hand, Yankee industrialists treated their workers worse than the machines they labored over. There was no steady employment (they took the first people to get in the door each day), there was no help for the sick or injured, and 14 hour days 7 days a week were not uncommon. Try reading some of the books by the muckrakers to see what it was like. 5. More than 90% of slaves from Africa went to the Carribean and South America. Less than 8% came to the US. That slave trade was run by Yankee ship owners and investors. Southerners owned few ships compared to the Yankees and most of them were for cotton and other cargo. 6. Most anti black racism started after the Civil War. This was largely due to an agency called the Freedmen's Bureau. That agency was supposed to help the former slaves set up new lives but instead it spent most of its time just giving handouts to

the slaves and driving whites, even poor whites, off of their land to give to the blacks. The Bureau, backed up by Union troops also often encouraged acts of violence by the blacks against whites, not just former slave owners, but any whites. The Ku Klux Klan was formed in part to fight this activity. 7. After the Civil War, many Northern states passed laws limiting the numbers of blacks that could migrate to them. This was done because blacks would work for less than whites and were taking jobs from them. As you can guess, this was the beginning of Northern distrust of blacks. I could go on but I think that is enough. Modern racism and discrimination had its roots there and there are some people, both white and black, who just hate purely on the basis of skin color. Most of the rest is based on behavior. For most of us in the South, there is a

difference between black people and N-people. Black people are generally decent, hard working and law abiding. N-people are basically what rappers glorify: criminals, thugs, drug dealers, etc. The N word can also be used more generally and be applied to blacks who do foolish things like run red lights, drive like crazy people and otherwise to dangerous and stupid things. I've worked with a number of black people and liked them. N-people are another matter. The problem is that N-people are so much more noticable. You might go through your day seeing lots of black people and not even notice them. But the first N-person thug you see giving you the "are they worth robbing" look and that is what you remember about them. Therefore, black people are cursed by the actions of the N-people in that people don't trust them. That includes other black people. It might have been who once said that he was walking in Washington DC late one

night and heard footsteps behind him. He got scared until he looked around and saw it was a white man and he relaxed. I've seen this myself, even amongst blacks. If they hear me behind them, they look over their shoulders with a bit of fear until they see a white person and they relax. The government has also made the situation worse. From the 1930's on, a welfare state was established. Blacks were heavily recruited into it, they were deliberately targeted for it, especially under Lyndon 's Great Society. Funny thing was, many blacks didn't want anything to do with those programs. So the government turned up the pressure and propaganda and many did sign up. Prior to the Great Society, the black standard of living was rising faster than the white standard of living. Since the Great Society, it has lagged very far behind because of the numbers on welfare. Whites and others, including blacks, saw this and hated it. They hated that all

these people were living off them and not having to do anything but vote for the right candidates each cycle. This caused a lot of resentment, even though the Great Society was meant to "equalize wealth." Government quotas and set asides have also hurt race relations. For example: at most colleges, there are a number of slots set aside specifically for blacks or other racial groups. What this does it keep qualified whites and others from going to college. It also hurt blacks because their failure rate was well over twice as high as that for whites. Quotas also applied to the workplace and just about everywhere. This also had the effect of causing blacks in leadership or other higher positions to be looked at with distrust because it was impossible to tell if they got there by merit or if quotas put them there. I knew a couple of black men who hated the system because they knew fully well that everyone, black people included, thought their

positions came only from quotas and not their ability. So the quotas meant to help them instead devalued them as human beings and caused racial tensions. Tom is correct in saying that racism is being fed by certain groups not acting their best. Black entertainment and culture glorifies the street thug and violence. All you have to do is look at the music, the videos and watch some N-people in the way they dress and act. There are also the white equivalents of N-people that are called white trash, trailer trash, rednecks, etc. They are held up in popular culture too as can be seen with Paris Hilton and Brittany Spears. White trash is not too different really from the N-people. They might not be as violent and into crime, but they are shiftless, lazy and untrustworthy. I have had the misfortune to encounter their like as well, though I did have the pleasure of canceling contracts and hunting leases of theirs. Simply put, bad behavior, government favoritism and double standards are fueling racism today. They made a big deal about Kramer's little outburst, but how many people know about the Nation of Islam which believes that white people were created by a mad black scientist and they white people should be killed off, or the black professor in North Carolina who has many times said that all whites should be killed for the good of the planet? Let's not forget rap music that is full of violent racism against whites and Jews. All that gets a pass, but have a washed up comedian say the N-word a few times and there are almost riots. This double standard is not unnoticed, merely unspoken. As for a woman or black as President: if they merited the office then fine, but voting them in just BECAUSE they are black or a woman is every bit as disgusting as saying they can't run because they are black or a woman. Personally, I have strong suspicions

about Barak Obama. His voting record and comments mark him as very much a socialist and as someone who would not be beyond strongly playing the race card. I think he would be very bad for the country not because he is black, but because of his beliefs. Turning In Big BrotherMy First Authored BookOnline For Free..http://www.nathanyoung.net __________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

It is the relevent social meaning that was applied, not what is irrelevent in the American psyche..VISIGOTH@... wrote: In a message dated 12/15/2006 4:40:08 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, nathaninfortuna writes: In the social subcouncious Nigeria itself is known for it's email scams. The actual "N" word reflects

meanings of the act in general, a theif or a theft. It didn't originally mean a thief. The implication of the word used to be a person of low character and morals. Since the 1960's I would guess it has taken on the connotation or thief and criminal. Turning In Big BrotherMy First Authored

BookOnline For Free..http://www.nathanyoung.net __________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

It sure seems like your defending it to me. The facts may be stated however in a way in which deflects the true criminality. Slaves were not pampered, they were forced or sometimes whipped. There is a deluted factual display and one of a harsh truth. Unlike other countries America was formed with a premise of personal freedoms, how could it just be for certain people. I see no defence of the founding fathers, policians an organized religion group or the majority whom might have supported it. This country with a free black populious in the begining would have been a much better country. Jst imagine a black Washington on or money today, instead of a white one. Even if a system existed soley just for trade of citizinship to pay for ones travels, to work for that cost, it would have been better. Instead

slaves properly differenciated lived there whole lives imprisioned and if they fled some were killed or beaten. Come on, reality-check. There were many criminals back then... This country now is very different.VISIGOTH@... wrote: In a message dated 12/15/2006 7:28:08 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, nathaninfortuna writes: I think your reply was only a deflection of the truth of the oppression, abuse and the theft of black folks freedoms. In fact the founding father, those whom approved of it and anyone whom approved of it was an "N" word. They were theives of freedom.. The Founding Father did not establish slavery but they inherited a system already in existence. It was already a major industry and ending it would have received as much opposition in the North as it would have in the South. Attempting to ban it probably would have prevented the US from ever being formed. Pointing out the facts about slavery is not deflecting the issue, but pointing out facts most people don't know. If the Africans themselves had refused to participate, there would have been no slave trade. But since they

already had slavery, and it was common throughout Africa, then it would not have happened at all. So, if you talk about people stealing freedom, a large portion of that blames goes to the Africans themselves. There may be some black oppression these days, but a lot of it is self-inflicted by a small percentage of blacks, or I should more correctly say the N-people. At lot of the other supposed oppression is mere trivialities. For example: if a private club does not want to admit blacks, it should have every right not to do so. This is all the more true since blacks clubs, scholarships and other things just for them. If they can have black only clubs and scholarships, then, logically, whites should have whites only clubs and scholarships. That is the double standard that goes unspoken in today's society. The laws only apply to this discrimination by whites but not to the equal discrimination by blacks. It is very condescending to blacks

because it says that the only clubs worth joining are the white ones and that black clubs don't need such regulation because they are second rate. I do agree with you on the illegal immigrant issue though. It is true that they are being exploited for cheap labor. It is also true that the use of illegals is killing the middle class in America. The recent raids at the Swift meat packing plant netting well over 1,000 illegals. Those illegals were hired at the expense of US middle class citizens who had had those very jobs. This is happening all around the country. Illegals aren't just coming to be field workers anymore, but they are getting into what were good paying blue collar jobs like the meat industry and construction. The middle class is being forced to take lower end jobs and is fading away. There comes a tipping point in an economy when the middle class is too small to balance the rich and the

poor. The rich own a large share of the wealth, but that isn't a problem as long as there is a large middle class. But once the middle class gets too small, then there will be trouble. This is largely because the middle class offers stability from a good standard of living and it offers the poor an incentive to work to get ahead because it is much easier to get into the comfortable middle class than to become one of the rich. We see this with many South American countries where 5% of the people own 95% of the wealth. There is very little room for economic development for the masses and that translates into no hope. No hope means people stop caring and things decline or it means revolution. Unfortunately, most such revolutions simply replace one 5% with another 5% and nothing improves for the masses. Hopefully we will wise up before we get to that point, but I'm not sure we will. There are strong and violent

lobbies that oppose any immigration reform. Speakers on college campuses have been physically assaulted for their views. Unfortunately, the government has not punished those colleges for not punishing those offenders by withholding Federal money or better still, withdrawing accreditation of the college until the matter is handled properly. Of course, those student could be brought up on assault and civil disturbances, but that hasn't happened either. No, I think this is bound to get very nasty because it is so polarized due to political correctness. Turning In Big BrotherMy First Authored BookOnline For

Free..http://www.nathanyoung.net __________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

wrote: " Slavery is only a problem today because certain

people won't let go of it. They keep harping about it because it

gets them money, time on TV, and other things. It has been 140 years

since slavery was ended, and that is plenty of time for us to have

moved on. "

Injustice does not disappear because time has passed and righting

the wrongs is inconvenient. It has been hundreds of years since the

white man stole Aboriginal land in North America but the injustices

that grew from that original injustice still abound today. I

suspect it is the same with African Americans.

wrote: " 1. Blacks owned slaves. In my city, there are clear

records of many free blacks owning black slaves. This was not

uncommon. "

This is true however going along with the crowd in order to fit in

(owning black slaves in this case) is something that some have done

out of fear that they will suffer at the hands of the " IN " crowd.

wrote: " 2. Slavery could not have happened without the

cooperation of African states. Some of those states were very

organized and powerful. They could have easily wiped out the

handfuls of whites who came to buy slaves. But they didn't.

Instead, those states rounded up slaves for the markets. "

I disagree, . In comparison, Aboriginals could have easily

wiped out handfuls of whites who came to steal our land. However,

my ancestors in particular (Abenaki Algonquins) were a welcoming

people who shared what they had with these new people who came in

large boats. However, the white man had 'stronger magic' with their

fire sticks that killed a man from a faraway distance (in comparison

to what my ancestors had at the time). Bullying by the white man --

even a smaller number of white man than the number of people the

white man is bullying -- can undermine entire civilizations.

Furthermore, I am not so certain the African countries that

participated in the round-up you mention were not:

1. Terrorrized into complying; and/or

2. Made false promises that were later reneged up.

wrote: " 3. The abolitionist movement was stronger in the

South than it was in the North. It was only the political power of

the plantation owners, who represented less than 2% of the white

population, that kept slavery legal. "

In other words, those with power, money and the right to vote.

Women could not vote. Slaves could not vote. But powerful rich

white men who liked the comforts of slavery on their plantations

could vote. It's called a stacked vote at that point.

wrote: " 4. Contrary to post war Yankee propaganda, slaves

were very well treated. Most slave owners owned 1 or two slaves and

worked the fields right beside them. It was only the big plantations

that had large numbers. Even there, slaves were well treated. "

Is this the same way that Aboriginals were well-treated by being

pushed onto land that was unfamiliar to their ways and substandard

for the white man's needs? Even today, you can hear people of

European descent in North America complain that Aboriginals don't

see how well-treated they are by the government what with those

reservations set aside 'just' for them and their children. Fact of

the matter is, we are still being mistreated. So, what is written

about the equitable and fair and just treatment of slaves as

perceived by someone who has not been in that slave's position is

questionable at best.

wrote: " You wouldn't see a farmer going out today and

cutting the tires off a big tractor when he got mad at it. It was

the same monetary equivalent with slaves. Besides, if the owners

made a habit of that kind of behavior, they slaves would rise up and

kill them and that did happen from time to time. "

Are you serious? When men could legally beat the daylights out of

their wives and expect her to work beside him after that beating

(even if there was serious injury). What makes you think it was any

different for slaves?

Those who are bullied, intimidated, beaten, et al find it almost

impossibly difficult to rise up against their oppressor and abuser.

The fact that it *did* happen only underscores the fact that this

sort of abuse *did* happen and undoubtedly it happened more than you

are willing to believe.

wrote: " On the other hand, Yankee industrialists treated

their workers worse than the machines they labored over. There was

no steady employment (they took the first people to get in the door

each day), there was no help for the sick or injured, and 14 hour

days 7 days a week were not uncommon. Try reading some of the books

by the muckrakers to see what it was like. "

They were no better than their southern counterparts. What is your

point?

wrote " 5. More than 90% of slaves from Africa went to the

Carribean and South America. Less than 8% came to the US. That slave

trade was run by Yankee ship owners and investors. Southerners owned

few ships compared to the Yankees and most of them were for cotton

and other cargo. "

I have no information with which to address this point and no time

to research it this morning.

wrote: " 6. Most anti black racism started after the

Civil ... <snip> ... "

I have no information with which to address this point and no time

to research it this morning.

wrote: " 7. After the Civil War, many Northern states passed

laws limiting the numbers of blacks that could migrate to them. This

was done because blacks would work for less than whites and were

taking jobs from them. As you can guess, this was the beginning of

Northern distrust of blacks. "

Is that like the NAFTA agreement that the Americans bullied Mexico

and Canada into signing many years ago? I remember hearing at the

time that NAFTA would make it " easier " for Canadian musicians to

travel into America to perform and stem the hemmoraging of American

musicians coming north of the 49th parallel and taking jobs from

Canadian musicians. Fact is, the only thing that changed was the

degree of difficulty involved for Canadian musicians to enter

America to perform gigs. It got way more difficult, far more

complicated and caused more troubles than you could ever imagine.

And you wonder why Canadians and Mexicans (who are undoubtedly

experiencing similar difficulties) distrust many Americans.

wrote: " I could go on but I think that is enough. "

As could I but I think that is enough as well.

wrote: " Modern racism and discrimination had its roots

there and there are some people, both white and black, who just hate

purely on the basis of skin color. "

I agree.

Raven

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/15/2006 11:20:06 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, ravenmagic2003@... writes:

Injustice does not disappear because time has passed and righting the wrongs is inconvenient. It has been hundreds of years since the white man stole Aboriginal land in North America but the injustices that grew from that original injustice still abound today. I suspect it is the same with African Americans.

Interesting idea. So, my family should be holding the following grudges and seek redress from:

Mother's side: The Vikings for all the raiding and pillaging of England, the Normans for invading and overthrowing the Saxons, the Saxons for invading and defeating the Celts, the Romans for also conquering the islands. All of the above plus various Germanic tribes for centuries of raiding and pillaging through what is now Holland. The Spanish and the Catholic Church for fighting a war to keep Protestants in Holland from being Protestants. We could go even farther and want redress from the Mongolians because the raiding of the Mongol hordes forced the westward migration of the other people that caused misery for mine.

Father's side: All of the above plus the English for invading Ireland, the Vikings for invading Ireland, the Celts for invading Ireland and so on through each of the legendary invasion cycles of Ireland.

That's a lot of people going way back to hold grudges against, but its also a lot of people to get money from as redress for all this. That's not even looking at modern times. If you added in all the wars and persecutions since the 1640's, especially the world wars, we the Germans would figure very prominently into that.

"This is true however going along with the crowd in order to fit in (owning black slaves in this case) is something that some have done out of fear that they will suffer at the hands of the "IN" crowd. "

That's a bad argument, really. It has nothing to do with being in the "IN" crowd and everything to do with the economic system of the time. If you had a business and had an employee but your competition across the street had a slave, you would be at a major disadvantage because you had to pay your employee. As such, your prices would be higher and you could lose out to the other fellow. We are seeing this same thing today with illegal immigration. If your business uses citizens for its workforce and the competition uses illegals, they are going to be able to undercut your price and you will lose work. This cycle is simply repeating itself for the millionth time and the government, for the million and first time, is not doing anything to stop it.

"I disagree, . In comparison, Aboriginals could have easily wiped out handfuls of whites who came to steal our land. However, my ancestors in particular (Abenaki Algonquins) were a welcoming people who shared what they had with these new people who came in large boats. However, the white man had 'stronger magic' with their fire sticks that killed a man from a faraway distance (in comparison to what my ancestors had at the time). Bullying by the white man -- even a smaller number of white man than the number of people the white man is bullying -- can undermine entire civilizations.Furthermore, I am not so certain the African countries that participated in the round-up you mention were not:1. Terrorrized into complying; and/or2. Made false promises that were later reneged up. "

The Natives in America and Africa quickly lost their fear of Western firepower, especially muskets. Muskets took a long time to reload, had short range, weren't accurate and were sensitive to the weather. Bows and arrows could fire faster at slightly longer range, were very accurate and weren't as bothered by the weather. During the various Indian wars, they had developed tactics whereby they could inflict great defeats on Western forces. This was so much so that lin wanted to the American army equipped with longbows instead of muskets. The natives were given muskets because they were less dangerous than the bows and they required ammunition that only Westerners could supply, thus tying the natives to a given power.

African tribes in the inland Western region, were larger and more organized than most Native American tribes and they had iron weapons. They also had a long tradition of slavery both internally and trading slaves with the Arab slavers, but the tradition probably went as far back as the Romans. Yes, there has been overland trade over that range for centuries. Those tribes had the numbers that they easily could have overwhelmed anything the Europeans sent at them. This is all the more so because of the tropical disease that killed the majority of Europeans who went there. Any European army sent after the tribes would have been able to let disease do most of the work for them and picked off the stragglers.

So, they weren't terrorized into compliance because that wasn't possible. Promises, on the other hand, were kept. The African tribes wanted weapons, gold and rum, so that is exactly what they got. The larger tribes were already quite powerful and wealthy, they just became more so from the slave trade. And why wouldn't they participate? Tradition was to take prisoners in war and make them slaves. Before the Europeans showed up, you could only take so many slaves which left your enemies strong. Now, they could take as many as they could catch and wiped out their enemies and make a profit at the same time.

"In other words, those with power, money and the right to vote. Women could not vote. Slaves could not vote. But powerful rich white men who liked the comforts of slavery on their plantations could vote. It's called a stacked vote at that point."

The rich Northern men didn't vote to end it either. At the time of the Revolution, slavery was legal in all the colonies. As I've said before, it was Northern merchants and ship captains who made all the money from the slave trade. This was so much so that even after the US signed a treaty banning the trade around 1814, many of those captains continued the trade with the Carribean and South America. So it was a stacked point of view, but not just in the South.

"Those who are bullied, intimidated, beaten, et al find it almost impossibly difficult to rise up against their oppressor and abuser. The fact that it *did* happen only underscores the fact that this sort of abuse *did* happen and undoubtedly it happened more than you are willing to believe."

Find and read Time on the Cross. I can't think of the author's name at the moment, but I do recall that he is a black man who researched slavery and the lives of slaves. No, they didn't have it as good as free men, but the treatment wasn't as bad as it has been made out to be.

NAFTA cuts both ways. In the US, most logging is done by private entities on private land. In Canada, most logging is done on government owned and is subsidized, which gives Canadian loggers an advantage over American loggers. It has the effect of keeping the price lower than it would otherwise be, which, because we aren't subsidized by the government, lowers our profits and has put some operators out of business.

NAFTA has been a failure anyway. Business moved to Mexico but much as since relocated to China or elsewhere where labor was cheaper still and the government more stable and, to an extent, less corrupt.

[Guest guest]

I never said slavery was a good thing. I have, however, been trying to explain that it was a system inherited by the Founders and one that they could not have done away with AND had the United States, which did in time END slavery.

"The justifications you put forth to defend a false patriotism goes to show how blind your logic is. I really think a better America exists without the founding fathers criminalistic philosophy. It in fact is no longer a part of America, It is as if America is version 2.0 now."

Its is obvious from this that you are too full of PC "education" and the unreasoning hatred it was designed to instill to logically debate this any further you. Your arguments are not logical, just emotional and driven by hate. If you looked at your own statement, you can see the lack of logic. If there had been now "America 1.0, bugs and all, there could have been no "America 2.0."

But you do bring up another point you should be aware of. You are saying that because some of the Founders were "bad" that the entire American Experiment is worthless. However, you are a strong supporter of socialism. Don't you see the irony? Marx, the founder of socialism, HATED the working class and the peasants. Socialist governments like the Soviet Union, Hilter's Germany, Mao's China and Pol Pot among many others have killed at least 100 million people in the last century, terrorized their people into submission with brutality and forced the people to live in conditions at least as bad as slavery was. Not to mention that they killed off anyone with intelligence enough to complain, although Lenin did have re-education camps where they sent people until they were "politically correct," which is where the term originates.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/15/2006 9:17:27 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, nathaninfortuna@... writes:

You already called people like me a parasite.. The truth of history is seen, anyone who did not oppose slavery of black folks was a criminal.

Actually I called the government a parasite because that is what it has become. Now, if you want to talk criminal, why aren't you after the government as it is? I've described what welfare has wrought, how it has hurt so many people, is responsible for the crime rate, and its bloated bureaucracy is a drag on the economy. You really should direct your anger at the current political class that seeks to keep people on welfare and expand the rosters so it can "own" more voters. It should be instructive that as black have moved up the economic ladder and get away from welfare, they begin to leave the Democratic party. It should also be instructive that the loudest advocates for school vouchers and education reforms are the black people trapped in dreadful schools. Yet, the education bureaucracy and the government refuse to abide by their wishes and keeps the schools terrible. Many blacks also want crime cleaned up because they suffer disproportionately from it, yet the government judges keep letting the bad people back out onto the streets.

If you are looking people oppressing blacks and being criminal, look no further than the current government. Through welfare, quotas and other set asides, they as plainly saying blacks are inferior as the Supreme Court once did when it counted blacks as 2/3 thirds of a man. It was the current, post Civil War government that has been exploiting blacks since the Gettysburg address.

[Guest guest]

You use history to justify that somehow black folk ordained slavery and agreed, then try to articulate a standard of living as if it was a pleasant thing. Slavery in all of history is a crime and a human rights violation.I have known of no black person whom agreed to salvery, regardless of rich criminals who happened to be black folks who sold out. History can be contrived as well, making a polish finish and false truth out of perported fact. Slavery was a form of oppression and criminal deed against the poor impoverished. While the rich sold them no matter the skin color. Slavery in economics is more about selfishness and goes to show the lack of moral and ethic for the mighty dollar.The justifications you put forth to defend a false patriotism goes to show how blind your logic is. I really think a better America exists without the founding fathers criminalistic philosophy. It in

fact is no longer a part of America, It is as if America is version 2.0 now.The key formula for freedom in governance is fundimental freedoms and protectionism. Protectionism ensures freedom is protected while in balance and fundimental freedoms are of the human spirit and or psyche. VISIGOTH@... wrote: In a message dated 12/15/2006 11:20:06 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, ravenmagic2003 (DOT) ca writes: Injustice does not disappear because time has passed and righting the wrongs is inconvenient. It has been hundreds of years since the white man stole Aboriginal land in North America but the injustices that grew from that original injustice still abound today. I suspect it is the same with African Americans. Interesting idea. So, my family should be holding the following grudges and seek redress from: Mother's side: The Vikings for all the raiding and pillaging of England, the Normans for invading and overthrowing the Saxons, the Saxons for invading and defeating the Celts, the Romans for also conquering the

islands. All of the above plus various Germanic tribes for centuries of raiding and pillaging through what is now Holland. The Spanish and the Catholic Church for fighting a war to keep Protestants in Holland from being Protestants. We could go even farther and want redress from the Mongolians because the raiding of the Mongol hordes forced the westward migration of the other people that caused misery for mine. Father's side: All of the above plus the English for invading Ireland, the Vikings for invading Ireland, the Celts for invading Ireland and so on through each of the legendary invasion cycles of Ireland. That's a lot of people going way back to hold grudges against, but its also a lot of people to get money from as redress for all this. That's not even looking at modern times. If you added in all the wars and persecutions since the 1640's, especially the world wars, we the Germans would figure very

prominently into that. "This is true however going along with the crowd in order to fit in (owning black slaves in this case) is something that some have done out of fear that they will suffer at the hands of the "IN" crowd. " That's a bad argument, really. It has nothing to do with being in the "IN" crowd and everything to do with the economic system of the time. If you had a business and had an employee but your competition across the street had a slave, you would be at a major disadvantage because you had to pay your employee. As such, your prices would be higher and you could lose out to the other fellow. We are seeing this same thing today with illegal immigration. If your business uses citizens for its workforce and the competition uses illegals, they are going to be able to undercut your price and you will lose work. This cycle is simply repeating itself for the millionth time and the government,

for the million and first time, is not doing anything to stop it. "I disagree, . In comparison, Aboriginals could have easily wiped out handfuls of whites who came to steal our land. However, my ancestors in particular (Abenaki Algonquins) were a welcoming people who shared what they had with these new people who came in large boats. However, the white man had 'stronger magic' with their fire sticks that killed a man from a faraway distance (in comparison to what my ancestors had at the time). Bullying by the white man -- even a smaller number of white man than the number of people the white man is bullying -- can undermine entire civilizations.Furthermore, I am not so certain the African countries that participated in the round-up you mention were not:1. Terrorrized into complying; and/or2. Made false promises that were later reneged up. " The

Natives in America and Africa quickly lost their fear of Western firepower, especially muskets. Muskets took a long time to reload, had short range, weren't accurate and were sensitive to the weather. Bows and arrows could fire faster at slightly longer range, were very accurate and weren't as bothered by the weather. During the various Indian wars, they had developed tactics whereby they could inflict great defeats on Western forces. This was so much so that lin wanted to the American army equipped with longbows instead of muskets. The natives were given muskets because they were less dangerous than the bows and they required ammunition that only Westerners could supply, thus tying the natives to a given power. African tribes in the inland Western region, were larger and more organized than most Native American tribes and they had iron weapons. They also had a long tradition of slavery both internally and trading slaves with

the Arab slavers, but the tradition probably went as far back as the Romans. Yes, there has been overland trade over that range for centuries. Those tribes had the numbers that they easily could have overwhelmed anything the Europeans sent at them. This is all the more so because of the tropical disease that killed the majority of Europeans who went there. Any European army sent after the tribes would have been able to let disease do most of the work for them and picked off the stragglers. So, they weren't terrorized into compliance because that wasn't possible. Promises, on the other hand, were kept. The African tribes wanted weapons, gold and rum, so that is exactly what they got. The larger tribes were already quite powerful and wealthy, they just became more so from the slave trade. And why wouldn't they participate? Tradition was to take prisoners in war and make them slaves. Before the Europeans showed up, you could only take so many

slaves which left your enemies strong. Now, they could take as many as they could catch and wiped out their enemies and make a profit at the same time. "In other words, those with power, money and the right to vote. Women could not vote. Slaves could not vote. But powerful rich white men who liked the comforts of slavery on their plantations could vote. It's called a stacked vote at that point." The rich Northern men didn't vote to end it either. At the time of the Revolution, slavery was legal in all the colonies. As I've said before, it was Northern merchants and ship captains who made all the money from the slave trade. This was so much so that even after the US signed a treaty banning the trade around 1814, many of those captains continued the trade with the Carribean and South America. So it was a stacked point of view, but not just in the South. "Those who are

bullied, intimidated, beaten, et al find it almost impossibly difficult to rise up against their oppressor and abuser. The fact that it *did* happen only underscores the fact that this sort of abuse *did* happen and undoubtedly it happened more than you are willing to believe." Find and read Time on the Cross. I can't think of the author's name at the moment, but I do recall that he is a black man who researched slavery and the lives of slaves. No, they didn't have it as good as free men, but the treatment wasn't as bad as it has been made out to be. NAFTA cuts both ways. In the US, most logging is done by private entities on private land. In Canada, most logging is done on government owned and is subsidized, which gives Canadian loggers an advantage over American loggers. It has the effect of keeping the price lower than it would otherwise be, which, because we aren't subsidized by the

government, lowers our profits and has put some operators out of business. NAFTA has been a failure anyway. Business moved to Mexico but much as since relocated to China or elsewhere where labor was cheaper still and the government more stable and, to an extent, less corrupt. Turning In Big BrotherMy First Authored BookOnline For Free..http://www.nathanyoung.net __________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

You already called people like me a parasite.. The truth of history

is seen, anyone who did not oppose slavery of black folks was a

criminal. You protect THE CIMINALS and assert your superior

education and my own unique opinion and thought as something learned

on the PC as someone thinking for me.

I do not need to goto yor college or a college in general. I was

tested as gifted myself and don't use my gift to justify histories

hate and injustices.

You are hatefull, it's mixed into your intelectual writtings..

>

> I never said slavery was a good thing. I have, however, been

trying to

> explain that it was a system inherited by the Founders and one

that they could not

> have done away with AND had the United States, which did in time

END

> slavery.

>

> " The justifications you put forth to defend a false patriotism

goes to show

> how blind your logic is. I really think a better America exists

without the

> founding fathers criminalistic philosophy. It in fact is no longer

a part of

> America, It is as if America is version 2.0 now. "

>

> Its is obvious from this that you are too full of PC " education "

and the

> unreasoning hatred it was designed to instill to logically debate

this any

> further you. Your arguments are not logical, just emotional and

driven by hate. If

> you looked at your own statement, you can see the lack of logic.

If there had

> been now " America 1.0, bugs and all, there could have been

no " America 2.0. "

>

> But you do bring up another point you should be aware of. You are

saying

> that because some of the Founders were " bad " that the entire

American Experiment

> is worthless. However, you are a strong supporter of socialism.

Don't you see

> the irony? Marx, the founder of socialism, HATED the working

class and the

> peasants. Socialist governments like the Soviet Union, Hilter's

Germany, Mao's

> China and Pol Pot among many others have killed at least 100

million people

> in the last century, terrorized their people into submission with

brutality

> and forced the people to live in conditions at least as bad as

slavery was.

> Not to mention that they killed off anyone with intelligence

enough to

> complain, although Lenin did have re-education camps where they

sent people until

> they were " politically correct, " which is where the term

originates.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Your changing meaning to cover your bum.. Ok I get it, I'll go ahead

and give you a break.

>

>

> In a message dated 12/15/2006 9:17:27 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,

> nathaninfortuna@... writes:

>

> You already called people like me a parasite.. The truth of

history

> is seen, anyone who did not oppose slavery of black folks was a

> criminal.

>

>

> Actually I called the government a parasite because that is what

it has

> become. Now, if you want to talk criminal, why aren't you after

the government as

> it is? I've described what welfare has wrought, how it has hurt so

many

> people, is responsible for the crime rate, and its bloated

bureaucracy is a drag

> on the economy. You really should direct your anger at the current

political

> class that seeks to keep people on welfare and expand the rosters

so it can

> " own " more voters. It should be instructive that as black have

moved up the

> economic ladder and get away from welfare, they begin to leave the

Democratic

> party. It should also be instructive that the loudest advocates

for school

> vouchers and education reforms are the black people trapped in

dreadful schools.

> Yet, the education bureaucracy and the government refuse to abide

by their

> wishes and keeps the schools terrible. Many blacks also want crime

cleaned up

> because they suffer disproportionately from it, yet the government

judges keep

> letting the bad people back out onto the streets.

>

> If you are looking people oppressing blacks and being criminal,

look no

> further than the current government. Through welfare, quotas and

other set

> asides, they as plainly saying blacks are inferior as the Supreme

Court once did

> when it counted blacks as 2/3 thirds of a man. It was the current,

post Civil

> War government that has been exploiting blacks since the

Gettysburg address.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

The problem with speaking against a black man is that is can be seen

as racism by some. There is a manipulation that exists at some

levels and I will explain.

1. The damage of racism instills a persecutory complex, not to the

fault of the individual.

2. Strategic accusations of racism can be politically motivated.

3. Racism exists and that is the true reason for speaking against

the individual.

Racism can be hidden, but this politician which I have only seen a

few times has said some things about not voting for him because he

is black.

What there needs to be is a really good dual party interest in a

black hopeful for president. The possibilities of this existing are:

1. Both parties have a black potential president running for office.

Both parties decide it's time to show America and the world Racism

has been defeated and to implore upon the eventual empowerment of

the black community by electing a black president.

2. A black potential president which can be liked by swing voters

and those in the two parties that might see both republican and

democratic idealisms in the same individual.

I don't keep up with politics but that was my input.

Luther King Jr. Needs to be put on a coin or a paper money

like the dolar bill.

>

> " Personally, I have strong suspicions about Barak Obama. His

voting

> record and comments mark him as very much a socialist and as

someone

> who would not be beyond strongly playing the race card. I think he

> would be very bad for the country not because he is black, but

> because of his beliefs. "

>

>

>

> Those of us who live in Illinios where O'Bama actually holds

office

> are waiting for him to quit traveling and start delivering on his

> promises.

>

> In Illinois, he has made news for doing only one thing (aside from

> campaigning), but of course, all the saps out there who think

O'Bama

> is the biggest thing since sliced bread don't care about how

corrupt

> O'Bama actually is. But we in Illinois know it, because we are

> suffering for it. The Democrats who voted for him are now at the

ass

> end of a lot of jokes, and soon the Democrats who will vote for

him

> for President are going to be at the ass end of alot of jokes:

>

> http://www.slate.com/id/2155501/?nav=tap3

>

> Barackwater

>

> For now, Obama's scandal is too small to hurt.

>

> By Dickerson

> Posted Thursday, Dec. 14, 2006, at 6:54 PM ET

>

> If Barack Obama decides to run for president, we're going to hear

a

> lot more about Antoin " Tony " Rezko, the senator's neighbor.

>

> Rezko is the kind of neighbor you want—the absent kind—and he

might

> be absent for a long time—in the federal pen. That move upriver

> might keep Obama from his own residential upgrade to that big

white

> house he's got his eye on in Washington.

>

> OK, I'll stop. When you read the Chicago columnists having fun

with

> the relationship between Obama and Rezko, the wiseacre rubs off on

> you. Here's the story, without the mustard: Barack Obama has a

> little real-estate scandal that raises questions about his

judgment.

>

> The Chicago Tribune broke the story back in November. It begins in

> 2004 with Obama's $1.9 million book advance for The Audacity of

> Hope. In June 2005, Obama used the money to purchase a $1.65

million

> Georgian revival home on Chicago's South Side—$300,000 less than

the

> asking price. On the very same day, Rezko, a Democratic Party fund-

> raiser and developer, bought the adjacent empty lot at the asking

> price from the same owner (the house and the lot were previously

> owned by the same person). Rezko, who had raised money for Obama

and

> known him since the senator attended Harvard Law School, did not

> develop the empty lot. In January 2006, he sold a 1,500-square-

foot

> slice of it to Obama for $104,000, a fair sum in that market.

>

> Here's the question: Did Rezko orchestrate his same-day purchase

of

> the lot at full price so that the seller would give Obama a break

on

> the price of the adjacent house? Was Obama in on the deal? And did

> Rezko never intend to develop the lot, giving Obama a nice roomy

> side yard, a favor which he'd call in later?

>

> Obama says he did talk to Rezko before the purchase, but only

> because a person who had renovated it for a previous owner had

once

> worked with Rezko, who owns other properties in the South Side. He

> didn't arrange the joint purchase with him. He bought the house at

> such a good price, Obama has told the papers, because it was being

> unloaded in a " fire sale. "

>

> There's no evidence that the senator is fibbing or that the

indicted

> fund-raiser asked anything in return for his neighborly behavior

> (though that might have been just a matter of time). Obama hasn't

> tried to change his story, even though Rezko is now talking to

> investigators.

>

> What about Obama's judgment? Chicago politicians with national

> aspirations have to think a little harder about appearances than

> their colleagues from other cities that don't have reputations for

> corruption. Shouldn't Obama have known not to get anywhere near a

> sketchy character like Rezko?

>

> When Obama bought his house, Rezko was not as radioactive as he is

> today. Newspaper accounts contained allegations about his business

> practices, but he was regarded as a typical power broker who

cannily

> cultivates politicians. But by the time that Obama bought the

strip

> of land, Rezko was glowing. The papers were reporting that he was

> under investigation by federal prosecutors. In October, he was

> charged in a 24-count indictment with trying to obtain kickbacks

> from companies seeking state business.

>

> Obama presents himself as a squeaky-clean politician, so the

dubious

> association with Rezko has caused him more trouble that it would,

> say, anyone else in the history of Chicago or Illinois politics.

To

> defuse the issue, the junior senator has done a good McCain

> imitation: swamping critics with apologies, admissions, and

> candor. " This is the first time this has happened and I don't like

> the feeling, " Obama said at a press conference in November. " It's

> frustrating to me, and I'm kicking myself about it. " He told the

> Associated Press: " Purchasing a piece of property from somebody

who

> has been a supporter of yours I think is a bad idea. It's an

example

> of where every once in a while you're going to make a mistake and

> hopefully you learn from it. " He told the Chicago Sun-Times that

he

> made a mistake and, " I regret it. ... One of the things you

purchase

> in public life is that there are going to be a different set of

> standards, I'm going to make sure from this point that I don't

even

> come close to the line. "

>

> As the scandal stands, this is not Obama's Whitewater, the

Arkansas

> land deal that bedeviled Bill and Hillary Clinton during the early

> part of President Clinton's first term. It doesn't help an

> inexperienced national politician to have to admit a stupid rookie

> mistake before the cameras, but there's nothing here so far that

> seems politically life threatening. Of course, if Rezko tells a

> different story to investigators or Obama's statements turn out to

> be unture, that's it for him—you can't run for president on your

> keen judgment and then show a lack of it by lying and covering up.

>

> If Obama decides to run for president and fails, it will be

because

> he'll show in other ways that he lacks experience, or he can't

> handle the rigors of a campaign, or because he turns out to speak

> only in pleasing generalities. The Rezko business is also not

likely

> to hurt him, because his principal rival will probably be Hillary

> Clinton, and she's not going to bring up the topic of questionable

> land deals.

>

[Guest guest]

Maybe you should if some of the same injustices that happen to

Aboriginals are happening to you.

In the 1950s, were your parents able to vote in federal, state and

municipal elections? Ah, they were. My mother's family was not

allowed to vote in any elections until 1960 when Aboriginals were

given the right to vote.

And when is the last time that the government walked onto your land,

took it back from you, did not compensate you for it, and then gave

it to a land developer to do what he wanted? And after you fought

to have your land rightfully returned to you a second time, did your

government then take the land back and refuse to give it back to

you? No, I didn't think so. That's what's going on right now in

Ipperwash in this province.

When's the last time that someone in your family was shot to death

by a state trooper for protecting his land? Oh, that hasn't

happened recently. Maybe you should talk to Dudley 's family

about this since that's what happened to him and when the ones

responsible were taken to court, they were found guilty but they

didn't serve any time or pay any fines. They had their wrists

slapped.

So if the injustices visited upon your ancestors are still

negatively affecting your life today to the point that it removes

certain rights from your life that are there for the white man to

enjoy, then I would say you should stand up and fight for what's

yours.

Raven

>

>

> In a message dated 12/15/2006 11:20:06 A.M. Eastern Standard

Time,

> ravenmagic2003@... writes:

>

> Injustice does not disappear because time has passed and righting

> the wrongs is inconvenient. It has been hundreds of years since

the

> white man stole Aboriginal land in North America but the

injustices

> that grew from that original injustice still abound today. I

> suspect it is the same with African Americans.

>

>

>

> Interesting idea. So, my family should be holding the following

grudges and

> seek redress from:

>

> Mother's side: The Vikings for all the raiding and pillaging of

England, the

> Normans for invading and overthrowing the Saxons, the Saxons for

invading

> and defeating the Celts, the Romans for also conquering the

islands. All of the

> above plus various Germanic tribes for centuries of raiding and

pillaging

> through what is now Holland. The Spanish and the Catholic Church

for fighting a

> war to keep Protestants in Holland from being Protestants. We

could go even

> farther and want redress from the Mongolians because the raiding

of the Mongol

> hordes forced the westward migration of the other people that

caused misery

> for mine.

>

> Father's side: All of the above plus the English for invading

Ireland, the

> Vikings for invading Ireland, the Celts for invading Ireland and

so on through

> each of the legendary invasion cycles of Ireland.

>

> That's a lot of people going way back to hold grudges against, but

its also

> a lot of people to get money from as redress for all this. That's

not even

> looking at modern times. If you added in all the wars and

persecutions since the

> 1640's, especially the world wars, we the Germans would figure

very

> prominently into that.

>

> " This is true however going along with the crowd in order to fit

in

> (owning black slaves in this case) is something that some have

done

> out of fear that they will suffer at the hands of the " IN "

crowd. "

>

> That's a bad argument, really. It has nothing to do with being in

the " IN "

> crowd and everything to do with the economic system of the time.

If you had a

> business and had an employee but your competition across the

street had a

> slave, you would be at a major disadvantage because you had to

pay your employee.

> As such, your prices would be higher and you could lose out to

the other

> fellow. We are seeing this same thing today with illegal

immigration. If your

> business uses citizens for its workforce and the competition uses

illegals,

> they are going to be able to undercut your price and you will

lose work. This

> cycle is simply repeating itself for the millionth time and the

government, for

> the million and first time, is not doing anything to stop it.

>

> " I disagree, . In comparison, Aboriginals could have

easily

> wiped out handfuls of whites who came to steal our land. However,

> my ancestors in particular (Abenaki Algonquins) were a welcoming

> people who shared what they had with these new people who came in

> large boats. However, the white man had 'stronger magic' with

their

> fire sticks that killed a man from a faraway distance (in

comparison

> to what my ancestors had at the time). Bullying by the white man -

-

> even a smaller number of white man than the number of people the

> white man is bullying -- can undermine entire civilizations.

>

> Furthermore, I am not so certain the African countries that

> participated in the round-up you mention were not:

>

> 1. Terrorrized into complying; and/or

> 2. Made false promises that were later reneged up. "

>

> The Natives in America and Africa quickly lost their fear of

Western

> firepower, especially muskets. Muskets took a long time to reload,

had short range,

> weren't accurate and were sensitive to the weather. Bows and

arrows could

> fire faster at slightly longer range, were very accurate and

weren't as bothered

> by the weather. During the various Indian wars, they had developed

tactics

> whereby they could inflict great defeats on Western forces. This

was so much so

> that lin wanted to the American army equipped with

longbows

> instead of muskets. The natives were given muskets because they

were less

> dangerous than the bows and they required ammunition that only

Westerners could

> supply, thus tying the natives to a given power.

>

> African tribes in the inland Western region, were larger and more

organized

> than most Native American tribes and they had iron weapons. They

also had a

> long tradition of slavery both internally and trading slaves with

the Arab

> slavers, but the tradition probably went as far back as the

Romans. Yes, there

> has been overland trade over that range for centuries. Those

tribes had the

> numbers that they easily could have overwhelmed anything the

Europeans sent at

> them. This is all the more so because of the tropical disease

that killed the

> majority of Europeans who went there. Any European army sent

after the tribes

> would have been able to let disease do most of the work for them

and picked

> off the stragglers.

>

> So, they weren't terrorized into compliance because that wasn't

possible.

> Promises, on the other hand, were kept. The African tribes wanted

weapons, gold

> and rum, so that is exactly what they got. The larger tribes were

already

> quite powerful and wealthy, they just became more so from the

slave trade. And

> why wouldn't they participate? Tradition was to take prisoners in

war and make

> them slaves. Before the Europeans showed up, you could only take

so many

> slaves which left your enemies strong. Now, they could take as

many as they

> could catch and wiped out their enemies and make a profit at the

same time.

>

> " In other words, those with power, money and the right to vote.

> Women could not vote. Slaves could not vote. But powerful rich

> white men who liked the comforts of slavery on their plantations

> could vote. It's called a stacked vote at that point. "

>

> The rich Northern men didn't vote to end it either. At the time of

the

> Revolution, slavery was legal in all the colonies. As I've said

before, it was

> Northern merchants and ship captains who made all the money from

the slave

> trade. This was so much so that even after the US signed a treaty

banning the

> trade around 1814, many of those captains continued the trade with

the Carribean

> and South America. So it was a stacked point of view, but not just

in the

> South.

>

> " Those who are bullied, intimidated, beaten, et al find it almost

> impossibly difficult to rise up against their oppressor and

abuser.

> The fact that it *did* happen only underscores the fact that this

> sort of abuse *did* happen and undoubtedly it happened more than

you

> are willing to believe. "

>

> Find and read Time on the Cross. I can't think of the author's

name at the

> moment, but I do recall that he is a black man who researched

slavery and the

> lives of slaves. No, they didn't have it as good as free men, but

the

> treatment wasn't as bad as it has been made out to be.

>

> NAFTA cuts both ways. In the US, most logging is done by private

entities on

> private land. In Canada, most logging is done on government owned

and is

> subsidized, which gives Canadian loggers an advantage over

American loggers. It

> has the effect of keeping the price lower than it would otherwise

be, which,

> because we aren't subsidized by the government, lowers our profits

and has put

> some operators out of business.

>

> NAFTA has been a failure anyway. Business moved to Mexico but much

as since

> relocated to China or elsewhere where labor was cheaper still and

the

> government more stable and, to an extent, less corrupt.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

While listening to Native Americans on PalTalk I learned a few

things. While this is not all relevant to the specific topic I

thought to share my opinion.

The psychological affiliation to the white man phrase is

connotatively perceived as negative in some respects. A person who

is white that had nothing to do with the great injustices might feel

guilty, bad and or hated for something he or she didn't do. While

still feeling a compassion and or type of empathy positively for the

struggle and some will justify the past actions hatefully.

The injustice while clear is hard to correct. Time is the enemy of

justice really and some of these injustices those involved are dead

that were white. The U.S is like a cup being drank full of water,

the water the people who govern it. So the U.S government is always

changing thus different from each other instance of governing

control.

I really wish that there could be a way for all these groups of

people to get together. Like Native Americans, Black folk and other

groups and reconcile while open hearted.

Great travesties have occurred, despondency clearly still exists.

Surgery is needed, a metaphor to re-open a wound and properly heal

that which is harmed.

Just saying to a group of people well that was long time ago, there

is nothing we can do seems wrong. It's like saying oh well, so what

and who cares.

Racial and minority group healing is needed, healing in a way that

makes skin color obsolete. There are some, to what extent in

percentile is unknown that do not perceive people as colors but

rather by their heart. Though there is still the cultural identity

which holds a racial identity as a sacred respect, it is their own

and it's not like that would go away.

I was once witness to a voice chat where a native American hatefully

and hurtfully degraded white folks. He was banned and the Natives

apologized and said they didn't support that. It's a damage and

social conditioning that person manifested and implored upon.

>

> Maybe you should if some of the same injustices that happen to

> Aboriginals are happening to you.

>

> In the 1950s, were your parents able to vote in federal, state and

> municipal elections? Ah, they were. My mother's family was not

> allowed to vote in any elections until 1960 when Aboriginals were

> given the right to vote.

>

> And when is the last time that the government walked onto your

land,

> took it back from you, did not compensate you for it, and then

gave

> it to a land developer to do what he wanted? And after you fought

> to have your land rightfully returned to you a second time, did

your

> government then take the land back and refuse to give it back to

> you? No, I didn't think so. That's what's going on right now in

> Ipperwash in this province.

>

> When's the last time that someone in your family was shot to death

> by a state trooper for protecting his land? Oh, that hasn't

> happened recently. Maybe you should talk to Dudley 's

family

> about this since that's what happened to him and when the ones

> responsible were taken to court, they were found guilty but they

> didn't serve any time or pay any fines. They had their wrists

> slapped.

>

> So if the injustices visited upon your ancestors are still

> negatively affecting your life today to the point that it removes

> certain rights from your life that are there for the white man to

> enjoy, then I would say you should stand up and fight for what's

> yours.

>

> Raven

[Guest guest]

Africa is a great opportunity to invest democracy into.

>

> I agree that slavery is and was wrong. Thank goodness we no longer

> have it in the US.

>

> Yet at the same time, perhaps it would be a good idea for American

> black people to go over to Africa -where (black) African nations

> openly sanction slavery and indentured servitude among their own

> (black) peoples- and show the enslaved what freedom is all about

and

> how meaningful it can be.

>

> I guess it took a white man, Abraham Lincoln to end slavery in

THIS

> country. Perhaps it will take white men to end it in African

> countries.

>

> Maybe white people can do it by sanctions, like we did to end

> Aparthied in South Africa.

>

> Tom

> Administrator

[Guest guest]

I don;t think we have a right to impose our own system of government

on another's. That is Imperialism.

The Africans have a history of dictatorships in which one person rules

corruptly. If the people dislike it, they can overthrow their

governments and instill their own for of government. If the US could

throw out the English, the Africans can change their own governments.

Tom

Administrator

" Africa is a great opportunity to invest democracy into. "

[Guest guest]

I agree to freeing people for the intent of freedom but not a new

control of them for freeing them.

>

> " Africa is a great opportunity to invest democracy into. "

>