America is not a racist country (never was), page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times

reply posted on 20-9-2009 @ 01:44 PM by 21cdb

reply posted on 20-9-2009 @ 02:49 PM by Valhall

Originally posted by infinite

Originally posted by 21cdb
2)The Afrikanners were right in what they did. Evidence? Take a look at the current situation in South Africa.

So, in an ideal world, it is perfectly acceptable to segregate individuals based on race

Apparently it is okay to attempt genocide as well - simply based on the fact the indigenous people you're trying to wipe out were not perfect.

reply posted on 20-9-2009 @ 02:52 PM by 21cdb

Originally posted by Valhall

Apparently it is okay to attempt genocide as well - simply based on the fact the indigenous people you're trying to wipe out were not perfect.

Just FYI, there were no "indigenous" peoples in South Africa. Matter of fact, you can say there aren't any now. The blacks that made up that population in South Africa were migrants from other parts of Africa.

And genocide? LOL... Nice bit of agitprop you got there.

[edit on 20-9-2009 by 21cdb]

reply posted on 20-9-2009 @ 03:30 PM by infinite

reply to post by 21cdb

Ermm?

You are aware the country classification for Africa was designed by the Europeans? It was a tribal system prior to colonization.

There are registered tribes in South Africa - protected by the Tribes and Township Ministry.

reply posted on 20-9-2009 @ 03:33 PM by 21cdb

Originally posted by infinite
reply to post by 21cdb

Ermm?

You are aware the country classification for Africa was designed by the Europeans? It was a tribal system prior to colonization.

There are registered tribes in South Africa - protected by the Tribes and Township Ministry.

You'd be right if I'd said, "migrated from Zimbabwe or DRC", but I didn't. I specifically said, "migrated from other parts of Africa".

Unless now the whole concept of "Africa" is some kind of Western conspiracy.

reply posted on 20-9-2009 @ 03:34 PM by 21cdb

reply posted on 20-9-2009 @ 03:37 PM by infinite

reply to post by 21cdb

So Zulu's are not an indigenous group of South Africa then?

You are pretty much generalising a whole entire history of Africa. Yes, after colonisation and independence, migrant occurred but prior to that it was regional tribes (who make the indigenous groups of each African nation)

reply posted on 20-9-2009 @ 03:38 PM by Valhall

Originally posted by 21cdb

And genocide? LOL... Nice bit of agitprop you got there.

[edit on 20-9-2009 by 21cdb]

I don't know what you thought I was referring to, but I was 100% talking about North America.

reply posted on 20-9-2009 @ 03:39 PM by kosmicjack

As a reminder:

Racism is for Ignorant Fools

[edit on 20/9/2009 by kosmicjack]

reply posted on 20-9-2009 @ 03:40 PM by 21cdb

Originally posted by infinite
reply to post by 21cdb

So Zulu's are not an indigenous group of South Africa then?

You are pretty much generalising a whole entire history of Africa. Yes, after colonisation and independence, migrant occurred but prior to that it was regional tribes (who make the indigenous groups of each African nation)

Once again, no group is indigenous to the area currently known as South Africa. Not even the Zulu, who MIGRATED there 100,000 years ago.

reply posted on 20-9-2009 @ 03:41 PM by 21cdb

reply posted on 20-9-2009 @ 03:42 PM by Valhall

Originally posted by 21cdb

Once again, no group is indigenous to the area currently known as South Africa. Not even the Zulu, who MIGRATED there 100,000 years ago.

LMAO!

Well, I've got news for you. No one has the deed to any spot on earth tying them to the beginning time, so yeah - the Zulu's are indigenous.

*shakes head and snickers*

reply posted on 20-9-2009 @ 03:42 PM by 21cdb

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by 21cdb

And genocide? LOL... Nice bit of agitprop you got there.

[edit on 20-9-2009 by 21cdb]

I don't know what you thought I was referring to, but I was 100% talking about North America.

Sorry for the confusion.

On subject, last time I checked, there were still plenty of "native" Americans around.

reply posted on 20-9-2009 @ 03:43 PM by Valhall

Originally posted by 21cdb

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by 21cdb

And genocide? LOL... Nice bit of agitprop you got there.

[edit on 20-9-2009 by 21cdb]

I don't know what you thought I was referring to, but I was 100% talking about North America.

Sorry for the confusion.

On subject, last time I checked, there were still plenty of "native" Americans around.

Yep, and last time I checked I clearly stated ATTEMPTED genocide.

reply posted on 20-9-2009 @ 03:44 PM by 21cdb

Originally posted by Valhall

LMAO!

Well, I've got news for you. No one has the deed to any spot on earth tying them to the beginning time, so yeah - the Zulu's are indigenous.

*shakes head and snickers*

So, using your "logic", the West had every right to conquer Africa, as we're "all from there to begin with"?

reply posted on 20-9-2009 @ 03:45 PM by 21cdb

Originally posted by Valhall

Yep, and last time I checked I clearly stated ATTEMPTED genocide.

The Europeans didn't do anything to these tribes that they didn't do to one another.

reply posted on 20-9-2009 @ 03:45 PM by Valhall

Originally posted by 21cdb

Originally posted by Valhall

LMAO!

Well, I've got news for you. No one has the deed to any spot on earth tying them to the beginning time, so yeah - the Zulu's are indigenous.

*shakes head and snickers*

So, using your "logic", the West had every right to conquer Africa, as we're "all from there to begin with"?

Do you realize you haven't made any sense in this thread yet? I'm still going to hold out hope, but seriously...your statements are making no sense.

How can you get that my statement leads to "it's okay to conquer other people for the purpose of taking their land"???

reply posted on 20-9-2009 @ 03:47 PM by Valhall

Originally posted by 21cdb

Originally posted by Valhall

Yep, and last time I checked I clearly stated ATTEMPTED genocide.

The Europeans didn't do anything to these tribes that they didn't do to one another.

Right, and this statement is like the first statements you made that point to you believing that if some one does something wrong (anything) then it's okay to redo it or to do it to others. The Europeans were wrong when they were "doing it to each other" and they were wrong when they went elsewhere and "did it to others". It was wrong - it is wrong. It's wrong.

[edit on 9-20-2009 by Valhall]

reply posted on 20-9-2009 @ 03:47 PM by 21cdb

Originally posted by Valhall

Do you realize you haven't made any sense in this thread yet? I'm still going to hold out hope, but seriously...your statements are making no sense.

How can you get that my statement leads to "it's okay to conquer other people for the purpose of taking their land"???

So now we're back to "it's their land"? Didn't you just say no one has a right to any land (sic)?

Either way...due to heavy moderation, there's really no point in continuing in this thread.

reply posted on 20-9-2009 @ 03:48 PM by Valhall

Originally posted by 21cdb

Originally posted by Valhall

Do you realize you haven't made any sense in this thread yet? I'm still going to hold out hope, but seriously...your statements are making no sense.

How can you get that my statement leads to "it's okay to conquer other people for the purpose of taking their land"???

So now we're back to "it's their land"? Didn't you just say no one has a right to any land (sic)?

Either way...due to heavy moderation, there's really no point in continuing in this thread.

No, I did not say that.

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >> ^^TOP^^