If you are not a Native American, you're an 'Anchor Baby' (the decendent of an illegal alien)!

Originally posted by masqua

Originally posted by thesnowman87
Im also getting tired of being blamed for things that our ancestors did. I did not own slaves, I did not kill indians, I did not take native lands, I wasnt alive. Holding descendants responsible for their relatives crimes is an ignorant thought process. So until you find a time machine so you can go back and blame the people responsible, stop wrongfully accusing me

Totally agree. You should not be held responsible for the actions of your ancestors, UNLESS their actions, whether through unfair laws or societal practices, are still negatively impacting people today.

It is our job, as citizens, wherever possible, to correct institutionalised inequality.

You should not be held responsible for the actions of your ancestors at all.

Sure you can say that certain things put in place can be changed for the good, but if your dad was a murderer should you be punished? That is not how our law system works.

Also the pressing issue is that you still bring up these so called crimes of the ancestors, without taking them in context.

[edit on 6-2-2010 by asd10]

reply to post by masqua

Originally posted by masqua
reply to post by adifferentbreed

 

Those who ignore history are bound to repeat it. Compare the Republic of Rome to Republics of today (pick any one) and you will see startling similarities.

Choose to look at the impact of 'colonies' with an eye to the populations which were subjegated and then look to the history of Republic of Rome again and you would quickly note their initial success was based on Pax Romana and the idea that conquered nations were accepted as (almost) equals (ie: religions, cultures, etc.). Why did the 'modern' colonies fail? Because they were not 'accepted' as equals.

History teaches us how to avoid the mistakes of the past.

So you claim that the supposed 'failure' of the colonies was due to racism.

This is a complex issue but I will briefly address it (far to complex to randomly claim that they failed simply because of what you say and like to believe happened).

Firstly I do not find it accurate to compare Rome with modern day colonies, as there are too many differences in circumstance to try and make an analogy.

As for the reason for the 'failed' modern colonies, they were anything but failures. They truly failed after the colonists left, for various reason, but it was of there own choice. The vast majority of colonies were much much better of under colonial rule, as you would observe if you looked at history.



So I do not see how they 'failed'. And then you claim they failed because of one reason, one reason which is clearly not an important factor.

So firstly they didnt fail.

Secondly you erroneously chose a reason that they 'failed'(which they didnt) and try and make it a fact so people would accept your point of view.

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


Not to miss your overall point, but:

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
...remember that you are the decendant of an 'illegal alien' (none of us were 'invited').

Not historically accurate.

Originally posted by masqua

Originally posted by poet1b
As far as inequalities are concerned, we in the first world are still waiting for the people of the third world to catch up.

And catching up they are. China and India for two nations, many others in the far east and South America as well.

I wonder if they will hold any grudges over past injustices?

I can almost sense your happiness at the thought of China and India becoming powerful and taking revenge on the original colonist countries.

And however you look at it, these countries are only in a position to do this because they have been industrialised by whites. So if anything instead of a grudge they should have a debt.

No matter, China is a country of no freedom, and we have only fallen behind because of the criminal actions of our politicians.

Let us see what the future holds, and hope your 'grudge' war fantasies do not happen.

Originally posted by asd10
So I do not see how they 'failed'. And then you claim they failed because of one reason, one reason which is clearly not an important factor.

The terms colonialism and imperialism belong together. Imperialism refers to the practice of extending political power, especially through the acquisition of conquered territory. The territories that are acquired are called colonies. The Roman Empire, for example, began as a small city-state. Gradually, by force, it extended its control throughout the Mediterranean…

kids.britannica.com...

The Roman Empire lasted for around 2 millenia: from ~700 BC to ~1400AD.

The reason for its longevity was the brief period of Pax Romana, an idea which left their colonies to the own political govenance even though they accepted the safety of Roman legions and paid taxes to Rome.

Not so with countries that colonized through imperialsm in recent centuries. As the first link states, their political power was defeated and replaced. This is why the colonies in Indonesia, India, China, South America (and many other places) failed.

Those that were successful show either the complete and utter subjegation or eradication of the indigenous populations.

In the case of the USA, there is a sizable contingent of indigenous people who are, to put it mildly, unhappy with the present state of affairs. The same situation exists in Canada. I don't consider it a successful colonization until all citizens are content with the status quo.

And however you look at it, these countries are only in a position to do this because they have been industrialised by whites. So if anything instead of a grudge they should have a debt.

Like Haiti? Yes, they should be very grateful. Look how prosperous their history is. First, all the indigenous people were killed off and then the remnants of the slave trade rebelled against the French and became a republic. The reperations to France indebted that country for centuries.

Let us see what the future holds, and hope your 'grudge' war fantasies do not happen.

No fantasies at all... only concern.

Think of the history of European colonies in S. Africa, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Indonesia, India and many other imperialistic conquests where the indigenous survived. The simmering hatred remains for centuries, right up until the moment of revolution, and that's when the bloodshed begins.

I'd rather not see it where I live, thank you.

Sure you can say that certain things put in place can be changed for the good, but if your dad was a murderer should you be punished? That is not how our law system works.

There's a slight distinction to be made between a murderous father and a nation invading another. No, the son should not be held responsible for the actions of his father.

Also the pressing issue is that you still bring up these so called crimes of the ancestors, without taking them in context.

Context is everything, I agree. The crimes of the past are never put to rest. Canada, for instance, is paying today for the injustices of a century ago. The horrid conditions evident in the Residential Schools, coupled with the disgusting intent for which they were created, is a bleeding sore across my country.

I doubt that 'small problem' (sarcasm) is going to go away anytime soon either and that is just one facet of the thousands of injustices perpetrated on the indigenous people everywhere in the 'good' name of 'Empire'.

Originally posted by Dock9
reply to post by masqua

 

Who wants to live in the US ?

Well tonight, as result of watching something on tv, I ran some searches on Dudley, Massachusetts

Wow.

Massive homes in beautiful neighbourhoods for a pittance

Virtually NO crime

Almost ALL white, Christian population

Very nice. Very nice indeed. I'd live there.


At the moment I live in Sydney, Australia. Houses a fifth the size for three times the price and entire once-white-Christian suburbs completely TAKEN OVER by muslim migrants who are so cocky, they shoot at police stations


Yes, the US sounds a great improvement

any particular reason you mentioned that detail?

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by poet1b

 

I did author this thread. I sat down and wrote the OP all by my damn self. It WAS in response to the thread you linked to, but only in response to it.

I give up! You people are too stupid for words! Your density is enough to bend light! So just keep it up, for the racist is YOU! You refuse to learn, to think, to grow... I can't make you do it... So you win, you have successfully hijacked this thread and made a comfy 'whites only' place to spew your self-rightous hate... CONGRATULATIONS!

I'm out of here!

[edit on 5-2-2010 by JaxonRoberts]

What was it you told me when I said you were a racist?

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by technical difficulties

 

Oh please, please show me where I was the least bit racist in any post on this thread!!! Just one instance!!! Good luck on that, you're gonna need it!

[edit on 6-2-2010 by technical difficulties]

reply to post by masqua


'The reason for its longevity was the brief period of Pax Romana, an idea which left their colonies to the own political govenance even though they accepted the safety of Roman legions and paid taxes to Rome. '

So thats not really the same as colonies which are actually governed by the colonists. So its not a good comparison for the modern colonies, in many ways.

'Not so with countries that colonized through imperialsm in recent centuries. As the first link states, their political power was defeated and replaced. This is why the colonies in Indonesia, India, China, South America (and many other places) failed. '

Once again its how you define a failed colony. If you define a failed colony as one that did not last for ever, then nothing lasts for ever so everything is a failed colony eventually. If America eventually falls, I would not say it would be considered a 'failed colony'.

I would consider a failed colony as one which was never truely controlled and went through a period of anarchy before the colonialists were kicked out.

This is a stark contrast to most of the colonies. Canada, America, Australia being the most obvious ones.

India as you mentioned is now in a position of growth and has a bright future, due to the fact it was colonised. Where would it be now if the British never colonised it? I would call that a succesful colony.

The real reasons the colonies do not all exist under the sovereignty of Great Britain etc is because after the war it was difficult to maintain them.

'In the case of the USA, there is a sizable contingent of indigenous people who are, to put it mildly, unhappy with the present state of affairs. The same situation exists in Canada. I don't consider it a successful colonization until all citizens are content with the status quo. '

So you are not realistic then. Not all conquered citizens will ever be satisfied under foreign occupation.

'Like Haiti? Yes, they should be very grateful. Look how prosperous their history is. First, all the indigenous people were killed off and then the remnants of the slave trade rebelled against the French and became a republic. The reperations to France indebted that country for centuries. '

Yes they had a prosperous country with great infrastructure. Then they massacred the white population and the country has fallen apart ever since. I notice the way which you selectively use language to make the information you present bias.

So the French killed off but the black haitians merely 'rebelled'. By rebelled you mean killed every white man woman and child on the island with machetes. The Haitians were better of under French rule.


I truely tire of your relentless rhetoric of how indigenous people are innocent and live in idyllic soceities and white colonialists are responsible for all the evil of the world and nothing good has ever come of them.


I am sick of the white bashing. I say to all who blame whites for everything bad, first thank them for all you have which you owe to them.

You simply give out the same rhetoric as the OP. Giving that politically correct version of history, and quoting mainstream sources as if we do not expect them to follow your politically correct viewpoints.





[edit on 6-2-2010 by asd10]

Thank you for this summary:

Originally posted by asd10
I truely tire of your relentless rhetoric of how indigenous people are innocent and live in idyllic soceities and white colonialists are responsible for all the evil of the world and nothing good has ever come of them.

-Not once have I mentioned 'white colonists'.
-Not once have I stated that 'indigenous people are innocent and live in idyllic societies'.
-Nowhere did I accuse anyone in particular for 'all the evil of the world'.

You are putting words in my mouth and constructing multiple 'straw men'.

What really matters is in my signature anyways and all the divisive rhetoric in the world won't change that simple truth. No-one is less than anyone else because of the colour of their skin, no matter how some may feel better about themselves thinking that they are.

Originally posted by masqua
Thank you for this summary:

Originally posted by asd10
I truely tire of your relentless rhetoric of how indigenous people are innocent and live in idyllic soceities and white colonialists are responsible for all the evil of the world and nothing good has ever come of them.

-Not once have I mentioned 'white colonists'.
-Not once have I stated that 'indigenous people are innocent and live in idyllic societies'.
-Nowhere did I accuse anyone in particular for 'all the evil of the world'.

You are putting words in my mouth and constructing multiple 'straw men'.

What really matters is in my signature anyways and all the divisive rhetoric in the world won't change that simple truth. No-one is less than anyone else because of the colour of their skin, no matter how some may feel better about themselves thinking that they are.

Its what you imply, and its your angle. You may not have mentioned them in those specific words but you have mentioned them.

Your point about Haiti is a perfect example. Like I stated before you said they merely rebelled. Implying they are innocent and just sticking up for themselves, when the fact is they massacred a whole population. But you try to gloss over it because it doesn't fit into your belief.

As for your signature... so an incorrect definition of racism is all that matters?

No one is better than anyone, but this anti-white history is one of many evils in this world. I understand where it comes from and why it exists, and it has a nefarious purpose.

I merely wish to educate people and stop the hate.

Originally posted by asd10
Its what you imply, and its your angle. You may not have mentioned them in those specific words but you have mentioned them.

That makes NO sense whatsoever.

Your point about Haiti is a perfect example. Like I stated before you said they merely rebelled. Implying they are innocent and just sticking up for themselves, when the fact is they massacred a whole population. But you try to gloss over it because it doesn't fit into your belief.

The ones that rebelled were slaves brought over from Africa to be sold in the Americas. They fought for their freedom and won. They didn't massacre all the French, they kicked them out of Haiti. Perhaps you might read some history and learn facts.

As for your signature... so an incorrect definition of racism is all that matters?

PROVE to me that my signature is incorrect. Please, bring out your facts.

No one is better than anyone, but this anti-white history is one of many evils in this world. I understand where it comes from and why it exists, and it has a nefarious purpose.

There you go with 'whites' again. You seem to be stuck on that skin colour for some reason. Care to spell out what is causng it?

I merely wish to educate people and stop the hate.

Yes, so do I.

[edit on 6/2/10 by masqua]

reply to post by masqua


Progress has been made, it's gotten better. If anyone doesn't believe me, just talk to older black americans that had to live through all that stuff, and white americans too, i'm sure they have some stories as well.

It's gotten better thankfully, but still have some ways to go. Times like this, i wish Europe had taught America a thing a two about harmony...i know the french did after WW2.

Not one single nation, tribe, or person owns any part of any land. We occupy it with borrowed time.

reply to post by masqua

Its what you imply, and its your angle. You may not have mentioned them in those specific words but you have mentioned them.



That makes NO sense whatsoever.

Yes it does. I am saying you don't mention them in the specific words you spoke of, but you continually refer to the same groups by different names.

The ones that rebelled were slaves brought over from Africa to be sold in the Americas. They fought for their freedom and won. They didn't massacre all the French, they kicked them out of Haiti. Perhaps you might read some history and learn facts.

What? So you think they just quietly escorted them out of Haiti because they are perfect and innocent non-whites? They killed as many of them as they could. Brutally. Perhaps you might read some history and learn some facts.

PROVE to me that my signature is incorrect. Please, bring out your facts.

Ok since you do not know the definition of racism I will make the effot to link you some, this is your definiton firstly:

Masqua- 'Racism IS the act of seperating one person from another by virtue of their hue.'

Wiktionary-
1.The belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes.
2.The belief that one race is superior to all others.
3.Prejudice or discrimination based upon race.

Oxford Dictionary-
1 the belief that there are characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to each race.
2 discrimination against or antagonism towards other races.

an online dictionary-

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Cambridge dictionary-

the belief that people's qualities are influenced by their race and that the members of other races are not as good as the members of your own, or the resulting unfair treatment of members of other races


Merriam-Webster -
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination


Ok so your definition is wrong. If you argue against that then you surely are stubborn and in denial. Accept that you were wrong on that.

There you go with 'whites' again. You seem to be stuck on that skin colour for some reason. Care to spell out what is causng it?

Errr because this is an anti-white thread!!

Jeez.

I merely wish to educate people and stop the hate.



Yes, so do I.

No you wish to perpetuate the myth that whites have committed vast evils against the coloured people of this world, thus increasing the hate.

I tire of this.







[edit on 7-2-2010 by asd10]

Originally posted by poet1b

Seriously? And you don't think this is biased?

In other words, an American wouldn't be willing to do the job at the price you wanted to pay. Rather than pay a market wage you chose to break the law and hire illegals. People like you are the problem.

The issue I see is most Americans will not work those jobs for market wages.

If the Mexicans do it better, then why isn't Mexico the rich country, and not the U.S.? Why is it that the U.S. is the most productive workforce, and not Mexico.

You are missing my point. The vast majority of these jobs suck and pay crappy wages, and because of this the only Americans even willing to do those jobs (at market wages) are either very young low skill workers, or rather undesireable workers. The Mexicans offer quality work for those same jobs.

Who did all the low skilled jobs before all the illegals arrived?

That answer is easy… immigrants, but times have changed my friend. Today the typical American whose skill/education level will only get them a low paying job would rather not work the 16 hours per day to make ends meet, and oh, maybe try and improve their skills, but to live on government subsidies. This opens a big void that the Mexicans fill.

If you are an American and find that you are in competition with the Mexicans then maybe you need to reevaluate your life and the course it is heading. The bigger issue is the undocumented workers and non-workers living in America. Get that under control and then control the flow of documented workers and we would both have a win win situation.

Low skilled jobs are good places for young people to gain experience, and the are nice niches for retirees to get out of the house and supplement their income. Low skilled jobs are also for people who will never develop higher skills. Just because they aren't capable of performing more challenging jobs doesn't meant they can't perform the jobs they get effectively.

I agree, but there are a hell of a lot more low skill jobs than what Americans are WILLING to do.

Better pay and a better working environment does result in better quality work, and this has been proven over and over again. Pay and workers rights are what separates the more productive first world workers from the third world workers.

In a way yes, but mainly no... If you walked into a company and gave everyone in that company a 50% pay raise the productivity would still be about the same. A person doesn’t say to themselves “man I’m making 50% more so I’ll work 50% better/longer” …just does not happen. BUT, better pay and better working conditions WILL create a larger pool of people willing to do that work, and with a larger pool you will be able to pick better workers.

So the question to you is, what do you pay for low skill job? You might be surprised that the majority of illegals actually make more then what you might think. They do not work for 20 bucks per day…go by a home depot and ask what they are willing to work for, for the day, and you might be rather surprised.

In a world where we can produce more than we can consume, in a disposable society such as ours, any job that needs doing should be rewarded by at least a living wage.

What is a living wage? I would say above 20 buck an hour, but how many companies could afford that as their lowest wage? Young people do not need a living wage, they need experience, old people do not need it either, they need something to do and off set their retirement. So that leaves people from about the age of 20 to 59 that need a living wage, and if you find yourself only able to do low skill jobs then I would say the burden is on you.




[edit on 7-2-2010 by Xtrozero]

reply to post by Xtrozero


The illegals are NOT just taking the jobs that Americans don't want! I worked with illegals and they made well over the minimum wage. Of course the legal citizens made even more, hence the hiring of more and more illegals. Of course more and more hard working Americans were turned away. And they do NOT do better quality work! They are no different than anyone else.

Illegals are driving wages down. More companies require more hours yet the wage stays the same. Or they have one person doing the work of two. Companies that hire illegals over an American citizen should be punished by law. We need money to survive. It isn't about new cars and luxeries.

I'd just call it a dead thread....the op got ticked cause people here didn't agree with his hate the white views, the typical jump on the bandwagon blame the US people showed up, they had a star and flag fest and nothing was accomplished. Except for the fact the op started with a rant and then took his marbles and went home for not being agreed with.
The term racist has lost it's value, it got dealt from the deck one too many times...........gonna have to do better than thaty when it comes to debating this topic. Does racism exist, yes as proven time and again in this thread......seems it's o.k. to some when it's on the other foot?
History is history, and asking for apologies or reparations for what was done in the past could take place all over the world....move on it's 2010.

reply to post by Xtrozero


They aren't market wages if they are established by criminal activity.

That is like stealing something, and then claiming that you got it at the market prices of free, because you were able to steal it.

They pay crappy wages because the government has refused to enforce the laws against illegal immigration.

If our government were to do its job, and start arresting and charging those who hire illegals, then we would start to see a market wage again.

Who is living on welfare?

Illegals are being given welfare at higher rates than U.S. citizens. They get free medical, and all kinds of subsidies. U.S. citizens are being forced to subsidize illegal immigration through welfare.

What it sounds like, is that you don't care what laws are broken, and screw the next generation, as long as you get yours.

Then one day you will find that you live in a very dangerous country filled with desperate people, all so you could get your house built by cheap labor. You will find that there are not enough police to protect you, and that most of them are on the take anyway. You will be an old man surrounded by angry young men, and then you will understand.

I am not worried about myself, I am doing fine. I have real skills, so I don't have to earn my living as a con artist. It s the next generation that we should be considering.

Here we go again! I am a native American! I was born here! The American injun is a conquered people. I’m sorry, but it’s true. Look it up before they rewrite the history books again.

According to the dictionary…
na·tive…born or originating somewhere: born or originating in a particular place
And to give credit to…
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

They had no superior right to this. No more then anyone else. Are we going to go all the way back? Where do we put the people from south America, Canada, Europe? I think there is something wrong with people who are constantly wringing their hands and crying about history.
It happened, it‘s over. Don’t hate yourself. You had nothing to do with wiping out the injuns. You never owned a slave. You aren’t occupying northern Ireland. You didn’t kill the Christians. You didn’t kill the Jews.
How come we never hear Brazil, Peru or Mexico bitchin at Spain?
When I look in the mirror I see a damn proud American. One who is proud of the accomplishment of this great nation and it’s people, ALL OF THEM! Oh, and a very good looking, satisfied one.
Relax now, and go on from here feeling healed and fulfilled, all of you.

reply to post by D1Useek


Thanks for making that post. It was needed.

reply to post by adifferentbreed


WOW, nice troll tactics... Try to get me to flame back on you with the 'clever' use of ad hominems and outright disception... Nice...

Not going to work, however. Now I'm sure you'll have to post at least one more response to me, just to get the last word in, so go ahead. But it is apparent that you are not the least bit interested in debate or exchanging ideas on this subject, just shouting out your own views and attacking anyone who does not share them. But the only way I will further discuss this issue with you is in the Member Debate forum, where you will not have the luxury of using quote mining, ad hominems, strawmen and the like. You will actually have to make and defend your position on merit and facts. Now I know you will also give some lame excuse as to why you will not take up that challenge, like I'm not worth the effort, or you've made your point clear, or some other such BS, but the real reason will be because you know that you cannot win such a debate on merit...

So troll away, the ignorance actually amuses me...