It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Forbidden History: The distraction of racism and the great American lie

page: 5
119
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Great thread Air Spoon. Starred and flagged.

There's so much truth that's been diluted to fit someones agenda it's not even funny and it's kept that way with the many tools out there like "political correctness" and a ton of others. Thanks again for the thread.




posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Power_Semi
 


I meant to add, that I thought this was an excellent point as well.

People don't want to look at how people of the same race and culture historically abuse their own kind.

This same kind of abuse goes on to this day all over the planet, and people want to pretend it didn't happen in the past.

Not our people,

Yes, your people as well.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Problem is TPTB don't want to lose money/control/security. They know our tribalistic mentality. They know if they turn the attention/blame to a convenient target(X or Y race doesn't matter) That they will not be questioned.

We are just so idiotic to take the bait and play thier "[insert ethnicity] is to blame here!" game or "We are better than [X ethnicity] or [Y ethnicity] so now bow down and worship our divinity".Trick works every time. Its too easy really. Setup a system that pins one group agianst each other(like say affirmative action,abortion,religion or bipartisan bickering)and watch them tear each other appart.

Problem is emotionally masterbatory race-obsessed brainwashed drones prepituate this these fascist themes like a form of cancer. These people are experts at demonizing people and sowing descent amounst the emotionally pliant slave-cattle.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


Sorry, you are just giving your opinion when you move to dates closer to an era people can actually remember - opinion is cool and should be respected - but it ain't fact. Please give reference points if you feel non whites were not getting a fair chance to move up that old aspirational ladder in the 20th century.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Power_Semi


Yes, the truth is that there was no "white vs black" and never has been, it's just as it's always been - the rich taking advantage of the poor.



Please state again there was never any racism? Your quote above states that EXTREMELY clearly you believe that was the case.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Power_Semi
 



Power - facts please, and this wasn't a thread about the UK as such, I used the B&B example of where racism/xenophobia is as prevalent as it is. How rich did you have to be to have a slave? You state very rich - care to give examples? And what is 'rich'? Filthy rich or middle class?

You my friend are the one that needs to be worried about the brain washing - no facts but you quoted statistics that you cannot actually validate..... or can you?



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Power_Semi

Originally posted by something wicked
reply to post by Power_Semi
 


I think you've been watchig too many of the BBCs nice and fluffy historical dramas.


I repeat, were the signs in B&Bs that said 'no blacks, no dogs, no Irish' racist? Where they not a sign of yes there was actually a racist issue? I think at the moment you are a sociology student with no grasp of real life or a BNP/EDL supporter with nothing but your own mindset controlling you - prove me wrong with facts.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by something wicked
reply to post by airspoon
 


Sorry, you are just giving your opinion when you move to dates closer to an era people can actually remember - opinion is cool and should be respected - but it ain't fact. Please give reference points if you feel non whites were not getting a fair chance to move up that old aspirational ladder in the 20th century.



Look up redlining,predatory loans and credit discriminition. Also look up how many people on death row were aqquitted after DNA evidence cleared them of rape convictions. Why are blacks 7 times more likely to be arrested on drugs weither they have them or not? Strange. Look up racial profiling. I can go all day with this.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Racism is silly! We all stem from rodent type creatures. Then turned into monkeys then homosaipeins. We all stem from Africa...some just moved to colder climates. Why their hair grows up to keep them from overheating and viteman b from the sun turned their skin brown.. The white mans hair covers body and white hair and skin is pail cause he lived in colder climates. so who s better the white rat or the brow rat. or betteer yet wh is better the Muslim, Jew, christian etc.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Why are you trying to argue with fallacy and propaganda?

point?

its not supposed to make any sense.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman

Originally posted by something wicked
reply to post by airspoon
 


Sorry, you are just giving your opinion when you move to dates closer to an era people can actually remember - opinion is cool and should be respected - but it ain't fact. Please give reference points if you feel non whites were not getting a fair chance to move up that old aspirational ladder in the 20th century.



Look up redlining,predatory loans and credit discriminition. Also look up how many people on death row were aqquitted after DNA evidence cleared them of rape convictions. Why are blacks 7 times more likely to be arrested on drugs weither they have them or not? Strange. Look up racial profiling. I can go all day with this.



I beg your pardon? That has what to do with what? Valid question, different thread.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by something wicked
 

Apologies john_roger_cornman, I guess we are both saying the same thing - I had to dig to make sure of that



edit on 15-9-2010 by something wicked because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Support for slavery was highest in South Carolina, where slaves were 60% of the population in 1860. In some of the coastal areas, they were 80-90%, which was like Jamaica and the West Indies. Slaves were also about 50% of the population in Mississippi and Louisiana in 1860, so it's not surprsing these stays quickly followed South Carolina out of the Union. In the upper South, there were many areas with few slaves, like western Virginia, western Maryland and North Carolina, eastern Tennessee, so those states were less eager to secede, and the parts where there were few slaves tended to stay neutral or ally with the North.

The Confederate states were not all that united, since they also had many regions where white small farmers were the majority and they were not exactly enthusiastic to support the big planters. Lincoln's family in Kentucky were like that. These small family farmers were not all that different from those in the North, and the leaders of the Confederacy knew all along that they had a big problem with these regions, where Unionism was strong and support for secession was low.

Frederick Law Olmstead travelled all over the South in the 1850s and spoke with many of these small farmers and 'plain folk' who had no slaves. Later he wrote a book about it. Pretty much he found that they didn't like slavery or the big planters, and did not favor secession, but on the other hand they didn't think blacks should be freed and allowed to stay in the country as equal citizens. He found a lot of people who'd say things "Do you want them free to marry your daughter" but in the next sentence also say "it isn't right to keep them as slaves either." So they were racist, but not so racist that they thought blacks weren't human beings and should be kept as someone's property.

Jefferson had ideas like this and so did Andrew Johnson, who said blacks would not be ready for equal citizenship in a hundred years. And so they went round and round with that all the time.

If I had to pick a period in history when this started to cahnge, it would be in 1945 and the revelations about what was going on in Nazi Germany and those concentration camps. People had known some things about them, but most just couldn't have imagined just how bad it really was. President Truman had known about it, but said he still could never have imagined what was happening until he saw all those films at the end of the war---and of course as president, he got all the details.

General Patton saw a concentration camp for the first time and literally threw up: it was just far worse than anything he'd seen in war. Eisenhower and all the other generals ordered everything recorded on film, and that the American troops would all be brought to see these places--as well as the German civilians who were all claiming they didn't know anything and hadn't seen anything. Eisenhower said, if they don't know what they were fighting for then let them see what they were fighting against. All this really shocked and stunned people, and I think went a long way towards discrediting "scientific racism" and all that.


edit on 15-9-2010 by witness63 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   
The most graphic documentary every made about the concentration camps was the one Alfred Hitchcock started but was never able to finish. It is rarely shown from start to finish although it is available on the Internet.





posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


I think I lost interest when I saw the OP linking to alternet. Come on,


4. Prison Camps ... Of course, the obvious first guess would be that these new programs might involve rounding up Muslims or political dissenters ...
5. Touchscreen Voting Machines ... Despite clear, copious evidence that these nefarious contraptions are built to be tampered with, they continue to spread and dominate the voting landscape, thanks to Bush's "Help America Vote Act," the exploitation of corrupt elections officials, and the general public's enduring cluelessness.


There's a big difference between "can be exploited" and "built to be tampered with." If this is your list of the "real issues" we're supposed to be paying attention to, why not add, "6. Inter-dimensional pixies coming to eat our brains?" It has about as much grounding in reality.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by TheMalefactor
 


Sure, there is a difference, though I personally believe these things were built to be tampered with, especially seeing the elction fraud that took place not only with the 2000 elections, but also the 2004 elections, some of which I saw with my own two eyes.

Furthermore, there is some pretty damning evidence to suggest that these voting were built to be exploited, are being exploited and people are losing their careers and lives over the issue. I don't know about you, but I sure won't ignore the evidence, some of which has been discussed here on ATS (to great length).

See link above for only one instance out of many.






Moving along, if it is the "prison camps" you find issue with, let me remind you that the US has more people imprisoned than any other nation in the world and even more than the whole industrialized world put together. We have more people incarcerated here, than even the most authoritarian hell-holes that we learn about in both school and the popular media. Most those imprisoned are political prisoners, having committed no crime that produced a victim and instead broke a pointless and intrusive government rules that serve noone except those that influence the government.

While I'm not convinced that secret prisons are being built for martial law, what most people don't realize is that they aren't even doing it in secret. It's right in front of our faces and we are so indoctrinated to accept it, that we look right past it and think nothing of the huge problem.

What was your problem again? Was your problem with the facts or did you just not know about them?

--airspoon



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Airspoon,

Dont let these guys derail the discussion over technicalities and attempts to discredit your sources.


edit on 15-9-2010 by AzoriaCorp because: no



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by TheMalefactor
 


Sure, there is a difference, though I personally believe these things were built to be tampered with, especially seeing the elction fraud that took place not only with the 2000 elections, but also the 2004 elections, some of which I saw with my own two eyes.


Let me be clear, I have no doubt that there was voter fraud. However making _any_ new hardware or software will inevitably result in bugs that can be exploited.

That's just how technology works.

Development is incremental.


Furthermore, there is some pretty damning evidence to suggest that these voting were built to be exploited, are being exploited and people are losing their careers and lives over the issue. I don't know about you, but I sure won't ignore the evidence, some of which has been discussed here on ATS (to great length).


I appreciate you linking to the threads discussing the details, but I've already watched Clint Curtis's deposition. I've also seen the Stanford professor and his graduate students demonstrate that they could overwrite the CMOS on the Diebold box and take over the machine.

I've seen the details. I know that it can be done. The question is intention.

That hasn't been established.

I've read a number of articles on the subject, including the rather well researched Rolling Stones article discussing the nuances of the mess surrounding the 2004 election, and even though there are instances of obvious fraud, Diebold was never linked to having intentionally designed their hardware to throw the election in favor of Bush.

It's one thing to say there was suspicious behavior. It's another to say, "... built to be tampered with."



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by TheMalefactor
 



Let me be clear, I have no doubt that there was voter fraud


No, not voter fraud, election fraud. The two are very different.


I've seen the details. I know that it can be done. The question is intention.

That hasn't been established.


Because of proprietary issues, the voting machine manufacturer would need to be involved in the fraud. Also, there are clear connections between Diebold for instance and the neo-cons. There has been several instances where Diebold (for one instance) has been the target of criminal probes, though always dropped when it gets to a certain level. Furthermore, all of the MSM articles on the criminals probes have been conveniently taken down (on an election year). It would seem that the "media" doesn't want Americans to stumble across these stories so instead, they are just wiped from history. Again, how convenient.

--airspoon



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


I give you credit for sticking to your guns.


Also, now that I've read the whole thing a second time, I'd say I agree with your position that the Civil War was likely jazzed up and presented as PR package as a battle against the "inhumanity of the south" as a strategic tactic not as the actual underlying motivator. I simply disagree that those who are in power today are still using a 150 year old trope as a mechanism to distract people from issues like FEMA prison camps – but that's just my opinion.

On the whole I'd say you have a fine essay! By no means am I trying to take away from that.


edit on 15-9-2010 by TheMalefactor because: 150 not 200




top topics



 
119
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join