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.
Originally posted by Valhall
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 or to do it 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.
Originally posted by 21cdb
Originally posted by Valhall
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 or to do it 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.
No...no.... The Europeans didn't do anything to the "natives" that the "natives" weren't already doing to one another.
Originally posted by Valhall
Yes, they did.
Originally posted by 21cdb
Originally posted by Valhall
Yes, they did.
Well, I'd love to counter you with fact, but everytime I've done that in this thread it gets deleted so....
Originally posted by infinite
By using "natives" are you honestly suggesting there is - insanely - no (and never was) a "native" population in the Americas.
You might want to check the European maps and records of the tribes in the Americas....take a breath first, then relax. You might learn something.
Originally posted by Valhall
That would be incorrect as well. Let me help you understand. You took a statistic (that there are more blacks in American prisons than there are whites) and you placed your own interpretation of that statistic (i.e. therefore blacks are more prone to commit crimes) in a post and insinuated that that was a fact supportive of your further racist statement that they have "certain behaviors" that lead them to create violence.
That's what happened to your post and what got you the cute little red thingy.
Originally posted by 21cdb
I love how fact is now ignorance.
[edit on 20-9-2009 by 21cdb]
Originally posted by infinite
reply to post by Valhall
I'm not denying the historical records, especially the massacres against the Native population. But European Americans never had the mentality of Afrikaners, who introduced Apartheid in South Africa.
Originally posted by Valhall
Fact is not ignorance. Your interpretation is ignorance. You have chosen to take a statistic and state your personal interpretation of it as fact without taking into account all parameters that lead to that statistic.
This thread is not the correct place to put you through Sociology 101, so we'll have to just leave it at - your interpretation show a tremendous amount of ignorance about societal influences and shows absolutely no attempt at a "root cause analysis".
You just found a statistic that you think supports a bias you have and you're running with it.
[edit on 9-20-2009 by Valhall]
Originally posted by infinite
Many Europeans are quick to jump and point to America and suggest the entire population was racist.
Originally posted by Valhall
Unfortunately, your words point to exactly what the thing at the top is speaking against:
1. The election has nothing to do with racism.
2. The criticism of Obama's performance to date has nothing to do with racism.
So why did you connect them to it?
Originally posted by Valhall
1. The election has nothing to do with racism.
2. The criticism of Obama's performance to date has nothing to do with racism.
Originally posted by masqua
The relatively short history of America shows a fairly quick recovery from the poison that hitched a ride in the minds of those who emigrated from the 'Old Countries'.
Originally posted by rich23
To say that the US has made a complete recovery from a Eurpoean disease is inaccurate and perhaps a little unfair on Europeans. The institution of slavery built America, it was central to its laws for many years, and when it was abolished, it was effectively replaced with indentured servitude - which, btw, is not dead: it's alive and well and living (to my certain knowledge) in the cruise ship industry in which I worked for a while.
From the beginnings of slavery in British North America around 1619, when a Dutch ship brought 20 enslaved Africans to the Virginia colony at Jamestown, nearly 240 years passed until the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution officially ended slavery in 1865.
www.slaveryinamerica.org...
Slavery after the Fall of the Roman Empire
The introduction of Christianity toward the end of the Roman Empire had no effect on the abolition of slavery, since the church at that time did not oppose the institution.
www.infoplease.com...
A revolution in the institution of slavery came in the 15th and 16th cent. The explorations of the African coast by Portuguese navigators resulted in the exploitation of the African as a slave, and for nearly five centuries the predations of slave raiders along the coasts of Africa were to be a lucrative and important business conducted with appalling brutality. The British, Dutch, French, Spanish, and Portuguese all engaged in the African slave trade. Although Africans were, as early as 1440, brought back to Portugal, and although subsequent importations were large enough to change distinctly the ethnography of that country, it was not in Europe that African slavery was to be most profitable and widespread, but in the Americas, where European exploitation began at the end of the 15th cent.
www.infoplease.com...