N.B. diatribe free zone: white superiority bred into western society

[Bucklecroft Rudy]

aAs a response to a pretty basic statement youve pretty much reached the mark on the way back round. I did say egypt was afro asiatic - at least im pretty certain I did. Egypt is an afro asiatic society/civilisation and any geographer sociologist or geneticst will confirm this.

I dont see how its a copout either. It was a response to a question about european and african civilisation, I posited an afro/asian society that rivalled european civilisations. Hardly a cop out. Egypt made huge advances in many fields including agriculture medicine language and architecture. Im not a historian however so everything I say on the topic of history is derived from the history channel and the backs of packs of frosties.

Your post misses this proverbial mark insofar as it assumes that I made any comment on african society being superior. I never said that. I simply presented a number of Sub/super saharan african empires which made a mark.

The only comment that anyone should really take issue with is the one concerning european society previously being barbaric. You will find I think if the box of cheerios is to be believed that there are a number of african civs which predate european development.

 

[P A]

I posited an afro/asian society that rivalled european civilisations. Hardly a cop out.

But my point was that this comparison was disingenuous and somewhat unfair, even on its own terms. So yes, it was a copout, i.e., it wasn't a very effective rejoinder to Limits's post. Your sweeping claims regarding the 'barbarism' of Ye Olde Europe, while important to keep in mind, were also pretty ridiculous when cast in the light of African/Negroid history writ large.

And no, my response wasn't directed solely at the snippet that I chose to parsimoniously quote. Must I quote your entire post to make the trajectory of my comments thereupon contextually clear?

 

[Bucklecroft Rudy]

But my point was that this comparison was disingenuous and somewhat unfair, even on its own terms. So yes, it was a copout, i.e., it wasn't a very effective rejoinder to Limits's post. Your sweeping claims regarding the 'barbarism' of Ye Olde Europe, while important to keep in mind, were also pretty ridiculous when cast in the light of African/Negroid history writ large.

And no, my response wasn't directed solely at the snippet that I chose to parsimoniously quote. Must I quote your entire post to make the trajectory of my comments thereupon contextually clear?

I ws answering a question about whether European society was more advanced than african society currently or in the past. At one point in history it actually was. Think Timbuktu being the site of the worlds first university, brass working in Benin etc. When this was happening Europeans were still weaving underwear out of ferns. If this is wrong please correct me. It answers the original question fairly straightforwadly. So to reiterate. Yes at one point there were african societies which surpassed european ones as presented above.

Quoting a passage of someone's post is also in my experience an indication that you are referring to that passage. Its not as if the post was execisively long. I wasnt aware things worked any differently these parts. Not an issue that really warrants debate.

Youre extrapolating claims I made about one point in time to the bigger picture, On average Europe has been more advanced. I never even addressed that fully but I did indicate several times that it was evidently true. No copus mente individual would dare claim that Africa is technologically superior. However I stated truthfully that it once was. Now what part of that is disingenuous.

I know that I have at times come across as less than amiable in the thread. Im guessing thats the reason for the whole oppositional stance youve taken. Maybe im being defensive again but if there was such a thing as tone on a forum...


Im just not seeing how a statement of fact can be disingenuous. If in actuality the societies I proferred were actually just populated by club wielding savages then fair enough mea culpa and an official retraction is in order

 

[limitsoflanguage]

What you call 'African societies' were seen as 'Mediterranean societies' at the time; that-they happen to be in modern 'Africa' is irrelevant.
Africa-proper was very poorly regarded by the Egyptians, the Persians, the Greeks etc. etc.

 

[Bucklecroft Rudy]

What you call 'African societies' were seen as 'Mediterranean societies' at the time; that-they happen to be in modern 'Africa' is irrelevant.
Africa-proper was very poorly regarded by the Egyptians, the Persians, the Greeks etc. etc.

Benin, Timbuktu and Ethiopia are sub saharan Check a map . Egyptians are afro asiatic. Quote a study that proves otherwise - I may be wrong on that

 

[limitsoflanguage]

I could quote many sources that say that the Egyptians viewed Africans as barbaric savages - but you wouldn't like it. Call them afro asiatic if you like - it sounds very white-American to me.

 

[P A]

However I stated truthfully that it once was. Now what part of that is disingenuous.

Yesyes, your statement was factually accurate and was just fine when taken out of context. Ancient Egypt did indeed exist. Rather, it was the contextual implication that was disingenuous. I think I'm needlessly splitting hairs at this point, but here was the gist: Your post was, I assume, intended as a response to Limits's post above. In it, he posed the question "Is European society more advanced than African society, in your opinion? Has it been this way historically?" which I interpolated as, "Generally speaking, have African/predominately Negroid societies/civilizations been more or less technologically advanced than European ones, historically?" To this question you responded with the typical deflationary 'no because Egypt' rejoinder. In turn, I suggested that this wasn't entirely fair, given that much of what we now refer to as Ancient Egypt was geographically localized all around the Nile Delta and beyond; AE was technologically less-than-innovative, expecially when we take into account its incredibly long history (in my opinion, its true legacy is highly organized, efficient modes of human slavery and astounding decadence); and the unfortunate fact that, no matter which way one tries to fairly slice this particular racial pie (i.e. Euro vs Afro), there isn't much room for anyone other than Whitey in the technology and civilization departments. And this is all, of course, setting aside the issue of racial identity for Egyptians both as a contemporary and historical social group. Your use of the word 'barbaric,' while not offensive, also set off my 'historical buzz words' radar. But you've openly conceded that Africa is not and has not been, really, a very 'civilized' place, at least not by our everyday (post)modern snobbish standards, so I won't needlessly press this issue any further (tbh, I feel pretty foolish by now; talk about nitpicking!).

I wouldn't interpret any of this as hostility though, and I'm truly sorry if you've been offended or otherwise put off by my word choices or style of discussion.

I could quote many sources that say that the Egyptians viewed Africans as barbaric savages

Well, Egypt is universally recognized (both politically and geographically) as being a part of the continent of Africa. Culturally, eh, not so much. But the question of Egyptian racial identity is a different can of worms, and is far more difficult to answer quickly. You'd have to ask a few Egyptians. To me, they generally seem to identify more with Arabs (Indo-Iranians, etc.; of mostly Semitic origin) than with Negroid peoples. Anyone (especially North Africans), feel free to forcefully correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Gordon]

Would Indians date non-Indians though? not in my experience. In the United Kingdom most Indians anf their families prefer their own, especially. the Indian women, I do not want to into detail what they say about other races but tke it from my experience they will first prefer their own, then whites, then Pakistanis before blacks. Am referring to the Indians Asia by the way, many who are also born and raised in the United Kingdom.

 

[Gordon]

I kind og agree with Libby here. For me I always prefer my own (whites) sexually. Thats just me and my preference and it has nothing to do with racism I assure you. I also prefer slim tall pretty girls like all my male friends too, as a slim guy myself its natural for me to prefer slim, I would never feel attracted to any girl whos body mass outweighs mine, and I do not believe any woman will assume a handsome, sexy, intelligent slim male will like her if she was chubby, surely folks do not want to embarrass themselves by assuming who goes for who. The intimate moments are great too when your of similar weight or at least the girl isnt so bigger then you, in my experience slim sexy girls tend to be fantastic in bed because they are confident,m they do not have to worry about having any flesh hanging out or wondering what the guy is thinking, or squashing the guy lol (sorry couldn't help myself) they do not need to be embarrassed or shy, plus since the slim girl is lighter it makes riding easy and fantastic too lol, so yeah having great intimacy is part of a great relationship nd marriage, and being comfortable during the intimate moments so no offense to chubby folks but its better to be healthy, slim and confidence and weight less then your guy if you want great sex granted.... I just think slim or slim curvs look healthy and sexy on a woman and I prefer white women, always been like that since I was pre-teen, it has nothing at all to do with disliking blacks because of their skin color. Nearly all white women I know and come across have never ever dated a black man, not because of skin-color but they too prefer their own white women, it doesnt mean you cannot be friends of people of different skin color. If a black woman said she found her own men attractive and preferred them then I would understand, I wont throw a tantrum, let and live I say.

 

[Gordon]

My teacher once told me that the whites of Europe were still changing, were still going through a period of evolotuon while blacks and other socioeties had a civlization, so when the whites reached their peak they became what they are known today i.e civlized, intelligent, educated and advanced then any other race, am not saying every single one but generally compared to others Cacausians are higher then anybody else.

Anglo-Saxons werent any less then Romans, didnt the Romans rape and kill? there is no evidence Anglo-Saxons did duch thing and they progressed rapidly whereas Romans and other African societies took many years to forge an empire.. Anglo-Saxons spread almost through out the world in a short space of time then any other race, that to me is advanced, class and intelligent, yes they also made wars too but the saying goes the more intelligent you are the more ruthless you can be too, thats human nature. But the fact is while non-white societies had a civilization the whites/Caucasians werre still molding until they reached their peak, when the happened it showed the whites are the more superior people in all aspects, this is not being racist or white nationalism but simply pointing out the facts.. Now I do agree Islam and Muslims in history have been more superior then anybody and their civilization was thriving before we were in junlges, many Europeans were Muslims too i.e Austria, Spain, Switzerland and they did well together, if it wasnt for inner conflict and fatigue perhaps Islam could have spread further afield as Norway? (my teacher said once). But compared to African societies whites have progressed further in a short space of time.. Egypt is different to sub-saharan Africa..Egypt, Morocco, Tunisa, Libya, Algeria are a wee bit different to the rest of Africa, they were more advanced, it was said the lighter you are the intelligent you are, perhaps this is true to some extent but I do know is if you were to compare different ethnicties/races then you will find Anglo-Saxons and Caucasians have been far more advanced and progressed far more then anybody in aspects of life, even now.

 

[Bucklecroft Rudy]

i agree the Egyptians today are an islamic arabic people. North Africa as a whole to my knowledge is genetically partly african. The sequencing of the genome revealed that egyptians were semetic/arabic with some arican admixture. Im not sure about the ratios though. From what ive seen there isnt actually a consensus. Its highly politcised so therell always be extremists caiming they were nordic or black african.

Overall your right it doesnt really matter all that much though when referred back to the original question.


One area we havent explored yet is the issue of colonialism. Im not accusing whites of burnin and lootin - any other civ with the oppurtunity would have done the same. However I have noticed that there is little sense of a pressing need for reperation for the impact of native lands being usurped.

I purposefully avoided the word guilt there since its not modernamerica/britains crime However since the west still reaps the benefits of colonised land it does fall on the west to ensure that the natives of those lands are not disenfranchised or made ot exist as second class citizens in thheir ancestral lands.

If we were to decolonise america and australia for the sake of argument that would absolve us of the responsibility for the indigenous plight. We perpetuate the original crime by essentially occupyinf a foreign land.Think muslims marching on europe and declare it the new world proceeding to implement sharia law and coralling white men and women into reservations. In 100 years if that state of affairs still persisted any person today would find that unacceptable. Why are the same rules not applied to whites in the past?

Again this isnt an accusatory post.

 

[Libby]

In all truth about the sexual attraction thing, I think it's holywood that's to blame not racism.
this is what we all desire...

or if you're into girls this:

And actually, most white people don't look like this either. Lol

 

[P A]

If we were to decolonise america and australia for the sake of argument that would absolve us of the responsibility for the indigenous plight. We perpetuate the original crime by essentially occupyinf a foreign land.

In order to cast your proposal in a more practicable light, you're going to have to come up with a damn good operational definition for the words 'foreign' and 'indigenous.'

Diverse social groups (ethnic, tribal, etc.) have been inter- and co-mingling throughout human history. There are no static 'origin stories' for most or all of the world's current societies.

 

[Bucklecroft Rudy]

Thats over complicating things hella lot. This is why I drew from analogy. At the time of the conquistadors and the conquest/discovery of the New World the Americas belonged to the Native tribes just as europe belonged to white europeans. Paleolithic cro magnon patterns of migration etc arent really part of the picture.

I those things were applicable then we may as well open the flood gates and invite every megalomaniac with minions in to try his hand at staging a takeover. They could simply say that their actions are justified due to the constant flux of populations. This argument could be used to justify the nazi invasion of poland or Genghis Khan,Napoleon etc etc etc.

I dont think you were suggesting that though. Im guessing you meant that using the we were here first argument is inherently a flawed position. For our purposes however just using common sense suffices. Look at modern day palestine and israel. That area was given to the jews by the british after years of tenuous "peace". However it was previously seized by saladin. That goes back ad infinitum. In that case your statement is very relevant. Its impossible to define who owns what.

However in the case of the pilgrims travelling across an ocean and seizing a continent separated by tectonic plates there is very little room for debate imo. Australia is the same since that was used as a prison island and the aborigines used as sport. South America same also. It gets a little more complicated in places like russia north africa etc where cultues converge.

 

[Bucklecroft Rudy]

In all truth about the sexual attraction thing, I think it's holywood that's to blame not racism.
this is what we all desire...

or if you're into girls this:

And actually, most white people don't look like this either. Lol

Pattinson and Hilton are considered attractive by alot of people and Hollywood has really pushed that. Im not sure its what we all want, I mean theres a certain bone structure thats attractive. Thats post racial imo. Leona Lewis Marlene Dietrich, Peter Saarsgaard and Sidney poitier are all considered beautiful people and all have that same fine architecture.

However you're right that they are the "norm"

 

[P A]

Thats over complicating things hella lot.

No, it's not. I'm trying to get to the heart of the issue. If you can't expound on words like 'indigenous,' you'll never be able to drum up a politically convincing argument regarding the 'return' of 'native' lands to their 'rightful owners,' simply because you haven't explicitly defined the key terms. If you refuse to do so, then you've fail before you've even begun. Same goes for so-called 'reparations,' whatever those are. You can flatter yourself over the simplicity of these issues all you like, but you aren't liable to win over any supporters/defenders with such vague, broad strokes as you're employing here.

For our purposes however just using common sense suffices.

The fast and loose processes of thought that people like to call 'common sense' have never satisfactorily solved any large-scale problem in human history. Ever.

~50 years ago, it was considered 'common sense' to believe that tobacco products had nothing to do with lung pathology. Common sense is almost always wrong.

 

[Bucklecroft Rudy]

I dThe problem is its impossible to define native and foreigner satisfactorily. Ultimately all land masses were one so all land belongs to all men. If that is the case immigration policies have to be dissolved for a start. Our immigration policies use common sense insofar as the terms for native and foreigner are assumed.

I would define natives by using the standard "associated with a place through birth i.e. individual/race" however this could be used to justify Americans as the natives. Ultimately a great injustice was committed against the native Americans. Genocide to be specific. We can prevaricate and debate semantics all night long but the fact is that pilgrims sailed over a sea and settled in a land that was already settled. They expanded and went viking on the natives collective hide. Now theyre living on reservations and self medicating the pain away with booze.

I really dont think people require a definition of native and foreigner to decide whether conquest and usurpation are wrong. Noone stopped to ponder semantics when hitler invaded poland.

Im not sure how you could possible defend what happened to the native Americans. Simply translating the situation to today and changing the players to muslims and Europeans says all that needs to be said. We in fact invaded the middle east as a preventative measure. There was a fear that the rise of extremism would eventually lead to islam conquering the world starting with America.
Americans were terrified that what their ancestors did to the native americans would be done to them. They killed to stop it happening.

 

[P A]

Our immigration policies use common sense insofar as the terms for native and foreigner are assumed.

No, they don't. Current immigration/emigration policies espoused by the U.S. have a clear (though perhaps misguided) and explicit rationale. Chief among purely pragmatic considerations that are factored into our social policies re. immigration are:

1) Population density
2) Rates of urban poverty, and the linear relation of such to swelling immigrant populations
3) Economic stability following massive influxes of disenfranchised expatriates looking for work (for which they will predictably accept grossly disproportionate pay, driving up unemployment among current 'natives' overall)
4) Healthcare issues, partially stemming from problems 1 and 2
5) Practical concerns re. voting, driver's licenses, etc., many of which become needlessly complicated in the absence of documented citizenship

...and so on and so forth. This list does not end at 10, or even 100. Yet again, you're making these problems out to be far, far simpler than they actually are. Have some solutions been proposed to the problems I just retrieved from the top of my head? Of course, and these solutions have been implemented with variable success. But none of these solutions were procured by people who prefer to think in terms of 'common sense' and subjective opinion as opposed to hard facts and experimental data. Believe me when I tell you that the people 'up top,' however inept much of the time, are typically there for a reason. I'm not talking about demagogic politicians here; I'm referring to the technocrat worker-bees that outnumber them 30 to 1 and who are truly the ones to blame/thank for our current policies. At any rate, the smallest alteration of their operational definitions necessarily sway the eventual outcomes of their calculations, often to a tremendous degree. If you think that these people and the laws that their data inform do not rely upon practically exact operational definitions, you're very wrong indeed.

Noone stopped to ponder semantics when hitler invaded poland

But this isn't 'just' a semantic issue. It's genuinely meaningful and practically important. See above for an explanation as to how/why that uses your own example of immigration policies in the US. Have you ever read a graduate-level law textbook? Or tried to comprehend anything officially released by a public court? The verbiage isn't there for pomp and decorum; it serves an absolutely necessary purpose. Without precise, exacting operational definitions, words have no meaning in strictly legal contexts. The same goes for hotly debated political issues such as the one that we're currently discussing. Common sense just doesn't cut it, hence these are genuine problems, not pernicious word puzzles dressed up as practical conundrums by evil bureaucrats.

Im not sure how you could possible defend what happened to the native Americans.

I can't and won't. A tremendous amount of unendurable suffering was inflicted upon them by their conquerors, whose only true ambitions were reducible to private greed and petty political self-interest. That much is well-known, and is not something that I contest.

That said, however, the land upon which I currently sit as I type these words does not unambiguously strike me as rightly 'belonging' to the tribes of the Chesapeake any more than it belongs to me, a Moroccan, or a Swede.

 

[Bucklecroft Rudy]

I wasnt reducing immigration policies down to common sense at all - its fiendish stuff. Its the assumptions about who defends the land and who violates its laws by entering it. Is there ever any question of expelling all the Americans and welcoming all the illegals; reversing the definitions of illegal and citizen? What constitutes a citizen (excluding applications for citizenship which are complex yes) is simply someone born on US/UK/Danish soil. A foreigner is anyone who wasnt born on the soil and thus doesnt own a passport.

Thats all I was saying there lol you totally misinterpreted what I was saying. Im not sure what to argue here either lol. The means to becoming a citizen are subject to change, but the definition of a native is fairly limited to birth or ancestry ( a la israel).

By that token in a court of law yes of course any lawyer worth his salt could really sink their teeth into any exposed flaws. For example the fact that the natives made no formal claim to the land and that settlers originally tried to work alongside the natives who rebelled sealing their fate. Devils advocate. This is in fact the reasoning that governments use come to think of it.

Argument would be the extent of the killing which was systematic and had a precedent with british empire/cololonialism. The Natives couldnt possibly make a formal claim to the land anyway since that system is western in origin. They claimed the ladn as their own in their shamanistic pantheistic way and later reiterated that in westrern terms. It was stolen anyway

The original point was that racism in this case is rooted in the belief that America is by and for whitres. This wn notion that America is an exclusive aryan glorious high-shanty. America is supposed to be the closest thing on earth to a multi-ethnic utopia.

 

[Bucklecroft Rudy]

p.s. stacey dash. The future of the human race - a convergence of african/bajan(barbados)/mexican into one bronzed buxom amazonian queen. Paris Hilton is a little too lantern jawed for my taste and R.P well he has a penis