Is it acceptable to hate white people

My thoughts exactly

 

i think every group of people has the right to take pride in their ethnicity. and have groups that represent their self interests and self preservation. i'd like to know why liberals are so quick to take up for planned parenthood, even though it;s origins are extremely racist. margaret sanger admitted more than once she didn't like blacks very much at all.

 

Pride goeth before a fall. Now where did I read that?hmmm.

 

A moderately stimulating read, I may even consider adding a track back from my blog. Although I think you failed to address the socio-cultural anthropology at play here. I would recommend reading up on Franz Boas. Ciao!

 

Yes, white kids look up to us because they see truth in the words we speak most notably through our rap lyrics.

They refuse to live the lie that is forced upon them by their parents whose notion of the perfect family is 2.7 kids, a dog, a cat, and a pet hamster named fred somewhere on a ¾ acre lot Main Street USA

Hotwater

 

I find racism in any form enexcusable.

Just because one person was a total ass doesn't mean they all are, if you catch my drift.

 

I don't think I follow you. Do you mean certain types of white people hate other types? I didn't think white people hated each other as a race, because if we do than I was never in on it.

 

I know you well enough to read between the lines, I know what you are saying. I know you have a strong sense of white pride, and I know that you think all people should have pride in their heritage, I'm not calling you a racist when I say you have white pride.

I should also add, i'm not going to present my argument as if you are the one who is going against the grain, although I'm not sure your views either are totally representative. I guess what I am saying is I am using this opportunity to put forth my view.

Although my first post was in defense of the "white race" I only wanted to point out the inaccuracy of the evidence presented, and to dismiss the original notion that is acceptable to be racist to "whites".

White people, like all people, do not have a monopoly on injustice or hatred, nor have they created all the worlds evils. The Aztec empire has already been pointed out so I wont go into that, but the first real empire was Egypt, then Persia, then Rome, Then the Ottomans, Then the British. Before the Ottoman empire and the British empire, most white people (using the term "white people" strictly by popular modern definition) were walking around in mud, worshiping nature where the location felt most appropriate and huddling together for an easier survival, like most people around the world.

Rome did much to spread Empire west and Alexander the Great had spread the influence of the Mediterranean east all the way to India where he was defeated. And you have that part of the story of the East, with the ancient empire of China and all of that history.

At one point in history white people had the upper hand and did dominate the east, they did colonize a lot of the world and they did some terrible things along the way. But they weren't one collective either, like the rest of history they were groups in competition with each other, while the Portuguese were still slave trading from Africa (which the British had done for awhile as well), the British decided that was wrong.

And all of that doesn't mean shit. Because the way I see it, none of us are our fathers, we all make our own choices and we are defintley all in this together. The only reason I think any race should stick together as a race, is if other people are categorizing them (and negatively) in that way in the first place.

I'm not white, I'm Zac. You're not white, you're Elijah. Sure a part of being Elijah, is being white, it matters to you and you don't wish anyone else any harm because of it. That's fine, but why should any person of any race have pride in their heritage? why should it matter to them at all? We all want to know who we are, but surely that is more present in the individual then it is in the individual's history?

We all the think we have the right to choose to defend those that we choose, and include those that we choose in what we do. That would be fine if we all had our own little world like we think we do. But everything we do effects everything else.

So when one person says they're white, they are saying they're not black, not Indian, not what ever race they identify as existing (this doesn't just apply to people who identify as white, but i might as well stick with that example now). It's as if we have to exclude others to feel included, and it doesn't have to be race, it can be culture, it can be location, it can even be the stupid fucking clothes we all wear and it can be the different fucking music we listen to, as if ANY of that shit really matters?

I don't have to tolerate other races presence on my race, because I don't look at myself as my race, another person is another person no matter what their skin pigmentation, or what ever other feature is suppose to make them different from me. I don't have to tolerate other cultures, because I don't respect culture for the sake of it.

If you don't think women should wear bikini's don't tell me it's because it's against your culture, give me a fucking reason, otherwise shut up and just don't wear one yourself. If you think it is evil for a man to fuck another man, don't tell me it is so because there is something in your stupid little book, give me a fucking reason or shut up and just don't do it yourself.

And don't get me wrong, If people want to go to their churches, read their books, do their dances, sing their songs, tell their stories, they have every right if that's who they decide they are. But don't tell me that it should mean anything to me, don't tell me one culture is more important then the other. People can do what ever they want (in terms of the aforementioned activities church, dances etc.), but it doesn't give them any right to step on any other person's rights. So don't start telling me that other people should be less important because they have different skin, and that I should be less important to them because I have different skin.

We're all people and if anyone thinks I am more important or less important to them because I am white should just admit that they want to exclude others to include themselves in some thing. Which is so fucking stupid including yourself in something so non-consequential so arbitrary as what fucking skin you have or what fucking part of this doomed rock you came from or what stories your parents told you about how we got here.

If you want to include yourself with people because of what you believe, fine, but don't tell me you're going to exclude or include me because you were born in Ohio, or Tokyo, because you're black or you're white, because your parents told you to believe in this book, or that book. Tell me the reasons you believe whatever you believe makes the difference between you and I, or, you and them. Tell me the reason I'm worthy or not good enough for inclusion, don't hide behind, black or white, Muslim or Jew or the shit the people around me might be doing. And if you don't want to tell me, shut the fuck up and don't hide behind your stupid pointless lines.

I don't really care where anyone was born, I don't care what colour their skin is, or what their schools, friends, society or parents taught them. I'm aware of course the affect these things (not including race) have on a person's development intellectually. But don't tell me you're Christian or Muslim because you were brought up that way, don't tell me you believe this or that because of where you're born, don't tell me you're different because of what school you went to, give me a reason.

And if you don't know me or any other person you're judging because of our background, it's pretty damn hard to find a good reason without hiding behind stupid lines because we could be any body despite our crappy demographic we're suppose to be apart of. And as soon as you exclude someone because of any of these crappy labels, without even knowing them, you better make sure your world is far away from theirs, because if you don't, you're fucking them over.

Going back to what I mentioned previously about people thinking they have right to choose who they want to include what they do, it's not to say an individual can't have more of an obligation to their family, friends or community. But as soon as you say, this person is more important to me then that other person because of some stupid bullshit demographic like race when you don't know either person is just stupid. Of course people could say that person is more important because she is my wife that I love, because that is a real reason. And of course communities have to work together for success, but I don't want to hear that people from another country shouldn't be of our concern at all and they should take care of themselves, like they shouldn't matter at all to us.

It's the same bullshit lines that make communities split down the middle, we divide into stupid little groups pretending that we're all more important then the other, communities that could work better together. We divide not only on religion and culture and what schools we go to, but we even try and sum up our beliefs into solid stupid fucking waste of time categories. Like any thoughtful person could be liberal or conservative, or have their entire belief set summed up ahead of time by a party of people they don't even know personally and are notorious for lying. Yet, even in that, there is more of reason then race, some misguided reasons.

To me all of you are just people, I don't care where you come from, I don't care what religion you are a part of, you are not your political party, you are not your football team or your favorite cd, you are not what your parents raised you to be, you are not what you were taught at school, you are not your car, your clothes or your money.

To me, you are your actions, thoughts, beliefs and reason. To me, I am nothing special either

 

Don't go out of your way or anything. What socio-cultural anthropology do you think is at play here?

 

Can’t We All Just Get Along

Tom Lehrer – National Brotherhood Week

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=184MD9S69vY"]YouTube- National Brotherhood Week


Hotwater

 

The only other two things besides you're incorrect statement was that jew's were swindlers, which is just a categoric ignorance.

And that Africans had no use for the gold/resources swindled from them, which is false, gold has been a common form of currency in Africa for hundreds of years.

 

Hmm, that sums up what I was saying before, way to make my post pointless.

 

Well, this is far off the truth too:

 

Yeah, the truth of it, white people aren't responsible for everything bad OR everyting good.

 

Indeed, but arabic nations have had medical and technological advances for centuries, let alone asian nations like China who advanced in times when white 'nations' were still running around in animal skins..

But it's also clear that since the industrial revolutions white nations have been pretty destructive as well, however every race, subrace etc. etc. has the same potential for that (as we can see). Hating a race can be acceptable for some people, why not. It only gets unacceptable for me if people act on that hate.

 

You mean when the BROWN man took down the Aztecs. It was Spaniards.

 

Exactly when the chinese were developing brain surgery; barbarians in sheepskins were occupying most of europe and the british isles


Hotwater

 

to the Question: yes, but only if you are white yourself.

 

Eurasian civilization is not so much a product of ingenuity, but of opportunity and necessity. That is, civilization is not created out of sheer will or intelligence, but is the result of a chain of developments, each made possible by certain preconditions.

In our earliest societies, humans lived as hunter-gatherers. The first step towards civilization is the move from hunter-gatherer to agriculture, with the domestication and farming of wild crops and animals. Agricultural production leads to food surpluses, which supports sedentary societies, specialization of craft, rapid population growth, and specialization of labor. Large societies tend to develop ruling classes and supporting bureaucracies, which leads in turn to the organization of empires.

Although agriculture arose in several parts of the world, Eurasia gained an early advantage due to the availability of suitable plant and animal species for domestication. In particular, the Middle East had by far the best collection of plants and animals suitable for domestication – barley, two varieties of wheat and three protein-rich pulses for food; flax for textiles; goats, sheep and cattle provided meat, leather, glue (by boiling the hooves and bones) and, in the case of sheep, wool. As early Middle Eastern civilizations began to trade, they found additional useful animals in adjacent territories, most notably horses and donkeys for use in transport.

In contrast, Native American farmers had to struggle to develop maize as a useful food from its probable wild ancestor, teosinte. Eurasia as a whole domesticated 13 species of large animals (over 100lb / 44 kg); South America just one (counting the llama and alpaca as breeds within the same species); the rest of the world none at all. Diamond describes the small number of domesticated species (14 out of 148 "candidates") as an instance of the Anna Karenina principle: many promising species have just one of several significant difficulties that prevent domestication. For example, horses are easily domesticated, but their biological relatives zebras and onagers are untameable; and although Asian elephants are tameable, it is very difficult to breed them in captivity.

Eurasia's large landmass and long east-west distance increased these advantages. Its large area provided it with more plant and animal species suitable for domestication, and allowed its people to exchange both innovations and diseases. Its East-West orientation allowed breeds domesticated in one part of the continent to be used elsewhere through similarities in climate and the cycle of seasons. In contrast, Australia suffered from a lack of useful animals due to extinction, probably by human hunting, shortly after the end of the Pleistocene. The Americas had difficulty adapting crops domesticated at one latitude for use at other latitudes (and, in North America, adapting crops from one side of the Rocky Mountains to the other). Africa was fragmented by its extreme variations in climate from North to South: plants and animals that flourished in one area never reached other areas where they could have flourished, because they could not survive the intervening environment. Europe was the ultimate beneficiary of Eurasia's East-West orientation: in the first millennium BC, the Mediterranean areas of Europe adopted the Middle East's animals, plants, and agricultural techniques; in the first millennium AD, the rest of Europe followed suit.

The plentiful supply of food and the dense populations that it supported made division of labor possible. The rise of non-farming specialists such as craftsmen and scribes accelerated economic growth and technological progress. These economic and technological advantages eventually enabled Europeans to conquer the peoples of the other continents in recent centuries by using guns and steel.

Eurasia's dense populations, high levels of trade, and living in close proximity to livestock resulted in widespread transmission of diseases, including from animals to humans. Natural selection forced Eurasians to develop immunity to a wide range of pathogens. When Europeans made contact with America, European diseases (to which they had no immunity) ravaged the indigenous American population, rather than the other way around (the "trade" in diseases was a little more balanced in Africa and southern Asia: endemic malaria and yellow fever made these regions notorious as the "white man's grave"; and syphilis may have spread in the opposite direction). The European diseases decimated indigenous populations so that relatively small numbers of Europeans could maintain their dominance.


Other advanced cultures developed in areas whose geography was conducive to large, monolithic, isolated empires. In these conditions policies of technological and social stagnation could persist – until Europeans arrived. China was a very notable example; in 1432, a new Emperor outlawed the building of ocean-going ships, in which China was the world leader at the time.
Europe's geography favored balkanization into smaller, closer, nation-states, as its many natural barriers (mountains, rivers) provide defensible borders. As a result, governments that suppressed economic and technological progress soon corrected their mistakes or were out-competed relatively quickly. Geographical factors created the conditions for more rapid internal superpower change (Spain succeeded by France and then by England) than was possible elsewhere in Eurasia.

 

whys that? when the white man reached bengal, it was the richest state in the world. when the white man left. bengal was the poorest. can you say that the bengali has no right to hate?