The Founding Father of Mississippi wrote that their constitution is designed to keep the N***** from taking part in politics. Kansas was considered a UNION STATE, and Missouri Southern. Today's Republican Party wants the reinstitution of the Confederate States of America. Nearly everything Republicans do is to prevent minorities from voting. They enact voter ID laws, redistricting, registration purge, and the poll tax was their Confederate idea too. In 1964 the Negro men of America walked with signs which declared, "I AM A MAN." They did that because the KKK CONSERVATIVES refused to treat them as a man.
It sounds like we irritated you. This morning's election results will add to your frustration. In less than 12 months the election results will compound your frustration.
Okay, I have time to get back to this. Let me first reiterate: The Charlottesville demonstrators are racists. I don't think very fine people are racists. The Confederacy was a group of United States citizens who were traitors. Lee's sense of honor was so great he abandoned his country and fought a war against it. Lee should have been hung. To erect a statue that glorifies him and his cause is wrong. Defending a statue of Lee that commemorates him and his case is defending his actions and his cause, that is, the owning and enslavement of an entire class of fellow human beings. That, is racist. At least seven million people died as a result of the treasonous South. That is, by the culture you seem to admire. No one is rewriting history by removing a statue of Lee. You ask what a white supremacist is? It has nothing to do with the achievements of "people of European (or Caucasian) ancestry". It has to do with the fact that these ignorant people have no idea what the word race means. They view race as groups of people based on physical characteristics which on the surface appear to be valid but in reality have no scientific bases at all. White supremacists view themselves as better than others who have more melanin in their skin. There is no color skin boundary. As far as contributions to society, the color of one's skin has little to do with that. More likely it entails availability of food, climate, natural resources, availability of animals that can be domesticated, luck, and geographical advantages and disadvantages. This is not to slight the achievements of Europeans, but if you were to isolate a group of historical Europeans in another region of the Earth, such as the Pacific North West, or some dense African jungle they may not fair as well as the native Inuits or Africans. You are nauseated with the modern obsession with race? Does that include the Civil Rights marches in the '60's? Seems to me they were pretty obsessed with race. Do you feel that everyone now has equal rights and opportunities in the U.S.? Time to put away the call for Civil Rights? Or are you just saying that only blacks, Latinos and others no longer face any form of discrimination at all? Are you saying that blacks in particular face no discrimination at all due to the color of their skin? Does if sicken you when a black person claims they have been discriminated against due to the color of their skin, such as when Donald Trump refused to rent to his properties to those with dark skin color? The fact that people have ancestors that evolved in different geographical areas of the world has nothing to do with their supposed superiority. Advantageous physical traits are only advantageous in certain situations. Take your East African marathon runner and place him or her in the high Andes or Tibet and see how well they fair. So what? Different people are different, that's all. Racist believe they are superior at all times in all situations. White supremacist believe they are superior at all times in all situations due to their skin color. I hope I haven't bored you to death with my tedious answer. I did proof read it but I apologize in advance if I misrepresented something you said, please correct me if I did. Finally, if you wish, respond to it with criticisms, agreements, corrections, or questions.
In the past most, if not all, slavery was not based on skin color. As many view skin color as a definition of race, enslavement of humans based on skin color is indeed racist.
Srg Oh great if you think MeAgain is tedious you are going to love me. LOL well reading your post that seems to be you default setting - I'm not going to check it out Please explain why you think of them as ‘noble’? he[Robert E. Lee] then ordered us to the barn, where, in his presence, we were tied firmly to posts by a Mr. Gwin, our overseer, who was ordered by Gen. Lee to strip us to the waist and give us fifty lashes each, excepting my sister, who received but twenty; we were accordingly stripped to the skin by the overseer, who, however, had sufficient humanity to decline whipping us; accordingly Dick Williams, a county constable, was called in, who gave us the number of lashes ordered; Gen. Lee, in the meantime, stood by, and frequently enjoined Williams to lay it on well, an injunction which he did not fail to heed; not satisfied with simply lacerating our naked flesh, Gen. Lee then ordered the overseer to thoroughly wash our backs with brine, which was done. LOL anyone motivated by history would be pulling on the rope that toppled such statues. You like history how about this about the Vietnam war the ratio of black combat troops to white ones was double that for the U.S. population as a whole.... Their rate of combat death was likewise higher. At the same time, there were disproportionately fewer African-Americans serving as officers — they were 5% of the officers but 10% of all Army troops — and, in their off time, troops tended to congregate in de facto segregated areas in Saigon. And you base that suspicion on what? So pointing out that there are racial problems within US society is nauseating – why?
Well, they did turn their guns against the United States of America … did they not? What do call that sort of rebellion in Australia?
Storm It is also the nature of the rebellion Look if it had been an authoritarian and blood handed regime that was been rebelled against I could understand it - but the Confederacy rebelled to uphold slavery in support of an authoritarian and blood handed system.
I agree. And these Confederates were also behind the Second Amendment, so they could keep the Negro in chains and exterminate the Native Indians whenever they felt the notion. Today, they are against poor people having rights in the workplace, against poor people having health insurance, against government custodianship of national lands, against clean air to breath, against clean water to drink, against government funded schools, against free school lunch for poor kids, and they don't want to pay any taxes at all. Go figure Balbus?
Amazing how many of you dont know your own history If there is no right of secession, then Texas is still part of Mexico
[ Amazing how you outlanders profess to know our history better than we do. The U.S. Civil war was primarily about the right of secession. The secessionists lost. As for Texas being part of Mexico, many of us would be happy to give it back.
I was speaking of those in the South who rebelled , not all Southerners. Some Southerners supported the United States.
Now that's a seriously flawed statement. Now that's a seriously flawed statement. The Republic of Texas volunteered to join the Union and has never attempted to leave. Better stick to your Aussie fantasies.