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.

 

“White nationalist, white supremacist...how did that language become offensive?”

page: 3
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 12:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Asktheanimals

originally posted by: Propagandalf
a reply to: links234

Don’t submit yourself to word policing and thought crimes if you’re not going to let the accused defend himself and clarify what he meant, or you’re no more than an inquisitor looking for heretics to burn.






This is an outstanding speech.


Which is why the media is drawing the focus from the speech and blowing up about of context quote to rile up the morons




posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 01:25 AM
link   
RASISTS EVERYWHERE


The 90-year-old geneticist - one of three who discovered the DNA double helix - had lost his job at the New York laboratory in 2007 for expressing racist views.he said his views on intelligence and race had not changed since.


www.msn.com...



posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 07:21 AM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

Listen I'm not saying they didn't have it bad. But at least their skin color alone wasnt the sole factor they were lynched or discriminated agasint. Black slaves weren't even seen as human.
All these posts about certain groups of people getting killed off and what not happened, but it was for other reasons, stop being a revisionists and steering away from the fact African decent people had it far worse until the 1960s.

A whole war was fought over keeping black people and other people of color to be sub human cattle.



posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Carcharadon

So...you're wildly off-topic here but I think I know why. You're trying to make the argument that 'whites had it just as bad as blacks during the American slave era.'

In somehow making that argument you're proclaiming that it's ok to be proud to be white or something? Anyway...

Let's go back to the Wikipedia article that we're both referencing:


There are no records of how many men, women and children were enslaved, but it is possible to calculate roughly the number of fresh captives that would have been needed to keep populations steady and replace those slaves who died, escaped, were ransomed, or converted to Islam. On this basis it is thought that around 8,500 new slaves were needed annually to replenish numbers - about 850,000 captives over the century from 1580 to 1680. By extension, for the 250 years between 1530 and 1780, the figure could easily have been as high as 1,250,000.


Over a period of 250 years just over 1 million.

We check out the Slavery in the United States article and see the following:


During the Jefferson administration, Congress prohibited the importation of slaves, effective 1808, although smuggling (illegal importing) via Spanish Florida was not unusual. Domestic slave trading, however, continued at a rapid pace, driven by labor demands from the development of cotton plantations in the Deep South. More than one million slaves were sold from the Upper South, which had a surplus of labor, and taken to the Deep South in a forced migration, splitting up many families. New communities of African-American culture were developed in the Deep South, and the total slave population in the South eventually reached 4 million before liberation.


Emphasis added.

We can go further though and look at the Atlantic slave trade where;


Current estimates are that about 12 million Africans were shipped across the Atlantic.


Back to the Barbary argument, it was part of the greater Arab slave trade where;


Some historians assert that as many as 17 million people were sold into slavery on the coast of the Indian Ocean, the Middle East, and North Africa, and approximately 5 million African slaves were transported by Muslim slave traders via Red Sea, Indian Ocean, and Sahara desert to other parts of the world between 1500 and 1900.


So, get away from this argument that one set of people had it 'just as bad' as some other set of people to try and claim the argument invalid. White nationalism is neo-nazism. White pride is white supremacy.

The topic of this post is a sitting congressman is wondering why being a white nationalist is considered a bad thing. I'll tell you why (in my humble opinion), it's because white nationalism proclaims that only white people should rule and run the nation. That's racist as f*ck and should be belittled and thrown in the trash bin of history.



posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: Carcharadon

So...you're wildly off-topic here but I think I know why. You're trying to make the argument that 'whites had it just as bad as blacks during the American slave era.'

In somehow making that argument you're proclaiming that it's ok to be proud to be white or something? Anyway...

Let's go back to the Wikipedia article that we're both referencing:


There are no records of how many men, women and children were enslaved, but it is possible to calculate roughly the number of fresh captives that would have been needed to keep populations steady and replace those slaves who died, escaped, were ransomed, or converted to Islam. On this basis it is thought that around 8,500 new slaves were needed annually to replenish numbers - about 850,000 captives over the century from 1580 to 1680. By extension, for the 250 years between 1530 and 1780, the figure could easily have been as high as 1,250,000.


Over a period of 250 years just over 1 million.

We check out the Slavery in the United States article and see the following:


During the Jefferson administration, Congress prohibited the importation of slaves, effective 1808, although smuggling (illegal importing) via Spanish Florida was not unusual. Domestic slave trading, however, continued at a rapid pace, driven by labor demands from the development of cotton plantations in the Deep South. More than one million slaves were sold from the Upper South, which had a surplus of labor, and taken to the Deep South in a forced migration, splitting up many families. New communities of African-American culture were developed in the Deep South, and the total slave population in the South eventually reached 4 million before liberation.


Emphasis added.

We can go further though and look at the Atlantic slave trade where;


Current estimates are that about 12 million Africans were shipped across the Atlantic.


Back to the Barbary argument, it was part of the greater Arab slave trade where;


Some historians assert that as many as 17 million people were sold into slavery on the coast of the Indian Ocean, the Middle East, and North Africa, and approximately 5 million African slaves were transported by Muslim slave traders via Red Sea, Indian Ocean, and Sahara desert to other parts of the world between 1500 and 1900.


So, get away from this argument that one set of people had it 'just as bad' as some other set of people to try and claim the argument invalid. White nationalism is neo-nazism. White pride is white supremacy.

The topic of this post is a sitting congressman is wondering why being a white nationalist is considered a bad thing. I'll tell you why (in my humble opinion), it's because white nationalism proclaims that only white people should rule and run the nation. That's racist as f*ck and should be belittled and thrown in the trash bin of history.



Why is one congressman being singled out when a substantial portion of the Left is Anti-Semitic and Anti White?

Wheres your outrage at that? Wheres your diatribe against that?

Why is one side only ever singled out? And dont give me power dynamics or whatever neo Marxist claptrap you'll revert to.

Its ALL bad.

And yet the Left NEVER condemns it. In fact, they've went completely the other way and wholeheartedly embraced the racism and bigotry. But only if it's against Israel, Jews or White people.

There are racists on the right. Absolutely.

The massive difference is that they have no power and are ostracized from mainstream right wing politics.

The Left cannot say the same.

And yes, the Irish had it far worse in America than Africans did.

Interesting that you never addressed those points. But like you said that is off topic and thread drift so we will put that aside for a more relevant thread.



posted on Jan, 14 2019 @ 10:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Carcharadon

As bone-headed as Kings comments were, and they were, there have been far more Racist Incantations emanating from the Congressional Black Caucus for Decades. Imagine the uproar if Steve King had said he was willing to be the chairman of a prospective Congressional White Caucus ! Washington and the MSM are Full of Hypocrites who just say things to gain Political Points . What a Joke !




top topics
 
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join