White people are responsible for all the evils perpetrated on humanity . .. slavery ., apartheid , genocide and here they are telling Uganda and places like Russia to protect the faggots .
There is an agenda at work and that is to corrupt all the nations of the world but this couldn't happen until the chosen people had a president who they could control .
All major religions frowned upon the faggot lifestyle but now it is forced upon the masses .
I read on this here forum where teachers can be sanctioned for not making their classrooms faggot friendly in spite of the fact that it clashes with their moral and spiritual beliefs
This is being pushed by those who controls the media , finances , law and Hollywood
Kindly refrain from fascist comments.
First warning.
TY..
Some one mentioned that I should have used less inflammatory terms like colonials and Europeans but at the end of the day ,Europeans and colonials are still whites ,
There is no need for a second warning , if you have to kick me out of here then so be it but I will say this and that is the level on discourse here is more of a higher and educated quality .
I do not like to be censored and I prefer to say what I feel without being offensive and as a moderator , I guess you have to do what you have to do
My point about your first sentence here is that you are mis-attributing the problem here, and the result is that it has a large potential to come across as racist. There's an important distinction that you're not making - they didn't commit these crimes because they were white - the colour of their skin was incidental, unless you're arguing that their skin colour had some part to play?
mis attributing ?, me racist? , no I stated exactly what I meant but first let me address the racist part . My definition of racism is " prejudice with power " and that is when one has the power to deny one a promotion or a raise on account of the fact that the victim is melanin challenged .
I don't have that power and therefore I cannot be a racist .
You mentioned the point that Persians Africans and Semites were also involved in slavery but that is a false equivalency as their involvement was minuscule when compared with western Europe .
I will also say this also and that is skin color does come into play as they justify the degrading and enslavement of people who are not like them especially black people as doing gods work .
They interpreted the bible and Torah to justify the enslavement if Black people, who they say are the descendants of Ham ... fetchers of water and Hewers of wood for them.
i am choosing my words carefully and therefore , I will not elaborate further as the sword of Damocles is hanging over my head with the banning threat
I will however reiterate that They are in no position to lecture Uganda and all of Africa for that matter , , The Caribbean,.. India Russia , the Arab world to be accepting towards Gays
Well your definition of racism is flat out wrong. Anyone can be racist, it is simply discrimination on the basis of race. "Power" is not a key determinant, your argument seems to be a depressing reformulation of the argument that "I'm black/Asian/other minority so I can't be racist". You are claiming "white people" are inherently immoral, as you are attributing the evils perpetrated during the colonial era on the basis of skin colour. The insinuation is that you believe that no other race would have done the same, ergo that Black people, in the same situation, would not have carried out mass-scale slavery and exploitation of white people if white people had lived in Africa and Black people in Europe.
On your second point, you were the one who said white people were responsible for
all these problems - my counter point was that the majority of societies across the world have had religious or cultural laws that sanctified or justified slavery, across a number of different races. This is not a false equivalency - the crime is the same, what's different is the scale in this particular instance. Is your argument that only white people would enslave a lot, whereas all other races would enslave a little?
The conception of "other" is the important thing here, not the skin colour per se. Simply put, it's easier to enslave someone who looks totally different from you, as they are more obviously not of your 'culture', 'tribe', or other socio-cultural delineation. Ireland was the hub of the North-Western European slave trade before the 1000s, for example, due to intense Viking raids and slave trading. It wasn't the colour of the skin that allowed slavery, simply a cultural emphasis on military might combined with particular religious conceptions. My point is that even if Africans had had the similar skin colour there would have been some other arbitrary trait for which the powerful countries of Europe would have enslaved Africans, for virtue of not being European and unable to resist.
This has turned from your original racist comments, to hopefully trying to show you that race wasn't he pre-determinate factor. You need to look deeper than the skin - there were a whole host of power structures, cultural changes, religious doctrines, and technological and organisational advances that led to the triangular slave trade that saw over 10 million Africans brutalised for cash crops.
To Toppa - hello dear. Yes, capitalism is a major determinant, but given that slavery existed in cultures without a capitalistic system we know it can't be the only determinant. As I said to Ramgoat, White exceptionalism (and in the modern era, "White saviour" narratives) is a product of Europe's rise. Had China cotinued to be the most developed country from 1400 onwards we might be talking about an "Asian Exceptionalism", or if the Islamic world had continued to be the most developed nations in Europe after 1000 we might be talking about "Arab exceptionalism" (not so crazy, the Caliphates owned all of Spain and some parts of south-western France before receding).
