When did racism end? - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All sociological topics not appropriate or suited to other areas of the board.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14908270
@Rich

I need sources for all of this. Also isolated and primitive tribes weren't racist, they were just xenophobic. An isolated tribe in Africa would kill other black people who entered their territory not because of their race, they were or the same race, but because they wore strange clothes, spoke in a strange language, used devices they had no idea about. It was a defensive mechanism against a people they couldn't comprehend. If you call this racism, then whites must certainly be very primitive.

Also White supremacism is very recent and only emerged in the late 19th century. By the 14th century Europe was still religiously dominated and therefore your identity was formed by your religion and culture. The Crusaders didn't kill because of race, such a statement is historical revisionism and clearly Cultural Marxism. Furthermore Christianity is way too violent to be morally superior. If you were a torturer, the best place to go to for a job is not the Islamic world but the Christendom for only there are torturers in high demand.
User avatar
By Saeko
#14908275
Pants-of-dog wrote:If the goal is to keep police from being held accountable for racist violence, then it is very successful. But I mean that every step of the way, all legal professionals involved agreed that the law was followed.


If the goal is to keep police from being held accountable for racist violence and racism is socially acceptable, then there would be a law which says "The police are not to be held accountable for racist violence". Where is your proof that such a law exists?

And if the law was followed every step of the way, then either a given incident is an instance of racist violence or it is not. If it is, then that is a failure, since the laws as they are written guarantee equal rights to all citizens.

Part of the process for making racism acceptable is by denying that it is racism. One Degree is doing it in this very thread. This is so widespread that there is even a name for it: dog whistle politics.


If one needs to use coded language to communicate a certain ideology, then it is not an ideology which is considered socially acceptable.

Yes, western nations are currently engaged in ethnic cleansing of indigenous people. They do this through a variety of methods. Taking children from families, making indigenous cultural practices illegal, seizing land, etc.


No, ethnic cleansing is the deliberate killing of people of a given ethnicity with the goal of achieving ethnic homogeneity. This is certainly not happening anywhere in the West today.

Children can be legitimately taken away from abusive families, cultural practices which harm people (such as FGM) can be legitimately criminalized, and private land can be legitimately seized.

This actually goes back to my original point: it never ended. Can you tell me when government action against indigenous people supposedly ended?


This is a red herring. If it isn't happening, it really doesn't matter when it ended. On the other hand, if it never ended, then why do indigenous people still exist? You'd have to believe that western governments are currently engaged in the most ineffective ethnic cleansing program ever devised.

And I did answer your question. I pointed out that when governments enact eminent domain against white people, they are required to provide a rational basis for the appropriation. For example, a new road or installation of infrastructure. This basis shows that it is not racism.

What is the basis for the appropriation of indigenous lands, complete with the ethnic cleansings, and imprisoning them on reservations, etc.?


Loaded question. With regard to land appropriation, there is no reason why the government couldn't or wouldn't give a rational basis for seizing indigenous lands even if it was actually racist. This proves nothing one way or the other.

If that had been my point, you would have been correct here.

My point was that their actions (i.e. the cops who lied and covered up for the racist violent one) ended up supporting government racism.



Again, you have misunderstood. Now that I have explained that I did not argue that, you seem to be ignoring what I explicitly said in order to continue with this strawman.



No, that would be overt support of racism.


Let's review here. You've said:

1) The cover-up by police officers of a fellow officer's racist actions is support for racism whatever the motive.
2) Saving the life of a Nazi when you're a government doctor is not support for racism.
3) Naming a Nazi as a friend when you're the President of the United States is support for racism.

If the outcome is all that matters, then all three are support for racism. But you disagree that 2 is support for racism. So it cannot be that the outcome is all that matters. On the other hand, you've also said that 1 and 3 prove that the government supports racism but denied that 2 does as well for some unknown reason. Furthermore 2 is clearly worse for minorities than 3, so, really, neither I nor anyone else has any clue what is going through your head here.

This is no strawman. Your positions are clearly inconsistent.


    In an initial investigation, the police service's professional standards branch determined there was insufficient evidence to pursue criminal charges against the police officers or a need for a disciplinary hearing.

    But new evidence introduced by Engel prompted a review of the case that concluded there was enough evidence to warrant a disciplinary hearing.

    Three witnesses provided statements and interviews after El Hallak put handwritten notes in his neighbours' mailboxes.

    In his letter, Knecht offers a summary of those witness accounts.

    One neighbour said he heard a person call someone the N-word outside his window. He said he saw El Hallak slowly jog down the sidewalk followed by the officers, one who shouted: "I'll shoot you motherf--ker. I'll taser you."

    The neighbour said El Hallak dropped to the ground, saying " 'yes, officer, I'm not resisting. Please don't hurt me.' "

    Edmonton police sergeant charged with obstruction of justice
    Edmonton teen's complaint of excessive force, racial profiling under investigation
    Another witness said she saw police put El Hallak in the back seat of the cruiser.

    "The officer on the passenger side looked around and started to swing his right arm," wrote Knecht, summarizing her account. "The upper back end of the arm swung approximately three to five times. While this was happening she could hear [El Hallak] saying 'No — stop — you are hurting me.' The other police officer walked in front of the vehicle and did nothing."

    The third witness was El Hallak's wife. Jasmine Flaig said she didn't realize it was her husband in the cruiser as she peered out a bedroom window, saw an officer standing by an open door and heard a man shout: "Stop, you are hurting me."


Again, I don't see anything that proves that what you said was an accurate description of what happened. Who is the prosecutor you mention? Who is the supposed criminal you mention? Where does it say that this supposed criminal approached the prosecutor?

    Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another, which often results in discrimination and prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity. Today, the use of the term "racism" does not easily fall under a single definition.[1]

    The ideology underlying racist practices often includes the idea that humans can be subdivided into distinct groups that are different due to their social behavior and their innate capacities as well as the idea that they can be ranked as inferior or superior.[2] Historical examples of institutional racism include the Holocaust, the apartheid regime in South Africa, and slavery and segregation in the United States. Racism was also an aspect of the social organization of many colonial states and empires.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism


This is a good start, but I still don't see your list of necessary and sufficient conditions for what counts as support for racism.


https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/12/ ... iety-study

    Contrary to what some have suggested, white millennial Trump voters were not in more economically precarious situations than non-Trump voters. Fully 86 percent of them reported being employed, a rate similar to non-Trump voters; and they were 14 percent less likely to be low income than white voters who did not support Trump. Employment and income were not significantly related to that sense of white vulnerability.

    So what was? Racial resentment.

    Even when controlling for partisanship, ideology, region and a host of other factors, white millennials fit Michael Tesler’s analysis, explored here. As he put it, economic anxiety isn’t driving racial resentment; rather, racial resentment is driving economic anxiety. We found, as he has in a larger population, that racial resentment is the biggest predictor of white vulnerability among white millennials. Economic variables like education, income and employment made a negligible difference.


This is not an article published in any reputable scientific journal. The links provided only lead to further Vox or Washington Post articles. Neither of these publications is a reputable scientific journal.
Last edited by Saeko on 22 Apr 2018 01:25, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By noir
#14908277
One Degree wrote:Racism is used to convince you to sacrifice your cultural values for the cultural values of others. It is often a smokescreen to hide reality. As long as people are confused by the conflation of race with culture, they can be manipulated into making decisions against their own well being. This conflation makes an honest discussion impossible about race or culture.



User avatar
By Verv
#14908287
@Zamuel , there is some surviving Egyptian writings from like 1500 BC or so from a fort in the upper Nile (and by upper we properly mean lower) near the Sudan that had Egyptian writings referring to something like "Your black skin is a curse upon you," etc. The Egyptians, like other ancient groups, would create "curse pottery" and "curse murals" that were supposed to be magically imbued curses upon their enemies (either individuals or nations). I remember this form an episode of the Egyptian History Podcast, though I do not know which one. It is made by an Egyptologist who would never be accused of being anything but a typical left-of-center thinker.

@Pants-of-dog , there'd be no kind of "evidence" for such claims. Nobody has ever said "I just accuse people of racism in order to further my ideology," rather, this is the 4D chess world.

Of course, there are also normies who don't really understand anything at all that truly believe that denying the existence of white privilege constitutes racism, but I do not think people truly take these people's perspectives that seriously. Of course, present your arguments by all means, but it just isn't really something that I have alway sthought of as being like... some credible position.

It's a series of convenient claims and the people who make them do not understand the meta behind any of these things. They aren't the architects of their own thought processes.
User avatar
By Sivad
#14908293
Why you can’t blame mass incarceration on the war on drugs
The standard liberal narrative about mass incarceration gets a lot wrong. A new book breaks through the myths.
There’s a “Standard Story” that many Americans, particularly on the left, believe about mass incarceration: During the 1970s and ’80s, the federal government dramatically escalated its war on drugs. This alone led to millions of people getting locked up for fairly low-level drug offenses, causing the US prison population to spike. This new prison population is predominantly black, leading to massive racial disparities in the criminal justice system. And all of this happened, not coincidentally, right after the civil rights movement — showing the rise in incarceration was a ploy to oppress black Americans just after they made huge gains.

But in a new book, Locked In: The True Causes of Mass Incarceration and How to Achieve Real Reform, Fordham University criminal justice expert John Pfaff offers a trove of evidence that this narrative is by and large wrong or, at the very least, misses much of the real story.

The “Standard Story” of mass incarceration, as Pfaff calls it, was largely popularized by a 2010 book, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness by Michelle Alexander. Pfaff goes through many facts and statistics to show that this Standard Story gets a lot wrong about the causes and realities of mass incarceration, from the types of crime that people are locked up for (in reality, largely violent offenses) to the areas in which reform is truly needed (with a focus on state and local, not federal, reform).

“The core failing of the Standard Story is that it consistently puts the spotlight on statistics and events that are shocking but, in the grand scheme of things, not truly important for solving the problems we face,” he writes. “As a result, it gives too little attention to the more mundane-sounding yet far more influential causes of prison growth.”

The story that Pfaff carefully describes is different from the standard narrative: It’s not drug offenses that are driving mass incarceration, but violent ones. It’s not the federal government that’s behind mass incarceration, but a whole host of prison systems down to the local and state level. It’s not solely police and lawmakers leading to more incarceration and lengthy prison sentences, but prosecutors who are by and large out of the political spotlight.
By Rich
#14908325
Oxymandias wrote:@Rich

I need sources for all of this. Also isolated and primitive tribes weren't racist, they were just xenophobic.

"War before civilisation" by Lawrence Keeley is a good start on the extremely violent nature of our primitive ancestors.

Primitive tribes make war on the basis of biological inheritance. In fact in the most primitive cultures, violence between men is highly likely if they can't establish a kinship relationship. As human society has evolved and become more complex the groups size with which we identify have got larger. But fundamentally its the same thing whether its conflict between bands, tribes, chiefdoms, city, states, tribal and city state confederations, the large empires or the continental identities such as White or Black African. These identities allow people to presume kinship.

So called White supremacist racism was progressive when it appeared as it proscribed rudimentary rights for the greatest number of people. You are correct that Christianity is a somewhat different identity, although even here symbolic kinship relationships are created. The Pope is seen symbolically as Father. In other words as the Patriarchal ancestor of the faithful. Also religious identities always get merged with kinship even if they don't start out as such. In a similar way Communist identities although formally universal became identified with ethnic groups.
#14908330
@Rich

War Before Civilization doesn't touch upon racism at all. Furthermore, Lawrence does not touch upon human nature being violent but rather that our ancestors were violent. Furthermore just because some people did it hundreds of years ago, doesn't make it right.

Like I said, you need to give sources. War Before Civilization doesn't touch on why war is made, it only touches on the frequency of war. Therefore, War Before Civilization does not support your point at all. Not only that, but your claim falls flat when you look at the Roman Empire. The Romans didn't care about what your race was or whether you were related to them, you were Roman if you were born in the Roman Empire and that's all there was to it. Also, "White" and "Black" as an identity only exists in the US. Everywhere else in the world, it does not. African American and White identity is unique only to America and does not exist anywhere else.

I need a source for that given that White supremacism came from the elite themselves rather than the peasants or working class. I never talked about Christianity as an identity. You are misrepresenting my points. Christianity was never tied to ethnicity throughout it's history with the exception of only idiots who have no knowledge about Christianity. If this was truly the case, every ethnicity would have it's own version of Christianity which it doesn't at all and the Protestant Reformation would've never happened given that it was ideologically motivated not ethnically motivated and since that is impossible if German Christianity was as ethnically tied as you say it was, your argument is moot.

Are you seriously legitimately claiming that Communism is an identity? That is the most stupidest thing I have heard. Have you read anything from Karl Marx at all? Have you even heard of the Soviet Union? Have lived under a rock for the past 44 years?
#14908336
"White" and "Black" as an identity only exists in the US. Everywhere else in the world, it does not. African American and White identity is unique only to America and does not exist anywhere else.


This is a ridiculous statement. Obviously ‘African American’ is unique to America. All people make value judgements based upon skin tone because it often represents cultural heritage. Blacks may distinguish themselves because it reveals the amount of Caucasian or Asian ancestry. Mexicans distinguish themselves because of the amount of European or native ancestry. We use skin tone to make assumptions about people’s culture. There is nothing unique about the US other than people deciding it is unique, because someone once coined American slavery as an unique institution. It is a perfect example of people choosing fantasy over reality based upon what one person said. We then perpetuate the fantasy for political gain.
User avatar
By Zamuel
#14908350
One Degree wrote:There is nothing unique about the US other than people deciding it is unique, because someone once coined American slavery as an unique institution. It is a perfect example of people choosing fantasy over reality based upon what one person said. We then perpetuate the fantasy for political gain.

Not just political gain I think ... Look at some of these fantasies that are bandied about Pofo. Justification of personal inclination may be a large factor.

Zam
#14908356
Zamuel wrote:Not just political gain I think ... Look at some of these fantasies that are bandied about Pofo. Justification of personal inclination may be a large factor.

Zam


Yes, I was too limited in my view. Thanks for the clarification.
#14908368
Sivad wrote:you said "white separatists can also claim to be victims of racism"... that's game over for you.


No. Random phrases out of context are not an argument. That particular random and out of context phrase does not contradict anything I have said.

———————————

Saeko wrote:If the goal is to keep police from being held accountable for racist violence and racism is socially acceptable, then there would be a law which says "The police are not to be held accountable for racist violence". Where is your proof that such a law exists?

And if the law was followed every step of the way, then either a given incident is an instance of racist violence or it is not. If it is, then that is a failure, since the laws as they are written guarantee equal rights to all citizens.


So you do not believe that the police and judges can say they followed the law, and simultaneously have supported or been racist in their acts?

If a cop shoots a black man for racist reasons, and the judge lets the cop off because the cop says he feared for his life, then this is an example of the law being followed, and racism being perpetuated,

If one needs to use coded language to communicate a certain ideology, then it is not an ideology which is considered socially acceptable.


That is not logical. Dog whistle terminology is used to make racism socially acceptable by communicating racism to people who find it socially acceptable, while trying to avoid criticism from those who are opposed to racism.

No, ethnic cleansing is the deliberate killing of people of a given ethnicity with the goal of achieving ethnic homogeneity. This is certainly not happening anywhere in the West today.

Children can be legitimately taken away from abusive families, cultural practices which harm people (such as FGM) can be legitimately criminalized, and private land can be legitimately seized.


Yes, western nations are currently engaged in ethnic cleansing of indigenous people. They do this through a variety of methods. Taking children from families, making indigenous cultural practices illegal, seizing land, etc.

You should look up “residential school system”.

Denial of this does not magically mean that it is not happening.

This is a red herring. If it isn't happening, it really doesn't matter when it ended. On the other hand, if it never ended, then why do indigenous people still exist? You'd have to believe that western governments are currently engaged in the most ineffective ethnic cleansing program ever devised.


So there is no date when ethnic cleansing of indigenous people ended.

Indigenous people still exist because they are resilient. This argument of yours is equal to denying Nazis tried to kill all the Jews in Europe becuase European Jews still exist.

Loaded question. With regard to land appropriation, there is no reason why the government couldn't or wouldn't give a rational basis for seizing indigenous lands even if it was actually racist. This proves nothing one way or the other.


For the third time, what is this supposed basis?

Let's review here. You've said:

1) The cover-up by police officers of a fellow officer's racist actions is support for racism whatever the motive.
2) Saving the life of a Nazi when you're a government doctor is not support for racism.
3) Naming a Nazi as a friend when you're the President of the United States is support for racism.

If the outcome is all that matters, then all three are support for racism. But you disagree that 2 is support for racism. So it cannot be that the outcome is all that matters. On the other hand, you've also said that 1 and 3 prove that the government supports racism but denied that 2 does as well for some unknown reason. Furthermore 2 is clearly worse for minorities than 3, so, really, neither I nor anyone else has any clue what is going through your head here.

This is no strawman. Your positions are clearly inconsistent.


Please note that you have completely ignored my point about social impact.

If you ignore key points in the arguments, then you are not addressing my actual argument.

Again, I don't see anything that proves that what you said was an accurate description of what happened. Who is the prosecutor you mention? Who is the supposed criminal you mention? Where does it say that this supposed criminal approached the prosecutor?


I don’t know what to say to this.

The article is clearly written and shows that the man who was attacked by the police for being a brown Muslim had to go get eyewitness testimony that contradicted the police statements, and had to get this information to the prosecutor because the police chose not to.

This is a good start, but I still don't see your list of necessary and sufficient conditions for what counts as support for racism.


I assumed that you could figure it our for yourself.

This is not an article published in any reputable scientific journal. The links provided only lead to further Vox or Washington Post articles. Neither of these publications is a reputable scientific journal.


Feel free to provide evidence for your claim that Trump did not use racial resentment as a way of boosting his popularity.

Here are more studies confirming the survey already mentioned:
http://people.umass.edu/schaffne/schaff ... erence.pdf
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10. ... 0216677304
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10 ... 8017737411

——————————

Verv wrote:@Pants-of-dog , there'd be no kind of "evidence" for such claims. Nobody has ever said "I just accuse people of racism in order to further my ideology," rather, this is the 4D chess world.


So no evidence.

If you wish to believe a victim narrative where the poor conservatives are being oppressed by evil progressives, feel free.

I doubt any rational observer would agree that racism is a myth invented by progressives to demean conservatives.

Of course, there are also normies who don't really understand anything at all that truly believe that denying the existence of white privilege constitutes racism, but I do not think people truly take these people's perspectives that seriously. Of course, present your arguments by all means, but it just isn't really something that I have alway sthought of as being like... some credible position.

It's a series of convenient claims and the people who make them do not understand the meta behind any of these things. They aren't the architects of their own thought processes.


None of this is an argument.
User avatar
By Verv
#14909608
Pants-of-dog wrote:So no evidence.

If you wish to believe a victim narrative where the poor conservatives are being oppressed by evil progressives, feel free.

I doubt any rational observer would agree that racism is a myth invented by progressives to demean conservatives.

None of this is an argument.


(1) Ummm I am not really sure what would be oppression.

Would you say that using the media and the education system to permanently silence the position of your opponent, usign them as tools to manufacture consent, is a sort of oppression?

It really is but... I don't really care to view it in terms of oppression. It is useless. We just need to hold power and do the reverse to them.

We are just losing -- we are not being oppressed.

(2) No evidence?

Sure, I guess.

But tell me... 200 years ago, how do you think people would have perceived race?
By Conscript
#14909620
It didn't and probably never will, because the goalposts will constantly move while at the same time there's nothing about human existence that suggests people stop relating to the world through identity. Equality of outcome doesn't really exist in nature, only variation and adaptation does. This is why the focus has shifted to equity, lobbying the state to compensate for racialization of classes and succeeding. The massive success of this is an argument that the West is bending over backwards to be repenting, willing to go to the lengths of egalitarianism that trend towards disrespect for liberal values while the expenses for positive liberties, programs, and such are ironically heavily paid for by the white men whose in-group preference and culture is seen as the root of the issue after school integration failed, black criminality rose, and politics became more polarized and racial.

Thus, it serves as a rent-seeking phenomenon that is a recipe for state growth and more and more aspects of life being affected by the struggle. This is why reaction is brewing, the social contradiction outline above is accompanied by an ideological one, collective action for me but not for thee. It makes no sense, and has undoubtedly contributed the growing number of pissed off progressives and populists both sick of postcolonial woes after the 60s largely turned out to be a bandaid fix.
#14909668
Verv wrote:(1) Ummm I am not really sure what would be oppression.

Would you say that using the media and the education system to permanently silence the position of your opponent, usign them as tools to manufacture consent, is a sort of oppression?

It really is but... I don't really care to view it in terms of oppression. It is useless. We just need to hold power and do the reverse to them.

We are just losing -- we are not being oppressed.


You claimed that “"racism" is largely an ideological tag applied to enemies of liberalism who embrace specific ethnic essentialist viewpoints more than it is some literal ideology”.

I asked you for evidence of this claim. You have none. I am now dismissing this claim as unsupported.

Now you are implying that progressives are using the media and the education system to silence people and manufacture consent. I will assume you have no evidence for this either and are merely posing as a victim.

The conservatives seem to like their victim narratives.

(2) No evidence?

Sure, I guess.

But tell me... 200 years ago, how do you think people would have perceived race?


200 years ago in North America, people of colour were enslaved, shot on sight, and generally treated as subhuman. Racism was seen as normal and good.

So, when did racism end?

——————————-

Conscript wrote:It didn't and probably never will, because the goalposts will constantly move while at the same time there's nothing about human existence that suggests people stop relating to the world through identity. Equality of outcome doesn't really exist in nature, only variation and adaptation does. This is why the focus has shifted to equity, lobbying the state to compensate for racialization of classes and succeeding. The massive success of this is an argument that the West is bending over backwards to be repenting, willing to go to the lengths of egalitarianism that trend towards disrespect for liberal values while the expenses for positive liberties, programs, and such are ironically heavily paid for by the white men whose in-group preference and culture is seen as the root of the issue after school integration failed, black criminality rose, and politics became more polarized and racial.

Thus, it serves as a rent-seeking phenomenon that is a recipe for state growth and more and more aspects of life being affected by the struggle. This is why reaction is brewing, the social contradiction outline above is accompanied by an ideological one, collective action for me but not for thee. It makes no sense, and has undoubtedly contributed the growing number of pissed off progressives and populists both sick of postcolonial woes after the 60s largely turned out to be a bandaid fix.


The usual word salad.

Let us start with your first unsupported claim:
“It didn't and probably never will, because the goalposts will constantly move“.

What does this mean?
#14909791
Conscript wrote:-snip, want to add more citations later-


Again, please define what you mean by “It didn't and probably never will, because the goalposts will constantly move”.
User avatar
By Verv
#14910034
Pants-of-dog wrote:You claimed that “"racism" is largely an ideological tag applied to enemies of liberalism who embrace specific ethnic essentialist viewpoints more than it is some literal ideology”.

I asked you for evidence of this claim. You have none. I am now dismissing this claim as unsupported.

Now you are implying that progressives are using the media and the education system to silence people and manufacture consent. I will assume you have no evidence for this either and are merely posing as a victim.

The conservatives seem to like their victim narratives.


For one, I do not think of it as a victim narrative: it is stating what is happening. We really shouldn't complain about it because it is exactly what has happened in every single system that has ever existed. Moreover, we s houldn't complain at all: that sort of thing is about to reach its end in the next couple decades. Liberalism cannot stand up against the science that is bubbling to the top.

Secondly, why does someone need "evidence" for such a claim, and what would such "evidence" even look like? You're basically asking me to come up with some measurement for how much state capture the Left has done... I guess I could point out that being branded a racist, whehter true or not, is a total kiss of death, and I could point out how entire departments at Universities have been designed to "educate" people by promoting homosexuality, anti-God agendas, "African studies," etc., that are all fronts for social liberalism, and that htey have even instituted hiring policies designed to bolster leftist activist academics...

But... You'd simply spin it all and say that this is just the natural change in society and that these institutions are simply beginning to reflect society, and argue that they have no tplayed a radical role in changing it.

So why not skip that part?

I present a statement that is pretty obvious and the counter arguments against it are obvious, too, so feel free to proceed to whatever stage of discussion you would like.



200 years ago in North America, people of colour were enslaved, shot on sight, and generally treated as subhuman. Racism was seen as normal and good.

So, when did racism end?


That's not exactly an accurate statement of the beliefs that every person had on race, nor is it even true that Natives were "shot on sight" or some such. They were often traded with and treaties were set up. The story of the settlement of the West is actually really boring and involves lots of one off episodes that resulted in explosions in violence that would literally last for three to six months quickly followed by decades of peace (or even permanent peace via assimilation of the Natives into the American way of life, at last).

The last two hundred years also involves the story of whites fighting to end slavery in a variety of ways.

But what you are grabbing at here is literal historic events, and what I was asking for is classic perception of what race is.

So, what do you think a classic perception of race was?
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

OK so lets get this clear, If I want to black m[…]

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/netanyahu-s-offer-for-[…]

EU-BREXIT

You haven't got one shred of evidence that proves[…]

Actually, Special Olympian already provided video[…]