When racism meets racism

[Kathy30]

I was in Mervyns looking for some t-shirts to wear for work. Not the Mervyns that threw me out because I made a nasty crack about being the last person in the city that still speaks English, another one. I made a selection of half a dozen or so and looked around for a cashier stand. A woman wearing a hijab came up and asked if she could help me. A saleswoman and it just struck me wrong. I don't know why either. Hijabs have never come under the radar to pop up on the concern screen. But, this time, maybe it was the attacks in England and Scotland, but it just bothered me. My first thought was to just put the stuff down and leave. Then my worst instincts took over. I handed her the shirts and said "I'm Jewish". She dropped the shirts like hot rocks, and said "I'll get someone to help you."

We are cooking up a marvelous multicultural stew!

[buzzthepug!]

You were able to speak volumes with only 2 words.

I can't believe Mervyns threw you out for making a funny statement about being the last person in the city that speaks English! Can't they take a joke! If it were in reverse, a Latin person complaining that not enough people speak Spanish in Mervyns, they would not be thrown out of Mervyns. They could probably sue with the help of the ACLU.

The hijab is too much.

[buzzthepug!]

PS

Multiculturalism in America should ONLY mean we have choices of eating Chinese food, Indian food, Thai food, French food, etc...

[Kathy30]

You were able to speak volumes with only 2 words.

I can't believe Mervyns threw you out for making a funny statement about being the last person in the city that speaks English! Can't they take a joke! If it were in reverse, a Latin person complaining that not enough people speak Spanish in Mervyns, they would not be thrown out of Mervyns. They could probably sue with the help of the ACLU.

The hijab is too much.

It happened a few years ago. I was standing at next in line at the ONE open checkout stand. The cashier was a young woman with a name tag that said "TRAINEE". She engaged in conversation with the hispanic family right in front of me, in spanish. Not just a quick chat, a lengthy conversation that went on and on and on while the line got longer and longer. Another checkstand should have opened up but didn't. While waiting for this State of the Union address and response to finish up, I turned to the woman behind me and said "Did you ever get the feeling that you are the last person in the city that speaks English". The father turned and called me a racist, the cashier alerted for the manager who came and in no uncertain terms told me "my kind" wasn't wanted in the store. By my kind, I assume he meant non-hispanic. The manager said he was going to call the police because what I did was a hate crime. I agreed, call the police, prove that I said something against any hispanic.

This certainly wasn't the first time I'm been told to leave an establishment. I was once thrown out of Burger King when what my partner and I ordered was wrong and we just couldn't make the non-English speaking countergirl understand. In a joke, I turned to my partner and said "You stupid gringo, you should get down on your knees and be thankful that you got anything." That she understood, and called the manager who called us both racists, see he "knew" what I meant. Thankfully that place is closed and gone.

It won't be the last either. I'm a born troublemaker.

[Kathy30]

PS

Multiculturalism in America should ONLY mean we have choices of eating Chinese food, Indian food, Thai food, French food, etc...

Multiculturalisim to me is the Chinese woman in my Chinese art school inviting me to her recital in Flamenco class. Going to a performance of the South Bay Korean Opera where they all sing in Italian. Of course, a non Korean is not exactly well treated by the rest of the opera goers, but the performances are excellent.

I read an article not long ago about the effect of multiculturalisim. It makes people withdraw, hunker down, watch TV behind the bars of their homes. That really is the way it works.

[Madbomber]

I have learned over the years that racism only applies to you if you are white (european dissent). If you are black you can be racist. If you are hispanic you can be racist. If you are muslim you can be racist. But if you are white, well you are just shit out of luck. And its that attitude that Ive gotten over my 35 years that have made me a little racist myself, The hypocracy has gotten too much to take so what is a person to do but to say screw it. Im white, that means Im racist (wether I like it or not), I might as well start living up to it. Ive had enough tolorance bullshit that is only applied to my own kind and no one else.

My first racist thing I did was to look on the census board's website and find a town thats was 95% white to move to so I dont have to be forced to watch the hypocracy every day. Bye bye Florida.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

I once stirred up a hornet's nest by invoking the "m" word, too :smirky:.

Was listening to local talk radio about the state of our education system, and I couldn't take it anymore and before I thought about it I dialed the radio station number. Before I could think twice and hang up, they answered and so made my first on-air appearance. After talking about homeschooling, they asked me to stay on the line through the break. During the break, they asked me to come in for a 30-minute segment on homeschooling, which I did.

The very first caller asked me if we homeschool so I can keep my children away from other races (paraphrase, not the exact sentence). Of course, I set them straight and said my kids probably interact with more various races, colors and creeds than public schooled children, because my kids are out in the real world, not locked inside some mutlicultural social experiment.

Later when I went to soccer practice with my son, I had to explain further my answer to the mother of another player (who just happened to be a black woman married to a white man).

[Wyatt_Junker]

I was in Mervyns looking for some t-shirts to wear for work. Not the Mervyns that threw me out because I made a nasty crack about being the last person in the city that still speaks English, another one. I made a selection of half a dozen or so and looked around for a cashier stand. A woman wearing a hijab came up and asked if she could help me. A saleswoman and it just struck me wrong. I don't know why either. Hijabs have never come under the radar to pop up on the concern screen. But, this time, maybe it was the attacks in England and Scotland, but it just bothered me. My first thought was to just put the stuff down and leave. Then my worst instincts took over. I handed her the shirts and said "I'm Jewish". She dropped the shirts like hot rocks, and said "I'll get someone to help you."

We are cooking up a marvelous multicultural stew!

I like it. In boxing, that's referred to as 'countering'.

Don't strike first, but be patient and set them up.

Clip them when they lean in with their throw.

Good stuff.

[buzzthepug!]

:claps:

I'm a born troublemaker.

Good! We need more troublemakers like you. I count myself as one that stirs the pot, too.

I, like Madbomber, prefers to live in certain areas where racism is not an issue. Unfortunately, these areas are becoming very, very expensive. But, it's worth it.

[DesertFox]

I'm sorta pugnacious, myself. Late Sixties. I held the door open for a fiftyish lady. She went thru but said nothing. I said, "You're welcome." She acted all offended. "You're supposed to hold the door open!" "Yeah, and you're supposed to say 'thank you' and then I'm supposed to say, 'You're welcome.' I did both my parts but you didn't do yours."

Washington, DC, 1983. I'm outdoors at Mount Vernon. An older lady struck up a conversation and we had a fairly decent talk going until I lit up. "Oh," says she nastily, "I guess you're gonna smoke." "Yeah," says I, "and I guess you're gonna whine about it."

2003. The mixed-race parents of a black-white teen couple have me called to the office. "We think you guys in ROTC are discriminating against our daughter because her boyfriend is white and she's black." "Ma'am," I says calmly, "That argument's not gonna get much traction. I am in an interracial marriage and have a niece who is blacker than you are. Sergeant G is in an interracial marriage. The other sergeant is divorcing, but his former wife is of a different race than he is. One of us is black and the other two white, but we all prefer women outside our own race." Her mouth sagged, her eyes glazed over and her husband pulled her down to her seat.

About two weeks ago I enter a restaurant and order pork chop and eggs. "Sorry," they say, "that's on our breakfast menu and we stop serving it at 1400." "Okay," I say, "then I'll just take my business down the street where they serve me what I want to eat rather than what they want me to eat." To be sure, I've done this one several places. Nothing ticks me off worse than some food place telling me what I can and can't eat. I'm paying, after all.

[Timberwolf]

"Yeah," says I, "and I guess you're gonna whine about it."
CLASSIC!!! ROTF! :thumb: :thumb:

[Coleridge]

Don't feel bad. You have every damn right to be mad. It wasn't them that built the city or defended it, was it? If that happened to me, I would've been so mad. All that crap they said about Racism and hate crimes is only a bunch of political gibberish they use to solidify their nonexistant claim to our land. You won't hear such stupid talk from an Anglo man unless he's been brainwashed or hasn't ever worked a hard day in his life.

[PrezLeefun]

I have to ask why did you say "I'm Jewish"? What was the purpose.... did you ever think for moment that perhaps with that out of nowhere statement you had insulted her and she decided to get someone else thinking you didnt want her helping you because she was hijab... not the other way around?

I just cant figure why on earth you would do that.

[Coleridge]

Insulted her? It's only because of our democratic government giving her tools to protect her that she can even claim she was insulted to begin with. Americans never ever ever consciously approved of any Muslims coming to America at all, period. This means that either they're purely invaders with a paper or we do not control the government. They're residents because the Government has supported it and them. The American people have not. The Hypocricy is enormous...and dangerous.

Also, I find the title of this thread hard to swallow. Almost everyone is racist to one degree or another. Racism is an understood human trait. To declare you are not racist means you do not favor your own people over the others. Such a thing was never an aspiration especially on a National or Global level. As you all probably know (because you're intelligent conservatives...I know, tell me about it), racism is not derived from the contempt of the color of a races skin. Such a thing couldn't be farther from the truth and is only a liberal tool of rhetorical conviction against Racism. It is understood that Race is associated with culture which also includes Religion, language and many other numerous things that go into creating a greater people. It is the contrasting of cultures and beliefs which can be and are detrimental to our own country and communities that lead people to be skepticle and prejudice of foreigners. In this rationale, nationalities are a mutual blessing, creating a strong community of souls. The only people America has really grown with that had came here were Europeans. All the rest have been at pains for acceptance or recognition. In spite of Radicalistic ideas, not all people can live together and not all people should.

[PaulRevere]

I married outside my race too - I'm Anglo-American and my wife is German. To anyone who hates us for what we are, I say, "Don't hate us just because we're beautiful."

[Rhino]

Americans never ever ever consciously approved of any Muslims coming to America at all, period.Yes they did. The absence of religious discrimination was one of the primary tenets that our nation was founded upon.

Period.

[PrezLeefun]

Insulted her? It's only because of our democratic government giving her tools to protect her that she can even claim she was insulted to begin with. Americans never ever ever consciously approved of any Muslims coming to America at all, period. This means that either they're purely invaders with a paper or we do not control the government. They're residents because the Government has supported it and them. The American people have not. The Hypocricy is enormous...and dangerous.

Also, I find the title of this thread hard to swallow. Almost everyone is racist to one degree or another. Racism is an understood human trait. To declare you are not racist means you do not favor your own people over the others. Such a thing was never an aspiration especially on a National or Global level. As you all probably know (because you're intelligent conservatives...I know, tell me about it), racism is not derived from the contempt of the color of a races skin. Such a thing couldn't be farther from the truth and is only a liberal tool of rhetorical conviction against Racism. It is understood that Race is associated with culture which also includes Religion, language and many other numerous things that go into creating a greater people. It is the contrasting of cultures and beliefs which can be and are detrimental to our own country and communities that lead people to be skepticle and prejudice of foreigners. In this rationale, nationalities are a mutual blessing, creating a strong community of souls. The only people America has really grown with that had came here were Europeans. All the rest have been at pains for acceptance or recognition. In spite of Radicalistic ideas, not all people can live together and not all people should.

I disagree.

First off we invited everyone to come to this country legally, regardless of religion, race, creed, or anything you can think of that seperates people.

Not everyone is a little bit racist. Racism is taught. Nothing about it is natural and therefore does not apply to all humans as your statement "racism is an understood human trait" suggests.

Racism in this country doesnt really jive with the description you gave. When Jim Crow laws were in full effect most blacks were Christians who spoke english and were in every sense of the word American. That doesnt change the problems the black community had just because it was a black community.

I have been saying for a long time our persception of people is screwed because we do judge people by their cover. This country is obsessed with race relations because we really do think skin color matters (regardless of whether the issue is hate or love).

On the issue of race; we all can live together just fine. If I can live in my skin without personal conflict then certaintly we can live with eachother regardless of how well done our natural TAN is.

[DesertFox]

This country is obsessed with race because liberals won't let it go away. Left to their own devices, normal people don't obsess on skin color. They deal with folks on a basis of civility-for-civility, not trying to cause trouble, just getting along and living. But liberals make (many) people supersensitive to anything about race, so that it's impossible for anyone else to ignore race. Thanks to liberals, decent folks, black and white and brown, are wary of things they'd otherwise seldom notice.

In one of his many books that I've read, Thomas Sowell notes that all the goals posited by Martin Luther King in the Fifties were already achieved before the 1964 and 1965 Civil Rights Acts. All that has happened since has been endless rehashing of old wrongs, eternal reopening of old wounds and perpetual rubbing of salt into those wounds. Once again, good old govt royally screwed up something that people had taken care of on their own.

[PrezLeefun]

Agreed DF.

[garlicguy]

I once stirred up a hornet's nest by invoking the "m" word, too :smirky:.

"M" word? Which one, I wonders? The PC crowd must own a couple hundred of 'em by now.

M*le, M*n, M*xican, 'm*erican, M*ster, M*isses, M*nkey, M*ron, M*slim...

These idiots actually think they've buried the (and they do mean THE) "N" word. Guess what? It's still alive and kickin'.

By the way, I'm an American, but have descended from Irish and German anscestry. Feel free to refer to me as "Mic" or "Kraut" or whatever makes you happy.

Don't even get me started.:evilgrin:

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

"M" word? Which one, I wonders?

Multiculturalism

[Coleridge]

I disagree.

First off we invited everyone to come to this country legally, regardless of religion, race, creed, or anything you can think of that seperates people.

We did? Well that's great. And I'm sure you have proof of that. No, actually we didn't. Please read up on our nation's history regarding immigration policy. You will be surprised.

Not everyone is a little bit racist. Racism is taught. Nothing about it is natural and therefore does not apply to all humans as your statement "racism is an understood human trait" suggests.

If you mean people come to the conclusion to be bias and loyal to certain people regarding their creeds and characteristics, you are correct. The same rule of a group of people applies to a nation: "Birds of a feather flock together".

Racism in this country doesnt really jive with the description you gave. When Jim Crow laws were in full effect most blacks were Christians who spoke english and were in every sense of the word American. That doesnt change the problems the black community had just because it was a black community.

Your assertion is of the perspective that religion is the driving force of prejudice. Religion is only one part of prejudice as it is only one part of a culture or man. Anglos were contemptuous to blacks because of their contrasting views of/and lifestyle that if left to toleration could threaten the nation's actual identity...which it has undoubtebly. Your opinion that whites were ignorant because of their mistrust and unwelcome of blacks can only be true if you are also asserting that Americans today are more wise than they. Such nonsense you will never prove, let alone convince me of. I suppose you also want to convince me that Lincoln respected and admired blacks.

I have been saying for a long time our persception of people is screwed because we do judge people by their cover. This country is obsessed with race relations because we really do think skin color matters (regardless of whether the issue is hate or love).

This country is obsessed with race today because the westerners' domain is threatened and know it let alone our American values and indentity itself.

On the issue of race; we all can live together just fine. If I can live in my skin without personal conflict then certaintly we can live with eachother regardless of how well done our natural TAN is.

Unfortunately, this is not true because people by their nature strive to be dominant. Progression of self leads to domination of the subordinate. Different peoples with different values living together is the cornerstone of Liberalism, not conservatism. You cannot advocate a better, proper way of life (which of course 'way of life' is what this is all about, my colleague) if you introduce contrary different people into a Republican Nation. Republics are the greatest form of government and because of this they work under the most demanding of conditions. One of them is unity. Multiple cultures oppose unity and favor and lobby for moral relativism which hardly anything else is more destructive to the well-being of a Republic. Conformity was always the ally of the Republic and its people. Sources:
Edmund Burke, Santayana, others. I would give you some splendid, brilliant quotes but I'm afraid after looking I have misplaced my book. I'm guessing my father had taken it with him.

[PrezLeefun]

Unfortunately, this is not true because people by their nature strive to be dominant. Progression of self leads to domination of the subordinate. Different peoples with different values living together is the cornerstone of Liberalism, not conservatism. You cannot advocate a better, proper way of life (which of course 'way of life' is what this is all about, my colleague) if you introduce contrary different people into a Republican Nation. Republics are the greatest form of government and because of this they work under the most demanding of conditions. One of them is unity. Multiple cultures oppose unity and favor and lobby for moral relativism which hardly anything else is more destructive to the well-being of a Republic. Conformity was always the ally of the Republic and its people. Sources:
Edmund Burke, Santayana, others. I would give you some splendid, brilliant quotes but I'm afraid after looking I have misplaced my book. I'm guessing my father had taken it with him.


On eveything else we can agree to disagree.

But on this I want to point out that I did not mention values..... I said " on the issue of race". People of different races most certaintly can live together without conflict. People with different values cannot and I never suggested otherwise.

[Rhino]

We did? Well that's great. And I'm sure you have proof of that. No, actually we didn't. Please read up on our nation's history regarding immigration policy. You will be surprised.Our original immigration laws did exclude blacks, some Chinese and other foreign laborers.

If you mean people come to the conclusion to be bias and loyal to certain people regarding their creeds and characteristics, you are correct. The same rule of a group of people applies to a nation: "Birds of a feather flock together". That means you agree with her. She said that racism is not inherent, but learned, and your statement pretty much agrees with that.

Your assertion is of the perspective that religion is the driving force of prejudice.No. She was addressing just that part of the perspective you put forth, in that religion was one of the things you included with being associated with color. She effectively countered that point when she mentioned that the religion of blacks at that time was not dissimilar to that of whites. They also mostly shared the same language at the time she referenced, which was the only other specific you mentioned. In other words, the societal differences you cited as the basis for racism did not exist for the most part, at least not to any greater extent than those of the remaining population. If such societal differences as religion and language were the basis of racism rather than skin color, then most white societal groups would have been racist against the other white societal groups, since they commonly had different religions and languages. She effectively killed your argument that racism is based on societal differences rather than skin color.

Religion is only one part of prejudice as it is only one part of a culture or man. Anglos were contemptuous to blacks because of their contrasting views of/and lifestyle that if left to toleration could threaten the nation's actual identity...which it has undoubtebly.To borrow your own phraseology, such nonsense you will never prove, let alone convince me of. Our identity is based on the actual melting pot that this country was founded upon. While the melting pot is not without it's problems sometimes, that is hardly limited to blacks or their culture.

Your opinion that whites were ignorant because of their mistrust and unwelcome of blacks can only be true if you are also asserting that Americans today are more wise than they. Such nonsense you will never prove, let alone convince me of.Just because you're stubborn, doesn't mean it isn't true.

I suppose you also want to convince me that Lincoln respected and admired blacks. I won't, because he didn't.

This country is obsessed with race today because the westerners' domain is threatened and know it let alone our American values and indentity itself. On what do you base that conclusion? First of all, this country is far less concerned with racism than it used to be. And secondly, aside from racist radicals like skinheads, I have never seen any rational individual that feels our values and identity are being threatened by another race.

Unfortunately, this is not true because people by their nature strive to be dominant. Progression of self leads to domination of the subordinate. Different peoples with different values living together is the cornerstone of Liberalism, not conservatism.Now you're contradicting yourself, both with these two sentences and with your prior statements. If racism is 'by nature', then values have nothing to do with it, and vice versa. Values are learned, not inherent, just as racism is.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

DesertFox:
Nothing ticks me off worse than some food place telling me what I can and can't eat. I'm paying, after all.

:unsmile: Some restaurants stop serving breakfast at a certain hour, because they have to reset the griddle temperatures. McDonald's® is one of them.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

:unsmile: Back on topic, I have no intention of moving back to east Texas, because of the racism*. I can't stand being in a teaching situation where one group of the students cause a disproportionate amount of the classroom disruptions, then have the raw nerve to call the teacher a racist when one of their buddies gets sent to the office, never mind how atrocious the infraction. If I'd had more authority to directly discipline the kids at my last east Texas assignment, I'd probably have creäted a stir by penalizing students for calling me a racist, just for doing my job.

*I consider it racist to falsely accuse somebody of racism.

[Coleridge]

Our original immigration laws did exclude blacks, some Chinese and other foreign laborers.

That means you agree with her. She said that racism is not inherent, but learned, and your statement pretty much agrees with that.

Race is inherent in that people are raised by the virtues and practices of their own culture which divides them from their neighboring cultures throughout the world. These differences in culture I assert are invaluable and worth defending to the death because it crafts the union of your own countrymen and makes life worth living and creates its sanctity and endows things their sacraid carriage.

If such societal differences as religion and language were the basis of racism rather than skin color, then most white societal groups would have been racist against the other white societal groups, since they commonly had different religions and languages.

I'm not sure if you're referring to Europe or to America here. We did not have different religions but different denominations of the same religion. True, immigrants were often at odds with WASP America when they arrived because of their difference of language but Europeans are most obviously the easiest of people to assimilate and conform to American ways. Their historical ties to ourselves are often honored and become less of a hindrance to their acceptance as with the Poles, Germans, Italians, Irish, French, Spanish, Greek Etc. We are all sons of Rome and Greece. A common ancestry that has solidified certain traits of behavior and understandings that Europe had grown on. People such as this are more understanding and more open to cater to American principles and values then try and dominate America with their own. These people added to America's culture and did not subtract from it by imposing the prevalence of their own since it derived from the same sources and influences.

She effectively killed your argument that racism is based on societal differences rather than skin color.

No, she did not and neither did you. Besides, Asians typically have the same skin color. Why are people racist against them? Lets forget all those other things about their own inherant birthrights and descendance that makes up so much of who they are and how they think.


To borrow your own phraseology, such nonsense you will never prove, let alone convince me of. Our identity is based on the actual melting pot that this country was founded upon. While the melting pot is not without it's problems sometimes, that is hardly limited to blacks or their culture.

Are you suggesting that interracial marriage is openly accepted and practiced? Are you also saying that America is not majorly separated into neighborhoods divided by race? Is that what you're saying?

Just because you're stubborn, doesn't mean it isn't true.

I'm not stubborn. I'm a conservative. I wish to preserve the american identity, not ignore its ailments, believing they are part of the same end.

I won't, because he didn't.

Read it again. Lincoln was against Slavery. He cared little for blacks just as America didn't. New England forces marched to preserve the union, not to integrate blacks into the American WASP community. Such was the shock when blacks moved north and got the same unwelcoming treatment as the south gave them. You shouldn't base your history on good intentions and Ideal exceptions like so many liberal textbooks do.

On what do you base that conclusion? First of all, this country is far less concerned with racism than it used to be. And secondly, aside from racist radicals like skinheads, I have never seen any rational individual that feels our values and identity are being threatened by another race.

Really? You are aware that the black community is most responible of the American Socialist Movement, right? You are aware 85% of blacks are Liberal which IS America's manifested counter-culture, right? Politics are also divided by race which a republic is most vulnerable to- internally counter societies.

Now you're contradicting yourself, both with these two sentences and with your prior statements. If racism is 'by nature', then values have nothing to do with it, and vice versa. Values are learned, not inherent, just as racism is.

This is absurd. Values do have to do with it because different races developed in different parts of the world, and progressed their own cultures with different implementations of language, religion, ethics, etc. Radically different people with no historical relation (if not hostile relation) are not willing to give up the culture and values their ancestors have passed down to them just as I am a pillar in standing against people who wish to pervert, distort or destroy the ancestral insitutions our Ancestors have built for us and thought would never be threatened (which are being threatened today by creed and act). This is also not taking into account these cultural differences in how they affect our political institution and how this has affected and divided the country much more sharply than geographics ever could. It's okay if you are willing to bend your own philosophy in the direction of living with and rationalising these things in order not to go against the status quo but I for one will not and will continue to be against Multiculturalism which will destroy this country to the ground and multi-religion and continue to fight for our british gift of the Anglican-American lifestyle which is the most civilized and refined our Western Culture ever gave birth to. Nothing else matters, nothing so fundamentally important or worth fighting for.



PS. I'm NOT ****ing Joking.

[Rhino]

I'm not sure if you're referring to Europe or to America here. We did not have different religions but different denominations of the same religion.That's the same thing.

True, immigrants were often at odds with WASP America when they arrived because of their difference of language but Europeans are most obviously the easiest of people to assimilate and conform to American ways. Their historical ties to ourselves are often honored and become less of a hindrance to their acceptance as with the Poles, Germans, Italians, Irish, French, Spanish, Greek Etc. We are all sons of Rome and Greece. A common ancestry that has solidified certain traits of behavior and understandings that Europe had grown on. People such as this are more understanding and more open to cater to American principles and values then try and dominate America with their own. These people added to America's culture and did not subtract from it by imposing the prevalence of their own since it derived from the same sources and influences.Then by this logic, the blacks should have been welcomed, since they shared the same religious demographics during the period that Prez mentioned. As such, racism cannot be based on those differences since they were the same amongst white groups.

No, she did not and neither did you.Wanna bet?

Besides, Asians typically have the same skin color. Why are people racist against them? Lets forget all those other things about their own inherant birthrights and descendance that makes up so much of who they are and how they think.The scenario being addressed was blacks, not Asians. The societal demographics of the blacks pretty much mirrored those of the whites, rendering your argument ineffective that racism against them was based on societal differences. Asians would be a different argument.

Are you suggesting that interracial marriage is openly accepted and practiced?I never mentioned marriage. The discussion was about national identity. But as far as marriage goes, I don't have to suggest something that is blatantly obvious.

Are you also saying that America is not majorly separated into neighborhoods divided by race? Is that what you're saying?Did I say that? Maybe you should read my post again.

I'm not stubborn. I'm a conservative.Your personality and your politics are entirely different things.

I wish to preserve the american identity, not ignore its ailments, believing they are part of the same end.How does that fit into whether or not Americans are wiser today than they used to be? Our identity is based on a melting pot of cultures, nationalities and races. That isn't an ailment. It's who we are.

Read it again. Lincoln was against Slavery. He cared little for blacks just as America didn't. New England forces marched to preserve the union, not to integrate blacks into the American WASP community. Such was the shock when blacks moved north and got the same unwelcoming treatment as the south gave them. You shouldn't base your history on good intentions and Ideal exceptions like so many liberal textbooks do.Maybe you should read it again yourself. I was agreeing with you about Lincoln.

Really? You are aware that the black community is most responible of the American Socialist Movement, right?The American Socialist Movement is a book. If you're referring to socialists in general, they are mostly white, and always have been.

You are aware 85% of blacks are Liberal which IS America's manifested counter-culture, right? Politics are also divided by race which is a republic is very vulnerable to internally counter societies.Most liberals are white. Are you saying we should be racist against them? And besides, liberalism may be threatening our values and identity, but liberalism isn't a race. The argument was about race, not political persuasion.

This is absurd. Values do have to do with it because different races developed in different parts of the world, and progressed their own cultures with different implementations of language, religion, ethics, etc. Radically different people with no historical relation (if not hostile relation) are not willing to give up the culture and values their ancestors have passed down to them just as I am a pillar in standing against people who wish to pervert, distort or destroy the ancestral insitutions our Ancestors have built for us and thought would never be threatened (which are being threatened today by creed and act). This is also not taking into account these cultural differences in how they affect our political institution and how this has affected and divided the country much more sharply than geographics ever could.Exactly, which contradicts your assertion that racism was inherent (natural) rather than learned. Societal differences are not natural or present at birth. They are learned from society, hence the name. That's why this argument contradicts your original assertion that racism was natural.

It's okay if you are willing to bend your own philosophy in the direction of living with and rationalising these things in order not to go against the status quo but I for one will not and will continue to be against Multiculturalism which will destroy this country to the ground and multi-religion and continue to fight for our british gift of the Anglican-American lifestyle which is the most civilized and refined our Western Culture ever gave birth to. Nothing else matters, nothing so fundamentally important or worth fighting for.I was speaking of racism. Multiculturalism is a different animal. You keep trying to change the subject. I haven't bent my philosophy at all, nor am I going against the status quo (unless that's your middle name). I just don't share your philosophy.

As far as Anglican-American lifestyle goes, the overwhelming majority of blacks in America share it, so why would you have a problem with that?

British gift? Been to Britain lately? They don't match your philosophy at all.

PS. I'm NOT ****ing Joking.About what?

[Coleridge]

Getting back to one of my first Points, (not opinion, point) American Immigration today was never decided and enacted by the will of the people. It was based on Enlightened Reasoning which has failed everywhere it had become predominant. Ted Kennedy crafted the failed, broken Immigration System we have the remnants of today cleverly and insideously for political gain of his party. It was passed without the publics awareness or disproval of the European Immigration system we had and had led America through its Golden age up to 1965. My Belief on what America is is as follows. America is the New World (in other words, New Europe) a Western Nation. A European Christian Colony that has and is being perverted. America is the interbreeding of the European Nationalities cemented in the belief in the trinity of God. This is the long understanding of America and is only being questioned today because of the rise of Liberalism that has perverted and distorted America's own founding Greatness through Political Outrage and Public and Private education propaganda. Several of my biggest worries involved in America's decline is the decrease in the influence of the Church and settling of foreign sympathizers as well as non-first world foreigners. There are many other things in peril in America that has and will have countless destructive outcomes that will further enervate America's spirit, moreover its own capability of defending itself by that actual absurdity of erasing what providence was created to defend.

[EveningStar]

This country is obsessed with race because liberals won't let it go away...
There are plenty of "Country Club Republicans" who do the same thing. :(

[EveningStar]

I have to ask why did you say "I'm Jewish"? What was the purpose.... did you ever think for moment that perhaps with that out of nowhere statement you had insulted her and she decided to get someone else thinking you didnt want her helping you because she was hijab... not the other way around?
Hmmm. That's a good point, PLF.

[Rhino]

...It was passed without the publics awareness or disproval of the European Immigration system we had and had led America through its Golden age up to 1965.The quota system was abolished before 1965, but you are correct that the 1965 act ended the national-origins system. However, we freely allowed non-European nationalities in long before that, just not in as great a number.

...Several of my biggest worries involved in America's decline is the decrease in the influence of the Church and settling of foreign sympathizers as well as non-first world foreigners.I agree about the church. The foreign sympathizers thing gets into the issue of multiculturalism, which I don't like, but my dislike isn't based on race. Race aside, multiculturalism embraces the concepts of maintaining seperate societal structures within America, rather than a general melding into the overall culture of America, as was the common practice in the past. I have no problem with people coming to America or living in America as long as they become a part of American culture as opposed to maintaining a seperate identity. That fragments our society rather than strengthening it. What was the old phrase? A divided house cannot stand? But as long as they assimilate into American society, I could care less what their race, religion or national origin is.

[Coleridge]

That's the same thing.
Then by this logic, the blacks should have been welcomed, since they shared the same religious demographics during the period that Prez mentioned. As such, racism cannot be based on those differences since they were the same amongst white groups.

Unfortunately it's not so simple. This our opinions conflict, I won't bother going into this. There are two sides to this anyway.



The scenario being addressed was blacks, not Asians. The societal demographics of the blacks pretty much mirrored those of the whites, rendering your argument ineffective that racism against them was based on societal differences. Asians would be a different argument.

I was adressing your major assertion on prejudice in how color is NOT necessary for prejudice. It is the internal differences instilled by their people's God-given intelligence to create and craft their own culture and style of living which inadvertantly leads to contrasting collective outlooks, moreover political opinions. There are Italians and Greeks who are darker skinned but they're some of the best damned people we ever had the honor and pleasure of immigrating here and I like them and treat them accordingly.

I never mentioned marriage. The discussion was about national identity. But as far as marriage goes, I don't have to suggest something that is blatantly obvious.

You did not but I was implementing specifics into your abstract idea that are obvious evidence of your opinion's folly. I am not stubborn because I can be convinced of something through factual rationale. After all, truth is the gateway to freedom.


How does that fit into whether or not Americans are wiser today than they used to be? Our identity is based on a melting pot of cultures, nationalities and races. That isn't an ailment. It's who we are.

This is a liberal opinion I have heard and dealt with for years. Melting pots are only possible when the people themselves are not radically different and are capable of a mutual bond and agreeable lifestyle. Radically different people by their very own nature are not capable of creating a melting pot because they are not willing to give up their own identities and want to preserve it (which is silly in a sense for reasons not relevant here).


The American Socialist Movement is a book. If you're referring to socialists in general, they are mostly white, and always have been. It's also a movement that is cemented by the blacks and other minorities that are by birth outside America's mainstream that perpetuate the repugnant, Atheist "Democratic" Party.

Most liberals are white. Are you saying we should be racist against them? And besides, liberalism may be threatening our values and identity, but liberalism isn't a race. The argument was about race, not political persuasion.

It is an understood fact that Republicans are the Westerner's Party and the Democratic Party is the Minority's party (which is for one reason why it is not religious-based). Although the "ideology" the democratic leaders follow is largely based on the French Philosophers of the Enlightenment period [I don't believe they believe their philosophy anyway] their power is dependant on the different and foreign for their power. Their party itself is almost a religion using emotion as their communicating weapon to attract the foreign to their socialist, utilitarian, humanitarian cause. It's all Bull and will only destroy and level till nothing is left but ruin. This is a much bigger topic irrelevant to this.



Exactly, which contradicts your assertion that racism was inherent (natural) rather than learned. Societal differences are not natural or present at birth. They are learned from society, hence the name. That's why this argument contradicts your original assertion that racism was natural. I misused the word inherent. What I meant was it is a consequence of the learned traits of their people inherited by their ancestors. Because of this understanding which is part of the great wonder of the intelligent, innovative man, it is natural. The only way to rid a society of their obligations of defending their ancestral ways and way of life is to destroy what they adhere to preserve. This is something that is already under way in America and is completed in Europe. This is why when you compare Britain of today to their Anglican way, it is a thing non-existent. Europe has regressed into debauchery and barbaric principles because of the Governments' tyrannical effort to destroy itself internally for Societal peace.

speaking of racism. Multiculturalism is a different animal. You keep trying to change the subject. I haven't bent my philosophy at all, nor am I going against the status quo (unless that's your middle name). I just don't share your philosophy.

My point is multiculturalism hasn't worked because of racism and territorialism. Racism an animal? If racism is honoring the practices and wishes of my ancestors and preferring the company of my own kind, then I guess I'm a racist.

As far as Anglican-American lifestyle goes, the overwhelming majority of blacks in America share it, so why would you have a problem with that?

Blacks do NOT practice the Anglican lifestyle and it almost insults my family and my intelligence you'd profess such a thing. Are you aware that 70% of blacks are born without married parents...that their fathers knowingly bastardize and forget them? The drugs? The crime? Their failure to be educated? Their alienation of white neighborhoods and schools? Civil rights? Blacks are if anything opposed to the Anglican culture.


About what?

What I tell you all my colleagues, I emphatically believe in and am not being sarcastic.

[PrezLeefun]

Rhino thanks for the backup.... its appreciated.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

:munch:

[PrezLeefun]

LOL! Homes. Now that's an icebreaker. lol

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

:evilgrin:

[Rhino]

Unfortunately it's not so simple. This our opinions conflict, I won't bother going into this. There are two sides to this anyway.Yeah, it's probably a semantics issue anyway.

I was adressing your major assertion on prejudice in how color is NOT necessary for prejudice....I didn't assert that. Prez gave a very specific example about blacks when you cited religious and language differences as the basis for racism. She quite correctly pointed out that those differences didn't really exist, so they couldn't have been the basis for racism in that case. It was skin color, or appearance, if that defines it better for you.

You did not but I was implementing specifics into your abstract idea that are obvious evidence of your opinion's folly. I am not stubborn because I can be convinced of something through factual rationale. After all, truth is the gateway to freedom.It wasn't an abstract idea or an opinion, nor did you evidence any folly. Interracial marriage is indeed openly accepted and practiced. But again, I don't see what marriage had to do with what I originally said.

This is a liberal opinion I have heard and dealt with for years. Melting pots are only possible when the people themselves are not radically different and are capable of a mutual bond and agreeable lifestyle. Radically different people by their very own nature are not capable of creating a melting pot because they are not willing to give up their own identities and want to preserve it (which is silly in a sense for reasons not relevant here).Again, it's not an opinion. It's fact. Even the European heritage you cling to so vociferously blended into our melting pot. And many of them were radically different.

It's also a movement that is cemented by the blacks and other minorities that are by birth outside America's mainstream that perpetuate the repugnant, Atheist "Democratic" Party.Most American socialists are white, and most were born here.

It is an understood fact that Republicans are the Westerner's Party and the Democratic Party is the Minority's party (which is for one reason why it is not religious-based).Based upon??? Don't get me wrong. I'd very much like that to be true. But the most recent elections seem to indicate that we're fairly even.

Although the "ideology" the democratic leaders follow is largely based on the French Philosophers of the Enlightenment period [I don't believe they believe their philosophy anyway] their power is dependant on the different and foreign for their power. Their party itself is almost a religion using emotion as their communicating weapon to attract the foreign to their socialist, utilitarian, humanitarian cause. It's all Bull and will only destroy and level till nothing is left but ruin. This is a much bigger topic irrelevant to this.I share your disdain for democrats, but this doesn't really support your original assertion, that politics are divided by race.

I misused the word inherent. What I meant was it is a consequence of the learned traits of their people inherited by their ancestors. Because of this understanding which is part of the great wonder of the intelligent, innovative man, it is natural.You mean it's natural for them to accept the norms and principles taught to them based on the norms and principles of their ancestors? Okay. That makes much more sense.

The only way to rid a society of their obligations of defending their ancestral ways and way of life is to destroy what they adhere to preserve.That's not necessarily a bad thing. I'm sure there are some things in my ancestry that I would not agree with at all. But as a general principle of preserving heritage, I see your point.

This is something that is already under way in America and is completed in Europe. This is why when you compare Britain of today to their Anglican way, it is a thing non-existent. Europe has regressed into debauchery and barbaric principles because of the Governments' tyrannical effort to destroy itself internally for Societal peace.Many would call that progress. But again, as a general principle, I see your point.

My point is multiculturalism hasn't worked because of racism and territorialism. Racism an animal? If racism is honoring the practices and wishes of my ancestors and preferring the company of my own kind, then I guess I'm a racist.Not really, but if you deny others based on race it could be.

Blacks do NOT practice the Anglican lifestyle and it almost insults my family and my intelligence you'd profess such a thing.Anglicanism is basically Christianity based on the European model of it, most specifically the British Reformation model. The overwhelming majority of American blacks practice the same Christian religions that American whites do. I'm sorry if you are insulted by the truth, but that doesn't change the truth.

Are you aware that 70% of blacks are born without married parents...that their fathers knowingly bastardize and forget them? The drugs? The crime? Their failure to be educated? Their alienation of white neighborhoods and schools? Civil rights? Blacks are if anything opposed to the Anglican culture.Is there a point in all that? Many whites do those same things, and many blacks do not. While one could certainly make the argument that those people aren't good Christians, that still does not exclude them necessarily. It also does not speak of any absolutes for either race, as you seem to be suggesting. Blacks probably have a higher percentage of Christians than whites do.

What I tell you all my colleagues, I emphatically believe in and am not being sarcastic.Oh, I believed you.

[PrezLeefun]

:evilgrin:
Any chance you are gonna share that popcorn? lol.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Any chance you are gonna share that popcorn? lol.

:popcorn:

[PrezLeefun]

I really love our smilies.

[Coleridge]

Yeah, it's probably a semantics issue anyway.

I didn't assert that. Prez gave a very specific example about blacks when you cited religious and language differences as the basis for racism. She quite correctly pointed out that those differences didn't really exist, so they couldn't have been the basis for racism in that case. It was skin color, or appearance, if that defines it better for you.

You must think that people are made internally of nothing.



Again, it's not an opinion. It's fact. Even the European heritage you cling to so vociferously blended into our melting pot. And many of them were radically different.

Are you asserting that Europeans intermarry with Europeans on the base truth of their same skin-color?

Most American socialists are white, and most were born here.

Maybe by numbers. I doubt that anyway. Percentage-wise, not even close, thankfully.

I share your disdain for democrats, but this doesn't really support your original assertion, that politics are divided by race.

Believe what you want.

That's not necessarily a bad things. I'm sure there are some things in my ancestry that I would not agree with at all. But as a general principle of preserving heritage, I see your point.

People will always disagree with their ancestors on one thing or another regardless of their own opinions. History has many happenings people will make opinions about, even use to put stuffing into their own agenda.


Not really, but if you deny others based on race it could be.

In my country, yes. In their country, no. I'm starting to think you're a "NeoCon" and not a Conservative.

Anglicanism is basically Christianity based on the European model of it, most specifically the British Reformation model. The overwhelming majority of American blacks practice the same Christian religions that American whites do. I'm sorry if you are insulted by the truth, but that doesn't change the truth.

Don't attempt to lecture me on Anglicanism.

Is there a point in all that? Many whites do those same things, and many blacks do not. While one could certainly make the argument that those people aren't good Christians, that still does not exclude them necessarily. It also does not speak of any absolutes for either race, as you seem to be suggesting. Blacks probably have a higher percentage of Christians than whites do.

Ideal exceptions and good intentions sound familiar? You're not acquainted with the truth and what disturbs me is you think you can convince me otherwise. You don't wish to preserve anything as far as I'm concearned. This conversation is over. Your ignorence and folly is nauseating. In the future, I'll flip my blinders involving your "conservative's opinion".

[Naturalized-Texan]

Ideal exceptions and good intentions sound familiar? You're not acquainted with the truth and what disturbs me is you think you can convince me otherwise. You don't wish to preserve anything as far as I'm concearned. This conversation is over. Your ignorence and folly is nauseating. In the future, I'll flip my blinders involving your "conservative's opinion".
Oops! With that insult you may have just sealed your doom. :trollhook:

[Rhino]

You must think that people are made internally of nothing.I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Are you asserting that Europeans intermarry with Europeans on the base truth of their same skin-color?Marriage again? I didn't mention marriage. I'm also not sure what "on the base truth" means. You said that radically different people made melting pots impossible, but many of the Europeans you mention were radically different, and they melted for the most part.

Maybe by numbers. I doubt that anyway. Percentage-wise, not even close, thankfully.Percentages are derived from the numbers, so it's the same thing.

Believe what you want.It's not a belief. There are black Republicans and tons of white democrats. That makes it a fact. While the demographic percentages are certainly different when divided by race, that in no way means that politics are divided by race. If that were true, whites and blacks would be in completely different parties. Now if you had said that most blacks are democrats, then that would have been true. But since roughly half the population votes for democrats, that's hardly limited to blacks. Add to that the fact that whites register and vote about seven times more than blacks.

In my country, yes. In their country, no.I thought we were speaking of our country.

I'm starting to think you're a "NeoCon" and not a Conservative.Oooo. Name calling. I'm devastated.

By the way, what's your definition of a "NeoCon"? We've discussed that here before, and definitions vary widely.

Don't attempt to lecture me on Anglicanism.Why not? While you may have been aware of the definition, you obviously were not aware of who practices it, and in what numbers. And you've been pontificating quite a bit yourself.

Ideal exceptions and good intentions sound familiar? You're not acquainted with the truth and what disturbs me is you think you can convince me otherwise. You don't wish to preserve anything as far as I'm concearned. This conversation is over. Your ignorence and folly is nauseating. In the future, I'll flip my blinders involving your "conservative's opinion".Couldn't come up with a good counter-argument, huh? Well, whatever trips your trigger.

But before you engage the blinders, allow me to repeat an earlier warning. Open racism is not permitted here. You have been teetering on the brink of that. While you are certainly entitled to your opinions, you aren't necessarily entitled to post whatever you want here. Racism is one of the things we don't allow. Now you can engage the blinders to your heart's content.

[Rhino]

Oops! With that insult you may have just sealed your doom. :trollhook:I don't know. It might be fun to start a poll on which one of us was displaying ignorance and folly. :evilgrin:

[PrezLeefun]

I think we should save this thread a warning to what happens to "conservative" trolls.

[TeenageRepublican]

It won't be the last either. I'm a born troublemaker.

So am I, I once got called racist because me and my friend Tevon, who is a Mexican Immigrant, were joking around with eachother.

Tevon: Well, at least we know how to take mexican food without passing gas.

Nathan (me): Well, at least I didn't come to this Country in the back of a watermelon truck!

We both laughed, then Pierce, pretty boy know-it-all Liberal, walks up to me.

Pierce: You're a racist!

Nathan: It's a joke, I've heard you say worse.

Pierce: Yeah, but nothing racial!

Nathan: Tevon doesn't care, and he's Mexican.

Tevon: I could care less, honestly.

Pierce: Nathan's still racist!

Things like this happen to me all the time because I mainly hang out with Dmitriy, a Russian immigrant, and Tevon. I call Dmitriy "Communist" and he calls me "Jew" (because I'm part Jewish) and we laugh!
People need to learn the difference between Racism and Jokes. Otherwise, where is the humor in life?

[Coleridge]

I don't know. It might be fun to start a poll on which one of us was displaying ignorance and folly. :evilgrin:

Bring it on. The mere fact you would base a conclusion on consensus rather than facts makes me laugh. You're no conservative. Who are you trying to fool. You don't fool me. How exactly did you come upon buying this website, did you say? I'd also be interested to know who you work for.

[PrezLeefun]

^^^^^ God help you now.

[EveningStar]

Bring it on. The mere fact you would base a conclusion on consensus rather than facts makes me laugh. You're no conservative. Who are you trying to fool. You don't fool me. How exactly did you come upon buying this website, did you say? I'd also be interested to know who you work for.
There are many flavors of conservatism. We have nearly all of them here.

I can vouch for Rhino's character. And, he possesses the restraint that I don't. :biggrin:

[Trovalor]

When I was young, I had the mind set that I wasn't going to treat people different because of race, being as white as I am I felt proud of myself. When I grew up I realized I was the one being treated differently because of my skin color, and it occurred to me, a large amount of the racism is brought upon by the xenophobia of the "minorities" that come to America. You cant tell everyone else to play fair then break the rules yourself and expect people to remain tolerant.

[Trovalor]

People need to learn the difference between Racism and Jokes. Otherwise, where is the humor in life?

It goes back to how blacks can use the "N-word" but no one else can. If they don't like the word, they need to let it die, I hate having to watch myself around other people because of a word that has become so ingrained in society yet I'm "not allowed" to use.

Not that I really care what other people think, but I have this bad habit of intentionally provoking people when in confrontations. Of coarse as liberal as this state I live in is, Self-Defense would quickly turn into Hate-Crime once they figured out I am a Conservative.

[ThomasMore]

You must think that people are made internally of nothing.

Apparently Coleridge believes that people born with different skin colors have different internal organs and bleed differently.

(replying to Rhino) I'm starting to think you're a "NeoCon" and not a Conservative.

Even though "neoconservative" has a real meaning, the term "NeoCon" seems to have turned into an all-purpose, meaningless epithet that some people sling at conservatives they disagree with.

Bring it on. The mere fact you would base a conclusion on consensus rather than facts makes me laugh. You're no conservative. Who are you trying to fool. You don't fool me. How exactly did you come upon buying this website, did you say? I'd also be interested to know who you work for.

I think that tells all of us everything we need to know about Coleridge.

Rhino, congratulations on a spectacular display both of patience and of reasoned argument.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Actually. neocons are Reagan conservatives. However, some use the term "neocon" as a derogatory code word for Jews.

[Timberwolf]

Coleslaw...you may wanna pipe down. Not only are you making an ass of yourself and showing yourself to be nothing more than a shrill harpie, you sound fairly ignorant of what constitutes a "conservative".

Besides, you're locking horns with the site owner...try a bit of respect in future responses to him.

[TeenageRepublican]

Rhino, congratulations on a spectacular display both of patience and of reasoned argument.

What he said!:thumb:

[Rhino]

Well, since enough people were complaining about him, both in this thread and in other places, I went ahead and put him out of his misery. He'll have more fun over at the Aryan Brotherhood forum anyway. He'll certainly find more kindred spirits there.

[garlicguy]

What I tell you all my colleagues, I emphatically believe in and am not being sarcastic.

Ewwwwwww!! He thought we were his colleagues. :dunce:

[Kathy30]

I have to ask why did you say "I'm Jewish"? What was the purpose.... did you ever think for moment that perhaps with that out of nowhere statement you had insulted her and she decided to get someone else thinking you didnt want her helping you because she was hijab... not the other way around?

I just cant figure why on earth you would do that.

I INSULTED her by saying I'm Jewish! If that's true, good, I meant to insult her. Imagine that. In the midst of being insulted, she knew enough not to wait on a Jew! Is it only muslims that can be offended by having to "wait on" a Jew, or do Irish Protestants get to walk away from Irish Catholics too?

I did it to expose her racisim. Now that I think of it, I should have called over the floor manager and told him or her that Ms. Muslim refused to wait on a Jew.

Nevertheless, this is the fate and face of multiculturalisim. This is where it leads, this is what it does.

[PrezLeefun]

^^^I am only suggesting that you look at the situation the other way around. She may have thought you didnt want to be served by her.

I just cant figure why you said you were jewish.

[Rhino]

Ewwwwwww!! He thought we were his colleagues.Scary, ain't it?