Trump doesn't want immigrants from s***hole countries

The topic of this conversation is racism and White Supremacy.

No it isn't.

The topic of this conversation is a statement from Trump which you've falsely drawn to represent "racism" and "white supremacy". Because you're a hysteric.
 
I love it when people get tuned up in a thread and then claim victory, never fails to put a smile on my face .

Well when the majority of "rebuttals" are in the form of Rob Ford GIFs. Concession is assumed.
 
Many people did think of Malcolm as racist tbf. And I believe his beliefs changed on this issue changed after his pilgrimage to Mecca. He saw different races making the pilgrimage and believed Islam would lead to racial harmony.

He was an atheist all his life till prison. He said he joined Islam because it allowed him to be strong. Imagine if all black people in America were Muslims instead of Christians? lol. That would be a major problem for the US. Instead we gave them the docile slave religion of Christianity. Malcolm used to be a fuck up. Dress like an idiot. Not taken seriously. Islam cleaned him up. Gave him a suit and briefcase. Gave him respectability and power. And focus. Imagine millions of other blacks like that. With that discipline. Also why Hitler liked Islam, because it was a warrior religion and had great hygiene. lol. When I was reading Malcolm's book he explained how often he cleaned himself. He is like a cat. Rinsing out your mouth a few times a day. Your nose. Shit like that. I find that a desirable trait of Islam as well. So many smelly and dirty people around.
 
Wow. You are WAY off

I was saying X lived in an era when blacks were essentially under attack in many ways. It formed his way of thinking that blacks needed to take care of themselves

You AGAIN are just way wrong

I honestly don't think you even read my post entirely. You fucking AGREE with it DUMMY
You related it to white supremacy, obviously, since that is the topic of this conversation.
 
There were so many lynchings going in the 1950's, right?

Being afraid of lynchings isn't the same as rate of lynchings occurring. Sure, lynchings didn't occur as much by the 1950s, but thats not to say that African-Americans did not fear for that to happen to them and their children, especially in the South.
 
Look, you have this 1960's idea in your mind trying to imagine what I'm talking about with regard to racial segregation. Were the Jim Crow laws, where the state forcefully imposed two groups of people obligated to live under same society and governance to separate, supremacist? Yes! Absolutely!

That's not what we're talking about here though. If people of a northern European background want their own country with their own governance, with their own towns, or hell with their own group of friends, what about that makes it supremacist in nature? How are you extending the intent to not interact into a form of oppressive interaction?

If you're still saying that it is, then are the Japanese Asian supremacist, because of their immigration policy excluding effectively anyone that's not Japanese? What about black neighborhoods, where AA's want to congregate together? Hispanics?

KKK_2868392b.jpg
 

"Of the lynching that did not take place in the South, mainly in the West, were normally lynchings of whites, not blacks. Most of the lynching in the West came from the lynching of either murders or cattle thief’s. There really was no political link to the lynching of blacks in the South, and whites in the West.

Not all states did lynch people. Some states did not lynch a white or a black person. Alaska, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Connecticut were these few states that had no lynchings between 1882-1968.

Although some states did have lynchings, some of them did not lynch any blacks. Arizona, Idaho, Maine, Nevada, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wisconsin were some states that did not lynch any blacks to record.

Quite a few states did in fact lynch more white people than black. In the West these greater number of white lynchings was due to political reasons not racial reasons. California, Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming lynched more whites than blacks."

http://www.naacp.org/history-of-lynchings/

According to this it seems that white people had as much of a reason to be afraid of lynchings as black people.

How many lynchings were there in the 1950's of black people? A couple? Maybe three? Throughout the whole decade?

You do understand that it is a ridiculously low amount considering the hundreds of millions of people that live in the United States? Only a paranoid schizophrenic would've been afraid of being lynched in the 1950's.
 
"Of the lynching that did not take place in the South, mainly in the West, were normally lynchings of whites, not blacks. Most of the lynching in the West came from the lynching of either murders or cattle thief’s. There really was no political link to the lynching of blacks in the South, and whites in the West.

Not all states did lynch people. Some states did not lynch a white or a black person. Alaska, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Connecticut were these few states that had no lynchings between 1882-1968.

Although some states did have lynchings, some of them did not lynch any blacks. Arizona, Idaho, Maine, Nevada, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wisconsin were some states that did not lynch any blacks to record.

Quite a few states did in fact lynch more white people than black. In the West these greater number of white lynchings was due to political reasons not racial reasons. California, Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming lynched more whites than blacks."

http://www.naacp.org/history-of-lynchings/

According to this it seems that white people had as much of a reason to be afraid of lynchings as black people.

How many lynchings were there in the 1950's of black people? A couple? Maybe three? Throughout the whole decade?

You do understand that it is a ridiculously low amount considering the hundreds of millions of people that live in the United States? Only a paranoid schizophrenic would've been afraid of being lynched in the 1950's.


hey you said
There were so many lynchings going in the 1950's, right?


i provided proof thats not entirely true

keep on talking but facts dont lie
 
"Of the lynching that did not take place in the South, mainly in the West, were normally lynchings of whites, not blacks. Most of the lynching in the West came from the lynching of either murders or cattle thief’s. There really was no political link to the lynching of blacks in the South, and whites in the West.

Not all states did lynch people. Some states did not lynch a white or a black person. Alaska, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Connecticut were these few states that had no lynchings between 1882-1968.

Although some states did have lynchings, some of them did not lynch any blacks. Arizona, Idaho, Maine, Nevada, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wisconsin were some states that did not lynch any blacks to record.

Quite a few states did in fact lynch more white people than black. In the West these greater number of white lynchings was due to political reasons not racial reasons. California, Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming lynched more whites than blacks."

http://www.naacp.org/history-of-lynchings/

According to this it seems that white people had as much of a reason to be afraid of lynchings as black people.

How many lynchings were there in the 1950's of black people? A couple? Maybe three? Throughout the whole decade?

You do understand that it is a ridiculously low amount considering the hundreds of millions of people that live in the United States? Only a paranoid schizophrenic would've been afraid of being lynched in the 1950's.
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/01/a-comprehensive-map-of-american-lynchings/513293/
 
They necessarily are. Otherwise, you're making the argument that ostracism is a form of oppression.
Not at all. We're still sharing the same city, state, country- and justice system. The out-group only gets to use the worse services, and they get worse punishment from the same justice system. This one is easy mode, man. You're going to commit semantic suicide here.
 
Look, you have this 1960's idea in your mind trying to imagine what I'm talking about with regard to racial segregation. Were the Jim Crow laws, where the state forcefully imposed two groups of people obligated to live under same society and governance to separate, supremacist? Yes! Absolutely!

That's not what we're talking about here though. If people of a northern European background want their own country with their own governance, with their own towns, or hell with their own group of friends, what about that makes it supremacist in nature? How are you extending the intent to not interact into a form of oppressive interaction?

If you're still saying that it is, then are the Japanese Asian supremacist, because of their immigration policy excluding effectively anyone that's not Japanese? What about black neighborhoods, where AA's want to congregate together? Hispanics?

I don't know what the point of this conversation is.

You're asking if they want to make a white only country. So by law they are making it illegal to be a nonwhite in that country. In the context of the US how would this work? We already have multiple races here. I don't even know what the point of the conversation is with the US.

If you want to talk about Poland and Japan or any of the other places Supremacists like to bring up fine. You can argue it makes sense for those countries to be White or Asian (but really Japanese not all Asian) Supremacists. I'd argue against it but I understand it.

Any white supremacy or separatist argument in the US ultimately leads to the government marginalizing US citizens.

We are not Poland and we are not Japan so let's stop making hypotheticals like we are.
 
Back
Top