Post by *skriptisPost by SawfishOn
I think it's different here in the Anglo west,
skript.
I don't perceive any great popular affinity for
race-mixing--after all, my own daughter is bi-racial and I can
see how she and any similar racially mixed friends are generally
viewed. It's either neutral or slightly negatively, with a few
note-worthy exceptions.
No, what's going on here is that she's viewed as
black, and no Caucasian can do anything other than treat blacks
as simply precious little children when in public. In fact, many
white people try outdo each other in praise and awe when
publicly speaking about black people; this is of course an
example of virtue signaling.
It's that simple.
But I don't understand that.
That's right, skript. You don't
Over the years we've both seen in the other misconceptions about what
life is like in the other's area of the world. I have misconceptions on
what it *must* be like in the Balkans based simply on knowing my 1st gen
relatives and the few things that that leaked down to me, and also news
reports. But the problem is that I have a perceptual lens that's got a
US filter on it, and it's not really possible to adjust it myself, which
is one reason it's valuable for me to exchange with you.
Post by *skriptisIf anything, there should be a sense of guilt towards the redskins in America?
There is, but less so.
I've read a lot about what happened to them from just after the arrival
of Europeans in N America, and especially in what's now the US and
Mexico. In the US is was a sort of informal genocide. Because the
Spanish wanted to use the Indians for labor--enslave them, either
legally or de facto--they tended not to exterminate them. Plus they were
more politically unified in Mexico than in most of the US. The exception
there was the Iroquois league.
But so what? This sort of thing happened ALL THE TIME in recorded
history and since we see no full blood Neanderthals or Denisovans
anywhere, we can see it also happened in prehistory. The men were killed
and some of the women impregnated and enslaved, most likely.
That's life.
Post by *skriptisIt's theirs land you've stolen, occupied, exploited and taken for yourself.
It's them whom you've genocided and ethnically cleansed from most of the continent and reduced them to extremely small numbers in isolated areas.
It's theirs people that barely exist nowadays.
Yes. What I said.
I have no moral problems with this happening when it did; it was normal
for the preceding eras. However, the teaching of history in the US from
about 1950 onwards tended to instill a sort of cultural guilt.
Later, added to the guilt over Indians, blacks were added after the
civil rights era in the 1960s. Big difference was that there were a lot
of blacks visible and very often they are charming and likable
personalities in one-on-one situations, so it was always visible, always
in your face how people who looked like you did to these nice harmless
people.
And in point of fact black were very much more docile all thru the Jim
Crow era, which ended in the 50s, and this is real easy to figure out.
They could be killed by whites with few questions asked. It was very
close to the situation the unarmed Japanese peasantry had in relation to
the samurai class: you could be killed at whim.
So both groups evolved to being pretty docile.
Post by *skriptisBlacks are not the victims at all, they're co-participants with whites in this huge project of land theft.
They're co-participants on a very small scale. Like any other human,
they are opportunistic.
But they had to stand aside if whites wanted what they wanted. No
question this was the case in 90% of all cases.
Again: it's in the past, not now, so people are going to have to get
over it or it'll erupt in open war eventually.
In short, like how *I* see the Balkans... ;^)
Post by *skriptisI guess you could argue that their ancestors (ancestors of US blacks) were the victims being brought as slaves, however that one is doubtful too.
How so? In what sense is it doubtful that they were brought over as slaves?
Post by *skriptisBeing a slave under a Christian rule was probably better than being in a jungle or savannah with lions and other wild beats, diseases and your fellow Africans who were cannibals and who were the ones who actually captured you and sold you to slavery?
All true to a degree, but silly if you think that anyone but a few wimps
want to give up freedom for slavery. They only give it up if that's the
only way they have of staying alive.
Post by *skriptisI won't go into this stuff really,
Good.
Post by *skriptisbut slavery has existed throughout history,
Yes, and I think it's still around, too. But not in the west except
under criminal conditions which are fairly hard to conceal.
Post by *skriptisI am sure 19th century slave in the US had it better than some slave in Europe in medieval era or during antiquity or a Christian slave under Moslem yoke.
They did, probably, but they'd not make that comparison. They'd think,
as you'd think: "This fucker in no better than me and if there's a
chance, I'll run away or I'll kill him."
Post by *skriptisI mean have black slaves in the US ever fought to death to amuse their masters, like Roman slaves who were forced to do that in Colosseum?
Was that happening?
No, and it has no bearing on this discussion. IT is a great example of
sophistry, however.
Post by *skriptisYes slavery is bad, but let's get real. Black slaves in the US were probably the most privileged slaves in history across all cultures.
Yes, but it's like saying that people today dying of stomach cancer have
it better than people in the past, before medically induced coma. Nobody
wants the have stomach cancer.
In honesty, I don't know why you raise these points. WE both know that
no slave compares himself to other slaves and finds contentment in
*being a slave*. He can see he's better off than X, but still wants no
master.
Post by *skriptisNot only that, unlike most of other cases, their base or starting position was really extremely bad (life in Africa among wild beats and fellow Africans who ate humans) that in some ways you could hardly interpret their slavery as an enormous loss of human rights (from present day point of view) or even a life quality in that time.
It doesn't matter what you think about their former life in Africa,
which may/may not be an accurate portrayal. It cares what they think
about the situation.
Otherwise, you'd have people lining up to be slaves. There are cases
where parents lined up to sell their kids into slavery, but no
meaningful tendency for adults to do this to themselves, except for
modern homos doing it voluntarily and temporarily as a form of deviant
sexual stimulation.
Post by *skriptisIt's still bad, and I will say it was wrong to remove them from their natural habitat regardless of whether you brought an improvement or worsening to them, as I'm kinda Star Trek Prime Directive adherent, but realistically it might have been even an improvement in their case.
I have no problems with agreeing that the contact with Europeans/Arabs
benefited black Africans in many material ways *that they, themselves,
find positive, while the converse is negligible.
Post by *skriptisAnd it's definitely a blessing for their descendants nowadays who found themselves in a more prosperous country compared to any African country they might be nowadays in.
So blacks should pay to the descendants of whites who brought them to America.
Funny conclusion. Like Swift's having Irish parents eat their kids
during the Great Famine.
Post by *skriptisHowever having said all that, I fail to see what a Haitian black (Osaka's father) has to do with USA?
Nothing.
Like Obama's and Harris' black parentage; they are unrelated to US
blacks except by skin color.
Post by *skriptisWhat is it that "you" might owe him?
I owe no one anything except by voluntary agreement. Everything else is
coerced from me by some level of threat. *I* decide what to feel guilty
about--if anything. No one else gets to decide for me.
So, nope, I feel no debt.
Post by *skriptisHe's not ab American, nor a black from US.
He's from Haiti.
Haiti has a nigger revolt in 1804, they killed all the French overlords and broke free becoming a free nation. They've enjoyed freedom and sovereignty for the past 220 years.
At least in the 60s or 70s, in counterculture efforts there has been a focus on native Americans, however nowadays it's all about blacks and race mixing.
You have a misconception about how race mixing is seen here, skript.
Here's the actual truth of it...
There are many woke people here who get teary-eyed over the *idea* of
black slavery inflicted by whites at some time in the past. They look at
their own skin, see it is white, and somehow in a way that is completely
alien to me, think that they, themselves, owe something to blacks who
are alive today, and whom they assume to be descendants of slaves.
It's reflexive, like a tic of some kind. A sign of mental instability.
So, these strange and feckless US whites want to pay blacks back by
having blacks rule over them, not having any fucking idea what being a
slave means.
The best they can do, however, is to get an elected leader who has a
dark skin. That's close enough to make these whites feel decent about
themselves. If they could, they'd like it to be a pure black descendant
of slaves, but the best they can do is a half black guy (Obama) whose
dad was of the governmental class in Nigeria, and possibly a woman
(Harris) whose dad was a quarter black professor from Jamaica.
It's a sickness.
Post by *skriptisThe "our people and our soil" theme has deemed to racist and obsolete so not even the redskins get to talk in those terms, no?
What!?
The Indians and the native Hawaiians talk about this *all the time*. It
is listened to with a sympathetic ear (by some, not me) but they'll not
get jack shit because these same guilt-ridden whites in the US have no
problem saying one thing but doing another. If they want something,
they'll not give it over to blacks, Indians, or Polynesians. But they
also want their cake. They want to be thought of as decent and
sensitive. So they get all weepy, and support reparations that they
figure *you'll* pay, but that they can wriggle out of, somehow.
But don't get in between them and what they want--*even if you are
black*--because, by God, they'll eventually get it away from you.
That's the way of it in the US. So now you know.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We are ruled over by controlling, emasculating, spirit-sapping, safety-obsessed nannies.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~