White Privilege

[blur]

David Duke is not the leader of NAAWP. And where did I say I 'support' the NAAWP?

David Duke was the founder and former leader of the NAAWP, but this group hasn't had any activity in about 25 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_for_the_Advancement_of_White_People
There was another NAAWP that briefly ran in the 50s. That was founded and led by Bryant Bowles, a white supremacist, and his career ended with murder and drug trafficking convictions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryant_Bowles

So, you don't support the NAAWP? Then we're in agreement that they were unnecessary organizations.

Again, not just slavery. Slavery was the cause for the South seceding because the North failed to allow the protections for slavery as given in the Constitution. You want to make it 'just slavery' because you think it has better evil ring to it. But it was because the North wanted to deny its protections under the Constitution. I will repeat, it doesn't matter what you or anyone else think of the Dred Scott decision. It was the Constitutional ruling.

Again, you agree slavery was the Confederacy's main motivation. The difference is you believe they were justified in wanting to keep slavery. The Dred Scott decision argued that it was not the framers "intention" to allow black people to have citizenship. But this contradicts the reality that at time of the ratification of the Constitution, 5 out of the original 13 states had already granted citizenship to black people.

You're not listening. Lincoln didn't give a damn about black people being in slavery. It was a political issue with him. He could enslave them or free them. Didn't matter to him one way or the other. And in 1861 he was willing to enslave them forever. And I already showed you that Lincoln was a white supremacist. So you and the NAACP support, not the real Lincoln. You support the Lincoln god like myth created by the North after the war. The myth that makes hay for blacks because the white race will forever have to bear the burden. Keep bending over and breathing that smoke.

You're ignoring that I've said multiple that Lincoln (and most white people of the time) had racist views of black people. We judge people in history relative to the times and cultures they lived in. For the time and country he was in, Lincoln was progressive on his position on slavery, and his decision benefited black people. Not advocating for Lincoln monuments, statues, paintings, coins, etc. to be removed is not the same as treating like a "god." Most on the left and in social justice type spaces are pretty measured in their opinions of him.

Why is that literacy rate falling in South Africa? Wait I know...it's the white mans fault.

Let's break this down: The United States has a white population of 59.3%. The US has an adult literacy rate of 79%, an adult illiteracy rate of 21%. New Mexico has the lowest child literacy rate with only 2.5% of the population being black, Massachusettes has the highest child literacy rate with 7.08% of the population being black. So, as far as America is concerned, it doesn't seem like race is a primary factor in literacy rates.

U.S. Literacy Rates by State 2025

Discover population, economy, health, and more with the most comprehensive global statistics at your fingertips.

worldpopulationreview.com

Let's look at South Africa: South Africa has a black population of about 81.4%. They have an adult literacy rate of 95% (https://intelpoint.co/insights/adult-literacy-rates-of-african-countries/).

Again, it looks like race is not a good predictor for literacy like you claim.

There are 18 African countries with higher literacy rates than America, and significantly larger black populations.

It's what needs to happen. It doesn't matter if anyone is advocating that or not. That is the only way to stop it. I'm sure killing would be involved, but that's the way it is.

So, now you're just expressing a personal opinion about how you think gangs should be handled. Thanks for sharing. Let's recap:

-First you were claiming that black people didn't care about gangs.
-When showed that there were numerous anti-gang black organizations, you pivoted to claiming black people were not using the right methods to deal with gangs. You claimed that black people were standing in the way of police and the "white man" doing what "needs to be done" to "destroy" gangs.
-When asked for examples of police who were advocating for "destroying" gangs, and black people standing in their way, you have pivoted once again to saying "it doesn't matter" if anyone is advocating for it outside of your fantasy scenario.

 

[blur]

Does NAACP support and preach Affirmative Action? Yes or no? You make no sense. The NAACP supports the removal of the South's history and monuments and flags. It is a racist organization for blacks. Color it however you like, excuse the pun, it is racist.

Affirmative Action isn't racist for reasons I have laid out repeatedly in this thread, and can do so again.

No, I don't agree with you. Take away black history month then there is no need for white history month.

Do you believe that history classes should teach about black events and black historical figures at all?

There was no outcry about what was said about 'white people'. Please pay attention.

Again, Farrakhan is not a well-known figure to the general public. There isn't going to be outcry regarding what he said, the only controversy was that well-known politicians were photographed with him, which is also the only reason why those quotes became well-known to begin with. There's numerous white right-wing YouTubers, podcaster, and TikToker who regularly say the "n" word and there's no mass outcry because no one knows who they are. But if someone well known were to be photographed with them then there would be controversy (see the Nick Fuentes and Donald Trump).

In-fact, let's dive into the right-wing side of things. There's a podcast called "Red Scare" that is popular with young people. The hosts have made numerous anti-black/homophobic statements (including calling mixed race babies "ugly"). They have a lot of celebrity fans including Elizabeth Olsen, Charli XCX (who wrote a song about praising one of the hosts on her most recent album, one of the biggest albums of last year), Matty Healy (frontman for the 1975 and former boyfriend of Taylor Swift), etc. And while there has been criticism in small circles on the internet, there has been no large public outcry because most people don't know what this podcast is.

The Adam Friedland show is a right-leaning podcast that has seen many well-known and celebrity guests (Neil deGrasse Tyson, Rob Schneider, Chris Cuomo, etc.), and has had white people say the "n" word on his show. Again, no public outcry.

Joe Rogan has said the "n" word numerous times, and has said multiple antisemitic statements. He's one of the most well-known podcasters in the world, he gets some backlash, but still gets to keep his platform and sponsorships.

Oh, you looked up articles that you agree with. I understand. Love that data.

No, I looked up the quote you offered alongside his name and found nothing. And if it existed, you would have offered a source by now. The YouTube video you provided (I did end up searching the transcript), showed no mention of the quote either.

The point is that it was written and was able to be published becaue it was against white men. Would the same be published today if it were about black men needing to be stopped? "Black Men Must Be Stopped. The Future of Mankind Depends on it" It does have a nice ring to it.

Here's the difference: The Salon article (which I'm guessing you didn't read) was a white man telling other white people to stand up against racism, it was not advocating for the oppression of white people. You actively advocate for the oppression of black people because they didn't "found this country."

Yes but, as the author said, it still makes its way into schools and curricula. Let the same be said and taught in schools about blacks and see what the 'backlash' would be. But whites can't do that becasue 'blacks used to be slaves'.

To be fair, the quote from the author is not connected to the 1619 project. So, that quote is not being "said and taught" in schools. You're misrepresenting what happened.

 

[blur]

a mistake made long ago was not making English official language of the USA IMO

Thanks for sharing your opinion, but that really isn't on topic to what we were discussing.

in other words ... everyone can face things and I agree

Yup, everyone can face things (very vague, very generalized). But certain demographics are more likely to face certain things than other demographics, and when we only cater to the majority we miss out on the issues of those within the minorities.

I asked if you trusted everything coming from Trump's administration - studies and/or reports and I thought you'd said no. Most liberals/Democrats are saying now anything reported can't be trusted.

I didn't say "no", I asked you to offer specific examples of what you were referring to (https://debatepolitics.com/threads/white-privilege.570294/post-1081599591).

lets use this one

illegal border crossings have significantly decreased, with daily encounters down by 93% and migrant crossings down by 99.99%. In March 2025, the US-Mexico border saw its lowest monthly number of encounters in history, at less than 7,200, according to Homeland Security. This represents a 95% decrease from the previous year and a 96% decrease from 2023, according to The White House.

do you believe it ?

Yup. I believe this. But this doesn't contradict anything I've expressed or studies I've shared in this thread.

not confusing - just being real

This isn't being "real." Do you know the difference between an editorial and a news report? How about the difference between a poll and a case study? Because you seem to be treating all of these things as if they are the same thing, and they are very different from each other with very different standards and guidelines being enforced.

 

[stealthycat]

Thanks for sharing your opinion, but that really isn't on topic to what we were discussing.

Yup, everyone can face things (very vague, very generalized). But certain demographics are more likely to face certain things than other demographics, and when we only cater to the majority we miss out on the issues of those within the minorities.

100% TRUE

lets talk about those very ultra poor, generationally poor white people ... skin color didn't matter to their lives

whites absolutely can be a minority, I've proven it, and I've proven minority gets special treatments while whites don't get any (because of their skin color). Not a mystical, invisible privilege but factual like black only this or women only that

and I have no problems with those things ONLY if whites can have the same- that would be fair, that would be equal

I didn't say "no", I asked you to offer specific examples of what you were referring to (https://debatepolitics.com/threads/white-privilege.570294/post-1081599591).
Yup. I believe this. But this doesn't contradict anything I've expressed or studies I've shared in this thread.

ok, Trump's administration will be putting out job numbers, unemployment numbers, economy numbers, signing deals with nations .... you're going to disagree and find fault in them. I know you will not believe everything you read on this administration

This isn't being "real." Do you know the difference between an editorial and a news report? How about the difference between a poll and a case study? Because you seem to be treating all of these things as if they are the same thing, and they are very different from each other with very different standards and guidelines being enforced.

the lines are blurred in today's world ... can't even turn on espn without politics involved

Coco Gauff couldn't even accept the title this weekend without making it political

 

[blur]

100% TRUE

lets talk about those very ultra poor, generationally poor white people ... skin color didn't matter to their lives

whites absolutely can be a minority, I've proven it, and I've proven minority gets special treatments while whites don't get any (because of their skin color). Not a mystical, invisible privilege but factual like black only this or women only that

and I have no problems with those things ONLY if whites can have the same- that would be fair, that would be equal

This is where you and I could get a bit closer on this issue: I believe not enough has been done to help out poor people of any race including white people. There are certain things, for example, Ivy League schools show preference for qualified applicants from lower income backgrounds. But I do think there needs to be a lot more done.

Helping out black people does not mean we can't also help out white people in need. The idea that helping one demographic means we're taking from another is part of a scarcity mindset, and it's a fallacy. There is more than enough to go around (certain people at the top are hoarding it).

Black people are disproportionately negatively impacted by racism. That is factual. That is not "mystical."

If you're a English-speaking white person living in a town where everyone is speaking Spanish, you turn on the TV, go to the library, turn on the News, see a doctor, or go to the DMV and the majority the people you talk to or the content you read will be in English. Despite being a minority in your town, you still benefit from being among the majority in the country.

If you're a black person living in a black majority town, the healthcare they are likely to receive is based off of the general trends of the overall population (not the general trends of their town) because healthcare research tends to focus on the majority of the country, not specific pockets. I offered the breast cancer example in a previous post, but I'll offer another example here: Sickle cell anemia. This is a condition that overwhelming impacts black people, 93% of people diagnosed with SCA are black. Only between 1% to 2.5% of those diagnosed with SCA are white (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36710488/). To provide more context, less than 1% of white babies are born with the sickle cell trait gene, whereas between 8% to 10% of black babies are born with the gene. This is a condition that requires specialized healthcare, and can lower the life expectancy by 20 years. If we decided everything in society should be color-blind and race should not be considered, this type of data would not be available. And even with this data available, black people receiving appropriate care for this condition can be harder because it's considered a "very rare" for the overall population. So, in this case, black people are still facing obstacles for being in the minority of the country even if they are among the majority in their town.

ok, Trump's administration will be putting out job numbers, unemployment numbers, economy numbers, signing deals with nations .... you're going to disagree and find fault in them. I know you will not believe everything you read on this administration

You're just making assumptions now. You can't find any statistics, data, or studies that contradict anything I've said in this thread? You're just focused on future data that doesn't exist yet?

the lines are blurred in today's world ... can't even turn on espn without politics involved

Coco Gauff couldn't even accept the title this weekend without making it political

So, you don't know the difference between an editorial and a news report? Or between a poll and a case study? The lines aren't "blurred" there, they all have very specific definitions, standards, and guidelines. An acceptance speech is not comparable to a study.

 

[stealthycat]

This is where you and I could get a bit closer on this issue: I believe not enough has been done to help out poor people of any race including white people. There are certain things, for example, Ivy League schools show preference for qualified applicants from lower income backgrounds. But I do think there needs to be a lot more done.

Helping out black people does not mean we can't also help out white people in need. The idea that helping one demographic means we're taking from another is part of a scarcity mindset, and it's a fallacy. There is more than enough to go around (certain people at the top are hoarding it).

its exactly what it really means though when we talk about DEI/affirmative actions and the mystical "white privilege" .... helping all poor people is great

helping people and using their skin color as weighted criteria is discrimination

Black people are disproportionately negatively impacted by racism. That is factual. That is not "mystical."

this is 2025, the above statement is false and facts remains - as I've pointed out - the "racism" today can be factually seen/shown towards whites

not towards blacks

If you're a English-speaking white person living in a town where everyone is speaking Spanish, you turn on the TV, go to the library, turn on the News, see a doctor, or go to the DMV and the majority the people you talk to or the content you read will be in English. Despite being a minority in your town, you still benefit from being among the majority in the country.

If you're a black person living in a black majority town, the healthcare they are likely to receive is based off of the general trends of the overall population (not the general trends of their town) because healthcare research tends to focus on the majority of the country, not specific pockets. I offered the breast cancer example in a previous post, but I'll offer another example here: Sickle cell anemia. This is a condition that overwhelming impacts black people, 93% of people diagnosed with SCA are black. Only between 1% to 2.5% of those diagnosed with SCA are white (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36710488/). To provide more context, less than 1% of white babies are born with the sickle cell trait gene, whereas between 8% to 10% of black babies are born with the gene. This is a condition that requires specialized healthcare, and can lower the life expectancy by 20 years. If we decided everything in society should be color-blind and race should not be considered, this type of data would not be available. And even with this data available, black people receiving appropriate care for this condition can be harder because it's considered a "very rare" for the overall population. So, in this case, black people are still facing obstacles for being in the minority of the country even if they are among the majority in their town.

why harder? what obstacles? are you saying black people's doctors aren't trained ?

You're just making assumptions now. You can't find any statistics, data, or studies that contradict anything I've said in this thread? You're just focused on future data that doesn't exist yet?

So, you don't know the difference between an editorial and a news report? Or between a poll and a case study? The lines aren't "blurred" there, they all have very specific definitions, standards, and guidelines. An acceptance speech is not comparable to a study.

fine, you win, you believe all and nothing is biased. I'm not arguing it anymore

 

[Lees]

Just search under something like “number of lynchings in the US post Civil War”. There is also the National Memorial for Peace and Justice in Montgomery, Alabama that I have visited and you could look up.

A flawed but righteous guy. Union soldiers sang his name as they marched to finish what he started.

Tell me, were you a slave, would you have accepted your fate, not minded when your children were sold away from you?

How do you view Spartacus?

Post Civil War? And have you considered what many of these lychings were for?

Why don't you address Lincoln's support of the original 13th amendment which would enslave blacks forever? Why should I view a memorial for peace in Mongomery Alabama. Oh you visited it. Did it give you goose bumps.

By flawed do you mean a murderer? By flawed do you mean a terrorist? My how these yankees love to change the words to fit their political motivation.

Slaves have no choice but accept their fate.

Corey Booker is just another black racist.

Lees

 

[Lees]

@blur

Concerning post #(551)

I didn't say I supported the NAAWP as you claimed, and I am not in agreement with you that they were unncessary. I presented the contrast of the NAACP and NAAWP to show that blacks consider the NAAWP as racist but they consider the NAACP as some sort of righteous orgainiztion. It shows the hypocrisy of blacks. It's only racist if it's white. Which you wholly prove in not wanting a 'white' history month. That word 'white' is just racist....isn't it?

Why do you keep lying when I have plainly told you. Slavery alone was not the main motivation. Slavery as protected by the Constitution but denied by the North was the motivation. At least present what I said instead of continualy lyiing about it. Of course the South was justified. What law said they were not? The Supreme Court decision is the law of the land. It doesn't matter what you think about it. To go against it makes you the lawbreaker. The traitor. How does it feel...?

Well, that sounds so sweet. So why are you tearing down Southern flags, monuments, and culture and not tearing down the Lincoln Memorial. I mean, if everyone then is expected to have racist views? Nothing but sweet bullshit. Lincoln didn't give a shit about the blacks or slavery. Yet the blacks need the myth of Lincolln to get what they want. And the myth of Lincoln helps them bash the white South, which is what the racist blacks want.

Yadda, yadda, yadda. Ever heard of Mark Twain, and his 3 kinds of lies. 1.) lies 2.) Damn lies 3.) statistics Everyone has their 'statistics'. Made just for them.

Again, I see South Africa had a high literacy rate, but it is falling. Why?

Oh, so you're saying Africa is more literate than America. Ok. So what's the problem? If they are so smart, why are they such a cesspool?

Of course it is my opinion how black gangs should be handled. Your black black organizations haven't done shit. If black people don't want to be accused of standing in the way of police, then get the hell out of the way. But, no, they have to piss and moan and bitch about the police exercising too much force. The white man just got his knee on our necks.

The problem is there is no example, because no one is following the only way to solve the problem. Pretty self explanatory.

Lees

 

[Lees]

Affirmative Action isn't racist for reasons I have laid out repeatedly in this thread, and can do so again.

Do you believe that history classes should teach about black events and black historical figures at all?

Again, Farrakhan is not a well-known figure to the general public. There isn't going to be outcry regarding what he said, the only controversy was that well-known politicians were photographed with him, which is also the only reason why those quotes became well-known to begin with. There's numerous white right-wing YouTubers, podcaster, and TikToker who regularly say the "n" word and there's no mass outcry because no one knows who they are. But if someone well known were to be photographed with them then there would be controversy (see the Nick Fuentes and Donald Trump).

In-fact, let's dive into the right-wing side of things. There's a podcast called "Red Scare" that is popular with young people. The hosts have made numerous anti-black/homophobic statements (including calling mixed race babies "ugly"). They have a lot of celebrity fans including Elizabeth Olsen, Charli XCX (who wrote a song about praising one of the hosts on her most recent album, one of the biggest albums of last year), Matty Healy (frontman for the 1975 and former boyfriend of Taylor Swift), etc. And while there has been criticism in small circles on the internet, there has been no large public outcry because most people don't know what this podcast is.

The Adam Friedland show is a right-leaning podcast that has seen many well-known and celebrity guests (Neil deGrasse Tyson, Rob Schneider, Chris Cuomo, etc.), and has had white people say the "n" word on his show. Again, no public outcry.

Joe Rogan has said the "n" word numerous times, and has said multiple antisemitic statements. He's one of the most well-known podcasters in the world, he gets some backlash, but still gets to keep his platform and sponsorships.

No, I looked up the quote you offered alongside his name and found nothing. And if it existed, you would have offered a source by now. The YouTube video you provided (I did end up searching the transcript), showed no mention of the quote either.

Here's the difference: The Salon article (which I'm guessing you didn't read) was a white man telling other white people to stand up against racism, it was not advocating for the oppression of white people. You actively advocate for the oppression of black people because they didn't "found this country."

To be fair, the quote from the author is not connected to the 1619 project. So, that quote is not being "said and taught" in schools. You're misrepresenting what happened.

Bullshit. Affirmative Action is racist as hell. It's just not supposedly racist according to blacks. The NAACP is racist as hell and supports Affirmative Action, which you don't want to admit because you're racist as hell.

Oh, now you're pivoting from 'black history month' to 'should black history be taught at all'. True history should be taught, every aspect of it. Your black history is full of lies.

Again, please pay attention. There was no outcry about what was said about white people.

Gee, that's not what you said before. You said you were not going to listen to some video of somenone in a basement. Why? Because it doesn't support your racist view. I did offer the source.

No, I didn't misrepresent what the author said. I will give you some more quotes that you can lie about. That makes those blacks look...racist.

Lees

 

[blur]

its exactly what it really means though when we talk about DEI/affirmative actions and the mystical "white privilege" .... helping all poor people is great

helping people and using their skin color as weighted criteria is discrimination

Here's the problem: the existence of affirmative action and other programs like it, is predicated on the idea that black people did not exist on an even playing field as white people, that they are at a disadvantage in society. This is where our argument gets circular: To me, affirmative action is justified because racism against black people is prevalent enough where affirmative action does not offer black people an advantage over white people, but creates a more level playing field. You deny that racism against black people is prevalent but can't point to any examples outside of affirmative action/DEI (this is ignoring the fact that affirmative action and DEI also benefit white people). In order for me to believe your argument (I'm sure you don't care if I believe your argument or not), you would have to actually offer examples of racism against white people (this might look like: white people being treated poorly in the classroom, widespread instances of being negatively stereotyped, housing discrimination, etc.) or provide some evidence that all of the studies and data regarding racism against black people is false.

So, we're kind of in a stalemate here.

this is 2025, the above statement is false and facts remains - as I've pointed out - the "racism" today can be factually seen/shown towards whites

It's not false, I've offered numerous studies and data to back-up that racism against black people continues to exist today. You've offered no counter-examples. The only examples of "racism" against white people you can offer is affirmative action and DEI which are two programs that also benefit white people.

why harder? what obstacles? are you saying black people's doctors aren't trained ?

It's harder for rare diseases/conditions to be diagnosed because they are not on the top of the list of potential conditions certain symptoms might link to for the general population. A doctor won't start with the more rare condition until other potential causes are explored. But the problem with sickle cell anemia is that it's rare for one population, but not the other. This leads to many people with sickle cell anemia getting misdiagnosed/mistreated before receiving their SCA diagnosis (https://abc7.com/sickle-cell-anemia-patients-misinformation-stigma/12273522/).

fine, you win, you believe all and nothing is biased. I'm not arguing it anymore

Here, let me help you out:

Editorials: "a newspaper article written by or on behalf of an editor that gives an opinion on a topical issue." This would be like when left-leaning newspaper releases content that states "Harris is a shining star of politics", this is listed as an editorial. It is stating that this is an opinion, not that it is expressing a fact. So, as a discerning reader, you understand that what you are reading is someone's opinion. Talking heads on TV news do a lot of "editorializing" news-based TV shows (like MSNBC or Fox News).

News Report: “clearly and accurately depict a given situation." These are held to a much higher standard for factual and objective reporting. Sources are required, and need to be vetted. Bias can arise when certain media outlets will report on certain issues but not others, however, this does not mean the information they are presenting is necessarily false. Usually, it's a good idea to cross-reference with other sources, if you're not sure if a news report you're reading is accurate or is telling the full story.

Poll: "Involve asking a single query or a very limited set of questions. Poll questions are quick, to the point, and allow you to draw conclusions about the opinions and attitudes of a larger population."

Study: "collection, interpretation, and evaluation of data." The way to determine whether or not a study is trustworthy is to access the reputation of the journal published it (if the journal has a high impact factor which is "a widely used metric in academia that measures the average number of times articles in a journal are cited over a specific period"), has the study been peer-reviewed (has it stood up to scrutiny and criticism from other experts before it was published?), the citation count of the study (has this study been cited in other areas of research), etc. Those involved in the study are also required to report any conflicts of interest which are typically listed at the bottom of the study.

 

[stealthycat]

Here's the problem: the existence of affirmative action and other programs like it, is predicated on the idea that black people did not exist on an even playing field as white people, that they are at a disadvantage in society.

75 years ago yes

this is 2025 in a society that screams fair and equal and has many laws against discrimination and yet, we also have laws that discriminate (DEI) and thankfully Trump has tried to end those. You CANNOT stop discrimination by discriminating against innocent people

This is where our argument gets circular: To me, affirmative action is justified because racism against black people is prevalent enough where affirmative action does not offer black people an advantage over white people, but creates a more level playing field.

you favor discrimination

You deny that racism against black people is prevalent but can't point to any examples outside of affirmative action/DEI (this is ignoring the fact that affirmative action and DEI also benefit white people).

I can't prove racism in 2025 against blacks - I CAN prove racism against whites.

In order for me to believe your argument (I'm sure you don't care if I believe your argument or not), you would have to actually offer examples of racism against white people (this might look like: white people being treated poorly in the classroom, widespread instances of being negatively stereotyped, housing discrimination, etc.) or provide some evidence that all of the studies and data regarding racism against black people is false.

you don't really want that though - I've proven it

anything you can think of that's black this or that and there isn't an equivalent white? that's racism. DEI? racism. Affirmative action ? Racism

anything that gives weight to black skin over white skin ? that makes it racist/discrimination - literally

you simply justify it

 

[stealthycat]

It's harder for rare diseases/conditions to be diagnosed because they are not on the top of the list of potential conditions certain symptoms might link to for the general population. A doctor won't start with the more rare condition until other potential causes are explored. But the problem with sickle cell anemia is that it's rare for one population, but not the other. This leads to many people with sickle cell anemia getting misdiagnosed/mistreated before receiving their SCA diagnosis (https://abc7.com/sickle-cell-anemia-patients-misinformation-stigma/12273522/).

well sure, but how many diseases affects whites more than blacks? I guess you'll argue all those are way more studied and I cannot argue it they or are not, thats outside something I don't know a lot about.

A quick google shows ....What diseases are Caucasians more prone to?

• Cardiovascular.
• Diseases and ConditionsCardiovascular.
• Cerebrovascular Disease or Stroke.
• Cholesterol.
• Heart Disease.
• Hypertension.

Are all the above that much more studied than SCA ? I don't know, but blacks and whites both are prone to different things, blacks aren't special in that.

 

[Nickyjo]

Post Civil War? And have you considered what many of these lychings were for?

Real or imagined crimes. Emmett Till was a 14-year old Black boy and may have whistled at a White woman. Therefore his death was obviously justified. There were about 20 random Italians lynched in New Orleans based on the dying words of a murdered sheriff. Leo Frank, a Jew, was probably wrongly convicted of murder and lynched in Georgia. The list goes on, and reaches into modern times, when three young men were murdered in Mississippi. Reagan made his first post-nomination trip to that state, not far from where the men were killed. He didn’t mention them, but did stress his support for states rights. Dog whistle politics.

Strange, quick check on line shows that Mississippi, with a fraction of the population of New York had 581 lynchings, while New York had 2. Go figure.

Why don't you address Lincoln's support of the original 13th amendment which would enslave blacks forever? Why should I view a memorial for peace in Mongomery Alabama. Oh you visited it. Did it give you goose bumps.

Gee a politician who changed his opinion on legislation. Bad Abe.

No, I wept at one exhibit, at what a disgrace to our country were those who participated in such events, and the horror of the families of the victims.

By flawed do you mean a murderer? By flawed do you mean a terrorist? My how these yankees love to change the words to fit their political motivation.

Slaves have no choice but accept their fate.

Corey Booker is just another black racist.

Lees

The terrorists were those who took people from Africa, those who bought them, those who hunted them when they escaped, those lynched them. John Brown was a bigger patriot than Jefferson Davis could ever be.

 

[blur]

75 years ago yes

Present day, yes.

this is 2025 in a society that screams fair and equal and has many laws against discrimination and yet, we also have laws that discriminate (DEI) and thankfully Trump has tried to end those. You CANNOT stop discrimination by discriminating against innocent people

Again, how does having programs that help out veterans and disabled in school/work (DEI) discriminate against others?

you favor discrimination

You haven't proven that affirmative action discriminates.

I can't prove racism in 2025 against blacks - I CAN prove racism against whites.

You haven't offered any evidence though. I've given you multiple opportunities. You just mention something vague about information Trump will release in the future.

you don't really want that though - I've proven it

I keep asking for it, and you keep refusing to offer it.

anything you can think of that's black this or that and there isn't an equivalent white? that's racism. DEI? racism. Affirmative action ? Racism

Except affirmative action and DEI programs are benefit white people.

anything that gives weight to black skin over white skin ? that makes it racist/discrimination - literally

Why is it still OK for white students to gain admissions to colleges for reasons other than academic merit?

I'll repeat myself here:
White students still made up the majority of admissions, and were still more likely to benefit from admission based on ALDC (shorthand for athletic recruits, legacies, the children of faculty and staff, and applicants on the dean’s interest list who are often relatives of major donors). In-fact, in 2023, 43% of of white students accepted into Ivy League are ALDC admits (https://news.ucr.edu/articles/2023/09/11/elite-university-admissions-athletes-benefit-white-students). When we couple that with the previously mentioned fact that recruited athletes have the highest chance of acceptance into many Ivy League schools, then I see no evidence that white students are being unfairly barred from receiving an education from affirmative action practicing schools as they already have advantages in many areas (that have nothing to do with academic merit) that most black applicants won't.

Why were people (such as yourself) so adamant to get rid of affirmative action, not also adamant to get rid of ALDC preferences? And if we get rid of all of the above, how should Ivy League universities deal with the problem of picking who gets accepted if there are going to be more students who academically qualify than there spots available for them?

well sure, but how many diseases affects whites more than blacks? I guess you'll argue all those are way more studied and I cannot argue it they or are not, thats outside something I don't know a lot about.

A quick google shows ....What diseases are Caucasians more prone to?

• Cardiovascular.
• Diseases and ConditionsCardiovascular.
• Cerebrovascular Disease or Stroke.
• Cholesterol.
• Heart Disease.
• Hypertension.

Are all the above that much more studied than SCA ? I don't know, but blacks and whites both are prone to different things, blacks aren't special in that.

I think you've missed my point completely: it's not simply that black people are more prone to certain health conditions that's the problem, it's if those health conditions are also not prevalent in the white population (the majority), then they tend to be be under-researched, under-diagnosed, and under-treated in the populations that they are more prevalent in. All of the health issues you listed above are very common in the general population, SCA is not. Taking your blood pressure and testing your cholesterol are part of regular health check-ups. It's very common for there to be materials showing what to watch out for in a possible stroke ("F.A.S.T." acronym: Face, Arms, Speech, Time), etc. You don't get tested for SCA or SCT as part of a regular health check-up.

 

[blur]

@blur

Concerning post #(551)

I didn't say I supported the NAAWP as you claimed, and I am not in agreement with you that they were unncessary. I presented the contrast of the NAACP and NAAWP to show that blacks consider the NAAWP as racist but they consider the NAACP as some sort of righteous orgainiztion. It shows the hypocrisy of blacks. It's only racist if it's white. Which you wholly prove in not wanting a 'white' history month. That word 'white' is just racist....isn't it?

Nah, you lost. Hypocrisy would be if the NAACP were creating organizations to burning crosses on white people's lawns and lynching them, and proclaiming they are "superior" to white people. But they do none of that, and the people involved in the founding of the NAAWP have done all of that to black people. NAACP give awards to white people, works alongside white people, and preaches equality between the races. But that doesn't fit into your little narrative of them being "racist."

Why do you keep lying when I have plainly told you. Slavery alone was not the main motivation. Slavery as protected by the Constitution but denied by the North was the motivation. At least present what I said instead of continualy lyiing about it. Of course the South was justified. What law said they were not? The Supreme Court decision is the law of the land. It doesn't matter what you think about it. To go against it makes you the lawbreaker. The traitor. How does it feel...?

You keep repeating the same thing, without addressing anything I said. You are not capable of forming an argument that contradicts mine. How does it feel that your side lost, and you're still crying about it?

Well, that sounds so sweet. So why are you tearing down Southern flags, monuments, and culture and not tearing down the Lincoln Memorial. I mean, if everyone then is expected to have racist views? Nothing but sweet bullshit. Lincoln didn't give a shit about the blacks or slavery. Yet the blacks need the myth of Lincolln to get what they want. And the myth of Lincoln helps them bash the white South, which is what the racist blacks want.

Lincoln objectively helped black people regardless of what is personal views were. The Confederacy did not. Why do black people only want to "bash" Southern whites and not Northern whites in your fantasy, if black people are "racist" against all white people?

Yadda, yadda, yadda. Ever heard of Mark Twain, and his 3 kinds of lies. 1.) lies 2.) Damn lies 3.) statistics Everyone has their 'statistics'. Made just for them.

Again, I see South Africa had a high literacy rate, but it is falling. Why?

You know the literacy rate that you keep citing (making up) is based on statistics, right? Anyway, you're lying. The South African literacy rate hasn't fallen, its actually being celebrated for reaching a new high of 95%:

South Africa ranks second in literacy in Africa -

By Levy Mssiteng The government has welcomed the country's ranking as the second most literate nation in Africa, with an adult literacy rate of 95%.&nb ...

insideeducation.co.za

 

[blur]

Oh, so you're saying Africa is more literate than America. Ok. So what's the problem? If they are so smart, why are they such a cesspool?

Because not all of Africa is a "cesspool." You seem unaware that Africa is a continent made up of many countries that are very different from each other.

Of course it is my opinion how black gangs should be handled. Your black black organizations haven't done shit. If black people don't want to be accused of standing in the way of police, then get the hell out of the way. But, no, they have to piss and moan and bitch about the police exercising too much force. The white man just got his knee on our necks.

Yes, when a police officer kills a black child for playing with a toy gun, people tend to get upset.

Oh, now you're pivoting from 'black history month' to 'should black history be taught at all'. True history should be taught, every aspect of it. Your black history is full of lies.

Go on, name the lies. I bet ya can't.

Again, please pay attention. There was no outcry about what was said about white people.

And there's no outcry when obscure figures say racist things about black people.

Gee, that's not what you said before. You said you were not going to listen to some video of somenone in a basement. Why? Because it doesn't support your racist view. I did offer the source.

Because I was trying to find evidence of the quote you offered, but found out you just made it up.

No, I didn't misrepresent what the author said. I will give you some more quotes that you can lie about. That makes those blacks look...racist.

You misrepresented what was being taught in schools.

 

[Nickyjo]

@blur

Concerning post #(551)

I didn't say I supported the NAAWP as you claimed, and I am not in agreement with you that they were unncessary. I presented the contrast of the NAACP and NAAWP to show that blacks consider the NAAWP as racist but they consider the NAACP as some sort of righteous orgainiztion. It shows the hypocrisy of blacks. It's only racist if it's white. Which you wholly prove in not wanting a 'white' history month. That word 'white' is just racist....isn't it?

Why do you keep lying when I have plainly told you. Slavery alone was not the main motivation. Slavery as protected by the Constitution but denied by the North was the motivation. At least present what I said instead of continualy lyiing about it. Of course the South was justified. What law said they were not? The Supreme Court decision is the law of the land. It doesn't matter what you think about it. To go against it makes you the lawbreaker. The traitor. How does it feel...?

Well, that sounds so sweet. So why are you tearing down Southern flags, monuments, and culture and not tearing down the Lincoln Memorial. I mean, if everyone then is expected to have racist views? Nothing but sweet bullshit. Lincoln didn't give a shit about the blacks or slavery. Yet the blacks need the myth of Lincolln to get what they want. And the myth of Lincoln helps them bash the white South, which is what the racist blacks want.

Yadda, yadda, yadda. Ever heard of Mark Twain, and his 3 kinds of lies. 1.) lies 2.) Damn lies 3.) statistics Everyone has their 'statistics'. Made just for them.

Again, I see South Africa had a high literacy rate, but it is falling. Why?

Oh, so you're saying Africa is more literate than America. Ok. So what's the problem? If they are so smart, why are they such a cesspool?

Of course it is my opinion how black gangs should be handled. Your black black organizations haven't done shit. If black people don't want to be accused of standing in the way of police, then get the hell out of the way. But, no, they have to piss and moan and bitch about the police exercising too much force. The white man just got his knee on our necks.

The problem is there is no example, because no one is following the only way to solve the problem. Pretty self explanatory.

Lees

I hope I would have been brave enough in those times to have been a lawbreaker like Harriet Tubman, or in later times like Rosa Parks or Desmond Tutu.

And the South was justified? Did they poll the slaves in the South before their decisions to secede?

 

[FaithB]

Ok. What trauma? From when?

I believe the trauma of today is self inflicted because they would rather fight against the 'white way' than to integrate themselves into the society that would help, and allow them to succeed.

Again. All the things I listed, which you quoted.

They succeeded fine without whites and without integration. Black Wall Street is one example. There are many, just read since Black life matters to you so much.

When groups of Black people succeeded, whites became jealous (read about it yourself) and the problem is the Black people were always hunted, murdered, raped, beaten, robbed of their own land and resources, by the USA government which is in place ONLY to keep whites on top. Whites have always had more legal rights over Black people's bodies, to this day 2025 still exists. That's why you have the videos of white women "I'm going to call the cops"....Lying because they know how it easy it is to get a Black person even a child killed in this country and they never need to prove anything

Any time groups of Black people succeeded without whites, their cities were burned, they were murdered for not giving their land to whites and so on. Look up white mobs burning successful Black cities with the help of the rest of the USA government
Also there's an extremely high amount of successful Black people, always have been. From geniuses like:
Daniel Hale Williams (1858-1931) who was: The first African American cardiologist who performed the first successful open-heart surgery. Founded the first interracial hospital, Provident Hospital and Training School. Created two hospital-based training programs for nursing.
To regular every day Black people succeeded online, just go look at some amazing businesses started by Black people and they make 6 and 7 figures, regular Black people, not just historical geniuses that changed the world.
Plus, all American music started from Black people. List goes on and on, too much to type, but this whole "Black people are not successful"...lol.
Like literally every one in the world from Trump to other world leaders use African-American Vernacular English to express themselves these days.

 

[FaithB]

Yet, dispite all that, they did quite well. Flash forward to today, they are allowed where every white person is, but they are doing poorly, what happened?

They doing bad because the white people they're " allowed" to be around, are themselves doing bad. Majority white rural areas depend on Medicaid, food stamps...and they have high obesity rates and high suicide rates. So why are whites doing bad?

I stole this from Dr. Stacey Patton

---Fox News talking points about Black-on-Black crime in cities like Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, Philly, etc., I want Y’all to start listing their crusty, collapsing, opioid-riddled wastelands. There's white dysfunction, racism, addiction, crime, illiteracy, and incest.
Y’all ready? Get your pens out . .
.
Salt Lake City, Utah – Meth, heroin, and white teen suicide rates

Portland, Oregon – This place is gentrified, homeless-filled, and teetering on the edge of an apocalypse.

Boise, Idaho – White nationalist recruiting ground with fentanyl overdoses.

Spokane, Washington – Meth trailers, missing teeth, and more white-on-white domestic violence than a Lifetime movie marathon.

Duluth, Minnesota – Here is a place where the snow is thick, the heroin is cheap, and the racism is politely passive-aggressive.

Youngstown, Ohio – Boarded-up buildings, drug dens, and enough despair to write ten Bruce Springsteen albums.

Morgantown, West Virginia – Meth labs, overdoses, and “Let’s Go Brandon” flags fluttering in the breeze of generational failure.

Springfield, Missouri – High crime, low hope, and a broken education system.

Erie, Pennsylvania – Think Detroit without culture or rhythm.

Billings, Montana, Fort Smith, Arkansas, Manchester, New Hampshire, Knoxville, Tennessee, Harlan County, Kentucky – Crime, meth, overdoses, and casual racism.
Grundy, Virginia – known for pill mills, poverty, and cousins who double as soulmates. Add to that: Pikeville, Kentucky and Logan, West Virginia. Paintsville, Kentucky – fentanyl, food stamps, and folks who still think Elvis is coming back.
Bluefield, and Elins, West Virginia –where everyone’s related, addicted, or both. Add Jackson County, Ohio, Hazard, Kentucky (the name fits), Clay County, Kentucky, Letcher County, Kentucky, Owsley County, Kentucky, and McDowell County, West Virginia – the most overdosed, underfunded, and inbred place east of the Mississippi.

 

[FaithB]

So? I don't mind the superiority of the white race. Blacks and minorities prove the superiortiy of the whtie race in trying to get to countries dominated by the white race. The NAACP awards white people who march to their drum. Better known as white dumbasses. Making the NAACP a black racist organization. It only awards what benefits it's black racist beliefs.

What's wrong with segragation and the superiority of the white race? Blacks and whites naturally segreagate when there are no laws to force them to do otherwise. Every creature separates to it's own kind.

I just told you. When you want to remove a peoples history, their flags, their monuments, their culture, you want to remove them. It is black racism against white Southern people, with the blessing of the Federal government. Which they know they can get away with it. I'm not misusing words, I'm using the words I want to say. I'm using words you don't like to hear.

No, the Confederate flag represents a people who no longer wanted to be part of the so called 'glorious union'. A people who seceded from that union. Who seceded because that which was protected by the Constitution, slavery, the Union would not acknowledge. The Southern States didn't have to change it's mind. They had the protection of the Constitution. they had the Supreme Court decision concerning Dred Scott. What they didn't have was the Union's willingness to obey the Constitution and law. So, who are the traitors? The South who obeyed the law. Or the North who considered the Constituton a covenant made with death and hell.

Remember the Lincoln Memorial. Why doesn't the NAACP go after it to tear it down. Lincoln was a white supremacist. Would you like some quotes? Would you like some 'data'? Blacks don't go after Lincoln because he is their great idol. He is the black Moses come down from the Mount with that Emancipation in his hand. Him and god freeing the black slaves. So much bullshit. Plus, the Federal government might not appreciate taking down Lincoln's memorial as he is the father of this nation now.

White Southern History is all about our struggle with the North. It's a shame you don't know your history.

Oh, black people are on an upward trajection? Is dat true? Hab you axed any of em? There are blacks who are on an upward trajectory. But it's not because they are black. It's because they have adopted the ways of Western Civilization, and turned to Chritianity, and have overcome their dark African roots.

Lees

Here's some of that white superiority for you. From Dr. Stacey Patton
---------

White supremacy doesn’t love your “master race”. White supremacy has NEVER loved white people. And it never will.

White supremacy seduces y’all. It uses you. It feeds you delusions of superiority. And when y’all are no longer useful, it DISCARDS YOU without batting an eyelash.
White supremacy doesn’t care if you’re white. It cares if you OBEY. And when you can’t produce, when you can’t serve, when your whiteness alone no longer guarantees power, it will eat y’all up with the same ferocity it has unleashed onto everyone else for centuries.

This racist capitalist machine was never built to save white people. It was built to weaponize you. To program you. And now that the machine is breaking down, it’s chewing through its own white foot soldiers. It’s sending you people into fentanyl graves, suicides, poverty wages, crumbling towns. And it keeps telling you the enemy is still Black and brown and foreign and Muslim and queer.

It will torch your farmland, bankrupt your family, collapse your hospitals, flood your cities, poison your children, and then sell you an American flag and a Bible and call it “FREE-DUM!” It will lie straight to your face and still tell you that this is “the greatest country in the world.”
You MAGATS think your whiteness is a shield? Nah, it’s a coffin that you’ve been climbing into generation after generation. Y’all don’t study history. Y’all don’t read. And you’re aggressively proud of that.

From the jump, this system never truly served you, it used you. Used you to steal land, catch slaves, break strikes, kill for coal companies, lynch for fear, vote against your own damn interests, and die in wars you didn’t start. Then they gave you people just enough power to make you feel better than Black folks and immigrants.
And now look at you MAGATS . . .

Hooked on opioids. Living in food deserts. Dying younger than your parents. Voting for an orange demon who flies past your trailer parks in private jets, promise you coal jobs that don’t exist, and laugh while your teeth fall out and your kids rot in underfunded schools.
Your American Dream is a myth wrapped in barbed wire and dipped in lead paint. And you dimwits are willing to let Trump burn the whole country down just so you can keep on pretending.

 

[FaithB]

75 years ago yes

this is 2025 in a society that screams fair and equal and has many laws against discrimination and yet, we also have laws that discriminate (DEI) and thankfully Trump has tried to end those. You CANNOT stop discrimination by discriminating against innocent people


you favor discrimination


I can't prove racism in 2025 against blacks - I CAN prove racism against whites.


you don't really want that though - I've proven it

anything you can think of that's black this or that and there isn't an equivalent white? that's racism. DEI? racism. Affirmative action ? Racism

anything that gives weight to black skin over white skin ? that makes it racist/discrimination - literally

you simply justify it

Racism can't exist without race. Want to get rid of imaginary racism against whites, then stop believing in race

 

[CLAX1911]

Racism can't exist without race.

Race is arbitrary and made up

Want to get rid of imaginary racism against whites, then stop believing in race

Happy to. It's fake anyway.

 

[FaithB]

Yes, I know. Because it would be called 'white'. Your explanation is just your black racist excuse. I can say the same about 'black history month'. It's just the same people who want to erase the white Southern peoples history from the social narrative.

Good, you agree slavery was not a 'Southern' thing. It was an American and European thing. Black slaves contributed to the labor which brought the wealth to the North and South. They did not contribute to the forming of governement or political systems in America. The slave being brought over from Africa was in no condition to contribute any thing but labor. It would be years of slavery among the West where they would be come civilized, and Christianized, before they would make a difference or contribution in government. And you can thank those evil slave holders for doing that for them.

Lees

Let's take a brief look at that white European Christian superiority from historian Dr. Patton
--------------

Genetic leftovers of America’s original trespassers. Your ancestors were this land’s first ILLEGALS.
Your ancestors showed up uninvited, unwashed, and unwanted, carrying plague breath and Puritan delusions, and planted flags like fools mistaking theft for destiny. Your ancestors really thought conquest was a birthright and not a crime scene.
The only immigration crisis this land ever had was the day Indigenous folks didn’t deport your ancestors. That was the original border breach. The failure to turn those rickety-ass ships around was humanity’s most expensive clerical error. And what did we get for it?

Genocide.
Slavery.
Environmental collapse.
Capitalism.

All of these are side effects of not checking that first batch of undocumented Europeans at the damn shoreline.
And just who were these illegals, eh?

Do you racists think your ancestors were royalty? Scholars? No! They were Europe’s WORST! Your ancestors were the runoff. The debtors, the zealots, the convicts, the beggars. Europe saw your ancestors as trash and dumped them here like toxic waste with muskets. And y’all been cosplaying as “founding fathers” ever since.

You racists love to forget THAT history.

Y’all like to pretend that your lineage glows with divine right. But your fairytale is just whitewashed poverty and exile. Your ancestors were so broke, dirty, and miserable that risking death across an ocean seemed like a better idea than staying put. And y’all got here and immediately started stealing shit. Stealing land, labor, resources, lives. Because that’s all your people knew how to do.

And when we remind you people of this history, ya’ll get quiet. Because you know good and well that your family tree has more in common with a wanted poster than a passport. Y’all don’t want to admit that if the same rules you apply to immigrants today had existed back then, y’all would have been fish food off the Atlantic coast.

And y’all CHOOSE to forget how your own people were seen when they got here: Dirty. Lazy. Drunk. Uncivilized. Untrustworthy. Y’all weren’t even considered “white” by Anglo standards. Lest we forget how y’all were depicted:

The Irish? Y’all were barely considered human. Just basically whiskey with legs.
The Italians? Every one of you was either baking bread or running the mafia.
The Jews? Y’all were the shadowy subversives secretly running the banks and the weather.
The Germans? Ticking time bombs with bratwurst breath.
The Polish? Just dumb as hell. “How many Poles does it take” wasn’t just a joke, it was policy.
The Greeks? Lazy philosophers with too many opinions and not enough deodorant.
The Russians? Cold, scheming, and apparently born with a bottle of vodka in one hand and a spy manual in the other.
The Hungarians? Anarchists with thick accents and questionable hygiene.
The French? Snooty, soft, and always losing wars they started. The Scandinavians?
Too quiet, too blonde, and always assumed to be harboring Viking rage just under the surface.

The whole damn European immigrant family was treated like the trash heap of the continent. Your great-grandparents were treated like vermin until whiteness was extended to them like a membership card with conditions. And now y’all have the gall to turn around, mouths frothing, and cheer when ICE snatches up and cages brown bodies.
You are the descendants of stowaways and squatters, and yet you dare to moralize about legality.

Before y’all come for people chasing safety, education, or survival, maybe reflect on the fact that your whole existence here rests on nothing but Indigenous mercy and centuries of theft.

 

[CLAX1911]

Let's take a brief look at that white European Christian superiority from historian Dr. Patton
--------------

Genetic leftovers of America’s original trespassers. Your ancestors were this land’s first ILLEGALS.
Your ancestors showed up uninvited, unwashed, and unwanted, carrying plague breath and Puritan delusions, and planted flags like fools mistaking theft for destiny. Your ancestors really thought conquest was a birthright and not a crime scene.
The only immigration crisis this land ever had was the day Indigenous folks didn’t deport your ancestors. That was the original border breach. The failure to turn those rickety-ass ships around was humanity’s most expensive clerical error. And what did we get for it?

Genocide.
Slavery.
Environmental collapse.
Capitalism.

All of these are side effects of not checking that first batch of undocumented Europeans at the damn shoreline.
And just who were these illegals, eh?

Do you racists think your ancestors were royalty? Scholars? No! They were Europe’s WORST! Your ancestors were the runoff. The debtors, the zealots, the convicts, the beggars. Europe saw your ancestors as trash and dumped them here like toxic waste with muskets. And y’all been cosplaying as “founding fathers” ever since.

You racists love to forget THAT history.

Y’all like to pretend that your lineage glows with divine right. But your fairytale is just whitewashed poverty and exile. Your ancestors were so broke, dirty, and miserable that risking death across an ocean seemed like a better idea than staying put. And y’all got here and immediately started stealing shit. Stealing land, labor, resources, lives. Because that’s all your people knew how to do.

And when we remind you people of this history, ya’ll get quiet. Because you know good and well that your family tree has more in common with a wanted poster than a passport. Y’all don’t want to admit that if the same rules you apply to immigrants today had existed back then, y’all would have been fish food off the Atlantic coast.

And y’all CHOOSE to forget how your own people were seen when they got here: Dirty. Lazy. Drunk. Uncivilized. Untrustworthy. Y’all weren’t even considered “white” by Anglo standards. Lest we forget how y’all were depicted:

The Irish? Y’all were barely considered human. Just basically whiskey with legs.
The Italians? Every one of you was either baking bread or running the mafia.
The Jews? Y’all were the shadowy subversives secretly running the banks and the weather.
The Germans? Ticking time bombs with bratwurst breath.
The Polish? Just dumb as hell. “How many Poles does it take” wasn’t just a joke, it was policy.
The Greeks? Lazy philosophers with too many opinions and not enough deodorant.
The Russians? Cold, scheming, and apparently born with a bottle of vodka in one hand and a spy manual in the other.
The Hungarians? Anarchists with thick accents and questionable hygiene.
The French? Snooty, soft, and always losing wars they started. The Scandinavians?
Too quiet, too blonde, and always assumed to be harboring Viking rage just under the surface.

The whole damn European immigrant family was treated like the trash heap of the continent. Your great-grandparents were treated like vermin until whiteness was extended to them like a membership card with conditions. And now y’all have the gall to turn around, mouths frothing, and cheer when ICE snatches up and cages brown bodies.

Mostly gangsters and criminals. It's not okay to be a criminal

You are the descendants of stowaways and squatters,

And?

and yet you dare to moralize about legality.

Yep. It's easy.

Before y’all come for people chasing safety, education, or survival, maybe reflect on the fact that your whole existence here rests on nothing but Indigenous mercy and centuries of theft.

ICE is mostly going after criminals. They aren't chasing safety education and survival they are seeking victims.

I hope ICE succeeds

 

[FaithB]

Race is arbitrary and made up

Happy to. It's fake anyway.

Exactly