Happy St Patty's Day (and why it is not the white man's fault)

[cinna_man]

I've seen this enough on this forum...

If you go back to Britain about 2000 years ago, the land was ruled by tribes. Long hair, wife sharing, bloody skirmishes, etc the whole lot. The Romans came in initially, and they easily divided the tribes and conquered them. They even brought British slaves back to Rome. The Romans came back with more troops, but this time, the Brits were more organized. They fought savagely for their homeland until the Roman emperor gave up and built a wall. We're talking about Rome at the height of their power being unable to defeat savages with lesser technology, lesser agricultural abilities, less everything. The Scottish Highlanders in particular are or were considered some the most savage beasts on the planet. Think 6'3" 300 NFL linemen who grew up in a warrior culture. Now imagine thousands of them. The Roman empire made it about halfway up England before this wall was built, and they transformed the local society. Everything advanced: plumbing, agriculture, architecture (Britains built huts previously), trade, on and on.

Now skip forward to about 600 AD. Rome falls. With it, falls basically all of the civilized progress in Britain. Roads, trade networks, trades themselves like pottery and glass, etc. Everything basically falls as the people revert to a more tribal lifestyle again. Now, here comes the first of three more invasions of Britain. The Germanic Angles and Jutes, also tribal societies, invade Britain for it's land and resources. Lower England, being used to civilized life by now and inhabited by aristocrats, doesn't stand a chance against these new barbarians. A few people from lower Roman England escaped the pillaging. One was named Patrick. He introduced Roman Catholicism to Ireland once he got there, and he is now called "St. Patrick". (this was my inspiration for this thread)

To speed through the rest, two more major invasions happen: the Normans (another Germanic tribe) and the Vikings (well known Scandanavian tribe). Britain goes on to develop the world's best economy which leads to their massive British Empire (it wasn't the other way around). And elsewhere in Europe, similar invasions and dominations occurred leading to a mostly homogeneous lifestyle across Europe. And starting about 500 years ago, they made contact with Africa, got some slaves, and brought them all over the world where Europeans had dominated, but America more than anywhere else.

So what the hell am I getting at? I just wanted you all to see the constants behind these cultures and how modern circumstances came to be. The constant was not a single race of people; there were many. The constant was an idea of ownership. Natives everywhere, including ancient Britain, fought their ass off against this idea. Eventually, the bug infected its host deeper and deeper, like cancer, until it's host was no longer recognizable. So, it really wasn't the white man's fault. It was the bug that made the difference.

Now, I am not a pure Marxist, Socialist, Anarchist, Tribalist, etc either. This bug, while destructive, eventually led to the greatest achievements in humanity's history (basically all of modern science began in the 1500s). This puts us in a weirder situation because we have to appreciate that this entire sequence of events happened, even though tribal societies around the world were destroyed (including the large demographic on a hip hop forum, Africans) as collateral damage.

If you're poor and fukked, I understand how that appreciation is a bit tougher to feel.

And if you're African, I understand how you can feel bitter. Just remember that we all got fukked.

Plus now, no one from the past is around, neither the fukkers nor the fukkees. Everyone is under the same law and things are fair on the surface. Things are even genetically almost identical (see my post here on that discussion: http://www.thecoli.com/threads/is-g...-just-a-pipe-dream.196298/page-2#post-7643308).

Beneath all that, we have a difference in cultural values that leads to a lack of communication and a lack of assimilation. Look at every recently-tribal race: the Native North Americans, the Native South Americans, and the Australian Aborigines for instance. How are they doing? Been to a "rez" lately in America? Want to visit Venezuela any time soon? Are there many wealthy Aborigines out in Australia?? This is what separates African people from most other races in America. Yes, we have a variety of European ancestry and a variety of Asian (from Japan to China to India), but they are all thriving and get along together because their social morals come from centuries of civilization. A lot of Africans (not all of course) are fairly new to it all, so their morals are still somewhat tribal. So are the Native Americans, so are the Mexicans, so are the Venezuelans, so are the Australian Aborigines. They're resisting the bug, like we all did. Plus, 150 (end of slavery) to 50 (end of segregation) years is nothing on the scale that we are talking about here. Give things another 100 to 500 years (still nothing on the scale of human existence), and the cultures will merge, and any previous benefits that particular races had will disappear.

 

[Yuzo]

and the cultures will merge

will they though?

 

[cinna_man]

will they though?

Look at history. Any time you have cultures next to each other, they borrow and blend. The only obstacles are things like distance, mountains, rivers, oceans, politics, economics, and ultimately, time. I think modern economics, however unequal, promote even a certain level of worldwide homogeneity eventually. The internet allows everyone to communicate, no matter what.

 

[Yuzo]

thats an overstatement. whites can always pass for white among other whites. many asians can pass as any kind of asian among other asians. these groups have very little trouble passing despite any underlying discreet cultural differences ie jews have very different culture but can pass as white at any time with zero difficulty, vietnamese can pass as chinese, filipino, laotian, thai, mongolian, indonesian etc with virtually no difficulty as they are all in fact sharing a lot of the same genes. so even though these are many different groups and cultures, they all share in the ability to visually verify genetic similarities with each other, which promote empathetic bonds and altruistic behaviors. the ability to identify genetic similarity is crucial to pro social behavior not just in humans but in all social animals. in nature, this is law.

you have to explain why you think whites and asians will suddenly want to reproduce with blacks and vice versa. more likely, black people will just get pushed out of a society that simply cant identify with blackness the way dark skin mexicans are pushed to the outskirts of mexican society in favor of white looking mexicans like canelo alvarez. the same is true in asia where the whiter you are the higher in status you are percieved. your examples about aborignals being pushed to the outskirts of australian society back this up as well as skin bleaching epidemics and the prefrence of lighter skin over dark skin in general in all societies. you call this worldwide homogeneity?

 

[50CentStan]

Britan developed the worlds strongest economy by stealing resources from Africa, India, and China. /thread

 

[the cac mamba]

Britan developed the worlds strongest economy by stealing resources from Africa, India, and China. /thread

dont forget america

 

[Yuzo]

A lot of Africans (not all of course) are fairly new to it all, so their morals are still somewhat tribal.

its sounds like what youre advocating are civilizing missions and the white mans burden to civilize the various savages of the world by exposing them to more white civilization and culture; that blacks will finally be uplifted when they integrate into larger white society and culture and problems of the black community are attributable to not having acclimated themselves to "civilization" enough yet. your solution being to give them maybe 500 more years time to do this.

this all assumes that whites even want to have blacks in their society at all. maybe blacks should advocate skin lightening programs or the old creole dogma to help acclimate more to white culture and civilization and then it will shave some waiting time off your 500 years trajectory

 

[godkiller]

And starting about 500 years ago, they made contact with Africa, got some slaves, and brought them all over the world where Europeans had dominated, but America more than anywhere else.

I don't know why you felt the need to talk about Europe's history. Nothing about it justifies cac transgression's. The only relevant part of all the information in this paragraph is when the cac leaned on non-whites ad began his march of genocide, slavery and chaos, for which consequent disdain is well earned and well deserved. The Europeans "came to dominate" through genocide and propaganda, nothing to brush aside, celebrate or rationalize.

So what the hell am I getting at?

Yes, just what the fukk are you talking about?

I just wanted you all to see the constants behind these cultures and how modern circumstances came to be. The constant was not a single race of people; there were many. The constant was an idea of ownership. Natives everywhere, including ancient Britain, fought their ass off against this idea. Eventually, the bug infected its host deeper and deeper, like cancer, until it's host was no longer recognizable. So, it really wasn't the white man's fault. It was the bug that made the difference.

To say the white man is not at fault is to take away his agency. It is to say he did not make the decisions he did and that someone or something else made those decisions for him. The truth is that the white man made every choice willingly and consciously. There was no "bug" but the white man's own sense of supremacy, paternalism and twisted moral reckoning.The cac's willingness to cross moral boundaries to get and maintain power is entirely his fault. And his willingness to change is/was to his virtue.

Now, I am not a pure Marxist, Socialist, Anarchist, Tribalist, etc either. This bug, while destructive, eventually led to the greatest achievements in humanity's history (basically all of modern science began in the 1500s). This puts us in a weirder situation because we have to appreciate that this entire sequence of events happened, even though tribal societies around the world were destroyed (including the large demographic on a hip hop forum, Africans) as collateral damage.

No, it appears you are a white racialist. Let me explain: this is the cac's mindset.You believe the cac's so-called achievements, his hubris, has more importance than the "tribal societies"--in other words, savages--that were wiped out or enslaved or both for the white man's gain. Somehow the cac believes non-white people are willing to listen to this white supremacist diatribe which denigrates and dehumanizes non-white people What the cac doesn't realize is that he is tribal too, and that his tribalism is what led him to the atrocities he committed. What the cac doesn't realize is that as much he would be willing to die for his country, so too would everybody else. You say cacs are different now, but these re the same twisted, myopic justifications cacs have used to justify wrongs for a millenia. It seems that at base cacs have not changed, only their circumstances.

Plus now, no one from the past is around, neither the fukkers nor the fukkees. Everyone is under the same law and things are fair on the surface. Things are even genetically almost identical (see my post here on that discussion: http://www.thecoli.com/threads/is-g...-just-a-pipe-dream.196298/page-2#post-7643308).

The last time I checked, the old Americans created a society where certain

Beneath all that, we have a difference in cultural values that leads to a lack of communication and a lack of assimilation. Look at every recently-tribal race: the Native North Americans, the Native South Americans, and the Australian Aborigines for instance. How are they doing? Been to a "rez" lately in America? Want to visit Venezuela any time soon? Are there many wealthy Aborigines out in Australia?? This is what separates African people from most other races in America. Yes, we have a variety of European ancestry and a variety of Asian (from Japan to China to India), but they are all thriving and get along together because their social morals come from centuries of civilization. A lot of Africans (not all of course) are fairly new to it all, so their morals are still somewhat tribal. So are the Native Americans, so are the Mexicans, so are the Venezuelans, so are the Australian Aborigines. They're resisting the bug, like we all did. Plus, 150 (end of slavery) to 50 (end of segregation) years is nothing on the scale that we are talking about here. Give things another 100 to 500 years (still nothing on the scale of human existence), and the cultures will merge, and any previous benefits that particular races had will disappear.

First, no non-white person should to change his culture, language or customs to suit cacs. That's absurd. Second, there was more wrong with the cacs were the ones who destroyed the Natives and Aborigines than the "tribal" Naives and Aborigines themselves. For all intents and purposes these groups don't even exist -- and the fault for their condition lies squarely on the shoulders of the "superior, non-tThere was nothing inherently wrong with how teh Natives and Aborigines operated; there was something inherently wrong in the genocide of their respective peoples by the demonic cac.

 

[godkiller]

its sounds like what youre advocating are civilizing missions and the white mans burden to civilize the various savages of the world by exposing them to more white civilization and culture; that blacks will finally be uplifted when they integrate into larger white society and culture and problems of the black community are attributable to not having acclimated themselves to "civilization" enough yet. your solution being to give them maybe 500 more years time to do this.

this all assumes that whites even want to have blacks in their society at all. maybe blacks should advocate skin lightening programs or the old creole dogma to help acclimate more to white culture and civilization and then it will shave some waiting time off your 500 years trajectory

Exactly. @cinna_man 's views are racist. He is spouting typical white paternalism arguments:

White paternalism is the belief that whites know what is best for people of other races, viewing them pretty much as overgrown children. It is racist since it assumes that whites know better than other races.

Examples:

• white man’s burden – the duty of whites to help the lesser races. Used in the early 1900s to excuse imperialism.
• white saviour films – where a white hero saves people of colour. “The Blind Side” (2009), “Dangerous Minds” (1995), etc
• Western imperialism – which seeks not just control of land, trade and taxes like most empires, but goes beyond that to remaking subjects in its own image – Westernization.
• American and Australian policy on natives – separating children from their parents to make them white; controlling what little land they have left.
• white allies – when they go beyond merely helping anti-racist causes to telling people of colour what to do, trying to take over.

White paternalists love to:

1. Point out the success of whites and the failures of blacks – Mugabe, Detroit, white inventions.
2. See blacks screw up or act like fools.
3. Talk down to blacks.
4. Tell blacks that they treat them better than anyone else would.
5. Tell blacks, in so many words, that they “saved” them from Africa.

White paternalists hate it when:

1. Blacks are not grateful to them. <-- this is basically @cinna_man 's issue with the Coli, that's why he says he's "seen enough of this forum"
2. Blacks get angry or say anything bad about whites. <-- this is basically @cinna_man 's issue with the Coli, that's why he says he's "seen enough of this forum"

You see that not just from white commenters on this blog, you see it in how they show blacks on American television. Black crime. Black buffoons. Black pathologies. Screwed-up or helpless black countries.

White paternalists do not see:

• Their failed record at handling the affairs of people of colour:genocide, slavery, Jim Crow, apartheid, taking their land, taking their children, screwing up their countries – Vietnam, El Salvador, Chile, Gaza, Congo and on and on. They do not see that the most successful non-white country was one of the few countries they were not able to screw up: Japan, which shut out the West for hundreds of years.
• That much of their “success” was based on screwing up the very people they are now supposedly trying to “help”. America was built on Indian land and black slave labour. The West was built on robbing the world through the Spanish, Portuguese, French and British empires. They do not see that they got to where they are through the barrel of a gun. They think it was through “values” or “institutions” or culture or genes. @50CentStan said this
• That just as whites know what is in their own best interest, so do blacks and Indians and Vietnamese and everyone else. There is nothing special about white people. They point to Mugabe but not to Hitler or Stalin. They point to the black illegitimacy rate when it went over 20%, but not to the white illegitimacy rate when it went over 20%. They point to black street crime but not to Wall Street crime. Etc.

Whites say, “Where would you be without us?” Wrong: where would they be without us!

 

[cinna_man]

@Roddy Right : I have as much a right as anyone to talk about racial issues. You don't have to be black to talk about black poverty...

Let's create a new term: black isolationists. You are a black isolationist because no matter what topic is discussed and how it is framed, you find a way to polarize it so that everyone is against you and your race.

 

[cinna_man]

@Roddy Right : One of the reasons I gave a bit of a history lesson was because it was St Patty's Day, and I was explaining how that day came to be.

Yes, I believe that the technology that humans have created in the past 500 years and the scientific knowledge we've gained is remarkable. If you don't think that, then I don't know what to tell you.

I have a lot of respect for tribal ways of life. You must have missed that as your black isolationist mindset kicked on.

 

[godkiller]

@Roddy Right : I have as much a right as anyone to talk about racial issues. You don't have to be black to talk about black poverty...

Let's create a new term: black isolationists. You are a black isolationist because no matter what topic is discussed and how it is framed, you find a way to polarize it so that everyone is against you and your race.

Anyone can talk about whatever you like, I never said you can't talk about racial issues. You spoke about them, brought up your racist views and I've summarily dismissed them. I never said you can't talk about black poverty either, but that's not the topic here so I don't know why you bring it up. I doubt you have anything noteworthy to add about black poverty but I digress. I adamantly oppose white paternalism, properly attribute crimes against non-white humanity to white culprits and advocate non-whites doing whatever is in their best interest. Your entire post is about race and is polarizing as such so why you are surprised at my response is beyond me. However the term black "isolationist" is incorrect. I am not against international trading and commerce. I will not stand idly by and let cacs denigrate and dehumanize non-whites, call them savages and advocate racist bullshyt.

 

[cinna_man]

One is not a "black isolationist" because they oppose white paternalism and attribute the white nation's crimes to those white nations.

One is a black isolationist when you attribute all the blame for your current situations on a particular race.
One is a black isolationist when you label an entire race as bad.
One is a black isolationist when you refuse to see any good in any other races or at least one other race specifically.
One is a black isolationist when you refuse to accept compliments or friendship because you automatically perceive these actions as slights.
One is a black isolationist when you think your own race is the only one capable of discussing issues involving your race.

shyt, why am I even using the term black isolationist? You're just a racist.

 

[cinna_man]

I will not stand idly by and let cacs denigrate and dehumanize non-whites, call them savages and advocate racist bullshyt.

Being a savage is not such a bad thing. I'm not advocating everyone fall in line like a sheep to the powers that be. I'm on a hip hop board. Do you REALLY think I don't like black culture? Do you REALLY think I'm de-humanizing blacks by saying that the culture needs to not be so isolationist, in other words, it needs to make it's culture part of the public domain? See, what you're trying to do is privatize membership into this club. I've already accepted some of your values by coming your direction... you're the one who refuses to come my direction as well.

 

[godkiller]

@Roddy Right : One of the reasons I gave a bit of a history lesson was because it was St Patty's Day, and I was explaining how that day came to be.

The crux of your post literally had nothing to do with St. Patrick's Day. You are either lying or stupid.

Yes, I believe that the technology that humans have created in the past 500 years and the scientific knowledge we've gained is remarkable. If you don't think that, then I don't know what to tell you.

I never said scientific progress was not remarkable. I said that it is absurd that racist cacs like yourself believe that wiping out non-whites in order to pursue cacs' machinations is an OK thing to do. That's insane racism and exactly the mindset cacs used to commit atrocities against non-whites.

If every time a black man submits a patent, would you be OK with someone killing one of your family members? Wiping out a cac country? Of course not. Cacs are hypocritical baby raping demons that primarily see themselves as the only ones deserving of humanity.

I have a lot of respect for tribal ways of life. You must have missed that as your black isolationist mindset kicked on.

I responded to your points as you put them. You impled "tribal peoples" need "fixing" by whites. You basically said every non-white except Asians are savages, while cacs are not (I guess murder, land stealing, thievery, and teh like are not the hallmarks of a savage being), and it was justifiable to wipe out non-whites for cacs to pursue their interests. It should be noted that you seem to imply cacs are the ones who can arbitrarily determine who can victimized and who can't based on some arbitrary measure of whom cacs think is worthy (i.e. Asians are worthy; Natives and blacks are not). You imply non-whites should kneel to cacs as superiors and accept cac's "gifts" of civilization. You brush aside white atrocity and inhumanity. You have a white paternalistic view, which is basically just white supremacy cloaked in "I know what's best for you and trying to help you" qualifications. I don't know what a "black isolationist" is, and don't think it's a real term, but you're a white racist and that's a real term. If you mean I'm pro-minority and against cac demony, then yes, that is what I am.