A question to anti racists who believe minorities are "held back" by whites.

[Starr]

I am addressing this mostly be people like Kamandi since there are other people here who consider themselves to be anti racist who do not necessarily take the view that minorities are held back by widespread discrimination. Kamandi has talked about, for example, unconscious racial attitudes of whites that affect how they deal with and treat blacks.

If blacks and others have been robbed of their self esteem by living in a racist white society.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24076709#24076709 If they are routinely discriminated against by whites resulting in all kinds of problems in their lives and ability to provide for themselves, what is the problem with bringing an end to this with racial separation? would not blacks be better off no longer having to deal with these things in a society, perhaps populated and governed by blacks. A society also set up by and for blacks with their own rules, laws and standards? Why is this such an abhorrent idea to you when the alternative in your mind is for them to continue to exist in an "unjust" society where they continue to be discriminated against?

[Unicorn]

If they are routinely discriminated against by whites resulting in all kinds of problems in their lives and ability to provide for themselves, what is the problem with bringing an end to this with racial separation? would not blacks be better off no longer having to deal with these things in a society, perhaps populated and governed by blacks. A society also set up by and for blacks with their own rules, laws and standards? Why is this such an abhorrent idea to you when the alternative in your mind is for them to continue to exist in an "unjust" society where they continue to be discriminated against?
If the blacks really desired separation I would support that aim. However, American blacks consider themselves first and foremost Americans and want to be a part of the American society. America needs their labor and genius. Without black workers production in the factories in the South would stop.

Comrade Stalin considered the blacks a separate "nation" and encouraged the American blacks to secede but this idea proved to be a failure in practice. Later the leadership of the CPSU revised its view on the question and the results for phenomenal. The main reason the Civil Rights Movement succeeded in America was the generous support given by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Let's celebrate that achievement.

BTW, do you seriously believe that blacks would be better off in a "separate" society? Are the descendants of American slaves better off in Liberia than in the US?

[harjit]

I am addressing this mostly be people like Kamandi since there are other people here who consider themselves to be anti racist who do not necessarily take the view that minorities are held back by widespread discrimination. Kamandi has talked about, for example, unconscious racial attitudes of whites that affect how they deal with and treat blacks.

No doubt racism exists, among many people of both races.

However it's probably not the case that a capable and aspiring individual black is held down much. For every racist white there is probably another white who will be supportive of him simply for being black.

As for those antis who do believe that blacks are unfairly held down, I suspect their point is that blacks are fellow citizens and should have equal rights and equal opportunities, free of discrimination.

What complicates things is when blacks don't end up achieving the same results. I'm personally a believer in equality of opportunity but not as concerned with equality of outcome. It's inevitable that abilities of individuals are going to vary everywhere. If the average level between the races is different then so be it. It doesn't mean that progressive self-betterment is out of reach either, for each individual.

However there are many on the left who feel the need to rectify this collective racial imbalance and to do so they push for various privileges for blacks. Ironically this ends up violating the spirit of equality of opportunity and that of colour-blindness and, most damagingly, that of individualism.

[President Barbicane]

BTW, do you seriously believe that blacks would be better off in a "separate" society? Are the descendants of American slaves better off in Liberia than in the US?

No. In all likelihood blacks would not be better off in a separate society. You bring up an excellent point with Liberia. Liberians aren't any better off because they were freed and sent back to Africa; in fact they are considerably worse off.

This question, however, does not interest me. The question that interests me is: Would white people be better off if blacks were sent into their own nation? Given the greater crime rate of blacks, the greater welfare dependency of blacks, affirmative action, etc. it's clear to me that white people would be better off if blacks were sent to live in their own nation. Therefore I would encourage any organization which seeks for blacks to create their own nation separate from whites.

[Unicorn]

This question, however, does not interest me. The question that interests me is: Would white people be better off if blacks were sent into their own nation? Given the greater crime rate of blacks, the greater welfare dependency of blacks, affirmative action, etc. it's clear to me that white people would be better off if blacks were sent to live in their own nation. Therefore I would encourage any organization which seeks for blacks to create their own nation separate from whites.
Your confession allows me to make an important point. White Nationalists who claim that they are not racists and that separation would benefit blacks too are dishonest. White Nationalism is tantamount to White Supremacism.

[Starr]

Your confession allows me to make an important point. White Nationalists who claim that they are not racists and that separation would benefit blacks too are dishonest. White Nationalism is tantamount to White Supremacism.

In the very least, we have no need of blacks in our societies. The truth is, though, we would be better off without the problems that result from these people being in our societies. Is it a supremacist view to merely state an obvious? While I do, in all honesty, support self determination for all peoples on principle, my concern first and foremost is for whites, yes, just as blacks are concerned with blacks, mexicans are concerned with mexicans,etc,etc. White folks need not apologize for that. So I won't either, indirectly, by denying it. In all honesty, I do also believe that a people could be better off in a society by and for their own. A society more suited to who they are. What is "better" for certain peoples does not need to be judged on the basis of how much that society may or may not conform to a white westernized standard. That comes a bit closer to white supremacy, unicorn. And that kind of thinking has quite often resulted in an alien way of life being forced on people.


And my point in this thread is not really to say in my opinion that blacks would be better off, but to ask those who believe blacks are so oppressed and disciminated against in a white society, why they would not support ending that problem by allowing black americans the full self determination that would come with racial separation.

However, American blacks consider themselves first and foremost Americans and want to be a part of the American society.

Disagreed. Black americans consider themseslves, black first and foremost, and victims of american society.

[Count Sudoku]

Your confession allows me to make an important point. White Nationalists who claim that they are not racists and that separation would benefit blacks too are dishonest. White Nationalism is tantamount to White Supremacism.

So non-white countries that don't admit huge numbers of blacks are supremacist as well or is that honor reserved just for white people?

[Unicorn]

In the very least, we have no need of blacks in our societies.
America needs the labor and genius of blacks. Without them the society would not function. Blacks actually contribute relatively more to the American society than whites because they are more often workers who actually do the productive work while bourgeois whites just enjoy the fruits of their labor.

Even after the Civil War white Americans realized the obvious fact that blacks were benefiting the American society and did not send the former slaves to Africa.


The truth is, though, we would be better off without the problems that result from these people being in our societies. Is it a supremacist view to merely state an obvious?
Why do you advocate deporting all blacks anyway? You probably admit that at least some of them are productive members of the society.


Disagreed. Black americans consider themseslves, black first and foremost, and victims of american society.
Wrong. But I think we can agree that they want to be a part of the American society, not to found a separate nation.

[President Barbicane]

Blacks actually contribute relatively more to the American society than whites because they are more often workers who actually do the productive work while bourgeois whites just enjoy the fruits of their labor.


Interesting. What sort of productive work are you referring to?

[Unicorn]

Interesting. What sort of productive work are you referring to?
Factory work, for example. A greater percentage of blacks than whites belongs to the working class. Labour generates value.

[Dan Dare]

So non-white countries that don't admit huge numbers of blacks are supremacist as well or is that honor reserved just for white people?

It seems Unicorn is still mulling this one over.

[Unicorn]

So non-white countries that don't admit huge numbers of blacks are supremacist as well or is that honor reserved just for white people?
A false analogy. Starr wants to expel non-whites from America.

[President Barbicane]

I'm not convinced that white society needs black labor. It is true that blacks have a tendency to work in occupations considered more 'working class', but I don't think this is because blacks are more productive than whites would be in these occupations.

[Count Sudoku]

A false analogy. Starr wants to expel non-whites from America.

How did the Arabs treat their nigger slaves? Oh that's right, they killed or castrated all of them so their societies wouldn't be infected. What a bunch of fools. I suppose they aren't "racist" either.

[Unicorn]

How did the Arabs treat their nigger slaves? Oh that's right, they killed or castrated all of them so their societies weren't infected. What a bunch of fools. I suppose they aren't "racist" either.
Do you realize how terribly racist your words are?

[Count Sudoku]

Do you realize how terribly racist your words are?

Do you realize how terrible your anti racist bullshit is? It promotes the genocide of the white race so go fuck yourself.

[raven]

Notice how he side steps all the big questions. He must have learned well from Sensei Kamandi.

[Count Sudoku]

It's nice to have a legit anti to debate. Their position is so weak most will only "debate" on websites that will censor our best points.

[Count Sudoku]

I'm not convinced that white society needs black labor. It is true that blacks have a tendency to work in occupations considered more 'working class', but I don't think this is because blacks are more productive than whites would be in these occupations.

As Alex Linder said, blacks and browns have nothing to offer whites except bills and violence.

[Unicorn]

Do you realize how terrible your anti racist bullshit is? It promotes the genocide of the white race so go fuck yourself.
What genocide? Genocide in the generic sense means the mass killing of substantial numbers of human beings, when not in the course of military action against the military forces of an avowed enemy, under conditions of the essential defencelessness of the victim.

[Kamandi]

In the very least, we have no need of blacks in our societies.
Unless you don't want the economy to collapse.

[Count Sudoku]

What genocide? Genocide in the generic sense means the mass killing of substantial numbers of human beings, when not in the course of military action against the military forces of an avowed enemy, under conditions of the essential defencelessness of the victim.

Wrong again. Genocide does not necessarily entail killing anyone.

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/gendef.htm

Genocide: Definition and Controversies

Genocide Convention 1948

The definitional article included in the 1948 convention stipulates:

Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The critical element is the presence of an "intent to destroy", which can be either "in whole or in part", groups defined in terms of nationality, ethnicity, race or religion. Thus, the imposition of restrictions during the nineteen-sixties and seventies on reproduction in India, through forced sterilization in many instances, or the continuing restrictions in China, do not constitute genocidal policies as the intent is to restrict the size of groups, not to destroy existing groups in whole or in part. Policies implemented during the Third Reich respecting Jewish, Roma and Sinti groups, on the other hand, were quite clearly genocidal in terms of this article as there was a clearly stated policy indicating the presence of an intent to destroy them.. Members of all these groups were processed in extermination camps, were subjected to serious bodily and mental harm, and had conditions inflicted upon them intended to bring about their physical destruction, including starvation in ghettoes, and had measures applied to them intended to prevent births within the group (sterilization).

[Count Sudoku]

Unless you don't want the economy to collapse.

Right. What would we do with all those unemployed prison guards?

[IlluSionS667]

Just visit black Africa and judge for yourself whether these folks are being held back or just stupid or lazy. Friends of mine completely changed their minds when they actually lived among these African primitives ;)

[Unicorn]

Wrong again. Genocide does not necessarily entail killing anyone.
Many different definitions for genocide have been proposed. I used the definition given by Israel Charny.


Genocide: Definition and Controversies

Genocide Convention 1948

The definitional article included in the 1948 convention stipulates:

Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The critical element is the presence of an "intent to destroy", which can be either "in whole or in part", groups defined in terms of nationality, ethnicity, race or religion. Thus, the imposition of restrictions during the nineteen-sixties and seventies on reproduction in India, through forced sterilization in many instances, or the continuing restrictions in China, do not constitute genocidal policies as the intent is to restrict the size of groups, not to destroy existing groups in whole or in part. Policies implemented during the Third Reich respecting Jewish, Roma and Sinti groups, on the other hand, were quite clearly genocidal in terms of this article as there was a clearly stated policy indicating the presence of an intent to destroy them.. Members of all these groups were processed in extermination camps, were subjected to serious bodily and mental harm, and had conditions inflicted upon them intended to bring about their physical destruction, including starvation in ghettoes, and had measures applied to them intended to prevent births within the group (sterilization).
There is no "intent to destroy" whites.

[IlluSionS667]

There is no "intent to destroy" whites.

There isn't? Then what is the "Messianic age" all about?

[Germanic Ensemble]

Many different definitions for genocide have been proposed. I used the definition given by Israel Charny.


There is no "intent to destroy" whites.

You are living evidence of an intent to destroy Whites.

You promote miscegenation which in and of itself is an attempt to destroy Whites.

[IlluSionS667]

You are living evidence of an intent to destroy Whites.

You promote miscegenation which in and of itself is an attempt to destroy Whites.

That's not entirely correct. There are many people who support miscegenation and actually believe it's good for all of mankind (including whites). Neither the fact that such people exist nor the fact that they are large in number means anything. For an actual intent to destroy Whites to exist, we must look for the underlying reasons for this phenomenon and ask ourselves who benefits. That brings us to Torah and Talmud.

[Germanic Ensemble]

That's not entirely correct. There are many people who support miscegenation and actually believe it's good for all of mankind (including whites). Neither the fact that such people exist nor the fact that they are large in number means anything.

This guy, Unicorn, believes breeding with Negroes is beneficial to mankind.:tard:

For an actual intent to destroy Whites to exist, we must look for the underlying reasons for this phenomenon and ask ourselves who benefits. That brings us to Torah and Talmud.

Those Jews that genuinely wish to destroy Whites can go on doing so for all I care, at least they have a sense of identity.

[Death]

Secularism is a religion. One of its tenants is that power white males have to go and that in general every problem in the world is caused by white people. Get rid of white people and the world will be paradise.


I have posted this before but once more:

http://www.marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.htm


We will not need more people coming to the US looking for work. There are going to be millions of Americans out of work like there is now but multiply that by many more times.

[Death]

This guy, Unicorn, believes breeding with Negroes is beneficial to mankind.:tard:



Those Jews that genuinely wish to destroy Whites can go on doing so for all I care, at least they have a sense of identity.


It is beneficial to black people to mate with whites that is true.

[IlluSionS667]

This guy, Unicorn, believes breeding with Negroes is beneficial to mankind.:tard:

So? His stupidity does not imply intent to destroy whites.

Those Jews that genuinely wish to destroy Whites can go on doing so for all I care, at least they have a sense of identity.

It's because of those Jews and their Orwellian propaganda that people like this Unicorn guy think the way they do.

[Kamandi]

Right. What would we do with all those unemployed prison guards?
Wow - blacks are exclusively prison guards! And all the statistics indicate that they're key laborers in our manufacturing/industrial sector!

[Kriger]

Wow - blacks are exclusively prison guards! And all the statistics indicate that they're key laborers in our manufacturing/industrial sector!

All what statistics? The Bureau of Labor stats don't show anything like your allegation whatsoever. Where did you find your stats? Would you care to share your source?

[Kamandi]

Of the low-skilled labor market of 50 million workers total in the US, blacks made up about 20% or ten million.

http://www.urban.org/publications/409203.html

Hint: replacing ten million workers without massive immigration would be impossible and in the short term, the economy would collapse.

[Kriger]

Of the low-skilled labor market of 50 million workers total in the US, blacks made up about 20% or ten million.

http://www.urban.org/publications/409203.html

Hint: replacing ten million workers without massive immigration would be impossible and in the short term, the economy would collapse.

Heh. Yeah, right.

Well, no shortage of low-skilled labor in the US. Just need to get them away from living off their Welfare wimminz and put to work. Neither massive nor present immigration rates are necessary.

[Kamandi]

Welfare wimminz? Welfare has been time-limited workfare since the 90's.

[Kriger]

Welfare wimminz? Welfare has been time-limited workfare since the 90's.

Yes, and the black menz go from living off their Welfare wimminz to living off their now-working wimminz. Makes no difference to the black man, as long as the gurlfrens keeps the money coming in.

[Starr]

So? His stupidity does not imply intent to destroy whites.

.

not whites in particular, but the result taken to its conclusions would be the destruction of all races. In the least it comes very close to fitting the description. There is also the type of people who openly seek the destruction of white western culture, in particular. The kind of people who celebrate the thought of less white people in the world and even in our own nations. Some of the things that get said about whites if said about anyone else would be an outrage and would result in claims like incitement to hatred.

And we could talk all day about how whites have very much been inflicted with "mental harm" to the point where they have been stripped of all will to stand up for themselves. It is now considered evil for whites to even care about their own survival as a people or really to even look at themselves as a people. They face all kinds of social consequences including widespread demonization for expressing any kinds of hints that they do care about their own, specifically. Lets turn this idea around and imagine the response if this were happening with jews or blacks. What if someone told jews that concern about their people, specifically, was a great evil and the result of them talking about their concerns as a people would result in all kinds of extremely negative social consequences. That is incredibly sinister and there is a definite intent with all of this, again from the same kind of people who seek the destruction of white western culture.

They are also supposed to see less of them and more of others. ie, diversity, as a wonderful thing. And diversity is only ever said to be a good thing where whites are concerned. You will never hear anyone saying a town(or nation for that matter) has too many blacks or whoever else, but you hear that all of the time where whites are concerned.

[Kamandi]

Yes, and the black menz go from living off their Welfare wimminz to living off their now-working wimminz. Makes no difference to the black man, as long as the gurlfrens keeps the money coming in.
Sounds like a bunch of stereotypes to me.

[Kriger]

Sounds like a bunch of stereotypes to me.

Sounds like Afro-American culture to me. I'm learning it by visiting Afro-American websites. Quite an education.

[Unicorn]

not whites in particular, but the result taken to its conclusions would be the destruction of all races. In the least it comes very close to fitting the description. There is also the type of people who openly seek the destruction of white western culture, in particular. The kind of people who celebrate the thought of less white people in the world and even in our own nations.
Because racial tensions are a source of conflict I think it would be better if the the majority of the population was of mixed race. The problem of racism in the society would be largely eliminated. Although some white racists would still be around they would not have any power.


Some of the things that get said about whites if said about anyone else would be an outrage and would result in claims like incitement to hatred.

And we could talk all day about how whites have very much been inflicted with "mental harm" to the point where they have been stripped of all will to stand up for themselves. It is now considered evil for whites to even care about their own survival as a people or really to even look at themselves as a people. They face all kinds of social consequences including widespread demonization for expressing any kinds of hints that they do care about their own, specifically. Lets turn this idea around and imagine the response if this were happening with jews or blacks.
Very few blacks or Jews are racists who have concern for the "survival of their people". Racism by whites against non-whites is a big problem, however. This is because whites have power. For example, George W. Bush does not care about black people which was demonstrated after Hurricane Katrina.

What if someone told jews that concern about their people, specifically, was a great evil and the result of them talking about their concerns as a people would result in all kinds of extremely negative social consequences.
Jews have worries that intermarriage decreases the size of their religious community but it isn't racism. Many small religious communities have similar worries. I find this kind of thinking reactionary but not racist.

[Starr]

[QUOTE=Unicorn]Because racial tensions are a source of conflict I think it would be better if the the majority of the population was of mixed race. The problem of racism in the society would be largely eliminated. Although some white racists would still be around they would not have any power.

Since the racial mixture of people would be no where near uniform, racism would not be eliminated. Look at the racism that exists between more pure blacks and lighter more mixed blacks, as just one example. Do you think, also, for example, there would not be any tension or racism between Eurasians and mulattos or that the former group would not naturally rise to a higher place in society than the latter? The group on the low end of the latter will feel an animosity for the higher group and the higher group will look down upon the lower group. Those are just a couple of examples off the top of my head.


Very few blacks or Jews are racists who have concern for the "survival of their people". Racism by whites against non-whites is a big problem, however. This is because whites have power. For example, George W. Bush does not care about black people which was demonstrated after Hurricane Katrina.

Why do white concerns with the survival of their people have to aquire a negative label? Our concerns are as legitimate, if not more so, in these days, than other peoples. We live in a time where our percentages are dwindling. Where we will in not too long of a time become a minority in the united states. Where European cities are seeing a very significant rise in the number of alien peoples. People should be reacting to this. It is natural to be concerned with this. George W. Bush does not care about any people, surely not whites either. Everyone else is allowed to have leaders who do specifically care about their own people and politicians and others, also know that all other groups, with the exception of whites, have organizations, sometimes powerful ones that will speak for their people. This gives them power, we do not have. We have no voice in our own nations. We have no one to speak out against the rapid changes that are taking place in our nations which have been, and will continue to be very harmful for us. Whites are very much held to a different standard than others peoples in very significant ways. That is the real discimination we are dealing with today. Not to mention the only legal discimination that exists is against white males. And people justify that discimination all of the time. The idea that minorities are just so disciminated against is a joke considering the power many of their organizations wield, a power that is denied whites in every way. It is also practically a crime against humanity to even offend the precious darlings. If one of theirs gets into a conflict with whites, there will be all kinds of people on their side, with whites we have to stand alone.


Jews have worries that intermarriage decreases the size of their religious community but it isn't racism. Many small religious communities have similar worries. I find this kind of thinking reactionary but not racist.

An athiest with a jewish mother is no less a jew than a jew who happens to be a religious fundy. It definitely goes beyond religion, of course. Jews very much look at themselves as a people, an ethnic group, not just a religion. Their concern is with the interests and survival of that ethnic group.

[Count Sudoku]

Many different definitions for genocide have been proposed. I used the definition given by Israel Charny.

There is no "intent to destroy" whites.

It's the same definition I gave and when we know that bringing in millions of racial aliens will result in widespread miscegnation and a lower white birthrate it is genocide.

Furthermore, I don't give a shit what the "intent" was. There's no way to know for sure what the real intentions of people are anyway.

[Count Sudoku]

Wow - blacks are exclusively prison guards! And all the statistics indicate that they're key laborers in our manufacturing/industrial sector!

Fuck Kamandi your last two posts to me have been real fucking lame. Are you drunk or hungover? The unemployed prison guards would be a result of cutting our prison population in half. As for actual niggers who do work, they can easily be replaced. In some cases with monkeys.

[Count Sudoku]

Of the low-skilled labor market of 50 million workers total in the US, blacks made up about 20% or ten million.

http://www.urban.org/publications/409203.html

Hint: replacing ten million workers without massive immigration would be impossible and in the short term, the economy would collapse.

As if we were going to ship out ten million niggers in one day.

[Count Sudoku]

Because racial tensions are a source of conflict I think it would be better if the the majority of the population was of mixed race. The problem of racism in the society would be largely eliminated. Although some white racists would still be around they would not have any power.

Or we could just have racially separate countries but no, you prefer genocide. And this asshole considers himself morally superior to me.

Very few blacks or Jews are racists who have concern for the "survival of their people". Racism by whites against non-whites is a big problem, however. This is because whites have power. For example, George W. Bush does not care about black people which was demonstrated after Hurricane Katrina.

White racism is such a problem that non-whites will crawl through broken glass to live in racist white countries.

[Count Sudoku]

Sounds like Afro-American culture to me. I'm learning it by visiting Afro-American websites. Quite an education.

You should start a thread next time you come across some educational material on nigger websites.

[Unicorn]

Since the racial mixture of people would be no where near uniform, racism would not be eliminated. Look at the racism that exists between more pure blacks and lighter more mixed blacks, as just one example. Do you think, also, for example, there would not be any tension or racism between Eurasians and mulattos or that the former group would not naturally rise to a higher place in society than the latter? Those are just a couple of examples off the top of my head.
East Asians who are socioeconomically approximately at the same level as whites are rarely racist against black people. They don't have a tradition of racial prejudice like the whites and have not founded racist organizations in the US. Intraracial or interminority racism rarely motivates serious discrimination. Institutionalized racism by whites who are in a dominant position in the society is however a large problem.


Why are whites who have concern for the survival of their people racist? We live in a time where our percentages are dwindling. Where we will in not too long of a time become a minority in the united states. Where European cities are seeing a very significant rise in the number of alien peoples. People should be reacting to this. It is natural to be concerned with this. George W. Bush does not care about any people, surely not whites either. Everyone else is allowed to have leaders who do specifically care about their own people and politicians and others, also know that all other groups, with the exception of whites, have organizations, sometimes powerful ones that will speak for their people. This gives them power, we do not have. We have no voice in our own nations. We have no one to speak out against the rapid changes that are taking place in our nations which have been, and will continue to be very harmful for us. Whites are very much held to a different standard than others peoples in very significant ways. That is the real discimination we are dealing with today. Not to mention the only legal discimination that exists is against white males. And people justify that discimination all of the time. The idea that minorities are just so disciminated against is a joke when it is practically a crime against humanity to even offend them.
White people use the "survival of their people" as an excuse to promote a variety of reactionary policies. Some examples: discrimination in employment, cruelly banning interracial marriages and opposition to taking refugees who suffer as the result. At worst this kind of thinking leads to Fascism. That is why the society would be better off without white racists.


An athiest with a jewish mother is no less a jew than a jew who happens to be a religious fundy. It definitely goes beyond religion, of course. Jews very much look at themselves as a people, an ethnic group, not just a religion. Their concern is with the interests and survival of that ethnic group.
Jews have nothing against interracial marriages. They consider the children of a black father and a Jewish mother Jewish. They do not care about "race" and are not racist.

[Count Sudoku]

East Asians who are socioeconomically approximately at the same level as whites are rarely racist against black people.

Holy fuck. Boy do you have a lot to learn.

They don't have a tradition of racial prejudice like the whites and have not founded racist organizations in the US. Intraracial or interminority racism rarely motivates serious discrimination. Institutionalized racism by whites who are in a dominant position in the society is however a large problem.

My God are you brainwashed.

White people use the "survival of their people" as an excuse to promote a variety of reactionary policies.

You mean policies that all non-white countries have like not allowing huge numbers of racial aliens to immigrate?

Some examples: discrimination in employment,

Affrimative Action beneftis non-whites and hurts whites dodo.

cruelly banning interracial marriages

Unfortunately it isn't banned.

and opposition to taking refugees who suffer as the result.

We take in a shitload of refugees (way more than any non-white country) and most of them are bogus and most of them are a drain on us.

At worst this kind of thinking leads to Fascism. That is why the society would be better off without white racists.

http://whitakeronline.org/bobsmantra.htm

BOB'S MANTRA

"Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries."

"The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them."

"Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to "assimilate," i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites."

"What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?"

"How long would it take anyone to realize I'm not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?"

"And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn't object to this?"

"But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews."

"They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white."

"Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white."

Jews have nothing against interracial marriages.

Yeah, that's why that kike Douche a witz decries jews marrying out while complaining there aren't enough niggers fucking white women on TV.

They consider the children of a black father and a Jewish mother Jewish.

I guarantee most of them consider the children nigger mongrel bastards.

They do not care about "race" and are not racist.

Jews are the most racist people on the planet. I actually envy them in this regard.

[Starr]

There are plenty of article out there, even articles on this very forum that talk about how Ethiopian jews are supposedly discriminated against in Israel by other jews, unicorn.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3480010,00.html

If they don't want to live around them or deal with them, it is a pretty safe bet they absolutely would not want their sons or daughters marrying them.

I laugh, once again, on reading this choice of phrasing in the article:

Avi Maspin, a spokesman for IAEJ, said that "racism is a word that I have feared using until now, because I did not believe that it could exist in Israel in 2007, but the time has come to call a spade a spade. Israeli society is profoundly infected by racism and unfortunately there is no suitable punishment for racism in Israel."

[Count Sudoku]

There are plenty of article out there, even articles on this very forum that talk about how Ethiopian jews are supposedly discriminated against in Israel by other jews, unicorn.

There's plenty of articles out there that refutes every fucking thing he said in that last post of his.

[Unicorn]

There are plenty of article out there, even articles on this very forum that talk about how Ethiopian jews are supposedly discriminated against in Israel by other jews, unicorn.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3480010,00.html

If they don't want to live around them or deal with them, it is a pretty safe bet they absolutely would not want their sons or daughters marrying them.

I laugh, once again, on reading this choice of phrasing in the article:
I detest all forms of racism. Israeli racism against Arabs is an even more serious issue. It is good that leftists in Israel are taking a firm stand against racism which infects all Western societies.

However, you can't deny the contributions of Jews to the Civil Rights movement and general commitment to anti-racism. In fact, isn't that the reason you are an anti-Semite?

[Count Sudoku]

I detest all forms of racism. Israeli racism against Arabs is an even more serious issue. It is good that leftists in Israel are taking a firm stand against racism which infects all Western societies.

However, you can't deny the contributions of Jews to the Civil Rights movement and general commitment to anti-racism. In fact, isn't that the reason you are an anti-Semite?

We're anti-semites because most jews work to destroy our countries by promoting mass immigration of racial aliens and forced integration.

I do want to edit one of my previous comments. I'm not aware of any Asian KKK groups however Asians in general hate and despise blacks.

[Count Sudoku]

For Unicorn...

http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-Doc-Race&Groups-General/+Doc-Race&Groups-General-Hate&HateSpeech&MediaSpin/BonobosVsChimpsCulture.htm

Finally, the most controversial trait that has had very little public exposure is ethnocentrism. It is true that we toss around the label of "racism," but this term only confuses the issue of ethnocentrism and its evolutionary basis. Ethnocentrism is what causes groups to form ingroup/outgroup alliances, attitudes, ethnic hatred, and makes us act like our chimpanzee ancestors. And when minorities accuse others of racism, this is just a tool used in the ethnic warfare itself, not an appeal to put ethnocentrism aside by all parties. Ethnocentrism is the basis for war, wrapped in patriotism. It is the glue that holds gangs together, or for people to move away from neighborhoods where blacks are moving in. It is innate, real, and a powerful evolutionary strategy that to a great degree, modern culture has been able to keep in check by expanding resources and using forms of government to keep the peace between ethnic groups. Some countries are lucky enough to be ethnically homogeneou s so that ethnic rivalries are kept to a minimum. But even in Japan, a very homogeneous country, the Eta are an ethnically different and hated minority, that has remained genetically separate from the Japanese for thousands of years, even though they pose no threat to the dominant culture.

Do all ethnic groups have the same level of ethnocentrism? Clearly not, as most groups differ significantly on those traits that are selective in differing environments. And research has now shown that Northern Europeans score significantly lower on ethnocentrism than do most other population groups, and yet we are the very group that is accused of racism![2] How can this be? Well, it occurs for the very simple reason that individualist cultures, who are low in ethnocentrism and high on universal altruism (versus tribal altruism), are the very groups that can be easily intimidated and attacked by others. That is, it is the very nature of other highly ethnocentric groups to use labels like "racism" against Europeans because our nature is not to react adversely, but to try harder to help those in need. It is an advantageous strategy for the more highly ethnocentric groups in the United States to gain advantages against the majority; whether it is blacks, Asian Indians, Hispanics o r Ashkenazi Jews -- these highly ethnocentric groups can extract enormous political and monetary benefits from the majority. But can this continue?

Europeans can only be blamed for so much, and the excuses for other's failures can only take so long to correct, before whites realize that it is not racism that causes disparity but the levels of intelligence and innate abilities that each group has that determines success. The Ashkenazi Jews are far wealthier than the average white gentile, and blacks are much poorer, not because of racism but because of differences in average IQs. The shift to the right is a natural occurrence by a group that has been attacked for trying to help the oppressed, while those with political power and influence seek to undermine white culture by promoting immigration. After a point, there is a natural sense of rebellion and outrage felt by whites, as betrayal by less tolerant groups becomes too readily apparent. Thirty years ago, when the counter-culture of the sixties was preaching world peace and universal love, we were totally ignorant of our evolutionary past and our innate behaviors. Now, thanks to behavior genetics, evolutionary psychology, sociobiology, the Minnesota Twin studies, and a renewed interest in eugenics and human population differences, we are starting to get in touch with our real selves. And peace is not assured, where disparate groups live together but all want an equal share of the pie. We must be wary of political formulations that have ignored our primate past. Multiculturalism, diversity, cultural relativism, postmodernism, radical environmentalism, Marxism; these are all formulas for disaster because they all ignore who we really are.

[Kamandi]

As if we were going to ship out ten million niggers in one day.
Whether we eliminated the black population in one day or one year wouldn't make a difference.

[Count Sudoku]

Whether we eliminated the black population in one day or one year wouldn't make a difference.

If blacks magically disappeared all at once, there would be some economic disruption in the short term. In the medium and long term America would be way better off.

[Vissario]

If blacks magically disappeared all at once, there would be some economic disruption in the short term. In the medium and long term America would be way better off.

This is based on what, exactly? Please don't tell me polemics.

[Count Sudoku]

This is based on what, exactly? Please don't tell me polemics.

Based on the fact that blacks commit more crime, consume more resources and produce less of value to society per capita than whites (or anybody else for that matter).

[Kamandi]

No, the economy would instantly collapse, as would the nation.

[Helios Panoptes]

Whether we eliminated the black population in one day or one year wouldn't make a difference.

That is like saying there's no difference between one worker at a company dying per year and all of them dying simultaneously.

[Kamandi]

No, it's not: a single company is not an appropriate metaphor for the entire macroeconomy.

If 20% of the unskilled labor market, plus the percentages of the various other labor pools the 40 million or so blacks in the US comprise, disappeared in one year, catastrophe would occur.

It wouldn't bottom out as quickly as it would if they disappeared in a day, but it would be catastrophic nonetheless.

[Helios Panoptes]

No, it's not: a single company is not an appropriate metaphor for the entire macroeconomy.

If 20% of the unskilled labor market, plus the percentages of the various other labor pools the 40 million or so blacks in the US comprise, disappeared in one year, catastrophe would occur.

It wouldn't bottom out as quickly as it would if they disappeared in a day, but it would be catastrophic nonetheless.

Even if not one year, there is some amount of time that would allow for sufficient restructuring.

[harjit]

Even if not one year, there is some amount of time that would allow for sufficient restructuring.

I agree with this.

The problem is that during that period (which could be 10 years or so?) blacks would be extreme second-class citizens, destined for deportation. In my opinion that's not an option for a civilized society.

Better to just discourage the poor and less-educated from having more than one or (at the very most) two children through various initiatives to be sterilized. It would disproportionately impact blacks without being racist at face value.

[Starr]

Better to just discourage the poor and less-educated from having more than one or (at the very most) two children through various initiatives to be sterilized. It would disproportionately impact blacks without being racist at face value.

Funny, we have harjit thinking of ideas on how to decrease the black population.:222: Ways that sound somewhat similar to Margaret Sanger.

There was some kind of program in California where drug addicted women were being paid 200 dollars to allow themselves to be sterilized. It was disproportionately affecting minority, especially black women and was therefore being called racist. The implication, of course, is always that the whole purpose of something like this is to get minorities, in particular to breed less. For some people, racial disparities in any given scenario must mean there is some kind of deliberate attempt to harm minorities, or it is evidence of discrimination. they cannot or won't wrap their mind around any other ideas.

[harjit]

Funny, we have harjit thinking of ideas on how to decrease the black population.:222: Ways that sound somewhat similar to Margaret Sanger.

There was some kind of program in California where drug addicted women were being paid 200 dollars to allow themselves to be sterilized. It was disproportionately affecting minority, especially black women and was therefore being called racist. The implication, of course, is always that the whole purpose of something like this is to get minorities, in particular to breed less. For some people, racial disparities in any given scenario must mean there is some kind of deliberate attempt to harm minorities, or it is evidence of discrimination. they cannot or won't wrap their mind around any other ideas.

Poor / uneducated blacks (and possibly other non-white groups as well) seem to be much more problematic than whites at similar socio-economic levels. I can't argue that less of such people wouldn't be a good thing.

I realize it's not very humane to think in this way and I'm certainly not comfortable with it. Just recognizing the truth for what it is.

[raven]

No, it's not: a single company is not an appropriate metaphor for the entire macroeconomy.

If 20% of the unskilled labor market, plus the percentages of the various other labor pools the 40 million or so blacks in the US comprise, disappeared in one year, catastrophe would occur.

It wouldn't bottom out as quickly as it would if they disappeared in a day, but it would be catastrophic nonetheless.Unfortunately, there aren't enough Blacks employed in the unskilled labor market. (And it's unfortunate because this results in even more black delinquency) We have so many illegals employed in work but yet the unemployment rate among Blacks is like double that of whites. Maybe a bit more. Blacks have been short-changed by employers who are too cheap to hire black citizens and would rather hire illegal immigrants for dirt cheap. It's unfortunate that Blacks continue to side with the Democrats, who have no interest in dealing with illegal immigration to prevent depression of wages and further unemployment of citizens who do unskilled labour jobs. A candidate like Ralph Nader will not only give the socialist perks that blacks want but also penalize businesses that hire illegal immigrants to ensure that wages don't get depressed. If Negroes want to get off the plantation, they need to stop supporting their plantation owners (snobbish coastal liberal jewish and gentile intellectuals that make up the Democratic Party body. The same people Obama tried to suck up to in San Francisco.)

[Vissario]

Based on the fact that blacks commit more crime, consume more resources and produce less of value to society per capita than whites (or anybody else for that matter).

So you are telling me that, in the long run, if you expelled all of the black people in this country, white people would all line up to take the menial labor jobs they do at the same wages they earn? Frankly, that is ludicrous as the very reason black people were first imported to this country was primarily economic in nature. Ever since the first slaves hit the East Coast, the primary use of black people in the American economy has been menial labor at low costs and they continue to still be used as menial labor for low costs in the burgeoning service sector of our economy.

so tell me, Count Sudoku, if white people hypothetically do enter all of these jobs and demand wages higher than that of the average black person, what do you think that is going to do the economy in the long run?

[Kriger]

Restructuring of the wage scale will increase consumer spending in the economy. How will this negatively affect the economy?

[Count Sudoku]

So you are telling me that, in the long run, if you expelled all of the black people in this country, white people would all line up to take the menial labor jobs they do at the same wages they earn?

Maybe not. Maybe wages would have to rise. How does Japan manage? You don't see them importing millions of blacks.

Frankly, that is ludicrous as the very reason black people were first imported to this country was primarily economic in nature.

True.

Ever since the first slaves hit the East Coast, the primary use of black people in the American economy has been menial labor at low costs and they continue to still be used as menial labor for low costs in the burgeoning service sector of our economy.

We'll do what the Japanese do.

so tell me, Count Sudoku, if white people hypothetically do enter all of these jobs and demand wages higher than that of the average black person, what do you think that is going to do the economy in the long run?

That "cheap" labor is only cheap to business, not the taxpayer.

http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/tomatoes.html

Cheap Tomatoes

Gene Jackson

From a California school teacher...

As you listen to the news about the student protests over illegal immigration, there are some things that you should be aware of:

I am in charge of the English-as-a-second-language department at a large southern California high school which is designated a Title 1 school, meaning that its students average lower socioeconomic and income levels.

Most of the schools you are hearing about, South Gate High, Bell Gardens, Huntington Park, etc., where these students are protesting, are also Title 1 schools.

Title 1 schools are on the free breakfast and free lunch program. When I say free breakfast, I'm not talking a glass of milk and roll -- but a full breakfast and cereal bar with fruits and juices that would make a Marriott proud. The waste of this food is monumental, with trays and trays of it being dumped in the trash uneaten. (OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK)

I estimate that well over 50% of these students are obese or at least moderately overweight. About 75% or more DO have cell phones. The school also provides day care centers for the unwed teenage pregnant girls (some as young as 13) so they can attend class without the inconvenience of having to arrange for babysitters or having family watch their kids. (OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK)

I was ordered to spend $700,000 on my department or risk losing funding for the upcoming year even though there was little need for anything; my budget was already substantial. I ended up buying new computers for the computer learning center, half of which, one month later, have been carved with graffiti by the appreciative students who obviously feel humbled and grateful to have a free education in America. (OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK)

I have had to intervene several times for young and substitute teachers whose classes consist of many illegal immigrant students here in the country less then 3 months who raised so much hell with the female teachers, calling them "Putas" (whores) and throwing things that the teachers were in tears.

Free medical, free education, free food, day care etc., etc., etc. Is it any wonder they feel entitled to not only be in this country but to demand rights, privileges and entitlements?

To those who want to point out how much these illegal immigrants contribute to our society because they LIKE their gardener and housekeeper and they like to pay less for tomatoes: spend some time in the real world of illegal immigration and see the TRUE costs.

Higher insurance, medical facilities closing, higher medical costs, more crime, lower standards of education in our schools, overcrowding, new diseases etc., etc, etc. For me, I'll pay more for tomatoes.

We need to wake up. The guest worker program will be a disaster because we won't have the guts to enforce it.
Does anyone in their right mind really think they will voluntarily leave and return?

There are many hardworking Hispanic/American citizens that contribute to our country and many that I consider my true friends. We should encourage and accept those Hispanics who have done it the right and legal way.

It does, however, have everything to do with culture: A third-world culture that does not value education, that accepts children getting pregnant and dropping out of school by 15 and that refuses to assimilate, and an American culture that has become so weak and worried about "politically correct" that we don't have the will to do anything about it.

CHEAP LABOR?

Isn't that what the whole immigration issue is about?

Business doesn't want to pay a decent wage.

Consumers don't want expensive produce.

Government will tell you Americans don't want the jobs.

But the bottom line is cheap labor. The phrase "cheap labor" is a myth, a farce, and a lie. there is no such thing as "cheap labor."

Take, for example, an illegal alien with a wife and five children. He takes a job for $5.00 or $6.00/hour. At that wage, with six dependents, he pays no income tax, yet at the end of the year, if he files an Income Tax Return, he gets an "earned income credit" of up to $3,200 free.

He qualifies for Section 8 housing and subsidized rent.

He qualifies for food stamps.

He qualifies for free (no deductible, no co-pay) health care.

His children get free breakfasts and lunches at school.

He requires bilingual teachers and books.

He qualifies for relief from high energy bills.

If they are or become, aged, blind or disabled, they qualify for SSI. Once qualified for SSI they can qualify for Medicare.

All of this is at taxpayer's expense.

He doesn't worry about car insurance, life insurance, or homeowners insurance.

Taxpayers provide Spanish language signs, bulletins and printed material.

He and his family receive the equivalent of $20.00 to $30.00/hour in benefits.

Working Americans are lucky to have $5.00 or $6.00/hour left after paying their bills and his.

The American taxpayer's also pay for increased crime, graffiti and trash clean-up.

If this makes your blood boil, as it did mine, forward this to everyone you know.

Cheap labor? YEAH RIGHT! Wake up people!

[Vissario]

Maybe not. Maybe wages would have to rise. How does Japan manage? You don't see them importing millions of blacks.

Apples and oranges; different societies have different values.

That "cheap" labor is only cheap to business, not the taxpayer.

That is a "problem" associated with poor white people, too. Should we send them back to Europe, or something? Of course not, because your logic train only will go so far before it heads straight off of the rails.

How will this negatively affect the economy?

It strains the spending habits of the middle class; the sector of the economy which spends the most money on cars, dishwashers, T.V.s, and other consumer goods which in turn employ the middle class. Paying big bucks to Joe Schmo who makes your burger, though helpful to him, is detrimental to you.

[Count Sudoku]

Apples and oranges; different societies have different values.

The Japs aren't interested in money? Bullshit.

That is a "problem" associated with poor white people, too. Should we send them back to Europe, or something? Of course not, because your logic train only will go so far before it heads straight off of the rails.

We should sterilize the stuipd and lazy.

It strains the spending habits of the middle class; the sector of the economy which spends the most money on cars, dishwashers, T.V.s, and other consumer goods which in turn employ the middle class. Paying big bucks to Joe Schmo who makes your burger, though helpful to him, is detrimental to you.

Paying whatever the market will bear is what makes the most sense. Who cares if you can save a buck on your hamburger if you have to pay $10000 in taxes to support some wetback's 8 bastard kids?

[Kamandi]

Even if not one year, there is some amount of time that would allow for sufficient restructuring.
Like exporting out a significant proportion of the labor force for nothing in return?

I can't imagine how long it would and what social and economic changes would be required to pull that off without collapse.

For one, someone would have to replace them and their labor-power. It's hard to see how that could be possible.

[Count Sudoku]

Like exporting out a significant proportion of the labor force for nothing in return?

I can't imagine how long it would and what social and economic changes would be required to pull that off without collapse.

For one, someone would have to replace them and their labor-power. It's hard to see how that could be possible.

Let's donate all our cheap labor to Israel instead of sending money, military aid and military secrets which mysteriously show up in China soon after.

[Kriger]

It strains the spending habits of the middle class; the sector of the economy which spends the most money on cars, dishwashers, T.V.s, and other consumer goods which in turn employ the middle class. Paying big bucks to Joe Schmo who makes your burger, though helpful to him, is detrimental to you.

Who said anything about reducing wages of the working middle class but you?

When I speak of restructuring the wage scale, I am speaking of starting at the very top. Or do you think corporate ceo's etc should be immune from the restructuring? If you do, you are not only short-sighted, but lacking in the necessary mode of thought that produces solutions to problems as opposed to compounding them.

[Kamandi]

Let's donate all our cheap labor to Israel instead of sending money, military aid and military secrets which mysteriously show up in China soon after.
We won't have money or a military for long! :o

[Count Sudoku]

We won't have money or a military for long! :o

What are you talking about? Did the jews higher up on the food chain tell you they are going to finally pull the plug on America?

[Kamandi]

Hint: we need cheap laborers to sustain our economy and our nation's sovereignty, let alone build it.

[Count Sudoku]

Hint: we need cheap laborers to sustain our economy and our nation's sovereignty, let alone build it.

How do the Japs and Koreans manage such a high standard of living without blacks and browns?

[Kamandi]

Their extraordinary population density, large farming communities, and proximity to overpopulated preindustrial nations might be seen as factors.

[Death]

We won't have money or a military for long! :o



With friends like these...


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24256527

[harjit]

Maybe not. Maybe wages would have to rise. How does Japan manage? You don't see them importing millions of blacks.


True.


We'll do what the Japanese do.


I'm not sure you'd want to do that.

For that would mean letting me live in your country. And that's at least a dozen Afro-Carribeans' worth of TNB and chimp-outs.

[Count Sudoku]

I'm not sure you'd want to do that.

For that would mean letting me live in your country. And that's at least a dozen Afro-Carribeans' worth of TNB and chimp-outs.

If white countries had the level of foreign racial immigration as Japan does this board wouldn't even exist.

[Kamandi]

Or any other board, for that matter.

[Dan Dare]

How do the Japs and Koreans manage such a high standard of living without blacks and browns?

It's a conumdrum that Immigration Enthusiasts like Kamandi struggle to answer, because it's not just Japan and Korea that have managed that feat, but every other first world country as well. Blacks and browns were almost unknown in Europe until the 1950s.

The US is a special case in that it has had a black population since its inception, but I think it's generally held that the economic contribution of negroes historically has been extremely marginal.

The really strange thing is that at a when many western countries (and some Asian) are contemplating a post-industrial future as 'information-based' service economies we're constantly being hectored by the Kamandis about the crucial importance of importing yet more unskilled darkies.

[Kamandi]

The historical contribution of blacks to our blue-collar labor force has been 'minor'?

BWAAHAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

[Warka]

The historical contribution of blacks to our blue-collar labor force has been 'minor'?

Arguably, yes, at least if we're to consider industrialization. As most historians agree that the period in which the greatest economic and technological progress occurred was between the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 20th, according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_and_industrial_history_of_the_United_States), negroes contributed little aside from being employed in the rather narrow, for that period, field of agriculture as farm tools. They didn't enter the industrial work force in substantial numbers until Detroit's auto industry managers realized the benefits of a more malleable cheaper source of labor in the early-to-mid 20th century, thus, their overall contribution has indeed been quite minor.

[Count Sudoku]

Or any other board, for that matter.

There's a non-sequitir.

[Kamandi]

Arguably, yes, at least if we're to consider industrialization. As most historians agree that the period in which the greatest economic and technological progress occurred was between the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 20th, according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_and_industrial_history_of_the_United_States), negroes contributed little aside from being employed in the rather narrow, for that period, field of agriculture as farm tools. They didn't enter the industrial work force in substantial numbers until Detroit's auto industry managers realized the benefits of a more malleable cheaper source of labor in the early-to-mid 20th century, thus, their overall contribution has indeed been quite minor.
The idea that the contribution of blacks to agriculture prior to abolition is hilariously stupid. After the slaves were freed, the plantation system collapsed, because it couldn't survive losing the black contribution to the labor force.

And they're over-represented in our industrial labor force today.

[Warka]

The idea that the contribution of blacks to agriculture prior to abolition is hilariously stupid.

Would you care to assemble a statement that makes a bit of sense? Thanks.

[Kamandi]

There's a non-sequitir.
No, if non-whites were forcibly removed from our economy, a global economic catastrophe would be induced that the Internet could hardly survive.

[Kamandi]

Would you care to assemble a statement that makes a bit of sense? Thanks.
"Was minor" was supposed to be inserted into the sentence as an auxiliary verbal phrase, but, due to a typographical error, was hot

[harjit]

"Was minor" was supposed to be inserted into the sentence as the main verbal phrase, but, due to a typographical error, was hot
It's really not your day today, is it? :)

[Warka]

"Was minor" was supposed to be inserted into the sentence as the main verbal phrase, but, due to a typographical error, was hot

So, you meant to say the idea that the contribution of blacks to agriculture prior to abolition was minor is hilariously stupid.

I reply- who said it was minor? They were an indispensable factor, of course, but agricultural workers historically make up only a portion of the total blue-collar labor force, the original topic we're now discussing.

[Kamandi]

It's really not your day today, is it? :)
I'm kinda tired out from the last three days of Maha Yayga at the temple. My eyes are still bleary from the smoke.

[harjit]

I'm kinda tired out from the last three days of Maha Yayga at the temple. My eyes are still bleary from the smoke.
Wow, you're quite the maniacal Hindu. :)

I wonder how long they can continue to fall back on the "Jew" accusation around here.

[Dan Dare]

Arguably, yes, at least if we're to consider industrialization. As most historians agree that the period in which the greatest economic and technological progress occurred was between the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 20th, according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_and_industrial_history_of_the_United_States), negroes contributed little aside from being employed in the rather narrow, for that period, field of agriculture as farm tools. They didn't enter the industrial work force in substantial numbers until Detroit's auto industry managers realized the benefits of a more malleable cheaper source of labor in the early-to-mid 20th century, thus, their overall contribution has indeed been quite minor.

Quite so. And even their perceived utility as cheap, substitute labour in the auto industry didn't last for long. It's notable that all US auto manufacturers as well as every foreign manufacturer who have invested in new production facilities in the US in the past 30 years has situated those investments in areas where blacks are an insignificant fraction of the labour force.

[Warka]

Quite so. And even their perceived utility as cheap, substitute labour in the auto industry didn't last for long. It's notable that all US auto manufacturers as well as every foreign manufacturer who have invested in new production facilities in the US in the past 30 years has situated those investments in areas where blacks are an insignificant fraction of the labour force.

I have to disagree with you here, Dan. That malleable cheaper source of labor is still exploited today with, from what I understand, automakers, both domestic and foreign, building more new facilities in the South than any other region of the U.S. At least that's been the trend the past few decades. The South is, of course, home to America's greatest concentration of negroes.

[Dan Dare]

I have to disagree with you here, Dan. That malleable cheaper source of labor is still exploited today with, from what I understand, automakers, both domestic and foreign, building more new facilities in the South than any other region of the U.S. At least that's been the trend the past few decades. The South is, of course, home to America's greatest concentration of negroes.

Although I agree that the automakers, foreign and domestic, are still anxious to minimise their labour costs and so are not in any sense averse to a little exploitation, I think they've reached a collective understanding that building new auto assembly plants in the vicinity of major metropolitan areas, with their characteristic demographics, is not a winning strategy.

So yes, although, almost all new plants opened in the last thirty years have been in the south, they are all in semi-rural areas well away from the major cities where the negro lumpenproletariat tends to congregate.

This is certainly not accidental, in fact GM admitted as much when it opened its Saturn subsidiary in KY, as did Honda and Mazda vis-a-vis their plants in southern OH. Since then several others, including Mercedes and BMW have followed suit.

[Warka]

I see your point now. You may be right. I suppose one way to determine whether this is the case or not would be to examine the racial makeup of the employees at these newer plants compared to those located in the more traditional areas of Detroit, Toledo, etc. This leads me to wonder if such demographics are tracked by anyone.

[Kamandi]

They open up plants where land is cheap and available and commercial taxes are low, which isn't the case in the middle of cities any longer.

[Warka]

They open up plants where land is cheap and available and commercial taxes are low, which isn't the case in the middle of cities any longer.

Labor cost is also a factor Big Business considers. In fact, it may be the primary factor if we're to take industry reports at face value.

[Kamandi]

That's negotiated with the auto workers' unions no matter where they're operating. Hard to imagine they'd let them get off paying them less just because they're working in the suburbs.

[Count Sudoku]

No, if non-whites were forcibly removed from our economy, a global economic catastrophe would be induced that the Internet could hardly survive.

They shouldn't have been here in the first place in which case the interent might have got to us 10 years earlier.

[Dan Dare]

They open up plants where land is cheap and available and commercial taxes are low, which isn't the case in the middle of cities any longer.

That being the case, automakers should be flocking into places like Detroit and Cleveland.

[Kamandi]

If there was completely undeveloped land large enough to accommodate an auto factory so cheap that marginal rents would make moving out of their current digs economically worthwhile.

Which would wouldn't be true in either case, particularly if you factor in the costs of moving and hiring/training a new staff.