Black Nationalism (Split from Zimmerman Trial)

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

Post Reply
User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: Black Nationalism (Split from Zimmerman Trial)

Post by Thanas »

It is more than a bit racist to claim Jews exploited black people. It would be more accurate to claim that "some jews, like some whites" exploited black people.

Also, using phrases like "World Jewry" is pretty racist in itself.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
User avatar
Ritterin Sophia
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5496
Joined: 2006-07-25 09:32am

Re: Black Nationalism (Split from Zimmerman Trial)

Post by Ritterin Sophia »

That's still not a lot of support, at highest estimate the Muslim population is 7 million about a quarter of those are African-American so about 1.75 million. Rounding the African-American population up to a round even number of 39 million. That's only 4.5% of the black population. Assuming your desire to see black Africans all go to New Afrika the African-American polygamists would be a small minority, the only way you'd see general support for polygamy in New Afrika is if only ~11% of the black population remained including all the polygamist.
A Certain Clique, HAB, The Chroniclers
User avatar
Saxtonite
Padawan Learner
Posts: 385
Joined: 2008-07-24 10:48am
Location: Chicago, IL, USA

Re: Black Nationalism (Split from Zimmerman Trial)

Post by Saxtonite »

General Schatten wrote:
That's still not a lot of support, at highest estimate the Muslim population is 7 million about a quarter of those are African-American so about 1.75 million. Rounding the African-American population up to a round even number of 39 million. That's only 4.5% of the black population. Assuming your desire to see black Africans all go to New Afrika the African-American polygamists would be a small minority, the only way you'd see general support for polygamy in New Afrika is if only ~11% of the black population remained including all the polygamist.
It doesn't have to be a general support. It just has to be allowed by the state and treated as a type of marriage.

Also, this is an interesting related article on re-africanization.
simon_jester wrote:I think you misunderstand me.

There is a term for what happens when various small groups start blasting away at each other: "circular firing squad." Put the target in the middle.

A circular firing squad is not good at destroying its target- or if it does destroy the target, it also destroys the firing squad! In this context, the 'target' is an oppressive social order.

If you waste energy pursuing old grudges, or picking fights with small minority groups that purely incidentally have, at this moment, found a niche in the system that happens to harm your group... you're going to end up in that circular firing squad.
Ahh, but that is if, as you said you are seeking to destroy an oppressive social order which affects other people - i.e. igniting a communist revolution. If there is such a revolution which occurs, then it would make sense to unite against the ruling class/NWO/1%/whatever term you prefer and not butcher each other in the streets.

I assumed a significant portion of this conversation was specifically the liberation of black people in general with little support from whites in the US. If this was a racial war or war of independence between the blacks and whites, as many said in this thread this would be/they assumed such it would make more sense to get that over with (getting rid of the middlemen minorities. Actually in a class-based uprising the same thing would happen, only they would be called "capitalist exploiters" and not targeted according to ethnicity. The same general effect would happen though.)

If this is a race war, there would be little risk of being in such a 'circular firing squad'. If this is a communist revolution, I see your point.
Do you expect that to help? Will it be helpful if, fifty years down the road, foreigners cannot visit your nation without relying on native interpreters?
We already have to speak in a standard speech/code switch in order for foreigners to understand us. There is already such a gap. And again, such countries would preferably be bilingual. Depending on how things goes, it would be a bit of a requirement. And we don't exactly know what the 'main' language would be in 50 years with 100% accuracy/foresight.
Will it be helpful if your own people are torn by an internal debate between those who do, and do not, want to adopt the new language and teach it to their children?
That would be a struggle, but you could say the same thing about current AAVE though. There is a similar struggle on the relevance of AAVE in the modern day. What if Ebonics is suppressed by Eurocentric blacks. Culture is an important part of life, how would Europeanized/Westernied blacks be better than Africanized blacks in their social life and self-esteem?
Put this way. If you are rejecting them, then while the words "not really black" may not be in your mouth, that is the effect your words have. You are saying they are unfit as a spokesman because their lives have diverged too far from the people you want them to speak for.

I say that of necessity, anyone powerful enough to be of use to you is likely to match that description. Lord knows it's hard to find a non-corrupt, honest, close-to-his-roots representative for any other group with an economic disadvantage in America.
How would you re-Africanize or bring said upper class blacks back into the fold then, remembering that in general, many of themwould tend to get their support from an integrated world and benefit from such a world? Granted many might side with the revolution if more nationalist than socialist, an others vice-versa.
If you don't have them, do you have a plan for succeeding without them?
I was thinking we would train indigenous civil servants. Also I suspect there will be some international aid, that is if everything does not go to shit.

A point you are missing, in my opinion:

The "house-cleaning" phase can cause the "misrule and douchebaggery" phase. "House-cleaning" is often a brutal process. It demands politicians willing to order killings and deportations. It demands a people willing to tolerate these measures, and turn upon hated enemies who live in their own towns and neighborhoods. If it is done in an organized fashion, it demands the efforts and resources of something very like a secret police force.

And once you have those things... you get a rule like Mugabe. He's established a native government by destroying the foreigners, and has established that his faction runs the native government by being more ruthless at destroying foreigners than anyone else.

In other words, he's all set to engage in rule by thuggery. How likely is it that he will submit to orderly, efficient rule of law?
I see that possibility. However, other countries when they achieved their independence has had trials for 'traitors' and they did not degenerate into the path you envision. The DPRK and ROK both had trials to deal with the most egregious collaborators with Japan for example, and I would not say that those trials caused the country to turn into Zimbabwe.

But in general I have heard many say it's not exactly a good idea to go "rootin' for uncle toms" (one of the 'republic of new africa' websites mentioned such nearly verbatim) so I get your point re. 'thuggery' and whatnot.

One question though: How do you know the "house cleaning" would not be indigenous and not government-sponsored? As in the most egregious "running dogs" get tarred and feathered...or whatever? I know how that can led to a nasty lynchmob for example, and a weird flanderization/stereotype of Stalinist paranoia re being a 'Race traitor' or 'house nigger'.
Thanas wrote:It is more than a bit racist to claim Jews exploited black people. It would be more accurate to claim that "some jews, like some whites" exploited black people.
I should be specific then. In the United States, the exploiters were Askhenazi Jews- aka one of the types of "white jews".
Also, using phrases like "World Jewry" is pretty racist in itself.
The second google response for "World jewry" redirects to this. Jews have referred to themselves as "jewry" and it's an accepted English term for Jews in a collective sense.
"Opps, wanted to add; wasn't there a study about how really smart people lead shitty lives socially? I vaguely remember something about it, so correct me if I'm wrong. Frankly, I'm of the opinion that I'd rather let the new Newton or new Tesla lead a better life than have him have a shitty one and come up with apple powered death rays."
-Knife, in here
Grumman
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2488
Joined: 2011-12-10 09:13am

Re: Black Nationalism (Split from Zimmerman Trial)

Post by Grumman »

Saxtonite wrote:I assumed a significant portion of this conversation was specifically the liberation of black people in general with little support from whites in the US. If this was a racial war or war of independence between the blacks and whites, as many said in this thread this would be/they assumed such it would make more sense to get that over with (getting rid of the middlemen minorities. Actually in a class-based uprising the same thing would happen, only they would be called "capitalist exploiters" and not targeted according to ethnicity. The same general effect would happen though.)
My Ebonics-to-English dictionary hasn't arrived yet, but your "liberation of black people" seems to translate to "wage war to create a racist dictatorship".
Culture is an important part of life, how would Europeanized/Westernied blacks be better than Africanized blacks in their social life and self-esteem?
Because they would not be subject to your invented "African" culture being forced upon them out of the racist belief that anyone with black skin must automatically want this.
User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: Black Nationalism (Split from Zimmerman Trial)

Post by Thanas »

Saxtonite wrote:
It is more than a bit racist to claim Jews exploited black people. It would be more accurate to claim that "some jews, like some whites" exploited black people.
I should be specific then. In the United States, the exploiters were Askhenazi Jews- aka one of the types of "white jews".
Are you incapable of reading or why are you not getting that saying "the exploiters were jews" as an authoritative statement is racist in itself? How about you rephrase that so that it is not a statement about race but about exploitation?
The second google response for "World jewry" redirects to this. Jews have referred to themselves as "jewry" and it's an accepted English term for Jews in a collective sense.
It also is the term Hitler used when talking about people exploiting others.....hmmmm, now what were you writing?
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
User avatar
Saxtonite
Padawan Learner
Posts: 385
Joined: 2008-07-24 10:48am
Location: Chicago, IL, USA

Re: Black Nationalism (Split from Zimmerman Trial)

Post by Saxtonite »

Thanas wrote: Are you incapable of reading or why are you not getting that saying "the exploiters were jews" as an authoritative statement is racist in itself?
Well, "Jew" is not a race for one thing. And I emphasized which subgroup of Jews tended to engage in such practices in the US relative to the black population. So I would think I did -not- automatically tar all Jews by calling them exploitative -anyway-, even if "Jew" was a race.
How about you rephrase that so that it is not a statement about race but about exploitation?
:?: What would you prefer then :?:
It also is the term Hitler used when talking about people exploiting others.....hmmmm, now what were you writing?
The Jews also used such terms and still do, so just because Hitler used it, it's automatically "Racist?" Here is a 2 day old article as of this post which uses the word "jewry".

Hitler also said this about Zionism here:
While the Zionists try to make the rest of the World believe that the national consciousness of the Jew finds its satisfaction in the creation of a Palestinian state, the Jews again slyly dupe the dumb Goyim. It doesn't even enter their heads to build up a Jewish state in Palestine for the purpose of living there; all they want is a central organisation for their international world swindler, endowed with its own sovereign rights and removed from the intervention of other states: a haven for convicted scoundrels and a university for budding crooks.
Are all anti-zionists Neo-Nazis now? That is the logic you are using, because Hitler denigrated it, the concept is automatically 'racist' I would understand if I used the term ZOG which is nearly exclusively used by White Nationalists and White Separatists.
Grumman wrote: My Ebonics-to-English dictionary hasn't arrived yet, but your "liberation of black people" seems to translate to "wage war to create a racist dictatorship".
Shit happens.
Because they would not be subject to your invented "African" culture being forced upon them out of the racist belief that anyone with black skin must automatically want this.
Instead they're subject to "Western Culture" which was FORCED upon them and resulted in social, cultural and psychological scarring. Please show me how "Western Culture" was better for the social, cultural and psychological well-being of Africans in the US, as Europeanized Abrahamic religions, feelings of racial/cultural inferiority, and being forced to deal with white standards and ways of life are a problem for blacks in the modern America.
"Opps, wanted to add; wasn't there a study about how really smart people lead shitty lives socially? I vaguely remember something about it, so correct me if I'm wrong. Frankly, I'm of the opinion that I'd rather let the new Newton or new Tesla lead a better life than have him have a shitty one and come up with apple powered death rays."
-Knife, in here
User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: Black Nationalism (Split from Zimmerman Trial)

Post by Thanas »

Saxtonite wrote:Well, "Jew" is not a race for one thing. And I emphasized which subgroup of Jews tended to engage in such practices in the US relative to the black population. So I would think I did -not- automatically tar all Jews by calling them exploitative -anyway-, even if "Jew" was a race.
No, just all "white jews".
How about you rephrase that so that it is not a statement about race but about exploitation?
:?: What would you prefer then :?:
Blacks in the USA were exploited by various groups, including black and white people?
Are all anti-zionists Neo-Nazis now?
No, but people who think in terms of race purely are racists.
Shit happens.
Are you for real? A racist war to establish a racist state is "shit happens" for you?
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
Grandmaster Jogurt
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1725
Joined: 2004-12-16 04:01am

Re: Black Nationalism (Split from Zimmerman Trial)

Post by Grandmaster Jogurt »

Thanas wrote:
Saxtonite wrote: :?: What would you prefer then :?:
Blacks in the USA were exploited by various groups, including black and white people?
Are you saying this just because of the issues Jewish people have had to deal with on their own with respect to discrimination, or is it because it deals with race at all. Would you have said the same sort of thing had he just been talking about black people being exploited by white people?
User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: Black Nationalism (Split from Zimmerman Trial)

Post by Thanas »

I take issue about "the jews" exploiting "the blacks".

As if the jews were some special group being even more dastardly than the rest of white people.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
User avatar
Saxtonite
Padawan Learner
Posts: 385
Joined: 2008-07-24 10:48am
Location: Chicago, IL, USA

Re: Black Nationalism (Split from Zimmerman Trial)

Post by Saxtonite »

Thanas wrote:No, just all "white jews".
I mean Askhenazi Jews to be specific, and I will say not ALL Askhenazim were involved in exploitation of the black population of the US. There were few Shephardic Jews for example in the US, and they were also white Jews.
Blacks in the USA were exploited by various groups, including black and white people?
Ok. That is true, but Zeon mentioned the aspect of Jewish racism towards black people, and from that I began my discussion on the Jews.
No, but people who think in terms of race purely are racists.
Racialist, perhaps. Race-obsessed I can see, I am not sure of 'racist' - unless they are the sort who talks about superiority or inferiority of races, etc.
Are you for real? A racist war to establish a racist state is "shit happens" for you?
It was a semi-joke. But to be more serious, that shows how things can go and change. The state can be formed peacefully, or violently. Also how would the state inherently be "racist?" Remember the black population is a distinct ethnic group, as are the white southern population which is another ethnic group, separate from northern whites.
"Opps, wanted to add; wasn't there a study about how really smart people lead shitty lives socially? I vaguely remember something about it, so correct me if I'm wrong. Frankly, I'm of the opinion that I'd rather let the new Newton or new Tesla lead a better life than have him have a shitty one and come up with apple powered death rays."
-Knife, in here
Grumman
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2488
Joined: 2011-12-10 09:13am

Re: Black Nationalism (Split from Zimmerman Trial)

Post by Grumman »

Saxtonite wrote:Also how would the state inherently be "racist?" Remember the black population is a distinct ethnic group, as are the white southern population which is another ethnic group, separate from northern whites.
It is racist because you want to use racist acts to serve racist goals. For example, you want a country where racist blacks are told they can vote to "pressure" minorities to go into exile, instead of telling them to put on their big girl panties and suck it up. You consider abetting ethnic cleansing to be a legitimate function of the state.
User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: Black Nationalism (Split from Zimmerman Trial)

Post by Thanas »

Historically, all-black no-whites nations haven't turned out so good. See Haiti.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
User avatar
Saxtonite
Padawan Learner
Posts: 385
Joined: 2008-07-24 10:48am
Location: Chicago, IL, USA

Re: Black Nationalism (Split from Zimmerman Trial)

Post by Saxtonite »

Thanas wrote:Historically, all-black no-whites nations haven't turned out so good. See Haiti.
The Polish soldiers Napoleon used were largely unmolested, so there -were- whites in Haiti from the beginning.
Grumman wrote: It is racist because you want to use racist acts to serve racist goals.
uh no:

rac·ist [rey-sist] Show IPA
noun
1.
a person who believes in racism, the doctrine that a certain human race is superior to any or all others.
adjective
2.
of or like racists or racism: racist policies; racist attitudes.
Origin:
race2 (n.) + -ist

Nationalism is not inherently racist.
For example, you want a country where racist blacks are told they can vote to "pressure" minorities to go into exile, instead of telling them to put on their big girl panties and suck it up.
Well again, they were there first so they have a 'claim' to the land. The blacks did not ask for others to come in and economically exploit them and take over much of the economic life of their people. So why should blacks suck up having to deal with foreigners who denigrate them.

I will use a different example: Korean - Black relationships in Los Angeles. Why should blacks have to suck up to Koreans getting away with MURDER? Why should blacks deal with racist Koreans who suck up their money, and do not give it back to the black population economically? The Koreans basically muscled out the black owned hair businesses and they explicitly discriminate against black owned businesses. The Koreans took advantage of tax loopholes. The Koreans would not serve blacks. The black population of Los Angeles did not ask Koreans to come into their neighborhoods, the black population did not ask for Korean immigration or involvement in the civil war in Korea in 1950-53, why should they allow the Koreans to continue to exist alongside the black population? White Americans intervened in the Korean Civil War, White Americans wanted Korean immigration which disdvantages the black population, the entire Korean presence is due to policies of White Americans. Why should a separate black state continue to deal with a legacy that they did not ask for?
You consider abetting ethnic cleansing to be a legitimate function of the state.
Would you prefer extermination if no ethnic cleansing is conducted instead? Because ethnic tension is a last measure scenario to prevent genocide under my plan.
"Opps, wanted to add; wasn't there a study about how really smart people lead shitty lives socially? I vaguely remember something about it, so correct me if I'm wrong. Frankly, I'm of the opinion that I'd rather let the new Newton or new Tesla lead a better life than have him have a shitty one and come up with apple powered death rays."
-Knife, in here
User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: Black Nationalism (Split from Zimmerman Trial)

Post by Thanas »

Saxtonite wrote:
Thanas wrote:Historically, all-black no-whites nations haven't turned out so good. See Haiti.
The Polish soldiers Napoleon used were largely unmolested, so there -were- whites in Haiti from the beginning.
That is nitpicking and you know it. The white part of Haiti was almost nonexistent after the black-on-white genocide.
Nationalism is not inherently racist.
It is when it nationalism is defined by race and looks, instead of legal concepts. You want race to be a legal concept in itself, which is racist.
Well again, they were there first so they have a 'claim' to the land. The blacks did not ask for others to come in and economically exploit them and take over much of the economic life of their people. So why should blacks suck up having to deal with foreigners who denigrate them.

The black population of Los Angeles did not ask Koreans to come into their neighborhoods, the black population did not ask for Korean immigration or involvement in the civil war in Korea in 1950-53, why should they allow the Koreans to continue to exist alongside the black population? White Americans intervened in the Korean Civil War, White Americans wanted Korean immigration which disdvantages the black population, the entire Korean presence is due to policies of White Americans. Why should a separate black state continue to deal with a legacy that they did not ask for? :finger:
This same logic "I didn't ask for this, so I can do what I want" can be used to legitimize anything. It is therefore no legitimization in itself.
You consider abetting ethnic cleansing to be a legitimate function of the state.
Would you prefer extermination if no ethnic cleansing is conducted instead? Because ethnic tension is a last measure scenario to prevent genocide under my plan.
Yes, instead of forcing the racists on both sides to just STFU or face punishment you want to cater to one exclusively. Either you are logically challenged or a racist.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
Grumman
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2488
Joined: 2011-12-10 09:13am

Re: Black Nationalism (Split from Zimmerman Trial)

Post by Grumman »

Saxtonite wrote:
Grumman wrote:It is racist because you want to use racist acts to serve racist goals.
uh no:

rac·ist [rey-sist] Show IPA
noun
1.
a person who believes in racism, the doctrine that a certain human race is superior to any or all others.
adjective
2.
of or like racists or racism: racist policies; racist attitudes.
Origin:
race2 (n.) + -ist

Nationalism is not inherently racist.
You judge people by their race first and as individuals a distant second. You accuse 1.7 million people of murder over the actions of one woman. That makes you a racist.
You consider abetting ethnic cleansing to be a legitimate function of the state.
Would you prefer extermination if no ethnic cleansing is conducted instead? Because ethnic tension is a last measure scenario to prevent genocide under my plan.
I would prefer the government side against anyone so depraved as to believe genocide is a legitimate choice. If that means a policeman must shoot and kill a black racist to protect the innocent men, women and children he wants to murder because of their skin colour, so be it.
User avatar
Saxtonite
Padawan Learner
Posts: 385
Joined: 2008-07-24 10:48am
Location: Chicago, IL, USA

Re: Black Nationalism (Split from Zimmerman Trial)

Post by Saxtonite »

Grumman wrote: You judge people by their race first and as individuals a distant second. You accuse 1.7 million people of murder over the actions of one woman. That makes you a racist.
That is collectivism/collective guilt/collective blaming, not "racism". Note I did not say anything about "inferiority" of Koreans or "Superior black race" or anything like that. I just mentioned how (in one case) Koreans in the United States literally got away with Murder against Black people. And remember, "Korean" is not a race. Korean culture is itself a more "collectivist" culture also - so this is not a 'new' development if Africans were to react similarly.

The economic decision-making of Koreans collectively have hindered the economic development of the black population while dealing with hair products. That is not exactly opinion, given African-Americans have historically developed their hair products for a long time and built their own businesses. This is nearly equivalent to African-American Barbershops being ran by non-blacks, which is significant for the social purpose of networking and general chit-chat stuff done. This is not something which Koreans should be able to take over nearly exclusively, and the articles I mentioned talked about Korean neptoism vis-a-vis black people. Koreans made such collective economic decisions regarding the black population after all, to shut them out of hair/beauty supply business. Is it wrong for an independent black population/government to rectify such a market failure?
I would prefer the government side against anyone so depraved as to believe genocide is a legitimate choice. If that means a policeman must shoot and kill a black racist to protect the innocent men, women and children he wants to murder because of their skin colour, so be it.
If a majority of the black population has issues with an ethnic group they believe has oppressed them under capitalism, and established a state for the well-being of black people and culture, why should they not wish for a transfer of the population elsewhere? This has been a historical solution to solving ethnic problems, and unlike in those cases it would be targeted and not a general movement of everyone.

You are pretty much saying the economic exploitation of blacks must continue, and that the exploiters must continue to utilize monopolies and 'seep' the money away from the black population - because the Koreans behave in a collectivist manner regarding business and competition with blacks.
Thanas wrote:That is nitpicking and you know it. The white part of Haiti was almost nonexistent after the black-on-white genocide.
Yes, but they were not killed because they were white. They were killed because they were slaveowning oppressors. The Polish soldiers were not, so they were left alone.
It is when it nationalism is defined by race and looks, instead of legal concepts. You want race to be a legal concept in itself, which is racist.
That is racial nationalism or race-based nationalism, not inherently 'racist' especially given the genesis of black nationalism as 'not being white'. Race -is- a legal concept in the US, people have historically been declared legally white or whatnot in the past. This is not new. I also said that non-blacks can be made citizens and also Africanized, so such nationalism it not exactly racial.
This same logic "I didn't ask for this, so I can do what I want" can be used to legitimize anything. It is therefore no legitimization in itself.
Things work better in a collective fashion, an independent country which did not want to be colonized has the right to throw off their colonizers or those who benefited from colonialism, right? (See Algeria's War of Independence). The logic is more accurately "I did not ask for this, someone else foisted this on me, now that I am free from them I can get rid of it."
Yes, instead of forcing the racists on both sides to just STFU or face punishment you want to cater to one exclusively. Either you are logically challenged or a racist.
....the black population did not become "racist" just because they were Korean, the Koreans mistreated the black population. The black population has/had better relations with Japanese, mainland Chinese, Filipinoes, and Vietnamese then the Koreans. So how is specific anti-Korean sentiment among the black population "Racism?"

Also, my plan did not exclusively cater to black racists given the population transfer would be in extreme cases, light tensions would not prompt such a transfer, cases of extreme violence which might turn into a pogrom or genocide would. And I am sure it would be MUCH harder for black inciters to move against any Filipino-owned businesses, because of the different context.
"Opps, wanted to add; wasn't there a study about how really smart people lead shitty lives socially? I vaguely remember something about it, so correct me if I'm wrong. Frankly, I'm of the opinion that I'd rather let the new Newton or new Tesla lead a better life than have him have a shitty one and come up with apple powered death rays."
-Knife, in here
User avatar
Metahive
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2795
Joined: 2010-09-02 09:08am
Location: Little Korea in Big Germany

Re: Black Nationalism (Split from Zimmerman Trial)

Post by Metahive »

Saxtonite wrote:That is collectivism/collective guilt/collective blaming, not "racism".
And you honestly, honestly think that's a deflection? You're either dumber or more conceited than I thought.
Note I did not say anything about "inferiority" of Koreans or "Superior black race" or anything like that.
...which is irrelevant to the question whether or not something is racist. All it takes to make something racist is to ascribe certain things to a perceived race...collectively, whoops!
Korean culture is itself a more "collectivist" culture also - so this is not a 'new' development if Africans were to react similarly.
Black American culture itself is a more "gangster" culture also - so this is not a 'new' development if Asians were to react similarly.

Yeah, not so funny when your racist diatribes are turned around against you, huh?

Also, you can call korean culture many things, but "collectivist" is so utterly wrong, even for North Korea that it tells me you deal with other cultures exclusively in superficial racist terms.
The economic decision-making of Koreans collectively have hindered the economic development of the black population while dealing with hair products. That is not exactly opinion, given African-Americans have historically developed their hair products for a long time and built their own businesses. This is nearly equivalent to African-American Barbershops being ran by non-blacks, which is significant for the social purpose of networking and general chit-chat stuff done. This is not something which Koreans should be able to take over nearly exclusively, and the articles I mentioned talked about Korean neptoism vis-a-vis black people. Koreans made such collective economic decisions regarding the black population after all, to shut them out of hair/beauty supply business. Is it wrong for an independent black population/government to rectify such a market failure?
"I was once mugged by a black person, I'll shoot the next ten black people I see because gangster culture is a collective decision they made."

You're no different from any conceited white racist. You blow into all the same doghwhistles like "culture" and Reinhard Heydrich style euphemisms. Someone like should never get to decide about state policy.
People at birth are naturally good. Their natures are similar, but their habits make them different from each other.
-Sanzi Jing (Three Character Classic)

Saddam’s crime was so bad we literally spent decades looking for our dropped monocles before we could harumph up the gumption to address it
-User Indigo Jump on Pharyngula

O God, please don't let me die today, tomorrow would be so much better!
-Traditional Spathi morning prayer
User avatar
Metahive
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2795
Joined: 2010-09-02 09:08am
Location: Little Korea in Big Germany

Re: Black Nationalism (Split from Zimmerman Trial)

Post by Metahive »

Addendum,

it finally dawned on me just why Saxtonite's fever dreams were of such a familiar make to me. In the 1930's Japan also went through a "revival" where they decided to reject all things foreign (except killtech and uniforms) and "recreated" "traditional" japanese culture aspects (like Bushido) which were however just superficially taken from historical sources but otherwise severely warped and altered to serve the needs of the new militarist, imperialist regime. They also decided that all the evil whites had done to East Asia was sufficient justification for not only bloody payback against whites, but to also take control of other asian nations themselves so as to create a prosperous superstate for all asian people but in which they proved they were even worse taskmasters than their European predecessors.

This is what I see in Saxtonite's fever dreams of Neo Afrika and his talks about collective guilt and building an artificial "black" culture.


Also, to briefly come back to his racist rants against Koreans, isn't it funny that he's now down to basically bellowing "DAY TURK OUR JAERBS!"?
People at birth are naturally good. Their natures are similar, but their habits make them different from each other.
-Sanzi Jing (Three Character Classic)

Saddam’s crime was so bad we literally spent decades looking for our dropped monocles before we could harumph up the gumption to address it
-User Indigo Jump on Pharyngula

O God, please don't let me die today, tomorrow would be so much better!
-Traditional Spathi morning prayer
User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: Black Nationalism (Split from Zimmerman Trial)

Post by Thanas »

Saxtonite wrote:
Thanas wrote:That is nitpicking and you know it. The white part of Haiti was almost nonexistent after the black-on-white genocide.
Yes, but they were not killed because they were white. They were killed because they were slaveowning oppressors. The Polish soldiers were not, so they were left alone.
Fucking bullshit. You can't tell me that everyone of the white citizenry living in the cities, owned slaves. If we go by the confederacy, only a minority of whites owned slaves. The fact that you think that you can justify genocide by "the whites" owned "slaves"....no. It does not compute. The fact that women and children were killed also speaks against this being some kind of struggle for freedom. It was a racist genocide, nothing less.
Things work better in a collective fashion, an independent country which did not want to be colonized has the right to throw off their colonizers or those who benefited from colonialism, right? (See Algeria's War of Independence). The logic is more accurately "I did not ask for this, someone else foisted this on me, now that I am free from them I can get rid of it."
...and none of that gives you the right to favor one ethnic group over another. One can right past wrongs without resorting to ethnic cleansing.
....the black population did not become "racist" just because they were Korean, the Koreans mistreated the black population. The black population has/had better relations with Japanese, mainland Chinese, Filipinoes, and Vietnamese then the Koreans. So how is specific anti-Korean sentiment among the black population "Racism?"
How is specific anti-Irish sentiment among the white population of the 1880s racism? Whoops, you just answered your own question.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
Post Reply