Speaks For Itself


Speaks for itself.:banghead:


No: white pride is artificial.

German pride is fine, Irish Pride is fine, English pride is fine, because that is all real heritage.

White pride, by contrast, is an agenda.

“White pride” can’t shake the association to White Supremacy, because that’s where it got its start; not as an appeal to common heritage ( there is none), but as a rallying cry to stand against other races.

“Black pride” came into existence because African-American individual ethnic identities were largely destroyed when they were brought here as slaves.

They had a shared experience as a result of the color of their skin, so they identified themselves to it.


In principle it is absolutely irrelevant were a movement comes from. The only thing that matters is, how a group is acting and defining themselves today. In the case of both: “White pride” und “Black pride” this could be a problem.

It does not matter why it came into existence.

Basically there is no difference between “White pride” und “Black pride”. Why should people have privileges just because their ancestors were suffering?
And who says that only negative things could be justification for group-identification?

You always either have to be a victim or claim that you are a victim or have ancestors that were victims– to get the permission to do particular things.
Recognize that slavery is over – you even can became president if you are non-white. And recognise that there are also white people that live in poverty.

Even if there would be a requisiteness to suffer to create justification for group-identification (what I wouldn’t say) – you easily could construct one:
“We are White pride – the people suffering from Anti-Trump-Terror,…”
“We are White pride – the people suffering from the lack of being victims and following privileges,…”


It does, and you don’t have to treat it as a call to victimhood. Frederick Douglas didn’t, nor did Booker T. Washington, nor does Thomas Sowell today, and none of them wanted other Black people to do so either. It can instead be a tale of overcoming adversity, of becoming stoic and persevering, of being the only population group in history to reach 50% literacy within a generation.

As long as you take ownership of your circumstance, and don’t treat them as a default, it isn’t venomous to you.

The Jews have a collective memory in much the same way; they don’t use it simply as means to cast aspersions at others, they (generally) use it as motivation to better themselves.
That’s the sort of thing I’m talking about.


Who says that only overcoming negative things could be sufficient justification for group-identification?

Example: White-Identification
Being proud of being descendant of people (Washington,…) which founded the country with the most consequent understanding of freedom in the world?
I don’t think that way and I know that it could lead to an arrogant way of thinking, but theoretically you could identify yourself as white without any intentions toward supremacy.

I don’t like this: “You have to be a victim!” and “You have to prove that you ancestors suffered!” and “You have to show how your fathers overcome this adversity” – way of thinking at all.
If your father suffered. O.k. it was hard for your father. But what has this to do with you life?
I reject every attempt of people playing the victim - generation after generation after generation.
And group-identification bases on overcoming victimhood includes group-identification based on being the victim!


I didn’t.

> Example: White-Identification
> Being proud of being descendant of people (Washington,…) which founded the country

Except, white people didn’t found it alone, Their were black patriots like Prince Whipple (whose included in the Crossing of the Delaware painting), there were Native American patriots like Joseph Louis Cook. There were even Spanish corsairs who supported the cause.

The cause was color blind. Or at least it was supposed to be.

> but theoretically you could identify yourself as white without any intentions toward supremacy.

You can, but there is no white “heritage”. There’s American heritage, but that isn’t simply white.


BS. There isn’t a single white American alive today that EVER owned a slave and there isn’t a single black American alive today that ever WAS a slave–certainly not one owned by another American.


The whole thing is bogus!

Black slave owners owned White slaves/servants as well as Black slaves/servants but it isn’t the narrative that the liberals want so it isn’t taught.

White Europeans were the actual first indentured slaves/servants and some, along with their children never saw freedom.
Again … not the narrative!

This guy started out with five slaves … four of them were White!

Anthony Johnson (b. c. 1600 – d. 1670) was a black Angolan who achieved freedom in the early 17th-century Colony of Virginia after serving his term of indenture. He became one of the first property owners and slaveholders of African birth there.

Johnson was captured in his native Angola by an enemy tribe and sold to Arab slave traders. He was eventually sold as an indentured servant to a merchant working for the Virginia Company.

In 1651 Anthony Johnson was given 250 acres as “head rights” for purchasing five incoming redemptioners.
(four white and one black)

In 1654, he brought a case before Virginia courts in which he contested a suit launched by one of his indentured servants, a Negro who adopted the name of John Casor.

Johnson won the suit and retained Casor as his servant for life, who thus became the first official and true slave in America.

This officially made Johnson the first legal slave owner in the British colonies that would eventually become the United States.

Virginia made this practice legal for everyone in 1661, by making it state law for any free white, black, or Indian, to be able to own slaves, along with indentured servants.

The majority of black slave owners were members of the mulatto class.

(Obama is mulatto):rolleyes:

Many of the mulatto slave owners separated themselves from the masses of black people and attempted to establish a caste system based on color, wealth, and free status.

According to Martin Delany, the colored community of Charleston City clung to the assumptions of the superiority of white blood and brown skin complexion.

According to the U.S. Census report in 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves.

Out of a population of 27 million whites only eight million lived in the South, and out of this population fewer than 385,000 owned slaves.

In short, the total white population own about 1.4, while the southern white population own about 4.8 enslaved Africans.

On the other hand the black population in 1860 was 4.5 million, with about 500,000 living in the South.

Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves.

Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans.
In New Orleans over 3,000 free blacks owned slaves, about 28 percent of the free Black population in the city.

4 to 1: The ratio of white servants to enslaved Africans in Virginia late in the 1670s.

4 to 1: The ratio of enslaved Africans to white servants in Virginia early in the 1690s.


All identity group pride is artificial. Every rotten tyrant, oppressor, mass murderer, psychopath and sociopath all came from the same race as every genius, philanthropist, diplomat, statesman and altruist.


Dave? This has nothing to do with what I said.

> and there isn’t a single black American alive today that ever WAS a slave

Nor does this.

I’m saying slavery wiped out their individual ethnic identities. There was no heritage to be passed on. Meanwhile, the entire nation developed policy that treated them on the basis of their color.

Not just slavery, but Jim Crow, Grandfather clauses, and other segregation laws.

Our policy forged their identity on the basis of their color, in substitution of the Ethnic ones they lost.

This is a downstream effect.


I wouldn’t call geography and narrowed breeding pools artificial. It’s emergent identity from emergent circumstance.


They were given the option (and it exists today) to go BACK to Africa and forge their own “ethnic identities.” Very few did. Why? Because they knew they were better off HERE than they would be subsistence-farming or hunting monkeys for food. I had a black Army friend years ago who said, “I thank God every day that my distant ancestor COULDN’T outrun those slavers.”


Once again Dave, nothing to do with the point I made.

I said that slavery wiped out their ethnic identities, then our treatment of them conditioned them into a common black identity.

Which, just like the Yankee identity the Brits gave to us, they took on, and made it their own.

Nothing you’ve stated adds to, or contradicts this.


So all black Americans have the SAME “identity” in your world? I don’t know whether to laugh or weep at such silliness. Whatever happened to your claim that all immigrants assimilate by the third generation. If that were true, then black Americans would be “assimilated” into the dominate culture by now. By your own admission, they haven’t “adopted” it as it seems they developed their OWN. Sort of knocked into a cocked hat your theory that immigrants readily “assimilate” doesn’t it? As most here know, I have members of my own FAMILY who are black. The ONE thing I tried to instill in them is that they are Americans, first and foremost and only black by accident of birth and that they should think of themselves as Americans rather than African-Americans. None of them have even been CLOSE to Africa–nor have any one of their ancestors for several generations back. One is a successful employee with a defense contractor, one is a school teacher and one of my grandsons recently retired from the European Professional Basketball League and now owns his own business. Only one out of 11 kids, grandkids and great-grandkids was an Obama fan and NONE supported Hillary.

Sorry, I digressed. My point is that we’ve ALLOWED the left to define WHO different groups actually are and what they believe instead of acknowledging that people are different. Gays comprise something like two percent of the population. While in a total population of 320 million, that’s a large number of people, what THEY want should NOT be what drives public policy–and WOULDN’T in a sane society. The fact is, only a small percentage of that small percentage are driving the LGBTQ agenda. Every member of that group is psychologically warped in some fashion and the APA and other such organizations SHOULD acknowledge that…again, and WOULD in a sane society. Immigration policy SHOULD be set to only admit immigrants who are sane, healthy, willing (no ANXIOUS) to assimilate into OUR culture and society and who we can be reasonably certain will NOT pose a burden ON our society and economy, or work to change them into the crap-holes from which they flee.


… Do all Irish-Americans have the “same” identity?

> Whatever happened to your claim that all immigrants assimilate by the third generation.

? You can assimilate and still celebrate heritage.

Or are the “Sons of Norway” (yes, they exist) an offensive organization to you?

> that they should think of themselves as Americans rather than African-Americans

Which is the same talking point Woodrow Wilson made. His excuse in order to get the Government involved in everything.

Down with mutual aid societies that help on the basis of ethnicity or religion, and up with Government where “***We’re all in it together!***”

… Dave, you really need to better scrutinize where your ideas come from.

> Immigration policy SHOULD be set to only admit immigrants who are sane, healthy, willing (no ANXIOUS) to assimilate

  1. Assimilation is a two-way street. I’ve pointed this out before; The Founders didn’t have Christmas trees. That was a German tradition we as a culture adopted.

  2. Not everyone is interested in being an American. Most are only intending to come here ranging from a few months, to a few years, then go back to where they came from.

You completely ignore this category of immigrant, even though they outnumber the ones who stay by 4 to 1.

In that case; clearly none of that criteria matters.


I think I was wrong when I said: “It doesn’t matter were a movement originates”. Obviously if someone calls himself a Neo-Nazi he will be associated with any kind of fascism. But at the same I also think, that if a movement was associated with negative things in the past, this does not mean that it has to continue on this road for good and all. For example: Some people say that the Democrats originally have been a pro-slavery-movement (I don’t know if’s true) but this does not mean that they are today.

I don’t know what the roots of “White-Proud” (as a movement) are because I am not familiar with this concept. If White-Proud is inescapable associated with supremacy or fascism, the word combination “White-Proud” may be lost and an other term must be found (e.g. “ Skin-Colour-Of-Pioneers-Proud”).
But in general I think it can not be that it is justified to identify – and I mean to proudly identify – yourself with your skin-colour-group if you are black but not if you are white.

People should not be discriminated just because they have the bad lack to be white.


But the first great ideas came from white people like Washington,…
And Christopher Columbus and the majority of pioneers have been white.

How do you define “heritage”?


The parts that are bolded in your post above is what interest me.

If you don’t know if something is true … that is where research can help.

The difference in the slavery of today and of yesteryear is: Back in the “olden days”, slavery was imposed by the democrats whereas today it is bought by the democrats!

(Welfare, section eight housing, food-stamps, affirmative action, quotas ect. ect.)

Now for the second part of your post, I ‘think’ you meant … "People should not be discriminated just because they have the bad luck to be white.

My answer to that is … WTF?
Google that!:smack:


An old article but a place to start.
Larry Elder


The formulation was provocative. I think if somebody says: It is legit that people proudly identify themselves with their skin-colour-group if they are black but not if they are white, this would be discrimination: You treat people different because of their skin-colour.
Alaska Slim said it’s because black people have a common heritage (slavery), but he did not explain why there couldn’t be found things that the most white people exclusively share.

According to that: If you have the bad lack to be white, you are not allowed to be proud to be a member of your skin-colour-group.
Further: In human beings there is something like an innate need to play the victim or to rebel. I don’t know why, but we all have this in us – regardless skin colour. This is the reasons why all this “minority-groups” are existing: gay-minorities, gender-minorities, religious-minorities, transgender-minorities, race-minorities,… People want to blame others and rebel. They desperately need it. They madly search for opportunities to claim that they were oppressed – look at the streets! And watch Charlie Kirks video, see below.
So, if you are white it’s difficult to gut that need fulfilled.

I do not deny, that slavery was one of the worst things ever happened in the USA at all. But if you are not white today: Jackpot! You have all the opportunities white people are having but additional the legitimization to rebel and to profile yourself as a victim of the evil western society as an extra bonus. Make sense?

Charlie Kirks video: