No the founding fathers just stole everything from the people who happened to be living there already!!!!
Imagine if the Cherokee had demanded they have green cards.... FFS
Do you ask yourself why the illegals are coming?
Results 321 to 340 of 602
No the founding fathers just stole everything from the people who happened to be living there already!!!!
Imagine if the Cherokee had demanded they have green cards.... FFS
Do you ask yourself why the illegals are coming?
-www.revleft.org-
Economic Left/Right: -6.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69
красные лисы
Actually yes really, I've seen that news report years ago. The amount of Klansmen were in the double digits unless you're talking about something else.
the Klan have been so irrelevant to the point that they barely exist for a long time now.
fka xx1994xx
Err... I was talking about European groups... but usually their numbers are not so large either.
Hmm... but there are other groups, and I think they are more sinister than a bunch of weirdos dressed up like penitenti (ironically)!!!
-www.revleft.org-
Economic Left/Right: -6.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69
красные лисы
You're blaming the wrong people (I notice you had nothing to say about the capitalist ruling class), and you miss---perhaps because you are 'tilted right wing'---that the problems regarding immigration are systematic, and can only be done away with through a workers' revolution that overthrows capitalism in every nation.
[QUOTE=peoplesayi'mafacistIsayno;2149191]You know, people like you must make well-meaning Americans like many here want to cry.No the founding fathers just stole everything from the people who happened to be living there already!!!!
Imagine if the Cherokee had demanded they have green cards.... FFS
Do you ask you
[FONT=Verdana]I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist here...but after re-searching, "native American" on Yahoo! a really interesting article came up. It said that, "French may have been the first people to have set foot in the new world...researchers say that a ice cap, similar to the one that connected Asia to the new world, connected western Europe to the new world approximately 40,000 years ago."[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]It said that a distinct weapon that was found in the Southern U.S. is common to a French tribe called (wrong spelling probably) the "Solutritarians."[/FONT]
I'm interested to see what you guys think about this.
The French did not even exist 40 000 years ago to start with- in fact 40 000 years ago I doubt whether any ethnicity that still exists even existed.
And even if the hypothetical French had somehow arrived in America 40 000 years ago it doesn't change the fact that the founding fathers lied, cheated and stole from the indigenous cultures that were actually there when THEY arrived!
-www.revleft.org-
Economic Left/Right: -6.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69
красные лисы
[QUOTE=peoplesayi'mafacistIsayno;2149191]Okay, now you are certainly a Stormfront troll. Be gone!No the founding fathers just stole everything from the people who happened to be living there already!!!!
Imagine if the Cherokee had demanded they have green cards.... FFS
Do you ask you
[FONT=Verdana]I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist here...but after re-searching, "native American" on Yahoo! a really interesting article came up. It said that, "French may have been the first people to have set foot in the new world...researchers say that a ice cap, similar to the one that connected Asia to the new world, connected western Europe to the new world approximately 40,000 years ago."[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]It said that a distinct weapon that was found in the Southern U.S. is common to a French tribe called (wrong spelling probably) the "Solutritarians."[/FONT]
I'm interested to see what you guys think about this.
So anyone who disagrees with you is a moron? Way to go Comrade Stalin, what's next the firing squad?Originally Posted by #FF0000
Like fucking morons.
.
That's good to know.
Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it. (Marx: Theses on Fueurbach)
"To the bulk of the British "left", I say: The working class has again outpaced you, and your response was silence or condemnation. Your betrayal will be remembered for more than a generation." (Miles)
Yeah but their membership is in the double digits and their activity is none. the only way you find the "long list of racist groups" that the United States apparently has the largest amount of is if you find a stub article on them on Wikipedia. Besides that, you'll never hear about them. The only relevant hate group there in the United States is the Aryan Brotherhood, they're more of just a normal prison gang that would rather deal drugs with Mexican cartels than spread white pride. They're only really active in California as well. And if the Aryan Brotherhood show how prevalent racism in the United States is, then by that logic the United States is the most revolutionary place as well because the Black Guerilla Family (an African-American Marxist prison gang) has 20,000 more members than the Aryan Brotherhood. However, we all know that isn't actually the case.
fka xx1994xx
Face palm!!!!
What logic is this?
Look- I just find it ironic that a country that was founded on expropriation and "illegal immigration", that constantly vaunts itself as the most amazing, richest, powerful, advanced and kick ass nation that ever existed is currently complaining about poor people wanting to go there- people who are perhaps poor owing to the richness of the former.
-www.revleft.org-
Economic Left/Right: -6.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69
красные лисы
First, I'd prefer you stop trolling this board and return to Stormfront or whatever other reactionary hellhole you came from.
Yes, that's where you got the whole Solutrean thing from, and then you injected that into this thread about nationalism.
Let me make something totally clear----reactionary racist nationalism is NOT EVER to be tolerated! You wanna be partners-in-crime with your own "white" bourgeoisie? Be gone!
If you want to defend capitalism, do it somewhere else.
What a pointless discussion. Im sure the US is horrible, but if anyone thinks Europe is some kind of post-racial utopia they need to get out more. The extreme right is BIG and militant. There have been race riots in the UK, in France, and in the south of Italy.
That is the next step after forum flaming, yes.
But no I think we can sort of end this discussion since all of this is based on a misunderstanding.
Obviously there are black nationalist groups that are supremacist groups that are bigoted against white people and other ethnic groups.
However these groups are, of course, unacceptable and there is nothing for a group like that.
What I am trying to say is that the groups that are accepted by the left are not like this and are not racist.
I'm on some sickle-hammer shit
Collective Bruce Banner shit
FKA: #FF0000, AKA Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Peevishness For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Ire That Are Themselves The Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Wrath
Surely the difference between the two is simply that white nationalists have had power, and thus have citable 'evil' acts they have committed; whereas black nationalists have never been in charge of a nation or state, and therefore can exist on idealistic aims rather than the reality of the fact if they were in power they would discriminate against whites and other races? To tolerate one and not the other is hypocrisy, and just because it is a convenient hypocrisy in helping the wider left doesn't make it right.
No. That is not the difference. I posted the difference on the very first page. White Nationalism and the Black Nationalism that the left might find acceptable are not analogous at all.
I'm on some sickle-hammer shit
Collective Bruce Banner shit
FKA: #FF0000, AKA Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Peevishness For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Ire That Are Themselves The Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Wrath
So your argument in essence boils down to black nationalism is "good" because it is defensive, when in actual fact the only real reason it is defensive is because they are a minority - but they won't be forever as white numbers decline. As with all racialist movements, they will radicalise proportionally to their power. There are no "good racists" and "bad racists."
This is rediculous.
WHITE NATIONALISM/SUPREMICISM (NAZISM) and BLACK NATIONALISM ARE DIFFERENT.
Find me an example of black nationalists, not black supremicists, lynching a white guy for sleeping with one of their daughters, and i'll be quiet. However, they are totally different. Black Nationalism in the U.S. is similar to any oppressed race banding togather to fight racism! Sure there have been errors in the past with black nationalists like the black panthers and Malcolm X's groups discriminating against whites, but they didn't understand at the time that it was a bad idea. In retrospect most of them regret it, and admit that they would have been more successful if they didn't do it. However there aren't many large Black Nationalist organisations these days so you can't see that the attitude towarde whites has changed.
For student organizing in california, join this group!
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=1036
http://socialistorganizer.org/
"[I]t’s hard to keep potent historical truths bottled up forever. New data repositories are uncovered. New, less ideological, generations of historians grow up. In the late 1980s and before, Ann Druyan and I would routinely smuggle copies of Trotsky’s History of the Russian Revolution into the USSR—so our colleagues could know a little about their own political beginnings.”
--Carl Sagan
It's not a moral question of "good" or "bad".
What is the general goal of all white nationalists: to uphold white supremacy through various means depending on the group. For some that's through separation and white-only colonies, others an all-out confrontation and race war, and still others just maintaining political dominance and stripping non-whites of rights.
In general what is the goal of all black nationalists: to ELIMINATE white supremacy's effect on their lives. Again, the reasons and how these groups go about it are different and for some it means building up "black capitalists" to control black communities to prevent black dependance on "white-ruled society", for others it means setting up a separate physical nation and emigrating, others it means organizing blacks to politically and directly confront the institutions that keep white supremacy in tact. That last group are generally the ideas that can be easily meshed with an overall class-based view of where racial oppression comes from - and the contributions of these kinds of black nationalists (like Malcolm X and the Panthers and DRUM) are huge for the ENTIRE working class radical movement.
So the white nationalists seek to re-enforce the racial system that already exists and was set up in order for the ruling class to maintain dominace over the whole of society. Black nationalism or other nationalism of oppressed people inherently are an effort to dismantle that social order - they may have good or bad ideas or tactics for this, but it is qualitatively different from nationalisms of the oppressors. As Malcolm X said, the rapist and the person being raped both hold hate towards the other, but it is impossible to equate that hatred when one is the results in an attack and the other is a response to that attack.
Because, as I see it as a socialist, class and racial oppression are interwoven, you can't pull one thread without loosening the other and a fight against the institutions of racism (the police, courts, disenfranchisement, slums, low-paying jobs, victim-blaming, destruction of public education, etc) potentially leads right to the class struggle and visa-versa. That's why I strongly believe it would be a huge mistake for the radical movement to equate nationalism of the oppressed with the nationalism of the oppressors even though to some degree any progressive nationalist movement will have some political problems and things that we don't agree with. We should seek to work with the left of black nationalism and try and build on common ground just like radicals might work with groups with different ideological positions but can be activist/movement allies and possibly won to more militant and radical views and actions.
Last edited by Jimmie Higgins; 21st June 2011 at 07:51.
Fair enough, and all I am trying to get across is that all whites who adopt a nationalist stance (and I'm not talking about racists, reactionaries or supremacists) should be forced into the same camp as the racist, reactionary or supremacist. Nationalism is a simple description that pertains to a Nation, not a race. We use the race label because we have been taught to by the elites that rule our society. They must laugh themselves silly when they see us fixating on racial or sexual politics rather than the class struggle that gave us birth.
Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it. (Marx: Theses on Fueurbach)
"To the bulk of the British "left", I say: The working class has again outpaced you, and your response was silence or condemnation. Your betrayal will be remembered for more than a generation." (Miles)
Except that race/class/sexual/immigration politics are inherently part of the class struggle in that oppression of ethnic groups or women or sexual minorities is one of their chief tools (particularly in the US, but increasingly elsewhere) of the ruling class in keeping the entire class down.
The US ruling class uses the "war on crime" and stokes racism in order to gut welfare (they said black "welfare queens" were taking advantage of the system and now they claim that immigrants take advantage of other social services when in both cases, more poor white people get aid and food-stamps and welfare than other groups). They use these things to argue that public education is a waste since poor Latinos and blacks "don't want to learn". They have used anti-latino racism in the US to give border patrol agents more weapons and equipment and to militarize the border; they have used anti-black racism to give the police unprecedented powers and ability to literally get away with murder all while creating the biggest prison system in the world that drains public funds that could go to education or welfare or any number of services that would help all workers; they use anti-Arab racism to attack all of our rights and give the FBI and CIA more power to repress the entire class.
In the context of the economic crisis, in Europe (and elsewhere) the ruling class's need to destroy the post-war expectations and benefits of working class people and to push wages down is being accompanied by a wave of xenophobia and anti-immigrant sentiment. The ruling class on the one hand wants to blame working class suffering on scapegoats (all those Easter Europeans or North Africans or Roma or whatnot are to blame, not neoliberal policies and capitalism!) but also increase their ability to divide and rule the population.
If people in the US seem "obsessed" with this, it is only because it has been a central part of keeping the US working class down and we had a very powerful movement that in the late 1960s began to combine social fight-back with a more overt class struggle (even MLK was killed while he was supporting a strike of black workers and Malcolm X concluded you can't have capitalism and not also have racism).
