More like, you shot yourself in the foot.
Fighting the Civil War to end slavery
The Civil War was not fought to end slavery. Visit an ACW thread sometime and catch up.
Did you know that history has shown that mobs here in the US had burned, lynched, and dismembered black Americans.
What? NO! The devil you say! But according to Cynthia Tucker, resident black-racist editorial-page editrix for the Atlanta Urinal-Constipation, the actual number is a little over 4500, from 1866 to 1962.
On the other hand, from 1988 to 1996, during the big crack-related crime wave that saw U.S. murders spike up to 25,000/year, it eventuated that 50% of the murder victims were black, of whom 91% faced young black male executioners.
Of the 50% of murder victims who were not black, a quarter were murdered by young black males and another quarter were murdered by "persons unknown" -- which was the crime statisticians' way of politically covering up for the stranger-murder perps, who were overwhelmingly black (comparison with other, similar violent crimes in which the victims survived showed that the mystery 25% of perps were, in fact, mostly black).
So in other words, 3/4's of all the 25,000 murders/year during the high-crime years of the 80's and 90's were committed by young black men, and they committed a third of their murders on whites, Chicanos, Asians, and others.
Out of the hecatomb of 6000 non-blacks murdered every year by those young black men, how many were killed because of their race? Inquiring minds want to know -- and to compare that number, which criminology's number-crunchers are prohibited by urban politicians from sharing with us, with the number Cynthia Tucker agonized over one year, when she was adding up yet again the human cost of white racism.
Are you starting to catch my drift?
Also, during the anti-conscription riot in New York during the Civil War, hundreds of black Americans were hung and burned along city lamp posts.
And hundreds of Irish were cut down with canister by artillery units brought into the city for just that purpose.
America isn't without blood on her hands.
You sound more and more like a liberal every time you post. Thanks for dropping by.
Other nations, despite their past, ought to be allowed to build their nation as well without being bridled.
Take out a loan and buy a clue. Why do you think there were so many Soviet and U.S. troops in Germany for 50 years after the war? Why do you think U.S. troops are still there? To guarantee good conduct by the Germans, is why. It was the unstated cornerstone of European security policy -- and it is the ulterior political underpinning of EU security policy as well and the EU's fundamental raison d'etre. Although the French do have an ulterior policy goal of their own, viz., to break apart and supplant the Anglo-American alliance, which would allow them finally to count coup on, and dominate, their ancient adversary Great Britain at last.
The United States and the Soviet Union were the co-guarantors during all that time, that Germany would not do again what she did in 1869, 1871, 1914, and 1939. The Russians are gone, but we're still there -- and everybody wants into NATO. Hell, I think even Putin would like to join, at some level.
Well....my foot is doing okay so far.
The Civil War was not fought to end slavery. Visit an ACW thread sometime and catch up.
I have. I'm one of the few advocating that the CW was fought to end slavery. But I don't want to debate that here. One thing all will agree on, 4 million Americans were under slavery for quite a long time. In the South.
Are you starting to catch my drift?
Well, I am aware that the murder rate of blacks are higher than not just whites but all other races. But here is a website describing who did what and does not absolve whites of wrong doing. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm
And hundreds of Irish were cut down with canister by artillery units brought into the city for just that purpose.
Well, an equivalent retort would have been to tell me of a situation where blacks lynched and burned hundreds of whites en masse. But nonetheless, you're actually supporting my arguement in that whether government agency towards the Irish or a mob towards blacks, no people group or country is completely innocent.
So, with those points, America did not deny white Southerners (that had enslved 4 million Americans) the right to accel and build a better society. To elect government officials and be part of congress. To build military bases, etc.
Also regardless of the murder rates of blacks. Most have not committed murders and America does not deny them the right to accel, participate in the political process and have access to the best schools, etc.
I would say the same for other countries as well. They should be able to accel as a people group if they are able to organize themselves in such a manner.
I still stand by my statement of power structure. Lets forget about the rest of the world for now. Imagine if 100 years from now, black Americans are a wealthy minority that owns significantly beyond their population. They've gotten their act together and a bulk of them moved out of the hood and into places like Beverly Hills. They are CEO's, landlords and tech company founders. Would you be comfortable with the thought of white chauffers, white nannies, white butlers working for wealthy powerful black families. And I'm not talking about degrading or lower paying positions either. I'm talking about a setting where being a nanny, chauffer, butler would be a well respected profession. Except maybe half or more of the employers are black instead of predominently white today.
Would you be open to such a change? Pete Rose once said there was something wrong with the world when Japan at one time produced more autos than the US. But why would there be something wrong with the world? Maybe Japan was just productive. What Pete Rose was angst about was a slight and temporary shift in the power structure. One in which the mightiest auto industry wasn't American.
Would you be accepting of a co-spherical prosperity in which the US was still wealther than it ever but another country was even wealthier and carried more weight on the world stage?
Tell me you'd be comfortable with such changes and I'd be more than happy to withdraw my comment and apologize. Until then, my comment still stands.
BTW, my intention wasn't to bring up race issues. I just wanted to point out that no people group is innocent of having blood on their hands. The difference maybe the degree of the acts, but nonetheless, no people group is innocent.