Good News

Watermark's Ghost said:
i have a knife, but really, it doesn't compare to sjjr. he knows knives.
Click to expand...

Darla said:
It was de facto legal since white men were not prosecuted and rape was used as a terror tactic across the apartheid south, all the while white men who were doing the raping nurtured the myth of the black beast rapist, a classic case of the con mind accusing others of what they themselves are doing as a diversionary tactic.

Fucking moron.
Click to expand...

Aoxomoxoa said:
Well I am sure that plenty were tried for raping white women during that time. Here is s very informative article by Robert Lindsay, he is very intelligent and fairly unusual in being a liberal who is not hidebound by dogma and notions of ideological soundness.




Read more: http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2009/03/02/a-few-observations-about-race/
Click to expand...
They are considered black because it is generally their skin color and that is what they are judged by, this guy and you discount the obvious, duh.

A racists didnt care when shown that he had subsahara ancestor in his DNA, he didnt look black, so how could he be black.

Lowlifes don't look at your genetic makeup, they look at your skin color!
 
Taft2016 said:
And there it is.

Shouldn't you be picking at the original statement then, rather than my challenge of it?
Click to expand...

Well I am just asking you, I am well aware that there is the PC radical black/feminist version and the Bible Belt version I am assuming that the truth lies somewhere in between.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Well I am just asking you, I am well aware that there is the PC radical black/feminist version and the Bible Belt version I am assuming that the truth lies somewhere in between.
Click to expand...


Won't anyone fill Tom in on: Slavery, the other side of the story?

The history books saying it was all bad have all been poisoned by the ramblings of radical blacks/feminists.

Anyone have the real poop?
 
Tom wants to pretend things like Black walstreet being bombed from planes stolen from the airport the black people built never happened
 
Sardonic said:
Maybe you could photograph your washboard collection for us?
Click to expand...

There you go, have fun.

washboard.jpg
 
And weren't many of the men slaves relieved to have a white master take care of all of their children's needs? I mean, what worries did they really have?
 
Even if the crops didn't come in ,they still ate didn't they? Sounds like a pretty worry-free life to me...

Where are those stories? Why did the radical blacks/feminists bury them?
 
Darla said:
Won't anyone fill Tom in on: Slavery, the other side of the story?

The history books saying it was all bad have all been poisoned by the ramblings of radical blacks/feminists.

Anyone have the real poop?
Click to expand...

LOL, it is fortunate for Tom that breathing is a subconscious action, or he would have suffocated long ago. How could one be so ignorant and thrive in today's world?
 
Sardonic said:
They are considered black because it is generally their skin color and that is what they are judged by, this guy and you discount the obvious, duh.

A racists didnt care when shown that he had subsahara ancestor in his DNA, he didnt look black, so how could he be black.

Lowlifes don't look at your genetic makeup, they look at your skin color!
Click to expand...

No, no, no! They carry around blood sampling test equipment and everyone who has more than "one-drop" of African American blood is considered a "Negro" that's in Louisiana at least, but I think they are testing nearly everywhere. You'll see them on the streets, they are carrying huge bags full of scientific gear designed to get to the bottom of just who and who isn't a "Negro"!
 
I don't know how much the folks here read, but this is about the best thing I've read on the antebellum south.

https://www.google.com/shopping/pro...i=gmfZUsXkG-bJsQTy0oG4DA&ved=0CK4BEPMCMAk4vgE

It covers a lot of topics, but as to slavery I'll give a summation:

Most slaves (probably more than 85% of them) were owned by the wealthy landowners. Abusing, beating, neglecting, maltreating slaves, splitting up slave families, was considered the behavior of a low-class individual. For instance, a man who had to beat his slaves to control them was considered a man who could not control his own household. Southern society at this time bore a strong resemblance to Victorian society in England, so ostracization from southern society was greatly feared.

Were slaves abused? Of course, but generally they were among the small number who were held by non-wealthy landowners.

So both stories are true, the degree to their truths lies in the numbers.
 
Taft2016 said:
I don't know how much the folks here read, but this is about the best thing I've read on the antebellum south.

https://www.google.com/shopping/pro...i=gmfZUsXkG-bJsQTy0oG4DA&ved=0CK4BEPMCMAk4vgE

It covers a lot of topics, but as to slavery I'll give a summation:

Most slaves (probably more than 85% of them) were owned by the wealthy landowners. Abusing, beating, neglecting, maltreating slaves, splitting up slave families, was considered the behavior of a low-class individual. For instance, a man who had to beat his slaves to control them was considered a man who could not control his own household. Southern society at this time bore a strong resemblance to Victorian society in England, so ostracization from southern society was greatly feared.

Were slaves abused? Of course, but generally they were among the small number who were held by non-wealthy landowners.

So both stories are true, the degree to their truths lies in the numbers.
Click to expand...

So when Thomas Jefferson raped his female slave, which category would you place him in?
 
Taft2016 said:
I don't know how much the folks here read, but this is about the best thing I've read on the antebellum south.

https://www.google.com/shopping/pro...i=gmfZUsXkG-bJsQTy0oG4DA&ved=0CK4BEPMCMAk4vgE

It covers a lot of topics, but as to slavery I'll give a summation:

Most slaves (probably more than 85% of them) were owned by the wealthy landowners. Abusing, beating, neglecting, maltreating slaves, splitting up slave families, was considered the behavior of a low-class individual. For instance, a man who had to beat his slaves to control them was considered a man who could not control his own household. Southern society at this time bore a strong resemblance to Victorian society in England, so ostracization from southern society was greatly feared.

Were slaves abused? Of course, but generally they were among the small number who were held by non-wealthy landowners.

So both stories are true, the degree to their truths lies in the numbers.
Click to expand...

Certainly, because there were no such things as overseers in the larger plantations and no one ever did anything untoward because we all know "social ostracism" was so great and worked so well just like it does here when men chase women around with their depictions of rape and their various rape fantasies and threats of rape, all you other men just ostracize the hell out of them don't you?

And they of course immediately change their behavior. That is why ILA Is still sexual harassing Darla and others here, because "social ostracism" by the rest of the men has worked it's magic!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top