Quantcast
View Post
SpokenTruth said:
DonFerrari said:

Man, not saying he was accepted because he was black... I know they accept white guys anyway. What I'm saying is that they accept he calling himself black because he had black ancestors. 

One link that I'm not sure if it's the same guy on the veja article http://oglobo.globo.com/opiniao/raca-como-oficio-16476473 but it's on the same topic... Walter Francis White is the ex-NAACP high up that were white.

Ah, I see.  No idea about their guidelines for recognizing what constitutes someone as black based on heritage.  Can't say I've seen them openly state "this person is black or not".  I'll check that other article later tonight.

 

ArchangelMadzz said:
DonFerrari said:

I didn't say she was removed because she was white, I said that was because she pretended to be black (but when someone says he/she fells of another gender it must be accepted) but the guy that was white skinned was accepted as being black because he had one ancestor so don't twist it.

SJW's and several minorities leaders claim of systematic killing, persecution, etc that only really happens in other countries. There were several instances of crime commited against black, woman, gay, etc that were portrayed as because of color, gender or sexual orientation but were in fact only crimes against a person, but got coverage because someone wanted to pass the message.

And you basically are avoiding the point I made. That was very precise, the only reason they are able to protest is because the bigger issues doesn't exist anymore so now they are looking at minor things or in some cases fabricated ones.

SJW's aren't taken seriously by anyone, they claim stupid shit like Air conditioning being sexist. And have minority leaders done stupid shit? Yes, even not being a minority in some cases( Like a BLM leader lying about being black hahahaha) But your points have nothing to do with the conversation. Minorities as a whole or people who have pride because of something they've been demonised for. Like Sexuality, Race, Disabilities etc. Want to be treated equally, and for you to broadly claim they want special treatment is just plain incorrect.

You do realise that not being killed doesn't mean you don't have problems? And in some cases they are being killed. 

 

binary solo said:
DonFerrari said:

 

Sorry, but racial oppression only happened mostly by the hand of white people in the west... in Africa black people do that between tribes, in middle east it was largely carried against jews and christians (or white people if you want), in Asia it also is still carried against most outside ethinicities.

You want to hear the great secret, the only ethnicity that formally ruled out slavery was the white folks.


Between tribes is not racial oppression. Between religions is not racial oppression (you do realise that the oppression of Jews and Christians in the middle east is against people of the same race or a "cousin" race?). Are you trying to say that slavery is formally legal in countries like Japan, China, India? In fact I'm pretty sure that slavery is officially illegal in just about every country (not sure about North Korea). 

@bold. That makes absolutely no sense. How could white people only oppress other races in "the west" (whatever that means), when there were no races other than white people in the place of origin of white people? White people had to go to (colonise / conquer) places where the people were not white in order to racially oppress people. Your own country, for instance. Brazil was not originally white. The indigenous people of Brazil are not white. It was white people who came and occupied Brazil that oppressed the natives. Australia is not originally "of the west", the natives there were horribly oppressed by the colonising Brits, and in some places actual genocide was carried out. India was colonised and oppressed. Large swathes of Africa were oppressed by European colonial powers. Have you heard of South Africa and its history? Is that "the west".

Binary, it isn't racial oppression because you only look at it from color alone... for the tribes they would consider themselves different races... and in fact if you look at africans from different countries their body and face features are very different. In fact if you look at slaves that gone to USA and to Brazil you would find that they came from differents parts of Africa and just as an example the black people that came to brazil have curlier hair and widest and fatest lips than the ones that gone to USA.

Same thing with muslim and jews and christians. Although they could be white, arabic (that would still be caucasian), etc they where considered different races at the time jew were enslaved by egipts or when the arabics (mouros) invaded europe).

No I'm not trying to say they still are legal there. What I'm saying is that white countries of the west were basically the first to really move for a end on slavery, and basically that is tied to industrial revolution.

Still you want to only consider color as race to say it makes no sense. What I'm saying is that only in the west white people were the one oppressing other races, because in the east it was other races. White people didn't racially oppresed the indigenous brazilian, they conquered, whipped and shunned them away, very few of the indians ended up as captives or slaves of white man in Brazil.

Africa already oppresed themselves before white people came in to take power. And I never heard of australian aborigenes being enslaved, so they were also probably killed, expelled, etc... since australia was a penal colony I don't see much reason to enslave the local folks.

Yes I bet I heard much more from South Africa history, or Africa's history, or Asia's history or Europa's history or World's history than the average american student. In Brazil we have formal class on all those subjects (all those places and world history is more than 50% of our history class while brazilian history is the other half), same with geography. But do you know the history of those places? Seems like you don't so you can keep saying the white oppresion was the biggest that there ever was... In case you want yo just open up your mind a bit just read BrayanA post for example.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994