Hate

I think Obama is a Muslim

Lefties projecting a guilt trip on others...!?



Never!!!

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:

It is a bit vague but to be perfectly honest, loads of people hate their president/politicians/prime minister

Surely most must like him if he got voted in twice?

He's immensely popular.  We were talking about racism and racists.  And that brings us to Republicans, and their deliberate southern strategy.  The target population of this thread is that pocket of US society.

So we are talking about an element of this society, aligned with a political party, Republican, that has gone apoplectic over the fact that a person of the black race was chosen as the leader.  We are not talking about the whole society--far from it, as I have argued that they are disappearing and in 20-years will be gone.  But nevertheless they are vocal.  But it is an element that is powerful, wealthy and influential.

Tbh this entire thread has shocked me which I concede shows my naviety.

Those monkey gifs of Obama and his wife were disgusting and have no place in modern society. Racism is a a totally alien concept to me, to truly hate and loathe someone for their skin colour? I mean, there is no logic to it, its pityful.

My point being (aye I do have one !) that if there truly are white redneck fools opposed to Obama being the President just because he is black then I am jolly well pleased he IS President. Racism is never acceptable in any way shape or form and tbh I thought people would be too ashamed to be vocal about such outdated despicable convictions rather than revel in them.

Tommy Monk wrote:It was you Americans who did the racism over there...



Nothing to do with us Brits over here!

What was the nationality of the first white residents of North America to own black slaves?

"...According to colonial records, the first slave owner in the United States was a black man..."


http://conservative-headlines.com/2012/03/americas-first-slave-owner-was-a-black-man/

That link gets a few things wrong. For one thing, it says there was no legal slavery in the American colonies prior to 1655, but actually slavery was first legalized by Massachusetts Colony more than 10 years before that, and the other colonies rapidly followed suit.

The people making slavery legal in these Colonies were British Nationals -- I guarantee you these laws weren't passed by black people.

My point stands. The slave trade was created in North America by the British.

Also:

Over the first 50 years of the 18th century, the number of Africans brought to British colonies on British ships rose from 5,000 to 45,000 a year. England had passed Portugal and Spain as the number one trafficker of slaves in the world.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1narr3.html

My point still stands...

"...It was you Americans who did the racism over there..."



Slavery didn't start in USA and wasn't started by the British in the world.


It was something that the British and others got involved in during that period of exploration, but also something that was already going on and had been for many centuries (even millennia) beforehand by many different people and in many different forms.


Black African enslaving other black Africans (especially pygmies), not to mention the massive Arab/Muslim hand in It all, also going back centuries (and both black on black and Muslim on others still going on now)... and let's not forget that it is known that Muslim barbarians even raided coastal communities of UK/Ireland and took people as prisoners into slavery years ago...(and in recent years if we are going to count child victims of Muslim/Paki rape gangs!!!).



Fact remains that slavery in USA way back then was carried out by blacks on others as well as whites on others, it was a relatively small number of people on a relatively small number of The blacks population who were there at The time... it was abolished by Britain for decades while it still carried on there in The USA, long after you Americans broke away from Britain and chose your own nationality as being American, then for the next 100 years you lot carried on with your own self determined policy of discrimination and racism and segregation of blacks which is the real main reason for your current problems over there.


The overwhelming vast majority of blacks there today are descendants of free black people who arrived after slavery was outlawed and under their own free will, and only victimized by their treatment since..!!!



And that treatment of them was all done by you lot and your ancestors over The last 150 years or so and entirely of your own doing!!!



I really do wish that the truth was told over these issues...


The fact that black Africans and Muslims themselves were responsible for the overwhelming majority of slavery over The centuries, and that blacks in America were also owning black slaves is a truth that needs to be told!!!



All in The name of equality and being inclusive mind!!!


Don't want to be leaving anyone out now do we...!!!???

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:It was you Americans who did the racism over there...

Nothing to do with us Brits over here!

Exactly, so why Quill is turning it round on us Brits is a mystery ...

Two different issues.  It's one thing to experience it; it's another merely to talk about it.

The point is, you Brits know nothing about racism and are simply not qualified to comment.  I mean, you can blow anything out your ass...but, like tommy, you are not going to be listened to by anyone knowledgeable.  Look at tommy's post above...it's all out of a textbook or a webpage (ha...I was actually surprised he knew how to research). You guys only know what you've read in books and newspapers, that's all.  Any American knows about racism, especially those who lived through segregation.  

To hear someone from the UK talk about racism is laughable.  Your commentary is so elementary.  When we hear y'all talk it's like we have to return to 3rd-grade and slow-walk y'all through a few decades.  There are rednecks and crackers who are more subtle than that.

Ben and I have to hold your little hands and walk you through eons of history, only to have someone ask about a term like 'white trash'.  It'll never happen...no Brit will ever understand what true racism is.

PS: tommy, slavery goes back a lot further than 150-years. ( Do you see what we have to put up with, talking with you guys??).

Tommy Monk wrote:My point still stands...

"...It was you Americans who did the racism over there..."



Slavery didn't start in USA and wasn't started by the British in the world.


It was something that the British and others got involved in during that period of exploration, but also something that was already going on and had been for many centuries (even millennia) beforehand by many different people and in many different forms.


Black African enslaving other black Africans (especially pygmies), not to mention the massive Arab/Muslim hand in It all, also going back centuries (and both black on black and Muslim on others still going on now)... and let's not forget that it is known that Muslim barbarians even raided coastal communities of UK/Ireland and took people as prisoners into slavery years ago...(and in recent years if we are going to count child victims of Muslim/Paki rape gangs!!!).



Fact remains that slavery in USA way back then was carried out by blacks on others as well as whites on others, it was a relatively small number of people on a relatively small number of The blacks population who were there at The time... it was abolished by Britain for decades while it still carried on there in The USA, long after you Americans broke away from Britain and chose your own nationality as being American, then for the next 100 years you lot carried on with your own self determined policy of discrimination and racism and segregation of blacks which is the real main reason for your current problems over there.


The overwhelming vast majority of blacks there today are descendants of free black people who arrived after slavery was outlawed and under their own free will, and only victimized by their treatment since..!!!



And that treatment of them was all done by you lot and your ancestors over The last 150 years or so and entirely of your own doing!!!



I really do wish that the truth was told over these issues...


The fact that black Africans and Muslims themselves were responsible for the overwhelming majority of slavery over The centuries, and that blacks in America were also owning black slaves is a truth that needs to be told!!!



All in The name of equality and being inclusive mind!!!


Don't want to be leaving anyone out now do we...!!!???

A history lesson for Tommy Blooper:


An evil of civilization


Slavery enters human history with civilization. Hunter-gatherers and primitive farmers have no use for a slave. They collect or grow just enough food for themselves. One more pair of hands is one more mouth. There is no economic advantage in owning another human being. Once people gather in towns and cities, a surplus of food created in the countryside (often now on large estates) makes possible a wide range of crafts in the town. On a large farm or in a workshop there is real benefit in a reliable source of cheap labour, costing no more than the minimum of food and lodging. These are the conditions for slavery. Every ancient civilization uses slaves. And it proves easy to acquire them. War is the main source of supply, and wars are frequent and brutal in early civilizations. When a town falls to a hostile army, it is normal to take into slavery those inhabitants who will make useful workers and to kill the rest. There are several other ways in which slaves are acquired. Pirates offer their captives for sale. A criminal may be sentenced to slavery. An unpayable debt can bring the end of liberty. The impoverished sell their own children. And the children of slaves are themselves slaves - though with a cheap supply of labour available through war, not many owners will allow their slaves the diversion of raising a family.

Slaves in Babylon: 18th century BC


Information about slaves in early societies relates mainly to their legal status, which is essentially that of an object - part of the owner's valuable property. The Code of Hammurabi, from Babylon in the 18th century BC, gives chilling details of the different Rewards and penalties for surgeons operating on free men or slaves. But it also reveals that the system is not one of unmitigated brutality. Surprisingly, Babylonian slaves are themselves allowed to own property. But the first civilization in which we know a great deal about the role of slaves is that of ancient Greece.

Slaves in Greece: from the 7th century BC

Both the leading states of Greece - Sparta and Athens - depend entirely upon forced labour, though the system in Sparta is more properly described as serfdom rather than slavery. The distinction is that the helots of Sparta are a conquered people, living on their own hereditary land but forced to work it for their Spartan masters. Their existence is a traditional rural one to which certain rights remain attached. The slaves of Athens, by contrast, have no conventional rights. But their condition varies greatly according to the work they do. The most unfortunate Athenian slaves are the miners, who are driven often to the point of death by their owners (the mines are state-owned but are leased to private managers). By contrast other categories of slaves - particularly those owned directly by the state, such as the 300 Scythian archers who provide the police force of Athens - can acquire a certain prestige. The majority of Athenian slaves are domestic servants. Their fortune depends entirely on the relationship they develop with their owners. Often it is close, with female slaves looking after the children or acting as concubines, or a male slave running the household as a steward. No free Athenian works in a domestic capacity, for it is considered shameful to be another man's servant. This inhibition applies equally to a subsidiary position in any form of business. As a result male slaves in Athens do all work of a secretarial or managerial nature, for in these contexts they are unmistakably somebody else's personal assistant. Such jobs include positions of influence in fields such as banking and commerce.

Slaves in Rome: from the second century BC

The same loophole, offered by the self-esteem of free citizens, provides even greater opportunities to slaves in imperial Rome. The most privileged slaves are the secretarial staff of the emperor. But these are the exception. In the two centuries before the beginning of the empire (the last two centuries BC) slaves are employed by Romans more widely than ever before and probably with greater brutality. In the mines they are whipped into continuing effort by overseers; in the fields they work in chain gangs; in the public arenas they are forced to engage in terrifying combat as gladiators. There are several slave uprisings in these two centuries, the most famous of them led by Spartacus.

Slaves in the Middle Ages: 6th - 15th century

In the period after the collapse of the Roman empire in the west, slavery continues in the countries around the Mediterranean. But the slaves are employed almost exclusively in households, offices and armies. The gang slavery characteristic of large Roman estates does not reappear until the tobacco and cotton plantations of colonial America (one notable exception is the salt mines of the Sahara). Nevertheless the slave trade thrives, and the Mediterranean is a natural focal point. More than anywhere else, the Mediterranean provides the geographical and economic environment to encourage a slave trade. Civilized regions surround the central sea. To the north and south stretch vast areas populated by relatively unsophisticated tribes. Border warfare results in tribal captives being enslaved. In addition to this, market forces encourage the tribes to seize prisoners of their own to service a developing slave trade. During the eastward expansion of the Germans in the 10th century so many Slavs are captured that their racial name becomes the generic term for a 'slave'. At the same period the delivery of slaves to the Black Sea region is an important part of the early economy of Russia.

South of the Mediterranean, the dynasties of Arabs along the coast stimulate an African slave trade. The town of Zawila develops in the Sahara in about700 specifically as a trading station for slaves. Captured in the region around Lake Chad, they are sold to Arab households in a Muslim world which by the 8th century stretches from Spain to Persia. Slavery is an accepted part of life in Arabia during the time of Muhammad, in the 7th century, and the Qur'an offers no arguments against the practice. It merely states, particularly in relation to female slaves, that they must be well treated. In general that has been the case, compared with the barbaric treatment of slaves in some Christian communities.

The Christian Gospels make no specific mention of slavery, though slaves may be expected to benefit from the general bias in favour of the poor and the oppressed. During the early Middle Ages the missionaries and bishops of the Roman Catholic church argue against the ownership of slaves in the emerging dynasties of northern Europe. At first they make little headway. But gradually slavery disappears in western European countries - largely replaced by the serfdom of the feudal manor. But a new and disastrous chapter in the story of slavery begins with the arrival of the Portuguese in west Africa in the 15th century. Meanwhile the Muslim habit of using slaves in the army has led to one unusual result - in itself an indication of the trust accorded to slaves in Middle Eastern communities. In 1250 the slave leaders of the Egyptian army, known as Mamelukes, depose the sultan and seize power. A succession of rulers from their own ranks control much of the Middle East, as the Mameluke dynasty, for nearly three centuries.

The Portuguese slave trade: 15th - 17th century


The Portuguese expeditions of the 15th century bring European ships for the first time into regular contact with sub-Saharan Africa. This region has long been the source of slaves for the route through the Sahara to the Mediterranean. The arrival of the Portuguese opens up another channel. Nature even provides a new collection point for this human cargo. The volcanic Cape Verde Islands, with their rocky and forbidding coastlines, are uninhabited. But they contain lush tropical valleys. And they are well placed on the sea routes between West Africa, Europe and America. Portuguese settlers move into the Cape Verde islands in about 1460. In 1466 they are given an economic advantage which guarantees their prosperity. They are granted a monopoly of a new slave trade. On the coast of Guinea the Portuguese are now setting up trading stations to buy captive Africans. Some of these slaves are used to work the settlers' estates in the Cape Verde islands. Others are sent north for sale in Madeira, or in Portugal and Spain - where Seville now becomes an important market. Africans have been imported by this sea route into Europe since at least 1444, when one of Henry the Navigator's expeditions returns with slaves exchanged for Moorish prisoners.
The labour of the slaves in the Cape Verde Islands primes a profitable trade with the African region which becomes known as Portuguese Guinea or the Slave Coast. The slaves work in the Cape Verde plantations, growing cotton and indigo in the fertile valleys. They are also employed in weaving and dying factories, where these commodities are transformed into cloth. The cloth is exchanged in Guinea for slaves. And the slaves are sold for cash to the slaving ships which pay regular visits to the Cape Verde Islands.
This African trade, together with the prosperity of the Cape Verde Islands, expands greatly with the development of labour-intensive plantations growing sugar, cotton and tobacco in the Caribbean and America. The Portuguese enforce a monopoly of the transport of African slaves to their own colony of Brazil. But other nations with transatlantic interests soon become the main visitors to the Slave Coast. By the 18th century the majority of the ships carrying out this appalling commerce are British. They waste no part of their journey, having evolved the procedure known as the triangular trade.

Triangular trade: 18th century


The triangular trade has an economic elegance most attractive to the owners of the slave ships. Each of the three separate journeys making up an expedition is profitable in its own right, with only the 'middle voyage' across the Atlantic involving slaves as cargo. Ships depart from Liverpool or Bristol with items in demand in west Africa - these include firearms, alcohol (particularly rum), cotton goods, metal trinkets and beads. The goods are eagerly awaited by traders in ports around the Gulf of Guinea. These traders have slaves on offer, captured in the African interior and now awaiting transport to America. With the first exchange of merchandise completed, the slaves are packed into the vessels in appalling conditions for the Atlantic crossing. They are crammed below decks, shackled, badly fed and terrified. It is estimated that as many as twelve million Africans are embarked on this journey during the course of the Atlantic slave trade, and that one in six dies before reaching the West Indies - where the main slave markets on the American side of the ocean are located. The most valuable product of the West Indies, molasses extracted from sugar cane, is purchased for the last leg of the triangle. Back in England the molasses can be transformed into rum. And so it goes on.


Read more: http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?ParagraphID=cio#ixzz3dOFfyf17



Conclusion:


Whites started and have committed the most slavery.
Also Arabs are Caucasian and classed as white.
So your views are as per usual are not only idiotic but completely incorrect.

Slavery is not the reason for the current race relation problems in The USA!!!



I have shown evidence of how early black settlers had blacks as slaves, plus how the majority of blacks in USA centuries ago as well as now had no history of being slaves either!!!



The racial problems in The USA today are totally down to The treatment of American blacks by American whites over The last 100-150 years... And totally at their own independent choice to do so...

Tommy Monk wrote:
Slavery is not the reason for the current race relation problems in The USA!!!
I have shown evidence of how early black settlers had blacks as slaves, plus how the majority of blacks in USA centuries ago as well as now had no history of being slaves either!!!
The racial problems in The USA today are totally down to The treatment of American blacks by American whites over The last 100-150 years... And totally at their own independent choice to do so...

Incorrect again. Unlike the UK which brought about a change democratically to end slavery the US ended up fighting a civil war over ending slavery, to the point it left bitter resentment to those who lost the Confederates. This carried on the resentment and discrimination of the blacks, as not long after the loss, the KKK was formed many of who were former Confederate soldiers. This gives you an insight how for years many did not accept defeat and continue to treat blacks appalling all because they deemed them as unequal and based off biblical babble. Where you have a sizable amount of Americans generation to generation not accepting the defeat due to the end of slavery, it has played a major factor up until today.

Most blacks in America were never slaves... while some blacks had black slaves themselves!!!



It was the 100 years Or so after slavery was abolished but with continued discrimination, persecution, segregation, exploitation against blacks by the free will and free choice of American people that is the reason for the problems nowby...

Tommy Monk wrote:Most blacks in America were never slaves... while some blacks had black slaves themselves!!!
It was the 100 years Or so after slavery was abolished but with continued discrimination, persecution, segregation, exploitation against blacks by the free will and free choice of American people that is the reason for the problems nowby...

You are just making up pseudo history now, which is what you always do.
You have no idea of history and never have. As explained many factors including mainly slavery is the cause of discrimination today in America.
I have to work and boring trying to educate someone so lacking in knowledge on history.

Byee

Tommy Monk wrote:
Slavery is not the reason for the current race relation problems in The USA!!!

HOLY FUCK!  Hold the presses!

Tommy Monk wrote:I have shown evidence of how early black settlers had blacks as slaves, plus how the majority of blacks in USA centuries ago as well as now had no history of being slaves either!!!

So....it was black-on-black slavery that took place in America.  All those confessions of Thomas Jefferson, and even the script for Gone with the Wind, need revising??  

And you just made this up in your own tiny little nub of a brain?  Draw a picture, tommy...you're mother will be proud.

Tommy Monk wrote:The racial problems in The USA today are totally down to The treatment of American blacks by American whites over The last 100-150 years... And totally at their own independent choice to do so...

It's nice, tommy, that you are so good with the crayons.  But you're going to have to start doing your homework.  We can't all be inventors and fiction writers.  You need to learn something about reality, and it starts with facts.

Blacks had black slaves too!!!



I know this in an inconvenient truth for you lefties who want to tell all blacks that they were all slaves and it was all the fault of The nasty white people but it simply isn't true!!!

Is Tommy Blooper still trying to promote pseudo history again?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Blacks had black slaves too!!!

Wait!!  Gotta smudge o' white thea, amos.

Blacks had black slaves too!!!


You can't get away from the truth!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:Blacks had black slaves too!!!


You can't get away from the truth!!!

And?
Where has anyone denied that they did, but there is a problem with that Tommy compared to whites having black slaves, can you figure it out?

Tommy Monk wrote:Blacks had black slaves too!!!

You can't get away from the truth!!!

Right...and we were lucky enough to run into him, in northeast Georgia. Tol' us it was his mother-in-law.

And most blacks in The USA back then were not slaves.

Tommy Monk wrote:And most blacks in The USA back then were not slaves.

Most blacks were brought as slaves to the US?
Born of slaves in the US?
Born as Slaves in the US?

Wrong, most were free or arrived of their own free will after slavery ended.

Tommy Monk wrote:Wrong, most were free or arrived of their own free will after slavery ended.

Is this your made up view or one that has evidence?
Real historical evidence I mean.
So it will be interesting what you post next.

Tommy Monk wrote:Most blacks in America were never slaves... while some blacks had black slaves themselves!!!

During the slave trade:


The importation of slaves into the United States was banned by Congress (under Constitutional command) in 1808, yet by 1860, the nation’s black population had jumped from 400,000 to 4.4 million, of which 3.9 million were slaves. The primary reason was natural increase, a distinguishing feature of American-style slavery. Between 1790 and 1860, reports Ronald Bailey, author of “The Other Side of Slavery: Black Labor, Cotton, and Textile Industrialization in Great Britain and the United States,” in the spring 1994 issue of Agricultural History, the U.S. slave population increased between 25 percent and 33 percent per year—an average of 28.7 percent over the period.


That is quite a lot of slaves during the slave trade Tommy.
Then after this blacks were still living as near enough slaves.
You need to understand context and how people were still treated after the slave trade ended.
Would you like a history lesson on that?
As surely your knowledge on this era of history is appalling.

Let me know as when back later or tomorrow, I am happy to help you here.

"...At the time of Lincoln’s arrival in 1837, Springfield had an African American population of approximately twenty-six – 1.78 percent of the total population of 1,500.Six of those twenty-six were slaves.


http://abrahamlincolnsclassroom.org/abraham-lincoln-in-depth/abraham-lincoln-and-slavery/


Only six out of twenty six were slaves in this example!!!



And slavery was already outlawed by British throughout the world by this time and America had already had its own independence for decades... so again... nothing to do with the Brits!!!

"...At the time of Lincoln’s arrival in 1837, Springfield had an African American population of approximately twenty-six – 1.78 percent of the total population of 1,500.Six of those twenty-six were slaves.


http://abrahamlincolnsclassroom.org/abraham-lincoln-in-depth/abraham-lincoln-and-slavery/


Only six out of twenty six were slaves in this example!!!



And slavery was already outlawed by British throughout the world by this time and America had already had its own independence for decades... so again... nothing to do with the Brits!!!

Will answer before I go 
Oh my Tommy is dense
His claims to more free black men is not of the US at the time, but one very small area called Springfield with a population of 1500.

If you read on he actually agrees with me:



Slaves were the principal form of wealth in the South – indeed in the nation as a whole. The market value of the four million slaves in 1860 was close to $3 billion – more than the value of land, of cotton, or of anything else in the slave states, and more than the amount of capital invested in manufacturing and railroads combined for the whole United States.” McPherson wrote: “The centrality of slavery to ‘the Southern way of life’ had long focused the region’s politics on defense of the institution….But with the rise of the cotton kingdom, slavery became in the eyes of Southern whites by the 1830s a ‘positive good’ for black and white alike.”57 Eventually, Republicans would seize on opposition to “slave power” as a key political concept. Historian Historian William E. Gienapp wrote that the “ambiguity” of “slave power” “offered certain advantages, for it allowed Republican orators to shift its meaning somewhat to support most effectively their argument.”58The impact of slavery on the American economy was pervasive. William Lee Miller wrote: “In 1861, as Lincoln took office, American slavery was a huge, entrenched, enormously powerful, fiercely defended and increasingly profitable institution. The half-million slaves present at the nation’s beginning had grown now to four million, or one-eighth of the nation’s population.



So your claim was based off one single area, not the US and the figures he does give match mine.
If they were on eighth the slaves of the entire nation of people there, then clearly your view that moe were freemen would mean another plus 4 million of the US entire US population, making blacks be on quarter o the US nation at the time. Sorry that is illogical and shows why your view is utterly wrong
You are in massive error again tommy blooper.



African-American Population
In 1790, when the first census was taken, African Americans numbered about 760,000—about 19% of the population. In 1860, at the start of the Civil War, the African-American population increased to 4.4 million, but the percentage rate dropped to 14% of the overall population of the country. The vast majority were slaves, with only 488,000 counted as “freemen.” By 1900, the black population had doubled and reached 8.8 million. In 1910, about 90% of African Americans lived in the South, but large numbers began migrating north looking for better job opportunities and living conditions, and to escape Jim Crow and racial violence. The Great Migration, as it was called, spanned the 1890s to the 1970s. From 1916 through the 1960s, more than 6 million black people moved north. But in the 1970s and 1980s, that trend reversed, with more African Americans moving south to the Sunbelt than leaving it. By 1990, the African-American population reached about 30 million and represented 12% of the population, roughly the same proportion as in 1900.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922246.html


Laters

Blacks had slaves too!!!


You haven't shown the number of free black people in The USA.


And slavery was already outlawed by British throughout the world by this time and America had already had its own independence for decades... so again... nothing to do with the Brits!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:Blacks had slaves too!!!


You haven't shown the number of free black people in The USA.


And slavery was already outlawed by British throughout the world by this time and America had already had its own independence for decades... so again... nothing to do with the Brits!!!

Being that I have twice, and this is the second time and from a different source. Proves you ignore the facts and just do as you always do, ignore the evidence.

African-American Population
In 1790, when the first census was taken, African Americans numbered about 760,000—about 19% of the population. In 1860, at the start of the Civil War, the African-American population increased to 4.4 million, but the percentage rate dropped to 14% of the overall population of the country. The vast majority were slaves, with only 488,000 counted as “freemen.” By 1900, the black population had doubled and reached 8.8 million. In 1910, about 90% of African Americans lived in the South, but large numbers began migrating north looking for better job opportunities and living conditions, and to escape Jim Crow and racial violence. The Great Migration, as it was called, spanned the 1890s to the 1970s. From 1916 through the 1960s, more than 6 million black people moved north. But in the 1970s and 1980s, that trend reversed, with more African Americans moving south to the Sunbelt than leaving it. By 1990, the African-American population reached about 30 million and represented 12% of the population, roughly the same proportion as in 1900.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922246.html

Than you again for proving you ignore facts.

All much after slavery was abolished by Britain and even longer after America had gained its independence so nothing to do with us Brits!!!



Plus it was not slavery over 100 years ago that Is causing the racial problems in US, It is the way blacks were treated AFTER slavery over The last 100 years!!!


Again all down to The Americans, nothing to do with us Brits!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:All much after slavery was abolished by Britain and even longer after America had gained its independence so nothing to do with us Brits!!!



Plus it was not slavery over 100 years ago that Is causing the racial problems in US, It is the way blacks were treated AFTER slavery over The last 100 years!!!


Again all down to The Americans, nothing to do with us Brits!!!

Nothing to do with us Brits?
No Tommy, we just controlled the seas mate.
What history lesson did you learn at school?
Comic books?

As I've already said before, slavery was something that was already widely going on by blacks on other blacks on The pygmies and by Muslims on blacks and others.


Britain outlawed slavery 200 years ago... America carried it on under their own choice as they already had independence.


The racial problems today in America are down to The way blacks were treated over more recent times, also because of The massively high black crime rates And The massive level of black crime against whites.

Tommy Monk wrote:As I've already said before, slavery was something that was already widely going on by blacks on other blacks on The pygmies and by Muslims on blacks and others.


Britain outlawed slavery 200 years ago... America carried it on under their own choice as they already had independence.


The racial problems today in America are down to The way blacks were treated over more recent times, also because of The massively high black crime rates And The massive level of black crime against whites.

you have some points

I fully agree that the post-slavery treatment is part of the problem. I think didge does too but the reason is different the fact that blacks owned some slaves isn't really relevant but even after slavery had ended they are still treated very poorly and as didge mention the civil war has left resentment in places like Britain it is different where slavery was outlawed by popular vote, the treatment of blacks steadily improved but in the USA treating blacks like people is taken as an insult by 'confederate' types.

Britain bares some responsibility but the USA has had the time and resources to improve the situation and instead have made it worse.

Which is what I've been getting at veya.


Thanks.

Tommy Monk wrote:Which is what I've been getting at veya.


Thanks.

No its not what you have been saying at all and again happy to show how wrong you are on this.
Veya agreed with most of my points lol

I think you both think the same thing but for the opposite reason.
I agree with Didges side that the civil war is a major factor , actually i don't really understand TM's position with the black slave owners etc.
but either way I think we can all agree the USA has not helped it's race relations with it's socioeconomic policy.
Both our nations and many others have reduced not only the volume but intensity(which is really the thing that shocks me about the US racism) while in the USA the volume has gone down a little but the intensity seems to have increased.

But then you add guns and maybe that is the reason why the actually kill each other..

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Exactly, so why Quill is turning it round on us Brits is a mystery ...

Two different issues.  It's one thing to experience it; it's another merely to talk about it.

The point is, you Brits know nothing about racism and are simply not qualified to comment.  I mean, you can blow anything out your ass...but, like tommy, you are not going to be listened to by anyone knowledgeable.  Look at tommy's post above...it's all out of a textbook or a webpage (ha...I was actually surprised he knew how to research).  You guys only know what you've read in books and newspapers, that's all.  Any American knows about racism, especially those who lived through segregation.  

To hear someone from the UK talk about racism is laughable.  Your commentary is so elementary.  When we hear y'all talk it's like we have to return to 3rd-grade and slow-walk y'all through a few decades.  There are rednecks and crackers who are more subtle than that.

Ben and I have to hold your little hands and walk you through eons of history, only to have someone ask about a term like 'white trash'.  It'll never happen...no Brit will ever understand what true racism is.

PS: tommy, slavery goes back a lot further than 150-years.  (   Do you see what we have to put up with, talking with you guys??).

Have you actually considered learning something from the Brits? Your obsession with race in the US seems to be making things worse IMO. Perhaps a lot of us Brits don't need to know all about your alleged problems with Obama being black because we think it's no big deal. If you stopped thinking it was a big deal, maybe some of your issues would be resolved?

black people are no big deal they are just people as all of us are . we're all the same

Raggamuffin wrote:Have you actually considered learning something from the Brits? Your obsession with race in the US seems to be making things worse IMO. Perhaps a lot of us Brits don't need to know all about your alleged problems with Obama being black because we think it's no big deal. If you stopped thinking it was a big deal, maybe some of your issues would be resolved?

Well aren't you the sweet little princess.  Here, we have racism, the most important domestic problem in the most powerful nation on earth...and you have to have your nails done.

Your attitude of frivolity is precisely what I am talking about.  You have to have lived through it to know anything about it.  You are case-in-point number one, Raggs.  All these murders and tragedies going on around you, and here's you:  Meh...let them eat cake...I have to have my hair done...

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Have you actually considered learning something from the Brits? Your obsession with race in the US seems to be making things worse IMO. Perhaps a lot of us Brits don't need to know all about your alleged problems with Obama being black because we think it's no big deal. If you stopped thinking it was a big deal, maybe some of your issues would be resolved?

Well aren't you the sweet little princess.  Here, we have racism, the most important domestic problem in the most powerful nation on earth...and you have to have your nails done.

Your attitude of frivolity is precisely what I am talking about.  You have to have lived through it to know anything about it.  You are case-in-point number one, Raggs.  All these murders and tragedies going on around you, and here's you:  Meh...let them eat cake...I have to have my hair done...

Well I didn't mention my nails or my hair Quill, but the man in your avatar looks like he knows how to use a hairdryer.

I THINK Quill is black, nothing else would explain his racist remarks.

nicko wrote:I THINK Quill is black,   nothing else would explain his racist remarks.

He's another Rachel Dolezal.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Well aren't you the sweet little princess.  Here, we have racism, the most important domestic problem in the most powerful nation on earth...and you have to have your nails done.

Your attitude of frivolity is precisely what I am talking about.  You have to have lived through it to know anything about it.  You are case-in-point number one, Raggs.  All these murders and tragedies going on around you, and here's you:  Meh...let them eat cake...I have to have my hair done...

Well I didn't mention my nails or my hair Quill, but the man in your avatar looks like he knows how to use a hairdryer.

Was that meant to be a gay insult? I'm afraid it doesn't work on one who respects gays and lesbians, and lives and works among them in a city that prides itself on tolerance. Gay-bashing does not belong on this website. Take it elsewhere, Raggs.

This is why you keep losing these debates. Your comments too quickly turn on the poster and do not stick to the subject. I am pleased that you capitulate on the feature topic, but you ought to be a bit more forthcoming about it.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well I didn't mention my nails or my hair Quill, but the man in your avatar looks like he knows how to use a hairdryer.

Was that meant to be a gay insult?  I'm afraid it doesn't work on one who respects gays and lesbians, and lives and works among them in a city that prides itself on tolerance.  Gay-bashing does not belong on this website.  Take it elsewhere, Raggs.

This is why you keep losing these debates.  Your comments too quickly turn on the poster and do not stick to the subject.  I am pleased that you capitulate on the feature topic, but you ought to be a bit more forthcoming about it.

Oh, do only gay men use hairdryers then?

You're the one who got personal and sexist, so you take your sexism elsewhere.

Do tell me how I'm supposed to respond to someone who starts talking about hairdressing and nails, and then tries to claim he's on topic.

Well aren't you the sweet little princess.

Your comments too quickly turn on the poster and do not stick to the subject.

You have zero self-awareness Quill.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Was that meant to be a gay insult?  I'm afraid it doesn't work on one who respects gays and lesbians, and lives and works among them in a city that prides itself on tolerance.  Gay-bashing does not belong on this website.  Take it elsewhere, Raggs.

This is why you keep losing these debates.  Your comments too quickly turn on the poster and do not stick to the subject.  I am pleased that you capitulate on the feature topic, but you ought to be a bit more forthcoming about it.

Oh, do only gay men use hairdryers then?

You're the one who got personal and sexist, so you take your sexism elsewhere.

Do tell me how I'm supposed to respond to someone who starts talking about hairdressing and nails, and then tries to claim he's on topic.

You lost the plot completely. The reference was to how frivolous you are.

Suddenly, you're on an anti-gay rant.

You're not into abstract thinking, are you?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Oh, do only gay men use hairdryers then?

You're the one who got personal and sexist, so you take your sexism elsewhere.

Do tell me how I'm supposed to respond to someone who starts talking about hairdressing and nails, and then tries to claim he's on topic.

You lost the plot completely.  The reference was to how frivolous you are.

Suddenly, you're on an anti-gay rant.

You're not into abstract thinking, are you?

There was nothing anti-gay about my post. Your post was patronising and very sexist though.

Do you varnish your own nails?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well aren't you the sweet little princess.

Your comments too quickly turn on the poster and do not stick to the subject.

You have zero self-awareness Quill.

And your mother dresses you funny.