One LARGE order of S-HOLE coming right up!

[Kutnupe14]

Is joking a country and serious a race or are you dodging the question?

Ok nevermind. I guess I'm dodging the question, or significant world events seem to catch my eye more than some... even if it isn't my demographic that's being victimized (or under "threat" of victimization). I'll let you guys have at it. Import all the people who you think are a "culturally good fit" that you want.

 

[Tombs]

Ok nevermind. I guess I'm dodging the question, or significant world events seem to catch my eye more than some... even if it isn't my demographic that's being victimized (or under "threat" of victimization). I'll let you guys have at it. Import all the people who you think are a "culturally good fit" that you want.

Still waiting for you to answer the question.

Worming your way out of answering is not acceptable, if you're going to throw down such a ridiculous statement.

 

[jamil]

Whoa there cowboy. I haven't ever said we should take in Muslims. In fact, I am against it, not just for Muslims but everybody. We have enough people to care for, and I don't want to spend a dime more bring them in. It's not spite, it's consistency.

The last part is something I agree with. Playing angles instead of being straight up about things, I don’t think that’s helpful.

 

[Kutnupe14]

No, that's not good enough. Say it plainly. No need to be cowardly.

C'mon Woobie you know that stuff doesn't work on me. You think on it a while.

 

[Woobie]

C'mon Woobie you know that stuff doesn't work on me. You think on it a while.

No, I want you to, for the first time that I can remember, make a definitive statement that is plainly spoken. Frankly, I don't think you can bring yourself to do it. Show some character. If you believe something, say it proudly.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Still waiting for you to answer the question.

Worming your way out of answering is not acceptable, if you're going to throw down such a ridiculous statement.

I'm betting there's someone who probably educated to the situation I'm speaking of. Jamil probably knows what I'm talking about.

 

[Tombs]

I'm betting there's someone who probably educated to the situation I'm speaking of. Jamil probably knows what I'm talking about.

___ are being genocided in ___ country.

Fill in the blanks.

 

[jamil]

I'm betting there's someone who probably educated to the situation I'm speaking of. Jamil probably knows what I'm talking about.

The only thing I’ve heard about on the news is Myanmar.

 

[Woobie]

The only thing I’ve heard about on the news is Myanmar.

It's a big world. The fact is that people get treated horribly all the time. It was the Sudan, Syria, people were starving in Venezuela, the list goes on. A reasonable person could recollect any number of things regarding humanitarian disasters. Myanmar is probably the biggest at this moment, though.

But this is a silly game. Say what you mean or stop flapping your gums. Purposeful ambiguity is rude.

 

[jamil]

It's a big world. The fact is that people get treated horribly all the time. It was the Sudan, Syria, people were starving in Venezuela, the list goes on. A reasonable person could recollect any number of things regarding humanitarian disasters. Myanmar is probably the biggest at this moment, though.

But this is a silly game. Say what you mean or stop flapping your gums. Purposeful ambiguity is rude.

There was zero reasons to play games with that. That’s why I just said what he was talking about. The point isn’t made any stronger by not coming out and saying things straight up. But it does provide wiggle room if the conversation doesn’t go as planned.

 

[Woobie]

There was zero reasons to play games with that. That’s why I just said what he was talking about. The point isn’t made any stronger by not coming out and saying things straight up. But it does provide wiggle room if the conversation doesn’t go as planned.

Right. So maybe it's a confidence issue. If you don't have faith in your viewpoint, you leave yourself an escape.

Don't be afraid of correction. Either you are right, or you will be exposed to information that will help you get right.

 

[Dead Duck]

Who is experiencing genocide?

Do you know what they're doing to those poor goats in Afghanistan. It's GENOCIDE!

 

[indyartisan]

Not South Africa and from 2008 but maybe some insight for the lack of sympathy of some to the current situation in SA. Congo: How Rich Whites Caused Five Million Blacks to Die

A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford


How many Congolese must die to illuminate one hand-held computer game? Nobody knows, but five million have already been slaughtered in the greatest mineral extraction grab in the history of the planet. The best-known mining companies and richest men in the world are directly complicit in ten years of genocide in Central Africa, where chaos is deliberately imposed as a cover to smuggle billions of dollars in minerals out of the country. Local government officials, small but greedy players in the systemic looting of their own country, have no clue as to which companies actually have contracts to do business in Congo. When billions can be scoured from the earth through slave labor, law ceases to exist.

The holocaust in the Congo is a collective crime by all of the Euro-American mineral extraction industries and the governments that serve them.

Five million Congolese have died in the last decade or so in order to make billionaires even richer. If there were such a thing as international law, this holocaust in the Democratic Republic of Congo should have already resulted in the public hanging of hundreds of the world’s richest men—and rightfully so. If the Nuremberg laws that sent ten Nazis to the gallows for crimes against humanity and peace were applied to the Congo, we could quite easily find the names of the defendants in the columns of the world’s financial press—the richest men on the face of the earth. These men conspired to murder millions so that there would be constant war in Central Africa—but no law to inhibit theft on the grandest industrial scale imaginable.

The so-called government of Congo is just now getting around to beginning a review of which companies are mining what and where in the country. Since the many invasions of Congo began a decade ago, corporations like De Beers, BHP Billiton, Anglogold, and the American giant Freeport-McMoRan have caused five million people to die so that they could use the chaos as a cover to smuggle billions of dollars in precious metals out of the country. These mining companies all have their own private armies to defend their stolen goods, or join with the armies of U.S. allied countries such as Rwanda and Uganda to establish free-fire and steal-whatever-you-can-carry-away zones. It is accurate to say that the holocaust in the Congo is a collective crime by all of the Euro-American mineral extraction industries and the governments that serve them. True justice for the Congo would require the imprisonment or execution of many tens of thousands—most of them white men.

The Africans involved, including Congolese officials are relatively small fry, but they prosper from the table scraps of the cannibalization of the Congo. According to the commission to review the state of mining in Congo, various branches of the government protect some companies from paying any taxes at all on profits that range up to 600 percent. It’s not clear who even has a contract to do business in Congo. None of the gold rushes of modern history bore any similarity to the violence of industrial capitalism scouring the earth for coltan, diamonds and cassiterite. The Congolese death toll already exceeds those killed by forced labor under the Nazis—but not one rich white man in a suit has been punished.

Congo is proof that those nations that claim to be the civilized powers of the world are in fact the opposite; they are the guardians and bankrollers of hell. While these men live, let no one dare speak of morality as anything other than a wishful hypothetical. Certainly, it does not exist anywhere in Congo.

BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at:

Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com

—Black Agenda Radio, April 2, 2008

 

[Tombs]

Not South Africa and from 2008 but maybe some insight for the lack of sympathy of some to the current situation in SA. Congo: How Rich Whites Caused Five Million Blacks to Die

A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford


How many Congolese must die to illuminate one hand-held computer game? Nobody knows, but five million have already been slaughtered in the greatest mineral extraction grab in the history of the planet. The best-known mining companies and richest men in the world are directly complicit in ten years of genocide in Central Africa, where chaos is deliberately imposed as a cover to smuggle billions of dollars in minerals out of the country. Local government officials, small but greedy players in the systemic looting of their own country, have no clue as to which companies actually have contracts to do business in Congo. When billions can be scoured from the earth through slave labor, law ceases to exist.

The holocaust in the Congo is a collective crime by all of the Euro-American mineral extraction industries and the governments that serve them.

Five million Congolese have died in the last decade or so in order to make billionaires even richer. If there were such a thing as international law, this holocaust in the Democratic Republic of Congo should have already resulted in the public hanging of hundreds of the world’s richest men—and rightfully so. If the Nuremberg laws that sent ten Nazis to the gallows for crimes against humanity and peace were applied to the Congo, we could quite easily find the names of the defendants in the columns of the world’s financial press—the richest men on the face of the earth. These men conspired to murder millions so that there would be constant war in Central Africa—but no law to inhibit theft on the grandest industrial scale imaginable.

The so-called government of Congo is just now getting around to beginning a review of which companies are mining what and where in the country. Since the many invasions of Congo began a decade ago, corporations like De Beers, BHP Billiton, Anglogold, and the American giant Freeport-McMoRan have caused five million people to die so that they could use the chaos as a cover to smuggle billions of dollars in precious metals out of the country. These mining companies all have their own private armies to defend their stolen goods, or join with the armies of U.S. allied countries such as Rwanda and Uganda to establish free-fire and steal-whatever-you-can-carry-away zones. It is accurate to say that the holocaust in the Congo is a collective crime by all of the Euro-American mineral extraction industries and the governments that serve them. True justice for the Congo would require the imprisonment or execution of many tens of thousands—most of them white men.

The Africans involved, including Congolese officials are relatively small fry, but they prosper from the table scraps of the cannibalization of the Congo. According to the commission to review the state of mining in Congo, various branches of the government protect some companies from paying any taxes at all on profits that range up to 600 percent. It’s not clear who even has a contract to do business in Congo. None of the gold rushes of modern history bore any similarity to the violence of industrial capitalism scouring the earth for coltan, diamonds and cassiterite. The Congolese death toll already exceeds those killed by forced labor under the Nazis—but not one rich white man in a suit has been punished.

Congo is proof that those nations that claim to be the civilized powers of the world are in fact the opposite; they are the guardians and bankrollers of hell. While these men live, let no one dare speak of morality as anything other than a wishful hypothetical. Certainly, it does not exist anywhere in Congo.

BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at:

Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com

—Black Agenda Radio, April 2, 2008

Corporate plunder is more a function of economic theory than a function of race.

 

[CampingJosh]

Uh... Kut perhaps didn't feel the need to list each genocide because the point is the general trend rather than the specifics of each situation.

In recent years, there have been genocides or scares of genocide in Darfur, Egypt, Syria, and Myanmar (off the top of my head). None of these led to serious calls that the US accept a large portion of refugees. The majority of the refugees in each of these are non-white.
But when the potential for a genocide of white people in South Africa is mentioned, there is a quick call to open US borders.

It's perhaps possible to argue that cultural differences are the reason for change policy. But it's at least as obvious to point to the skin tone of the victims as the cause of the different response, especially since I doubt most people could speak intelligently on the cultural differences between the US and Egyptian Coptics.

 

[Woobie]

Man, how could I have forgotten about the Congo. People are sick.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

You're trying to craft an ideal world, that simply doesn't exist. Perhaps you won't admit it, but when people refer to someone as "Irish-American," the listener immediately assumes the person the white. It's not even a second thought to be considered, it is simply understood. The status quo. The idea of identifying by "look" is so ingrained, that the "Black Irish," actually was created for white people who don't "look" Irish, despite sharing the same culture and heritage. The racial identity of the majority is most often assigned to all, and when it different, then it is often clarified.

There are only a small smatterings of African culture in Black American culture. Most of it has been intentionally stripped away. Black culture in the United States, being the oldest homegrown US American culture since the founding, draws almost exclusively from lives and experiences in the United States.

The race part shouldn't give you pause. In America, black people didn't create it, white people did. They're the ones who who held an obsession with race until the 1970s. Everyone was placed in nice little boxes, told were they could go, and what they could do. Now people want to complain about the boxes? Is this some sort of White Guilt thing? Are people so ashamed of 200+ years of institutionalized racism that this is some attempt to destroy all vestiges of racial identification? That's interesting, I never considered that White Guilt may be the driving force behind the backlash against racial labels. Personally, for those who don't have the need to feel guilty, and seeing it not affecting you, don't worry about it.

Yep, if I here someone referred to as Irish-American I would generally assume they were Caucasoid, same as I would consider someone that was refereed to as Chinese-American I would generally assume they were Mongoloid, and the same for a Sudanese-American as Negroid. Simply because that is what races populate those areas by a vast majority. But if any other person of a different race had moved to those countries and lived there for several generations and adopted the culture and heritage of it, I would have no problem with them identifying as such and wouldn't blink an eye at them doing so. Although you seem to have a problem with those of Caucasoid ancestry referring to themselves as African-American.

You seem to know a lot about African-American culture but you can't define what it is? And if as you say has only a small smatterings of African culture, why identify as African-American? And I'll have to disagree that African-American culture is the oldest "homegrown" one, what about Native American culture? Isn't it "homegrown" and predates African-American? The same could be same for the generic "white" culture, didn't we come here first then bring blacks?

And I think the race thing is silly, and nope no white guilt here. And perhaps it's true that whites were the one with obsession on race until the 70s, but that was a couple of generations ago. And was just as silly then. If you choose to identify by the color of your skin, feel free. Doesn't make it any less silly.

It's so obvious, I didn't think it needed to be said.
As to your questions, bringing "farmers" into the United States, as refugees, is a non-starter. If they have some skills that are beneficial, and want to get in line, sure, have at it. No sped up visa, they wait in line like everyone else... as an individual. If the "farmer" wants to bring along his wife, his grandma, his teenage kids too? That's another non-starter. Or do you think that the farmer plans to leave SA without his family? I mean surely you didn't expect that he would want to bring along other folks with him. Right?

Yep your viewpoint, beliefs, and how you feel about people especially regarding the color of their skin along with their political leanings and whether or not they voted for/supported Trump is very obvious to those who have been reading your posts on here for a while, but why not simply come out and say what you mean for the benefit of those who haven't?

And why is bringing in "farmers" as refugees a non-starter? And I have no problems with legal immigrants, refugee or otherwise bringing their spouses and minor children with, parents are a bit iffier. Now their brothers/sisters and their minor kids, their spouses brothers/sisters and their minor kids, their spouses brothers and sisters and their minor kids, and so on and so on, that is a bit different. Why not address the other qualifiers I mentioned? I also said a skill that is beneficial other than just manual labor, is running a large farm just manual labor. Do we need people that know how to run a decent size farm and make it work? I also included money to invest, you seem to have left that off as well. I'll add another one, are they coming from an area where a large portion of the "refugees" are likely to hate the US and our way of life?

Here's where the story goes off the rails. Black Americans or African-Americans means refers to black Americans, period. Those of us that are descendent of slaves, have no national origin that we can be cite, as a displaced peoples, other than an acknowledgement of the place our ancestors originated from.

Africans that moved here from Africa do not have that issue, they don't refer to themselves as "African-Americans," because they are Sudanese-American, Somali-American, Kenyan-American. There's absolutely no need for them to need a more encompassing umbrella for identification. Just as Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans, or Polish-Americans have no need to refer to themselves as European-Americans. With that line of thought, a South African, would be a South African-American. To come here and claim to simply be an "African-American" when one can be more specific concerning national origin, is disingenuous. Why stop at African-American, if someone wants to push the bounds? Why not Southern Hemisphere-American or Planet Earth-American? Why attempt to make a mockery of people who have a lost history, and refer to themselves in the most specific way that they are able?

Your issue is that African-American has a racial component to it. Ok, so let me get this straight. You have a problem with group of people that are the descendants of American slaves because the name they "identify" with, "African-American" is also used a racial designation? How could it possibly not be a racial designation? Would it be better, if instead of "African-America," we used "Slave Descendent Americans?" Please, tell me how that doesn't carry a racial designation, for people held in bondage in the United States? Afro-American... how about that one? No... Afros traditionally tend to have a racial component too. Hmmm... how about simply Black-American, that way we can lumped in with Sudanese, Somali, and Kenyan-Americans. Nevermind the fact that they will probably be certain to clarify exactly who they are and their particular heritage.

You're absolutely right, people shouldn't be placed in boxes.... so I guess they also shouldn't be proud of their respective heritages. We're all American after all, right? So let's boycott the all these hyphenated-American events that bring us all this foreign culture-ish stuff. Makes sense, right?

Isn't there a simple relatively inexpensive test to find out where your ancestors originally came from? Frequently down to the country but at least down to a specific region rather than an entire continent. I've thought about doing one simply for curiosity, I have a pretty good idea where my ancestors on my Mom's side came from, Dad's side is a different story. But it doesn't really matter and I could use the money elsewhere so why?

Slave decedent-American or Black-American might be more accurate. Especially if as you say their culture contains very little African culture/heritage. Although I don't know the proportion of those in America with Negroid ancestry that are descended from slaves. And excludes those that have been in this country and identify as African-American who aren't descended from slaves. And you say that Black-American can be lumped in with the other more specific hyphenated Americans, but isn't that also true and to the same degree as African-American? And wouldn't the same happen with them specifying where they are from?

And I have no problem with the cultural/heritage fests, but you claim not to be able to define what African-American culture is, so what would the fest be like? Considering that by your statements African-American culture/heritage isn't a foreign culture.

 

[jamil]

Right. So maybe it's a confidence issue. If you don't have faith in your viewpoint, you leave yourself an escape.

Don't be afraid of correction. Either you are right, or you will be exposed to information that will help you get right.

I’ll take him at his word that he does it to try to make people think. But like I said, his point isn’t made stronger by it. If he’d have just asked why SA refugees and not Myanmar, posts would have been about that instead of about why he can’t just say it. So I’m not saying it’s the wigle room but I see that as a convenient side effect.

 

[jamil]

Yep, if I here someone referred to as Irish-American I would generally assume they were Caucasoid, same as I would consider someone that was refereed to as Chinese-American I would generally assume they were Mongoloid, and the same for a Sudanese-American as Negroid. Simply because that is what races populate those areas by a vast majority. But if any other person of a different race had moved to those countries and lived there for several generations and adopted the culture and heritage of it, I would have no problem with them identifying as such and wouldn't blink an eye at them doing so. Although you seem to have a problem with those of Caucasoid ancestry referring to themselves as African-American.

You seem to know a lot about African-American culture but you can't define what it is? And if as you say has only a small smatterings of African culture, why identify as African-American? And I'll have to disagree that African-American culture is the oldest "homegrown" one, what about Native American culture? Isn't it "homegrown" and predates African-American? The same could be same for the generic "white" culture, didn't we come here first then bring blacks?

And I think the race thing is silly, and nope no white guilt here. And perhaps it's true that whites were the one with obsession on race until the 70s, but that was a couple of generations ago. And was just as silly then. If you choose to identify by the color of your skin, feel free. Doesn't make it any less silly.



Yep your viewpoint, beliefs, and how you feel about people especially regarding the color of their skin along with their political leanings and whether or not they voted for/supported Trump is very obvious to those who have been reading your posts on here for a while, but why not simply come out and say what you mean for the benefit of those who haven't?

And why is bringing in "farmers" as refugees a non-starter? And I have no problems with legal immigrants, refugee or otherwise bringing their spouses and minor children with, parents are a bit iffier. Now their brothers/sisters and their minor kids, their spouses brothers/sisters and their minor kids, their spouses brothers and sisters and their minor kids, and so on and so on, that is a bit different. Why not address the other qualifiers I mentioned? I also said a skill that is beneficial other than just manual labor, is running a large farm just manual labor. Do we need people that know how to run a decent size farm and make it work? I also included money to invest, you seem to have left that off as well. I'll add another one, are they coming from an area where a large portion of the "refugees" are likely to hate the US and our way of life?



Isn't there a simple relatively inexpensive test to find out where your ancestors originally came from? Frequently down to the country but at least down to a specific region rather than an entire continent. I've thought about doing one simply for curiosity, I have a pretty good idea where my ancestors on my Mom's side came from, Dad's side is a different story. But it doesn't really matter and I could use the money elsewhere so why?

Slave decedent-American or Black-American might be more accurate. Especially if as you say their culture contains very little African culture/heritage. Although I don't know the proportion of those in America with Negroid ancestry that are descended from slaves. And excludes those that have been in this country and identify as African-American who aren't descended from slaves. And you say that Black-American can be lumped in with the other more specific hyphenated Americans, but isn't that also true and to the same degree as African-American? And wouldn't the same happen with them specifying where they are from?

And I have no problem with the cultural/heritage fests, but you claim not to be able to define what African-American culture is, so what would the fest be like? Considering that by your statements African-American culture/heritage isn't a foreign culture.

Edit: Not sure how this happened but I meant to reply to campingjosh.

See? Now this post much more directly calls people racists. No ambiguity here to waste time replying to.

 

[Woobie]

No, I want you to, for the first time that I can remember, make a definitive statement that is plainly spoken. Frankly, I don't think you can bring yourself to do it. Show some character. If you believe something, say it proudly.

I've had enough of this hit and run crap. Like a kid who kicks some guy's shins on the sidewalk then runs away. These vague accusatory remarks followed by silence, misdirection or backpedaling are simply cowardly. And if he does step in too deep to weasel his way out, he always somehow manages to get a mod to step in and save his bacon.

As much as I find myself agreeing with Kut on a philosophical level, and as much as I have learned from him, I am quickly losing any vestige of respect. Last week he said INGO would devolve into "stormfront lite" without the mods. No evidence, no line of reasoning. Just a giant insult and then a quick scurry behind a mod. Last night it was, nearly as I can tell, a similar remark. A vague suggestion that I have made bigoted remarks, or been wrongfully silent when someone else did. No evidence, and not even the character to say plainly exactly what was meant. This is cowardly.