Chattel Slavery: Was there any worse atrocity in human history????
Comments
-
correct
USA USA USA
well, one, it's perhaps a mix of economic strata. two... i think a point being glossed over is the "portrayed in the media" part.
Frankly, i don't even know what we're going back and forth about anymore.
I personally believe it breaks down to this:
We indians are our own ethnic and cultural group, but if you must fit us into the three major races, negroid, caucasoid, and mongoloid, we fit in either negroid or caucasoid. To say all indians are white, or all indians are black is unfair, and a blatant lie. Generally, the more southern, and more low caste indians have more negroid ancestry, and would therefor be negroids, while the northern, more high caste indians, which are the ones that usually come to America, and which are portrayed in the media FAR more, do have more white blood, because their ancestry is more among the waves of whites that consistently conquered and subjugated the black natives of india, and they would be considered white.
But to group any indians as part of either group i think is wrong, since at least 95% of indians probably have both white blood and black blood in them, and culturally are so different, that i believe we are our own group essentially.
Sorry if this post was incomprehensible, I'm tired and sick -
its over: 2012! wrote: »I dont think i was arguing, as I was being rather cordial towards the opinions here...plus I don't think there's anything wrong with it, since it's always correct, to identify a clear right vs. A clear Wrong or "worse-victim" in these scenarios
When i said "arguing" i meant it more like in the sense "debating", rather than being argumentative, so no shots at you or anything. And yes, it may be possible to identify a worse victim, but what good does that really do? A lot of blacks in America are still suffering, indians in india are still in a ? , africans in africa are still making very little progress, a lot of hispanics are still illiterate and poor. In the end we can only do what we can for our own people, and the people in similar plights as our own.its over: 2012! wrote: »yes indeed you were, my friend, and so I hoped it would be laudable to bring a unique perspective on the centuries-old, global-code to prop india's indians as well as all other indians, up over Black people...
1st, india's indians are absolutely 100% unrelated to native american indians except for sharing a common label by the white man. The european explorers were trying to reach India when they stumbled upon the Americas, and thinking they had indeed reached india, they called the natives "indians." Apart from that the two groups are completely unrelated, and neither group calls themselves "indians" as far as i know. That was a label put on both groups by the white man. (Yes, today, some indians do call themselves indians, but thats due to assimilation into white culture and other factors unrelated to this topic)
and 2nd, being a indian of African descent and appearance, i think i would know of any global propping up of india's indians over black people, and i have never seen, experienced, or heard of it. There may be certain groups of people that treat india's indians better, but Ive also met plenty of people that have treated me worse when they found out i am indian, and not black as they first imagined based on my appearance.
Native american indians, again, i will not comment on because i don't know enough about them. -
its over: 2012! wrote: »What do you think of the reality that this Fed GOVT allows indians to rake in billions of $$$$$ via their casino revenues...while Blacks still peril in America's ghettos, with nothing, no imperatives no Aid no reparations no arrangements like reservaton-casinos?tikingjcoleprince wrote: »We've been talking about indians from India.
okay, anyway:tikingjcoleprince wrote: »We indians are our own ethnic and cultural group, but if you must fit us into the three major races, negroid, caucasoid, and mongoloid, we fit in either negroid or caucasoid.
01. no one is saying you cannot define Indians as their own ethnic/cultural group. in fact, one of the things i have repeatedly said is "Indians are still a distinct cultural/national concept WITHIN one of the larger racial groups"
02. everyone's negroid, caucasoid or mongoloid; you don't get to be none of the above. Indians happen to qualify as caucasoid (aka "white folks")
03. people in Indian, as it is a nation, may be mixed race and background, but this not unique to India
04. no one is exempt from the racial categorization. just wanted to repeat that one
05. this is why i make rulings on this: we're SUPPOSED to be saving time here -
...
...this ...keeps happening
okay, anyway:
okay, here's the deal:
01. no one is saying you cannot define Indians as their own ethnic/cultural group. in fact, one of the things i have repeatedly said is "Indians are still a distinct cultural/national concept WITHIN one of the larger racial groups"
02. everyone's negroid, caucasoid or mongoloid; you don't get to be none of the above. Indians happen to qualify as caucasoid (aka "white folks")
03. people in Indian, as it is a nation, may be mixed race and background, but this not unique to India
04. no one is exempt from the racial categorization. just wanted to repeat that one
05. this is why i make rulings on this: we're SUPPOSED to be saving time here
Did you not read anything else i wrote? Ya, SOME indians are caucasoid, but again, to classify all indians as caucasoid is a blatant lie. Many are very clearly negroid, and hell, some in the north east are even mongoloid. -
tikingjcoleprince wrote: »Did you not read anything else i wrote? Ya, SOME indians are caucasoid, but again, to classify all indians as caucasoid is a blatant lie. Many are very clearly negroid, and hell, some in the north east are even mongoloid.
-
yes, i read everything you wrote. and then i posted post #164 after them. did you need me to post it again? because i am pretty sure i can accuse you of not reading my posts just as quickly.
Well i was just wondering, because generally when two people are discussing a topic, and person A makes a claim, if person B refutes that claim, it is expected that person B offers some sort of explanation as to why. -
tikingjcoleprince wrote: »Well i was just wondering, because generally when two people are discussing a topic, and person A makes a claim, if person B refutes that claim, it is expected that person B offers some sort of explanation as to why.
01. nationality != race
02. no one is exempt from being categorized into one of the three racial categories
03. logically, there is no reason to pretend being placed in a racial category negates one's cultural/ethnic/national background or history or whatever you like; despite this notion being advanced, it's unsupported -
now, see, this happened as well, but i can restate:
01. nationality != race
02. no one is exempt from being categorized into one of the three racial categories
03. logically, there is no reason to pretend being placed in a racial category negates one's cultural/ethnic/national background or history or whatever you like; despite this notion being advanced, it's unsupported
And thats all true. But that still doesn't back up your claim that all indian are white. It just states reasons why i should be ok with that claim. But that claim is fundamentally wrong.
There are parts of india where many inhabitants are very clearly mongoloid:
And all over india, especially in the lower castes, some people are very clearly negroid:
-
tikingjcoleprince wrote: »And thats all true. But that still doesn't back up your claim that all indian are white. It just states reasons why i should be ok with that claim. But that claim is fundamentally wrong.
-
"03. people in India, as it is a nation, may be mixed race and background, but this not unique to India
OHHH it all makes sense now, being mixed in race and background = white. Thanks for the clarification. -
tikingjcoleprince wrote: »OHHH it all makes sense now, being mixed in race and background = white. Thanks for the clarification.
-
the clarification that you seem to be overlooking is that India is not just a general description of an ethnicity, but ALSO a nationality. hope that helps!
And race obviously != ethnicity OR nationality.
And since some indians are white, its only logical that ALL indians, even the black, brown and yellow ones, are white. Makes perfect sense. -
tikingjcoleprince wrote: »And race obviously != ethnicity OR nationality.tikingjcoleprince wrote: »And since some indians are white, its only logical that ALL indians, even the black, brown and yellow ones, are white. Makes perfect sense.
fundamentally, what this STILL comes down to is you being upset about being white. it's been on display the entire time. to which i say, it's not your fault you're white, man -
you know, you say this like you're starting to get it, but then it all falls apart
or they're only Indian in terms of nationality
fundamentally, what this STILL comes down to is you being upset about being white. it's been on display the entire time. to which i say, it's not your fault you're white, man
lol, Janklow what your nationality bruh... -
you know, you say this like you're starting to get it, but then it all falls apart
or they're only Indian in terms of nationality
fundamentally, what this STILL comes down to is you being upset about being white. it's been on display the entire time. to which i say, it's not your fault you're white, man
Lmao, noooo sir you are very mistaken. I'm very clearly not white, and i have no doubt about that fact, nor can any statement you make convince me otherwise. You see me on the street you would probably, like almost everyone else i meet, think i'm black until i tell you otherwise, so being white is not an issue for me. What is an issue is you calling the rest of my people white. Many of them are >50% Caucasian, and i know and accept that. But many also are not, so i'm still having a hard time understanding how they are white.
So, please, even if you dont read any of the rest of my post, please answer this question: How can someone who is much more than 50% negroid or mongoloid be considered white?
I feel like you've been avoiding answering that one key question this whole time. -
waterproof wrote: »lol, Janklow what your nationality bruh...tikingjcoleprince wrote: »Lmao, noooo sir you are very mistaken. I'm very clearly not white, and i have no doubt about that fact, nor can any statement you make convince me otherwise.tikingjcoleprince wrote: »You see me on the street you would probably, like almost everyone else i meet, think i'm black until i tell you otherwise, so being white is not an issue for me.tikingjcoleprince wrote: »So, please, even if you dont read any of the rest of my post, please answer this question: How can someone who is much more than 50% negroid or mongoloid be considered white?
-
USA USA USA, obviously
it doesn't matter, your earlier emotions already gave you away on this one
everyone that says this is a darker-skinned white guy who i never "mistake for black." sorry, man
are they "Indian" or "of Indian nationality," goes the same old question
For some odd reason i thought you was a spaniardeven though you wave the american flag so proudly, lol. Are you from the Negroid, Mongolid are caucasoid race, WHAT'S YOUR DAMN RACE MAN!!!, LOL -
Everyone and everything in ancient Egypt was property of the Pharaoh. After being forced to hand over their crops to him, farmers were then conscripted into mining, quarrying, cutting, moving, and other forms of hard labor involved in building monuments to their master. Disobedience meant death or dismemberment, perhaps both. The population was kept illiterate by a network of priests loyal to the government.
An entire country enslaved to just one ? . And this went on for thousands of years.
This was worse than slavery in America. -
USA USA USA, obviously
it doesn't matter, your earlier emotions already gave you away on this one
everyone that says this is a darker-skinned white guy who i never "mistake for black." sorry, man
are they "Indian" or "of Indian nationality," goes the same old question
Well since black usually means african american, of course i'm not black. But i am indian of african descent. So i obviously am not white either. Which you don't seem to get.
And your question, I don't seem to understand. How long does someone's family have to be living in India to be considered Indian, rather than of Indian nationality? If you go back enough the original inhabitants were negroids, then came the mongoloids and Caucasoid.
Also, if someone has very dark skin, they obviously aren't white, or at least not all white. They have to have significant portions of something else in them. -
waterproof wrote: »For some odd reason i thought you was a spaniardeven though you wave the american flag so proudly, lol. Are you from the Negroid, Mongolid are caucasoid race, WHAT'S YOUR DAMN RACE MAN!!!, LOLtikingjcoleprince wrote: »Well since black usually means african american, of course i'm not black.tikingjcoleprince wrote: »But i am indian of african descent. So i obviously am not white either. Which you don't seem to get.tikingjcoleprince wrote: »And your question, I don't seem to understand. How long does someone's family have to be living in India to be considered Indian, rather than of Indian nationality?tikingjcoleprince wrote: »If you go back enough the original inhabitants were negroids, then came the mongoloids and Caucasoid.tikingjcoleprince wrote: »Also, if someone has very dark skin, they obviously aren't white, or at least not all white. They have to have significant portions of something else in them.
-
i have this theory that there are many more black guys in the world than African-Americans
But this all deals with the individual's definition of black. At least with many people of african descent that i've met, black has been a term used to refer to african americans solely, and not all africans.so here's the deal: either claim you are black, or don't. because you're doing this thing where you say you're not black, but you look black, but you wouldn't claim to be black, but you're black. maybe YOU need to get a couple of things straight first
I claim to be of african descent but indian nationality, i don't claim to be black because everyone has a different definition of what black is. If you consider black to be all africans, then i have no problem being labeled as black.it's not a matter of how long
Then what determines if someone is "indian" rather than "of indian nationality"if you go back far enough, everyone's black. this is the most relevant assertion!
You know exactly what I mean. The human races are thought to have diverged around 1.5 million years ago. India was settled by black negroids thousands of years ago. They were fully negroid at that point, and there hasn't been enough time since then for "evolution" to have occurred. The reason many indians don't look fully black is because most descend, at least partially, from the many different waves of white groups that invaded the subcontinent.
Also, if you go back far enough, everyone was not black. Everyone was african. The human ancestor had a medium skin tone. From there, the human races either became black, or white, over time.if your theory is that a black guy can't have lighter skin than a white guy, this is not going to always work out
Yes, a 100% black guy cannot have lighter skin than a 100% white guy unless by some fluke like albinism. If a white guy has darker skin than a black guy, either the white guy is mixed with black, or the black guy is mixed with white. -
tikingjcoleprince wrote: »But this all deals with the individual's definition of black. At least with many people of african descent that i've met, black has been a term used to refer to african americans solely, and not all africans.tikingjcoleprince wrote: »I claim to be of african descent but indian nationality, i don't claim to be black because everyone has a different definition of what black is. If you consider black to be all africans, then i have no problem being labeled as black.tikingjcoleprince wrote: »Then what determines if someone is "indian" rather than "of indian nationality"tikingjcoleprince wrote: »You know exactly what I mean. The human races are thought to have diverged around 1.5 million years ago. India was settled by black negroids thousands of years ago.tikingjcoleprince wrote: »Also, if you go back far enough, everyone was not black. Everyone was african. The human ancestor had a medium skin tone. From there, the human races either became black, or white, over time.tikingjcoleprince wrote: »Yes, a 100% black guy cannot have lighter skin than a 100% white guy unless by some fluke like albinism. If a white guy has darker skin than a black guy, either the white guy is mixed with black, or the black guy is mixed with white.
-
i don't know what kind of nonsense people have been telling you, but black applies to a lot more than African-Americans. did you think every black guy not from the US is being thrown onto the Caucasian team?
why don't you go ahead and make up your mind alreadyif they're going beyond saying they're simply from Indiaif the original men doing the settling were black, that's fine, but we're not talking about that long ago. pretty sure that was the point there...so i think you're getting that going back this far is pointless, yes?
I think you fail to realize the difference between millions of years, and mere hundreds or thousands of years. Races evolve over millions of years. Races settle in different places over thousands of years.so one, you grant that there's even a fluke you recognize. two, now we have to make this to some kind of molecular level? please. if you know any black guys and you know any white guys (maybe you know neither), then you're bound to know some black guy with lighter skin than a white guy you know. it happens. -
tikingjcoleprince wrote: »Black as a cultural or national term refers to african americans.tikingjcoleprince wrote: »What does that even mean? If someone says they're from India, even if they're a descendent of immigrants to India that makes them Indian instead of of Indian nationality?tikingjcoleprince wrote: »The original people were black, and their descendants are black. They didn't suddenly become white along they way.tikingjcoleprince wrote: »I think you fail to realize the difference between millions of years, and mere hundreds or thousands of years. Races evolve over millions of years. Races settle in different places over thousands of years.tikingjcoleprince wrote: »Maybe I'm very limited in those I've met, but I've never seen or heard of a pure black man with lighter skin than a pure white man. I have many black friends with light skin, but they are all mixed. And the white guys with darker skin are also mixed.
-
obviously white people happened somehow, unless you think it was a magical spell or something
actually, i get the impression it's you that's having the time frame issue
The white race evolved over MILLIONS of years. Blacks who arrived in India thousands of years ago didn't magically become white. Evolution cannot happen on a scale of mere thousands of years. And even if the blacks in India did change by a "magical spell" they wouldn't be white, they would be a new race altogether. So either way they aren't white.
So to summarize, blacks in india cannot have changed race so quickly, and it is indeed you that's having the time frame issue. And i'm getting the impression that you have very little knowledge about genetics or evolution.note how you'd still call white guys with darker skin "mixed" and "white guys" in the same sentence. huh
When "white guys" is used to represent anyone with 51% or greater white ancestry, then yes white guys can be darker than black guys. But thats not the topic here. We're talking about 100% white vs 100% black. And in that case it is impossible.