View Full Version : Please Join Me at the State of the White Nation Conference to Push the White Agenda
PanzerJaeger
03-05-2010, 02:29
...coffee and light refreshments will be served. :beam:
Did the title of this thread make you uncomfortable? Even hostile? Well it should have.
We're supposed to be living in a society that has moved far past such crass associations based on race. A society where people are judged on the content of their character, not the color of their skin.. and all that crap. The buzz words "colorblind" and "post-racial" come to mind.
Apparently, though, it only goes one way. Take a look at this article from the AP:
PBS host Smiley calls meeting to urge black agenda
By JESSE WASHINGTON (AP) – 1 day ago
Two months after ending his annual State of the Black Union conference, Tavis Smiley is gathering African-American advocates to press the case for a "black agenda."
The decision was motivated by what Smiley called recent statements from some black leaders downplaying the need for President Barack Obama to specifically help African-Americans.
"I was compelled to do it because of this debate," the activist and PBS talk show host said Wednesday.
The panel discussion will be March 20 at Chicago State University. Panelists include advertising pioneer Tom Burrell, professors Michael Eric Dyson and Cornel West, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, and Bennett College President Julianne Malveaux.
The meeting is free and open to the public. Negotiations to televise the event were in progress.
Some black politicians and activists have recently begun to question Obama's longtime stance that helping the overall economy will improve the fortunes of blacks who are disproportionately poor and unemployed.
West, for example, gave Obama a grade of C minus on policies and priorities focused on poor and working people, saying, "He has really not come through in any substantial and significant way." Members of the Congressional Black Caucus have blocked some legislation until their demands were met.
Last week, Smiley and the Rev. Al Sharpton had a fierce argument about the issue on Sharpton's radio show, with Sharpton taking heated exception to Smiley's claim that the reverend was giving Obama a pass on black issues.
When Smiley ended the State of the Black Union after 10 years, he said black issues were now being addressed elsewhere.
Apparently, however, not enough to his liking.
"This is not about Obama. It's about us," Smiley said in an interview.
He said that the Obama campaign and black leaders asked African-Americans for help during the election, but that "now that he's elected, what are black people being asked to do to hold him accountable to our agenda?"
Eric Deggans, who writes about the media and race for Florida's St. Petersburg Times, said Smiley's new event is consistent with his record of criticizing Obama's race-neutral stance. But there is a perception that Smiley is personally invested in the issue, he said, because Obama declined to attend Smiley's 2008 State of the Black Union event during the presidential campaign.
"It could be hard for people watching this to see Tavis as an honest broker," Deggans said. "He's playing an odd game," he continued. "He's trying to make great television and also present something that effects social change. That's often two different things."
I wonder if PBS would give a nightly show to a guy who spent his free time organizing conferences dedicated to pushing the white agenda - whatever that is. Not to mention that PBS is subsidized by taxpayers. I also wonder if the AP would have reported on it so nonchalantly if it had been a white television host.
Yes, racial hypocrisy in America, and the West, is not a new topic, but I think it deserves a new look in light of recent events. If a black man can ascend to the highest office of the land, why is such tactless race pandering still acceptable?
CountArach
03-05-2010, 02:33
This will be watched exceedingly carefully
I think this is the scentence pretty much explains their point.
Some black politicians and activists have recently begun to question Obama's longtime stance that helping the overall economy will improve the fortunes of blacks who are disproportionately poor and unemployed.
The fact of the matter is that racism is still around, the average person from an ethnic minority will have a harder time suceeding than a white person, therefore you get these groups.
I don't like them either because I think they are too narrow in scope, in this case advocating improving the situation for the black community only, they should be against all forms of discrimination.
Strike For The South
03-05-2010, 02:50
I started a thread like this once and it was promptly deleted....I was blitzed though.
The kind of racial thinking these guys are pusing is dying. Fharaken, Jackson, Sharpton, they are still fighting 60s battles and the paradigm has completley changed.
Where race realtions in this country are going I really can't tell you. The mass influx of hispanics and asians is throwing a wrench in the old Black-White and maybe a Puerto Rican guy if we're in New York stereotype that the media likes to push.
Income level is generally a good indacator of what "race" you will act like, I try not to buy in to the way the media portrays American culture because it is oversimplifed and false.
I was raised in South Texas, so I am the minority there and I can safltey say the hispanics speak english and don't commit as many crimes as midwesterners think they do.
I also laugh everytime Latino in America comes on CNN because they completley play into the 18 year old mexican with 8 kids and the 5'4 boyfriend with his el camino.
Of course Tennesse would probably be more of a culture shock to me than Guadalajara.
Seamus Fermanagh
03-05-2010, 04:26
PJ provided a source, a theme (reverse racism) and explained the humor/grabber attempt in his title right away in the OP. Fair game so far.
PJ,
It took us 89 years and one massively bloody war to abolish slavery, a further century to solidfy laws/regulations so as to desegregate and remove legal barriers, and another 4 decades after that to elect a person of African ancestry to the White House. So why are you surprised that there are still "backlash" groups in place? We're substantially better than we were before by any measure, but the last segregation generation is only now dying off. We're still decades away (at best) from a truly color-blind society. Until we render such groups/reverse racist efforts moot, they will continue.
Kadagar_AV
03-05-2010, 04:58
As long as colour of the skin is (somewhat) related to a culture or subculture the racial thinking will prevail.
I generally look down on people of the arabic race as they generally belong to a culture I do not respect, or like. With that said, someone from Armenia may look arabic but has a whole other culture (again, generally speaking).
And then we have blonde swedes belonging to the arabic culture but not race.
So yes, of course we must look to the individual. But that will only REALLY happen the day culture and race is totally mixed up. Today we can still draw general conclussions based on race.
Or as a practical example:
Say if I want to hire someone, and I get 100 applications for the job. I don't have time to interview them all, but let's say every applicant had about the same qulifications.
I would probably automaticly remove names such as "Muhammed al Aquia"... Not because I could never hire an arab, but because the odds of me liking a swede is better.
Would of course be another question if this Muhammed had better qualifications... But on an equal ground, he wouldnt even get an interview.
CountArach
03-05-2010, 05:07
So yes, of course we must look to the individual. But that will only REALLY happen the day culture and race is totally mixed up. Today we can still draw general conclussions based on race.
Am I the only one detecting a distinct lack of sense in this sentence? "We should look at the individual, but I'm not going to."
I like how PanzerJaeger compares Civil Rights movements to Oppressive ones.
He basically puts Martin Luther King Jr on the same bench as the Grand Dragon of the Klu Klux Klan saying they are the same thing.
What am I to say? I think it is pretty obvious.
Kadagar_AV
03-05-2010, 06:21
Am I the only one detecting a distinct lack of sense in this sentence? "We should look at the individual, but I'm not going to."
Most likely, if you put it in the context of the whole post.
But if I must elaborate on behalf of you...
Situation A) I meet a non-swede at a party. I would most def see him as an individual, and judge him thereafter.
Situation B) Out of 100 job applications I pick out 10 to interview, non-western european names I wouldn't pick based on previous experiences.
See, you can see the individual yet not claim you always do.
Annoying, for some it will never be enough. Country has a black president and whites don't care, get over it we are all equals. Good news for most, but some will always lose their purpose.
HoreTore
03-05-2010, 06:35
"White people", as in europeans, are not and have never been oppressed.
That's the difference.
"White people", as in europeans, are not and have never been oppressed.
That's the difference.
Not entirely true, women have been oppressed for example, then there is reglious oppression, etc etc etc
Kadagar_AV
03-05-2010, 06:44
"White people", as in europeans, are not and have never been oppressed.
Because we as a race is stronger?
*doesn't it look fun watching me try to drag myself back under the bridge?*
"White people", as in europeans, are not and have never been oppressed.
That's the difference.
Depends on how far you take it back, but it's still annoying anyway. The kids lost their candy.
Strike For The South
03-05-2010, 06:47
I like how PanzerJaeger compares Civil Rights movements to Oppressive ones.
He basically puts Martin Luther King Jr on the same bench as the Grand Dragon of the Klu Klux Klan saying they are the same thing.
What am I to say? I think it is pretty obvious.
No he doesn't. You're just going off on a tangent because you feel like it
Strike For The South
03-05-2010, 06:48
"White people", as in europeans, are not and have never been oppressed.
That's the difference.
The arabs used to take whites as slaves.....
PanzerJaeger
03-05-2010, 06:50
PJ,
It took us 89 years and one massively bloody war to abolish slavery, a further century to solidfy laws/regulations so as to desegregate and remove legal barriers, and another 4 decades after that to elect a person of African ancestry to the White House. So why are you surprised that there are still "backlash" groups in place? We're substantially better than we were before by any measure, but the last segregation generation is only now dying off. We're still decades away (at best) from a truly color-blind society. Until we render such groups/reverse racist efforts moot, they will continue.
I understand this, but isn't it best to lead by example? If these people are fighting for a the kind of colorblind society black leaders in the '60s promoted, why are they so overtly focused on race - especially in the absence of comparative white groups.
As another poster mentioned, black people are disproportionately affected by poverty - but there are far more poor white people in America, not to mention Latinos, Asians and other ethnicities. Wouldn't a more mature stand be against poverty in general?
These people - Smiley, Jackson, Sharpton, and a thousand wannabes - all stand to profit from a racially divided society. They get to sit on boards of big companies, have their conferences in nice hotels, and write books about how hard it is for the black man. They have become part of the problem, not the solution. Somehow, racism has to be made less profitable.
One of the few things about Obama's presidency that I was happy about was the perception that this racket would subside. Surely these hucksters couldn't get as much traction after the election of a man from a minority that consist of only 13% of the population. However, it continues unabated. They're even turning on O for not showing enough favoritism.
I like how PanzerJaeger compares Civil Rights movements to Oppressive ones.
He basically puts Martin Luther King Jr on the same bench as the Grand Dragon of the Klu Klux Klan saying they are the same thing.
How you could possibly glean that from my post is beyond me.... :dizzy2:
"White people", as in europeans, are not and have never been oppressed.
That's the difference.
That is not entirely true, and more importantly, it is beside the point. If the goal, as we've all been taught in school, is an integrated society, it has to come from all sides. You cannot have one group push racism to the fringe, and the other relish in it.
When the arbiters of race in this nation are members of numerous organizations based on race, something is off.
Strike For The South
03-05-2010, 06:59
You answered your own question Herr Hans. It's all about the money, that and political capitial
No he doesn't. You're just going off on a tangent because you feel like it
^-- That
Lefties should stop their reflex of projecting their fears, it's annoying having to unsay what you never said. The arguments equivalent of a road-bomb.
seireikhaan
03-05-2010, 07:15
I think the major issue is that its a whole lot easier to say sorry than it is to forgive. As Seamus pointed out, most of the guys you pointed to, PJ, are from a different time. Most of the minorities I know(albeit, not a lot) of my generation, are not terribly concerned about race. But then, civil rights struggles never happened to them. They never had a fire hose aimed at them. Is there still racism lurking? Sure, but its been driven underground quite a ways from where it used to. But for those that used to feel its presence come from high authority all the way down the chain of command, I imagine its hard to get out of that mindset. For whites, the whole experience, I have to imagine, is quite different. I do agree, however, that it will be a better world when we render no need for minority-specific cause groups. Gonna be a while.
HoreTore
03-05-2010, 07:38
That is not entirely true, and more importantly, it is beside the point. If the goal, as we've all been taught in school, is an integrated society, it has to come from all sides. You cannot have one group push racism to the fringe, and the other relish in it.
When the arbiters of race in this nation are members of numerous organizations based on race, something is off.
No, the reason why we squirm when we hear of white power organizations, is because they promote a view responsible for the deaths of millions(Hitler, colonialism, etc).
No black power ideology has killed. That's why they are considered more legit than white power organizations. Nor have they ever been in power.
The arabs used to take whites as slaves.....
Oh right, silly me, I forgot back in 1850, Norway was ruled by the Arab caliphate who enslaved the native population and forced us to work the cotton fields...
Sorry, won't happen again.
Strike For The South
03-05-2010, 07:45
No, the reason why we squirm when we hear of white power organizations, is because they promote a view responsible for the deaths of millions(Hitler, colonialism, etc).
No black power ideology has killed. That's why they are considered more legit than white power organizations. Nor have they ever been in power.
.
Do you like spouting misinformation to prop up your own views? Or does it just sort of happen?
Because if you really beilive what you just wrote then you are living in a bubble
The black panthers? Angela Davis? Jonathon Jackson?
No, the reason why we squirm when we hear of white power organizations, is because they promote a view responsible for the deaths of millions(Hitler, colonialism, etc).
No black power ideology has killed. That's why they are considered more legit than white power organizations. Nor have they ever been in power.
Oh right, silly me, I forgot back in 1850, Norway was ruled by the Arab caliphate who enslaved the native population and forced us to work the cotton fields...
Sorry, won't happen again.
Should I be angry at the Germans? What should I demand from them.
That isn't my history, nor is it the history of todays germans. Should I ask for an apology for what didn't happen to me, from the people who didn't do it. Maybe they are sorry the first time you ask them, second time they will be annoyed, when it becomes unfair they might get angry and I don't blame them.
ajaxfetish
03-05-2010, 09:28
Oh right, silly me, I forgot back in 1850, Norway was ruled by the Arab caliphate who enslaved the native population and forced us to work the cotton fields...
So, then, I take it you want to revise your earlier statement to '"White people", as in norwegians, are not and have never been oppressed. That's the difference.'
Ajax
PanzerJaeger
03-05-2010, 09:36
No, the reason why we squirm when we hear of white power organizations, is because they promote a view responsible for the deaths of millions(Hitler, colonialism, etc).
No black power ideology has killed. That's why they are considered more legit than white power organizations. Nor have they ever been in power.
Would you be more comfortable with a benevolent organization exclusively for white leaders dedicated to the celebration of white culture and the advancement of white people above others?
...or would that be counterproductive?
Would you be more comfortable with a benevolent organization exclusively for white leaders dedicated to the celebration of white culture and the advancement of white people above others?
...or would that be counterproductive?
We should top it off with a Straight Pride March.
No he doesn't. You're just going off on a tangent because you feel like it
How you could possibly glean that from my post is beyond me.... :dizzy2:i
Let's name a 'White' movement: The Klu Klux Klan
What are their goals?: White Supremacy over others, Blacks in particular.
Let's name a 'Black' movement: General Black Civil Rights Activism (like Martin Luther King Jr)
What are their goals?: Equal recognition and equal rights for the minority 'black' populace which have been and in many ways, oppressed.
There is no tangent being done, it was a simple comparison between the existing/historical movements which explains why "some one squirms" when some one says 'White Nation Conference' as they are basically a bunch of bigots.
Lets look at other things... why not have a Straight Pride March? Firstly, you have to look at why there is a Gay Pride March.
Gay Pride March is a way of them saying "Look, we exist, recognise our existence and learn to accept us" and it helps enables homosexuals not to feel isolated, alone and victimised. This is a reliation to the oppressive cultural of the heterosexual, and bigots who espouse views like "YOU WILL BURN IN HELL!" or send kids to torture 'gay' camp to make them 'straight'. Even the words (f)"maggot" "gay" homo" and others are used as insults in the school, and around in society.
So what would be the point in a Straight Pride March, when there is no point, no message to display, except for like "learn your place, homosexuals!"
This goes on for other things as well, such as gender, sex, religion, culture, nationality, etc.
There is something to say for that
PanzerJaeger
03-05-2010, 11:12
Let's name a 'White' movement: The Klu Klux Klan
What are their goals?: White Supremacy over others, Blacks in particular.
Let's name a 'Black' movement: General Black Civil Rights Activism (like Martin Luther King Jr)
What are their goals?: Equal recognition and equal rights for the minority 'black' populace which have been and in many ways, oppressed.
How about using an apples to apples comparison? Black Panthers might work, or even the Black Liberation Army.
There is no tangent being done, it was a simple comparison between the existing/historical movements which explains why "some one squirms" when some one says 'White Nation Conference' as they are basically a bunch of bigots.
What would you call a bunch of people who associate based on their race for the exclusive advancement of their race in 2010? A bunch of...?
Lets look at other things... why not have a Straight Pride March? Firstly, you have to look at why there is a Gay Pride March.
Gay Pride March is a way of them saying "Look, we exist, recognise our existence and learn to accept us" and it helps enables homosexuals not to feel isolated, alone and victimised. This is a reliation to the oppressive cultural of the heterosexual, and bigots who espouse views like "YOU WILL BURN IN HELL!" or send kids to torture 'gay' camp to make them 'straight'. Even the words (f)"maggot" "gay" homo" and others are used as insults in the school, and around in society.
So what would be the point in a Straight Pride March, when there is no point, no message to display, except for like "learn your place, homosexuals!"
This goes on for other things as well, such as gender, sex, religion, culture, nationality, etc.
First of all, as far as I am aware, anyone is welcome at a gay pride march.
Anyway, there is a name for the argumentative tactic you are using, but it escapes me at the moment as it is way past my bedtime; so I'll just get down to the point.
Essentially, you are conflating two very groups at very different stages. Are you attempting to say that because gay people have it hard now, black people are somehow entitled to racism ad infinitum?
In many places in America:
Gay people cannot:
-get married
-openly serve in the military
-seek legal recourse for hate crimes
-donate blood
Gay people can:
-be fired for their sexuality
-be kicked out of their homes because of their sexuality
...etc...!
Now I don't want to get into an argument over Gay Rights, but I would say they have some legitimate concerns. Unlike something like disproportionate poverty levels which have little to do with race anymore, these issues are directly tied to their sexuality. If you believe that is something that is not chosen, then they are being denied rights on a federal level.
What exactly is the black agenda in 2010? What makes this kind of self segregation anything more than immature and selfish at this point? How is it productive?
How about using an apples to apples comparison? Black Panthers might work.
Unfortunately, that is comparing pears to apples. Might look similar, but even then, very different. Black Panthers was a militarist-revolutionist-like response to police brutalisation of black ethnic minorities in America. The concept behind it was protection from this, from the state. While it is a hard-line movement with radical elements, "white" people I believe could still be members/work with the black panthers.
Now compare that to the KKK, where you have mainly White ex-slave owners or descenants from the Southern States who want to keep black people in their place. As you can see it no where near apples-to-apples with that example.
The closest thing to your example could be the anti-colonialist activities in Africa, where they basically butchered/reclaimed the land from the white colonists. Even then, this wouldn't be apple-to-apple, since the Whites again, were the oppressors and not the oppressed, and thus, is it a top-down movement or a grass-roots, bottom-up movement.
Unlike something like disproportionate poverty levels which have little to do with race anymore, these issues are directly tied to their sexuality. If you believe that is something that is not chosen, then they are being denied rights on a federal level.
What exactly is the black agenda in 2010? What makes this kind of self segregation anything more than immature and selfish at this point?
It comes down to another question, what is your opinion on womens rights, and even those of other religions? There is a still a significant pay-gap between men-women and with males in the majority of the top-jobs and getting raises. There are all sorts of social and economical issues.
Just because it is put into law, doesn't mean it is automatically put into practise.
Eventually, these groups will dissolve when the egalitarian socialist paradise comes about, but we got a bit more to work on to iron out those creases. Also, as a note, these special interest groups lose support when things are going well, due to issues like blacks not being allowed to sit on the bus, etc, going away, they do not have the same support. So it is best for them to just die away naturally, instead of actively opposing groups which could be seen and classed as oppressive, thus causing a backlash and inversiely doing the opposite reaction to the desired action.
As another poster mentioned, black people are disproportionately affected by poverty - but there are far more poor white people in America, not to mention Latinos, Asians and other ethnicities. Wouldn't a more mature stand be against poverty in general? .
Yes, but the question is to how much does the fact that they are black increase the likelihood that they will be impoverished? The answer is, quite a lot.
What would you call a bunch of people who associate based on their race for the exclusive advancement of their race in 2010? A bunch of...?
There are plenty of organisations in America which celebrate the heritage of cultural groups, such as German-American, Italian-American, Irish-American organisations. These are common, and by no means limited to people of white skin. Blacks lack such a strong culture to identify with, sinch it was systematically destroyed by whites, and tribal identities were erased. The only part of their heritage which blacks can be sure to identify with is their skin colour, and African-American culture. However, there is no such "white heritage", and any attempts to create one often have sinister undertones.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-05-2010, 12:30
"White people", as in europeans, are not and have never been oppressed.
That's the difference.
White slaves taken from (for example) Cronwall in England and worked to death in Africa.
It cuts both ways, I'm afraid.
PJ is correct, while oppression of Blacks historically has left them disadvantaged (the poorer you are the harder it is to move up) encouraging racism perpetuates the idea that they are poor because they are black. This is a sop to stop some people from getting on, because they think they are being held back when in reality they're just starting from a lower economic base.
CountArach
03-05-2010, 12:41
White slaves taken from (for example) Cronwall in England and worked to death in Africa.
Were they stolen because of their race or because they were just convenient targets?
People have a strange opinion of what counts as racial oppression. A few whites grabbed because they were easy targets and put to work in the galleys (or whatever) hardly counts as the oppression of a race IMO.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-05-2010, 12:51
People have a strange opinion of what counts as racial oppression. A few whites grabbed because they were easy targets and put to work in the galleys (or whatever) hardly counts as the oppression of a race IMO.
Were they stolen because of their race or because they were just convenient targets?
100,000 used to build one palace. Anyway, racism was a development to justify slavery, not the other way around.
HoreTore
03-05-2010, 13:00
Do you like spouting misinformation to prop up your own views? Or does it just sort of happen?
Because if you really beilive what you just wrote then you are living in a bubble
The black panthers? Angela Davis? Jonathon Jackson?
Hah! Come on, those are children compared to others. How many did the black panthers kill? 5? How many did Hitler kill? 50 millions?
So, then, I take it you want to revise your earlier statement to '"White people", as in norwegians, are not and have never been oppressed. That's the difference.'
Ajax
No.
Would you be more comfortable with a benevolent organization exclusively for white leaders dedicated to the celebration of white culture and the advancement of white people above others?
...or would that be counterproductive?
No such oranization exists, they all cling to a past where white people killed and exploited everyone else.
Also, there's no need for such an organization in the western world; we are the majority power and in complete control.
But a French movement in England to promote the French people? I'm pretty sure such an organization exists, and nobody has any problem with them.
Hah! Come on, those are children compared to others. How many did the black panthers kill? 5? How many did Hitler kill? 50 millions?
You really have no point there, you are on the side of the people who would gladly do it again.
CountArach
03-05-2010, 13:26
You really have no point there, you are on the side of the people who would gladly do it again.
Woah, woah, woah, that is incredibly offensive and I thought you were above that.
HoreTore
03-05-2010, 13:27
You really have no point there, you are on the side of the people who would gladly do it again.
I am most certainly not on anyone's side here. As I dislike any notion of anything that smells of nationalism or patriotism, I of course have no love for the organization in the OP.
The Stranger
03-05-2010, 13:28
"White people", as in europeans, are not and have never been oppressed.
That's the difference.
well... not systematically by other than white people :P
Woah, woah, woah, that is incredibly offensive and I thought you were above that.
It's true isn't it, muslims hate jews. Lefties respect Islam. 1+1= always 2.
HoreTore
03-05-2010, 13:35
It's true isn't it, muslims hate jews. Lefties respect Islam. 1+1= always 2.
I'm a leftie, and I don't respect any religious people because of their religion.
CountArach
03-05-2010, 13:35
It's true isn't it, muslims hate jews. Lefties respect Islam. 1+1= always 2.
A handful of things...
1. Your logic is completely flawed.
2. You clearly haven't got the vaguest idea what you are talking about and are just willing yourself to see a result.
3. You are as bad as conspiracy theorists when it comes to some vaguely-defined megastructure of 'The left'.
4. You are oversimplifying to an absurd point.
5. You are clearly unwilling to see any shades of grey.
Please take steps to rectify the above.
The Stranger
03-05-2010, 13:36
Should I be angry at the Germans? What should I demand from them.
That isn't my history, nor is it the history of todays germans. Should I ask for an apology for what didn't happen to me, from the people who didn't do it. Maybe they are sorry the first time you ask them, second time they will be annoyed, when it becomes unfair they might get angry and I don't blame them.
i dont know... holocaust still seems to work like a pretty valid reason... oh but that's only sixty years ago... so that's still fresh...
and i doubt every afro-american person in the states demands an apology of every anglo-saxon he comes across...
dude... your apology or your life... what do you choose?!!!!
it is not demanded of the normal people, it is demanded of the institution that has represented that system and legitimized it.
HoreTore
03-05-2010, 13:38
it is not demanded of the normal people, it is demanded of the institution that has represented that system and legitimized it.
DING DING DING DING
Please take steps to rectify the above.
No way, the only thing that is bigger then the multicultural desire of the left is it's craving for sharia-law. Deeply conservative, but floating on a cloud that never was. Not going to say sorry for calling a spade a spade.
CountArach
03-05-2010, 13:46
No way, the only thing that is bigger then the multicultural desire of the left is it's craving for sharia-law. Deeply conservative, but floating on a cloud that never was. Not going to say sorry for calling a spade a spade.
Well I'm afraid I can never take you seriously again.
Well I'm afraid I can never take you seriously again.
So there is a more enlightened reason to cater every backward aspect of Islam, respect.. congrats you have it. I don't, I don't really understand why a young girl has to die for the honor of her family, I really don't. So you really do, I guess we don't understand each other there.
Furunculus
03-05-2010, 13:55
People have a strange opinion of what counts as racial oppression. A few whites grabbed because they were easy targets and put to work in the galleys (or whatever) hardly counts as the oppression of a race IMO.
point of order; over a million people is not just "a few whites":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_Slave_Trade
HoreTore
03-05-2010, 13:58
point of order; over a million people is not just "a few whites":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_Slave_Trade
So.....
Britain is exploiting Romania right now, then?
Louis VI the Fat
03-05-2010, 14:20
"White people", as in europeans, are not and have never been oppressed.
That's the difference.That's a Northwest European perspective. The fringe of the continent.
The European South, Southeast and East have had to content with non-Europeans forever. So much so, that it raises good questions of what Europe is exactly, where it ends.
The destruction of a single Mediterranean civilization into the three areas of Latin Christianity, Byzantine, and the Arabs is the birth of Europe. Latin Christianity is Europe, this synthesis of North and South. (French perspective?)
Europe has had to deal with outside interference forever. There were the Northern and Eastern barbarians (both pacified and assimilated into Europe eventually). In the South there has been a continual ebb and flow over control of the Mediterranean ever since the birth of Europe.
In the Southeast, the Ottomans left the Balkans less than a century ago. (Or are still there, depending on one's view of Constantinople and Little Asia). In the East, Russia, after centuries of being a tributary state to non-European powers, only subjugated its south and east in the 19th century. This vast area has been a perennial ebb and flow of influence too.
All this talk of white slaves is missing the point, they were targeted because they were christian, not because they were white.
So.....
Britain is exploiting Romania right now, then?
Not sure what your getting at, there isn't anywhere close to a million Romanians in the UK and they certainly aren't slaves.
CountArach
03-05-2010, 14:34
So there is a more enlightened reason to cater every backward aspect of Islam, respect.. congrats you have it. I don't, I don't really understand why a young girl has to die for the honor of her family, I really don't. So you really do, I guess we don't understand each other there.
I am opposed to the controlling aspects of religion. Islam is a religion. Ergo, I am opposed to Islam, just as I am Christianity. Until you understand this simple fact, and the fact that there are many people who think the same way, you and I will never understand each other.
HoreTore
03-05-2010, 14:54
Not sure what your getting at, there isn't anywhere close to a million Romanians in the UK and they certainly aren't slaves.
I was referring to eastern european sex slaves(romania was a random choice of country) sold in western europe(britain was chosen because that's where Furunculus lives).
1 million living in Western Europe now? Not sure. But one million over 300 years if you multiply the current situation? Pretty sure about that.
Furunculus
03-05-2010, 15:10
So.....
Britain is exploiting Romania right now, then?
it was a point of order, i.e. a specific correction, abd not offered as a counter-argument in an of itself.
this on the other hand would be a counter-argument:
People have a strange opinion of what counts as racial oppression. A few whites grabbed because they were easy targets and put to work in the galleys (or whatever) hardly counts as the oppression of a race IMO.
ahem, the spanish might disagree:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umayyad_conquest_of_Hispania
Were [white slaves] stolen because of their race or because they were just convenient targets?
Religion and race were the primary factors, not convenience. My favorite popular historian released a very easy read on this subject (http://januarymagazine.com/nonfiction/whitegold.html).
The moral of the story is that any race is capable of oppression and horror; and any race can be subjected to it, given the right conditions.
As for PJ's amusingly provocative OP, I think he's missing the generation gap, as has been pointed out by other posters. There are people alive who still remember the civil rights movement, which was no joke. So some of these older folks see racism as a pitched struggle between the blacks and the government. Yeah, sure, they're wrong, but who can blame them? People can only change so much in one lifetime.
This all goes back to my deep-seated belief that the most useful thing we do is die. Imagine if immortality existed, just how reactionary and ultra-conservative our politics would become. Sheesh. Talk about hating and fearing change. No, we do what we can in our allotted slot, then we get stuck in our ways and crotchety, and we stop seeing the world for what it is, and then, thankfully, we die.
al Roumi
03-05-2010, 16:10
The arabs used to take whites as slaves.....
AFAIK they took anyone they could as slaves, just as the galant knights of the first crusade butchered anyone they found from Constantinople to Jerusalem.
al Roumi
03-05-2010, 16:12
Apologies for the double post but...
This all goes back to my deep-seated belief that the most useful thing we do is die. Imagine if immortality existed, just how reactionary and ultra-conservative our politics would become. Sheesh. Talk about hating and fearing change. No, we do what we can in our allotted slot, then we get stuck in our ways and crotchety, and we stop seeing the world for what it is, and then, thankfully, we die.
:applause:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-05-2010, 19:36
AFAIK they took anyone they could as slaves, just as the galant knights of the first crusade butchered anyone they found from Constantinople to Jerusalem.
Wrong on both counts, they took Christians and the Knights didn't do any slaughtering; it was the rabble that arrived before them.
HoreTore
03-05-2010, 19:41
Religion and race were the primary factors, not convenience. My favorite popular historian released a very easy read on this subject (http://januarymagazine.com/nonfiction/whitegold.html).
A nice theory, unfortunately wrong. They enslaved plenty of people from Africa in addition to europeans. The reason why they didn't take muslim arabs, is simply because all muslim arabs were part of the same empire as themselves, the Ottoman empire... In other words, they took everyone they could get their hands on who wouldn't cause a stir.
Wrong on both counts, they took Christians and the Knights didn't do any slaughtering; it was the rabble that arrived before them.
While your newfound Christian patriotism can be amusing from time to time, Philipvs, Renaud de Châtillon was indeed a knight.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-05-2010, 20:56
While your newfound Christian patriotism can be amusing from time to time, Philipvs, Renaud de Châtillon was indeed a knight.
He was also contemporary with the Second Crusade and Kingdom of Heaven was not an historical film.
Clue: the Temple Knights were usually the ones stopping sectarian killings.
I know it fits in with your view of histroy to paint all Christian as religious and racist bigots, but they weren't. Converesely, the Vikings were not quite always brutal rapists, though (being raiders) they were worse than invaders who came to stay and settle.
As far as "Christian Patriotism" goes, not familiar with the concept.
HoreTore
03-05-2010, 23:03
He was also contemporary with the Second Crusade and Kingdom of Heaven was not an historical film.
Clue: the Temple Knights were usually the ones stopping sectarian killings.
I haven't seen Kingdom of Heaven, but I'm quite familiar with Saladin's biography, and I know very well that Renaud de Châtillon was the man responsible for the raids that ended the truce.
And as for the first crusade(I guess you meant the second(real) army) not doing any pillaging, raping and killing; well, they were thousands of men marching through enemy lands with a hostile population; how on earth do you think they were fed? With the worlds largest baggage train? No, they simply pillaged, like everyone did at that time. And when you take food from a peasant, they are going to resist from time to time. And those who resist will of course be killed.
Marching 10.000 hungry men from Istanbul to Jerusalem without some mass killings is simply impossible.
Another fine example of a knights is your dear Richard Lionheart, who massacred 3000 prisoners on the walls of Acre... Nice chaps those royals, eh?
I know it fits in with your view of histroy to paint all Christian as religious and racist bigots, but they weren't. Converesely, the Vikings were not quite always brutal rapists, though (being raiders) they were worse than invaders who came to stay and settle.
I know it fits brilliantly with your worldview to paint me as such, unfortunately it's not correct.
Centurion1
03-05-2010, 23:06
This is all so pathetic posting in many cases.
"White people", as in europeans, are not and have never been oppressed.
That's the difference.
This is the stupidest thing i have ever heard. My family came over on boats from ireland and eastern europe and were driven like slaves and treated like scum. You sound very very ignorant. My family in Croatia was raided by the ottoman empire for hundreds of years.
No, the reason why we squirm when we hear of white power organizations, is because they promote a view responsible for the deaths of millions(Hitler, colonialism, etc).
No black power ideology has killed. That's why they are considered more legit than white power organizations. Nor have they ever been in power.
This is almost as stupid. They are not legit because they have killed. Ever heard of the Black Panthers or the black liberation army, they are still around they still kill people. and no beskar thay haven killed 5 people.
one of the most heralded civil righters Malcolm X supported violence.
Let's name a 'White' movement: The Klu Klux Klan
What are their goals?: White Supremacy over others, Blacks in particular.
Let's name a 'Black' movement: General Black Civil Rights Activism (like Martin Luther King Jr)
What are their goals?: Equal recognition and equal rights for the minority 'black' populace which have been and in many ways, oppressed.
There is no tangent being done, it was a simple comparison between the existing/historical movements which explains why "some one squirms" when some one says 'White Nation Conference' as they are basically a bunch of bigots.
Lets look at other things... why not have a Straight Pride March? Firstly, you have to look at why there is a Gay Pride March.
Gay Pride March is a way of them saying "Look, we exist, recognise our existence and learn to accept us" and it helps enables homosexuals not to feel isolated, alone and victimised. This is a reliation to the oppressive cultural of the heterosexual, and bigots who espouse views like "YOU WILL BURN IN HELL!" or send kids to torture 'gay' camp to make them 'straight'. Even the words (f)"maggot" "gay" homo" and others are used as insults in the school, and around in society.
So what would be the point in a Straight Pride March, when there is no point, no message to display, except for like "learn your place, homosexuals!"
This goes on for other things as well, such as gender, sex, religion, culture, nationality, etc.
lolz that is a stupid comparison im not even going to bother to read. The KKK (which is illegal and you obviously barely know anything about) cannot be compared realistically to the GBCRM. you can try comparing them to the Black panthers or BLA. your image of the KKK is the typical ignorant one, it stretches far beyond hatred of Blacks and other minorities.
While your newfound Christian patriotism can be amusing from time to time, Philipvs, Renaud de Châtillon was indeed a knight.
and kingdom of heaven is unfortunately not a history film.
A nice theory, unfortunately wrong. They enslaved plenty of people from Africa in addition to europeans. The reason why they didn't take muslim arabs, is simply because all muslim arabs were part of the same empire as themselves, the Ottoman empire... In other words, they took everyone they could get their hands on who wouldn't cause a stir.
ummmmm no. they didnt take muslims because they were muslims and you cant enslave a muslim if you too are a muslim so its the same excuse as white southerners enslaving blacks
i do in no way support racism of any sort. I particularly dislike racial stereotyping becasue last time i checked my african american uncle and my two Mexican national uncles are doing just fine and my mexican cousin just got into Berkley.
The difference between people lies in economic factors. A well educated black student is going to e just as smart as a white wealthy student. a poor white and a poor black are both the same acting with different colors.
So what annoys pj is that those wealthy black students get far more advantages when applying to things like college than the poor white student does on paper.
HoreTore
03-06-2010, 00:31
This is all so pathetic posting in many cases.
This is the stupidest thing i have ever heard. My family came over on boats from ireland and eastern europe and were driven like slaves and treated like scum. You sound very very ignorant. My family in Croatia was raided by the ottoman empire for hundreds of years.
I had thought it obvious that I was referring to europeans oppressed by non-europeans. Sorry.
This is almost as stupid. They are not legit because they have killed. Ever heard of the Black Panthers or the black liberation army, they are still around they still kill people. and no beskar thay haven killed 5 people.
The workers movement killed a few people, but I still consider it perfectly fine to vote Labour. I do not, however, think it's fine to vote for a stalinist or marxist-leninist party.
ummmmm no. they didnt take muslims because they were muslims and you cant enslave a muslim if you too are a muslim so its the same excuse as white southerners enslaving blacks
That's like saying a christian can't kill someone because the bible clearly states that killing is wrong. Money trumps religion or ideals.
People of all races were found in arab slave markets. The reason why the europeans are so known is because it's about the only slave market selling europeans.
And please, cut the flame crap. If you're going to call someone "pathetic" or "ignorant", at least take a bloody minute to check your post for the spelling errors that makes you look like a 9-year old.
Rhyfelwyr
03-06-2010, 00:46
The white peoples are much more prone to imposing disgusting institutions such as colonialism and slavery, just look at history.
And no, SFTS, don't even think about trying your old correlation=/=causation fallacy on me here.
IMO, it is hilarious how white people moan about a bit of affirmitive action, as if that compares to being herded across the Atlantic like cattle. Yeah, it's not fun when discrimination happens to yourself, is it? tbh, I don't know how a white person can walk by a black person without feeling just a bit of guilt.
People of all races were found in arab slave markets. The reason why the europeans are so known is because it's about the only slave market selling europeans.
I'm sorry, but you do not appear to have read very deeply in this area, 'cause this is blatantly wrong. You don't even touch on the complexities around conversions to Islam during the Barbary slaving period, or on the ransom system which made the slavery doubly profitable.
Europeans were explicitly targeted for the Barbary slave system. To deny this is to bury your head in the sand. Muslims enslaving other muslims was expressly forbidden, and any non-muslim slave could gaine freedom (of a sort) by offering to convert and receive circumcision.
All of which is a bit of a tangent from the OP, but your misinformation cried out for a response.
And please, cut the flame crap. If you're going to call someone "pathetic" or "ignorant", at least take a bloody minute to check your post for the spelling errors that makes you look like a 9-year old.
Self-confessed Football jock. Take what you want from that statement.
IMO, it is hilarious how white people moan about a bit of affirmitive action, as if that compares to being herded across the Atlantic like cattle. Yeah, it's not fun when discrimination happens to yourself, is it? tbh, I don't know how a white person can walk by a black person without feeling just a bit of guilt.
I am not American, so I don't share that sense of guilt, since we pretty much the ones who abolished slavery and had equal rights for them long before the Americans did.
The air in Britain is too pure for a slave, thus, anyone who breaths in the air is no longer a slave.
(yes, I also know we profited from the slave-trade, but so was everyone else, we however, put a stop to it as well and got other nations to do it too, so we redeemed ourselves.)
Wrong on both counts, they took Christians and the Knights didn't do any slaughtering; it was the rabble that arrived before them.
Is that so? So the extremely well documented Arab and Frankish sources documenting the slaughter in places like Antioch, the burning alive of a group of Muslim citizens in a certain Mosque in Jerusalem, and the reports of cannibalism are all wrong, eh?
de Chatillon was also contemporary with the Second Crusade and Kingdom of Heaven was not an historical film.
He was also responsible for raping Saladin's sister, and various other atrocities.
This is the stupidest thing i have ever heard. My family came over on boats from ireland and eastern europe and were driven like slaves and treated like scum. You sound very very ignorant. My family in Croatia was raided by the ottoman empire for hundreds of years.
Were your Croat ancestors harassed because they were white? Or were your Irish forfathers persecuted because of their skin colour? No. In both cases, it was religion. Nobody is suggesting that there has never been persecution of people who are white, but that when there has been, it has almost always been based on religion, and the few instances in which it was because of their skin colour are both extremely rare and isolated.
one of the most heralded civil righters Malcolm X supported violence.
You reap what you sow. If whites enslave, lynch, segregate etc. black people for three centuries, they're hardly going to be welcomed with open arms as saviours by their victims.
lolz that is a stupid comparison im not even going to bother to read. The KKK (which is illegal and you obviously barely know anything about) cannot be compared realistically to the GBCRM. you can try comparing them to the Black panthers or BLA. your image of the KKK is the typical ignorant one, it stretches far beyond hatred of Blacks and other minorities.
Yes, nativist is the correct term.
ummmmm no. they didnt take muslims because they were muslims and you cant enslave a muslim if you too are a muslim so its the same excuse as white southerners enslaving blacks
...Even though white bondage has a long and established history in slavery in the United States.
The difference between people lies in economic factors. A well educated black student is going to e just as smart as a white wealthy student. a poor white and a poor black are both the same acting with different colors.
And how likely is it that a black person is going to be educated to the same level as a white person? Black unemployment in the USA is twice the national average, so it's not just economics. In fact, it's the white elephant in the room in American society, class.
HoreTore
03-06-2010, 00:59
I'm sorry, but you do not appear to have read very deeply in this area, 'cause this is blatantly wrong. You don't even touch on the complexities around conversions to Islam during the Barbary slaving period, or on the ransom system which made the slavery doubly profitable.
Europeans were explicitly targeted for the Barbary slave system. To deny this is to bury your head in the sand. Muslims enslaving other muslims was expressly forbidden, and any non-muslim slave could gaine freedom (of a sort) by offering to convert and receive circumcision.
All of which is a bit of a tangent from the OP, but your misinformation cried out for a response.
It's expressly forbidden to kill another person. It still happens. You have capital punishment for it, and even that doesn't stop it. To think that no muslim was ever taken as a slave by another muslim just because there's a law against it simply doesn't make sense.
As for europeans specifically being targetted; yes. But for their profits, not their race or as part of some terrorcampaign to subdue all christians/europeans. So it's a "no" as far as this thread is concerned.
Centurion1
03-06-2010, 01:30
People of all races were found in arab slave markets. The reason why the europeans are so known is because it's about the only slave market selling europeans.
And please, cut the flame crap. If you're going to call someone "pathetic" or "ignorant", at least take a bloody minute to check your post for the spelling errors that makes you look like a 9-year old.
I like being a nine year old. And perhaps you mean my capitalization because there is not a single misspelled word throughout that entire reply to your initial post. You need to read more on Arab slave markets. I'm not going to harp on this because so many different people have spoken at quite some length about it.
Self-confessed Football jock. Take what you want from that statement.
I do not go out for personally insulting statements completely based off of imbecilic and pathetic stereotypes so I would ask you to refrain from doing so out of common courtesy.
It's expressly forbidden to kill another person. It still happens. You have capital punishment for it, and even that doesn't stop it. To think that no muslim was ever taken as a slave by another muslim just because there's a law against it simply doesn't make sense.
As for europeans specifically being targetted; yes. But for their profits, not their race or as part of some terror-campaign to subdue all christians/europeans. So it's a "no" as far as this thread is concerned.
Have you ever read of the Balkans in the time of the Ottomans because it directly disproves exactly what you just stated.
And how likely is it that a black person is going to be educated to the same level as a white person? Black unemployment in the USA is twice the national average, so it's not just economics. In fact, it's the white elephant in the room in American society, class.
It is based off economics and the cycle of poverty will continue for anybody no matter what their race. I of course am not saying that blacks have gotten off to a slower start recovering than whites have because of the bondage they were placed in even after their literal enslavement's ended (share-cropping, etc.). It just bothers me when some poor white kid who is just as smart and probably harder working than the (yes it is less common but they do exist) gets rejected at college and the black kid gets in regardless. Affirmative action of that type, the accepting of students to higher learning, should be handled personally or by economics.
Don't get me wrong blacks are still oppressed but not every affirmative action program is necessary or fair. The difference between my generation and that of someone like Lemur is striking (not saying anything of you Lemur) regarding race. I hardly blink regarding interracial marriage and barely even acknowledge race in my friends or anything.
That Europeans weren't oppressed very often by Non-Europeans may be due to the fact that Europe was not very often conquered/defeated by Non-Europeans, not counting the fact that a lot of who we call Europeans now actually migrated here from the East or North or wherever. For further reference, look at that thread about superior cultures. ~;)
Then again there were the Huns and the Mongols, IIRC they created some vast empires and I'd guess they were feared for a reason. The Ottoman Empire itself is proof that Empires were/are not a uniquely western/white/christian european thing, I just mentioned the Mongols, then we had the Carthaginian Empire, that fell to the romans, but Carthage was in Africa, not Europe, right? One just needs to read the bible to read about the Egyptians, the Assyrians etc. who took a lot of the people they conquered as slaves.
And the Crusades weren't a terror campaign to subdue the Muslim world, the idea only came up after the Muslims stopped christian pilgrimage to christian holy sites on their (conquered) land. So what was the ottoman attempt to conquer Europe that failed in front of Venice? A muslim terror campaign to subdue the white christian world?
The difference between my generation and that of someone like Lemur is striking (not saying anything of you Lemur) regarding race.
Hmm, your profile gives me no clue. What's your age?
Louis VI the Fat
03-06-2010, 03:07
As for europeans specifically being targetted; yes. But for their profits, not their race or as part of some terrorcampaign to subdue all christians/europeans. So it's a "no" as far as this thread is concerned.You'd be surprised...
It had been the policy of the Ottoman Empire to enslave Europeans for rape and military service. It even had a eugenic component as well. The strongest and smartest boys were culled. All in a deliberate policy to keep the Christian subjects down, to use their own people against them.
Don't be too caught up in 'white bad, others good'.
Enslavement, though ostensibly abolished a few decades ago, is still rife in Saudi-Arabia, which buys abducted children by the thousands for slave labour and sexual enslavement. The Islamic world has taken more slaves from Africa, for far longer, than the Christian world has - something our naive North American 'Nation of Islam' members should really read up upon. The Islamic world also had the tradition to castrate male slaves, unlike slavery in the America's. Which increased the need for ever new slaves. When the Iberian colonisers of the America's needed a quick labour force, they were well aware of just where to find a fully functioning, thriving slave trade...
Algeria was invaded in 1830 to end the Barbary slave raids on Christians in the first place. Which ended for the US the hassle of having to pay tribute to Libya and Algeria.
The white peoples are much more prone to imposing disgusting institutions such as colonialism and slavery, just look at history.I disagree.
That Europeans weren't oppressed very often by Non-Europeans may be due to the fact that Europe was not very often conquered/defeated by Non-EuropeansUnless you speak Basque, you are a non-European who conquered Europeans. :beam:
In the more modern era, it is a northwest European perspective. The entire South, Southeast and East know better. There's always some horde at your gate.
*Thread win by Panzer, we are discussing anti-white violence*
Centurion1
03-06-2010, 03:32
Hmm, your profile gives me no clue. What's your age?
Seventeen almost eighteen so yes i believe i could stretch to say I am a different generation, no? :clown:
CountArach
03-06-2010, 08:26
Regarding the Arabs taken White slaves, I'm not at all surprised race was a factor to be honest. The Arabs were simply applying the normative relationship of their time and society (ie - being Arabian is what we normal people are, and anyone beyond that is different and somehow 'lesser'), just as Whites were applying the normative relations of their society on Blacks.
This inevitably leads to a situation where Blacks feel isolated from normativity and thus must react to it in some way. Hence they group together and using their enforced self-identification (where they start to see themselves as 'Black' rather than 'Normal') create a discourse in which they will naturally strike out against that part of normativity from which they are excluded - being white. Those who have been mired in this discourse from birth (particularly the Civil Rights movement era) would understandably be unwilling to change that view and continue to feel excluded - they do not know what inclusion feels like. Future generations of Blacks are likely to still feel this exclusion and self-identification, however are likely to be less radicalised and perhaps more accepting about it.
I am opposed to the controlling aspects of religion. Islam is a religion. Ergo, I am opposed to Islam, just as I am Christianity. Until you understand this simple fact, and the fact that there are many people who think the same way, you and I will never understand each other.
deleted everything you hate about christianity you respect when it's the islam. Then it suddenly is something we should respect because of cultural diversity. At least I treat muslim's believes just as horribly as I treat christians's, pretty bad.
Seamus Fermanagh
03-06-2010, 10:10
Spirited discussion here -- pay attention that your phrasing is not giving offense. Attacking someone's arguments is permissable, attacking them is not.
Slavery is an old human custom and an integral component of many historical cultures. This is, ethically, repulsive to the modernist trained from birth in the ideals of the enlightenment era, as it should be. However, as history teaches us, trying to understand the past exclusively through the use of intellectual "lenses" we accept as correct today is to miss some key aspects of what those in that era thought/believed. You all know this.
Did whites enslave blacks? Yes -- though the historical record also notes that a goodly proportion of those available for purchase were made so by fellow blacks. Tribal warfare is not pretty and the "genocide" in Rwanda is probably not the first such effort in African history.
Why did whites choose to enslave blacks? Because they thought themselves to be superior? Undoubtedly. Cultures of the time were, however, often ethnocentric to the point that ANY person or group -- much less a group with a graphically different skin tone -- were inferiors and to be disdained or used as convenient. Blacks at the time were farther behind on the tech-tree and therefore an easier target. Moreover, the New World Slave trade -- as opposed to enslaving the locals -- was an effort to replace a work force killed by "virgin territory" disease epidemics. Blacks were available and backlash from their lower-tech cultures not a threat, so blacks were purchased.
Had the situation been reversed; had a black Christopher Columbus opened up the "new world" at the head of a band of explorer/exploiters from one of the advanced cultures of Africa, would the influx of new germs have killed any fewer? Would they too have needed a workforce for their newly acquired but unworkable riches? If the technologically backwards garsoons of Munster were turning over captive Connaught men caught in their clan wars to the Morroccan slave traders in the compound near Cork, would this Black African Great Power have purchased the slaves for use in the New World? Quite probably.
How much is race then and how much is historical happenstance? To accept the idea of equality is to acknowledge that most things could have cut either way under different circumstances. The better answer is to continue to move forward towards an equality based on the ideas, skills and effort each person brings to the "marketplace."
I don't know how a white person can walk by a black person without feeling just a bit of guilt.
:dizzy2:
:dizzy2:
What he means is that he was robbed from his wallet and can't pay back the money he borrowed from his friend.
What he means is that he was robbed from his wallet and can't pay back the money he borrowed from his friend.
lol, is it yourself or Rhy that you are trying to portray as a racist; or do I perhaps misunderstand something?
Rhyfelwyr
03-06-2010, 13:34
:dizzy2:
It's true, the first thing I do when I meet a black person is to let them know that I am not a racist, and I greatly respect their culture.
Furunculus
03-06-2010, 13:47
It's true, the first thing I do when I meet a black person is to let them know that I am not a racist, and I greatly respect their culture.lol, i do hope you are joking. :D
It's true, the first thing I do when I meet a black person is to let them know that I am not a racist, and I greatly respect their culture.
"their" culture? :inquisitive:
Even if Mengele was my father (and Hitler my mother) I wouldn't feel any guilt, because guilt is what you have for things that you have responsibility for, not others.
Centurion1
03-06-2010, 16:40
I don't know how a white person can walk by a black person without feeling just a bit of guilt.
are you kidding. first off my family never had slaves. second off i definetly never had slaves. i feel zero guilt
It's true, the first thing I do when I meet a black person is to let them know that I am not a racist, and I greatly respect their culture.
He lives in Scotland how many black people does he meet. The first thing i do when i meet a black person is shake their hand and ask their name.
It's true, the first thing I do when I meet a black person is to let them know that I am not a racist, and I greatly respect their culture.
Spoil them with some chicken and watermelon when you are feeling generous, shiny stuff they like as well but not always they might eat you.
Rhyfelwyr
03-06-2010, 18:22
"their" culture? :inquisitive:
Are you implying black people have no culture to speak of? Or let me guess, I suppose you believe only 'civlized' Nordics like yourself have a culture to speak of. :rolleyes:
He lives in Scotland how many black people does he meet. The first thing i do when i meet a black person is shake their hand and ask their name.
OMG Scotland is a tolerant multicultural society, in fact I make a point of associating more with blacks, Muslims and homosexuals because I believe in the value of diversity, unlike the rest of the closed-minded white society.
Spoil them with some chicken and watermelon when you are feeling generous, shiny stuff they like as well but not always they might eat you.
This is absolutedly disgusting racism. I have been too offended by this thread and so I bid you all good day.
It is based off economics and the cycle of poverty will continue for anybody no matter what their race. I of course am not saying that blacks have gotten off to a slower start recovering than whites have because of the bondage they were placed in even after their literal enslavement's ended (share-cropping, etc.). It just bothers me when some poor white kid who is just as smart and probably harder working than the (yes it is less common but they do exist) gets rejected at college and the black kid gets in regardless. Affirmative action of that type, the accepting of students to higher learning, should be handled personally or by economics.
Don't get me wrong blacks are still oppressed but not every affirmative action program is necessary or fair. The difference between my generation and that of someone like Lemur is striking (not saying anything of you Lemur) regarding race. I hardly blink regarding interracial marriage and barely even acknowledge race in my friends or anything.
If we take college admissions as an example, a child being born into a rich family is going to have more inherent advantages over someone born into a low-income family. This is why social mobility is so damn difficult, as what appears to be a natural intelligence is in fact the product of a better upbringing. Affirmative action programs have to take this into account, which is why a slightly less able poor kid may be taken over a rich able applicant. If the choice is between two poor kids of different colours, then things get more complicated. (Of course, the solution would be a spot of socialism, where university fees are extremely progressive. But that's never going to happen.)
Spoil them with some chicken and watermelon when you are feeling generous, shiny stuff they like as well but not always they might eat you.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Centurion1
03-06-2010, 18:31
OMG Scotland is a tolerant multicultural society, in fact I make a point of associating more with blacks, Muslims and homosexuals because I believe in the value of diversity, unlike the rest of the closed-minded white society.
Anjd the point is that Scotland has far fewer people to be tolerant of than say America or even the rest of. i guarantee i have more friends who are black than you do. where i live the black population is over 20%. And i don't make thme my friends like they are token black friends so i appear multi cultural i choose them (yes like pokemon) because they are people i like.
If we take college admissions as an example, a child being born into a rich family is going to have more inherent advantages over someone born into a low-income family. This is why social mobility is so damn difficult, as what appears to be a natural intelligence is in fact the product of a better upbringing. Affirmative action programs have to take this into account, which is why a slightly less able poor kid may be taken over a rich able applicant. If the choice is between two poor kids of different colours, then things get more complicated. (Of course, the solution would be a spot of socialism, where university fees are extremely progressive. But that's never going to happen.)
your agreeing with me so i dont see the problem here. i dont know about britian but in america there is no affirmative action for poor whites. they get fafsa easier but that is like financial aid, it doesnt help you get INTO college.
Are you implying black people have no culture to speak of? Or let me guess, I suppose you believe only 'civlized' Nordics like yourself have a culture to speak of.
no he is saying there are more than one type of black culture and what you said is ignorant. African-americans are nothing like Africans, and East Africans are nothing like west and south africans who are nothing like each other. thats like saying americans and russians are the exact same culture because both are white.
i suggest you returnt o this thread so you can see the error of what you are getting so mad about.
Are you implying black people have no culture to speak of? Or let me guess, I suppose you believe only 'civlized' Nordics like yourself have a culture to speak of. :rolleyes:
Wow, I suppose that I could have worded myself better, but let's be easy on the accusations nonetheless. What I mean is that there is no such thing as a "black culture". Africa consists of a lot of cultures, and you'll find more relevant cultures elsewhere in the world as well.
CrossLOPER
03-06-2010, 19:20
This is absolutedly disgusting racism. I have been too offended by this thread and so I bid you all good day.
He's a troll. Get over it.
He's a troll. Get over it.
He wasn't trolling. It was satire. There is a difference.
Rhyfelwyr
03-06-2010, 19:33
Anjd the point is that Scotland has far fewer people to be tolerant of than say America or even the rest of. i guarantee i have more friends who are black than you do. where i live the black population is over 20%. And i don't make thme my friends like they are token black friends so i appear multi cultural i choose them (yes like pokemon) because they are people i like.
Ha! The "I have x type of friends fallacy". Well, fyi, I am good friends with 7 black people, 12 Muslims, 3 black Muslims, 4 homosexuals, and just 1 white guy. Although I am pretty sure he is part-Jewish. And as long as he believes in solidarity with Palestine, I am OK with that.
no he is saying there are more than one type of black culture and what you said is ignorant. African-americans are nothing like Africans, and East Africans are nothing like west and south africans who are nothing like each other. thats like saying americans and russians are the exact same culture because both are white.
Wow, I suppose that I could have worded myself better, but let's be easy on the accusations nonetheless. What I mean is that there is no such thing as a "black culture". Africa consists of a lot of cultures, and you'll find more relevant cultures elsewhere in the world as well.
Yeah, Africa was a tribal ***-hole and they spent their time killing each other with pointy sticks before the white man brought them civilization, right? Ooh poor white man with his burden. :rolleyes:
I am sorry you must portray black culture in this manner, but in fact I think you will find that black people did leave their village from time to time, and there were great civilizations in Africa before the Europeans came.
Furunculus
03-06-2010, 19:36
He's a troll. Get over it.
you're wrong, and subotan got it exactly right.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
and my "hope your joking question" to Refhllryr stands, because if he really does select blacks and gays (insert other minority here) as friends because he wants to be multi-cultural and tolerant then i am shocked, and were i black or gay i would be deeply offended to be offered friendship for any other reason than that someone liked >me<, as i'm sure i don't want to be a signpost advertising how tolerant someone else is, and i certainly wouldn't want to be their friend.
but i am confident that Refyllrerw is just joking.
Centurion1
03-06-2010, 19:56
Yeah, Africa was a tribal ***-hole and they spent their time killing each other with pointy sticks before the white man brought them civilization, right? Ooh poor white man with his burden.
I am sorry you must portray black culture in this manner, but in fact I think you will find that black people did leave their village from time to time, and there were great civilizations in Africa before the Europeans came.
I am not even going to deign to respond to an accusation so ridiculous as this. It is insulting and demonstrates you speak before you act.
I dont count my friends. And if you do you have serious issues, as well as the fact that homosexuals do have a race you know.
Absolutely ridiculous
I think someone forgot to put up this sign
https://img18.imageshack.us/img18/3491/fjorgingon1125218280roa.jpg
Rhyfelwyr
03-06-2010, 20:36
^ at last.
I didn't set out to troll, but I just couldn't help it after people took my first jesting post seriously. Really... white people should feel guilty whenever they see a black person? Whenever I see a black person I tell them I am not racist and I appreciate their culture??? lol
Furunculus
03-06-2010, 20:38
^ at last.
I didn't set out to troll, but I just couldn't help it after people took my first jesting post seriously. Really... white people should feel guilty whenever they see a black person? Whenever I see a black person I tell them I am not racist and I appreciate their culture??? lol
haha, the sky is not falling in after all. should never have doubted you in the first place, only did so because you carried it on so well.
congrats on being a normal, well adjusted, human being!
^ at last.
I didn't set out to troll, but I just couldn't help it after people took my first jesting post seriously. Really... white people should feel guilty whenever they see a black person? Whenever I see a black person I tell them I am not racist and I appreciate their culture??? lol
You got something to learn about sarcasm, IMNSHO.
Rhyfelwyr
03-06-2010, 21:19
congrats on being a normal, well adjusted, human being!
Don't get too carried away just yet! :laugh4:
You got something to learn about sarcasm, IMNSHO.
Sorry, that's not the right word. I was doing my thing where I say something outlandish but just not outlandish enough for people to be entirely sure, and then leading them on bit by bit as I gradually make things more ridiculous.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-06-2010, 21:21
I haven't seen Kingdom of Heaven, but I'm quite familiar with Saladin's biography, and I know very well that Renaud de Châtillon was the man responsible for the raids that ended the truce.
Then you also know Saladin wanted the truce to end, because he needed to capture Jerusalem.
And as for the first crusade(I guess you meant the second(real) army) not doing any pillaging, raping and killing; well, they were thousands of men marching through enemy lands with a hostile population; how on earth do you think they were fed? With the worlds largest baggage train? No, they simply pillaged, like everyone did at that time. And when you take food from a peasant, they are going to resist from time to time. And those who resist will of course be killed.
Marching 10.000 hungry men from Istanbul to Jerusalem without some mass killings is simply impossible.
Firstly, it isn't impossible, it has been done with many more men. Secondly, while it may be true that the army pillaged (as all armies do) this is hardly worth a mention in the period, and in any case:
Much of the route from Constantinople was still under Byzantine control, so they were not in "enemy lands" for anywhere as near as you suggest.
and:
The army was raised to recapture the lost Roman provinces, it was not an army of Conquest as you wish to paint it. Further, many of the people were Christian or Jewish because the Caliphate discouraged conversion in order to obtain higher taxes.
Another fine example of a knights is your dear Richard Lionheart, who massacred 3000 prisoners on the walls of Acre... Nice chaps those royals, eh?
Richard spared the garrison when it surrendered. He offered Saladin the prisoners in exchange for something of no value to Saladin but of upmost value to the Christians, the True Cross. Saladin agreed, then stalled, intending to encircle Richard and starve him out. Richard told Saladin that if he refused to hand over the relic then Richard would be forced to execute the prisoners.
Saladin took took the True Cross to Damascus and the prisoners were duly executed.
So who's fault was it?
Centurion1
03-06-2010, 22:05
^ at last.
I didn't set out to troll, but I just couldn't help it after people took my first jesting post seriously. Really... white people should feel guilty whenever they see a black person? Whenever I see a black person I tell them I am not racist and I appreciate their culture??? lol
we all asked you that and you never answered so we assumed you were serious we cant see your face you know and your tone wasnt satirical. thank goodness cause it was rdiculous.
The crusades are just another reason for europeans to be "looked" down upon for. I feel no guilt for a legitimate holy war (which is initially why it was launched, not for land, Europeans didnt even know what the land looked like) started by fanatical seljuk turks who allowed no visitors to the holy land.
CountArach
03-06-2010, 23:50
I feel no guilt for a legitimate holy war
Que?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-07-2010, 00:27
Que?
An unfortunate choice of words, but not wholy incorrect. The first Crusade had its source in a request from the Eastern Emperor to the Western Emporer for men-at-arms in order to recapture the lost provinces in the Levant. From this came the Pope's sermon of 1089 and the First Crusade came to be. For the soldiers of the Crusade the war was one of liberation, not Conquest.
The extent to which this is true is debatable; certainly, the majority of of the population were non-Muslim at the time.
For the soldiers of the Crusade the war was one of liberation, not Conquest.
Liberation of Jerusalem, not Greek Orthodoxy. And there were undoubtedly some crusaders who went for money, and money alone, e.g. Bohemond of Taranto.
Centurion1
03-07-2010, 01:01
Que?
excuse as pvc said an unfortunate choice of words.
Liberation of Jerusalem, not Greek Orthodoxy. And there were undoubtedly some crusaders who went for money, and money alone, e.g. Bohemond of Taranto.
yes but admit most went for the religion and the free absolution. And thanks to things like Assasin's Creed, Da Vinci's Code, and the flipping History Channel there is alot of rather asinine thoughts about orders like the Templars.
The extent to which this is true is debatable; certainly, the majority of of the population were non-Muslim at the time.
But the thing is they believed it was. And a sin commited in perfect ignorance is not a sin, neh?
yes but admit most went for the religion and the free absolution. And thanks to things like Assasin's Creed, Da Vinci's Code, and the flipping History Channel there is alot of rather asinine thoughts about orders like the Templars.
Yes, I'd agree that most went for the spiritual aspect primarily as well. But it's hardly like the tales of Jerusalem and the East in general as being magnificently wealthy put people off from going.
Centurion1
03-07-2010, 01:21
Yes, I'd agree that most went for the spiritual aspect primarily as well. But it's hardly like the tales of Jerusalem and the East in general as being magnificently wealthy put people off from going.
one beggar doesnt make a hallway full of aristocrats poor.
An unfortunate choice of words, but not wholy incorrect. The first Crusade had its source in a request from the Eastern Emperor to the Western Emporer for men-at-arms in order to recapture the lost provinces in the Levant. From this came the Pope's sermon of 1089 and the First Crusade came to be. For the soldiers of the Crusade the war was one of liberation, not Conquest.
Armed pilgrimage, the first crusade wasn't actually seen as a war by the crusaders. People have a wrong image of the first crusade, it wasn't an organized army, but a lot of people moving independently.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-07-2010, 01:50
Liberation of Jerusalem, not Greek Orthodoxy. And there were undoubtedly some crusaders who went for money, and money alone, e.g. Bohemond of Taranto.
Well, not exactly. The Church was not decively split at this point (some would argue Roman Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy are still one Church having an almighty spat). In the minds of the Crusaders the Eastern and Western Empire were still nominally one Empire, and still nominally Roman. This may seem bizare, but it was true in mind if not in fact.
Armed pilgrimage, the first crusade wasn't actually seen as a war by the crusaders. People have a wrong image of the first crusade, it wasn't an organized army, but a lot of people moving independently.
No, this is only true of the popular movement. The popular movement had several differtent streams, some armed, some pacifistic. However, there was also an organised and proffesional army which followed the masses, and it was this army that did most of the heavy lifting. Famously, the pilgrims danced around Jerusalem and sang to bring the walls down while the men-at-arms had ballistae and mangoneles built.
Centurion1
03-07-2010, 02:04
Armed pilgrimage, the first crusade wasn't actually seen as a war by the crusaders. People have a wrong image of the first crusade, it wasn't an organized army, but a lot of people moving independently.
there was an actual army as well. whatever pvc said this im not going to repeat him.
Ha! The "I have x type of friends fallacy". Well, fyi, I am good friends with 7 black people, 12 Muslims, 3 black Muslims, 4 homosexuals, and just 1 white guy. Although I am pretty sure he is part-Jewish. And as long as he believes in solidarity with Palestine, I am OK with that.
Why do you hate whites? are the black muslims counted with the 12 muslims or are they seperate because black muslims aren't real muslims? Are they counted with the 7 blacks as well or do they not count as proper blacks perhaps? And would you want the jew to convert to islam if he did not believe in solidarity with palestine?
one beggar doesnt make a hallway full of aristocrats poor.
No, but that's not a correct analogy. I was saying that the Crusaders went on Crusade for a variety of reasons.
Well, not exactly. The Church was not decively split at this point (some would argue Roman Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy are still one Church having an almighty spat). In the minds of the Crusaders the Eastern and Western Empire were still nominally one Empire, and still nominally Roman. This may seem bizare, but it was true in mind if not in fact.
Then how come Greek Christians in the Levant were not emancipated to the same degree as the Latin Crusaders were? If what you were saying was correct, then there would have been Greek Knights.
HoreTore
03-09-2010, 21:09
An unfortunate choice of words, but not wholy incorrect. The first Crusade had its source in a request from the Eastern Emperor to the Western Emporer for men-at-arms in order to recapture the lost provinces in the Levant. From this came the Pope's sermon of 1089 and the First Crusade came to be. For the soldiers of the Crusade the war was one of liberation, not Conquest.
The extent to which this is true is debatable; certainly, the majority of of the population were non-Muslim at the time.
I think there are better things to do than argue with someone who claims the crusades were really a defensive war...
10 bucks says we'll discuss "how the christian church never encouraged antisemitism" next
Centurion1
03-09-2010, 21:52
I think there are better things to do than argue with someone who claims the crusades were really a defensive war...
He never bloody said it was did he. I quote, "a war of liberation". In my dictionary liberation and defensive don't add up to the same thing.
And technically if you really want to get into it it was a defensive war. The Eastern Emperor asked the Pope for aid in defending the Eastern Empire and technically that is what the Pope intended to happen. So in essence it was a defensive war.
Centurion1
03-09-2010, 21:58
dam double post.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-10-2010, 00:25
No, but that's not a correct analogy. I was saying that the Crusaders went on Crusade for a variety of reasons.
Then how come Greek Christians in the Levant were not emancipated to the same degree as the Latin Crusaders were? If what you were saying was correct, then there would have been Greek Knights.
Well, because the Greeks were A: schismatics and B: peasants. Rather like the English when William the Bastard invaded (he had a St. Peter's Banner).
I think there are better things to do than argue with someone who claims the crusades were really a defensive war...
10 bucks says we'll discuss "how the christian church never encouraged antisemitism" next
Oh no, the European Church had a whole sub-genre of Jew-hating literature. Europe isn't Outremer though.
He never bloody said it was did he. I quote, "a war of liberation". In my dictionary liberation and defensive don't add up to the same thing.
Yeah, those heathens really needed liberating from themselves.
And technically if you really want to get into it it was a defensive war. The Eastern Emperor asked the Pope for aid in defending the Eastern Empire and technically that is what the Pope intended to happen. So in essence it was a defensive war.
It wasn't a defensive war. It was one of reconquest., up until Antioch, from which point it was solely conquest.
Well, because the Greeks were A: schismatics and B: peasants. Rather like the English when William the Bastard invaded (he had a St. Peter's Banner).
But you said they were just one church. And there must have been Greek nobles.
Centurion1
03-10-2010, 21:57
But you said they were just one church. And there must have been Greek nobles.
not like in the west.
ajaxfetish
03-11-2010, 03:57
It wasn't a defensive war. It was one of reconquest., up until Antioch, from which point it was solely conquest.
Are you suggesting the lands beyond Antioch had not been part of the Byzantine Empire? Or commenting on the falling out between the crusader princes and the emperor?
Ajax
HoreTore
03-11-2010, 12:35
Are you suggesting the lands beyond Antioch had not been part of the Byzantine Empire? Or commenting on the falling out between the crusader princes and the emperor?
Ajax
Was Saddam's war on Kuwait one of liberation, reconquest or conquest?
ajaxfetish
03-11-2010, 17:54
Was Saddam's war on Kuwait one of liberation, reconquest or conquest?
You know, I don't know. I'm not an expert on that area or period, and I was only about 8 at the time the war happened. Ultimately, I suppose the question of whether it was liberation or some form of conquest would come down to the attitudes of the local populace and self-determination, at least from a modern perspective, and I don't think it was liberation.
Of course, the modern perspective wasn't around yet in the 11th century. When folks then used terminology along the lines of liberation, I doubt they were polling the locals to get opinions, regardless of which side they were on. And if you were to insist on restricting yourself to a modern lens, you'd still have to take into account the highly complex political situation of the levant, with western Christians, orthodox Christians, Armenian Christians, Jews, the Shia Fatimids, and Sunni Turks (if I haven't got any of them mixed up). In many areas the crusaders had local allies or collaborators, and many were happy to throw off the yoke of some incompetent Turkish princelings. Whether they remained happy under their new overlords is another question.
Of course, I wasn't even suggesting that the first crusade was a war of liberation. I just considered it odd that Subotan would make a distinction between reconquest (up to Antioch) and conquest (after Antioch) and wondered what his motivation was. I'm still curious to hear it.
Ajax
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-11-2010, 19:17
Yeah, those heathens really needed liberating from themselves.
What about the Christians who needed liberating from the Moors. You need to see this in context.
It wasn't a defensive war. It was one of reconquest., up until Antioch, from which point it was solely conquest.
That depends on your definition of "defensive" Both halves of Christendom were on the back foot at this point. In the West, the Caliphate had pushed up into Southern Spain, in the East, they had, as you point out, breached Antioch and were threatening the heart of Asia Minor. The First Crusade recaptured lost group and seriously bloodied the Muslim forces in the East.
But you said they were just one church. And there must have been Greek nobles.
One Church in an almighty spat. Less than 50 years before the two greatest Christian Patriarchs had excomunicated each other. So the Western Christians viewed the Eastern Christian as Scismatics for following Constantinople, and the Easterners viewed them in exactly the same way for following Rome. nonetheless, the two sides would happily put their differences aside to make common cause against the Muslims threatening their civilisation.
As to Greek Nobles, there would have been none. The Caliphate did not tollerate non-Muslims in positions of power, certainly not the Turks. Any Greek aristocrat would have either been executed, fled, or have converted. Hence no Christian Greek nobles.
What about the Christians who needed liberating from the Moors. You need to see this in context
We are. Al-Andalus had nothing to do with the Crusades, and it was only after the First Crsade when the idea of liberating Christians (And not Jerusalem) from heathen rule was developed that the Reconquista really began. If your theory is correct, then there would have been swarms of Frankish knights in Leon and Castille, waiting to kick some Muslim butt before the Crusades started.
One Church in an almighty spat. Less than 50 years before the two greatest Christian Patriarchs had excomunicated each other. So the Western Christians viewed the Eastern Christian as Scismatics for following Constantinople, and the Easterners viewed them in exactly the same way for following Rome. nonetheless, the two sides would happily put their differences aside to make common cause against the Muslims threatening their civilisation.
The Muslims wrene't threatening anyone at this point, They were far divided to wage aggressive war against Christendom.
That depends on your definition of "defensive" Both halves of Christendom were on the back foot at this point. In the West, the Caliphate had pushed up into Southern Spain, in the East, they had, as you point out, breached Antioch and were threatening the heart of Asia Minor. The First Crusade recaptured lost group and seriously bloodied the Muslim forces in the East.
And yet in the long run, it did nothing to stop the spread of the Turk, because it was not seen as a war to save Christendom. Rather, it was a war to capture Jerusalem.
As to Greek Nobles, there would have been none. The Caliphate did not tollerate non-Muslims in positions of power, certainly not the Turks. Any Greek aristocrat would have either been executed, fled, or have converted. Hence no Christian Greek nobles.
Maybe. But there still remains the lack of Orthodox Christians of note in the Crusader time period, compared to the amount of Latins. If your hypothesis that they saw each other as brothers was true, there would have been at least some.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.