Am I a racist ?

**Devastatin Dave** · 09-09-2005, 00:59

Allow me to answer the "Am I a racist?" question. If you are white, then by default, then yes, you are a racist. That's just how it works, sorry.

**Papewaio** · 09-09-2005, 01:16

They the team are a mix of all, and some of them individually are a mix of all.

Some Maori's have very British names, while others have Maori ones.

All Blacks Fansite

For instance Tana Umaga is the Captain of the All Blacks and his parents are Samoan immigrants. In fact he even played against his brother in a New Zealand vs Samoa game.

Jonathan Falefasa "Tana" Umaga

**Aenlic** · 09-09-2005, 04:04

Aha. Ok. Thanks for clearing that question up for me!

I couldn't find it on the web site, but on the PBS antiques show they were discussing the origin of the name All Blacks in reference to the old jersey and cap. The "expert" suggested that it wasn't just that the team wore all black uniforms; but that when they were asked what the team colors were in preparation for the 1905 European rugby events, they said "all black" and it stuck, even though they hadn't previously used all black. Occam's Razor would suggest that the simpler answer, that they simply wore all black, would be the case; but the other story is more interesting.

**Csargo** · 09-09-2005, 04:21

I'm not Racist I hate everyone equally.

**Papewaio** · 09-09-2005, 06:04

Urban myths?

The tale that I heard was that instead of printing on the posters All Backs (as in all very skilled players) they printed it up with All Blacks...

Their first name was the Invincibles.

**KafirChobee** · 09-09-2005, 06:42

The original post was absolutely(!) inacceptable and inexcusable - I don't want to see this kind of "post" again
- Ser Clegane

**Papewaio** · 09-09-2005, 06:53

Kafir... I humbly suggest you remove that post.

Can you even name the ethnicity of Daves wife?

**Devastatin Dave** · 09-09-2005, 16:47

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Kafir... I humbly suggest you remove that post.

Can you even name the ethnicity of Daves wife?

My wife's 1/2 Thai, what did Kafir say?

**Redleg** · 09-09-2005, 16:50

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

My wife's 1/2 Thai, what did Kafir say?

Something along the lines that we are both racist bigots because we don't see the issue exactly like he does. Edit forgot the smart-ass emoticon to be insert.

**Devastatin Dave** · 09-09-2005, 16:58

Originally Posted by Redleg

Something along the lines that we are both racist bigots because we don't see the issue exactly like he does. Edit forgot the smart-ass emoticon to be insert.

Funny how those that scream racism so much are incapable of looking past skin color. Its a shame...

**Tribesman** · 09-09-2005, 17:21

Now if say Israel was to claim Germany owed them more for the suffering and attempted to get it forced upon Germany - then yes that would be criminal in my opinion since Germany has already paid the reprations and had agreed on the amount.
But they didn't pay the amount that was claimed , and the only way you could force it for the full amount would be through the courts , so if the courts found the claim to be valid then they would be forced to pay . None of which would be criminal .

Again notice what the Supreme Court actually did - not what you want to believe it did. It is forcing the government to abide to a treaty that was signed by both parties.
No the payment is a sign of "goodwill" for breaches of obligation , while recognising the claim as legitimate it has no intention of honouriong it, what do you think I believed it was????

Should I be forced to pay additional tax dollars to give Americans of African descent who's ancestors might have been slaves as a form of repration for their being taken has slaves from Africa. Often not by American Slavers but many other countries as well.
Do you expect to ? As I said in my first reply to Panzers "don't tell the African Americans" it is a spurious claim being made by dodgy lawyers , it is completely different from all the others mentioned .
People are focusing on the ridiculousness of the dodgy claim to avoid addressing the legitimate claims .

So....Only if it comes now over 60 years after the events and after such reprations that Germany has agreed on paying.
What if it comes 130 years after the event and after agreed provisions have not been made ? What about after 170 years ?
Unless there is a time limit specified then it is not criminal .
If I had a 999 year lease on a property for a nominal rate and it was a fully legal contract , then the descendants of the owners contacted my descendants after realising that they could get a better deal elsewhere tried to break the contract what would be the legal outcome ? They would lose wouldn't they , as the original contract is still valid unless both parties agree to renegotiate or there is a clause that allows for such provisions.

BTW . back to reparations , it was only a couple of years ago that the Swiss were made to cough up the money to holocaust victims , yet they (like the Austrians ) are having difficulty finding them .
What is criminal is waiting 60 years to make the payments , not making a claim for the payments after 60 years .

**Redleg** · 09-09-2005, 17:34

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Now if say Israel was to claim Germany owed them more for the suffering and attempted to get it forced upon Germany - then yes that would be criminal in my opinion since Germany has already paid the reprations and had agreed on the amount.
But they didn't pay the amount that was claimed , and the only way you could force it for the full amount would be through the courts , so if the courts found the claim to be valid then they would be forced to pay . None of which would be criminal .

So then Germany is still not paying on the reprations that they agreed upon?

Again notice what the Supreme Court actually did - not what you want to believe it did. It is forcing the government to abide to a treaty that was signed by both parties.
No the payment is a sign of "goodwill" for breaches of obligation , while recognising the claim as legitimate it has no intention of honouriong it, what do you think I believed it was????

Well what did you think I meant with my statement? Which lead to this discussion - its really clear to me what I meant. Especially if one leaves the statement in the context in which it was made

Should I be forced to pay additional tax dollars to give Americans of African descent who's ancestors might have been slaves as a form of repration for their being taken has slaves from Africa. Often not by American Slavers but many other countries as well.
Do you expect to ? As I said in my first reply to Panzers "don't tell the African Americans" it is a spurious claim being made by dodgy lawyers , it is completely different from all the others mentioned .
People are focusing on the ridiculousness of the dodgy claim to avoid addressing the legitimate claims .

Not at all - I am not focusing on just that aspect - I am focusing on other aspects as well. But the statement you seem to take issue with does indeed focus on just that aspect.

Again forcing taxpayers to pay for sins of the past generations is all spurious claims. However again nice attempt at selective reasoning.

So....Only if it comes now over 60 years after the events and after such reprations that Germany has agreed on paying.
What if it comes 130 years after the event and after agreed provisions have not been made ? What about after 170 years ?
Unless there is a time limit specified then it is not criminal .

Agreed - but that is different then what you initial claimed my statement meant.

If I had a 999 year lease on a property for a nominal rate and it was a fully legal contract , then the descendants of the owners contacted my descendants after realising that they could get a better deal elsewhere tried to break the contract what would be the legal outcome ? They would lose wouldn't they , as the original contract is still valid unless both parties agree to renegotiate or there is a clause that allows for such provisions.

And that is what is happening in several courts in several lands - a far cry from forcing one to pay for the sins of previous generations is it not.

BTW . back to reparations , it was only a couple of years ago that the Swiss were made to cough up the money to holocaust victims , yet they (like the Austrians ) are having difficulty finding them .
What is criminal is waiting 60 years to make the payments , not making a claim for the payments after 60 years .

Then shame on the swiss for keeping their ill gotten gains - but again it seems the Swiss are not attempting to make the current generation pay for the sins of the previous now does it.