Am I a racist ?

[Aenlic]

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]

I'm not Racist I hate everyone equally.

[Papewaio]

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]

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

[Papewaio]

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

Can you even name the ethnicity of Daves wife?

[KafirChobee]

Now ask me if I care....

Red. after reading all your posts here on the subject of racism; I agree, you do not care. Nor, do you understand it or appreciate the import of the consequences of ignoring that it is happening.

Still, I do know you are a basically caring person, that is simply trying to cover up the sins of his predicessors by blaiming everything and everyone else for their failings. While in the mean time accusing all others for being wrong for having alternative views yo their ancestors; or conceeding that they owe some form of payment (ergo, me) to their sins.

Accpeting that at their death the responsability of their crimes ends, is like saying that the crime never existed; and ergo, doesnot require compensation.

Red, generally you present an intelligent and well thought through arguement. In this case, you reveal your own prejudices and biases. Sorry mate, but you are a racist. Aren't you? Or, is it me - because I care about all mankind versus one race or one nation?

[Xiahou]

Wow, Kafir calls 2 people bigots inside of 20 minutes. I'm impressed...

[Redleg]

Red. after reading all your posts here on the subject of racism; I agree, you do not care. Nor, do you understand it or appreciate the import of the consequences of ignoring that it is happening.

You would be incorrect with this conclusion - but continue to delude yourself in thinking you understand me. Edit: Nice attempt to take a statement out of context - spin away my dear sir spin away.

Still, I do know you are a basically caring person, that is simply trying to cover up the sins of his predicessors by blaiming everything and everyone else for their failings. While in the mean time accusing all others for being wrong for having alternative views yo their ancestors; or conceeding that they owe some form of payment (ergo, me) to their sins.

You would be wrong again - my ancestors happen to include Navajo and Cherokee. I just find issue with incorrect history and a few other things that I might have carried to far in this discussion.

Care to guess how many times I have visited the reservations around New Mexico and Oklhoma researching some of my ancestors.

Or maybe you might want to explain why my First Sergeant, who also happened to be a tribal dancer for the Souix Nation, gave me a brave's feather when we served together. I could tell you that means - but I will let you attempt to figure it out.

Accpeting that at their death the responsability of their crimes ends, is like saying that the crime never existed; and ergo, doesnot require compensation.

Forcing one to pay for the sins of previous generations is criminal in my opinion - so I will always take that postion.

Red, generally you present an intelligent and well thought through arguement. In this case, you reveal your own prejudices and biases. Sorry mate, but you are a racist. Aren't you? Or, is it me - because I care about all mankind versus one race or one nation?

Again you would be incorrect in trying to call me a racist - You might want to check and see what the term racist means. Pointing out errors in history and terms used is not racism. Pointing out that I don't agree with the use of the term genocide as it relates to the death of Native Americans as a result of diasease carried to the new world by Europeans does not make one a racist. Pointing out that I see no need for reprations to blacks because some stupid white men decided to own slaves does not make one a racist.

Oh by the way just love the overuse of the word by some. Try pointing out where I stated something that is racist on its face.

Do I have some baised views as it relates to history of some events - sure but who doesn't. Just look at your use of the term genocide - it shows an equal baised viewpoint does it not.

And you might want to check out what the term bigot really means.

Edit to help you out since you want to throw the terms around

Racist is defined in Websters as a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

Bigot is defined in Websters as a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

Careful on throwing out the term bigot - certain people fall more in line with what the term actually means far more then I do.

[Tribesman]

Forcing one to pay for the sins of previous generations is criminal in my opinion - so I will always take that postion.
So Germanys reparations to holocaust and slave labour survivors or their descendants are a crime , as are Austrias , Australias awarding of land and mineral rights to its natives are a crime , New Zealand making efforts to abide by its treaty is a crime , the Supreme court awarding US tax payers money over broken treaties is a crime .
What a strange position to take Red .

[Redleg]

Forcing one to pay for the sins of previous generations is criminal in my opinion - so I will always take that postion.
So Germanys reparations to holocaust and slave labour survivors or their descendants are a crime.

Only if it comes now over 60 years after the events and after such reprations that Germany has agreed on paying. Notice the key words used force and agreed - however as you have already shown Germany agreed to pay the reprations in 1953 and East Germany agreed in, what was it, 1993 once they had re-unified. 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.

, as are Austrias , Australias awarding of land and mineral rights to its natives are a crime , New Zealand making efforts to abide by its treaty is a crime , the Supreme court awarding US tax payers money over broken treaties is a crime .

Nice attempt to twist the statement. Notice your statement of abide by its treaty a big difference from forcing one to pay for the sins of the previous generation. 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.

What a strange position to take Red .

Not at all when you place it into context of what I am saying, or in the way I orginally used the statement. But I do like your attempt at twisting it.

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.

Should I be penalized because my skin is white - by allowing less qualified individuals have the job because of their skin color.

If that is the case I can whip out my own race card and take my ancestors scroll number and put Native American on every application I fill out. But that would make me worse then a hypocrite in my opinion.

Equal opporunity means just that, equal opporunity based upon the merits of the individual - not the color of their skin. Were blacks mistreated because of the color of their skin by previous generations? Only a fool would deny it - however once again if equal opporunity and equal rights is what is being called for - one can not punish the next generation because of the errors and sins of the previous.

[Devastatin Dave]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[ah_dut]

On this issue, I agree with Redleg. I mean if you've paid your dues (and sure as heck if it's agreed and from a previous generation or worse yet mroe than 5 generations removed) you must be insane to expect taxpayers money to compensate you. If for example, germany paid the amount it agreed to, you have no right to ask for any more...it's an agreed compensation that is/was agreeable to both parties and since it was agreed should not be changed.

And seriously, if we took their land and they want it back, they may have a point. but sometimes this goes too far. I refuse to accept that anybody deserves compensation for slavery in the 1800s....

[BDC]

On this issue, I agree with Redleg. I mean if you've paid your dues (and sure as heck if it's agreed and from a previous generation or worse yet mroe than 5 generations removed) you must be insane to expect taxpayers money to compensate you. If for example, germany paid the amount it agreed to, you have no right to ask for any more...it's an agreed compensation that is/was agreeable to both parties and since it was agreed should not be changed.

And seriously, if we took their land and they want it back, they may have a point. but sometimes this goes too far. I refuse to accept that anybody deserves compensation for slavery in the 1800s....

I demand reparations from the African slave dealers who sold other Africans into slavery, for making me liable for compensation claims.

[yesdachi]

I demand reparations from the African slave dealers

Yah, except that it would be their great great great grand kids. Lets hope one of them was related to Bill Gates.

[Tribesman]

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



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.
I don't get it at all Red forcing tax payers to pay is spurious unless it is courts that are forcing tax payers to pay ?????
So who other than the courts would be forcing tax-payers to pay ?

[Devastatin Dave]

Can I get reperations for how 10% of me that was repressed from the 90% of me?

[Devastatin Dave]

Oh and does Halle Berry's 50% gets reperations from the other 50% of her? (of course I wouldn't mind giving her 100% or my lovin', nyuck, nyuck, nyuck!!!)

[Redleg]

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



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.
I don't get it at all Red forcing tax payers to pay is spurious unless it is courts that are forcing tax payers to pay ?????

Yep you don't get it.

So who other than the courts would be forcing tax-payers to pay ?

It would be the courts if they decided to honor spurious claims for reprations. The courts telling the government they must abide by the agreed upon treaties is not spurious now is it?

It would be the government if say in the United States Congress some idiot of a representive or senator in an attempt to pander to one segment of the voting public attempt to get such spurious legislation through congress.

[Don Corleone]

Redleg, I might be mistaken, but I believe Tribesman is trying to make the point that if it's the court system that's ordering the payments, how could it be illegal.

To that, Tribesman, you're a slave to the lawyers in your country if you really honestly believe justice and what the judges say are one and the same.

[Redleg]

Redleg, I might be mistaken, but I believe Tribesman is trying to make the point that if it's the court system that's ordering the payments, how could it be illegal.

Well if that is his point - then I will have to concide that its not illegal.

[Tribesman]

Redleg, I might be mistaken, but I believe Tribesman is trying to make the point that if it's the court system that's ordering the payments, how could it be illegal.
WOOHOO Don gets it , congratulations you have just won a goldfish , well done (all prizes must be collected within 12 houirs of now , there is no cash alternative to your designated prize , if it is floating when you collect it , tough , we never told you it was a live goldfish did we )

So in a nutshell if there is a reasonable legal case that can be brought forward then it is not criminal to make people pay , no matter how much time has elapsed .
If a government is deciding to pay up without a court ruling then you can be damn sure that they are paying because they know that they would lose any court case .

[Redleg]

Redleg, I might be mistaken, but I believe Tribesman is trying to make the point that if it's the court system that's ordering the payments, how could it be illegal.
WOOHOO Don gets it , congratulations you have just won a goldfish , well done (all prizes must be collected within 12 houirs of now , there is no cash alternative to your designated prize , if it is floating when you collect it , tough , we never told you it was a live goldfish did we )

LOL

So in a nutshell if there is a reasonable legal case that can be brought forward then it is not criminal to make people pay , no matter how much time has elapsed .
If a government is deciding to pay up without a court ruling then you can be damn sure that they are paying because they know that they would lose any court case .

This is what you should of stated in the first place.

However once again you missed the important part of my point or most likely refused to ackownledge it.

Reasonable also does account for the amount of time elasped. For instance again the calling of reprations to the blacks because of the slavery issue.

Then their is an reasonable expectation of the amount of time someone or an organization should be able to asked for compensation from a precieved wrong.

Sometimes governments and organizations pay because its the the expedinent political thing to do - and not necessarily the right course of action in regards to justice. So the second part or your statement is not always necessarily correct.

[Tribesman]

This is what you should of stated in the first place.
Lets go all the way back to my first question in this topic....
Post #3What is the money for ? Is it penalties for breaches or infringements of the peace treaties that were signed with the Maori ?

[Redleg]

This is what you should of stated in the first place.
Lets go all the way back to my first question in this topic....
Post #3What is the money for ? Is it penalties for breaches or infringements of the peace treaties that were signed with the Maori ?

But then you must add what the discussion turned into in consideration. Especially when it turned into a discussion about other things.

Such as Kafir's post.

[Azi Tohak]

Rather than start a new thread, I figured I would use this one, as it is in the same vein I would have used (except about Bush, not me [I'm already convinced I am. A white male who is not self-loathing cannot be anything else in the USA.]).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucwb/2005091...NlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Azi

[GoreBag]

I find chopping wood rather fun.

I'm really not sure what the man is trying to say with this article, though.