If it is said someone or something has a history of, whatever, then that is something that person or thing has done or demonstrated or whatever in the past - a history of. It is not an all encompassing statement. I am assuming you know that.
Just you watch.
Again....white supremacy is an ideology.
We can talk about the history of the ideology.
We can talk about the history of the US.
Which is it?
The lady in the article sounds like she's suffering from projection and or wants to control how people of color think.
Whites are a minority. Albinos are white. I'm a Caucasian.
Abraham Lincoln, not Jefferson Davis, was Presidentmembership of actual white supremacist groups and the influence of these groups in some historical events is also a feature of US history
The term white supremacy encompasses a variety of things,
You keep trying to derail into the limited scope of what you are comfortable discussing, i.e, to your mind, ‘proving’ whatever your points are. This however is a discussion of the content of an article you continue to pretend you are unable to understand. This is a useful tactic I suppose if in some way you find yourself unable to engage honestly in discussion, but I fail to see any point in it beyond petty point scoring over trivial quibbles with wording, which is in any case perfectly understandable. If all you want to do is, for reasons of your own, point out that conflict between people who look different to each other is nothing new, then please go ahead and get it out of your system. Then we can get back to what the person in the article has to say, and then perhaps on to what application is does or doesn’t have.
From you?
That optimistic button isn’t near big enough.
Iron Eyes Cody?You ever see that commercial of the guy littering and the native American guy who has the single tear?
You should never go in against them when Death is on the line.Iron Eyes Cody?
Turns out he was of Sicilian heritage.
It's an ideology.
If you want to redefine it....do so. Keep in mind the definition should provide a better understanding of the term, not a worse one.
Ad hominem. Just fyi, I dismiss any personal attacks.
Do you want to discuss the topic or not?
I said that she was attempting to characterize history as white supremacist....you appear to agree.
We can move on to explain why you're wrong.....or you can keep trying to explain yourself better.
Explaining why your posts have nothing to do with the topic is not an ad hom,
as you know, now is pointing out your penchant for pigeon chess. These are observations based on your basic refusal to engage with reality, to just read some plain English and respond to it.
Well, you win - you have thoroughly proven that trying to engage you in a reasonable conversation is a complete waste of time. Well done!
Iron Eyes Cody?
Turns out he was of Sicilian heritage.
If I’m to learn something maybe I need a better instructor?
Abraham Lincoln, not Jefferson Davis, was President
FDR, not Hitler, was President
You cannot (legitimately) paint millions of ethnically white Americans with a single galaxy-wide broad brush stroke (of your particular choosing)
While you're fixating on a few alleged "KKK members", millions of Americans are giving more money to charity than any other country in the history of earth...
you notice (all of) them?
Cherry picking facts to suit narratives is force-fitting facts to propaganda, not following the facts to the truth
No Rumbleno non-rumble link
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?