Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
Now non-white people can be white
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ana the Ist" data-source="post: 75880669" data-attributes="member: 302807"><p>If we look at history....early settlers don't talk about being white. The colonialists don't really talk about themselves as white.</p><p></p><p>It's far more realistic that the important part of their identity was their former nation, like France or England, or their religious beliefs....which they spoke about a lot. White rarely comes up outside of a few circles in the tiny scientific community and those primarily concerned about slavery. </p><p></p><p>That's not to say they didn't hold racist beliefs. They certainly did. In fact, so did everyone. We could even characterize some of these racist beliefs as white supremacist even though they don't really form an ideology. </p><p></p><p>I can understand that. To say those beliefs motivated most things is not something anyone has actually proven.....it's just a broad false generalization.</p><p></p><p>We can, for example, look at Jefferson's argument for breaking the treaty with whatever tribes prior to the Lousiana purchase. France claimed ownership of those lands, and Jefferson speaks mostly of his concerns about Napoleon actually securing them.</p><p></p><p>He's talking mostly about what would happen if the greatest general in history showed up on tribal land. He concluded....they'd be wiped out. He chose to pressure Napoleon by increasing American presence in the area and pushing for a sale of the territory. </p><p></p><p>Did he break the treaty? Yup. Did he have reasons that are self serving? Sure. There's valid debate over motives. </p><p></p><p>The point is it's complex. You're rarely going to find pure racist hate as the motive for any large scale action in history. The move westward was driven heavily by concerns about European nations....which makes a lot of sense. </p><p></p><p>One of the oddities is around the time we were destroying the Comanche tribe....arguably the most violent tribe we fought....we started a propaganda campaign to repaint the natives as these peaceful and noble stewards of the land. It was born out of a genuine concern they would be removed entirely. It was a fabrication of racist white people.....and it still exists today. </p><p></p><p>You ever see that commercial of the guy littering and the native American guy who has the single tear?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ana the Ist, post: 75880669, member: 302807"] If we look at history....early settlers don't talk about being white. The colonialists don't really talk about themselves as white. It's far more realistic that the important part of their identity was their former nation, like France or England, or their religious beliefs....which they spoke about a lot. White rarely comes up outside of a few circles in the tiny scientific community and those primarily concerned about slavery. That's not to say they didn't hold racist beliefs. They certainly did. In fact, so did everyone. We could even characterize some of these racist beliefs as white supremacist even though they don't really form an ideology. I can understand that. To say those beliefs motivated most things is not something anyone has actually proven.....it's just a broad false generalization. We can, for example, look at Jefferson's argument for breaking the treaty with whatever tribes prior to the Lousiana purchase. France claimed ownership of those lands, and Jefferson speaks mostly of his concerns about Napoleon actually securing them. He's talking mostly about what would happen if the greatest general in history showed up on tribal land. He concluded....they'd be wiped out. He chose to pressure Napoleon by increasing American presence in the area and pushing for a sale of the territory. Did he break the treaty? Yup. Did he have reasons that are self serving? Sure. There's valid debate over motives. The point is it's complex. You're rarely going to find pure racist hate as the motive for any large scale action in history. The move westward was driven heavily by concerns about European nations....which makes a lot of sense. One of the oddities is around the time we were destroying the Comanche tribe....arguably the most violent tribe we fought....we started a propaganda campaign to repaint the natives as these peaceful and noble stewards of the land. It was born out of a genuine concern they would be removed entirely. It was a fabrication of racist white people.....and it still exists today. You ever see that commercial of the guy littering and the native American guy who has the single tear? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
Now non-white people can be white
Top
Bottom