Racism

[Alliance Fanatic]

What do you think the roots of racism are, how does racism become predominant in a society. Right now I believe that racism may in fact be more of a product of anti-racist groups than anything else. Lets look at an example the Canadian Race Relations Foundation. The CRRF seems to be more of a organization which creates victims. They tend to blame problems within ethnic communities on police, white people, politicians, however they never are prepared to face the real problems and deal with crime in a community. They blame all problems on white people, and say that Canada has a racist history, and Canada has a racist past. Even though Canada has been more than hospitable to immigrants, and showed a large degree of compassion to people of different ethnic groups. I think that these people are not really concerned with compassion, or helping people in the ghetto, it seems that they are the same people Booker T. Washington warned African Americans about, race racketeers that wish to profit off the misfortunes of other people, and exploit the hard work of police officers, and others.

http://www.crr.ca/EN/

[Moderate Centrist]

Racism is practiced to a fine art the world over. Canada, America, and some of the western nations are about the only places that have laws in place and education programs to combat it. So we're way ahead of many places in the world.

I can not speak about the Canadian Race Relations Foundation as I know almost nothing about them but will study up.

As to the roots of racism it stems back to people judging others as inferior for no other reason than a different skin colour and in the case of the jewish people the traditional animosity between Christianity and the Jewish faith (although this more religious predjudice than racism).

There is no doubt there is an element of anti-racist groups which play the victim card.

However, the majority of animosity comes from a real lack of progress in improving peoples lives.

It is beyond dispute that Canada has had an extremely racist past - treatment of Chinese, Japanese, blacks and native Canadians have proven that.

Some of us whites think it's easy to say, "ah well it wasn't that bad, get over it". This is easy to say if you're not on the receiving end of the treatment minority groups have received over the years.

There is animosity, rightly justified towards racist treatment, mostly in the past, but paritally in the present.

It's a difficult issue to tackle as both fact and perception mingle often to present a clouded picture.

[MapleLeafMerc]

Racism is a term liberals use when threatened by the facts. Every society and political group known to historians has, by today's liberal standards, mistreated someone or some other group. Liberals are the only ones who believe they and their heroes never did.

[Pellaken]

its based on differences.

you see someone form china, they have "funny eyes"

you hear an anfrican-canadian singing rap, he's "stupid"

etc...

I once had someone lecture my for 10 minutes on how "I'm not a racist, I'm right"

he show'd me a picture of a few african-americans and said "look at how their jaw sticks out, and their head is big in the back... now look at this picture of an ape"

that's when I threw him out of my room. He did have a point though, "White men" and "Black men" look different. it's more then skin, it your shape. I know some people from the mid-east, and yes, compared to a normal "white man" they have big noses.

people look at someone, see their big nose, see their slanted eyes, and say "he's different, he must be stupid" or something like that. Racisim starts when you notice the differences, because by noticing them, you are accepting that there are differences.

I grew up in Toronto, and it literally takes me about a week to clue in that this or that guy is black. I just dont notice it, it's not important to me. I'm sorry to say that I do notice the gender gap, but I'm trying to fix that.

am I making any sence here?

[willy]

I agree somewhat with Pellaken, but you missed one other little aspect of racism. It is also about power and keeping power. The differences are then exploited as a foundation to separate and subjugate.

The problem is race gets mixed up with culture. Black, White, Asian people all come from varied cultures. The challenge is not to recognize a race as anything more than skin and bone features.

Cultural differences are true differences. I can disagree with a cultural difference. I believe some of the worlds cultures subjugate women and promote hate. I would like not to accept those into our culture. When our culture reflects hate we should also work to change it.

[legamus]

prejudice based on something as stupid as skin colour i think is a relatively recent thing, stemming from slavery in the states. prior to that the different racial groups interacted economically and while they may not necassarily have liked each other they didn't use race as a reason to dislike. the british, for example, hated the french but it wasn't because of what they looked like. this hatred based on appearance is an extreme of stupidity that i think has only really manifested itself in the last 300 years or so.

[MapleLeafMerc]

prejudice based on something as stupid as skin colour i think is a relatively recent thing, stemming from slavery in the states. prior to that the different racial groups interacted economically and while they may not necassarily have liked each other they didn't use race as a reason to dislike.

Do you think the practise of slavery originated in the United States?

Do you believe that racism did, too?

Absolutely shocking statements to make :angry:

[legamus]

did i say either of those things? slavery has been around in every civilization i can think of. when was it based on skin colour? in rome? no. in greece? no. to my knowledge it never was - correct me if i'm wrong. also, i know there are racist people everywhere. my perception, and i wouldn't be surprised to be shown wrong, is that it is a recent thing that people hate others based on morphology. in the past, i get the impression that people were wary of anybody outside their own particular group so hate wasn't based solely on race, or what others looked like.

the question was 'what are the roots of racism?'. i don't know. but to my knowledge, the first time that a group of people was discriminated against based on skin colour, which makes it an extremely broad group, was when someone noticed that in the states, slaves were black, slave-owners were white. the only other example i can think of is the hatred towards jews that everyone seems to have exhibited but that isn't racism since judaism is a religion.

finally, before like the 18th century or something 'racism' couldn't really have existed since no one had thought of the artificial divisions of race yet. so maybe the real answer lies with the people who thought this whole 'race' thing up and the answer to the roots of racism is europe

[Guest kevinlarson]

The toxic venom of racism has now entered in sports as well.

I am pretty disappointed by this news as what is the sense of doing such an ugly thing.

Many dirty minded people think that the mankind should be separated on the basis of the race, but they don't think one that what is happening with the victim who is facing it.

I think we all should fight against this racism by joining Anti-Bullying Organisations.

This is the only way left for common people when government don't take some strict steps.

[Keepitsimple]

Always a tough topic but I look at it a little differently. There's always going to be a lot of "they're different than I am" when you're trying to warm up to first generation immigrants. Many have a markedly different culture and just as many have trouble speaking one of our languages fluently. As much as the purist multi-culturalists would have us "revel in our differences", there is simply too much of a chasm for many people to feel comfortable - and it goes both ways....many times newcomers feel as separated as we do. And by extension, this discomfort can broadly be carried over to a skin colour or cultural group.

But what about second-generation immigrants - those who were born here, have gone through our schools, and speak English (or French) as well as we do? I suspect a huge majority of those who were uncomfortable around first-generation immigrants would have absolutely no problems with these Canadians. Years ago, I struggled with how much prejudice lurked inside me - until I realized that I felt completely at home with ANY second generation Canadian and would treat them no differently than anyone else - they could be my friends (if they'd have ME), co-workers - heck, I'd marry one. That also gave me a more accepting attitude towards our first generation Canadians.

Edited July 2, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[bush_cheney2004]

the question was 'what are the roots of racism?'. i don't know. but to my knowledge, the first time that a group of people was discriminated against based on skin colour, which makes it an extremely broad group, was when someone noticed that in the states, slaves were black, slave-owners were white. the only other example i can think of is the hatred towards jews that everyone seems to have exhibited but that isn't racism since judaism is a religion.

I think you are right...you don't know...beginning with slavery in Canada. Slavery is an economic system more than a broader social behaviour like "racism".

[ToadBrother]

What do you think the roots of racism are, how does racism become predominant in a society. Right now I believe that racism may in fact be more of a product of anti-racist groups than anything else. Lets look at an example the Canadian Race Relations Foundation. The CRRF seems to be more of a organization which creates victims. They tend to blame problems within ethnic communities on police, white people, politicians, however they never are prepared to face the real problems and deal with crime in a community. They blame all problems on white people, and say that Canada has a racist history, and Canada has a racist past. Even though Canada has been more than hospitable to immigrants, and showed a large degree of compassion to people of different ethnic groups. I think that these people are not really concerned with compassion, or helping people in the ghetto, it seems that they are the same people Booker T. Washington warned African Americans about, race racketeers that wish to profit off the misfortunes of other people, and exploit the hard work of police officers, and others.

http://www.crr.ca/EN/

Racism stems from the way human tribal mentality works; us vs. them. It's an ingrained behavior which can be overridden by turn thems into uses.

Jered Diamond, in his book Guns, Germs and Steel, gives the classic example of New Guinea tribesmen. When two people of different tribes who have never encountered each other before first meet, they attempt to find some people they both know, the notion being that if you both know one or more of the same people, you're not really that much of a stranger. Barring that, you are a stranger, and, well, things become much more dangerous.

Let's also remember that a lot of racism has its roots in economics. Buying slaves from Africa was necessary to the early post-Columbian economies in the Caribbean and Latin America because the early Spanish and Portugese colonies had managed to kill off most of the Indians in those areas (who had basically been wiped out by smallpox and overwork). This early economic system survived for several centuries in some areas of the Americas (including the US of A), and while the justifications were often "they're inferior, they're not as smart as us, we give them a better life than in Africa, and so forth", when, in fact, it was really about sustaining an agrarian economy.

[lictor616]

What do you think the roots of racism are, how does racism become predominant in a society. Right now I believe that racism may in fact be more of a product of anti-racist groups than anything else. Lets look at an example the Canadian Race Relations Foundation. The CRRF seems to be more of a organization which creates victims. They tend to blame problems within ethnic communities on police, white people, politicians, however they never are prepared to face the real problems and deal with crime in a community. They blame all problems on white people, and say that Canada has a racist history, and Canada has a racist past. Even though Canada has been more than hospitable to immigrants, and showed a large degree of compassion to people of different ethnic groups. I think that these people are not really concerned with compassion, or helping people in the ghetto, it seems that they are the same people Booker T. Washington warned African Americans about, race racketeers that wish to profit off the misfortunes of other people, and exploit the hard work of police officers, and others.

http://www.crr.ca/EN/

The roots of racism are biological

Racism is tied in with face recognition and innate behavioral patterns of the brain. Studies on individuals have found unconscious processes deep in the brain that reflect an instinctive suspicion of people unlike ourselves. Studies of groups show that these instincts invariably lead to conflict at the societal level.

(slightly paraphrased from http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov) There is a theoretical framework that explains ethnocentrism. As the Belgian authority on ethnic relations Pierre L. van den Berghe put it more than 25 years ago, “The degree of cooperation between organisms can be expected to be a direct function of the proportion of the genes they share; conversely, the degree of conflict between them is an inverse function of the proportion of shared genes.” (Emphasis in the original.) Prof. van den Bergh used the word “organisms” because he found this principle true in animals as well as people; there is cooperation between relatives and conflict between strangers. When there is great genetic distance between strangers—in the case of humans, when they are of different races—conflicts are sharper.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlere...i?artid=2575407

for instance this dispatch from David J. Kelly, Department of Psychology, University of Sheffield shows an innate cross race disdain- that children instinctively trust and prefer children of a similar race. This is one of probably one hundred cross race studies that have been made.

Three-and-a-half-month-old infants already seem to exhibit the other-race effect. In a study at University of Kentucky, white babies were very good at telling apart faces with 100 percent Caucasian features from faces that had been graphically morphed to include features that were 70 percent white and 30 percent Asian. They couldn’t distinguish the reverse: They could not tell 100 percent Asian faces from those that were morphed to include 30 percent white features. In other words, they could detect small differences between white and not-quite-white faces, but not the same kinds of differences between Asian and not-quite-Asian faces.

Lawrence A. Hirschfeld of the University of Michigan did some of the pioneering work on how early in life children begin to understand race. He showed children of ages three, four, and seven, a picture of “Johnny:” a chubby black boy in a police uniform, complete with whistle and toy gun. He then showed them pictures of adults who shared two of Johnny’s three main traits of race, body build, and uniform. Prof. Hirschfeld prepared all combinations—policemen who were fat but were white, thin black policemen, etc.—and asked the children which was Johnny’s daddy or which was Johnny all grown up. Even the three-year-olds were significantly more likely to choose the black man rather than the fat man or the policeman. “They know, in other words, that weight and occupation can change but race can’t,” explained Prof. Hirschfeld. In 1996, after 15 years of studying children and race, he concluded: “Our minds seem to be organized in a way that makes thinking racially—thinking that the human world can be segmented into discrete racial populations—an almost automatic part of our mental repertoire.”

Robert Putnam of Harvard University, which examined 41 different communities in the United States and concluded that communities with greater diversity were less likely to carpool.

“Carpooling is based on trust — you have to trust that your fellow is going to be there,” Taylor said. “People in these communities were less likely to participate in community events.”

A preference for one’s own kind runs very deep in human nature, and can assert itself in strong and even heart-breaking ways. Lowri Turner is a British woman whose second marriage was to a man from India. “I am white and I have two sons from my first marriage who are both milky complexioned and golden haired,” she wrote. She then explained how unprepared she was for the feelings she had when she had a mixed-race child with her new husband:

“[W]hen I turn to the mirror in my bedroom to admire us together, I am shocked. She seems so alien. With her long, dark eyelashes and shiny, dark brown hair, she doesn’t look anything like me. …

“I didn’t realise how much her looking different would matter and, on a rational level, I know it shouldn’t. But it does.

“Evolution demands that we have children to pass on our genes, hence the sense of pride and validation we get when we see our features reappearing in the next generation.

“With my daughter, I don’t have that. …

“I didn’t think of myself as racist and yet my daughter has shown me a side of myself about which I feel deeply uncomfortable.

Of course the CRRF is not interested in the facts of biology, and will never be so stupid as to publish accurate science on the subject of race. Our country is lockstep with its current religion of equality and multiculturalism, they are not interested in the truth but in recruiting bigger flocks. The REAL findings on racism are a devastating indictment of some of the most important choices our country has made over the last 50 years.

To put it briefly, Canada has made a huge mistake to think that race can be made not to matter... its not working and it WILL NOT WORK... it isn't within human nature to work... 50 years, billions of dollars in sensitivity training, countless propaganda movies and where are we today? We have affirmative action: which at best is racism to counter racism (which increases racism). We have countless racially exclusive committees and organizations: e.g. "the Black Ligue of Quebec". Racism has increased despite all of our efforts...

But leftists will never concede this... and so until we wrest power away from them, we will be forced to live under a log rolling system such as we have today.

Edited July 2, 2009 by lictor616

[Griz]

I think it partially stems from whites who believe they built this country all by themselves. Yet if one goes back far enough they will see that they all immigrated to this land. As for the Bering Strait theory and the aboriginals, it is just that--a theory and still won't change the fact that they were here when Columbus got here, and thereafter all the boat-people from Europe and the UK? Solution--mass media blitz that tells all the jerks that they too immigrated to this land

[Mr. Whiteman Esq.]

I think it partially stems from whites who believe they built this country all by themselves. Yet if one goes back far enough they will see that they all immigrated to this land. As for the Bering Strait theory and the aboriginals, it is just that--a theory and still won't change the fact that they were here when Columbus got here, and thereafter all the boat-people from Europe and the UK? Solution--mass media blitz that tells all the jerks that they too immigrated to this land

But the Europeans essentially did build this country all by themselves. Are you suggesting that Natives have an equal stake in the building of Canada simply because they were squatting on land and the resources there under that they only had a very limited ability to exploit? You seem to misunderstand the use of the word "theory" in a scientific context. The science behind determining that the Natives migrated to North America is quite sound, but science will never state that something like this is 100% proven thus it remains technically a theory.

[normanchateau]

The roots of racism are biological

Racism is tied in with face recognition and innate behavioral patterns of the brain. Studies on individuals have found unconscious processes deep in the brain that reflect an instinctive suspicion of people unlike ourselves. Studies of groups show that these instincts invariably lead to conflict at the societal level.obably one hundred cross race studies that have been made.

Of course the CRRF is not interested in the facts of biology, and will never be so stupid as to publish accurate science on the subject of race. Our country is lockstep with its current religion of equality and multiculturalism, they are not interested in the truth but in recruiting bigger flocks. The REAL findings on racism are a devastating indictment of some of the most important choices our country has made over the last 50 years.

I would agree that racism has some biological roots. There was a biological fear of outsiders even in the Stone Age:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/he...age-566708.html

However, you seem to imply that because a phenomenon has biological roots, society can not and/or should not overcome that phenomenon. Xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and even polygamy have biological roots. Defecating outdoors also has biological roots. Most humans have the ability to overcome at least some of the uncivilized features which they share with nonhuman species.

[Griz]

Obviously you are one of the brainwashed who believed all the crap written in history. The aboriginal people played a key role in the development of this country. Then the likes of you came over in a boat that had no showers. To get the land for your squatting arse you molested kids, raped women, commited acts of arson and murder, and squatted your smelly-resource exploiting bum all over the country and a few hundered years later have the nerve to whine like a little girl. A theory is a theory and still won't change the fact that aboriginal people were here well before the boat-people of Europe and the Uk got here

But the Europeans essentially did build this country all by themselves. Are you suggesting that Natives have an equal stake in the building of Canada simply because they were squatting on land and the resources there under that they only had a very limited ability to exploit? You seem to misunderstand the use of the word "theory" in a scientific context. The science behind determining that the Natives migrated to North America is quite sound, but science will never state that something like this is 100% proven thus it remains technically a theory.

[lictor616]

I would agree that racism has some biological roots. There was a biological fear of outsiders even in the Stone Age:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/he...age-566708.html

However, you seem to imply that because a phenomenon has biological roots, society can not and/or should not overcome that phenomenon. Xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and even polygamy have biological roots. Defecating outdoors also has biological roots. Most humans have the ability to overcome at least some of the uncivilized features which they share with nonhuman species.

one has but to read the "overcome racism" part to understand that you fail to grasp the reality of the situation.

Races are real and cannot be made "unreal". Race is a biological fact. It is a necessary corollary to evolution. Should "evolution" also be "overcome".

There are so many problems with your proposition... First of all, there is no definitive precise definition of RACISM itself... or actually there are HUNDREDS of definition. The term "Racism" itself is subjective. So we don't even know what we're trying to "overcome" to begin with.

Secondly we would have to scrap everything that we have learned from biology to "overcome" "racism". Maybe we could begin a new religion or belief system based upon rejecting the obvious fact of race... actually we sorta have such a religion its called Political Correctness or "liberalism". Which are both creeds that are based upon the "equality of man" and similar delusions of the mind.

But don't take it from me... i'll let you read from what a learned evolutionnary scientist has to say on the matter.

Ernst Mayr on Race: (http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001951.html)

Ernst Mayr, "perhaps the greatest evolutionary scientist of the twentieth century", might be called the Linnaeus of the Modern Synthesis {neo-Darwinism}, his Systematics and the Origin of Species set forth the biological species concept still in use today, with large utility for explaining speciation.

{Winter 2002. Vol. 131, pg. 89}, he addresses the "race does not exist" camp:

The Biology of Race and the Concept of Equality. Ernst Mayr

There are words in our language that seem to lead inevitably to controversy. This is surely true for the words "equality" and "race." And yet among well informed people, there is little disagreement as to what these words should mean, in part because various advances in biological science have produced a better understanding of the human condition.

Let me begin with race. There is a widespread feeling that the word "race" indicates something undesirable and that it should be left out of all discussions. This leads to such statements as "there are no human races." Those who subscribe to this opinion are obviously ignorant of modern biology.

Races are not something specifically human; races occur in a large percentage of species of animals. You can read in every textbook on evolution that geographic races of animals, when isolated from other races of their species, may in due time become new species. The terms 11 subspecies" and "geographic race" are used interchangeably in this taxonomic literature.

This at once raises a question: are there races in the human species? After all, the characteristics of most animal races are strictly genetic, while human races have been marked by nongenetic, cultural attributes that have very much affected their overt characteristics. Performance in human activities is influenced not only by the genotype but also by culturally acquired attitudes. What would be ideal, therefore, would be to partition the phenotype of every human individual into genetic and cultural components.

Alas, so far we have not yet found any reliable technique to do this. What we can do is acknowledge that any recorded differences between human races are probably composed of cultural as well as genetic elements. Indeed, the cause of many important group differences may turn out to be entirely cultural, without any genetic component at all.

Still, if I introduce you to an Eskimo and a Kalahari Bushman I won't have much trouble convincing you that they belong to different races.

In a recent textbook of taxonomy, I defined a "geographic race" or subspecies as "an aggregate of phenotypically similar populations of a species inhabiting a geographic subdivision of the range of that species and differing taxonomically from other populations of that species." A subspecies is a geographic race that is sufficiently different taxonomically to be worthy of a separate name. What is characteristic of a geographic race is, first, that it is restricted to a geographic subdivision of the range of a species, and second, that in spite of certain diagnostic differences, it is part of a larger species.

No matter what the cause of the racial difference might be, the fact that species of organisms may have geographic races has been demonstrated so frequently that it can no longer be denied. And the geographic races of the human races established before the voyages of European discovery and subsequent rise of a global economy - agree in most characteristics with the geographic races of animals. Recognizing races is only recognizing a biological fact.

---

[lictor616]

Most humans have the ability to overcome at least some of the uncivilized features which they share with nonhuman species.

Uncivilized? A society or individual that recognizes the obvious differences between the extant races and clines of man ... is UNCIVILIZED?

That's simply hogwash...

I don't get it... why do you want the fascinating diversity of human evolution and differentiation of humanity reduced to a uniform "bland equality"? What is with this obsession that "anti-racists" have with wanting humans to be as indistinguishable as the bees in a swarm? Why is this a desirable state of affairs?

I really don't see the appeal...

Edited July 4, 2009 by lictor616

[lictor616]

Obviously you are one of the brainwashed who believed all the crap written in history. The aboriginal people played a key role in the development of this country. Then the likes of you came over in a boat that had no showers. To get the land for your squatting arse you molested kids, raped women, commited acts of arson and murder, and squatted your smelly-resource exploiting bum all over the country and a few hundered years later have the nerve to whine like a little girl. A theory is a theory and still won't change the fact that aboriginal people were here well before the boat-people of Europe and the Uk got here

pretty hateful stuff here... can you hear the napoleon complex screaming out of this malarkey? "smelly resource exploiting bum"... are you talking about the natives who siphon how many billions of "european, rapist murderer thief sub human" money year to get high on gas and squander our resources?

And read up on the Ancient Solutreans... European people were in north america BEFORE the so called natives were... oh but of course we're too humble to rub that in your faces and act as if that meant anything... Canada is ours by right of conquest. So long as Europeans have the will and capacity to defend it as such... this is OUR LAND- where btw... for some reason or other, we permit you to live on largely at OUR EXPENSE and thanks to OUR hard work... but of course the day a native cite anything GOOD about Europeans will the day that pigs fly... Natives have such a deep and inveterate hatred of white people after all (and in our crazed times: its THEY who complain about racism!) lol what a world!

[Griz]

Wow you're really brainwashed! Conquest? Holy smokes When you're European ancestors came here in that boat they smelled like and poop and pee. Europeans were here before whiteman? Where did you hear that? Some retarded right-wing theory that wastes billions of dollars trying to prove that natives weren't here first? Duh--What a bunch of idiots

pretty hateful stuff here... can you hear the napoleon complex screaming out of this malarkey? "smelly resource exploiting bum"... are you talking about the natives who siphon how many billions of "european, rapist murderer thief sub human" money year to get high on gas and squander our resources?

And read up on the Ancient Solutreans... European people were in north america BEFORE the so called natives were... oh but of course we're too humble to rub that in your faces and act as if that meant anything... Canada is ours by right of conquest. So long as Europeans have the will and capacity to defend it as such... this is OUR LAND- where btw... for some reason or other, we permit you to live on largely at OUR EXPENSE and thanks to OUR hard work... but of course the day a native cite anything GOOD about Europeans will the day that pigs fly... Natives have such a deep and inveterate hatred of white people after all (and in our crazed times: its THEY who complain about racism!) lol what a world!

[lictor616]

Wow you're really brainwashed! Conquest? Holy smokes When you're European ancestors came here in that boat they smelled like and poop and pee. Europeans were here before whiteman? Where did you hear that? Some retarded right-wing theory that wastes billions of dollars trying to prove that natives weren't here first? Duh--What a bunch of idiots

wow, thanks for exposing your ignorance and inanity for everyone to see. Anything that doesn't fit your mold of native racial supremacy is a "right wing conspiracy"... why even argue with you..

[Mr. Whiteman Esq.]

Obviously you are one of the brainwashed who believed all the crap written in history. The aboriginal people played a key role in the development of this country. Then the likes of you came over in a boat that had no showers. To get the land for your squatting arse you molested kids, raped women, commited acts of arson and murder, and squatted your smelly-resource exploiting bum all over the country and a few hundered years later have the nerve to whine like a little girl. A theory is a theory and still won't change the fact that aboriginal people were here well before the boat-people of Europe and the Uk got here

UK was/is a part of Europe.

[Griz]

The answer is simple--because you can't argue the truth

wow, thanks for exposing your ignorance and inanity for everyone to see. Anything that doesn't fit your mold of native racial supremacy is a "right wing conspiracy"... why even argue with you..

[lictor616]

The answer is simple--because you can't argue the truth

your "truth" is that the ancient solutreans never existed and that Europeans are doused in urine and festooned with excrement, are stupid and have no claim on canada?

is this your view of reality?

Edited July 4, 2009 by lictor616