Caucasians

[jefferiah]

Blacks are not a race. They are a group of people with similar cultural interests that have been targeted by racists, oppressed by government and society and have banded together to counter the effects of racism against them.

The disabled in Canada have a similar lobby and have been successful at changing laws and attitudes that have presented barriers to their free movement in public buildings, in employer's premises and in equal opportunity.

Perhaps you should start a racist thread about the gimps too and suggest that their disability makes it ok for you to discriminate against them for your own benefit.

Posit you are going off in another direction again. I was not targetting black groups. Kuzadd did with his own logic. If it is not ok for one group to have a group, then it is not ok for another. If it is ok for one group to have a group, then you have to allow another. As long as neither of those groups are promoting the destruction of the other. Right?

You go off about how I should make a raicst thread about this or that. You are the ones who said it was not ok to form a group based on color, and when I point out that others exist you call me racist for it as if I was insulting them.

Remember Posit you are the only one here who has made attacks against people of another skin color, so when it comes to racist threads you might as well lead the way.

[jefferiah]

And still, no one has shown any substance to the idea that "white" people need to be protected or are under "attack" in any way shape of form.

Now this Cybercoma, is something I pretty much agree with. I mean I am not at all that concerned but then again if someone is how is that wrong. As long as they are not viewing whites as superior and plotting to destroy other races then what is the difference in making a preventetive measure to protect your own against racism when other groups do the exact same thing.

[guyser]

And still, no one has shown any substance to the idea that "white" people need to be protected or are under "attack" in any way shape of form.

Thats because it is ridiculous to think that "whites" need to be or are under attack. Only foolishness would make on think that.

And to argue , in spite of the fact that U of C is much better suited than some internet warriors to spell out the truth ,is just some self importance. But thats nothing new.

99.9% identical. Hmm....hard to argue.

Can someone forward the memo on how I am supposed to hate whitey , or self loathe my colour and ancestry? I guess I missed it. Same tired old arguement , its done in political discussions.." why do hate Canada/America" , the same as it is done here. A new catch all is needed.

Oh boy look at this, we are under attack.

Selected Ethnic Origins1, for Canada, Provinces and Territories - 20% Sample Data

Canada

Ethnic origins Total responses 2 Single responses Multiple responses 2

Total population 29,639,035 18,307,540 11,331,490

Canadian 11,682,680 6,748,135 4,934,550

English 5,978,875 1,479,520 4 ,499,355

French 4,668,410 1,060,755 3,607,655

Scottish 4,157,210 607,235 3,549,975

Irish 3,822,660 496,865 3,325,800

German 2,742,765 705,595 2,037,170

Italian 1,270,370 726,275 544,090

Chinese 1,094,700 936,210 158,490

Ukrainian 1,071,060 326,200 744,860

North American Indian 1,000,890 455,805 545,085

Dutch (Netherlands) 923,310 316,220 607,090

Polish 817,085 260,415 556,670

East Indian 713,330 581,665 131,665

Norwegian 363,760 47,230 316,530

Portuguese 357,690 252,835 104,855

Welsh 350,365 28,445 321,925

Jewish 348,605 186,475 162,130

Russian 337,960 70,890 267,070

Filipino 327,545 266,140 61,410

Métis 307,845 72,210 235,635

Swedish 282,760 30,440 252,320

Hungarian (Magyar) 267,255 91,795 175,460

American (USA) 250,010 25,200 224,805

Greek 215,105 143,780 71,320

Spanish 213,100 66,545 146,555

Jamaican 211,725 138,180 73,545

Danish 170,780 33,795 136,985

Vietnamese 151,410 119,120 32,290

British, n.i.e. 150,585 58,295 92,290

Austrian 147,580 25,320 122,260

Lebanese 143,630 93,895 49,740

Romanian 131,830 53,320 78,505

Belgian 129,780 30,190 99,590

Finnish 114,690 31,985 82,700

Swiss 110,800 24,600 86,200

Korean 101,715 95,200 6,515

Québécois 98,670 65,480 33,195

African (Black), n.i.e. 97,185 37,380 59,805

Croatian 97,045 58,170 38,880

Iranian 88,225 73,450 14,775

Japanese 85,225 53,175 32,050

Haitian 82,405 70,750 11,650

Czech 79,915 24,945 54,965

Icelandic 75,090 10,855 64,240

Pakistani 74,015 54,565 19,450

Arab, n.i.e. 71,705 47,600 24,100

Acadian 71,590 21,945 49,645

Yugoslav, n.i.e. 65,505 26,880 38,625

Sri Lankan 61,310 45,485 15,830

West Indian 59,705 33,300 26,410

Inuit 56,330 37,025 19,300

Serbian 55,545 39,210 16,335

Black 53,095 38,345 14,745

Guyanese 51,570 26,290 25,285

Slovak 50,860 19,865 30,995

Trinidadian/Tobagonian 49,590 22,440 27,150

South Asian, n.i.e. 49,205 41,950 7,255

Punjabi 47,160 28,980 18,175

Latin/Central/South American, n.i.e. 41,620 30,380 11,240

Egyptian 41,310 26,150 15,160

Armenian 40,505 27,175 13,330

Tamil 39,070 26,935 12,135

Mexican 36,575 15,820 20,755

Lithuanian 36,485 11,315 25,165

Chilean 34,110 21,825 12,290

Somali 33,725 30,830 2,895

Czechoslovakian 33,545 7,205 26,340

Maltese 33,000 14,115 18,880

Scandinavian, n.i.e. 32,730 6,695 26,035

Macedonian 31,270 16,785 14,480

Slovenian 28,910 15,285 13,630

Salvadorean 26,740 20,795 5,945

Australian 25,410 3,805 21,610

Afghan 25,230 22,320 2,910

Turk 24,910 15,060 9,845

Barbadian 23,730 10,600 13,125

Latvian 22,610 8,880 13,730

Estonian 22,090 9,650 12,440

Syrian 22,065 10,425 11,640

Moroccan 21,355 13,035 8,320

European, n.i.e. 20,450 9,720 10,730

Cambodian 20,430 14,835 5,595

Iraqi 19,245 14,105 5,140

South African 18,925 4,980 13,950

Taiwanese 18,080 13,335 4,750

Peruvian 17,945 10,935 7,010

Laotian 16,950 12,345 4,605

Ghanaian 16,935 14,175 2,765

Colombian 15,865 10,450 5,415

Ethiopian 15,725 13,100 2,625

Bosnian 15,720 12,185 3,535

Algerian 15,495 11,235 4,260

Bulgarian 15,190 8,465 6,730

n.i.e.: not included elsewhere

1 Includes origins with total response counts of 15,000 or more for Canada.

2 Respondents who reported multiple ethnic origins are counted more than once in this table, as they are included in the multiple responses for each origin they reported. For example, a respondent who reported "English and Scottish" would be included in the multiple responses for English and for Scottish.

Data quality note(s)

Excludes census data for one or more incompletely enumerated Indian reserves or Indian settlements.

[Posit]

What a dolt. I've made no attacks against anyone based on colour.

If you want I can name a few "white" groups for ya....

Orange Men.

Sons of Scotland

Shriners (although they now allow people of colour they started out as an exclusive group.....but then again the NAACP also have people of colour operating under their umbrella too)

There are many. You could take any one of them and ask them to lobby on your behalf. OR you could even create a similar group and get recognized as a lobby.

What you cannot do is insist that your "white" group is any better or more important than another based simply on the colour of your skin.

[jefferiah]

Posit no one said that it was more important than another. I dont want a white group. No one even proposed the idea. The thing is for practical purposes we do have labels. That does not necessarily mean you view one person as being better than another. It also means that I cant argue with Scott referring to whites or else I would have to argue with the NAACP's existence.

The attack you made was the rant about white people and the sizes of their members and such things. I really don't take any offense to it, and I am not reporting you for it. But if you made the same statements in a post about Asians it would be called racism.

Guyser I am not worried about whites particularly, but nonetheless your argument is still silly, because once again using the same logic you are using against Scott with this University Study you must also evenly apply that logic to the NAACP, who seem to have a pretty good idea of what colored people are.

Now, if you argue that the NAACP is in a special position because of the existence of racism then you must also prove that there is no such thing as racism against white people. And there is. I have experienced it myself. It did not concern me or scare me very much, but the attitude that other races are more special and that it is ok for them to protect themselves does concern me.

[jefferiah]

I can understand why Kimmy would want blond children. After all she wouldn't want her kids to be smarter than her.....

IN the end those arguing for protection of the caucas are just superficial egoists. They are more concerned about looks and marinating the pure line than they are about humanity, or genetics. I mean these people are intent on preserving small penis shrimps. I mean real men are descendants of mixed cultures and when the white boys are out trying to polish their whiteness, the rest of us are making babies with their wives.

Of course few pure whites ever get dates unless you want to count pouring beer on their hands trying to get their dates drunk......

The fact is there is nothing special about caucas except the brown ones and the white ones all come from the same place.....

I'm willing to bet these guys were all born with their mothers standing up.

Do you see Posit?

And later you argue that making fun of Kimmy being a blonde is not the same as making fun of someone because they are brown. I won't make any assertion on the matter, but you already have. You contradicted yourself on this point. In a recent post you made it known that race is really nothing more than physical traits and so is blonde hair. If they are one and the same, then by defintion, making fun of someone for being blonde is not only childish and out of place in the argument, but it is also equal to making fun of someone because of their skin color.

[jefferiah]

Is one trait more important than another? Is skin color a more important trait than hair color?

[Posit]

Try again, dolt.

I was making comedy about a physical trait of white boys, not making a generalized statement about "white" race. I understand how you might confuse the two since you are probably in the first category.

You can make fun of brown people all you want. You can laugh at how white males think with their penis'. You can laugh all you want about how dumb blonds really are. What you cannot do is target a group, exclude a group or treat a group of people based on the colour of their skin.

Making comedic comments is not off topic. This topic began on the premise that caucas had something to defend themselves against and is completely laughable. What is hilarious is that you defend it as if it were real.

As recent as the last couple of weeks, polls have suggested that 75% of Canadians support resolution to First Nation land claims. Are you suggesting that ordinary Canadians can't support aboriginal people on a legal issue because the government (and racists) supported the theft of lands and cultural genocide in the past? And are you suggesting that supporting the NAACP's rights to lobby for changes to legislation to promote equality is a biased position? Give your head a shake. I think wet brain has set in for the long haul.

[jefferiah]

Try again, dolt.

I was making comedy about a physical trait of white boys, not making a generalized statement about "white" race. I understand how you might confuse the two since you are probably in the first category.

You can make fun of brown people all you want. You can laugh at how white males think with their penis'. You can laugh all you want about how dumb blonds really are. What you cannot do is target a group, exclude a group or treat a group of people based on the colour of their skin.

Making comedic comments is not off topic. This topic began on the premise that caucas had something to defend themselves against and is completely laughable. What is hilarious is that you defend it as if it were real.

As recent as the last couple of weeks, polls have suggested that 75% of Canadians support resolution to First Nation land claims. Are you suggesting that ordinary Canadians can't support aboriginal people on a legal issue because the government (and racists) supported the theft of lands and cultural genocide in the past? And are you suggesting that supporting the NAACP's rights to lobby for changes to legislation to promote equality is a biased position? Give your head a shake. I think wet brain has set in for the long haul.

I never said anything to suggest that they cant. You did. All I said was if you suggest that it is wrong for people to make groups based on the protection of people who belong to a "non-existant" race then you must apply that policy evenly all across the board.

[jefferiah]

And if you wish to use the existence of racism as an exception for groups like the NAACP you must prove that only whites can be racist and that no one can be racist against whites. Or else they can claim the same exception.

[jefferiah]

Now if ScottSA wants to preserve caucasians (whatever he sees as caucasian) how is this targetting another group. You seem to be going around in circles on this point, where over and over people have to keep saying preservation of one thing is not necessarily targetting of another thing.

[Posit]

Racism against blacks, Hispanics etc. can be proven. You or anyone else here have yet to prove that racism exists against whites, or caucas despite having been asked on countless occasions. It's not up to me to prove YOUR point for you.

However, in determining whether or not a hate crime (and for the most part that is what racism is) has been perpetrated against a white or Caucasian person you must first establish that the perpetrator has a problem with an identifiable race or just one particularly stupid person.

[guyser]

Racism against blacks, Hispanics etc. can be proven. You or anyone else here have yet to prove that racism exists against whites, or caucas despite having been asked on countless occasions. It's not up to me to prove YOUR point for you.

However, in determining whether or not a hate crime (and for the most part that is what racism is) has been perpetrated against a white or Caucasian person you must first establish that the perpetrator has a problem with an identifiable race or just one particularly stupid person.

The reverse is true too. Whites can be subject to racism the same as anyone else. Absurd to think otherwise

[jefferiah]

I knew a woman a few years ago whose 9 year old daughter was experiencing alot of trouble at school. Actually, to be exact, it was not her biological daugher, but the daughter of the man she had married. The 9 year old girl went to a school in an area that was primarily populated with natives, and most of the kids at school were native. She was bullied everyday at school by other kids and called "white girl" and the like. The mother of this girl told me how she became very concerned about what was happening when she noticed alot of writing on her daughter school books in her daughter's hand. Stuff like "I want to die.", "I wish I was dead.", "Everyone hates me". She called the school to complain about it, but she told me that the principal, a native woman, simply brushed her off as a paranoid white woman. The mother began to keep her daughter out of school because she was afraid of what her daughter might do to herself if she were to face anymore of this treatment.

She was going to get her daughter transferred to another school, but after a week people came to her house to say that she cannot keep her daughter out of school, and that she must continue going to school until she is transferred. I am not sure of all the details concerning this part.

Anyhow her daughter was forced to return to school and soon enough the woman had to make another complaint to the school about the bullying her daughter "the white girl" was receiving, and this time angry at the principal she went to to the school to argue with her in person.

Remember that this woman had married the girl's father. The woman told me you should have seen the look on the principals face when she saw that I was Native too.

[ScottSA]

I wonder what colour your ancestors will be in a thousand years?

You do realize we are always evolving as we have evolved in the past?

Will that make them any less members of the ONE human race?

BTW scottsa, personal attack noted. On my worst day, I am confident I am smarter, more educated and better read then yourself, take note of that, ok? Absolutely 100% confident of that!

No doubt you are quite a bit cleverer than I am, but tell me, how does the quality of your previous education and the number of books you have read vary according to good and bad days? And how can you be 100% confident of anything when even fixed numbers can vary according to mood? Is this a new form of relativism that takes extant reality and hinges it to mood?

I notice however that your insistence on there being one race seems to go out the window when there's a chance to put the boots to caucasians...are you 100% sure about race too?

[kuzadd]

I wonder what colour your ancestors will be in a thousand years?

You do realize we are always evolving as we have evolved in the past?

Will that make them any less members of the ONE human race?

BTW scottsa, personal attack noted. On my worst day, I am confident I am smarter, more educated and better read then yourself, take note of that, ok? Absolutely 100% confident of that!

No doubt you are quite a bit cleverer than I am, but tell me, how does the quality of your previous education and the number of books you have read vary according to good and bad days? And how can you be 100% confident of anything when even fixed numbers can vary according to mood? Is this a new form of relativism that takes extant reality and hinges it to mood?

I notice however that your insistence on there being one race seems to go out the window when there's a chance to put the boots to caucasians...are you 100% sure about race too?

"I notice however that your insistence on there being one race seems to go out the window when there's a chance to put the boots to caucasians...are you 100% sure about race too?"

truly scottsa, I haven't got an inkling to what you are referring to wrt this statement.

[kuzadd]

Blacks are not a race. They are a group of people with similar cultural interests that have been targeted by racists, oppressed by government and society and have banded together to counter the effects of racism against them.

The disabled in Canada have a similar lobby and have been successful at changing laws and attitudes that have presented barriers to their free movement in public buildings, in employer's premises and in equal opportunity.

Perhaps you should start a racist thread about the gimps too and suggest that their disability makes it ok for you to discriminate against them for your own benefit.

Posit you are going off in another direction again. I was not targetting black groups. Kuzadd did with his own logic. If it is not ok for one group to have a group, then it is not ok for another. If it is ok for one group to have a group, then you have to allow another. As long as neither of those groups are promoting the destruction of the other. Right?

You go off about how I should make a raicst thread about this or that. You are the ones who said it was not ok to form a group based on color, and when I point out that others exist you call me racist for it as if I was insulting them.

Remember Posit you are the only one here who has made attacks against people of another skin color, so when it comes to racist threads you might as well lead the way.

actually jefferiah, you are the one that brought the NAACP into this discussion, not myself. So get that straight, and stop the twisting.

You refuse to acknowledge that groups such as the NAACP arose , out of necessity, to empower the oppressed.

Until you acknowledge that FACT, you are simply wasting my time.

What I REALLY think would actually surprise you, but, I will keep that to myself, as IMO, no more time is worth wasting on a poster that can't acknowledge, simple historical fact.

[ScottSA]

I wonder what colour your ancestors will be in a thousand years?

You do realize we are always evolving as we have evolved in the past?

Will that make them any less members of the ONE human race?

BTW scottsa, personal attack noted. On my worst day, I am confident I am smarter, more educated and better read then yourself, take note of that, ok? Absolutely 100% confident of that!

No doubt you are quite a bit cleverer than I am, but tell me, how does the quality of your previous education and the number of books you have read vary according to good and bad days? And how can you be 100% confident of anything when even fixed numbers can vary according to mood? Is this a new form of relativism that takes extant reality and hinges it to mood?

I notice however that your insistence on there being one race seems to go out the window when there's a chance to put the boots to caucasians...are you 100% sure about race too?

"I notice however that your insistence on there being one race seems to go out the window when there's a chance to put the boots to caucasians...are you 100% sure about race too?"

truly scottsa, I haven't got an inkling to what you are referring to wrt this statement.

That's unfortunate coming from someone as clever, well read, and educated as you. You seem, while machinegunning your posts with random commas, to have become a tad confused as to exactly what it is you are 100% sure about. To wit:

You say:

In closing, there is but one race, the human race. Any differences are but superficial.

And in the very next breath, you say:

Your arguement wrt NAACP is bogus, because it denies a long history of the oppression of people of colour by 'white' racist individuals, which necessitated the formation of such groups as a means to empower themselves in the face of oppression.

Now if there is no such things as race, why are you, in the same post as you deny it, affirming the existence of race and of oppression by one to another? If you're right in the first assertion and race doesn't exist, then you're clearly wrong in the second assertion, and if you're right in the second assertion then you can't be right in the first.

And what does "wrt" mean?

[jefferiah]

actually jefferiah, you are the one that brought the NAACP into this discussion, not myself. So get that straight, and stop the twisting.

You refuse to acknowledge that groups such as the NAACP arose , out of necessity, to empower the oppressed.

Ah, yes I was the one who brought it up, and you never even mentioned that. But I was quite aware of that fact when I was writing that it was you who implicated them, only you refuse to see why. It was you who said it was wrong for people to define themselves in a protective group based on color of skin. So if that is wrong, then in your own words, not mine you have made the judgement against the NAACP. Do you see how that works? Do you understand when I brought up the NAACP I was saying that if you wish to use the logic you are using against Scott, then you must apply it evenly evenly across the board.

Then you say that well there is an exception for the NAACP because of oppression and racism. So in order to say that it is wrong for caucasians to think about protecting themselves you must then prove that there is no such thing as racism against Caucasians. That it is not necessary for Caucasians to protect themselves because there is no possibility of there ever being a racist person from any other race than the white guys.

Furthermore Scott never even proposed starting some kind of group, all he did was suggest a possible future situation in which there may be discrimination against whites. He never proposed a white group at all.

[jefferiah]

In an earlier post Kuzadd, I said that you seemed to have the idea that "all whites are racists". I think I had that wrong. It would seem that the idea is "only whites can be racist".

[jefferiah]

So its simple Kuzadd. If one race can have organizations which seek to protect them from racism, then you cant say that white people can't. Either you allow em all, or you ban them all.

I never said anything good or bad about the NAACP, I simply pointed out that by your own defintion up to that point in the argument, the NAACP was guilty of the same things you accused Scott of.....i.e. defining what race is, seeking to protect one particular race, etc.

[cybercoma]

So its simple Kuzadd. If one race can have organizations which seek to protect them from racism, then you cant say that white people can't. Either you allow em all, or you ban them all.

The organization exists because there was a need for coloured people to be protected from racism, you've yet to demonstrate that need as it pertains to white people.

Edited July 21, 2007 by cybercoma

[kimmy]

I mean why are we so worried about securing/protecting values and sentiments of Caucasians. All the whites ever did to other cultures was to convert, mate, destroy and wipe out the cultures....yes? Isn't it time for bye bye, good riddance to inevitable

I'd venture to say that contributions made by Whitey to fields such as medicine and agriculture have saved more lives than have been lost in every war in human history combined.

European (and later, American) achievements in the arts and sciences over the past ... oh, let's say 320 years (since Newton published "Principia Mathematica") have profoundly changed our understanding of life and the universe, and taken as a body of work, utterly dwarf anything else in human history. And these are to an enormous extent the work of Whitey.

What did whitey ever do? Lots of bad things, certainly, but an amazing amount of good and great things as well.

You folks are very quick to chatter, and call racism to anything disagreeing with your restricted perspective.

I did post a topic a while back on “blondes” and was looking for a consistency on the maintenance of their success. Well, it is obvious they are, how to say the least, denied to be genius.

This thread?

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=6483

Sheer piffle. You and Betsy chatting about hair dye, and Dancer's fond memories of former lovers' muffs.

I don't see where it was established that blondes are "to say the least, denied to be genius." Care to run that by me again, RB? Are you of the same views as Posit, regarding the "blonde genetic defect" and "genetic inferiority"? Why don't you tell me about this "denied to be genius, to say the least"?

-k

[jefferiah]

So its simple Kuzadd. If one race can have organizations which seek to protect them from racism, then you cant say that white people can't. Either you allow em all, or you ban them all.

The organization exists because there was a need for coloured people to be protected from racism, you've yet to demonstrate that need as it pertains to white people.

Ah...Why should Scott or Kimmy have to prove that there is racism to anyone? First off they were not proposing to start a group. Kimmy just wants Kimmyettes. And Scott mentioned the possibility of there being racism against whites in the future because of the possibility of becoming a minority. He is simply discussing a possibility and people are jumping all over him for it. There is no one trying to start a group.

The group was mentioned because everyone was debating about whether or not there is such a thing as race. Many people proposed the relativity argument, that race is not really definable. So we proposed the common sense argument that if there were a police description of a caucasian thief, or an asian thief, everyone would understand it.

Kuzadd said that mankind is one race. I quite agree with him on that point, and I am not trying to say that one race is superior or that purity is better than being hybrid. As they will both readily point out, everyone is a hybrid. He said that any attempts to classify people by race imply a belief that you are superior. I argued this point with him, and he could not see that it is possible to make distinctions between things without believing one has more inherent worth than the other. He denied that possibility and said it automatically creates an "US" and "THEM" mentality, and that believing in distinctions means you think "US" is superior.

People pointed out to him that while red apples and green apples are still both apples, for the practical purposes of consumer it is important to distinguish. And neither one is morally or universally better than the other, but we can make the distinction. And I tried to point out to him that he can make that distinction and would probably have no trouble picking out what Scott means by a white girl. They avoided answering that one.

So he basically kept throwing the point that if you can make a distinction, then it is a bad thing. It creates controversy. So I says to him and others, "Look, if that is the case then you must also make the same case against NAACP because they must have some sort of definite idea of what colored people are." Do you understand that I was not complaining about the NAACP? I was pointing out that they were by their own standards. Then I said go get em boys----you know daring em to take their crusade against the NAACP---which I know they will not do?

The fact that the NAACP existed because of racism does not change the fact that they have defined colored people. (And keep in mind this parallel was not used as a reason to promote a white group, but simply to allow Scott to bring up the existence of white people without people jumping down his throat over it.) In effect I am saying, look these people start groups based on the idea of race, but it is a crime for Scott to mention the white race or even consider the status of it, possible extinction...etc.

Now you could keep pushing the limits and say "Well, those groups have a right to define colored because they were victims of racism and oppression and they were defined as that by their oppressors."

Well I pointed out a case of racism against whites. Cybercoma, do you believe that only whites are capable of racism and discrimination? I would say that idea in itself is racist. You can argue that whites never had to go through slavery. Granted-but slavery is not an issue today. Segregation is not an issue today--so those groups are existing "today" because of discrimination. Slavery is immaterial since no colored person alive today was a slave, and no white person alive today can be blamed for causing it. So, as it pertains to the actual moment, these groups survive as a protection against racism. And are you going to try to argue that there is no such thing as racism against whites? And if there is, is it too much to ask that you allow someone to simply talk about it and the possibility of it getting worse, etc etc. I mean you allow other colors to make actual organized groups over the issue. Scott is just talking.

Edited July 21, 2007 by jefferiah

[kuzadd]

In an earlier post Kuzadd, I said that you seemed to have the idea that "all whites are racists". I think I had that wrong. It would seem that the idea is "only whites can be racist".

NO WHERE did I say that "only whites can be racist".

Please post a link and direct quotation.

Obviously you persist in twisting words, that are not mine.

Nor reading what I actually say.

DO NOT attribute statements to me, which I have not made.