Pioneer1

Troy Ever heard of SLAVERY? The Tulsa Massacre...as terrible as it was....was done to ONE COMMUNITY among thousands of other thriving AfroAmericans communities that existed in America in 1921. Where as back in 1821 almost ALL AfroAmericans were enslaved and enduring brutal oppression in one form or another. There may have been people getting killed equal to the Tulsa Massacre every week back in 1821 for all we know because they were treated as subhuman property.

I don't have a lot of social media accounts to delete. I'm not much on participating in social media except for for financial purposes or some sort of direct gain or interest (like looking for a woman....lol). But just posting on social media all day and all night talking trash to people most of whom I don't even know....no. I guess because I'm from an older generation I don't understand it. But I've met plenty of people my age and older (usually women) who absolutely LOVE to tell all of their business on Twitter and Instagram. Everytime a baby is born or somebody gets a new boyfriend they post their pictures and personal information all over social media. I just don't understand it. People have asked me why I don't show my pictures on the internet more often. My question is...for what? Why do you need to know what I look like, where I live, who I'm sleeping with, what kind of vehicle I drive, or what I eat for breakfast in the morning? I wouldn't mind giving more personal information if there was a strong monetary incentive....I'm talking TENS OF THOUSANDS of dollars. But to just put my business out there for kicks and giggles??? Nah....

Troy So you just gonna ignore my questions and pose increasingly irrelevant ones to cloud this issue? I didn't ignore them, they weren't directed at me...but at Chevdove. I RESPONDED to the question you asked her with a question of my own for you. A question you have yet to answer. Who formed a government based upon white supremacy before the white boys here? The white boys in Spain, Italy, and most of Europe who insisted on a Caucasian only Europe after driving out the Moors.

Troy Are you saying MY response wasn't honest? I almost forgot...you called me "intellectually dishonest" ((shakes head)) Well this choice is a little easier....although I still don't have all of the facts I need for a truly educated decision between those two times. I'd say 1921. Based on the information I have, I believe I'd have more liberty and success in that era.

Troy Dude, accepting the fact of a single race is not biased. It is if you disagree with the fact that OTHER races also exist along WITH that single race. When it comes to the issue of race, your judgement is SKEWED...distorted...and I have to keep that in mind, lol. can you make a distinction between the genetic reality of a single human race that science has proven and the false idea of multiple races which racists created to elevate themselves of darker skinned people? Can I make that distinction? If it were INDEED a reality....ofcourse I could. I can even do it in concept. But it's not a fact of this reality. The facts is.... multiple races exist INDEPENDENT of the creations or opinions that racist have about them. Why do you cling to this racist idea so fervently? I accept the truth...even if I don't agree with it. You should learn to do the same, lol.

Troy How do we know Caucasians had to "learn" this? Perhaps they were already PRE-DISPOSED to feeling that way by nature.

Troy Don't forget the asterisk!

Troy You're already biased against her conclusions about race because YOU don't want to accept the validity of multiple races which is a key element in understanding her statement. Although I've finally gotten you to admit that multiple races DO EXIST (despite your simultaneously denials) you still reject the validity of this belief. If you don't believe there are multiple races in fact, then you certainly won't believe that a person can be only a percentage or portion of one. So your pre-conceived prejudices are clouding your ability to properly comprehend her assertions.

Chev Thank you for that info! I dig what you're saying about the Assyrians and Syrians but when you start equating the 10/12 tribe of Israel with Black/Negro people....now you're losing me, lol. Well, again, I need to reference. But the Roman Empire historical figures are well known and definitely White. Ancient maps and histories refer to that area as being the land of the AMORITES. So, if you reverse the name, guess what? ROMA--AMOR The Amorites are definitely the Biblical Canaanites. They came from the Original Canaanites whose supreme goddess is ASHTORETH-- Ash-White-- WHITE GODDESS. The Original Canaanite Moors, Phoenicians, Kenites were obsessed with White women and so from these early times they heavily intermixed with Eastern or Asian people and eventually the Amorites became dominant. Now, I've heard the exact opposite. Amorites = Emori (what they called themselves) Eventually after numerous fights with the Israelites, Persians, Assyrians, ect....these Amorites/Emori left their original home of Canaan and went down into Egypt and into parts of North Africa and eventually became known as the Moors (Amoor/Black-a-Moor).

Troy Anybody can be a bigot. It seems that you are attempting to equate the REACTION of the victim with the ACTION of the perpetrator. My beliefs are a REACTION to the racism that I've experienced and observed from the Caucasians who inflicted it. For me to point out their injustices doesn't make me any more a "bigot" than a rape victim being a "slanderer" for pointing the finger at her attacker. Have you been deluded into believing power and privilege are so "even" between Caucasians and AfroAmericans today to the point that we should be held to the same standard as them???? Chev No Way! Racism was NOT invented this late in time by Americans. Exactly. There are reports back in 1500 BC of Aryans invading the Indus Valley region and setting up a race-based system of oppression based on the color of one's skin with the White Brahmans being on top and the Black Dravidians being considered "Untouchables". 1500 B.C!!!!!!

Chev With the COVID Deaths, prison systems being heavily populated by Black people, the George Floyd types of murders going on, etc., I believe that it is impossible to equate both time periods. Today, Black people are being oppressed severely. Exactly. The oppression in those days were...in my opinion....more simple and straight forward, which means it was less confusing. Sometimes you have to look at the RESULTS, not necessarily the method. In other words, if MORE AfroAmerican men are dying in 2020 from Black-on-Black homicide than in 1820 from lynching...that still means thing were WORSE in 2020 than in 1820 for AfroAmerican men despite the methods used.

Troy You don't understand how someone can be 1/4 (25%) Black? It sounds like simple mathematics to me. And if THEY are only a quarter Black and they have an offspring with someone with NO Black ancestry...then that offspring could logically be half of that (between 12% and 13%). I said COULD be because genes aren't always spread evenly in one's offspring. You can have one child with dark skin and straight hair and another with light skin and kinky hair.

Looks like my girl Candy O is back at it again! Fox News guest Candace Owens claims Meghan isn’t Black enough to be a victim of racism During an appearance on Fox News, conservative activist Candace Owens said that Meghan Markle is not Black enough to have been a victim of racism. In an interview on Sean Hannity’s show on Wednesday night, Ms Owens, who is Black, gave her opinion on a number of the talking points from the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s interview with Oprah Winfrey. Ms Owens called Ms Markle a “typical leftist narcissist” and said that she had seen the “traditional” British royal family, and then decided “to call it racist”. During an appearance on Fox News, conservative activist Candace Owens said that Meghan Markle is not Black enough to have been a victim of racism. In an interview on Sean Hannity’s show on Wednesday night, Ms Owens, who is Black, gave her opinion on a number of the talking points from the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s interview with Oprah Winfrey. Ms Owens called Ms Markle a “typical leftist narcissist” and said that she had seen the “traditional” British royal family, and then decided “to call it racist”. In addition to Sean Hannity, hosts Tucker Carlson, Greg Gutfeld, Maria Bartiromo and Ainsely Earnhardt have all scoffed at the duchess’ claims. On his Tuesday night show, Mr Carlson also called Ms Markle a narcissist and a “manipulative opportunist” — he ignored her statements about racism and mental health. In her interview with Oprah, Ms Markle had talked about her suffering from suicidal thoughts, her unfair treatment in the press, and that a member of the royal family had expressed concern about the possible darkness of her son’s skin. In a tweet on 8 March, Ms Owens made similar accusations to those she made on Fox News: “Meghan Markle is less than 25% black. Her son is less than 12% black,” she wrote. “Her and Harry implying that everything that happened to them is because of her blackness is a sickening level of scapegoating.” Given Ms Markle’s ancestry — her father is of northwest European heritage, and her mother is descended from slaves in Georgia — it was unclear how Ms Owen arrived at these percentages. People were quick to point out the discrepancy on Twitter, accusing her of making up rules to prop up her attack on the couple. “With racism you only need 1%” one person tweeted. “I find it so interesting how you repeatedly turn yourself inside out insulting, blaming, scapegoating, and ridiculing other black women. Way to have a sister’s back,” wrote another Twitter user. Ms Owens also defended Piers Morgan who quit Good Morning Britain on Tuesday after being dressed down on air by a co-presenter about his comments regarding Ms Markle’s discussion of her mental health. More than 41,000 complaints were filed by members of the public regarding Mr Morgan, and Ms Markle added a personal complaint. Ms Owens said Mr Morgan was “calling her [Ms Markle] out for the blatant lies that she’s told”. “For her to put in this phone call to have his voice silenced because she is unhappy with the press about her … she’s a typical leftist narcissist,” she said. Ms Owens added: “Why aren’t we allowed to have an opinion anymore without people telling us, ‘Your opinion is no longer safe’? It’s dangerous.” Fox News guest Candace Owens claims Meghan isn’t Black enough to be a victim of racism | The Independent __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Candy, Candy, Candy..... She's obviously being used by Sean Hannity and the rest of her fellow right-wing colleagues to be an "attack dog" and do the dirty work for Caucasian men who don't want to appear racist themselves. Why else would a Black woman jump into a matter that doesn't even concern her just to attack another AfroAmerican woman and defend the British monarchy? But I think she DOES has a a bit of a point. Although she's an AfroAmerican, Meghan Markle doesn't appear to be Black and neither does her child based on what I've seen of both of themld.

Troy Lol....man, that's ridiculous. How can a Black man be a "bigot"??? Instead of being hurt over my insight, you should be hurt and disappointed over how gullible so many of our young people (the author sounds like a young man) have become when it comes to race and politics. He probably made that video....not in the name of racial unity....but in order to attract a particular Caucasian woman he's interested in, lol.

Sure. It helps me to understand how confused and desperate the author of that video is to unite and be friends with Caucasians. It helps me understand how the author really sees his slave master's children as his brothers and allies in some mythological "struggle". Anyone who makes a video where the title incorrectly asserts that AMERICA "invented" race....is exceedingly confused. Which is why I'm not surprised when he concludes the video by singing of how the "Africans and English struggled TOGETHER"....lol. Because that's what he wants! He wants to be TOGTHER with Caucasians...not his other Black brothers and sisters...but the Caucasians. It's like those Negroes in the church who sing about loving everybody and try to shake hands with and hug klansmen....but if another Black man owes him $10 he's ready to KILL him over it.

Troy Come on man, don't try that nickle-n-dime jive on me...lol You're ATTEMPTING to shift the focus away from your recent ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of multiple races...and towards the DEFINITION of "race" which is a discussion that could go on for 6 more pages without a solid agreement. This one was made CRYSTAL clear. After YEARS of denying the existence of MULTIPLE races (like you just did again) you finally agreed with me that they DO exist. How? Because: 1. You acknowledged that Social Constructs exist. 2. You acknowledged that Race is a Social Construct 3. You acknowledged that multiple Races are multiple Social Constructs. Add it all up and it = You acknowledge that MULTIPLE RACES exist. Grab the glasses! Grab a bucket of ice! Turn on some Gap Band and Jodeci! Break out the Cold Duck! Toss me a pack of Zig-zags! This song's for you man.........Trouble T-Roy: ....it's like that yall.

Del Do you accept Troy's statement of: "The concept of race as a genetic construct is not real." ...as being an adequate example of an "unreal" concept? How could a concept be "unreal" simply because one doesn't understand or agree with it.

Troy Your assertion has been that there IS ONLY ONE RACE. Through logic, I have compelled you to bear witness and agree with me that there ARE INDEED MULTIPLE RACES. All this stuff about genetics and concepts is besides the fact.

Troy No TV, no Internet, no protection from STD's, no legal alcohol, no rights that white man was required to respect. But atleast I'd have Black Wallstreet and THESE brothers to do business with, up until June of that year. Where's our Black Wallstreet today? When was the last time you saw a half dozen wealthy Black men together in one place at one time?

I choose *2021 with an asterisk next to it....lol.

Troy Alright! If race is a SOCIAL CONSTRUCT and If a social construct does EXIST and You acknowledge that they (races) are MULTIPLE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTS. then Although you reject them, you DO ACKNOWLEDGE THE EXISTENCE OF MULTIPLE RACES. Congradulations baby boy! Gimme fiiiiive... ....alriiiiight. which one day I suspect more and more people will come to reject, because it is a dumb social construct, which ignorant people have only used to justify the ranking of people based upon the stupid shit some white boys made up a few hundred years ago to justify the enslavement of African people. I reject the "concept" of race on that basis alone. Well... What you choose to reject has no more bearing on REALITY or whether something EXISTS or not...than your rejecting strawberry icecream means it "doesn't exist". I'm glad that after all these years we finally come to agree on the existence of MULTIPLE races! Break out the Cognac!

Troy Ok, based on the information I have RIGHT NOW....I've chosen. But before I give you my choice, I asked earlier can you explain to me why you've decided to remove the "1921" option to focus on 1821? You started off with giving me 3 options: 1821 1921 2021 But then took 1921 away for some reason. I'm curious as to why.

Troy I'm not playing with words, I'm trying to get to the bottom of an issue and solve it. I'm glad we can agree on the existence of race as a social construct. Do you also agree that the various races that different nations and cultures classify/group people into....whether you agree with them or not...are also social constructs?

Troy Yes, and the two are not necessarily opposites. Some concepts ARE real. But I'm not focusing on what is "real" so much as what EXISTS. We are talking about that which EXISTS. Social constructs EXIST.

Troy Mere "data" between those two time periods shouldn't be enough for one to base an INTELLIGENT decision on. You'd have to have some experience living in both societies at the time or atleast observe both times extensively to get an accurate assessment of both in order to make that decision. Why are you focused on "1821" all of a sudden? At first you offered TWO choices...1821 and 1921. Then you started drilling on 1821.