Are black on white attacks justified?

Status
Not open for further replies.

jzeidler

New member
Is it justified for black people to riot, attack white people, set white people on fire, etc. because 1% of white people owned black slaves 150 years ago? Weigh in below.
 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
black-people-lynched.jpg



Do you think white people have the right to tell them how and when they should forget?
 

jzeidler

New member
Are black on white attacks justified?

black-people-lynched.jpg



Do you think white people have the right to tell them how and when they should forget?

I think the whole country has that right and they are sick of them. The rioting blacks have become the laughing stock and most hated individuals of the Asian and white community.

Now having to deal with your picture it was unjustified and horrible. But not much different from what the BLM is doing to white people when they douse them with gas and set them ablaze. Both are wrong and both are condemned. Move on. Those who the wrong wasn't against should not harm the one who had nothing to do with the wrong.
 
Last edited:

Crucible

BANNED
Banned
There was a mother and son who were tortured, raped, and killed by several racist black people.
And there was an 83 year old white woman who was tortured and killed by several racist black people.

These are fairly recent events, but the media doesn't cover these things, so people like Anna here can be sheep to the agenda at hand :rolleyes:
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
Is it justified for black people to riot, attack white people, set white people on fire, etc. because 1% of white people owned black slaves 150 years ago? Weigh in below.
There's no justification for abrogating the rights of others absent exigent circumstances that require it, like self defense. That said, it was closer to 6% in the South. Around one and a half if you included the north, where it wasn't as profitable, though the north profited by utilizing the agriculture, engaging in the transportation of slaves, etc. Or, slavery had a good bit to do with the founding of our nation and its prosperity.

The issues today evolved to some extent from the fallout of treating a race, generationally, as property. To suggest that because a few white people have been harmed by equally hate filled and ignorant people from the black community that there's some parity to what happened or that those of us in the white community can encompass the impact of that generational injury, is deeply mistaken and naive.


You know what they say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

The KKK were made up of Protestants.
Sure. Most of the country was Protestant and Catholics were viewed with suspicion and distaste by a large segment of them. A holdover from the 30 Years war and the religious conflict in Europe. As to the party bit, it's odd how stunted the historical knowledge of the right is on that. By way of, the South which put his poster child in play was largely a bastion of Democratic rule and strength. When the Democratic Party moved steadily into the progressive plank and range they ran to the Republican Party and have been a foundation of it since.

I omit commenting with any real particularity on Cruc's story unless and until he can actually link to a story that sets out the particulars in support and fact.
 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
I think you meant to say democrats instead of Protestants since the democrats were totally apposed to anything uplifting to the black community. Don't believe me? Here watch as a black man spells it out for you.

https://youtu.be/vb6Hv4nJ40U

It's obvious I meant to say Protestants. Do you deny inconvenient history?

By the way, are you by any chance part of the Christian Identity movement?
 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
There's no justification for abrogating the rights of others absent exigent circumstances that require it, like self defense. That said, it was closer to 6% in the South. Around one and a half if you included the north, where it wasn't as profitable, though the north profited by utilizing the agriculture, engaging in the transportation of slaves, etc. Or, slavery had a good bit to do with the founding of our nation and its prosperity.

The issues today evolved to some extent from the fallout of treating a race, generationally, as property. To suggest that because a few white people have been harmed by equally hate filled and ignorant people from the black community that there's some parity to what happened or that those of us in the white community can encompass the impact of that generational injury, is deeply mistaken and naive.



Sure. Most of the country was Protestant and Catholics were viewed with suspicion and distaste by a large segment of them. A holdover from the 30 Years war and the religious conflict in Europe. As to the party bit, it's odd how stunted the historical knowledge of the right is on that. By way of, the South which put his poster child in play was largely a bastion of Democratic rule and strength. When the Democratic Party moved steadily into the progressive plank and range they ran to the Republican Party and have been a foundation of it since.

I omit commenting with any real particularity on Cruc's story unless and until he can actually link to a story that sets out the particulars in support and fact.


Well said. I started a reply but then realized it wasn't necessary, you'd covered all the bases.
 

jzeidler

New member
black-people-lynched.jpg



Do you think white people have the right to tell them how and when they should forget?

I'm German. Descendant of the Germanic people. Do you know what the Romans did to them after they concurred their land? They crucified many of them, they raped the woman, slaughtered the old, and enslaved the children. By your logic it would be ok for me to go on a rampage against Italians. But I won't because the offense was not against me nor are those people the ones who committed the offense. Black people therefore are unjustifiably doing evil in the streets.
 

jzeidler

New member
There's no justification for abrogating the rights of others absent exigent circumstances that require it, like self defense. That said, it was closer to 6% in the South. Around one and a half if you included the north, where it wasn't as profitable, though the north profited by utilizing the agriculture, engaging in the transportation of slaves, etc. Or, slavery had a good bit to do with the founding of our nation and its prosperity.

The issues today evolved to some extent from the fallout of treating a race, generationally, as property. To suggest that because a few white people have been harmed by equally hate filled and ignorant people from the black community that there's some parity to what happened or that those of us in the white community can encompass the impact of that generational injury, is deeply mistaken and naive.



Sure. Most of the country was Protestant and Catholics were viewed with suspicion and distaste by a large segment of them. A holdover from the 30 Years war and the religious conflict in Europe. As to the party bit, it's odd how stunted the historical knowledge of the right is on that. By way of, the South which put his poster child in play was largely a bastion of Democratic rule and strength. When the Democratic Party moved steadily into the progressive plank and range they ran to the Republican Party and have been a foundation of it since.

I omit commenting with any real particularity on Cruc's story unless and until he can actually link to a story that sets out the particulars in support and fact.

So are you honestly trying to justify people who were never enslaved killing people who never owned slaves?

Also there was never a party change. That's a lie. The Democratic Party has always been the party of slavery and racism. Likewise the Republican Party has always been the party of abolition and equal rights. Refer back to the video.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top