Now lets get back to the point at issue. This thread is about Racism towards blacks in America, which most of the world can see is pretty clearly endemic to Americans. Any solutions yet?

Incorrect! The thread title is Racist (Yes you Are).

It is unfortunate that the OP's first post related to the racism towards blacks. What annoys me the most is that wherever one attempts to discuss Racism, it inadvertently comes down to black v white.

This is nothing but a cover up to hide racism in general.

The British Empire was good compared to what is happening today? Are you serious man?

The State of Britain today

The more things change, the more they stay the same!

Now lets get back to the point at issue. This thread is about Racism towards blacks in America, which most of the world can see is pretty clearly endemic to Americans. Any solutions yet?

Incorrect! The thread title is Racist (Yes you Are).

It is unfortunate that the OP's first post related to the racism towards blacks. What annoys me the most is that wherever one attempts to discuss Racism, it inadvertently comes down to black v white.

This is nothing but a cover up to hide racism in general.

The British Empire was good compared to what is happening today? Are you serious man?

The State of Britain today

The more things change, the more they stay the same!

+1

Agreed, according to the title this is about race NOT colour

My father hates Irish and French for many complicated reasons but you are saying he is not a racist because the Irish and French he hates are white?

---

The reason i have mention'd Eddie Mabo is because the court case is not only about land rites but about the excuse white men have used for 2 century's to deny native people not only there land but normal rites white people have like voting .

The excuse that has been used is called TERRA NULLIUS and the Americans still use it today to deny Indians there land .

When ever you use capitalism to deny people there land or rites you are using the argument of TERRA NULLIUS this is a racist argument .

America YES YOU ARE RACIST

---

Glenn, as already pointed out in the last two posts, this is about race not colour prejudice.

I have yet to see any sensible discussion, whether it is via broadcasting, newspapers, Internet or personal discussions, somewhere along the line the discussion always ends up heated as racism itself is a taboo subject & the "White Man's Guilt" has to try show that they are now more humane & sensitive to the plight of the black mans past.

That will always leave the original debate on Racism Unanswered & left to rot

Sirius Terra Nullius has been used everywhere not just against black's it's even been used against Europeans in the Balkans .
Powerful people have used it to dislodge peoples from there home lands .
So some racism is in fact just a land or mineral grab or arrogance of thinking they are better than everyone else .
So maybe the Eddie Mabo court case should be taught at schools to start to change peoples thinking so they are not brain washed by powerful people that need to fester lie's to keep things the way it is .

---

Sorry Clyde but it doesn't show there more willing to shoot whites .

It says they wait a little longer before shooting .

This type of study is miss leading .

point 1 they don't worry about the consequences of shooting a white as there are less questions

point 2 are they just giving the black person more time to hang them self's before shooting so they won't get into so much trouble .

And it says nothing about weather the cops are more bias to black's over whites or racism but will be used to push the same old lines so nothing will change.

---

Clyde reading something into a study that is not correct is just wrong and why mistakes are made .

Just because i'm not a cop or been in combat doesn't mean i have not been in a position of life or death and had to keep a cool head and think which i have .

The study only shows cops think before shooting a black person because there will be more scrutiny than if it's a white man , I can understand you seeing more in it than there is but then your a ex cop so your going to fall on there defence .

it proves nothing about bias or racism and you are doing what i said using it to push a stance even if your conclussions are wrong

---

realy so standing on a machine while it explodes around you and knowing you can't walk away because if you do the whole dam crew will be killed is not the same and your the only one that can shut it down and everything you try isn't working because there is no electric's or hydrolics with uncontrollable liquid steel flowing all around you is not the same . You got any idea how many times i have been in that position .

COPS are NOT the ONLY ones with Dangerous jobs mate

Japan 12 died
Brazil 27 dead
Germany 6 dead

All on Continuous Casting Machines in a 10 yrs period .Life expentancy for a steel maker 13 yrs if you an't dead your going to be seriously injured in that time .
So maybe it's you that needs to learn somethings

---

With the quality of drivers these days, it's dangerous to leave your house. no one anywhere is 100% safe.

The point already made is this - why isn't racism being discussed sensibly? Why is it that 95% of the posts on this thread are about colour?

But isn't that racist if one is colour prejudiced? Yes it is but to see a discussion regarding black v white with all other forms of racism not being discussed is just a waste of time, because somewhere down the line it gets too heated.

I posted a report regarding the Chinese here yet not a whisper! Are they that inferior to blacks & whites in that they don't deserve to be discussed as with all other forms of racism?

and yes Christianity to those that wanted it.

To those that wanted, ot just to those who did not want to be limited in rights and be considered as outcasts? Who decided to betray faith of ancectors jut not to angry white masters? Be careful whit such "those that wanted" thing...

The point already made is this - why isn't racism being discussed sensibly? Why is it that 95% of the posts on this thread are about colour?

How can Dislike, Hating, and Can Not Stand A Person, or A Peoples in General be Sensible?

I Can't Stand Red-Necks or Country Folks, to be Nicer. Can't Stand their 'Accents' and Ways.

Same with Blacks, 'Urban' or 'Country', although 'Country' Blacks will Less Likely Get Up In Your Face 'Culturally'. At Least Late 20th, 21st Century 'Culture'.

Whites Imitating Black Culture make me Puke.

Used to Work with Guys from Milwaukee and I Hated Their Arrogance.

Can go on and on.

People Can't Stand Certain People and Don't Want to be Around Them.

I Don't want a Co-Worker or Neighbor I Can't Stand Around Me.

And Yes, I Am Disliked and Hated by Everyone in Life coming in Contact with me.

I Accept an Deal with 'it'. Changing Not an Option.


Yep.

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

Sirius Terra Nullius has been used everywhere not just against black's it's even been used against Europeans in the Balkans .
Powerful people have used it to dislodge peoples from there home lands .
So some racism is in fact just a land or mineral grab or arrogance of thinking they are better than everyone else .
So maybe the Eddie Mabo court case should be taught at schools to start to change peoples thinking so they are not brain washed by powerful people that need to fester lie's to keep things the way it is .

Glenn, I have a question about Terra Nullius.

A good definition of 'Terra Nullius is:

'Terra Nullius'! Translate it into English and you have a 'Land that belongs to no-one'.

In International Law 'terra nullius' describes territory that nobody owns so that the first nation to discover it is entitled to take it over, as "finders keepers".

Question: does 'Terra Nullius' really apply if the territory was transferred by treaty from one nation to another? I can see it applied by the *first* foreign nation to arrive and take sovereignty. But subsequent nations?

Case in point: The USA.

The proto-USA assumed sovereignty over the original 13 colonies and additional territory west to French Louisiana from Great Britain by terms of the peace treaty with Great Britain.

The USA assumed sovereignty over French Louisiana by Treaty with France.
The USA assumed sovereignty over Florida by Treaty with Spain.
The USA assumed sovereignty over Texas by Agreement between the Republic of Texas and the USA government.
The USA assumed sovereignty over the 'Desert Southwest' by Treaty with Mexico ending the Mexican-American war of 1846-48 and a subsequent Treaty with Mexico (the 'Gadsden Purchase').
The USA assumed sovereignty over the northwest 'Oregon Territory' by Treaty with Great Britain.
The USA assumed sovereignty over Alaska by Treaty with Russia.
The USA assumed sovereignty over Hawaii by agreement with the native Government in 1898.
The USA assumed sovereignty over other odd islands in the Pacific and Caribbean by Treaties after the Spanish-American War and a few other minor conflicts.

How does Terra Nullius apply to the USA and to other similar situations?

Case in point: The USA.

Question: does 'Terra Nullius' really apply if the territory was transferred by treaty from one nation to another? I can see it applied by the *first* foreign nation to arrive and take sovereignty.

The first nation to arrive would be examples like the Cherokee Nation, the Navajo Nation, the Hopi Nation, the Lakota Nation, the Nez Perce nation, the Seminole Nation, the Iroquois Nations .... the list is rather long.

But subsequent nations?

If the second nation to arrive, France, Spain, Russia, Great Britain, did not obtain permission and consent, including the understanding of what was being transferred and not under duress, then that second nation does not have a valid claim. You can't transfer what you don't own.

See the Great Law of Peace.

Perhaps you were unaware that a great collection of nations, with laws and treaties was here before the filthy white Europeans arrived with guns and smallpox.

Other than the attitude of land thievery by privilege, akin to the settlements Israel builds on Palestinian land, this is a bit off the topic of racism and much more the topic of exploitation by force.

---

People Can't Stand Certain People and Don't Want to be Around Them.

Believe it or not, I have the same problem. Some people really can't stand me.

And Yes, I Am Disliked and Hated by Everyone in Life coming in Contact with me.

I like you, in moderation.

I Accept an Deal with 'it'. Changing Not an Option.


Yep.

Changing must be an option, obligé!

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Case in point: The USA.

Question: does 'Terra Nullius' really apply if the territory was transferred by treaty from one nation to another? I can see it applied by the *first* foreign nation to arrive and take sovereignty.

The first nation to arrive would be examples like the Cherokee Nation, the Navajo Nation, the Hopi Nation, the Lakota Nation, the Nez Perce nation, the Seminole Nation, the Iroquois Nations .... the list is rather long.

But subsequent nations?

If the second nation to arrive, France, Spain, Russia, Great Britain, did not obtain permission and consent, including the understanding of what was being transferred and not under duress, then that second nation does not have a valid claim. You can't transfer what you don't own.

See the Great Law of Peace.

Perhaps you were unaware that a great collection of nations, with laws and treaties was here before the filthy white Europeans arrived with guns and smallpox.

Other than the attitude of land thievery by privilege, akin to the settlements Israel builds on Palestinian land, this is a bit off the topic of racism and much more the topic of exploitation by force.

Oh Gary,

Your response places this squarely back into the category of 'racism' (or more precisely 'ethnic-ism').

I think you need to study history a bit more.

From ALL over the world, history is totally FULL of examples of one ethnic group arriving at a location and trying to take it away from another ethnic group. The ethnic group that lost the conflict either gets absorbed, displaced, or exterminated.

I am VERY familiar with the 'native' populations of the 'New World' (aka 'The Americas'). The Americas were initially populated, it appears, by several successive waves of immigration from Asia across the Bering Straits over a time period from sometime before 50,000 BCE to around 10,000 BCE.

History is full of examples in the Americas of one ethnic group moving into an area and displacing the then current occupants who then repeated the process elsewhere, all well before the European immigration started around 1500 CE.

The list of Nations you named (as you said its a long list, so it is not complete)... Some of them I know are not the original inhabitants of their region. The rest, I am not sure of, but I strongly suspect they are not either.

This process is NOT unique to the Americas, but has happened over and over in EVERY part of the World. Asia, Africa, and Europe too. And no, I am not talking about the, as you termed it, 'filthy white Europeans' doing it (except, of course, in Europe).

Case in point, Britain.

Britain has been, over the course of History, invaded and colonized many times. Who 'owns' it?

The Normans?
The Saxons?
The Angles?
The Romans?
The Celts?
The Brits?
Were the Brits the FIRST people on the island? Or did they displace and/or absorb another Ethnic group when THEY showed up?

Who owns Britain? You seem to make a big deal about who was there *FIRST*. Ok, then, who WAS it? Is there even any of whatever group it was still around that it can be returned to?

I have no idea.

No matter who you are, no matter where you live...

You took it away from someone else, and one of these days someone else is going to take it away from you.

The only sane, logical position is to say that a land belongs to those it belongs to now. Remember, it won't belong to them forever, but someone else will take it.

Your implication that one group taking land from another group is only wrong if it is the 'filthy white Europeans' doing the taking is quite racist indeed.

No different from a Stolen Car changing possession, many times. It is STILL Stolen Property, and MUST be returned to the Rightful Owner.

The last owner of that car may well have the logbook showing that they are the rightful legal owner of the vehicle, and if recovered they have a right to claim it back. But if the vehicle is being held at gunpoint by armed crooks, and the police cannot retrieve it, the insurance will write it off.

That is a far cry from a large country "owning" a smaller one. After negotiations, in 1897, Secretary of State John Sherman agreed to a treaty of annexation with these representatives of the Republic of Hawaii. The treaty was never ratified by the U.S. Senate. Instead, despite the opposition of a majority of Native Hawaiians, the Newlands Resolution was used to annex the Republic to the United States and it became the Territory of Hawaii in 1898. It is now a self governing State.

Should the USA now give it back to the Hawaiians and walk away?

The State of Hawaii is one of the very FEW places (perhaps the only one) in the USA where Ethnic Preference is still legal. Hawaii has laws on its books that place a STRONG preference for native ethnic Hawaiians on things like land ownership and development.

Fair question Kong . I'm not a Lawyer but i would stat with the post you put up about the defenition of Terra Nullius itself

In International Law 'terra nullius' describes territory that nobody owns so that the first nation to discover it is entitled to take it over, as "finders keepers".

Whom was already settled on the lands before there was WHITE man ...?

What has happen'd since then is Null and void

I think this is the crux of the final argument but as i said i am not a Lawyer

I spose you may ask me about what it says

nobody owns so that the first nation to discover it is entitled to take it over, as "finders keepers".

I'm not a lawyer but who's to say the first people where not a nation ?
Do you understand there laws and culture at the time of them being a First people ?

Hope that makes cents .

---

Chris England would be a different thing as there is no native peoples to claim the Land , so Terra Nulius would not apply , or are the people already there

White Anglo-Saxon the native people anyway and all ready own it , and are not making claim to it . If so then Terra Nulius does not apply

---

FREE MEXICO and give it back to THE REAL MEXICANS. NOW!!!

Well Clyde you will have to talk to the Spaniards and then bring back all the north American Natives (Indians) from the dead from that area , as they where the First peoples

If you can't bring them back from the dead then Terra Nulis does not apply as there can be no claim's for the land

How convenient .....

---

FREE MEXICO and give it back to THE REAL MEXICANS. NOW!!!

Well Clyde you will have to talk to the Spaniards and then bring back all the north American Natives (Indians) from the dead from that area , as they where the First peoples

If you can't bring them back from the dead then Terra Nulis does not apply as there can be no claim's for the land

How convenient .....

Glenn,

Clyde set a trap for you and you bit hook, line, and sinker.

Just who do you think the Mexicans, for the most part, ARE?

Mexico mestizo (Amerindian-Spanish) 60%, Amerindian or predominantly Amerindian 30%, white 9%, other 1%

Source: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2075.html

As you can see, The Mexican people are about 30% Native American, about 60% of mixed ancestry between the Native Americans and the Spanish (mestizo -- mixed), and only about 10% with NO Native American ancestry at all (most of them Spanish).

If 90% of the population of Mexico is either Native American or has significant Native American ancestry, just WHO, pray tell, has to 'come back from the dead'??

I may be wrong, but if memory serves from my classes on Mexican History, there are I believe 56 different native ethnic groups recognized by the government in Mexico.