Who decided to betray faith of ancectors jut not to angry white masters?

There may have been an element of that I would agree with you, but Christianity as a religion has never really been forced down anyones throats, it's always been basically a take it or leave it option. Compare that however with many other religions, where you are forced to comply else you actually get killed. In fact look back at the Welsh Valleys in the 1800's, if you didn't attend Chapel the Preacher would bang on your door and demand why, and people were drummed out of their Villages for it. In Victorian England you were socially ostracised if you didn't attend church. Even in the 50's we had compulsory School assembly with hymns and prayers and RI/RE lessons. The Colonies and Territories actually had more freedom!!

Even more freedom they would have being leaved alone, not? And regarding christianity as peaceful religion - no need to tell black is white here. Google in help if you need particular examples. Just to read how Rus' was baptized. How many peoples of old faith were killed. And not just killed, but tortured to death by ways even can't be listened on children-friendly forums... So don't even tell me that christianity is peaceful...

Kong i know very little about Mexico or it's people but i wasn't to far off .

The Mexican people are about 30% Native American, about 60% of mixed ancestry between the Native Americans and the Spanish

So no first peoples have been wiped out in your part of the world since white man came there

The reason Terra Nullius ended up in the Supreme Court was because people did now get the implications of Terra Nulius , Clyde is Clyde hehehe

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 .....

---

Don't the Aztecs get a look in?

Yes. The Maya were not the first ethnic group to rise to prominence in what is modern-day Mexico. The earliest one I know of was the Olmec.

Also, the Maya were not the last one to rise to prominence in what is modern-day Mexico before the arrival of the white Europeans (the Spanish). That 'honor' belongs to the Aztecs.

A rough outline of various and sundry...

• ~40,000 BCE -- arrival of humans in Mesoamerica.
• 40,000 BCE -> 8,000 BCE -- Preagricultural period: Nomadic hunter-gatherers.
• 8,000 BCE -> 2,000 BCE -- Archaic period: (incipient agriculture).
• 2,000 BCE -> 200 CE -- Formative period: (rise of villages, pottery, elaboration of agriculture, protogovernments, trade, public architecture, etc.
• 200 CE -> 900 CE -- Classic period: high civilization, empires, grand architecture, arts, sciences, etc.
• 900 CE -> 1521 CE -- Post-classic (historical) period: expanded city-states & empires, metallurgy, expanded commerce, increasing tendancy towards theocracy & human sacrifice, increased inter-group warfare. Ends in the Spanish Conquest.

List of a few of the prominent cultures with approximate dates (where I remember them):

Olmec: 1,200 BCE -> 400 BCE

Classical Maya: 400 BCE -> 900 CE (in high flower during 250 CE -> 800 CE)

Post-Classical Maya (pretty much limited to just the Yucatan):

Toltec: ~496CE -> ~1,122 CE

Zapotec: 500 BCE -> 900 CE

Mixtec: 800 CE -> 1521 CE

Tepanec:~ 1200 CE -> ~ 1430 CE

'Aztec' (actually called themselves the 'Mexica', hence 'Mexico', the modern name for the region): Left 'Aztlán' in about 1111CE, their empire lasted from 1440 CE to the Spanish Conquest by Cortes around 1520 CE)


While some of these cultures declined due to climate changes and other various natural causes, many were overthrown militarily. While the arrival of the white Spaniards around 1520 CE kinda steamrolled all the native cultures and civilizations in one fell swoop, the Spaniards are far from holding a monopoly on that particular... activity in the area. This practice was also common in areas both North and South of 'middle America', and indeed worldwide.

Sorry, but the white Europeans do NOT have, as I said, a monopoly on the practice.

Sorry, but the white Europeans do NOT have, as I said, a monopoly on the practice.

Yes Kong i agree however it's the Europeans that have come up with a sinister excuse to dislodge people and take there land , and it's also been used to say that native people are not very smart and in fact a lower class of human and not having to use war to get it .

Terra Nulius very evil and very sinister

---

Here's a good question for this thread: -

"Am I racist for wanting Sharia (Islamic Law) to be implemented in this country with me as the hand of judgement or am I just joking"?

Giant but stupid fox in the henhouse

...or should I be really cheeky & request that this post be posted in the "police" thread?

Sirius i know your just stirring but ....Racist ...YES YOU ARE... hehehe

pity you can't just deport them now there locked up

---

Sirius i know your just stirring but ....Racist ...YES YOU ARE... hehehe

pity you can't just deport them now there locked up

Stirring? I suggest you read our news more & then look to the human rights brigade & their hanger-ons...

...you'll find that they'll label me racist. I can't understand why, after all that is what they've been clamouring for here.

Unfortunately as seen often, they seem to cherry pick what laws they want to implement & when caught out on the "correct" interpretation of Sharia Law, elect to be judged on UK law instead.

Sharia law dictates that "the dominant hand" is removed for acts of theft.

Personally, in the case I linked to, both hands should be removed as he was in a serious position of authority which he abused.

Now, saying that, AM I Racist? If so, by whose mouth? Christian or Islam?

Funny that Sharia Law does say that but they choose to judged under western law . maybe if people from a certain country should be judged by the laws where there come from .
Aboriginal law is also harsh too and they whinge about they should judged under there laws until they find out exactly what there punishment is and then no way i want to be judged under white mans law

Hypocrite comes to mind

---

Funny that Sharia Law does say that but they choose to judged under western law . maybe if people from a certain country should be judged by the laws where there come from .
Aboriginal law is also harsh too and they whinge about they should judged under there laws until they find out exactly what there punishment is and then no way i want to be judged under white mans law

Hypocrite comes to mind

Quite true, but if we bring that to the fore, we get labelled "Racist"...

...nice "Catch-22" isn't it!

...nice "Catch-22" isn't it!

If you start with a loaded measurement and use it to measure ... Catch 22 or circular logic?

---

Sirius i know your just stirring but ....Racist ...YES YOU ARE... hehehe

pity you can't just deport them now there locked up

Stirring? I suggest you read our news more & then look to the human rights brigade & their hanger-ons...

...you'll find that they'll label me racist. I can't understand why, after all that is what they've been clamouring for here.

Unfortunately as seen often, they seem to cherry pick what laws they want to implement & when caught out on the "correct" interpretation of Sharia Law, elect to be judged on UK law instead.

Sharia law dictates that "the dominant hand" is removed for acts of theft.

Personally, in the case I linked to, both hands should be removed as he was in a serious position of authority which he abused.

Now, saying that, AM I Racist? If so, by whose mouth? Christian or Islam?

There is a reason that in the US they wanted a strict separation between Church and State. There are a loud Christian faction trying to undermine that (fairly successfully actually). There perhaps should be more emphasis on keeping religion out of governance in both countries.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Excellent explanation of "reverse racism"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw_mRaIHb-M

---

Reality Internet Personality

Es99 wrote:

Excellent explanation of "reverse racism"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw_mRaIHb-M

Southern Poverty Law Center wrote:

Although the Southern Poverty Law Center recognizes that much black racism in America is, at least in part, a response to centuries of white racism,

There is black racism! It isn't a figment of white people's imagination. It exists and is real. IIRC a poster here said it was impossible for the same reasoning used in the video.

Martin Luther King Jr. wrote:

Violence begets violence; hate begets hate; and toughness begets a greater toughness. It is all a descending spiral, and the end is destruction — for everybody. Along the way of life, someone must have enough sense and morality to cut off the chain of hate.

Very much so and something many religious extremists refuse to understand. (off topic - Interesting statement from the leader of Hezbollah on Charlie Hebdo. less OT, Mr King understood that you can not react to violence or terror used against you. Worked very well too. Gained more rights with that tactic than in all the years since.)

Southern Poverty Law Center wrote:

In 1997, and in less explicit ways since then, Farrakhan made clear that he had renounced none of the anti-white, anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic and anti-gay views of the previous Nation leader, Elijah Mohammed. Those beliefs include the view that Yacub, a renegade black "scientist," created whites 6,600 years ago as an inherently evil and ungodly people — "blue-eyed devils." Farrakhan has described Catholics and Jews, who he said practice a "gutter religion," as preying on blacks. He regrets the "tone" of a former principal subordinate who called for slaughtering white South Africans, but agreed with the message. He called for racial separatism and inveighed against interracial relationships.

If a white group espoused similar beliefs with the colors reversed, few would have trouble describing it as racist and anti-Semitic. Although the racism of a group like the Nation may be relatively easy to understand, if we seek to expose white hate groups, we cannot be in the business of explaining away the black ones.

It appears as if a poster here is in the business of explaining away black hate groups, unless they are simply ignorant of facts.

---

There is a reason that in the US they wanted a strict separation between Church and State. There are a loud Christian faction trying to undermine that (fairly successfully actually). There perhaps should be more emphasis on keeping religion out of governance in both countries.

Those that equate Christian's, with Jihadist Extremist's, ARE part of the problem.

And I'm an Atheist.

I grew up in a city that was first bombed by Christian terrorists and then by Muslim terrorists.

To pretend that an extremist isn't an extremist just because you happen to like their god better is part of the problem.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Es99 wrote:

Excellent explanation of "reverse racism"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw_mRaIHb-M

Southern Poverty Law Center wrote:

Although the Southern Poverty Law Center recognizes that much black racism in America is, at least in part, a response to centuries of white racism,

There is black racism! It isn't a figment of white people's imagination. It exists and is real. IIRC a poster here said it was impossible for the same reasoning used in the video.

Martin Luther King Jr. wrote:

Violence begets violence; hate begets hate; and toughness begets a greater toughness. It is all a descending spiral, and the end is destruction — for everybody. Along the way of life, someone must have enough sense and morality to cut off the chain of hate.

Very much so and something many religious extremists refuse to understand. (off topic - Interesting statement from the leader of Hezbollah on Charlie Hebdo. less OT, Mr King understood that you can not react to violence or terror used against you. Worked very well too. Gained more rights with that tactic than in all the years since.)

Southern Poverty Law Center wrote:

In 1997, and in less explicit ways since then, Farrakhan made clear that he had renounced none of the anti-white, anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic and anti-gay views of the previous Nation leader, Elijah Mohammed. Those beliefs include the view that Yacub, a renegade black "scientist," created whites 6,600 years ago as an inherently evil and ungodly people — "blue-eyed devils." Farrakhan has described Catholics and Jews, who he said practice a "gutter religion," as preying on blacks. He regrets the "tone" of a former principal subordinate who called for slaughtering white South Africans, but agreed with the message. He called for racial separatism and inveighed against interracial relationships.

If a white group espoused similar beliefs with the colors reversed, few would have trouble describing it as racist and anti-Semitic. Although the racism of a group like the Nation may be relatively easy to understand, if we seek to expose white hate groups, we cannot be in the business of explaining away the black ones.

It appears as if a poster here is in the business of explaining away black hate groups, unless they are simply ignorant of facts.

I had some friends back in the 90's that got very heavily into Farrakhan and the "white blue eyed devil" ideology. It was a strange time for me, and I thought they were misguided and trying to gain some power for themselves in a world that clearly didn't treat them the say way they treated me (one of those "white blue eyed devils" they would go on to me about).

I can't say I felt discriminated against because of it. The weird thing is, that I never saw it as racism. I had many discussions with them, they were converted to Islam and they explained the tenants to Islam to me. I got the feeling that they were trying to make sense of a world and centuries of white imperialism by saying that the only way it made sense (in a religious sense) was if white people were actually devils. It fell down for me because I knew I wasn't a devil and eventually I just stopped hanging around with them because I didn't think their world view was healthy.

So they tried to explain away a power imbalance and rationalise it using religious theology. If you are religious person and you buy into that stuff then there is a certain strange logic in it. Tally up all the terrible things that white people have done to black people then white people really do seem like soulless evil devils. How else can you explain it?

Its just a way of rationalising the evil that has been done. Its a misguided way, but calling a group of people who committed systemic evil acts for 100s of years "devils" is hardly a massive leap.

---

Reality Internet Personality

but calling a group of people who committed systemic evil acts for 100s of years "devils" is hardly a massive leap.

Oh, so all those thousands of years of Jews and Christians heaping systematic evil on the Muslims explains why Jews and Christians are devils and must be exterminated. Or perhaps Eldridge Cleaver?

You seem to be an apologist for random murder. Did you support the IRA too?

---

ALL, including Atheist's, are with sin.

To equate the Present Level of Murder, Raping, Beheading of Children, etc., etc., etc., by Islamic Jihadists, and equating it with Christians:

Has to be most stupid thing I have ever heard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shankill_Butchers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition

To name but a few.

If you really think Christians are somehow "special" and "Nicer" because of their religion you really need to learn a bit of history.

---

Reality Internet Personality

but calling a group of people who committed systemic evil acts for 100s of years "devils" is hardly a massive leap.

Oh, so all those thousands of years of Jews and Christians heaping systematic evil on the Muslims explains why Jews and Christians are devils and must be exterminated. Or perhaps Eldridge Cleaver?

That's a leap from what I said and not what I said.

You seem to be an apologist for random murder. Did you support the IRA too?

I have no idea where you are getting this idea from what I said. Perhaps you should read it again and then respond to what I actually wrote rather than what you think I wrote.

---

Reality Internet Personality

but calling a group of people who committed systemic evil acts for 100s of years "devils" is hardly a massive leap.

Oh, so all those thousands of years of Jews and Christians heaping systematic evil on the Muslims explains why Jews and Christians are devils and must be exterminated. Or perhaps Eldridge Cleaver?

That's a leap from what I said and not what I said.

The extermination part comes not from the post I quoted, but your posts in support of Palestine in the recent Israeli action in another thread. It appears as if you have a thought process running around your head that you like to support -- at least with rhetoric -- random destructive acts committed by oppressed groups against what they perceive as the oppressing groups. If you personally would never go beyond hurling insults, that is acceptable, however supporting the hurling of Katusha rockets in the hope, no matter how unlikely, that they will kill civilians, is supporting random acts of murder.

There can be no explanation or understanding of random acts of murder!

You seem to be an apologist for random murder. Did you support the IRA too?

I have no idea where you are getting this idea from what I said. Perhaps you should read it again and then respond to what I actually wrote rather than what you think I wrote.

But you are an apologist. Or perhaps our dictionaries differ.
apologist n. a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial
Origin: from Greek apologizesthai ‘give an account’

Your understanding of the not massive leap, is in essence offering a defense for it.

Back on black/white perhaps you would like to apologize for Eldridge Cleaver. He wrote about his thought process in Soul on Ice. "In the most controversial part of the book, Cleaver acknowledges committing acts of rape, stating that he initially raped black women in the ghetto 'for practice' and then embarked on the serial rape of white women. He described these crimes as politically inspired, motivated by a genuine conviction that the rape of white women was 'an insurrectionary act'." Perhaps you would like to comment on how this is understandable given a long history of oppression?

---

but calling a group of people who committed systemic evil acts for 100s of years "devils" is hardly a massive leap.

Oh, so all those thousands of years of Jews and Christians heaping systematic evil on the Muslims explains why Jews and Christians are devils and must be exterminated. Or perhaps Eldridge Cleaver?

That's a leap from what I said and not what I said.

The extermination part comes not from the post I quoted, but your posts in support of Palestine in the recent Israeli action in another thread. It appears as if you have a thought process running around your head that you like to support -- at least with rhetoric -- random destructive acts committed by oppressed groups against what they perceive as the oppressing groups. If you personally would never go beyond hurling insults, that is acceptable, however supporting the hurling of Katusha rockets in the hope, no matter how unlikely, that they will kill civilians, is supporting random acts of murder.

I am well aware of the poor and biased reporting via the American media of the situation in Gaza. Simply stating the simplisic one sided version again doesn't help, Gary. It just makes you look brainwashed.

There can be no explanation or understanding of random acts of murder!

I am not sure what you mean here. An explanation or understanding of a person's through process is not necessarily agreement with that thought process or even support of it. So yet again you have made another simplistic statement that looks good on paper, but that doesn't actually mean anything.

You seem to be an apologist for random murder. Did you support the IRA too?

I have no idea where you are getting this idea from what I said. Perhaps you should read it again and then respond to what I actually wrote rather than what you think I wrote.

But you are an apologist. Or perhaps our dictionaries differ.
apologist n. a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial
Origin: from Greek apologizesthai ‘give an account’

Your understanding of the not massive leap, is in essence offering a defense for it.

Nope. I have not defended anything. I have tried to look at the root causes of things because that is usually the best way to stop cycles of violence.

If you actually want to stop these things happening then that is the best thing to do. If you want to keep perpetuating these things, then carry on as you are. Just recognise that out of the two of us, it is you that is actually supporting these things. Not me.

Back on black/white perhaps you would like to apologize for Eldridge Cleaver. He wrote about his thought process in Soul on Ice. "In the most controversial part of the book, Cleaver acknowledges committing acts of rape, stating that he initially raped black women in the ghetto 'for practice' and then embarked on the serial rape of white women. He described these crimes as politically inspired, motivated by a genuine conviction that the rape of white women was 'an insurrectionary act'." Perhaps you would like to comment on how this is understandable given a long history of oppression?

I really don't understand your point. You've simply given another example of twisted logic similar to the one I gave. By your own logic, am I to assume you are an apologist for this person?

*Puts on Gary hat* Tell me, Gary, when did you become a sympathiser for rapists?

---

Reality Internet Personality