Slavic people were never involved in black african enslavement or colonialism so why would slavic people want to be included in the white group? Slavic people could just call themselves ethnically slavic and therefore not white.
shareThe Irish never took part in black African enslavement or colonialism either.
shareThere were more irish people who owned black people as slaves than there were real ethnic germanic males who owned black people as slaves.
shareNeither did Germans or Asians.
Most white people in the US arrived decades after slavery ended.
3/4 of the country never owned slaves during slavery. At the height of slavery 1.5% owned slaves. Half the country fought and died to get rid of slavery.
And the dumbass lemmings act like every non black person owned slaves. A tribute to the worthless public education abortion.
Western Europeans have historically treated Slavic people like crap because they're considered inferior. Hitler wanted to exterminate them. Right now, Greece doesn't recognize Slavic people and refuse to believe they exist or entitled to any human rights treaties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Slavic_sentiment
Wikipedia is not a reliable source since users can edit the various topics. Also, sentiment is not illegal. I don't think western Europe has systematically treated Slavic people horribly in recent history. Are you talking about 500 years ago? Hitler is not a good example since he wanted to exterminate a LOT of people.
The Greek issue might come down the name of Macedonia. Greek gained independence from the Ottoman Empire in 1832 and they didn't gain control of Macedonia until the early 1900's. Alexander the Great ruled the kingdom of Macedonia so Greeks consider Macedonia to be part of their cultural heritage. They don't want a bunch of immigrant slavs who migrated to Greece to start calling themselves Macedonians. Greece was even arguing over the name Macedonia with the new country that called itself Macedonia after the breakup of Yugoslavia.
Wikipedia is very reliable according to research.
There is definitely a pecking order among whites in which some are considered more inferior than others or considered "ethnic". They also move up or down with the passage of time. WASPs are on the top of the hierarchy. Poles are still considered inferior. Generally, there are other whites treated worst than Slavs like Jews and white Hispanics.
Any user can edit wikipedia so it cannot be relied upon for important topics. I have never edited a topic but I know of people who had an edit war over the Stargate tv show.
https://www.vox.com/2015/9/17/9345487/wikipedia-lamest-edit-wars
There was possibly a "pecking order" 100 years ago but I don't think we have a formal class system in the USA. Richie Sambora is a Polish-American and he was able to achieve success as a rock guitarist. Rob Gronkowski's dad is polish-American and he has been able to achieve success on the gridiron and various endorsements. I'm a white male and I have always met some people OF ALL RACES who thought I was inferior to them. It's human nature. Some people OF ALL RACES will decide in a minute or less if they want to deal with another person. There is no way to control sentiment but the laws in the US should allow everyone OF ALL RACES an opportunity to achieve the American dream of a picket fence, house, yard and garage.
You just agreed with me. People are treated differently depending on things like ethnicity, etc..
A few success stories don't negate Polish jokes, the stereotype about being stupid, the Pollack ethnic slur, self-hatred, and the disparity between Polish success stories compared to WASPs success stories, etc..
I didn't agree with you. I want to point out to you that there are many factors aside from race/ethnicity that will cause people to be treated differently. Some examples would be religion, level of education, occupation, tribe, political party, class, beauty, weight, age, wealth, etc.
Jokes and stereotypes don't matter one bit. I've heard a few Pollack jokes but I also grew up with friends of Polish descent. The US was a country founded by WASP's but their influence has waned over time. There have been large waves of immigration since the early 1900's and the face of the US has changed.
Kathryn Winnick of Vikings is another successful Slav story. Her career was helped by her stunning beauty BUT her Slavic heritage did not prevent her from achieving success.
You just agreed with me again. I already wrote that people are treated differently depending on things like ethnicity, etc.. Etc included what you named among other things.
The OPs topic is limited to Slavic people which is where I'm keeping the focus.
Jokes and stereotypes reflect negativity and disdain against Polish people. They were also disliked because most were Catholic, another dispised group even though there’s less bigotry in recent years.
U.S. was founded by many groups including WASPs.
I'm tired of going around in circles on this issue. I disagree with your assertions that western europeans treat slavs like crap AND that white people consider some other whites inferior based on their ethnicity. My position is that people all over the world hate each other and it has nothing to do with race/ethnicity. It's human nature.
Overall, I'm trying to point out that a lot of your beliefs are from 100 years ago. It's almost as if you don't even live in the US today. I don't even think you are from the US. I have lived in the US my whole life and I have never encountered a formal class system. There is an opportunity for people OF ALL RACES who work hard and learn a skill to achieve the American dream of a picket fence, yard, house and a garage.
By the way, the US has had TWO Catholic Presidents in the past sixty years and we even had a mixed-race President. This is my last post on this thread because you are so annoying!
"I disagree... white people consider some other whites inferior based on their ethnicity."
I suggest you talk to Italians especially Sicilians. Or Roma. Or Mexicans. Or Indians. Or Arabs.
"TWO Catholic Presidents"
Exceptions are not the norm. JFK ran into a tremendous amount of anti-Catholic hostility. There's more recent acceptance even though anti-Catholic sentiment persists.
That house in my area is north of $1 million. Not very affordable.
"formal class system"
I never mentioned "formal". But, since you're bringing it up, the former "formal" class system of Jim Crow laws is self-perpetuating if you understood how systemic racism works. Immigration laws have historically been discriminatory. Trump's anti-Muslim ban is a perfect example. Trump also mentioned how he wanted immigrants from Sweden aka: only West European white Christian.
Meanwhile the cable news is practically 24/7 war coverage of Ukraine plus global leaders upset and taking action. When Putin did the same thing to Chechens and Syrians, the same leaders and cable networks ignored it. A couple of news broadcasters even mentioned that the Ukrainians looked like them. That makes them relatable.
Link to map with 733 hate groups across the U.S.:
https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map
You're running away because you can't handle the truth. Jewish people massacred in a temple, Hispanics killed in a Walmart, blacks slaughtered in a church and Asians murdered in a shop. Your kumbaya world has never existed. But continue to live in your world of self-delusion if it makes you feel more secure.
Slav inferiority is a outdated WW2 Nazi thing. No modern White nationalist considers Slavs inferior. It's just another left wing myth propagated by anti White leftists in order to attempt to deconstruct Whiteness. Even Nazis accepted Slavs as "honorary Aryans" by the end of WW2 once they realized they didn't look Mongoloid and knew how to fight.
share"Even Nazis accepted Slavs as "honorary Aryans" by the end of WW2"
You're all over the place. Earlier I wrote Naziism changed and you argued with me. Now you're saying it changed.
What precisely did I say and how does that conflict with what I said now?
share[–] Keelai (18891) 6 days ago
The term changed many times including among Nazis themselves during WWII.
[–] OvertonPendulum (2390) 6 days ago
Really? First time I hear of it.
I never said the term "Nazi" changed. I said that Nazis changed their views on Slavs by the end of the war. Your reply was in totally different context.
share"In actuality Nazi means believing in..."
Same exact context. Who Nazis accepted and hated changed over time thereby changing the Nazi definition itself.
You're contradicting yourself.
Just because Nazis might have changed their views on Slavs 80 years ago, does not mean Nazi and White nationalist are the same thing, especially today. Nazi = totalitarian, White Nationalist West in the 1940s Democratic. Get it?
share"Just because Nazis might have changed their views"
Exactly!
You repeated my original position in which you disagreed.
"Wikipedia is not a reliable source"
Nothing really is a reliable source. There are three sides to every story. That's why people argue. Joe posts something. Jane posts something that seems to weaken Joe's post. And back and forth. The wheat gets separated from the chaff.
Or Jane doesn't like Joe's position so she calls Joe a libtard snowflake or an inbred mouth breather...
I repeat. Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source. I could go into wikipedia to edit topics based on my position so it is not objective. I use wikipedia to check album information, tv show recaps or sports stats so it's pretty good for nonpartisan info but it is possible for people to have edit wars.
https://www.vox.com/2015/9/17/9345487/wikipedia-lamest-edit-wars
The role of journalists is to interview the people telling the stories and deciding which person is full of $h1t. I prefer to rely on reputable newspapers for my information. It gets harder to get multiple sources since a lot of content is locked behind a paywall. There are some sites that evaluate the biases of news sources BUT they only look at a few articles for each website. I try to get reporting from multiple sources to get the best picture of events. Daily Mail is my favorite source but I'll use multiple search engines to find the facts from reputable newspapers/websites.
https://adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/?utm_source=HomePage_StaticMBC_Image&utm_medium=OnWebSite_Link#
I get it. If there isn't a citation for a statement on Wikipedia, you might find yourself looking foolish.
shareEditing doesn't make a source reliable or not reliable. There are many, many, examples of BS posing as fact that cannot be edited. The "it can be edited" is a Right Tribe bogeyman.
shareWikipedia is an encyclopedia that is maintained by users so anybody can go in there and make changes to the content. I could edit a wikipedia page on mechanical engineering and I am NOT qualified to comment on mechanical engineering. I don't think wikipedia is reliable for political topics since many people have opposing views. Newspapers and TV networks employ journalists with press credentials who are paid to provide objective coverage of events.
https://www.vox.com/2015/9/17/9345487/wikipedia-lamest-edit-wars
https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-as-wikipedia-turns-20-how-credible-is-it/a-56228222
You don't have to mansplain Wikipedia, I know what it is, and being open-source means that if something is wrong, someone can correct it. They also require sources and citations unlike the two websites you linked.
shareI'm not mansplaining. When I post on a thread, it is for the benefit of all who view the thread. I may be replying to you BUT I post info for all viewers of the thread. I'll trust reputable newspapers, websites and tv networks for currents events over a source that can be edited by anybody. Corrections might be made eventually when they are caught BUT some topics may not be reviewed. Newsrooms have professional editors who review the stories that are being put out. They certainly make mistakes but they do issue corrections later.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use * Straight from wikipedia: not a reliable source *
Did you read the page? Encyclopedias are not considered reliable for academics because they are not peer reviewed. The sources you gave, TV News, newspapers, are also not reliable for academic use. But for general knowledge, Wikipedia is more credible than Faux news or any newspaper. TV News has been faking news and lying to people at least as long as I've been alive. If you watch that crap, not only do they control what you see, when you see it, the order you see it, but they steal your attention away from other things that may be more important. Spend one month fact checking, in depth, everything you see on tv news. You're going to be exhausted, but you'll also find all sorts of unsupported nonsense. Claims that can't be verified. Claims that are true but misleading. News from sources that are blatantly fake. News stories that are true accompanied by misleading commentary. News stories accompanied by footage that isn't from whatever they are reporting on. You don't have to take my word for it, you can check it yourself. There isn't much else I can say other than to agree to disagree.
shareYou should go spend a month fact-checking tv news and report on it. Shut up if you haven't actually done it. I've got better things to do. I've been following the news for over thirty-five years so I don't need a lesson on the news.
Give me two examples of FAKE news. For a story to be fake, there has to be willful intent to deceive. News stories are occasionally incorrect but the newsroom usually issues a correction/retraction.
Interviews from tv news, websites and newspapers can be cited in various types of research.
I read that page but the page below is better. Anyone with common sense should know not to rely on wikipedia since it can be edited by anyone and they don't have active editors. Newsrooms have editors and producers who are involved in approving the stories.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source
As a user-generated source, it can be edited by anyone at any time, and any information it contains at a particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or simply incorrect. Edits on Wikipedia that are in error may eventually be fixed. However, because Wikipedia is a volunteer-run project, it cannot constantly monitor every contribution. There are many errors that remain unnoticed for hours, days, weeks, months, or even years (see Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia). Therefore, Wikipedia should not be considered a definitive source in and of itself.
If slavery never existed the black population would even be less.
Africans really never progressed to ship building and word travel.
They were taken
And many ancestors of slaves say they wouldn't be living in America today if it weren't for slavery.
Tarzan movies are not African history.
The "ancestors" you're talking to are voices in your head. Africans could've immigrated like everyone else.
Could of? They had the technology of ship building and navigation?
What makes Columbus day so special is the technology and human skill to navigate the world like he did.
Of course there were people on every continent, but to bulld a civilization like America takes advanced civilizations
Were your ancestors slaves or immigrants? I assume immigrants. Africans could've immigrated like your ancestors. To suggest Africans could only arrive in chains is ignorance especially when presently Africans immigrate to the U.S. the same as everyone else.
Of course, Africans had ships and navigation! Your lack of knowledge indicates you're a victim of a white supremacist education system like I was. When I realized how much history wasn't taught in my school, I went to libraries and began to learn it. I suggest you do the same unless you fear truth.
Columbus was lost and thought he was in India. And he wasn't the first foreigner to arrive. Again, history books can enlighten you.
Are you talking about stealing land, committing genocide and kidnapping people?
It's called manifest destiny.
If the Europeans did not take over north America the United states wouldn't exist.
If the United states didint exist the world would not share those benefits.
Did these Africans move beyond ship building and progress to flight?
I didint know Africans has huge ships and sailed the world, interesting.
Do they build their own ships today and continue their travel around the world?
Hitler and Putin followed "manifest destiny" ideology, too.
Brief History Lesson:
Europe was a mess! The monarchs and nobility lived well, but the overwhelming majority of people suffered from malnutrition and poor working conditions. 95% of land was owned by 2%!
When Europeans arrived, they were short and puny due to their poor diet unlike taller, stronger and healthier Native-Americans who lived in more egalitarian societies where starvation and exploitation were not the norm. Europeans learned about a better way to live from them. Democracy, our Constitution and government structure are heavily influenced by the Constitution of the Iroquois Confederacy! Women had strong leadership roles unlike in Europe where they were considered property.
The only reason Europeans gained a foothold on the Eastern coast is because European disease wiped out 90-96% of coastal New England's Indigenous population. Massasoit helped the Pilgrims because he needed allies since depopulated villages left the few remaining Wampanoag vulnerable to the Narragansetts.
Pacific Islanders got the jump on European navigation by millennia.
Meanwhile, Africans invented boats and ships. Africans were more focused on trade rather than committing genocide and stealing land. For millennia, there was an extensive trade network throughout Africa and with Asia and Europe. The Mali Empire provided 1/2 the gold in Europe. And yes, they had a large armada of warships to protect their territory. Emperor Mansa Musa was so well-respected that it was normal for Italian, German and Spanish cartographers to reference him and Mali for two centuries after his death.
You would know this history if you didn't embrace white supremacy ideology. Open your mind and learn WORLD history. Learn to respect ALL cultures and people.
Contrary to the popular left wing myth, Whiteness is NOT a result of colonialism or slavery.
shareAccording to Donald Trump, Egyptians and Lebanese are "White."
shareThey prefer my caucasian
share