White Man: Why Are You Giving Away Your Country?

  • Thread starter HKS racer
  • 362 comments
  • 18,003 views
One third of England’s young pupils are from ethnic minorities

Yeah, I remember reading this headline. I think it was in Big Whoop magazine.

That item alone is not indicative of anything other than that immigration is a thing. A third of England's young population being from ethnic minorities means... what? British culture is going to disappear overnight? Rape rates are going to increase? The English language is going to die out? Future Houses of Commons will be fought between UKIP and Official Jihad UK Party?
 
Dude, it's the strain, surely you can see this.

I'm not sure who said it doesn't affect the NHS but that is nonsense as well:

http://news.sky.com/story/1040555/baby-boom-puts-strain-on-maternity-units

You'll see Boston has experienced an interesting shift in demographics

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/dec/11/census-boston-eastern-european-immigration

Public services just can't cope

As for British culture, maybe not overnight but you'd have to blinkered to see that it's not under threat from such levels.
 
Australia is the opposite indigenous lived long before the English had come. The English came and stole our land and took kids away from parents and gave them to English parents. Then in 2008 our prime minister apologized
 
Public services just can't cope

Yet you demonise people who use or need the services rather than the lack of funding which could easily be sourced from elsewhere if it wasn't for the fat pigs in Whitehall/the Commons/the Treasury/delete as applicable. Who, incidentally, are most likely white Englishmen, if it makes a huge difference.

As for British culture, maybe not overnight but you'd have to blinkered to see that it's not under threat from such levels.

I'd be interested to know what British culture exactly is and how long it was static and immutable before 'things went downhill', so to speak.
 
Yet you demonise people who use or need the services rather than the lack of funding which could easily be sourced from elsewhere if it wasn't for the fat pigs in Whitehall/the Commons/the Treasury/delete as applicable. Who, incidentally, are most likely white Englishmen, if it makes a huge difference.
Where. Where do I demonise. And no, we can't throw money at it. Do you know how many billions would be required to bring just those two services up to manageable conditions.

Liquid
I'd be interested to know what British culture exactly is and how long it was static and immutable before 'things went downhill', so to speak.
It's not static. But you're confusing gradual change with wholesale replacement.

The same British culture that has Chicken Tikka Masala as the national dish?
Yep
 
Read the article, haven't read all the comments.

A very disheartening read to say the least.

America has not always been a white country built by whites populated by whites. It never has been.

It was a continent of Native Americans who were systematically whiped out by whites. Whites then brutally exploited people of colour to build what are now the U.S. and Canada...and let's face it, that tradition still basically carries on today.

In regards to the "stomachs in America, hearts in Mexico" line. How is that any different than Ford or Chevy building cars in Mexico? No car manufacturer has any loyalty to Mexico, yet they go there to exploit its cheap labor.

If person is born and raised in New York City, but for whatever reason can only find work in LA...are they supposed to move their heart to LA along with their stomach? That doesn't seem like an issue. But as soon as you turn that direction of travel 90 degrees, it does become a huge problem? The world is shrinking, rapidly. People will work where they can find work, period.

I don't think white people have been "conditioned to be ashamed of their past" like on of the early comments suggest. If anything, I would say white people have been conditioned to forget and not understand their past. Those who, on their own accord, chose to study history, aren't really left much choice to feel a pinch of shame. How the hell can anyone really look at most of history and be proud? It's nothing but one group of people brutally exploiting another group of people.


And lastly, can we please please please move away from this "skin colour defines culture" rhetoric?? The two have nothing to do with each other. Culture is derived from the environment a person grew up in. A white person isn't born liking Nirvana just like a black person isn't born liking Tupac. That's all learned!

"White" is not a culture, just like "black" is not a culture. To quote Immortal Technique, "I have more in common with the average poor white person than I do with the average rich black person."

Go to a Yelawolf show. Is that white culture, or black culture? Or is it the culture of impoverished youth from the American South?
 
It was a continent of Native Americans who were systematically whiped out by whites. Whites then brutally exploited people of colour to build what are now the U.S. and Canada...and let's face it, that tradition still basically carries on today.

Americans slaughtered over half a million of each other to fix that. Have a little respect.
 
You think the Civil War "fixed" everything? I don't even know how to respond to that...

Again, you need to have some respect for the civil war and what it accomplished. We wiped out 2.5% of our entire population to fight that battle to free "people of colour". Later, we elected a "person of colour" as president of the nation. How about you pick a different fight?
 
Again, you need to have some respect for the civil war and what it accomplished. We wiped out 2.5% of our entire population to fight that battle to free "people of colour". Later, we elected a "person of colour" as president of the nation. How about you pick a different fight?
Holy high-school-history-textbook Batman.

The civil war was about business, just like every other war throughout history. The 13th amendment and the subsequent changes to the conditions for acceptable slavery was a bi-product of the war, not its cause. That's right, you heard correct. The civil war did not abolish slavery, it simply changed the conditions under which it was acceptable. Go read the 13th amendment, find out for yourself what it says.

Then ask yourself, is there even the slightest possibility, that it might have something to do with the Prison Industrial Complex which we are now beginning to see.

You come across as being extremely entitled, claiming that you (you said "we", so that includes you) "freed slaves" and "elected a black presedent" is somehow doing favours for people of colour which they now owe you for.

You were the ones who enslaved them in the first place.

After the civil war, slavery was replaced with Jim Crow and share-cropping, which many historians agree envolved conditions worse than slavery.

The civil war also did nothing to abolish the institutionalized racism which still exists today.

The slaughter of Native Americans continued well after the Civil war.

The mass exploitation of Asian immigrant workers happened long after the civil war (hell, you even screwed over "your own kind" when the Irish immigrated to North America).

Stop turning to government mandated history books as your only source of information.
 
Stop turning to government mandated history books as your only source of information.
Our government is liberal and enlightened. It would not be PC nor AUP to use information sources from cranks and blogs. We will go by the standard, mainstream accepted scientific view.:bowdown:
 
I know right. Slaves in Africa never existed before they came along, and don't exist now. Nope. No siree.

Slaves existed lots of places. Ever heard a story about a guy named Moses?

Doesn't change fact that Africans were brought to America and sold into slavery before they were "freed" by the same general group of people who brought them here in the first place.

I really don't get your point. The fact that slavery existed (and yes, does still exists in certain parts of the world today) somehow makes that 400 year period of American history "ok"??

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: we're all so 🤬 I cry for future generations :(
 
I really don't get your point. The fact that slavery existed (and yes, does still exists in certain parts of the world today) somehow makes that 400 year period of American history "ok"??
Ahh I didn't read the entirety of your posts in this thread. Carry on, boo America etc etc.
 
Ahh I didn't read the entirety of your posts in this thread. Carry on, boo America etc etc.
Absolutely not!! It's not boo America at all man. Holy crap.

It's about people of all nationalities, races, creeds, religions, etc. coming together to acknowledge history for what it actually was, and learn from the mistakes of our ancestors, so that we can work together to creat a better tomorrow for future generations.

If you want to either deny history out of a perceived guilt, or actually convinced it's an "us vs them" issue, that's on you.

But like I said, I cry for your children.
 
Stepping in carefully, I will say that to blame the XXIst century's american "white man" for slavery is as ridiculous as blaming the XXIst century's catholic church for the Inquisition. Of course it happens and you only need a visit to the "God" thread to see it, but the fact remains: it ridicules those that do it.

Mankind's past is filled with dark moments and we all must share the burden for that history. However, we are supposed to be capable of "learning" and - carefully trying to remain within consensual posting - we are supposed to become better through that process.

Are we free of racism? No. Are we free from genocides? No. Are we free from sectarian war? No.

But it just isn't useful to look into the past with the purpose of bringing (from the past to the present) hate that was felt and suffered from long gone people.

It's as if a jew still hated a german because of the Holocaust. As if a brasilian tribe member still hated me because the portuguese enslaved and killed many of them a few centuries back.

We should grow out of old hates. It's a needed step to get rid of racism.
 
Stepping in carefully, I will say that to blame the XXIst century's american "white man" for slavery is as ridiculous as blaming the XXIst century's catholic church for the Inquisition. Of course it happens and you only need a visit to the "God" thread to see it, but the fact remains: it ridicules those that do it.

Mankind's past is filled with dark moments and we all must share the burden for that history. However, we are supposed to be capable of "learning" and - carefully trying to remain within consensual posting - we are supposed to become better through that process.

Are we free of racism? No. Are we free from genocides? No. Are we free from sectarian war? No.

But it just isn't useful to look into the past with the purpose of bringing (from the past to the present) hate that was felt and suffered from long gone people.

It's as if a jew still hated a german because of the Holocaust. As if a brasilian tribe member still hated me because the portuguese enslaved and killed many of them a few centuries back.

We should grow out of old hates. It's a needed step to get rid of racism.
Beautifully said!
 
Australia is the opposite indigenous lived long before the English had come. The English came and stole our land and took kids away from parents and gave them to English parents. Then in 2008 our prime minister apologized
The opposite of the English "stealing" the land from North American indigenous/aboriginal people?

It would be interesting to hear if you think that it's of great importance for the Australian aboriginal bloodline to persist. Not to confuse that with Australian aboriginal culture. Also would be interesting to hear if you would be happy for the culture to endure exclusively through peoples of non-Australian aboriginal bloodline.
 
It's about people of all nationalities, races, creeds, religions, etc. coming together to acknowledge history for what it actually was, and learn from the mistakes of our ancestors, so that we can work together to creat a better tomorrow for future generations.
OK then let's talk about mistakes of ancestors.

Why did so many African American former slaves choose to stay in America and not go to Liberia, or other African countries after being freed?
Why did my ancestors choose to come to a land inextricably linked with the slave trade in the 60s?
 
OK then let's talk about mistakes of ancestors.

Why did so many African American former slaves choose to stay in America and not go to Liberia, or other African countries after being freed?
Why did my ancestors choose to come to a land inextricably linked with the slave trade in the 60s?
What?? I'm so lost :confused:

I don't know why your ancestors moved to where they did in the 60s (from the link I'm guessing they moved to The UK? So, you're British?? I'm even more confused now) ... Are you saying you consider their decision a mistake?? Again, I'm lost.


As far as "why didn't more Africans go back to Africa after being freed"....I don't honestly know the full answer to that question....but common sense leads me to answer it with another extremely confused "what????"

You realize that by the conclusion of the civil war, most slaves were born in America, and had absolutely no ties to Africa other than its where their grandparents or great grandparents or great great grandparents had come from. By the mid 1800s, a large portion of African slaves didn't even know what Africa was (and that wasn't by accident either).

Once the civil war ended, it wasn't as simple as "your free!!" They still faced persicution on an unimaginable scale.

Furthermore, there weren't ships qued up in harbours offering free rides back to Africa. These former slaves had no money. They weren't sailors...

I'm not familiar with the connection between Liberia and freed slaves. Please don't tell me that's just a random African country that you fired off. I am more aware of the connection between freed and Sierra Leone. However, if my understanding is correct, most of the "America-to-Sierra Leone" population were black loyalists who faught for the British during the War of Independence, who arrived mostly by way of London or Nova Scotia.

And if you really study the history of Sierra Leone, you'll understand that they got screwed by the British as much as they were saved by them.

Edit: just did some googling, seems your right about Liberia having a connection.

Again though, as a "non former freed slave", I don't really know why more didn't just "hope on that boat"... That's a pretty 🤬 complex question if you ask me.

And besides. They helped build America with their blood sweat and tears. Why would they just leave?
 
Last edited:
Why did so many African American former slaves choose to stay in America and not go to Liberia, or other African countries after being freed?

That's like asking why monkeys don't turn into humans any more...

EDIT: Of 3,950,000 slaves in America in 1860 only 19,000 were able (or chose) to take advantage of the Back to Africa effort in the following years.
 
Last edited:
There was no drive. With a large enough drive do you think the capacity couldn't have been increased?

From 19,000 to 4,000,000? No, I don't. It was hard enough for someone rich-and-landed to arrange a voyage to Africa in the late 19th Century. None of which alters the fact that you blamed the choice of the diaspora for their remaining in America.
 
Back