Free Dating Site    

This is what I do, and I get advice from my family and my friends. I haveworked at McDonals for 6 months now. I will do my assignment but I will not rush to get it done. I work at my own pace. I hate to take orders from a white puperviser because it makes me feel liike I am a form of aslave, so I either dont do it or I argue about it. I threaten with a racila descrimination lawsuit if they try to give me lip about it. I dont like white people because just because they are white. I am on walfare so I can takecareof my 4 children. Asfar as who is better, I notice black peoople wear nicer cloths and shoes. White people drss basically average. I dont like white people comming through my neighborhood. This is our place of refuge, and sometimes I say things to them. There is enough black friends around to lie to the police claiming the white people started it. As far as Mungojoe, I dont buy his lies.All white people hate black people. He is worse than a white supremist. At least they speak what they feel instead of trying to use the I except you attitude to run over us. We know this attitude is fake, so most of us black people dont buy it. I dont.

Even if one rejects the measures of intelligence discussed before, like IQ or brain size; and even if one rejects the theory that cold climates hard-wired Europeans for intelligence, Duke has yet another card to play so as to demonstrate white superiority. Namely, he asserts that Europe has civilized the world and that no black nation has developed to an advanced degree. Given the “obvious” civilizational advantages of whites over blacks, how then could anyone doubt that Duke’s theories of racial supremacy were accurate?
Duke makes a number of points to “prove” white civilizational advantages and their flipside, black barbarism. First, he insists that ancient Egypt—which most agree was the first advanced civilization—was not built by Africans at all, let alone dark ones. Indeed, Duke maintains that the dynastic Egyptians who built the pyramids and introduced geometry, medicine and astronomy to the Greeks (according to Greek historian Herodotus), were Caucasians. Secondly, he claims that no black civilization has emerged in Africa, south of the Sahara. Finally, he insists that the post-colonial period in Africa (during which Europeans left their previous territories in the hands of blacks), has been a disaster, and proves the incompetence of black rule. We will examine these claims, but first, a brief overview of the general claim that Europe and Europeans are more civilized, and Africans less so.
What is most interesting about Duke’s Aryan view of civilization is how utterly ridiculous it once seemed to most experts, including those of European descent. Prior to the widespread growth of white supremacist doctrine in the West, virtually no one would have thought to denigrate the accomplishments of African nations, let alone proclaim them inferior to those of Europe. In many ways, African societies were similar to or even more advanced in terms of living standards and democratic institutions than most of Europe, well into the millennium just ended. As historian Basil Davidson explains:

“Throughout the medieval period most African forms of government were undoubtedly more representative than their European contemporaries. Most African wars were less costly in life and property. And most African ruling groups were less predatory. So far as the comparison has any value, daily life in medieval Europe was likely to be far more hazardous or disagreeable for the common man…”

In terms of economics, prior to the 1500’s, Europe and Africa were fairly equal in terms of their levels of development. As Ella Shohat and Robert Slam explain:

“Africa had a varied and productive economy, with strong metallurgical and textile industries. Africans developed ironworking and blast-furnace technology even before 600 BC, prefiguring techniques used in Europe only in the nineteenth century. The textile exports of the eastern Congo during the early seventeenth century were as large as those of European textile manufacturing centers…Indeed, in the early years of the Atlantic trade, Europe had little to sell that Africa did not already produce.”

Similarly, systems of justice were often far more humane in Africa than in Europe. In white nations, children could be hanged for stealing cotton, while in most African nations, where communal life took priority over private property, theft would be punished with small fines or restitution in the form of temporary servitude to the injured party.
Certainly the ancient view of Europe, compared to Africa, was not in line with Duke’s racist analysis. The Greeks saw Europeans as barbarians, clearly inferior to most Africans about whom they had knowledge. Consider the following:

• The Greeks and Romans both thought the ancient Ethiopians wise and righteous, and especially admired the levels of advancement attained by the black African kingdom of Kush. Meanwhile, these same Greeks uniformly voiced disdain for the fair-skinned blondes of the North;

• So too with the Romans: Julius Caesar considered Europeans barbaric, and condemned the Gauls of France for setting innocent people on fire as sacrifices to the Gods, whenever their supply of criminals ran low;

• Herodotus disparaged the Scythians (nomads in the grasslands of Southern Russia) for drinking the blood of those they killed in combat, and scalping their victims, as well as other European tribes for engaging in ritual cannibalism. European cannibalism was quite common, it appears: in 1476 in Milan, tyrant Galeazzo Maria Sforza was dismembered and eaten by an angry mob; and in 1572, after the St. Barthelemew’s Day Massacre, Huguenot body parts were sold at auction and eaten in Paris and Lyon;

• The Celts of Ireland were seen as particularly backwards. According to Greek geographer Strabo, the Celts cannibalized their dead fathers and the men had sex with their mothers and sisters. Diodorous said they were drunken brutes who would fight for no reason at all, and until the twelfth century of the Common Era, it was typical for the kings of one Irish clan to celebrate their coronations by having sexual intercourse with a horse.

Europeans who went to Africa prior to the growth of racist theories did not consider those they encountered to be inferior. Many African kingdoms were seen as sophisticated, clean and orderly, by the Dutch and Portuguese. Not only had ancient Egypt emerged thousands of years before as an advanced society (see below), but the kingdom of Meroe in Upper Nubia was developed by Africans beginning around 600 BCE, before any semblance of civilization reached Europe. Over a thousand-year period, the citizens of Meroe created an advanced mercantile economy and strong trade with other nations and peoples.
In truth, it was the incursion by Mediterranean and African Muslims into Europe that resulted in the spread of civilization there, as opposed to the other way around. Prior to Islamic incursions into Europe in the 7th and 8th centuries, there was little sign of literacy or progress throughout the continent.
There is no better example of deception in My Awakening than in Duke’s insistence that the ancient Egyptians were white. Duke asserts, despite providing no source for the claim, that “the oldest Egyptian mummies are distinctly Caucasian, classed as such by innumerable anthropologists and archeologists,” (none of whom he names), and that Egyptian hieroglyphs demonstrate the kingdoms were led by whites, with those blacks pictured being slaves to white rulers.
As with his Aryan view of European history, Duke’s theory of Egypt would have seemed bizarre to historians a few hundred years ago. Until the 1800’s, when the growth of white supremacy necessitated a change in outlook, the contemporary view of Egypt was that it had been a fairly dark-skinned and mixed-race African civilization, and that its influence had led to the civilization of Greece. The Aryan model only supplanted that ancient model over the past two hundred years. The fact that this has happened, despite what the Greeks themselves had to say, is all the more astounding. Herodotus, considered the father of history (and Duke praises him on page 538 of his book), was clear in saying that the ancient Egyptians had dark skin and wooly hair, as with the Ethiopians. In 450 BCE, Herodotus insisted that Egypt’s culture originated in continental Africa, and today (with the weakening of the Aryan view), most experts now agree that the early Pharaohs came from the Saharan region.
That Egyptian hieroglyphs and mummies hardly demonstrated the Caucasian lineage of such persons is clear:

• Studies have found that dynastic Egyptian mummies had blood type frequencies most common among the Northern Haratin peoples: a group primarily descended from sub-Saharan Africans;

• Approximately one-third of the skulls from the region, dating to just before and during the Egyptian dynasties, have clearly “Negroid” features, indicating that the Nile Valley was always racially mixed;

• In hieroglyphs, the ancient Egyptians portrayed themselves as one shade lighter than the darkest group (Ethiopians), but three shades darker than the lightest group (Libyans). They were nowhere near as light as Caucasians. In fact, certain depictions of ancient Pharaohs like Ramses III or Sesostris (Senwosret) have even darker skin, much darker than the Semites or Libyans. Even white Egyptologist Frank Yurco has acknowledged that the sculptures representing Senwosret are clearly of a black/Nubian Pharaoh;

• A surviving stone relief of the Pharaoh Narmer, from the first dynasty, shows observably “Negro” features, as does the statue of Mentuhotep I, and the fourth dynasty pyramid builder Khufu;

• Skeletal examinations of ancient Egyptian bones show a large degree of dark-skinned African presence in the nation from the beginning: about one-fourth of the population in the earliest dynasties, and one-fifth by the later dynasties. What’s more, these “pure” Negroes are depicted in ancient art not merely as slaves, but also as leaders well before 2000 BCE. Indeed, ancient Egypt was clearly a multiracial society, where individuals of all colors could be found at each rung of the social ladder.

Although the ancients were not as “coal black” as Africans south of the Sahara, this hardly denies that Egypt was a “black” civilization. After all, being considered black has never required that one be extremely dark. Indeed, the “one-drop rule” to which white supremacists like Duke have always adhered, would require that any degree of black admixture renders one black, and that any nation with significant admixture be considered black. Surely that describes ancient Egypt.
If anything, Egypt became lighter over time, not darker as Duke claims, thereby invalidating his view that Egypt only declined after darker folks entered the area. As Davidson has noted, it was only after invasions from the North and the Arab conquest in the 7th century that the nation became less self-evidently African. And even if there were Caucasians in ancient Egypt, the fact would remain that there were also many dark Africans, and brown skinned Africans. Thus, the great irony is that this advanced civilization would have emerged, even under the Aryan hypothesis, amidst a racially-mixed society, while the “pure” whites of Europe were still trapped in caves and forests: a death-blow to Duke’s claim that genetic purity is crucial for the advance of civilization.
That racists like Duke deny the “African-ness” of this civilization—even when historians like Herodotus insisted upon it—indicates the lengths to which some will go to maintain their view of Aryan superiority. His claim that no civilization ever emerged among sub-Saharan Africans, and that this indicates black genetic inferiority is hopelessly naïve. Those who have studied Africa’s people are quick to note the common origin of all Africans, and that as recently as 5000 BCE, they all shared a very close gene pool. Thus, biologically there would be very little difference between those of Northern and Southern Africa.
Furthermore, the claim that no advanced societies have ever developed in Southern Africa under black rule is simply without merit. Even European explorers like da Gama marveled at the degree to which Southern African lands had advanced. In southern Mozambique, he found large, well-crafted ships, and in Kilwa and Mombasa, grand houses, fine architecture and well-built roads.
The Shona city of Great Zimbabwe was well established as a trading center by the 1400’s, and the architecture and stone cutting was so advanced that for many decades Europeans refused to believe Africans had founded the city. Since the early 1900’s however, it has been acknowledged that the Shona have inhabited the region continuously since well before that time.
That sub-Saharan Africa in the modern era has not “developed” as rapidly or evenly as Northern Africa may be true. Yet this would owe more to the relative geographic isolation of the region—thanks to the desert barrier—and the reduced level of international interaction it would have enjoyed relative to the continent’s northern neighbors. It is widely accepted that cultural interaction and external stimulation are key elements in the development of advanced societies. To the extent such stimulation and interaction was less available to sub-Saharan Africa, we would expect to see less modernization and “advance” there, but this would have nothing to do with genetic inferiority.
And there are additional factors—again having nothing to do with the genetic or cultural inferiority of the inhabitants—that explain lesser development throughout the continent of Africa, relative to Europe or Asia. As biologist Jared Diamond has noted, the heavy rains common to sub-Saharan Africa leach nutrients from the soil, producing less fertile agricultural land. This is especially problematic, as stable agriculture and the stable and growing populations that come with it have long been recognized as key ingredients in modernization, economic development and eventual industrialization. Furthermore, horses and oxen—important draft animals for crop cultivation in Europe and Asia—are not native to the tropical regions like Africa, thus, African farmers have had to “rely on the hoe rather than the plow.” The impact on agricultural productivity has been enormous.
Though Duke would like readers to believe that Africa’s problems are due to the quality of Africans themselves, the facts speak to a different reality. In addition to agricultural conditions that are anything but optimal, there are three additional reasons why much of Africa suffers today from economic stagnation, war, and even famine: the effects of the international slave trade, European colonialism, and economic imperialism.
As for the impact of slavery, it cannot be ignored that the transcontinental slave trade robbed Africa of millions of its strongest persons. 10-15 million Africans arrived in the Americas by 1800, representing two-thirds of those placed on ships (as the other third died en route). Additionally, two of five Africans captured and marched to the sea died during the trek, meaning there were as many as fifty million persons lost to Africa through slavery or death caused by the slavers’ activities.
In addition to the direct losses of living Africans, such depopulation would also have a multiplier effect, depriving the continent of the future potential offspring of those enslaved or killed in the process. Some estimate that the overall loss to Africa by the end of the slave trade may have approached 100 million persons. The economic and cultural impact of such near-genocide should not be underestimated. It was precisely the growth in population throughout Europe and Asia that sparked a substantial amount of economic acceleration from the 1600’s to the 1800’s. During this time, the population of Africa only grew by 30%, (as opposed to more than doubling in Europe), contributing to economic stagnation and making the area vulnerable to economic exploitation by outsiders. The obvious irony is that the depopulation of Africa not only depressed the economic vitality of that continent, it also was directly implicated in fueling the economic growth of Europe via its North American colonies, and thereby increasing the development gap between the “advanced” and so-called “backwards” nations.
Furthermore, the demand for slaves caused African nations to war against one another—encouraged to do so by Europeans—thereby creating a need for weapons to defend themselves. But to procure advanced weapons they had to get them from the Europeans, who would only sell weapons to the Africans in exchange for more slaves: thus the vicious cycle of violence and slavery was put in place.
Although slavery had existed in Africa prior to the coming of Europeans, it had been far less severe. Traditional African slaves could work off their obligations and were more akin to European indentured servants than chattel slaves; they could trade, inherit property and marry into royalty. The system was also less violent. As white slaver John Newton wrote: “The state of slavery, among these wild, barbarous people, as we esteem them, is much milder than in our colonies… no man is permitted to draw blood, even from a slave.” Those who experienced both forms of slavery—African and European—harbored no illusions about the greater barbarity of the latter. As Olaudah Equiano, an Igbo prince first enslaved in Africa and then in North America explained, his new servitude was “infinitely more horrendous and humiliating.”
The exploitation of the slave trade by Europeans also corresponded with the flooding of the African market with cheap cotton goods and metalwork imports, thereby undermining local production of these goods and stifling the growth of African economies beyond the artisan stage. Additionally, with the coming of Europeans, formerly great African city-states were destroyed and their connections with the world shut off. In Kilwa and Mombasa, the Portuguese demolished the cities and stole their resources, thereby depleting their ability to maintain trade with other nations—formerly the key to their mercantile economies.
When full-scale colonialism came to Africa the impact was tremendous. Europeans took African land and sold it to each other at prices and in currencies above the means of indigenous people. This land was then used for exports instead of meeting local needs. The resulting poverty stunted the demand for imports, thereby reducing levels of international and intercultural collaboration and maintaining a cycle of “underdevelopment.” Local food production was undermined, as export profits became the order of the day. The focus on profitability created an incentive for large landholdings and the development of oligarchic control and greater inequality. Additionally, the increased value of agricultural land (due to the new export emphasis) led to large-scale population displacement of indigenous peoples, thereby preventing the cultural and demographic continuity needed for building stable economies.
As if the agricultural disruptions weren’t severe enough, colonial regimes then refused to provide Africans with educations or advanced job training, thereby guaranteeing a degree of practical illiteracy for the national and international economies they would leave for them upon their departure. Once colonialism ended there was no attempt to restore African peoples to their land, and Western powers specifically rejected such reforms: a settler owning hundreds of acres was replaced by local elites owning hundreds of acres. Naturally, the economies remained export oriented, with very little profit going to African peoples.
The current debt crisis, inspired by neo-colonial economics, has further contributed to Africa’s predicament. By the early 1990’s, Africa’s collective debt to Western banks was nearly $300 billion, and over 30% of continental export earnings were being lost in debt service. By now that figure has increased, with little hope for relief. Although the U.S. rescheduled and forgave British and French debt after World War II, and even reduced Germany’s debt by two-thirds, there has been no similar action with regard to Africa.
Taken together, the forces of depopulation (caused by the transcontinental slave trade), economic marginalization (also prompted by that trade and the destruction of local economies that followed), colonialism and resource exploitation have combined to deprive much of Africa of a strong basis for economic and national development. Whatever its problems however, there is simply no evidence presented by Duke or anyone else to indicate that Africa’s failings lie in the condition of African blood or DNA.

IMO, you sound like a stereotype created by a 15 yr. old shit-disturber (Probably male. And white). Just my $0.02. You just don't sound credible.

Pretty much my assessment too. Too many coincidences for it to be anything other than a fake troll profile.

Signs up right when the supremacist bigots are taking a beating in the forums (and getting suspended), only posts on the threads where the bigots are taking a beating AND just happens to parrot every single stereotype the bigots throw out (lazy, double dipping by collecting welfare and working, has a whole pack of kids she can't support, thinks black neighbourhoods should be white-free, hates all whites, all blacks intentionally target whites as crime victims, etc.)

Sure sign of a troll profile created by one of the bigots who are taking a pasting. It does prove, however, that they only way for them to support their bigotry is through lies and deceptions.

As for not believing Mungojoe, He is going overboard on defending black people and he only speaks of racism of whites against blacks.

so you resort to smear tactics like calling people racist, white supremacists, Nazis or whatever

Jax, man, you can call me whatever you want; your words don't bother me because your value to the human race runs in the negative digits. You're not a productive member of society, you have nothing truthful to say, your completely devoid of insight and you have no integrity.

You have absolutely nothing to offer this thread; are you even capable of intelligent discussion, or are you only capable of namecalling people that disagree with you and prove you wrong with raw common sense?

As I said, man, you don't have the brains to call anyone the names you're calling them; At least use words you understand.

When I said what I did in that bad spelling racist post, you didnt object to what I said, just called me a fake.I was going to see ifyou would protest what I said about white people.

You are not defending what the black people say about white people.

all you are saying is black people are not as bad as people say.

I am pro-white and only care about my own race so if that makes me racist,

One whit boy was on CA 1:1, meaning a staff member had to be with him constantly within eyesight for aggressive behavior.One black boy was on CA 2 :1 meaning 2 staff members had to be with him constantly for aggressive behavior.

And another thought, when I was working the male adult mule unit, there was once a white man that had a pack of twinkies. A black man wanted half of the second one. When the with man said no, he began making racial remarks to the white man, then it started back and forth from both. finally, another black man jumped the white man. Another white man thought he was being double teemed so he jumped in, all in all, a total of six men were fighting.,and it started because a black man was mad because he could not have half of that twinky. How greedy and uncultured is that?

Some are just ***holes.

Alot just have a anti-social or an aggression problem.This seems to describes most black patients of the hospital. I will say mostly white people seem to have a drug seeking problem and self injurious behavior disorder.