suppose to apologize for killing white kids... apologizes to the parents of M. Brown, A. Jones
Options
Comments
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »Meta_Conscious wrote: »my original post was not demonstrative of my support for their behavior.
It has exposed a problem, tho... some of u have Stockholm syndrome... I know... u don't care... but u sure going hard at your brothers as if they're the ones systematically oppressing folks in the US.
Your original post applied a level of merit to his words that shouldn't have been given period. These dudes are ? . We shouldn't be giving two thoughts to them let alone applauding some ? one of them says in the court. Again, they killed and tortured two white dudes. I bet you they've done worse to the blacks in the area.
As for the rest of what you said, you are the ones that can't do, say, or think anything without bringing the white man up. When I go to community building meetings, mentorships, or tutoring, I don't mention white people. When I'm helping young brothas figure out how to improve their situations and work on the future, I don't say anything about white people. Because white people don't matter to me outside of how much I have to deal with them to accomplish my goals.
Meanwhile, on this site, a mostly black site, we could be discussing some black ? , and the discussion wouldn't go two posts before someone brings up white people. Now tell me, who really has the unhealthy obsession with their former captor?
this ? wants to go back to the plantation
Now we using typos to respond...ok. lol
i stopped at the bolded... here is where u continue to project... your dome is bleached. -
at the end of the day this was nothing more than a waste of life. killing those two white boys accomplished what exactly???? nothing just two more dead crackers and two more young black men in jail.
All humans for the most part are the same the only reason blacks don't treat whites in way they treat us is because we are not in the positions they are in, so there is no moral high ground for black people to stand on so we are not better than whites morally.
And you know what, if ya'll believe that, then cool, everything everybody has been saying in this topic is fine.
I don't think that way though. I tend to believe that blacks are morally superior to whites in this country. It's not a matter of biology. It's due to our culture and perspective. -
Meta_Conscious wrote: »
i stopped at the bolded... here is where u continue to project... your dome is bleached.
Did you not say that the title of this thread should be changed to his comment because it was etherous?
Do we not use the term ether to denote some level of poignancy in a statement, and wouldn't putting his statement in the title be a way validating it as if it was something important that needed to be seen?
Where exactly is the projection? -
thats not what i typed. I'm not gonna re-type or quote it. its right there for everyone to see.
I meant what i typed. u can twist it to fit your overreaction if u like.
this very amusing.
on one hand u don't care... on the other hand u care so much that anything u perceive to be a slight to your masters infuriates u to the point where you're ready to say all types of negative ? about your own ppl.
quite hilarious. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »at the end of the day this was nothing more than a waste of life. killing those two white boys accomplished what exactly???? nothing just two more dead crackers and two more young black men in jail.
All humans for the most part are the same the only reason blacks don't treat whites in way they treat us is because we are not in the positions they are in, so there is no moral high ground for black people to stand on so we are not better than whites morally.
And you know what, if ya'll believe that, then cool, everything everybody has been saying in this topic is fine.
I don't think that way though. I tend to believe that blacks are morally superior to whites in this country. It's not a matter of biology. It's due to our culture and perspective.
the black perspective is and was largely shaped by interaction with whites so if blacks hate them or love them it's mostly a reflection of how we have been treated.
how can you say blacks are morally superior to whites when blacks in this country have never been in a position to exercise that morality??? the morality of an inferior in not killing his oppressive superior can be seen as immorality to oneself. -
Meta_Conscious wrote: »thats not what i typed. I'm not gonna re-type or quote it. its right there for everyone to see.
I meant what i typed. u can twist it to fit your overreaction if u like.
this very amusing.
on one hand u don't care... on the other hand u care so much that anything u perceive to be a slight to your masters infuriates u to the point where you're ready to say all types of negative ? about your own ppl.
quite hilarious.
This is what you said:Meta_Conscious wrote: »the title should reflect what dude actually said in the video... its far more etherous than yawning...
You said the title should reflect his comment and referred to it as etherous. Is that not what I just said you did? And once again, you pointlessly bring up white people in an attempt to tie what I'm saying to whites when again, at no point have I ever expressed any sentiment whatsoever as it relates to the white people in this case. You're so set in your ? , you can't even see how silly it is.The Lonious Monk wrote: »at the end of the day this was nothing more than a waste of life. killing those two white boys accomplished what exactly???? nothing just two more dead crackers and two more young black men in jail.
All humans for the most part are the same the only reason blacks don't treat whites in way they treat us is because we are not in the positions they are in, so there is no moral high ground for black people to stand on so we are not better than whites morally.
And you know what, if ya'll believe that, then cool, everything everybody has been saying in this topic is fine.
I don't think that way though. I tend to believe that blacks are morally superior to whites in this country. It's not a matter of biology. It's due to our culture and perspective.
the black perspective is and was largely shaped by interaction with whites so if blacks hate them or love them it's mostly a reflection of how we have been treated.
how can you say blacks are morally superior to whites when blacks in this country have never been in a position to exercise that morality??? the morality of an inferior in not killing his oppressive superior can be seen as immorality to oneself.
I wasn't just talking about America though. I'm talking about historically. There was a time when Africa was the center of knowledge. At that point they could have invented racism and treated Europeans like ? because people in West Africa were farther along in a bunch of areas, but they didn't do that. When African muslims controlled parts of Europe, they could have treated them like second hand citizens the way whites did with people they conquered, but they didn't.
Even in America, you can look at the way blacks treat whites when blacks have power. Maybe not on a large scale, but if you've ever been to a black school or lived in a black neighborhood that has had a few whites or people of other races, you know there is a big difference between the way those people are treated and the way they would if it was a situation where whites were the majority. I've been in both situations, and in my experience, it's different. -
you're looking more and more pathetic...
the original title did not reflect the content of video.
it being etherous doesnt make it right or show that i support it.
u overreacted because u love your masters. we see through your denial. they won't love u back.
u might get a pat on the head tho, champ. -
The ? ain't that complicated. I dislike injustice and tragedy. Be the victim black or white. Walking home with a hood on shouldn't result in a death sentence. Neither should buying drugs in the hood. Simple.
At some point, a lot of yall ? should ask yourself he following: Are you more concerned with black people being treated fairly and being portrayed in a fair light...or...white people ALSO being treated unfairly and portrayed in an unfair light?
We need to stop with this 'in order for me to win, you have to lose' ? .
Now, yall go ahead and tear this post apart with some of ya jaded '? everybody but us' ? . Smh. -
Meta_Conscious wrote: »you're looking more and more pathetic...
the original title did not reflect the content of video.
it being etherous doesnt make it right or show that i support it.
u overreacted because u love your masters. we see through your denial. they won't love u back.
u might get a pat on the head tho, champ.
Another nonsensical answer. Since when has the term ether ever been used in a way that applies no merit whatsoever to a statement. I never said you supported what they did. I said you're giving the statement too much attention and calling it etherous and promoting it gives it attention.
And one more time you make it about white people because you just can't help yourself. You love them that much. But tell me who that guy's statement ethers. It's certainly not the white people. They already believe all black people are savages and that the current movements are ? , so this guy saying what he said only reinforces what they think they know. If anything it ethers all the actual protesters out there because it ties them to the exact kind of people they are trying to show that we black people are not. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »Meta_Conscious wrote: »thats not what i typed. I'm not gonna re-type or quote it. its right there for everyone to see.
I meant what i typed. u can twist it to fit your overreaction if u like.
this very amusing.
on one hand u don't care... on the other hand u care so much that anything u perceive to be a slight to your masters infuriates u to the point where you're ready to say all types of negative ? about your own ppl.
quite hilarious.
This is what you said:Meta_Conscious wrote: »the title should reflect what dude actually said in the video... its far more etherous than yawning...
You said the title should reflect his comment and referred to it as etherous. Is that not what I just said you did? And once again, you pointlessly bring up white people in an attempt to tie what I'm saying to whites when again, at no point have I ever expressed any sentiment whatsoever as it relates to the white people in this case. You're so set in your ? , you can't even see how silly it is.The Lonious Monk wrote: »at the end of the day this was nothing more than a waste of life. killing those two white boys accomplished what exactly???? nothing just two more dead crackers and two more young black men in jail.
All humans for the most part are the same the only reason blacks don't treat whites in way they treat us is because we are not in the positions they are in, so there is no moral high ground for black people to stand on so we are not better than whites morally.
And you know what, if ya'll believe that, then cool, everything everybody has been saying in this topic is fine.
I don't think that way though. I tend to believe that blacks are morally superior to whites in this country. It's not a matter of biology. It's due to our culture and perspective.
the black perspective is and was largely shaped by interaction with whites so if blacks hate them or love them it's mostly a reflection of how we have been treated.
how can you say blacks are morally superior to whites when blacks in this country have never been in a position to exercise that morality??? the morality of an inferior in not killing his oppressive superior can be seen as immorality to oneself.
I wasn't just talking about America though. I'm talking about historically. There was a time when Africa was the center of knowledge. At that point they could have invented racism and treated Europeans like ? because people in West Africa were farther along in a bunch of areas, but they didn't do that. When African muslims controlled parts of Europe, they could have treated them like second hand citizens the way whites did with people they conquered, but they didn't.
Even in America, you can look at the way blacks treat whites when blacks have power. Maybe not on a large scale, but if you've ever been to a black school or lived in a black neighborhood that has had a few whites or people of other races, you know there is a big difference between the way those people are treated and the way they would if it was a situation where whites were the majority. I've been in both situations, and in my experience, it's different.
whoever told you that when blacks were in power in spain that we treated the Europeans good lied to you. The moors both black and berber/arab treated the whites like inferiors not equals. we killed them and took their land and imposed a foreign culture on them for centuries. Just like they did to us centuries after they re took spain.
FROM what I have observed the white kids who go to all blacks schools typically get beat up and punked on the regular unless they become wiggers and even then they still get played. the only reasons whites that live in majority black areas are not heavily mistreated by blacks is because of the police it has nothing to do with blacks being morally superior. however when the situation is reversed the police tend to care less so fuckery goes on unhindered. also you have to understand we have a section of black people that have an inferiority complex so they love white people -
those family's souls were burning...lol
that ? was ether to them... u ol ? loving overthinking ass mafucka.
u talking mad ? to prove a point no one gives a ? about.
you're projecting and inferring and fantasizing about all types of ? .
"now they'll think all the protester are savages like these two"... so what?
they hated MLK too. shut up already. -
mryounggun wrote: »The ? ain't that complicated. I dislike injustice and tragedy. Be the victim black or white. Walking home with a hood on shouldn't result in a death sentence. Neither should buying drugs in the hood. Simple.
At some point, a lot of yall ? should ask yourself he following: Are you more concerned with black people being treated fairly and being portrayed in a fair light...or...white people ALSO being treated unfairly and operates in an unfair light?
We need to stop with this 'in order for me to win, you have to lose' ? .
Now, yall go ahead and tear this post apart with some of ya jaded '? everybody but us' ? . Smh.
You realize we live under a capitalist system right???? what you are advocating is fantasy -
Grey area @monk, the muslims that controlled Parts of europe, were multi cultural, from berbers to arabs etc, they took spain n portugal from the visigoths, with only a few thousand, lead by arabs. The visigoths(germans) and iberians barely fought, and welcomed the africans/west asians.
I get your point though: the africans never systematically treated the euros like what happened the other way around, evrnthough they could have done the Same.
ibn khaldoun wrote some interesting ? about cultural diversity and morals etc, he came to a similair conclusion as you -
you cannot judge the morality of a people until they are in power because the morality of a subjected people is a compromise. You cannot tell if someone is good until they are totally free and in power of themselves and have power over others
-
whoever told you that when blacks were in power in spain that we treated the Europeans good lied to you. The moors both black and berber/arab treated the whites like inferiors not equals. we killed them and took their land and imposed a foreign culture on them for centuries. Just like they did to us centuries after they re took spain.
FROM what I have observed the white kids who go to all blacks schools typically get beat up and punked on the regular unless they become wiggers and even then they still get played. the only reasons whites that live in majority black areas are not heavily mistreated by blacks is because of the police it has nothing to do with blacks being morally superior. however when the situation is reversed the police tend to care less so fuckery goes on unhindered. also you have to understand we have a section of black people that have an inferiority complex so they love white people
That's not true. At least not completely. That's the white washed account of it. There is a documentary called When the Moors Ruled Europe, or something like that. Go watch it. By and large most of the accounts of Muslim mistreatment of Europeans was made up by Europeans to gain support for the Reconquista and subsequent Crusades. Christians weren't forcefully converted to Islam. They were allowed to keep their faiths and cultures. On top of that the Muslims built school and provided much of the knowledge that led to the European Renaissance and Enlightenment. Even after Europeans pushed back Muslims, some Africans still held positions of respect in Europe because Europeans knew how much better off many of them were during Muslim occupation.
As for the rest of what you said, we've just had different experiences. From K - 10 grade, I went to 90% black schools. The whites there were mostly left to their own devices. The ones that wanted to be cool with blacks were accepted. The ones that acted up were checked. And that was pretty much it. Nobody went out of their ways to make whites feel bad. The same can be said when I went to FAMU. There were pockets of other races. The ones who were just there for a degree and had no desire to interact with blacks were left alone. The ones that were cool and wanted to be part of the experience were accepted. The ones that got out of line had problems. There wasn't any undue persecution as far as I saw. At least not on as large a scale as you'll see when you're the minority among a bunch of whites.Meta_Conscious wrote: »those family's souls were burning...lol
that ? was ether to them... u ol ? loving overthinking ass mafucka.
u talking mad ? to prove a point no one gives a ? about.
you're projecting and inferring and fantasizing about all types of ? .
"now they'll think all the protester are savages like these two"... so what?
they hated MLK too. shut up already.
You basically just type to type huh? If you tapping out, then tap out, but quit posting nonsense. -
you cannot judge the morality of a people until they are in power because the morality of a subjected people is a compromise. You cannot tell if someone is good until they are totally free and in power of themselves and have power over others
From a historical point, I feel you can make that statement about Africans because there are mutiple examples of when Africans were in positions of power and didn't do the same things as Europeans. At least not to the same magnitude.
Now if you're talking specifically about African Americans, on a macroscopic level, you're right. And based on some of the things these ? say and the ridiculous arguments they are making in this topic, I guess I'd have to agree that blacks really aren't any better than whites from a moral standpoint. At least IC black people, but whether or not ? on the IC are a fair representation of African Americans as a whole is debatable. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »
whoever told you that when blacks were in power in spain that we treated the Europeans good lied to you. The moors both black and berber/arab treated the whites like inferiors not equals. we killed them and took their land and imposed a foreign culture on them for centuries. Just like they did to us centuries after they re took spain.
FROM what I have observed the white kids who go to all blacks schools typically get beat up and punked on the regular unless they become wiggers and even then they still get played. the only reasons whites that live in majority black areas are not heavily mistreated by blacks is because of the police it has nothing to do with blacks being morally superior. however when the situation is reversed the police tend to care less so fuckery goes on unhindered. also you have to understand we have a section of black people that have an inferiority complex so they love white people
That's not true. At least not completely. That's the white washed account of it. There is a documentary called When the Moors Ruled Europe, or something like that. Go watch it. By and large most of the accounts of Muslim mistreatment of Europeans was made up by Europeans to gain support for the Reconquista and subsequent Crusades.
As for the rest of what you said, we've just had different experiences. From K - 10 grade, I went to 90% black schools. The whites there were mostly left to their own devices. The ones that wanted to be cool with blacks were accepted. The ones that acted up were checked. And that was pretty much it. Nobody went out of their ways to make whites feel bad. The same can be said when I went to FAMU. There were pockets of other races. The ones who were just there for a degree and had no desire to interact with blacks were left alone. The ones that were cool and wanted to be part of the experience were accepted. The ones that got out of line had problems. There wasn't any undue persecution as far as I saw. At least not on as large a scale as you'll see when you're the minority among a bunch of whites.Meta_Conscious wrote: »those family's souls were burning...lol
that ? was ether to them... u ol ? loving overthinking ass mafucka.
u talking mad ? to prove a point no one gives a ? about.
you're projecting and inferring and fantasizing about all types of ? .
"now they'll think all the protester are savages like these two"... so what?
they hated MLK too. shut up already.
You basically just type to type huh? If you tapping out, then tap out, but quit posting nonsense.
The moors conquered the land. those native europeans who broke moorish laws in the conquered places were punished this alone dispels any notion that blacks are somehow morally superior when we are in charge. our experiences differ but like I told you blacks have an inferiority complex that protects whites and urges blacks to accept them. so our so called morality towards them is compromised because of that. -
The moors conquered the land. those native europeans who broke moorish laws in the conquered places were punished this alone dispels any notion that blacks are somehow morally superior when we are in charge. our experiences differ but like I told you blacks have an inferiority complex that protects whites and urges blacks to accept them. so our so called morality is compromised because of that.
Imposing and enforcing laws is not an inherently immoral action. Imposing those laws and then enforcing them unfairly based on who is breaking them would be immoral and there is no evidence that was done in Europe. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »you cannot judge the morality of a people until they are in power because the morality of a subjected people is a compromise. You cannot tell if someone is good until they are totally free and in power of themselves and have power over others
From a historical point, I feel you can make that statement about Africans because there are mutiple examples of when Africans were in positions of power and didn't do the same things as Europeans. At least not to the same magnitude.
Now if you're talking specifically about African Americans, on a macroscopic level, you're right. And based on some of the things these ? say and the ridiculous arguments they are making in this topic, I guess I'd have to agree that blacks really aren't any better than whites from a moral standpoint. At least IC black people, but whether or not ? on the IC are a fair representation of African Americans as a whole is debatable.
historically most Africans had little almost no contact white Europeans, until whites came to our lands. Europeans at some point just got the upper hand technologically and attained the power to be as bad as they wanted to be. when and if we get similar power a case for our moral superiority can be made. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »
The moors conquered the land. those native europeans who broke moorish laws in the conquered places were punished this alone dispels any notion that blacks are somehow morally superior when we are in charge. our experiences differ but like I told you blacks have an inferiority complex that protects whites and urges blacks to accept them. so our so called morality is compromised because of that.
Imposing and enforcing laws is not an inherently immoral action. Imposing those laws and then enforcing them unfairly based on who is breaking them would be immoral and there is no evidence that was done in Europe.
it is when you are imposing laws on a people and land that is not yours the moors took the land and kept it for centuries by warfare. -
can i use my white privilege to get this fuccthread closed?
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »you cannot judge the morality of a people until they are in power because the morality of a subjected people is a compromise. You cannot tell if someone is good until they are totally free and in power of themselves and have power over others
From a historical point, I feel you can make that statement about Africans because there are mutiple examples of when Africans were in positions of power and didn't do the same things as Europeans. At least not to the same magnitude.
Now if you're talking specifically about African Americans, on a macroscopic level, you're right. And based on some of the things these ? say and the ridiculous arguments they are making in this topic, I guess I'd have to agree that blacks really aren't any better than whites from a moral standpoint. At least IC black people, but whether or not ? on the IC are a fair representation of African Americans as a whole is debatable.
historically most Africans had little almost no contact white Europeans, until whites came to our lands. Europeans at some point just got the upper hand technologically and attained the power to be as bad as they wanted to be. when and if we get similar power a case for our moral superiority can be made.
While it's true that a large portion of the African continent had no contact with Europe until around the 1600s. It's untrue to act like whites and blacks haven't been interacting since the Nubian and Egyptian empires were in place. In fact, much of the reason the Greek and Roman empires came to be was because of their dealings with Egyptians. You can make an argument that the Greeks never would have flourished the way they did if the Egyptians saw and treated them the same way modern whites look at nonwhites.The Lonious Monk wrote: »
The moors conquered the land. those native europeans who broke moorish laws in the conquered places were punished this alone dispels any notion that blacks are somehow morally superior when we are in charge. our experiences differ but like I told you blacks have an inferiority complex that protects whites and urges blacks to accept them. so our so called morality is compromised because of that.
Imposing and enforcing laws is not an inherently immoral action. Imposing those laws and then enforcing them unfairly based on who is breaking them would be immoral and there is no evidence that was done in Europe.
it is when you are imposing laws on a people and land that is not yours the moors took the land and kept it for centuries by warfare.
No land is anyone's though, especially during that time. You're talking about when Europe was in the Dark Ages and everyone was fighting everyone for control. It wasn't one group of people had settled in these spots and been there for hundreds of years like the Native Americans. There was constant fluxh in Europe between a number of groups. If anything, the Moors stabilized the lands they took over. Most of their fighting during that time was not against the people they controlled but against outsiders attempting to invade. Just ask yourself, which European countries came out of the Dark Ages the strongest. Initially, it was Italy (because of their maintained relations with the Muslim Ottoman Empire) and Spain and Portugal (both of which were largely controlled by Muslims for hundreds of years). -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »you cannot judge the morality of a people until they are in power because the morality of a subjected people is a compromise. You cannot tell if someone is good until they are totally free and in power of themselves and have power over others
From a historical point, I feel you can make that statement about Africans because there are mutiple examples of when Africans were in positions of power and didn't do the same things as Europeans. At least not to the same magnitude.
Now if you're talking specifically about African Americans, on a macroscopic level, you're right. And based on some of the things these ? say and the ridiculous arguments they are making in this topic, I guess I'd have to agree that blacks really aren't any better than whites from a moral standpoint. At least IC black people, but whether or not ? on the IC are a fair representation of African Americans as a whole is debatable.
historically most Africans had little almost no contact white Europeans, until whites came to our lands. Europeans at some point just got the upper hand technologically and attained the power to be as bad as they wanted to be. when and if we get similar power a case for our moral superiority can be made.
While it's true that a large portion of the African continent had no contact with Europe until around the 1600s. It's untrue to act like whites and blacks haven't been interacting since the Nubian and Egyptian empires were in place. In fact, much of the reason the Greek and Roman empires came to be was because of their dealings with Egyptians. You can make an argument that the Greeks never would have flourished the way they did if the Egyptians saw and treated them the same way modern whites look at nonwhites.The Lonious Monk wrote: »
The moors conquered the land. those native europeans who broke moorish laws in the conquered places were punished this alone dispels any notion that blacks are somehow morally superior when we are in charge. our experiences differ but like I told you blacks have an inferiority complex that protects whites and urges blacks to accept them. so our so called morality is compromised because of that.
Imposing and enforcing laws is not an inherently immoral action. Imposing those laws and then enforcing them unfairly based on who is breaking them would be immoral and there is no evidence that was done in Europe.
it is when you are imposing laws on a people and land that is not yours the moors took the land and kept it for centuries by warfare.
No land is anyone's though, especially during that time. You're talking about when Europe was in the Dark Ages and everyone was fighting everyone for control. It wasn't one group of people had settled in these spots and been there for hundreds of years like the Native Americans. There was constant fluxh in Europe between a number of groups. If anything, the Moors stabilized the lands they took over. Most of their fighting during that time was not against the people they controlled but against outsiders attempting to invade. Just ask yourself, which European countries came out of the Dark Ages the strongest. Initially, it was Italy (because of their maintained relations with the Muslim Ottoman Empire) and Spain and Portugal (both of which were largely controlled by Muslims for hundreds of years).
when the moors took control of spain the people ruling it were doing so for a very long time already the people were settled and had been there for centuries. the people who invaded were the moors they tried to take all the way up to france. the moors were outsiders on the european continent with a different culture and religion of course the europeans are going to try and retake land that was theirs for centuries . the geographically positions of spain and Portugal are responsible for their ascendancy, being on the coast of europe made it easier for them to colonize the new world.
the ancient egyptians considered the greeks inferior and most likely treated them that way -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »you cannot judge the morality of a people until they are in power because the morality of a subjected people is a compromise. You cannot tell if someone is good until they are totally free and in power of themselves and have power over others
From a historical point, I feel you can make that statement about Africans because there are mutiple examples of when Africans were in positions of power and didn't do the same things as Europeans. At least not to the same magnitude.
Now if you're talking specifically about African Americans, on a macroscopic level, you're right. And based on some of the things these ? say and the ridiculous arguments they are making in this topic, I guess I'd have to agree that blacks really aren't any better than whites from a moral standpoint. At least IC black people, but whether or not ? on the IC are a fair representation of African Americans as a whole is debatable.
historically most Africans had little almost no contact white Europeans, until whites came to our lands. Europeans at some point just got the upper hand technologically and attained the power to be as bad as they wanted to be. when and if we get similar power a case for our moral superiority can be made.
While it's true that a large portion of the African continent had no contact with Europe until around the 1600s. It's untrue to act like whites and blacks haven't been interacting since the Nubian and Egyptian empires were in place. In fact, much of the reason the Greek and Roman empires came to be was because of their dealings with Egyptians. You can make an argument that the Greeks never would have flourished the way they did if the Egyptians saw and treated them the same way modern whites look at nonwhites.The Lonious Monk wrote: »
The moors conquered the land. those native europeans who broke moorish laws in the conquered places were punished this alone dispels any notion that blacks are somehow morally superior when we are in charge. our experiences differ but like I told you blacks have an inferiority complex that protects whites and urges blacks to accept them. so our so called morality is compromised because of that.
Imposing and enforcing laws is not an inherently immoral action. Imposing those laws and then enforcing them unfairly based on who is breaking them would be immoral and there is no evidence that was done in Europe.
it is when you are imposing laws on a people and land that is not yours the moors took the land and kept it for centuries by warfare.
No land is anyone's though, especially during that time. You're talking about when Europe was in the Dark Ages and everyone was fighting everyone for control. It wasn't one group of people had settled in these spots and been there for hundreds of years like the Native Americans. There was constant fluxh in Europe between a number of groups. If anything, the Moors stabilized the lands they took over. Most of their fighting during that time was not against the people they controlled but against outsiders attempting to invade. Just ask yourself, which European countries came out of the Dark Ages the strongest. Initially, it was Italy (because of their maintained relations with the Muslim Ottoman Empire) and Spain and Portugal (both of which were largely controlled by Muslims for hundreds of years).
when the moors took control of spain the people ruling it were doing so for a very long time already the people were settled and had been there for centuries. the people who invaded were the moors they tried to take all the way up to france. the moors were outsiders on the european continent with a different culture and religion of course the europeans are going to try and retake land that was theirs for centuries . the geographically positions of spain and Portugal are responsible for their ascendancy, being on the coast of europe made it easier for them to colonize the new world.
the ancient egyptians considered the greeks inferior and most likely treated them that way
Different tribes had been fighting over the Iberian peninsula since the fall of the Roman Empire. I mean you could group them together and say they were all European or something like that, but at the time there wasn't really a concept of Europe. If you go back through history, most of Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East just went back and forth between being conquered by different empires. The Moorish invasion of Spain and Portugal was no different. The key point is that when they conquered the area, they let those people keep their culture, brought knowledge, and defended them from the other threats that were prevalent during the European Dark Ages. Due to the Moorish influence Spain came out of that period as one of the strongest powers in Europe.
The Egyptians thought themselves superior to all non-Egyptians. They were elitists when it came to their culture. However, there is nothing that suggests they treated the Greeks or any other non-Egyptians as subhuman savages the way Europeans have treated every other group on the planet. If they did, all of the great Greek philosophers wouldn't have run down to Egypt to study. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »you cannot judge the morality of a people until they are in power because the morality of a subjected people is a compromise. You cannot tell if someone is good until they are totally free and in power of themselves and have power over others
From a historical point, I feel you can make that statement about Africans because there are mutiple examples of when Africans were in positions of power and didn't do the same things as Europeans. At least not to the same magnitude.
Now if you're talking specifically about African Americans, on a macroscopic level, you're right. And based on some of the things these ? say and the ridiculous arguments they are making in this topic, I guess I'd have to agree that blacks really aren't any better than whites from a moral standpoint. At least IC black people, but whether or not ? on the IC are a fair representation of African Americans as a whole is debatable.
historically most Africans had little almost no contact white Europeans, until whites came to our lands. Europeans at some point just got the upper hand technologically and attained the power to be as bad as they wanted to be. when and if we get similar power a case for our moral superiority can be made.
While it's true that a large portion of the African continent had no contact with Europe until around the 1600s. It's untrue to act like whites and blacks haven't been interacting since the Nubian and Egyptian empires were in place. In fact, much of the reason the Greek and Roman empires came to be was because of their dealings with Egyptians. You can make an argument that the Greeks never would have flourished the way they did if the Egyptians saw and treated them the same way modern whites look at nonwhites.The Lonious Monk wrote: »
The moors conquered the land. those native europeans who broke moorish laws in the conquered places were punished this alone dispels any notion that blacks are somehow morally superior when we are in charge. our experiences differ but like I told you blacks have an inferiority complex that protects whites and urges blacks to accept them. so our so called morality is compromised because of that.
Imposing and enforcing laws is not an inherently immoral action. Imposing those laws and then enforcing them unfairly based on who is breaking them would be immoral and there is no evidence that was done in Europe.
it is when you are imposing laws on a people and land that is not yours the moors took the land and kept it for centuries by warfare.
No land is anyone's though, especially during that time. You're talking about when Europe was in the Dark Ages and everyone was fighting everyone for control. It wasn't one group of people had settled in these spots and been there for hundreds of years like the Native Americans. There was constant fluxh in Europe between a number of groups. If anything, the Moors stabilized the lands they took over. Most of their fighting during that time was not against the people they controlled but against outsiders attempting to invade. Just ask yourself, which European countries came out of the Dark Ages the strongest. Initially, it was Italy (because of their maintained relations with the Muslim Ottoman Empire) and Spain and Portugal (both of which were largely controlled by Muslims for hundreds of years).
when the moors took control of spain the people ruling it were doing so for a very long time already the people were settled and had been there for centuries. the people who invaded were the moors they tried to take all the way up to france. the moors were outsiders on the european continent with a different culture and religion of course the europeans are going to try and retake land that was theirs for centuries . the geographically positions of spain and Portugal are responsible for their ascendancy, being on the coast of europe made it easier for them to colonize the new world.
the ancient egyptians considered the greeks inferior and most likely treated them that way
Different tribes had been fighting over the Iberian peninsula since the fall of the Roman Empire. I mean you could group them together and say they were all European or something like that, but at the time there wasn't really a concept of Europe. If you go back through history, most of Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East just went back and forth between being conquered by different empires. The Moorish invasion of Spain and Portugal was no different. The key point is that when they conquered the area, they let those people keep their culture, brought knowledge, and defended them from the other threats that were prevalent during the European Dark Ages. Due to the Moorish influence Spain came out of that period as one of the strongest powers in Europe.
The Egyptians thought themselves superior to all non-Egyptians. They were elitists when it came to their culture. However, there is nothing that suggests they treated the Greeks or any other non-Egyptians as subhuman savages the way Europeans have treated every other group on the planet. If they did, all of the great Greek philosophers wouldn't have run down to Egypt to study.
you actually believe this don't you??? the visigoths had control of spain for 3oo years before the moors came so there might not have been a concept of Europe but there was one Christendom. You are splitting hairs the fact remains that the moors invaded killed people and forced their ways of life on them. the knowledge the moors bring into spain was for their benefit not for the Europeans.
under your logic: whites brought knowledge into Africa and stoped the tribal fighting does that mean that white colonization of Africa was good??? and the moors did force conversion to islam eventually their rule lasted about 800 years so there were good times and there were bad.
listen this is going nowhere you can continue to live in fantasy land but the reality is that black people are no more morally superior to anybody we simply for most of our history have not been able to conquer/rule as much people.
greeks were basically visitors traders and students in Egypt the Egyptians never ruled the greeks directly like that
