At what point can the NAACP be disbanded?

Post Reply New Topic

The Romans very rarely shared power with their subjects. As I recall it was quite a feat to get citizenship if you weren't born with it.

The African and Asian territories of the Roman Empire were "whiter" as well until they were overrun by Islam in the 7th century. ^

The Population in Asia Minor before the arrival of the Seljuk Turks was mostly Greek and Celt. The Carthaginians were mostly ex-Phoenecian colonists(not that the Carthaginians were ever allowed to participate much in republican/imperial policy.) It took the Romans several hundred years before they even considered giving citizenship to other Italians, and even that happened only because of desperate manpower needs during the 2nd punic war. It was not until very very late in the Imperial history when the possibility of citizenship became universal, even to other "whites" like the Gauls. Even a non-Roman/non-citizen had to serve 25 years in the Auxillaries before he could even retire as a citizen.

They were certainly very selective........ Not at all like today where you can get citizenship by filling out a few forms (sigh.)

Not jealous at all. Not at all bothered about 'your' club. It is just that once people start getting selective there is no telling where they will stop.



I have claimed about 6 weeks dole and no other kind of benefit in 30 years. I have been paying full tax and national insurance in all the rest of that time and at a higher rate for much of it. So how much have you contributed to the nation?

I care because where people like to maintain a staunchly "us and them" stance things usually get nasty eventually.



So where are you going to dude? Some separatist homeland? I guess that if you could afford to live somewhere 'nicer' you wouldn't have to moan so much about the Blacks, Hispanics and immigrants.

How much do gated communities cost these days?

hmm. i had you pegged as a big edgar allen poe fan.

Should I just delete that sentence? You are having trouble letting go of it and moving on, judging by the number of times you've responded to it and the interval of time in-between. I didn't mean to strike that big a chord with you. I do like to provoke a little thought, but I'm not in top debate form due to things going on in real life, and if that one sentence is too sticky, I'd rather it be gone.

Ah, the inconsistency in your argument. It would be just fine to let the white guys go their own way, but that isn't what you are suggesting. Want to find a deserted island with no national affinity and turn it into an all-white enclave? Or create a private club with no government ties of any sort? No one will stop you. But that isn't what you are suggesting. You want to take a nation and all the evolution of laws that has come with building that nation and change the reality of what it is and is evolving into to suit your vision. Quite a different thing.

Well, I don't know if that is the case or if we just have different levels or types of interaction with the populations that do exist. I don't know if I would have written the above if I hadn't been forced to get to know so many families simply because our kids attend school together. White, young, single moms with kids out of wedlock that I know personally: 2. Both from affluent backgrounds. Hispanic: ZERO. Far from conclusive, I know that, but interesting none-the-less.

The Hispanic families at our school really blow me away. What some of them have been through, and what some of them are going through ... and, yet, they don't whine, they don't say "why me." They show up at school with smiles on their faces and are grateful for the opportunities they see ahead for their kids. They work as many jobs as people will hand them. Their kids may have to do their homework in an office building after dinner while mom cleans it, but the kids don't complain. Our school attendance area straddles one of the wealthiest areas in the city, a good amount of in-between, and the poorest area in the county. Putting all those families together in one school is educational in a way I never anticipated.

Last edited by DW_a_mom on 15 Oct 2010, 1:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

i doubt he has trouble seeing the difference between what you said and his purposeful reinterpretation.

One thing I don't understand with racial segregationists is whether the need for separation/preservation is based more on genetics/appearances or cultural differences. I would guess that it's usually the latter, but the two are always artificially congealed into one in the minds of racial segregationists. I don't think it's rational to assume that cultures are static and that clashes which exist in the present will never mend.

I'd really like to see this point addressed.

Is it really a problem if it is based on "appearances" or aesthetic qualities?

(I'll respond to the rest later but I have to head to work.)

^ not really, I just feel/felt it important to reinforce the fact that I'm not concerned and will not be cowed by the "racist" label. Besides that, I'm not concerned in the least of how multiculturalists perceive me or wether or not they wish to accept me into "diversity." Such labeling of "racist" and expecting it to silence suggests that I would even have any interest in being accepted by the diversity-drones, which is frankly not the case. How they and you perceive me has no impact and is meaningless.

Not everyone who knows you're a racist and calls you a racist is a "multiculturalist" or particularly desirous of diversity. Some people happen to think that government sponsored "Multiculturalism." actually erodes tolerance and understanding, and enforced "Diversity" damages interracial communication and understanding. However, they can also see people for what they are, regardless of race or colour, and they can see you for what you are too.

Winning the race (ist) topic

If a person has racist views, why is the person be ashamed of admitting to being a racist?

Surely a person who has liberal views is not worried about being a liberal. Besides, the liberal can add other qualities and charateristics to broaden the definition. What I am saying is that admitting to being such and such is a label, but one is not condemned forever to be that label or person unless, of course, one is content. I do not mind being a liberal, a feminist. To me these are good labels, no matter what some folks say. Being a racist is good? No, but admitting to it and understanding the responsibilities of such a label might make you want to think twice about continuing on with it. (However, I am content with many of my labels: Radical Aspergian, feminist, liberal, leftist, and also somewhat of a libertarian individualist in many of my choices; also, atheist.) Eclectic? This is me and my world.

Be comfortable with what you believe, the responsibility is yours, and if not, change.

I'm not going to change my views because of whimsical shifts in public opinion.

As well I would not change to avoid the anti-racist zealot inquisition.

If the diversity lovers choose not to accept me into their paradigm, than I am not really bothered. If they make alot of noise at me throwing out the latest propaganda bleats, it will hardly have any impact. I don't care a lick to be accepted into their social sphere and embrace elements of diversy-culture.



I see nothing wrong with Freedom of Association as a fundamental right.

If blacks wanted to start "blacks only" clubs i would be absolutely fine with this.



Fine, as long as no one forces me to be diverse, I guess.

Am I not allowed to desire such changes as you suggest above to the national paradigm? I see nothing especially wrong with having the desire to change the political structure to "suit my vision." Can I not desire reactionary changes?

Racists should have the freedom to enlighten the world about their stupidity by talking out about their opinion to the world. Then they have to accept that they get rightfully scorned and questioned by others who dislike their racism.

The emperor is a bigot topic

Yes^^