White America is black: and so is white Britain

#2
#4
Pure garbage. :x I'm surprised the Times paid him for that POS. Obviously he's never met Pat Buchanan and he doesn't have a clue.
 
#5
"“The Scot, Pict, Briton, Roman, Dane, submit, / And with the English-Saxon all unite ... Fate jumbled them together, God knows how; / Whate’er they were, they’re true-born English now ... Since scarce one family is left alive, / Which does not from some foreigner derive.”

All these gropus are European, mostly Northern European who formed the English/British.

It's a bullshit argument. We've only had mass immigration from outside Europe since after 1945.
 
#6
Afrocentrist historical revionist bullsh1te…
 
#7
#8
IndianaDel said:
jagman said:
stacker1 said:
gobbyidiot said:
Brilliant piece by Andrew Sullivan on race. Okay, he's gay, he's liberal, but he's a good journalist, and on this he's right. Somebody email it to Nick Griffen :lol:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ne...cas/article6888786.ece#atuid-4ae44a7c29604223
Why would Nick Griffen or anybody else want to read crap like that?
I was wondering much the same. An no, I'm not Nick Griffin :D
So you are Sparticus?
No..... Nor am I King Arthur risen up to expel the invaders.
Joe Soap is more my ilk I'm afraid.
 
#10
jagman said:
Oil_Slick said:
Afrocentrist historical revionist bullsh1te…
Makes you wonder what the history books will say about early 21st century Britian in a hundred years or so doesn't it?
It'll say: Early in the 21st Century the UK became known as Britistan, the British aborigines, descended from Africans, had by the end of the 20th Century declined rapidly in numbers .......
 
#11
jagman said:
Oil_Slick said:
Afrocentrist historical revionist bullsh1te…
Makes you wonder what the history books will say about early 21st century Britian in a hundred years or so doesn't it?


My guess would be, it started well, but all went to a bag of rat shite, and then was lost to the PC HR movement.

God bless her and all who sailed on her blah blah blah.
 
#12
jagman said:
stacker1 said:
gobbyidiot said:
Brilliant piece by Andrew Sullivan on race. Okay, he's gay, he's liberal, but he's a good journalist, and on this he's right. Somebody email it to Nick Griffen :lol:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ne...cas/article6888786.ece#atuid-4ae44a7c29604223
Why would Nick Griffen or anybody else want to read crap like that?
I was wondering much the same. An no, I'm not Nick Griffin :D
Yup, agree also...seems he's forgotten the 'good 'ol' boys' with deeply tanned necks..
 
#13
Ruckerwocman said:
Pure garbage. :x I'm surprised the Times paid him for that POS. Obviously he's never met Pat Buchanan and he doesn't have a clue.
I haven't met Pat Buchanan either, but I don't have to know him to think he's a d!ck. He's certainly put enough of his opinions out in the public forum for people to form their own ideas.

I also happen to think he's right - about America, anyway. It's very convenient that some Americans take the sixty or so years of segregated suburbia that we artificially created and remember that as the "real" America. But I don't think the situation is really comparable to Britain.
 
#14
jagman said:
Oil_Slick said:
Afrocentrist historical revionist bullsh1te…
Makes you wonder what the history books will say about early 21st century Britian in a hundred years or so doesn't it?

"In the last years if the 20th Century, the Liebour party led by Saint Tony of B'Liar were finally able to right the egregious wrong inflicted on the non nordic world by Margaret Thatcher and the Conservatives and once more allowed all the excluded blacks, whites, pinks, browns, yellows and all the other excluded true denizens of Britain to once more return to their ancestoral home…"
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#15
Oil_Slick said:
Afrocentrist historical revionist bullsh1te…
Not necessarily:

In 1720s S.Carolina 65% of the population were Black Slaves

From a few calculations based on the census from 1790-1820 for the total US we can the African American Population was always a significant segment of the population, mostly in the South:

1790:- Total: 3,929,214
Slave: 697,681
%Pop: 17.75
1800:- Total: 5,308,483
Slave: 893,602
%Pop: 16.83
1810:- Total: 7,239,881
Slave:1,191,362
%Pop: 16.46
1820:- Total: 9,638,453
Slave: 1,538,022
%Pop: 15.95

Thanks to Tindall & Shi & the following two websites:

http://www.library.yale.edu/thecity.../population_by_sex_and_race_USA_1790_1970.pdf

http://manyeyes.alphaworks.ibm.com/manyeyes/visualizations/slave-population-of-us-states-and-te
 
#16
rampant said:
Oil_Slick said:
Afrocentrist historical revionist bullsh1te…
Not necessarily:

In 1720s S.Carolina 65% of the population were Black Slaves

From a few calculations based on the census from 1790-1820 for the total US we can the African American Population was always a significant segment of the population, mostly in the South:

1790:- Total: 3,929,214
Slave: 697,681
%Pop: 17.75
1800:- Total: 5,308,483
Slave: 893,602
%Pop: 16.83
1810:- Total: 7,239,881
Slave:1,191,362
%Pop: 16.46
1820:- Total: 9,638,453
Slave: 1,538,022
%Pop: 15.95

Thanks to Tindall & Shi & the following two websites:

http://www.library.yale.edu/thecity.../population_by_sex_and_race_USA_1790_1970.pdf

http://manyeyes.alphaworks.ibm.com/manyeyes/visualizations/slave-population-of-us-states-and-te



And what has that got to do with Britain precisely?
Or are you trying to imply that Blacks were the predominant race in Britain in the 1720's?
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#17
Oil_Slick said:
And what has that got to do with Britain precisely?
Or are you trying to imply that Blacks were the predominant race in Britain in the 1720's?
More to do with your comment about revisionism, having read the article this morning I didn't take away the idea he was suggesting that Britain was Black, rather that he was making a correlation between narrow ethnic perceptions in the US and the UK, that those saying that America was always a white country were guilty of narrow thinking just as Griffin was spouting his indigenous Britons waffle, both nations have a multiplicity ethnic origins in their make up. To narrow it down to one or two is historical ignorance.
 
#19
rampant said:
Oil_Slick said:
And what has that got to do with Britain precisely?
Or are you trying to imply that Blacks were the predominant race in Britain in the 1720's?
More to do with your comment about revisionism, having read the article this morning I didn't take away the idea he was suggesting that Britain was Black, rather that he was making a correlation between narrow ethnic perceptions in the US and the UK, that those saying that America was always a white country were guilty of narrow thinking just as Griffin was spouting his indigenous Britons waffle, both nations have a multiplicity ethnic origins in their make up. To narrow it down to one or two is historical ignorance.

Oh do tell, what Black tribes were those that the Romans encountered when they came ashore in Britain in 43AD?
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#20
Oil_Slick said:
Oh do tell, what Black tribes were those that the Romans encountered when they came ashore in Britain in 43AD?
None, did you actually read his article?

He is saying that African Americans have always been a significant part of the American historical landscape, to say otherwise is foolishness.

He compares this to Griffin's view of exclusivity based on the indigeous theory.

He is not saying Britain is Black, he is saying that it is made up of several ethnicities, that to ignore that is similar historical foolishness.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
KGB_resident Multinational HQ 23
A The NAAFI Bar 41
A Gunners 91

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top