Alabama
Most White Nationalists hate college football and professional sports. This is understandable when niggers like LeBron James are paid millions of dollars to dribble a ball.
Personally, I happen to think sports is an excellent way to introduce ordinary people to race realism. We saw this last year when the Cam Newton fairy tale exploded into a pay-for-play scandal that roiled the sports world and led to an official FBI investigation.
Even though Cecil Newton was found guilty of attempting to auction his son like a slave to Mississippi State, “Supercam” later won the Heisman Trophy, the BCS National Championship, took the money and ran away to the NFL draft before the smoke cleared on the Plains.
Less than two weeks ago, Auburn Athletics was embarrassed yet again when four players were kicked off the football team after being arrested and charged with robbery, burglary, and theft. They can now be found reciting the Auburn Creed at the Lee County Detention Center in Opelika.
Three niggers and a whigger driver broke into a house three miles from campus and robbed the owner (probably an Auburn fan) with a handgun. Among those arrested, Mike McNeil led the Auburn defense with 14 tackles in the BCS title game against Oregon.
If that were not bad enough, the news broke this afternoon that four other Auburn players from the Tommy Tuberville era are claiming in an interview with “HBO Real Sports” that they were paid thousands of dollars to play football at Auburn:
“Loyalty is the key,” Gray told “Real Sports.” “I believe in that a whole lot. This man give me money. I’m going to be loyal to him and go up to Auburn.”
Stanley McClover claims that he received sexual favors from women at Ohio State as well as money from boosters at Auburn, LSU, and Michigan State in exchange for his services:
McClover: “They send girls my way. I partied. When I got there I met up with a couple guys from the team. We went to a party and they asked me to pick any girl I wanted.”
Kremer: “Did she offer sexual services?“
McClover: “Yes.”
Kremer: “Did you take them?”
McClover: “Yes.”
I remember seeing this nigger on campus. We were both at Auburn at the same time.
The moral of the story: niggers corrupt everything they touch, whether it be a mayor’s office, a police department, or a football team. This is why African-Americans were excluded from Auburn in the first place.
Auburn was better off when the likes of Stanley McClover, Mike McNeil, and their fellow “diversity” went to college down the road at Tuskegee. Just putting this out there. Someone had to say it.
Hunter,
You really are great at debating. You always remain composed, focused, and informative. I agree with Lockeford, these debates are great. But I also miss Annie Oakley (her diversity essays) and others whose names escape me.
I’ve seen it all over the years.
Hunter,
I have been extremely busy recently. I will respond tonight.
Brutus,
I disagree, almost entirely, with your recent post, but well said. Somehow you caused me to nod in agreement while reading certain portions of it. I will respond later tonight.
Hunter,
(1) I have no problem with segregation if the public facilities of each group are of equal quality, equal opportunity subsists for both races, and one race does not receive preferential treatment from the federal, state, local governments, legal systems, law enforcement agencies etc. Succinctly, an accurate ‘separate but equal’ society. This doctrine has to be factual if I am going to support segregation. Jim Crow segregation was not ‘separate but equal’, in my opinion.
(2) Jim Crow segregation, in my opinion, subdued, subjugated, and discriminated against blacks. That is why I, personally, judge Jim Crow segregation to be immoral. However, if whites could create a segregated society that afforded blacks equal services and opportunity then I would not be opposed to its creation.
(3)I believe the US Constitution is the backbone of the most democratic and free nation in the world. (Just to clarify there was some confusion on this point last time. Democratic simply means favoring or characterized by social equality, of, relating to, or supporting democracy or its principles, i.e., democratic reforms. Democracy is a form of government by the whole population or all eligible members of a state. I am not saying we are a democracy, but the US is democratic.) The Constitution is essential for the US to remain a reasonably democratic and free country. Check the Bill of Rights.
(4) The US citizenry has never created laws in this country. The citizenry elects a representative by popular vote that, in theory, represents their views. This elected official then collaborates with other elected officials in an attempt to formulate bill/s. These bills must then be voted on and passed by a majority in both houses of Congress. The bill then finds its way to the President who has the power to veto the bill or sign it. There by, either sending the bill back to Congress for possible restructuring and a re-vote, that needs two-thirds majority in both houses, or making it law. At no juncture, are the citizens making laws. Yes, the US citizenry should be consulted and involved in the lawmaking process, but we are not nor have we ever been lawmakers. Unfortunately, politicians manufacture the laws of this nation.
(5)Yes, every restaurant and school in America practices integration. Yes, you can sell your house to who you want. Yes, you can hire who you want. However, you cannot unmistakably discriminate against blacks. Yes, the burden of proof is upon you to prove you are not being discriminatory against blacks. The point of not being inequitable against blacks was and is an attempt to form an equal, unbiased American society. Not the other way around as you suggest. Prior to 1965, blacks in America did not live in a free society. (Check my previous posts for evidence.)
The point of civil rights law was to create social, legal, political, educational, and governmental equality for all races. They were not created to seize freedom away from white people. On the contrary, they were created to offer freedom to all US citizens.
(6)Blacks have the same rights you do. No more, no less.
(7) Yes, federal bureaucrats do have too much influence on governmental policy.
(8) The Compromise of 1877 assured whites political autonomy and non-intervention in matters of race policy. The North acquiesced on race because they wanted to procure Southern resources. It was an age of coal and power, and the South had both. So, they allowed the South to pursue whatever racial policy they desired. By 1900, all southern states had laws of segregation of blacks. In effect, blacks had become a labor class for southern and northern whites. While the Compromise of 1877 and the 1883 Supreme Court decision, that nullified the Civil Rights Act of 1875, had not officially created segregation all that remained was making it state law. So, to suggest an entire generation of Southerners had been raised in a society and culture of practical integration is incorrect.
(10) Charles Francis Adams was not an abolitionist. He was a Unionist, but he had no inclination to halt the practice of slavery. He was born in Boston, was a Harvard graduate, and the ambassador to Britain during Lincoln’s presidency. It is no wonder he was a Unionist, but he was not an abolitionist.
(11) My mistake Louisiana did have a black governor during Reconstruction. However, blacks never dominated or controlled political events during Reconstruction. For example, blacks were a majority in only two out of ten state constitutional writing conventions (transplanted northerners were a majority in one). In the state legislatures, only in the lower house in South Carolina did blacks ever constitute a majority. Sixteen blacks won seats in Congress before Reconstruction was over, only one was elected governor. Only eighteen served in a high state office, such as lieutenant governor, treasurer, superintendent of education, or secretary of state. In all, some four hundred blacks served in political office during the Reconstruction era. Not what one would call a dominant political force?
(12)White southerners opposed Reconstruction because blacks were no longer slaves. They would have opposed any point that freed blacks. Hell, southern whites desire to continue the practice of slavery was the basis for their secession. Btw please do not tell me secession was about states’ rights.
(13)Well most northerners, carpetbaggers, who settled in the South during Reconstruction were seeking business opportunities and never entered politics. Most southerners with Republican sympathies, scalawags, were farmers, mountain men, or from nonslaveholding districts. They were seeking education and better opportunities. However, a number of wealthy Southerners cooperated with Republicans, but they did not support racial equality. Of course it took the South over a hundred years to recover from the Civil War. The North destroyed Southern infrastructure, decimated the white male population of the South, and the Confederacy was bankrupt. Confederate paper money was useless. Prior to the Civil War, the South was a slaveholding, agrarian society, whose main export was cotton. Southern cotton after the Civil War became basically irrelevant. Firstly, the slaves were freed. No more cheap labor force. Secondly, and most importantly, was Britain, being the main importer of Southern cotton, began to acquire cheaper cotton or cotton substitutes from India and Egypt. The South was obligated to industrialize. King Cotton was dead. The South had to start from scratch and industrialization was a lengthy process.
(14) The South had Andrew Johnson. He vetoed almost every bill that assisted blacks and allowed states to rejoin the Union without guaranteeing equal rights to blacks. Military tyranny? Does this sound like a tyranny? In early 1865, Sherman issued “Special Field Order No. 15,” designating the entire southern coastline of Georgia thirty miles inland for exclusive black settlement. By June 1865, forty thousand blacks resided there, but in August of 1865 President Johnson restored this land to Confederate owners and the blacks were forced off. Military tyranny? I think not.
(15)True.
(16)No, because the facilities are of equal quality.
(17)Intelligence, just like height, is unpredictable. If the IQ test scores are used to justify the intellectual superiority of whites, then a poor black man has no reason to be intelligent, but some poor blacks are intelligent. If intelligence is hereditary than why are all whites not more intelligent than all blacks?
(18) I agree our children will more than likely inherit our problems, but blacks are not the only people to blame for this occurrence.
(19) I never said President Obama was a success or a failure. I am glad he is President because I deem that a triumph for racial equality. Btw President Obama inherited a housing problem, an increasing national debt, and growing unemployment. We are not at war in Libya.
(20) I agree little has changed under Obama.
(21) Yes, whites can use the N word as a term of endearment, but I doubt blacks will receive the word in that manner. That being said any US citizen should be able to utilize and employ any word in the English language. If you want to use the N word then use it. I, personally, choose not to use the N word.
(22)I never said I was ashamed of the Renaissance or the Enlightenment. On the contrary, I believe both movements are a tribute to the ingenuity and intellectual capabilities of the human species. Lil’ Wayne adds cultural value, but I do not, necessarily, believe it will be a significant cultural contribution comparable to Da Vinci’s “Mona Lisa.”
(23) No it does not.
(24) Black women are usually the victims of violent crime. Sadly, even in impoverished areas it is a man’s world like it or not. Obviously, black elderly people are less prone to violent crime because they are elderly.
(25) I think the test scores prove the government has not done enough. Whites and Asians are, generally, more well off than blacks, hence the disparity in test scores.
(26) Human domestication of animals and resistance to antibiotics validate the theory of evolution, but these evolutionary events do not confirm that the human species can evolve at a pace beyond natural allowance or evolve so rapidly, as to alter the human species in a matter of years or thousands of years. Evolutionary and biological evidence suggests that human evolution is a process that requires vast lengths of time for obvious (naked eye) variations in species to occur. The animal breeding of different subspecies within a species creates hybrids. Hybrid breeding within the same genus, within the same genera, and within the same family all creates various versions of different hybrids. This type of breeding cannot always occur. Humanity’s closest living relative is the chimpanzee. Humans and chimps cannot reproduce offspring. If your implication was that humans could breed their way to a new species, well think again.
(27) The necessary resources and support required for driving out non-whites from the South is too tremendous for realistic consideration.
(28)No.
(29) The quest for equality is showcased and highlighted by some of the greatest cultural achievements in the history of mankind. I know far too little about Japanese culture to formulate a credible argument.
(30)Southern secession is not probable or plausible because it necessitates vast amounts of financial, material, and human resources. It would also require popular support. Nuclear blackmail? You are not serious.
(31)I was calling the early American settlers actions against the Native Americans genocide.
(32) Yes, I intend to live in the US. Yes, I am calling their actions immoral. Yes, I intend to promote race relations. I believe race relations strengthen society, but you believe race relations destroy society. Agree to disagree.
(33)Yes, Americans were forbidden from settling on Creek lands by existing treaties. However, the treaties were not sufficient for halting American settlement of Creek lands. The treaties were irrelevant. The reason for the Lower Creeks allying themselves with Jackson is the Red Sticks believed the Lower Creeks to be assimilating to the white way of life. The Red Sticks despised them for their assumed assimilation. The Lower Creeks despised the Red Sticks for accusing them of assimilation. The Lower Creeks even executed an Upper Creek for violent actions against white settlers. No wonder the Lower Creeks allied themselves against the Red Sticks. Despite their alliance, the Lower Creeks, allies of Jackson, eventually lost their land because of American expansion.
(34) False. Jamestown was located inside of the Indian confederacy. Powhatan, chief of the Indian confederacy, watched the English settle on his land, but did not attack. In the winter of 1610 the English were in dire need of food, some settlers fled and joined the Indians so they could at least be fed. After the winter, the governor of the colony sent a message to Powhatan that he returns the runaways. Powhatan’s reply, “No.” English soldiers were sent to “punish Powhatan.” The English soldiers killed 15 or 16 Indians, burned the village, cut down the corn, took the queen of the tribe and her children into boats, then threw the children overboard and shot them to death. The queen was stabbed to death.
Twelve years later, the English settlement was increasing in number and the Indians attempted a pre-emptive strike to exterminate the settlers. Can you blame them? The English resorted to violence before the Indians. One could even argue that the only reason the Indians resorted to violence at all was because the English were hostile toward them.
(35) The Indians did commit atrocities, act violently, and oppose English and American expansion, but the English and American atrocities were initiatory and far more extensive. Also, let us not forget who the invader was-the English and the Americans. You talk of defending your “homeland.” Well, the Indians were defending their hunting, agricultural, and spiritually sacred homeland.
Before I get blasted in the comments (again) for siding with the Indians over the Americans. Let me clarify, I do not believe early Americans were intrinsically evil, but to overlook and dismiss their actions, in my opinion, detracts from the historical portrait of the Americas.
Persto,
(1) The anti-racists won that argument. They got their way.
We started integrating the public schools over fifty years ago. Actually, the public schools in the North were integrated long before the Brown decision, so integration has been around in the United States in some form or another for almost a century now, and in some places like Oberlin College in Ohio far longer than that.
As it turned out, the “integrated public facilities” are no more “equal” than their segregated counterparts were in the past. Blacks have consistently underperformed Whites for half a century now even when they sit in the same classrooms and are taught the same material by the same teachers.
Who could have ever predicted that?
The segregationists said all along that integration would fail because blacks are less intelligent and conscientious than Whites. They said that liberal fantasies of racial equality would crash on the shoals of reality.
The segregationists predicted that integrating the public schools would expose White children to an underclass culture which would import all their social problems into the White community. The liberals said that the racial gap would disappear and that blacks would become indistinguishable from Whites.
I suppose it is a small comfort to the segregationists to have been vindicated by history. Everything that the segregationists said would happen has come true. The liberals who blamed the racial gap on segregation were utterly discredited.
Blacks and Whites will never have public institutions of equal quality because of the existence of intractable racial differences between the races. Even when you integrate White institutions, those differences still persist, and you can claim that integrated public schools are “equal,” but within those schools “equality” is nothing more than a myth.
Here’s a thought: instead of running our public school system on the basis of “equality,” we ought to build superior schools for Whites and give them a superior education, without including underclass blacks which only lower the quality of public education.
(2) Jim Crow segregation was a means to an end: White control over their own institutions and public places in a multiracial context. Whites took for granted that they lived in a free society. They also took for granted that they existed for their own sake.
In a free country, Whites should be able to build their own institutions and do whatever they want with them. If blacks are unable for biological reasons to build institutions of comparable quality, then they should take the matter up with God.
Whites are under no moral obligation to uplift blacks. If you believe that Whites exist to serve blacks, as White liberals do, which they call “social justice,” then and only then is excluding blacks from White public places some kind of moral failing.
Why are liberals unwilling to apply their own logic to the private sphere? Why stop at the public school?
If blacks are “subdued, subjugated, and discriminated” against by their exclusion from a public school attended by working class White kids, what do you call their exclusion from the lily White gated communities in the suburbs that White liberals live in on the basis of income?
Shouldn’t blacks have an equal opportunity to live in your house? Isn’t it a moral failing to call the police when a you discover a burglary is in progress? Isn’t it an act of “discrimination” to decide who is welcome in your own household?
There is no real moral justification for the idea that Whites exist to serve blacks. It is simply a self serving argument used by blacks and White liberals to rationalize their exercise of political power against Whites.
Persto, before I begin, what are you going to say when it is demonstrated that you are nowhere near accurate in what you apparently believe to be a solid command of facts you set forth in over 30 different subjects above? In other words, what are you going to do if you see you are in serious error and just as I stated in my previous post, i.e, you do not have adequate knowledge of the subjects you discuss, only short “sound bite” type talking points not supported by reality?
Without scrolling up, copying and pasting direct quotes, I am going to pick out just two for an introductory point of departure, and then ask you another question about a third point.
You asserted the black women were usually the victims of violent crime. But the Department of Justice crime statistics shows this to be inaccurate. I have discussed before the fact that white women are raped at a rate of 30,000 plus per year by black men while fewer than ten black women are raped by white men. The statistics also show the total number of black women rape victims. Ditto all other categories of violent crime. I will quote myself below.
************
Here is the U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Victimization in the United States 2006 Statistical Tables:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus0602.pdf
You go to page 30 of 38. There, under type of crime and race of victim, you will see:
Rape/Sexual Assault
White only
Black only
Directly to the right, you will see Number of single offender victimizations.
Rape/Sexual Assault
White only—————-*194,270
Black only—————–*17,920
This is the number of rapes/sexual assaults. 194,270 white women and 17,920 black women.
Directly to the right again, you will see the Percent of single-offender victimizations perceived race of offender.
————–*White———-*Black
Whites only—-*50.6———–*16.7
Blacks only—–*0.0———–*43.0
So, we have:
Rape/Sexual Assault———total———-*White——-*Black
White only—————–*194,270——–*50.6——–*16.7
Black only——————*17,920———*0.0——–*43.0
(Sorry for the dashes, but the numbers all go together otherwise.)
Let us now get our calculators out. We have 194,270 white women raped in 2006. We see that 50.6 percent of the rapist(criminal offenders) were white men. Multiplying 194,270 by 50.6 percent, or 0.506, we get 98,300.62 white women raped by white men. Now, we repeat this for black offenders. Again, we multiply 194,270 by 16.7 percent and we get a figure of 32,443.09 white women raped by black men. (My original figure of 37,000 was from 2005, and I understand the 2007 statistics are near 37,000 as well. But you will forgive me if I was approximately 5,000 over for this 2006 report.)
Now, lets us do the same for how many black women were raped by white men. We see that 17,920 black women were raped, but 0.0 percent by white men, this means the number was less than 10. We see that 43.0 percent were raped by black men.
You can do the same with all available categories of crimes and years.
I shall now present the entire rape/sexual assault statistic:
Rape/Sexual assault/a——-Total———-White—Black—-Other—–N/A
White only 194,270———-100.0%———50.6—-16.7*—-15.5*—–17.2*
Black only 17,920*———-100.0%*———0.0*—43.0*—-32.3*—- 24.7*
Whites raped by White men. 194,270(0.506) = 98,300.62
—————-Black men 194,270(0.167) = 32,443.09
—————-Other——194,270(0.155) = 30,111.85
—————-N/A——–194,270(0.172) = 33,414.44
Total——-98,300.62
————32,443.09
————30,111.85
————33,414.44
Sum Total–194,270
Blacks raped by White men. 17,920(00.000) = 0
————-by Black men. 17,920(00.430) = 7,705.6
————-by Other men. 17,920(00.323) = 5,788.16
————-by —N/A.—-17,920(00.247) = 4,426.24
Total———–0.0
————7,705.6
————5,788.16
————4,426.24
Sum Total–17,920.0
******************
This is taken from the year 2006, but all years previous and following are similar. I also take the reader “by the hand,” so to speak and explain, thus one can then go on to investigate murder, robbery, etc.
You made an assertion about both the North and South wanting blacks for labor. How do you reconcile this assertion with, for example, Davis-Bacon legislation that was brought about in the 1930s?
I want to ask you about your state of mind concerning race relations. And this brings us to THE divide. You obviously take it as an axiom that race relations = getting along well. Indeed, it very much appears that you and other like minded whites are not interested in how this is actually working out, but rather are fixated on only the theory. We others are busy pointing out that non whites do not want to get along and that observation of our society over the last several decades is the best indicator of our accuracy, and not theory. In other words, you keep talking about how the theory states things are to be, while we keep pointing to what is actually happening. So suppose that it is an elaborate fallacy that a society can be composed of multiple races and cultures and remain sound and the population “get along.” Suppose the idea is a chimera, as observation is bearing out.
(3) The U.S. Constitution is a profoundly undemocratic document which was consciously designed by the Founders to thwart public opinion in all sorts of ingenious ways. The very term “democracy” was used as a pejorative until well into the nineteenth century.
The Founding Fathers created a republic for their posterity. That is why they restricted U.S. citizenship to Whites in the First Congress and counted Indians separately in the Census.
The connection between race and citizenship was reaffirmed on at least a dozen other occasions over the next fifty years before it was finally settled in the Dred Scott decision.
The term “social equality” was identified with communism and was widely seen in a negative light in the United States until the 1960s and 1970s. American politicians regularly accused their opponents of promoting “social equality” as a way of attacking them.
Abraham Lincoln, for example, went to great lengths in his debates with Stephen Douglas to deny the charge that he believed in social equality.
In any case, none of this really matters. We do not live in a free society anymore. The political class in America is no longer restrained by the Constitution and generally does whatever it wants.
The Constitution is a dead letter. The most recent proof of this is Barack Obama unilaterally starting a war with Libya on the basis of U.N. approval.
Brutus,
(1) I am conveying a different perspective in this forum. I have yet to notice, in this forum, a comment in support or in concurrence of my perspective.
(2) I am educated, but I am not an intellectual genius or beyond the intrinsic desire for acquisition of knowledge. Francis Bacon stated, “Knowledge is power.” I concur that I should attempt to strive more for that Socratic method of knowledge. “I am the wisest man in Athens because I know how little I know.” I have to be willingly to admit my mistakes and falsities. I find that problematic. My apologies.
(3) Do you know Indians? Do you know the South? Do you know crime? Do you know blacks? Just because we portray conflicting conclusions on those matters does not indicate my conclusions are false. For instance, evolution is true regardless of our personal beliefs on the matter.
(4) Idle white thinker? You would choose a mathematician not a physicist. Firstly, physicists are essentially synonymous with mathematicians. Secondly, physicists are, historically and currently, among the smartest and most accomplished individuals in the world. They are and were at the forefront of cosmic, chemical, and intellectual discovery. Newton, Einstein, Hawking, Galileo, Maxwell, Boltzmann, Rutherford, Dirac, Tyson, Schroedinger, Kaku etc. All of these men are physicists.
The man I know is a black astrophysicist. Satisfied.
(5) I responded to all pertinent information.
(6) Now, Brutus I understand I invited you to insult me with my inquiry. However, you do not know me, you have never met me, and you will never meet me. Please, refrain from posting ad hominem attacks because I do not concur with your viewpoint. I would prefer you not respond to my comments to Hunter, if you are not endeavoring to contribute information of value to the discourse. Hunter and I disagree on almost every facet of human life, if not all, and he has not attacked my personal character. So, it can be done.
“For vast is the domain for the use of words.”
Referring to the crime statistics, one should note that Diversity increases the crime rate by approximately a factor of two after examining all other categories of crime that are similar or even more pronounced than the rape statistics. ( Refer to Black, “Other” and “N/A” )
Whites raped by White men. 194,270(0.506) = 98,300.62
—————-Black men 194,270(0.167) = 32,443.09
—————-Other——194,270(0.155) = 30,111.85
—————-N/A——–194,270(0.172) = 33,414.44
Blacks raped by White men. 17,920(00.000) = 0
————-by Black men. 17,920(00.430) = 7,705.6
————-by Other men. 17,920(00.323) = 5,788.16
————-by —N/A.—-17,920(00.247) = 4,426.24
(4) U.S. citizens directly vote on ballot propositions all the time in this country. Case in point, Prop 187 (the crackdown on illegal immigration) or Prop 8 (which banned gay marriage) in California, which federal courts threw out on both occasions.
In theory, these “representatives” are supposed to represent the will of the people. They are hired to translate public opinion into legislation. That is why we hold elections. The justification for this is that ordinary people don’t have the time to run the government themselves.
Whether these “representatives” actually do their jobs once they are elected to office is a hotly disputed topic in the country. As it happens, the polls show that a majority of White Americans do not believe their “representatives” are “representing” them at all.
Most White Americans would agree that their “representatives” are usually millionaires (or in the case of Michael Bloomberg, a billionaire) who cater to the organized special interest groups and their armies of lobbyists which constitute the political class.
If the polls are accurate, the legitimacy of the U.S. federal government (i.e., the belief that the people rule, the belief that the government serves the people) has declined to its lowest point since the War Between the States. Over half of Americans consider the federal government a “direct and immediate threat” to their freedom.
What that means is that the White majority in America is growing ever more alienated from Washington. That process is already well advanced and well accelerate as Whites are pushed into minority status.
Barack Obama has the support of about 35 percent of White America.
Persto, you are attacking white people, their country, their civilization, their culture, their history, their ancestors, their families, etc. This is a very serious matter and by being carried on by a great multitude of white people of a mentality just as yours has resulted in a catastrophic situation. I am going to respond to this attack, and my response is not always going to be to your liking. I am not going to coddle you and mince words.
(5) As a matter of fact, in the contemporary United States you cannot hire who you want, sell your house to who you want, cater to who you want, or run your business how you want. In some places (like public universities), you cannot even say what you want anymore because of speech codes.
You have to run this all by unelected federal bureaucrats who now make all the important decisions that private citizens used to make until we wisely adopted “civil rights laws” in order to promote “equality.”
Now we live in Black Run America: America run as a philanthropic project for the benefit of black people.
An equal, unbiased society, you say? I’ve never seen this “unbiased” society. It looks to me like our society is utterly biased against Whites in countless ways (i.e., affirmative action, promoting diversity) and that the federal government promotes its vision of society at the expense of private citizens who no longer have the individual freedom to make their own decisions.
What do you call freedom? By that you obviously mean the “freedom” of blacks to eat a White restaurant or to attend a White school. Doesn’t that conflict with the “freedom” of the White property owner?
What you really have here are DUTIES imposed by the federal government upon Whites, who take away the freedom of Whites, in order to give blacks (this being Black Run America) PRIVILEGES under the law.
There are no “rights” here.
A “right” to do anything is a restriction upon the use of force. The “rights” of one person do not conflict with those of another. When the federal government uses force to give blacks special privileges, it is actually taking away individual rights from Whites.
I can see why the federal government waded into the race issue in the states. The whole “Civil Rights Movement” was used to justify a vast expansion of federal power at the expense of the states and private citizens.
Have you been to Washington lately? The DC suburbs are the richest place in America now.
Washington used to be a sleepy Southern border town. Now it is a sprawling metropolis with a booming economy. Several hundred thousand more people now live there.
All that government spending, lobbying, and expansion of the bureaucracy – itself a product of the growth of power of the federal government – has provided countless jobs for the rent seeking parasites who rule over us.
(6) This is untrue.
Under federal hate crimes legislation, there are protected classes of citizens which include blacks and other minorities. Homosexuals are now included after the James Byrd Memorial Act was passed last year.
When crimes are committed against members of the protected classes, they come with stiffer penalties. This is kind of like the feudal system we had in Medieval Europe when striking a peasant came with one penalty and assaulting a nobleman came with another.
Equality before the law? We threw that republican principle out the window a long time ago.
The federal government itself discriminates against Whites in all sorts of ways in order to promote blacks. This has been going on since the Kennedy administration.
Innocent until proven guilty? Not anymore.
Under disparate impact, the burden of proof is upon Whites to prove that they are not discriminating against blacks. Once again, we live in Black Run America where uplifting blacks has been written into the law, and individual freedom is against the law.
Judge people by the content of your character? It sounds sweet to the ears, but MLK himself never believed a word of it, and neither do his successors who openly say that blacks should be hired on the basis of race.
Corporate America hires blacks (i.e., discriminates against Whites) for no other reason than to promote “diversity.” Comcast, for example, just recently announced it is creating television channels just for blacks and Hispanics and is hiring people to staff those channels purely on the basis of race.
In Alabama and North Carolina, there are congressional districts which have been gerrymandered for the sole purpose of creating black majorities which can elect blacks to Congress.
The Whites who live in those areas are “represented” by members of the Congressional Black Caucus, a race based organization, which is exclusively interested in promoting blacks at the expense of Whites.
Brutus,
In order to fully grasp my comments you must read Hunter’s comments first. My comments are in response to Hunter’s comments. You took my statement out of context. Here is the context.
Hunter: If poverty is the cause of crime, why don’t black women who are equally poor, or elderly black people who are equally poor, commit violent crimes at the same rate as young black males?
My response: Black women are usually the victims of violent crime. Sadly, even in impoverished areas it is a man’s world like it or not. Obviously, black elderly people are less prone to violent crime because they are elderly.
Brutus, I do not doubt the accuracy of your statistics, but they are not relevant to this particular question and answer.
The Davis-Bacon of 1931 was an attempt to inhibit blacks from working on government projects. What is the relevancy? I was discussing post-war Reconstruction and the mindset of many prominent, wealthy Southerners and Northerners (Henry Grady, J.P Morgan, H.M. Flager, Russell Sage, and Charles Tiffany) regarding the black population. These men believed the black population could be a useful laboring class. My point was the individuals who controlled the economic direction of late 19th century America believed blacks were a valuable laboring class. Once again, I am responding to Hunter’s comments.
If race-relations are a fantasy, then we all lose. I do not know what you want me to say. We continue to beat this dead horse. I have thoroughly discussed my beliefs on race-relations. Please, read my previous posts.
Persto, Hunter has been discussing America today being primarily a governmental project of forcing whites to “uplift” blacks. I do not see where you have directly, or even indirectly, responded to this. So I will quote 1 of your 35 points and ask you a question based upon that. You stated,
“(1) I have no problem with segregation if the public facilities of each group are of equal quality, equal opportunity subsists for both races, and one race does not receive preferential treatment from the federal, state, local governments, legal systems, law enforcement agencies etc. Succinctly, an accurate ‘separate but equal’ society. This doctrine has to be factual if I am going to support segregation. Jim Crow segregation was not ‘separate but equal’, in my opinion.”
Very well, but, exactly whose responsibility is it to make sure these facilities of each group are equal? Tell us that. If, as you say you would allow, an “accurate” separate but equal state of affairs is set up and, for example, white people establish a school system where white students are exposed to a very rigid curriculum and grading scale and as a result of accomplishment are provided ever increasing resources to further their learning, but the black school system, using the very same curriculum and grading scale, fails to produce enough students who can pass the requirements for increasing the resources, then what?
I submit that you will attempt to end this “accurate” separate but equal state. I submit that you are of a mindset that demands whites provide, indeed sacrifice, to bring about an equal state of affairs for blacks. And this is an equality only in the sense as being equal by the lowest common denominator.
Again, whose responsibility, in your mind, is it to provide this “equality” and in fact sacrifice if not whites?
(7) Exactly.
What purpose do they serve? That’s what I am wondering. King George III was far more “representative” of the American colonies than the present ruling class.
Are these people anything but a menace to White people in the South? What has Washington done for us lately? I say we get rid of the federal government altogether by seceding from Black Run America.
(8) Actually, Northern Republicans didn’t give up trying to interfere in Southern race relations until the 1890s, when Henry Cabot Lodge and others made their last push for federal civil rights laws.
The Compromise of 1877 was a deal in which federal troops were withdrawn from the South in exchange for Rutherford B. Hayes winning the presidency. It was the end of Reconstruction, not the beginning of Jim Crow.
Yes, Jim Crow was expanding by 1900, but it wasn’t until the mid-1890s that the system was legitimized by the Plessy decision and started expanding across the South. The systematic repeal of integration was still going in the Deep South when Theodore Roosevelt was president.
As late as 1890, there wasn’t a poll tax or literacy test in Mississippi, which pioneered these methods. It wasn’t until 1893 (Alabama), 1894 (Virginia), and 1895 (South Carolina) that the ball started rolling in other Southern states.
It wasn’t until 1896 that Jim Crow started spreading into things like housing, employment, public schools, public accomodations and so forth, and it wasn’t until 1910 that Jim Crow was in full bloom in the American South.
So yes, a generation of White Southerners, actually two generations, lived through about thirty years of integration before they succeeded in overthrowing the system. You are under the misguided impression that “slavery” was restored by the Klan or something after the war.
In 1896, a 22 year old Confederate veteran who fought at Bull Run would have been 57 years old, a grandfather. The average life expectancy in those days was lower than it is today. The median age of the White population was also much lower.
Like I said, it was the children of Confederate veterans who grew up in an integrated society who created the Jim Crow system, and it was their grandchildren who perfected it.
Finally, you are forgetting here that Northerners turned against Reconstruction because of the endemic corruption. In the 1870s, the Republican Party split on Reconstruction and it later came to be seen as a huge mistake in the North.
The Second Klan was largely a Northern phenomena.
(10) Charles Francis Adams was the grandson of President John Quincy Adams, Old Man Eloquent, who was the most ferocious Antebellum opponent of the Slave Power in Congress – a Boston abolitionist blue blood, through and through, who even Hollywood made an entire movie about.
http://books.google.com/books?id=gP3DbiRcbPAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=unsteady+march&source=bl&ots=69rE-u5SLn&sig=8MVwXOjk-Bgklunl4NUjvHrwBJU&hl=en&ei=46-eTZ38JuTG0QGUy8CIBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=charles%20francis%20adams&f=false
In 1865, Colonel Charles Francis Adams was a White officer who led the black Massachusetts Fifth Calvary Regiment into Richmond, Virginia as the deserted Confederate capitol was in flames. He joined the emancipated slaves in celebrating the demise of slavery and called it “the one event which I should have most desired as the culmination of my life in the Army.”
Ever see the movie Glory? The central character in the movie “Glory” is based on Charles Francis Adams.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glory_(1989_film)
The true story of “Glory” though includes the politically incorrect fact that 43 years later in 1908 Charles Francis Adams went back to Richmond to repudiate “the hateful memory of what is known as the Reconstruction period.”
Adams denounced integration as “worse than a crime” and explained to his audience that “the mind of the North is rapidly crystallizing” in a “large and growing, and in the end most influential” consensus that Southerners had been right all along about unfitness of the negro for American citizenship.
Like I said above, even the some of the most prominent abolitionists (in this case, the aristocracy of Boston anti-slavery circles) renounced their misguided racial views after witnessing the failure of Reconstruction to uplift the negro.
So far the complete and total failure of Integration II to achieve the long sought goal of racial equality has yet to cause liberals to question the purely ideological assumption (which has no basis in observation or empirical fact) that the human races are equal in intelligence and character.
Oh, I am reading all the posts here, Persto. That is how I know you are now faltering. You asserted,
“By 1900, all southern states had laws of segregation of blacks. In effect, blacks had become a labor class for southern and northern whites.”
Davis-Bacon came about to prevent cheap ( black) labor from depriving white men of work. When an Alabama contractor tried to bring blacks up to do a construction job and thus deprive the Northern whites of employment, this law was immediately passed.
Your assertion I quoted clearly meant to imply whites wanted blacks for a laboring class. If this was so, then there would have been no ruckus raised and legislation passed. THAT is what makes Davis Bacon relevant, because it refutes your concise and smug talking point.
I am also going to bear down on this device you and so many other anti-whites use. All of you, and I mean all of you, constantly are asserting that white people, meaning everyday, common white people, want this and that and did this and that, when it was and is ONLY a few Fortune 500 men like you cited. I am sick and tired of you and others asserting and implying regular white people are the ones who did this and that when it is not so. If Bill Gates wants cheap Indian computer programmers it sure as hell does not mean that “whites want it.”
And this poverty causes crime nonsense should have went out when Clarence Darrow, who may well have started the notion, died. He certainly was its strongest proponent for a time. Do you, Persto, have any idea what kind of desperate, grinding poverty literally tens of millions of people were born and raised into in the decades prior to about 1960? Many whites like you make fun of “rednecks” and such, but apparently most of you do not believe your own characterizations of them. My own mother and father and their families have spoken at length to me about what life was like then, There was no money, Persto. Literally. In terms of poverty their homes made the worst ghettos of the last few decades look like a sultan’s palace. It was not at all uncommon for children to wear clothes made from burlap potato sacks. I have heard stories of family members staying all night with a friends whose families were even worse off. My uncle, for example, once told me about when he was a boy and spent a night with a friend. Breakfast was a nice steaming hot baked possum. This was all typical in America. No one had a car and not many had horses. People walked. And yet there was no crime phenomena like should have existed if “poverty causes crime.” In fact, most of the people of those generations were and remain the most law abiding people ever. But you and so many others tell us about blacks who live in government subsidized heated and in many cases air conditioned housing, watching cable tv, and mostly with automobiles and plenty of food, in fact a much better and more groceries than many working middle class people, as anyone who grocery shops can testify to when we have to wait in line behind a welfare recipient checking out and paying with their “cards,” you tell us they rob and rape because of this “poverty.” Is it “poverty,” Persto, or because they do not have a Mercedes Benz and a roll of hundred dollar bills that they think is owed them that causes crime? Is that what you mean by “poverty?”
(11) First, thousands of ex-Confederates were disenfranchised by the Republican Congress during Reconstruction, mostly former officeholders who the indigenous political elite in the American South.
Joseph Stalin later did the exact same thing in Poland when he partitioned the country with Hitler during the Second World War. The first step of conquest is always to wipe out the native leadership and promote disaffected elements. See America in Iraq with the Shi’ites for a contemporary example.
Second, blacks who were about 40 percent of the total Southern population (the vast majority of whom were propertyless, illiterate field hands) were enfranchised by the Republican Congress. Blacks were 56 percent of the population in South Carolina, 55 percent in Mississippi, 50 percent in Louisiana, and 49 percent in Florida.
Third, power was turned over to the anti-Confederate loyalists (i.e., the scalawags) from the piney woods and hill country who had fought for the Union. The goal was to create a Republican Party in the South, which could “democratically” rule over defeated Confederate Whites, by clobbering together a negro/scalawag political alliance and disenfranchising ex-Confederates to achieve a majority.
The hated carpetbaggers (20,000 to 50,000 Yankees who relocated to the South to profit from the chaos) were Northern opportunists and military officers like Adelbert Aimes (who was “elected” Governor of Mississippi) who then benignly ruled over disenfranchised Southern Whites on behalf of illiterate ex-slaves.
Reconstruction was effectively Black Run America: Episode One. This was understood in the North.
The Nation, which supported Reconstruction, wrote: “the complete supremacy of the negro in some of the Southern states is extremely repulsive to many Republicans, and it is deprecated by many more.” (Michael Fitzgerald, Splendid Failure, p.73) Blacks “predominanted” in plantation areas. (Fitzgerald, 82).
The Republican Party was “reviled” in the South by the White majority. After the War Between the States, it was identified with the Yankee cause, the invasion and occupation of the South, enfranchising the negro, and all sorts of atrocities like Sherman’s march through Georgia.
The only Whites who supported Reconstruction were those who were alienated from “the regional consensus” in the South (i.e., the scalawags). (Fitzgerald, pp.73-74)
After the war, the 10 former Confederate states were forced to adopt new state constitutions. Republicans, who were hated by native Southern Whites, dominated ever single one of the state constitutional conventions.
The White majority in every ex-Confederate state opposed the new state constitutions. Those state constitutions were adopted because of black delegates and carpetbaggers representing black constituencies and the White majority boycotting the fraudulent elections.
Of the more than 1,000 delegates elected, 600 were indigenous scalawags (representing less than 20 percent of Southern Whites), 268 delegates were black, and 130 were Yankee carpetbaggers. In South Carolina, 76 out of 124 delegates to the state constitutional convention were black, as were about half of the delegates in the Louisiana state constitutional convention.
“More than half of the first cohort of Republican congressmen from the ten reconstructed states had arrived in the South since the start of the war.” (Fitzgerald, p.121)
South Carolina rid itself of its Reconstruction constitution (which received a grand total of 130 White votes) in 1895. Virginia didn’t get rid of its Reconstruction constitution until 1902 – like I said above, about thirty years after the War Between the States.
There is a reason why the tyranny of Reconstruction persisted as a folk memory among Southern Whites right down to the 1980s: it was minority rule by carpetbaggers, scalawags, and blacks over the White majority made possible by a military occupation.
While blacks didn’t hold every office during Reconstruction, it was black majorities that elected Yankee carpetbaggers and black office holders, who jointly ruled over Southern Whites in order to promote the interests of blacks and financially enrich themselves in the process.
It was nothing more than a tyranny: the American version of the Iron Curtain, with conquered states like Alabama and Georgia being ruled by Yankees through the same methods that the Soviets used to rule Poland and Romania.
(12) White Southerners opposed Reconstruction for the same reason that the Poles and Hungarians opposed the Soviet occupation: it was a military conquest by a foreign power, which used force to impose its wildly unpopular racial ideology upon an unwilling White majority, in order to create jobs for carpetbaggers and negroes who then spent the next ten years pillaging the South of its wealth.
Abraham Lincoln said a million times he had no desire to abolish slavery where it existed. He even supported a constitutional amendment which would have preserved slavery forever in the South.
Secession was about states’ rights. If the states were sovereign, not the federal government, they had the power to secede. That is why Tennessee, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Virginia all initially rejected secession, but then seceded after Lincoln raised an army to attack the Confederacy.
54 percent of Americans and 64 percent of White Southerners agree with my position that the South was fighting for states’ rights.
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/tabid/447/ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/mid/1508/ArticleId/739/Default.aspx
(13) Many of the Northerners who sought “business opportunities” in the South were Jews whose profiteering from our suffering was so obscene that Ulysses S. Grant, in the midst of a war against the South, had to expel them Kentucky, Mississippi, and Tennessee:
I suppose we should be thankful for the Union Army coming here to kill hundreds of thousands of our people and for destroying the Southern economy and infrastructure. All this was justified because it promoted “equality” and the glorious Union.
We should be even more thankful for all the carpetbaggers who came here and bought up our land at cut rate prices after the war and who bankrupted our states with railroad bonds.
I’m surprised you haven’t had anything to say about the fact that millions of Southern Whites sunk into poverty and became sharecroppers. That sort of conflicts with the absurd theory that our whole socioeconomic system (aka sharecropping) was designed to “subjugate” blacks.
(14) Andrew Johnson was a traitor from Tennessee who briefly served as Lincoln’s vice president. He became president himself after Lincoln was assassinated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_era_of_the_United_States#Congress_imposes_Radical_Reconstruction
By “military tyranny,” I was referring of course to the Reconstruction Acts, which came after the Radical Republicans in Congress impeached Johnson, when the Southern states were expelled from the Union, dissolved into territories, and carved up into military districts under the rule of the Union Army.
(16) So what you are saying now is that segregation DID NOT handicap blacks?
(17) Not really.
We can say with a great deal of confidence that every generation of Dutch for the next hundred years will be taller than the Chinese. We can also say every new generation of Pygmies in the Congo rain forest will be shorter than the Bantus who live there.
We can say that men will continue to be taller and physically stronger than women, although there will be some women who are taller and stronger than some men, and that heredity is clearly responsible for this.
Intelligence is a trait which is distributed exactly like height within and between races. Just because there are some women who are taller than some men, it hardly follows that women and men are equally tall, and that “patriarchy” explains the deficiency we see in height.
Intelligence varies within families. Just like height and hair color.
The only reason this is confusing to you is because you are attacking a straw man (which is not our position) that every White is more intelligent than every black.
Norwegians are more blonde and blue eyed that Italians, but there are still Italians who have blonder hair than some Norwegians, and some Norwegians who have darker hair than some Italians.
(18) Those problems are directly caused by the FAILURE of the existing political elite. America is failing as a nation because it is based on failed ideas (i.e., racial equality) which are the basis of failed policies (i.e., integration).
White children DO NOT have to inherit this burden. That is just the likely consequence of the failures of the present generation. They will ultimately be judged by history as failures compared to their ancestors.
Of course blacks are not exclusively to blame for this. If I were to assign blame, I would assign most of it to Whites. The Japanese, for example, never bought into the Western craze for multiculturalism and diversity.
(19) Why should “racial equality” be the goal of our society? Does that goal work for us? Has it made our lives better?
I don’t think so.
I think the pursuit of “racial equality” has resulted in public schools in America which are objectively inferior to their counterparts in countries like South Korea and Norway.
Barack Hussein Obama promised “change,” but in reality he “changed” nothing after arriving in the White House. What did he change? Where to start?
– He pushed through the Bush free trade agreements with Columbia and South Korea.
– He bailed out Wall Street and European banks.
– He pushed for “comprehensive immigration reform” and the DREAM Act.
– He continued the Iraq War, expanded the Afghan war, and started a new war in Libya.
– He has peddled the same nonsense about electric cars that Bush used to talk about in his State of the Union address.
– He has expanded the government takeover of healthcare.
– He has made numerous judicial appointments on the basis of affirmative action.
– He busted the budget and doubled the national debt.
There is nothing that Obama has done that Bush wouldn’t have done in a third term.
Both men were nothing more than puppets of the political class. Elections are about personalities and population control, not substantial public policy issues.
(21) In other words, while Jim Crow racial etiquette doesn’t exist anymore, a new type of racial etiquette (i.e., political correctness) has replaced it.
For example, blacks can call each other “nigger,” but Whites can’t say “nigger.” Blacks can use “nigger” as a pejorative and as a term of endearment.
Think about it: blacks are allowed to indulge in racial humor (think of that movie White Chicks) while Whites are not allowed to do so.
Blacks can identify with their race. They can elect politicians who make racial appeals. Whites aren’t allowed to do so.
Under Jim Crow, blacks were not allowed to get uppity. Now, Whites are not allowed to get uppity in Black Run America.
(22) Where is the “cultural value” in Lil’ Wayne? Do you believe that Lil’ Wayne is a good role model? Does his music promote a way of life that should be encouraged in our society?
When I look at Lil’ Wayne, I see an untalented negro rapper with stupid little ditties who has become a millionaire in Black Run America (like that Snooki woman), and I reflect upon why a society that would allocate its resources to such an individual is considered by people like you to be “progressive” and somehow better than the culture it has replaced.
How do you look at the time period that has elapsed between Mozart and Lil’ Wayne and see the progress?
(24) Why is that?
Are black people the victims of Amish gangs? Are the Lutherans and the Mormons terrorizing them? The Irish mafia, perhaps?
If violent crime is caused by poverty, then why are biological factors like age and gender a more reliable predictor of violent crime that socioeconomic status?
(25) You have it backwards.
Whites and Asians are better off than blacks and Hispanics because they are smarter, more resourceful, and generally have better character.
The observed differences in racial differences in intelligence emerge early in childhood – long before blacks or Whites enter the workforce.
(26) Nope.
We know that humans, which are just another species of mammal, can evolve in the blink of an eye too: witness the spread of lactose tolerance in Northern Europe and down through sub-Saharan Africa.
Of course humans can breed their way to a new species (that’s, uh, what we call millions of years of human history). If a random group of humans were plucked from North America by aliens and resettled on another planet, they would evolve into a new species because of genetic drift and natural selection.
(27) No, it isn’t.
In 1900, 90 percent of blacks lived in the American South. In 2011, 57 percent of blacks live in the American South.
All driving out blacks required under Jim Crow was making life inhospitable enough for them here.
(29) What are these great cultural achievements that the quest for equality has produced? Are you referring to Selma after 1965? Maybe post-apartheid South Africa which is the rape capital of the world?
(30) Popular support, yes. Vast resources, no.
It would only take a state legislature with the will to act and a military deterrent like access to nuclear weapons. Why do you suppose Russia has left Ukraine alone all these years?
(31) Be specific.
Which specific tribe was exterminated on the basis of race?
(32) So you are rhetorically judging your ancestors, but your moral conclusions do not necessitate any action on your part? You denounce your forefathers as evil, but are perfectly willing to reap all the benefits of their evil.
Does that make any sense?
(33) You are dodging my point: it was the Red Sticks who initiated the Creek War with the United States with their attempted genocide of White settlers in the Fort Mims Massacre. It was the Red Sticks who sought to exterminate Whites on the basis of race, not the other way around.
Even after they were defeated, the Creeks were only forced to cede their land in the Treaty of Fort Jackson. The federal government never sought to exterminate them. It was the federal government which had restrained White settlers from moving into Creek territory.
(34) Back up a minute.
The Jamestown colonists arrived in Virginia in April 1607. They began to set up camp in May 1607.
Within days, an alliances of five tribes, Quiyoughcohannocks, Weyanocks, Appomatocs, Pasapheghs, and Kiskiacks – about two hundred Indians, at the direction of Powhatan – launched “a very furious Assault” on Jamestown, which the English repulsed with firearms and cannon shot.
You also conveniently left out the context of the war that began in 1610:
“Although De La Warr’s rule quickly gave Jamestown an overtly military character, war was not initially on the governor’s mind. His instructions from the Company, like those issued to Gates, urged a conciliatory approach to the Powhatans and reiterated the importance of converting them to Christianity, “the most pious and noble end of this plantacion.” De La Warr therefore first attempted negotiation. Messengers were sent to Wahunsonacock demanding that he order his warriors to stop attacking his men and stealing their weapons, but reassuring the chief that the governor did not suppose that “hee (being so great and wise a King)” was responsible for the “outrage,” the crimes probably being committed by the Indians “worst and unruly people.”
Specifically, the lord governor requested that those warriors who had attacked and killed four of the settlers at the “Block-house” should be either punished or sent to the English, and that men and arms taken be returned to the fort. The two messengers were to assure Wahunsonacock that the lord governor would “enter friendship with him, as a friend to King James and his Subjects,” but if the great chief did not comply, he would use all his means to recover his men and weapons. De La Warr reminded him also that he (Wahunsonacock) “had formerly vowed, not only friendship but homage, receiving from his Majestie … many gifts, and upon his knees a Crowne and Scepter with other Ornaments, the Symbols of Civill State and Christian Soveraigntie, thereby obliging himself to Offices and duetie of his Majestie.” De La Warr accorded Wahunsonacock the courtesy his rank warranted, but there was no question in the governor’s mind that he coronation ceremony conducted nearly two years earlier had obliged the chief to render obedience to De La Warr as James I’s appointed representative in Virginia.
Wahunsonacock’s contempt for the presumptuous English can be gauged from his response: The settlers were to “depart his Country, or confine themselves to James Towne only, without searching further into his Land, or Rivers, or otherwise, he would give command to his people to kills [the English], and doe … all the mischiefe, which they at their pleasure could.” To underline that he, not James I or De La Warr, was the ruler of the land, he informed the lord governor not to send his messengers again “unlesse they brought him a Coach and three Horses, for hee had understood by the Indians which had been in England, how such was the state of great Werowances, and Lords in England, to ride and visit other great men.” De La Warr replied in kind. If Wahunsonacock failed to return the settlers he had taken (or who had ran off to join the Powhatans) the English would kill any “Savages” they came into contact with and set fire to neighboring Indian corn fields and towns.”
James Horn, A Land As God Made It, pp.183-185
So no, as in Alabama, the Indians had repeatedly attacked Jamestown in order to destroy everyone there, not the other way around. The English wanted to trade and convert the Indians to Christianity.
Later, the Powhatans spent years lulling the English into a false sense of security in order to exterminate them all. They launched an attempted genocide which failed and backfired on them, not unlike the Red Sticks later did in Alabama.
(35) False.
The Indians started attacking the Jamestown colonists before they even sailed up the James River. After landing in Jamestown (an uninhabited swamp), the Indians launched another big assault, and attacked the colonists on several occasions until war finally broke out, as De La Warr’s letter makes clear.
It was only after about 15 years of experience in dealing with the Indians, after the Powhatans had killed 1/3rd of the colonists in a sneak attack, that the English finally wised up and went on the warpath against them – an experience which later replicated in New England.
The English did come over here to commit “genocide” against the Indians and “steal their land.” It was the Indian custom to launch unprovoked wars, sneak attacks, and to exterminate men, women, and children.