A debate about racial equality (or a lack thereof)

[Biggs3535]

That's me, I'm the anti-Semite.

[John Galt?]

You mean like implying that all men of African descent have big uh johnsons?

Don't think they'll be too offended.

Maybe not... but try a different one without the "you mean implying that" part. Say it as if its a truth (like you did about the big Jewish noses).

I didn't say anything about Jewish noses. that was a different poster.

You mean like implying that all men of African descent have big uh johnsons?

Don't think they'll be too offended.

Maybe not... but try a different one without the "you mean implying that" part. Say it as if its a truth (like you did about the big Jewish noses).

Galt's not stupid, he knew exactly what I meant and avoided it. While it's considered comedy to make a comment like that about Jewish people, make a similar comment about African Americans and you're branded a racist and could possibly be banned for saying it.

I found this interesting because it disproves the theory of the difference being in the increasing political clout of African Americans. The Jewish crowd has plenty of political clout. Like it or not, the OP has a valid point but most here are afraid to discuss it. Which just goes to further prove that point.

[BucsBullsBolts]

Google Mr Anthony Johnson of Northampton, Virginia.

HE was the first person in the US to own slaves. Incidentally he was BLACK.

Unless he owned himself, that's pretty much a lie ...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1p265.html

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_was_the_first_slave_owner_in_the_US

LOL ... Come on, man, I can see this foolishness out of an ignorant Dolfan but I expect more out of Bucs' fans ... The buffoon probably answered that WikiAnswer himself... No other site I found had him as the first person to own slaves in the US ... Even Johnson's Wikipedia page doesn't back that up.

It is false anyway since Native Americans had slaves before Europeans arrived.

Also, there was no "First" person to own slaves in the U.S. since the U.S. didn't exist until July, 4th, 1776 (or 1783 or 1788 depending on how you measure the start)

Yeah, I knew the "U S" thing would probably come back to haunt me so just changed it to "here" .... which is still inaccurate, obviously.

[John Galt?]

Google Mr Anthony Johnson of Northampton, Virginia.

HE was the first person in the US to own slaves. Incidentally he was BLACK.

Unless he owned himself, that's pretty much a lie ...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1p265.html

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_was_the_first_slave_owner_in_the_US

LOL ... Come on, man, I can see this foolishness out of an ignorant Dolfan but I expect more out of Bucs' fans ... The buffoon probably answered that WikiAnswer himself... No other site I found had him as the first person to own slaves in the US ... Even Johnson's Wikipedia page doesn't back that up.

It is false anyway since Native Americans had slaves before Europeans arrived.

Also, there was no "First" person to own slaves in the U.S. since the U.S. didn't exist until July, 4th, 1776 (or 1783 or 1788 depending on how you measure the start)

[BucsBullsBolts]

Google Mr Anthony Johnson of Northampton, Virginia.

HE was the first person in the US to own slaves. Incidentally he was BLACK.

Unless he owned himself, that's pretty much a lie ...




http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1p265.html

Hey, smart guy.

You do know what an indentured servant is, don't you?
It's something you AGREE to being, as a way to get where you want to go when you don't have the funds.

From your cited article:
For any ex-servant -- black or white -- to own his own land was uncommon, despite the promise made by the Virginia Company to give a tract of land to each servant at the end of service.  For an ex-servant to own 250 acres was rarer still.

I also liked the fact that PUBLIC Broadcast System failed to mention that he owned slaves. Who do you think WORKED that 250 acres?
Sort of goes along with what I stated earlier about going against the status quo. Especially when the whole set of articles deal with the plight of the black race.  Not something that would be conducive to either sentiment or false feelings of guilt.

Try this one, then:
http://mdroots.thinkport.org/library/anthonyjohnson.asp

If you have anywhere else that says he was the FIRST slave owner here, by all means, provide it ...

Signed,

Smart Guy

[Incognito]

You mean like implying that all men of African descent have big uh johnsons?

Don't think they'll be too offended.

Maybe not... but try a different one without the "you mean implying that" part. Say it as if its a truth (like you did about the big Jewish noses).

[BucsBullsBolts]

Google Mr Anthony Johnson of Northampton, Virginia.

HE was the first person in the US to own slaves. Incidentally he was BLACK.

Unless he owned himself, that's pretty much a lie ...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1p265.html

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_was_the_first_slave_owner_in_the_US

LOL ... Come on, man, I can see this foolishness out of an ignorant Dolfan but I expect more out of Bucs' fans ... The buffoon probably answered that WikiAnswer himself... No other site I found had him as the first person to own slaves in the US ... Even Johnson's Wikipedia page doesn't back that up.

[Dolfan]

Google Mr Anthony Johnson of Northampton, Virginia.

HE was the first person in the US to own slaves. Incidentally he was BLACK.

Unless he owned himself, that's pretty much a lie ...




http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1p265.html

Hey, smart guy.

You do know what an indentured servant is, don't you?
It's something you AGREE to being, as a way to get where you want to go when you don't have the funds.

From your cited article:
For any ex-servant -- black or white -- to own his own land was uncommon, despite the promise made by the Virginia Company to give a tract of land to each servant at the end of service.  For an ex-servant to own 250 acres was rarer still.

I also liked the fact that PUBLIC Broadcast System failed to mention that he owned slaves. Who do you think WORKED that 250 acres?
Sort of goes along with what I stated earlier about going against the status quo. Especially when the whole set of articles deal with the plight of the black race.  Not something that would be conducive to either sentiment or false feelings of guilt.

[John Galt?]

I wouldn't argue with calling it ethnicity, but what the fundamental difference between "race" and "ethnicity?"

Problem something to do with physical attributes ...

Like having big noses?

Here's an interesting experiment that takes us back to the topic of the thread: Try making a similar characterization about the physical attributes of African Americans and see how that goes over.

You mean like implying that all men of African descent have big uh johnsons?

Don't think they'll be too offended.

I wouldn't argue with calling it ethnicity, but what the fundamental difference between "race" and "ethnicity?"

Problem something to do with physical attributes ...

Like having big noses?

Here's an interesting experiment that takes us back to the topic of the thread: Try making a similar characterization about the physical attributes of African Americans and see how that goes over.

[John Galt?]

I wouldn't argue with calling it ethnicity, but what the fundamental difference between "race" and "ethnicity?"

Problem something to do with physical attributes ...

Like having big noses?

Jewish/Israeli models:










didn't see any big noses, of course that's not where I was looking...

[John Galt?]

I wouldn't argue with calling it ethnicity, but what the fundamental difference between "race" and "ethnicity?"

One is a sub-group of the other, like cat and mammal.

Kinda what I thought.  So being Jewish has something to do with heritage and is more than just a religion.  It's a rare combo.

Sammy Davis Jr. agrees.

[Biggs3535]

I wouldn't argue with calling it ethnicity, but what the fundamental difference between "race" and "ethnicity?"

Problem something to do with physical attributes ...

Like having big noses?

[Biggs3535]

I wouldn't argue with calling it ethnicity, but what the fundamental difference between "race" and "ethnicity?"

One is a sub-group of the other, like cat and mammal.

Kinda what I thought.  So being Jewish has something to do with heritage and is more than just a religion.  It's a rare combo.