Are Polish people importing a new wave of ancient racism into the UK?

Learn history, the Persian empires and African nations took great pride on the slavery numbers. Even today ;)

And look at the ethnicity of the slave traders.

Blacks selling their own to jews to sell on.....

Jews owned the ships, the companies, and the trading ports. There were practically no jewish abolitionist before or during the American civil war.

This is all well documented.

Whitey, yet again, is left holding the can!

Nope...white people engaged in more slavery AND in a more modern time which is just sad and backwards.

By the way, I said slavery of other races. Black people enslaving their own people is not relevant to this debate.


If it's so well-documented then please provide a link with proof. Also, it has to be a credible source which automatically excludes Stormfront.

How is it not? A person is a person regardless of colour- you're exposing yourself here and the view is looking grim.

Bullsh1t, slavery is slavery no matter who does it to whom.

"What has remained a secret and not [sic] spoken of is the Jewish involvement in the undoing of Black people and the slave trade and the owners of ships and the selling and dehumanizing of Black people."

Interview on the Michael Eric Dyson show, 8/23/10

"Listen, Jewish people don't have no hands that are free of the blood of us. They owned slave ships, they bought and sold us. They raped and robbed us. If you can't face that, why you gonna condemn me for showing you your past, how then can you atone and repent if somebody don't open the book with courage, you don't have that, but I'll be damned, I got it."

Saviours' Day Speech, Chicago, 2/27/05
"If we dig, we run into the Jewish pot of the trans-Atlantic slave trade.

National Black Agenda Convention, Boston, 3/18/04

"[U]ntil Jews apologize for their hand in that ugly slave trade; and until the Jewish rabbis and the Talmudic scholars that made up the Hamitic myth -- that we were the children of Ham, doomed and cursed to be hewers of wood and drawers of water -- apologize, then I have nothing to apologize for."

Interview in Swing magazine, 9/24/96

britannica.com/blackhistory/article-24159

The argument was about races enslaving and oppressing other races. It wasn't about slavery in general. Quit avoiding the issue here.


I said credible sources RevokeNice. Not conventions that are known for having appearances by antisemitic groups such as the Nation of Islam and the Black Panthers.

That's the problem with than angle i.e. why even have that argument in the first place? What point could you possibly hope to prove?

lmgtfy.com/?q=jews+slave+trade


He is an anti white racist.

Same thing. Real historians on the Wiki page argue that Jews who owned slaves were a minority. The Nation of Islam says the opposite which is not a credible source given the fact that they are antisemitic black supremacists.


Interesting...yet the color of my skin looks white to me.

Jews arent members of the Caucasian race.


Zionist ascribed historians versus the Nation of Islam.

The truth is somewhere in the middle.

It's almost nostalgic to see such archaic bigotry. Jews ARE Caucasian. The ancient Hebrews were a Mediterranean people, probably originally from the Arabian Peninsula, and therefore belonged to the Caucasian racial group. It's a shame your mom didn't have a chance to teach you either manners or about world affairs.

Jews are semites. They are not White. Same may be be mixed.

If I recall correctly, being semitic and being Caucasian are not mutually exclusive. Caucasian, Negroid, Mongoloid- if we are to go by those definitions of race, we are all classified as one of those three. Don't ask me how Aborigines are classified nor the native peoples of North and South America. But as far as I know, Semitic (Israeli and Arabic tribes) is not a "race" per se.

I think these classifications are pseudo-science.
They were made up by people who never met an Indian, an Arab or a Native American.

Who cares, for me there is only one race.

I've heard that before too, this does require us to ask what exactly defines "race."
ttt for some answers.

You could check out what Frank Boas had to say on the matter where Anthropology became a real science. The development of the idea of races was focused on greatly by Britain during a classification fad in the 19th Cent where every thing had to be fitted into clear-cut squares. Though in defence of Darwin, when he spoke of race he meant it the same way as ReservoirDog.

To me, race is an irrelevant and outdated concept. It's done more harm than good to the world.
So I don't see a need to define it.

Genetically Pole may be different from another Pole, more than from the Maasai. Nowdays, the concept of race rejects 70 percent of American anthropologists.

In the old days, even Nazi Germany, had human skull shape (mainly the length and width) as it's main physical characteristic to look at. They were classifying people like Arabs, Afghans, Moroccans as white, which was absurd. People with no European ancestry, and who didn't share any of the other European features. Everyone from Spain, through Germany and Poland, to Russia has different skull shapes. Today we have DNA which makes thinks more simple.

^ This statement is absurd. Pennboy, are you are aware that no humans on Earth, save for a few albinos, are really "white"? There is no "white" race. There is only one race: the human race:

Okay, I'll do that.


Fair enough, then what are we to make of this thread then?

If race can't be defined, and I'm not saying it can be, then what exactly is "racism?"

Its simple really, we as humans are still hardwired to live and function in small,tight knit communities.

I don't think race can be defined. But racists think it can. And when they translate that into hatred, that's racism.

It sounds catchy but the logic seems rather circular.
Care to expand?

I think he is saying as the premise is wrong the product is improper.

Some quotes of Boas to get you going :
The disease of mutual distrust among nations is the bane of modern civilization.
We do not discuss the anatomical, physiological, and mental characteristics of man considered as an individual;
but we are interested in the diversity of these traits in groups of men found in different geographical areas and in different social classes.
If we were to select the most intelligent, imaginative, energetic, and emotionally stable third of mankind, all races would be present.

yeah,but probably not that many blokes :)

perhaps, it's just that using terms demands agreed upon/recognized definitions so we can all agree or disagree with a notion. Hatred and Racism- great, how the heck are we supposed to define those two things without having to define a whole bunch of other abstract terms. And to do that you have got to prove things, not just belt out something that has the right catch phrases. Many of "those" things are hard to prove and thus these conversations are doomed from the outset based on the knowledge or lack there of that many participants have on the matter.

I enjoyed those quotes by the way. It's an eloquent way to summarize much of the human condition.

Sure:
I think racial classification is a pseudo-science and an irrelevant way of classifying human beings. So then, you ask, what is "racism"? Racism is a type of hatred based on this pseudo-science. The people who believe in it disagree with my opinion.