"Some white people will have to die in order for blacks to be free" says Associate Prof. of Philosophy

[Cyclops]

OP needs to change the misleading title.

The actual statements are fairly bland, and I don't see any reason for having an attack of vapours over them.

[ioannis76]

For the sake of the hypothetical analogy I don't think it really matters what country we're talking about, but as we're discussing a black professor in Texas I wouldn't think it's an unreasonable assumption to think we're discussing the United States.

Although that doesn't really matter, as the United States isn't the only country that struggles to deal with a history of legalised racial discrimination, deliberate disenfranchisement, slavery etc etc etc. - as ioannis pointed out. Of course as ioannis often does, he did completely (and maybe intentionally) miss the point, and incorrectly quoted me leaving out the main point of my statement... I was seeking to understand why someone might feel violence is justified based on a history of disenfranchisement that was enshrined into law right up into living memory. Last time I looked, Barbary pirates decided they preferred surfing and drinking pina coladas 200 or more years ago (not wanting to open up the conversation to ioannis posting about that time in 1963 when a drunk Algerian sailor punched an American tourist). Ironically, ioannis is so furiously assuming we should be adversaries that he didn't even notice we're basically arguing from the same point of view.

Yeah, you completely left out the Ottoma Empire, which operates even to this day (under a new name, of course), oppressing white people (primarily non whites, of course, since most Europeans have either been exterminated by means of genocide, or deported or violently islamised, among others, to be sure):

https://anfenglish.com/kurdistan/pea...i-jailed-19665

[antaeus]

Yeah, you completely left out the Ottoma Empire, which operates even to this day (under a new name, of course), oppressing white people (primarily non whites, of course, since most Europeans have either been exterminated by means of genocide, or deported or violently islamised, among others, to be sure):

https://anfenglish.com/kurdistan/pea...i-jailed-19665

What's a white person?

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

How is a discussion of Turkey's treatment of a man who was apparently an activist for Kurdistan relevant? Is the SJW movement anti-Kurdistan? Because I assure you, the opposite is true.

[RangerGxi]

That particular Twitter snippet on inheritance is not 100% inaccurate when you factor in that the article is foolishly mainly using Islamic slave systems to supposedly counter her arguments. Crazy as she may be, inherited slavery in that context was certainly not a legal or historical norm for obvious reasons. Unlike the Anglo plantation version.

The Arabs forced their slaves onto plantations, galleys and sexual slavery. Did they really not have inherited slaves? I know that they purchased them in huge numbers from Africa and enslaved conquered pagans. Heck, they even kept black Muslims enslaved and developed their own racialist mindset.

[ioannis76]

How is a discussion of Turkey's treatment of a man who was apparently an activist for Kurdistan relevant? Is the SJW movement anti-Kurdistan? Because I assure you, the opposite is true.

I was asked if there is living memory of non-whites oppressing whites (first it was about non-whites oppressing whites in general, and then when that was answered, it became "more specific"), well, it seems that there is. Kurds and Greeks are being oppressed, and were being oppressed even by the end of the ottoman empire and the beginnings of the Kemalic state (after that there were too few of them left alive within the borders of the Ottoman Empire or later Turkey to oppress, but still the authorities in modern Turkey are doing the best). And that without mentioning the Armenians. Is that enough white people?

[Himster]

The Arabs forced their slaves onto plantations, galleys and sexual slavery. Did they really not have inherited slaves? I know that they purchased them in huge numbers from Africa and enslaved conquered pagans. Heck, they even kept black Muslims enslaved and developed their own racialist mindset.

Yeah, but they castrated the black dudes, jealousy probably.

[Anthropoid]

Having worked in academia for many years, nothing any of them say surprises me any longer no matter how bigoted, idiotic, and repugnant. Of course there are still many reputable folks in many universities. But the point is: people like this racist African studies professor are given carte blanche not only to speak malicious falsehoods without being challenged, they are given free reign to terrorize other students and faculty who do not acquiesce. This is happening across institutions of higher learning in North America.

If I had children, going to University would honestly be the LAST thing I would wish for them to do. For one thing, unless you are pursuing a highly technical field, what you will learn is largely useless and not particularly edifying I would speculate. The reasons for this transformation of academia (well, many of the social sciences and liberal arts departments anyway) over the past 20+ years are complex, and far beyond the scope of this thread. Not to mention I haven't done enough research to explain that transformation and its causes with great confidence.

But I guarantee you, at schools across the continent, faculty and administration turn a blind eye to this sort of thuggish behavior constantly.

[athanaric]

Having worked in academia for many years, nothing any of them say surprises me any longer no matter how bigoted, idiotic, and repugnant. Of course there are still many reputable folks in many universities. But the point is: people like this racist African studies professor are given carte blanche not only to speak malicious falsehoods without being challenged, they are given free reign to terrorize other students and faculty who do not acquiesce. This is happening across institutions of higher learning in North America.

And Europe.

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

I was asked if there is living memory of non-whites oppressing whites (first it was about non-whites oppressing whites in general, and then when that was answered, it became "more specific"), well, it seems that there is. Kurds and Greeks are being oppressed, and were being oppressed even by the end of the ottoman empire and the beginnings of the Kemalic state (after that there were too few of them left alive within the borders of the Ottoman Empire or later Turkey to oppress, but still the authorities in modern Turkey are doing the best). And that without mentioning the Armenians. Is that enough white people?

But we're talking about America - I just fail to see the relevance to the OP by talking about the Armenian Genocide. Sure we can find dozens of examples of non-whites oppressing whites, heck South African looks ready to take that direction, but the guy whose quote this thread is discussing is obviously talking about America.

[RangerGxi]

But we're talking about America - I just fail to see the relevance to the OP by talking about the Armenian Genocide. Sure we can find dozens of examples of non-whites oppressing whites, heck South African looks ready to take that direction, but the guy whose quote this thread is discussing is obviously talking about America.

Plenty of examples of whites facing discrimination and oppression. I'd classify the exclusion of whites from certain benefits and scholarships as discrimination and it's pretty clear that whites in South Africa and Zimbabwe are being targeted by the general population and state for their race.

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

Again you've just missed my point. As I have repeatedly said - what is the relevance of Zimbabwe and South Africa to this discussion? The quote this entire thread is based on was referring to America. No one is denying that white people have had a hard time of it due to their race somewhere in the world, what we are talking about is in the American context.

[RangerGxi]

Again you've just missed my point. As I have repeatedly said - what is the relevance of Zimbabwe and South Africa to this discussion? The quote this entire thread is based on was referring to America. No one is denying that white people have had a hard time of it due to their race somewhere in the world, what we are talking about is in the American context.

I talked about America by talking about affirmative action programs and "positive discrimination" programs. Of course, whites are terrorised by groups like Black Lives Matters and the massive shadow of black crime that is regularly aimed at whites (but mostly at other black people).

[fkizz]

Helps to show having the status of University Professor does not necessarily mean you are a contributing member of society.

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

I talked about America by talking about affirmative action programs and "positive discrimination" programs.

Right, but these hardly "oppress" white people, they are intended to rectify systemic problems. One can create an affirmative action program that's heavily discriminatory (it happened in Nigeria where the focus was more of getting rid of the Igbo than empowering the other ethnic groups), but American affirmative action is not where I'd point to where I trying to show oppression.

Of course, whites are terrorised by groups like Black Lives Matters and the massive shadow of black crime that is regularly aimed at whites (but mostly at other black people).

Is Black Lives Matter really substantial and influential enough to be a terrorizing and oppressing force? I think you're rather overselling them and their power. Does the presence of crime and BLM really amount to "oppression" of white people?

[The Gurkhan]

The Arabs forced their slaves onto plantations, galleys and sexual slavery. Did they really not have inherited slaves? I know that they purchased them in huge numbers from Africa and enslaved conquered pagans. Heck, they even kept black Muslims enslaved and developed their own racialist mindset.

As far as long term harvesting of populations as one would livestock? Not really. Not even regarding black slaves as Zanj problems etc put paid to that. Egypt catching on to the cotton trade could perhaps also have made an attempt in the 19th century were it not too late.

One of the most notorious enslavers of free Muslim sub-Saharans was the Alaouite ruler Moulay Ismail. Whom according to sources was himself the son of a black concubine and infamously had scores of children with yet more concubines. One of the only concubines we know by name was known to be a black slave woman. This alone should highlight obvious differences in practices of slavery between Anglo-sphere and Islamic societies.

[Sir Adrian]

Arabs did not have inherited slavery simply because they castrated and sexually mutilated most of their slaves. Even the mamluks and Jannisaries were all sterilized as children until Suleiman the Magnificent banned the practice (and introduced inherited slavery as the children of slaves would become slaves as well), and unlike other slaves they actually had status.

Right, but these hardly "oppress" white people, they are intended to rectify systemic problems.

I had hoped that people would outgrow "your discrimination is lesser than my discrimination and therefore nonexistent" arguments by the time I reach 30. Yet another disappointment from the "enlightened" west.


The American system allows somebody who coasted though school on no work done to get ahead of somebody who busted his ass by the color of his skin. You want to help good students, give the families financial aid to keep them in school. "Ermagerd you're black, you're in" solves nothing and creates a leech mentality which deepens the societal problems.

[Heinz Guderian]

True or False: The CIA flooded black neighbourhoods with cocaine, heroin and guns in the 80s and 90s to support anti-communist agendas abroad and to satisfy prejudicial local law enforcement leaders.

[The Gurkhan]

Arabs did not have inherited slavery simply because they castrated and sexually mutilated most of their slaves. Even the mamluks and Jannisaries were all sterilized as children until Suleiman the Magnificent banned the practice (and introduced inherited slavery as the children of slaves would become slaves as well), and unlike other slaves they actually had status.

What are you talking about? This isn't Game of Thrones fan fiction. Mamluks and Jannisaries were not castrated or whatever you mean by sterilized. They were prevented (in theory) from establishing familial dynasties. Any offspring sired did not themselves inherit their father's status since this would negate the whole reason for having military slaves to begin with.

All Suleiman did was apparently formalize permission for them to marry.

Eunuchs were a completely different segment of slave populations. Not the driving reason for acquiring vast amounts of slaves by any Islamic empire.

As for sub-Saharan slaves, concubinage was the main rationale. You don't see ideas such as the One Drop Rule in many slave owning Islamic societies for obvious reasons.

[Sir Adrian]

Mamluks and jannisaries until the the late were castrated. Suleiman was the one who stopped this practice and more or less triggered the rise of the jannisaries at court by allowing the position to be hereditary. Look it up