Is she right, Sup Forums?

Is she right, Sup Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

cell.com/ajhg/pdf/S0002-9297(14)00476-5.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Yes

no she's a muh heritage retard mongrel crossbreed.
Irish people in Ireland despise and ridicule her.
American whites are too mixed, they have to start calling themselves European American and be proud of Euro-American heritage.

My grandfather was very proud of his ten generations of German American heritage. Right up until about 1939. Then it became very unpopular. I suspect a day will come when the gummint will find a reason to make several other demographics make the same rational decision my grandfather made. Until then we just have to put up with it.

this
this is where "white" comes from also ironically, from landwhales like her

also its funny
>i can trace back my mothers name to a village
>niggers are too stupid to know how to do that and they were slaves so black pride makes sense haha

They don't have their ancestors' last names fool. How many Africans do you know with the last name "Williams"?

>a woman
>ever right or wrong about anything
whenever a woman wants to state her "opinion" about something just turn off your brain and go do something else

>there is no pan-european culture
There is, it's called American culture.

No, of course not

Yeah thats why when Brexit happened everyone was super OK with British nationalism, wait no they called them racist nazis.

When it comes to the success of a brown-skinned Spaniard in toppling a central american empire, now these evil cunts are all about White Identity.
>b-but white people have a right to exist!
No, you're Irish!

kek, Africans don't have pride in their countries. Go to an African country and claim that you proud of being from different country and niggers kill you. They don't have pride, they have tribalism, its why whites could colonize Africa, blacks don't have a sense of community and unity.

why dont they go back to africa and change their name then

She's clearly talking about afro americans dipshit. Nobody here even tries to refute her core argument

>there's not such thing as white people or white culture so you can't have white pride
>but white people are responsible for everything bad in the world and need to feel ashamed for being white and pay reparations to non-white people

Makes sense.

This , it is right there
>there is no white culture
>,and then white washed

Refutation: if a historical displacement has caused Africans to adopt a new identity, then the current displacement and constant attack white Americans should have the same effect
Filthy kike

If whites are allowed to form EXCLUSIVE WHTIE COMMUNITIES, they will stop the mass immigration/cheap labor scheme dead in its tracks.

That is why there is never a kind word said about whites as a group except from the Pro White crowd. (Think deeply about this fact and understand this is why you can't ever kill of the Pro White movement. Their sales pitch advocates for the creation of beautiful people. Even self haters can't resist white cuties.)

>implying Africans know what West Africa even is

Culture stems from Race, thus why Europeans ones are so similar.

Niggers never had a "name" that they could trace back to anyway. They were too fucking stupid and savage to even think about their "culture" or "heritage" before we showed up

Biology is the root, Culture is the flower

She's right.

Japanese? Doesn't matter if you're Korean, Irish, Sudanese or even Japanese-American... if you're not 100% Japanese, you're Gaijin (a Foreigner), no brownie points for other "East Asian Races".

Jewish? Doesn't matter if you're Palestinian, Lebanese or Saudi... there are no Semitic brownie points, everyone is either simply Jewish or Goyyim.

Romans? Didn't matter if you were Celtic, Slavic or Hindu... you were either Roman or Barbaros (Barbarian), and in fact, the greatest European Empire fell - not to foreign hordes - but to uncivilized and unwashed Nordic barbarians and centuries of attrition. Those who assimilated became Latinized.

Spanish? Followed the Roman model. Dutch, Aztec, Sudanese? All foreign. But a Spanish-speaking Italian, the natives of Tlaxcala (who helped curbstomp the Aztecs), the mixed-blooded West Africans who translated and supervised slaves? If you knew Spanish law, culture, custom and religion then you're Spanish - if not, you're foreign.

.

When I hear "White", it's usually an Anglo - or some poor immigrant who has forgotten and abandoned their ancestors and history. We had 2 World Wars and 2 millennia of warfare to remind us that our Race is defined by Culture not Color. For some reason, the Anglo-Nordic races are just the most incompetent at recruiting, assimilating and converting.

Moving dem goalposts.

Underlying argument is correct but black pride is still pretty dumb IMO.

our Race is defined by Culture not Color

Also trace them back to where the office of statistics and consensus data in the Congo lol

P.S. This is more natural for Romance language speakers - not only because we have a dozen "cousin" cultures (with which an easy affinity validates the importance of culture over color)...

P.S.S. The white/black/red racial construct is a Dark Ages, Biblical literalism off-shoot.

Basically the Romans had a great model of recruiting barbarians - and assimilating them - by saying "the gods are universal - we all just call them different names due to different languages". So if Celtic Tribe 1 called their war god "Bob" and Tribe 2 called it "Jack" and they engaged in warfare of Bob vs Jack..... the Romans show up and turn it into epithets, "Mars Bob" and "Mars Jack", recruiting soldiers on both side into the legion.

Smart tactic. Absorb all religions into one European pantheon.

Catholics followed the same tactic... turning pagan gods & heroes into Saints. Again, good way to unify the continent while still letting each region hold on to ancestral heroes.

...but since the tactic is "unified ancestry/origins", the Dark Ages faced the story of Noah - how does humanity spring from 1 man? Ah! He had 3 sons... so 3 races. The entire fucking planet divided into 3 neat categories (white/black/red). Even the Nords have a similar myth with Heimdall (creating black, then red, then finally white).

.

So Romance cultures "see" more of this shit. Our linguistic roots remain strong. You can see how "Mercury" becomes Mercantile, Merchant, Mercy, Mercenary or how "Mars" became Martial Arts, Marital, Marriage, Marido, Marshall, etc. It becomes obvious how language-affects-thought since word-roots are closely married still. And old gods are the foundation of cultures.

Anglo-Nords? A disorganized languages (especially English), Protestantism (which white-washed the racial heritage hidden in Saints - and then splintered into a few dozen conflicting sub-faiths) - all while being so literalist that their world is defined by some dude in a boat and his 3 sons.

>AND NO ONE GIVES THEM SHIT FOR IT

that is a fucking lie

No, she's not right. None of the post-modernist everything is a social construct, take a bong hit and you can even decide gender doesn't exist bullshit is "right". It's just weaponized philosophy word game lawyering.

Notice that "white" exists as a very real thing if you're talking about privilege or racism, or reparations?

most north american whites are mutts
when you're 10% german, 20% french, 12% irish etc etc you may not feel german pride, french pride, irish pride etc.

their culture wasn't "taken" from them, but then again, blacks were sold into slavery... by blacks. so ultimately it was black people that first captured and sold those slaves to white people. we keep forgetting that.

also the barbary slave trade. more whites have been enslaved then any other race. also, white nations ended slavery so...

whatever. apparantly we're all evil because slavery. i'm so so sorry all black people, this is my fault

Yup.

And I did a DNA test. I'm not "white". There is no "white" race.

My race is very, very, very tied to a very specific region in Iberia.

Two thousand years ago, the Romans described the region as headhunters whose "wise men" divined fates in entrails. A decapitated head was worth more than its weight in gold (logic being, gold attracts thieves - a head scares off troublemakers).

Three centuries later, it was the Christians who said our "gods are devils" - and described our forests as inhabited by monsters.

Three centuries after that? Moors visit Spain - and it was the first region to kick them out (less than a decade). The Muslims described them as "not valuing art nor wealth" (see the Romans & Gold above) and "whose only sport is violence", on "a frigid and cursed mountain".

Fast forward to the Reconquista? First region to be subverted (our leaders were always fighting each other) and then recruited to purge the other regions of Moorish blood.

Fast forward to the New World? So many Conquistadors came from the region, that in Latin America Spaniards are often called "Gallegos" instead of "Españoles". This is akin to saying "after conquering the Middle East, so many soldiers were from Texas, that all Americans are called Texans, much to the chagrin of those from D.C., New York and other populous states".

Do you see a pattern? This isn't "the white race", nor "the Spanish race" - race is very local.

Even in this life, I've done shit only to hear - much later - "oh your grandfather did that" or to hear Spaniard-Americans use "Gallego" as an insult. I've met others of Spanish-descent.... where we soon instinctually dislike each other.... and maybe 15 minutes later, discussing heritage, it's clear we're ancestral enemies.

.

Culture may be in our DNA.

But your melanin content (or lack thereof) doesn't make us kinsmen.

Only those who have forgotten or abandoned their ancestors believe in a "white" race.

The word "slave" comes from medieval latin "sclava" (Slavic - captive). Europeans enslaved Europeans.

The Catholic Church then forbade slavery for a thousand years - until the 1400-1500s. By then, Iberia was a collection of kingdoms (all fighting separate wars against Moorish invaders and each other) and Islam was pushing hard in Eastern Europe.

The same year that Greek Constantinople became Ottoman Istanbul.... is when the Kingdom of Portugal went apeshit and kicked the Moors out - and then chased them to their slave ports in West Africa. Seeing "peaceful Christians" in the East losing lands.... and "warlike Christians" in the West reclaiming lands... the Church issued Papal Bulls permitting slavery again, so long as it was against non-Christians. It was literally just an eye-for-an-eye since Iberians had been targeted for slavery and genocide for centuries (700-1000AD was fine.... then Barcelona was ravaged in 1000AD.... then all the regional powers began considering putting aside their ancestral rivalries to deal with the foreigners).

So the 2 first major colonial powers.... were a reaction to foreign aggression. The French & English just got greedy later and followed-up.

And then you can fast forward to how 44 of 50 European powers never had colonies. So "whiteness" is a shit term condemning an entire phenotype for what your (often) ancestral enemies were guilty of.

.

TLDR?

Who brought slavery back to Europe? Moorish Muslims from NW and W Africa.

Who were the shittiest? The French. They imported 3x more slaves than the English but worked them to death.

I get the gist of her argument, but it's a little weak because the negroes were slaves IN THEIR OWN societies, before Columbus and his Jewish cohorts did all this.

The word in History, is called PRESENTISM-applying your present understanding to the old world; it's a fallacy.

What would be an interesting reply, would be, how can there be any black pride if they were slaves in their own societies?

Africans who weren't slaves in Africa, STAYED IN Africa, and thus can trace their lineage, etc.

And on a surface level, it's somewhat weak as well, because one could make the argument that the only unifying characteristic of any group of organisms would be the way they appear, if they have similar structure and makeup.

That is why in nature, you typically do not see other organisms intermingling with species who appear different.

North America can feel British and French pride, because the culture has been preserved and re-branded; Canadian, French-Canadian, American, etc.

She doesn't consider the consequences which are a sort of ethno defensive realism.

It's a slippery slope.

Not entirely accurate.

Of 5 or so major West African Empires - 2 opposed slavery, 3 favored it (with Muslim influence for markets).

But culturally, slavery was a form of reparations. So if Group A and Group B fought a war - instead of killing off your rivals - you could enslave some of the losers instead..... have them serve a decade.... and eventually release them back.

So they were still within cultural similar regions - and when released, they could bring back some of the culture of the other culture. It's useful for (in the long term) decreasing violence by having these "middle-men" who can now translate, give advice and maybe even bring back useful skills from the other side.

So American Slavery and West African Slavery are two different beasts.

.

THAT SAID, "white" Americans shouldn't emulate "black" Americans. That's a low bar to begin with. Cleave to your ancestry, don't "white/black-wash" yourselves into phenotypes. It's like crippling your horse and then deciding you want to walk with a limp as well.

German American heritage was BTFO in WWI.

t. Anglicized last name

Africans never had last names. And slaves were recorded throughout America's history, so all it would take would be a few months searching on Ancestry.com.

cell.com/ajhg/pdf/S0002-9297(14)00476-5.pdf
White Americans tend to mix very little outside of their origins. All of my grandparents were from Italy and when I took an acestry dna test it confirmed what I already knew; I'm genetically southern italian.

...

It's not too slippery. I'll use Spain as an example again:

IBERIAN (Siblings):
Iberia has a couple dozen different provinces - with regional identities going back a couple thousand years - with stereotypes that still apply since Roman times. We dislike one another but it's somewhat of a friendly rivalry (imagine a sibling you dislike, but if someone fucks with them, you'd probably step in).

SPANISH (Cousins):
Then expand from Iberia to all Spanish countries (a couple dozen). Like with the provinces, all different - and we give each other shit - but we generally can get along like Cousins.

LATIN (Distant Cousins):
Well then you have all the Romance languages. Italian, French, Portuguese, Romanian and a bunch of sub-variants? Here we but heads a bit more but nothing personal - the language barrier actually makes you more patient with differences.

WESTERN (Distant, Distant Kin):
...and then the rest of you fucks. We've all fought wars with each other and you often do stupid shit. But hey, better "us" than our rivals. You don't take priority over the (above).

It's not a slippery slope - more like a pyramid of priorities. Only the most historically illiterate stick to the Micro or Macro extremes. If you know the inbetweens, you got an easy chart.

Germans have a messy history. Bane of Europes greatest Empire. Visigoths looting and raping. Breaking off from Europes unifying church. Countless wars against their neighbors. World Wars.

TLDR, it's hard to be pro-German and pro-European (much like I couldn't simultaneously be pro-Celtic, pro-Roman - or pro-Spanish and pro-Galician).

So don't blame the government. Blame your own heritage. Then figure out how to marry the two. Pick-and-choose what's worth preserving and what's worth abandoning.

(Other demographics don't have this same dread - although most get "green-washed" by American capitalism. Irish, Italians, Jews, etc all transformed to an extent in the US.)