Jump to content

Usa Thread


TroyinEwa/Perv
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 1/10/2019 at 5:33 PM, radioman said:

Historically America had laws that specifically did just that.

 

The immigration laws of 1965 opened it up globally but Africa and the Caribbean were colonized in the 1800s and emigration from those areas were almost exclusively to the countries that colonized them. Even today, its more or less that way. 

In the 1800s the concept of "white" was vastly different than today. Eastern and southern Europeans were not deemed the same "white" as they are deemed today. In the south, only Blacks were lynched. Whites who raped, etc ,were not lynched. It was deemed a act for "blacks". Nevertheless, a Jew was lynched in Georgia as well as Sicilians in Louisiana. They were not deemed 'white" as we know it. But "quasi white" if I have to invent a phrase that characterizes what I am trying to convey. 

Even today, within the supremacist and nationalist movements they differ greatly as what constitutes white. There are arguments pro and con to include Jews, Portuguese, Sicilians, white Moslems from the Balkans, northern Africans, Turks, Persians, fair skinned latinos such as Cubans and Argentinians, etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it ironic that Americans on this board are complaining about immigration where as in fact every one of you are descend from I’m immigrants. 

Oh but today’s immigrants are illegal, well who the fuck dictates legal and illegal? I very much doubt that the Native Americans granted the British, Spanish and French etc Legal status and visa free transit and long term stay. 

So basically the descendants of a bunch of Brits [Washington Himself was of British descendance and served in the British Army) can now dictate who it legal and who is illegal based upon ethnicicity, religion etc because th Brits got there first told King George to take a hike and had a free for all. 

So who are the illegals? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, chocolat steve said:

The immigration laws of 1965 opened it up globally but Africa and the Caribbean were colonized in the 1800s and emigration from those areas were almost exclusively to the countries that colonized them. Even today, its more or less that way. 

In the 1800s the concept of "white" was vastly different than today. Eastern and southern Europeans were not deemed the same "white" as they are deemed today. In the south, only Blacks were lynched. Whites who raped, etc ,were not lynched. It was deemed a act for "blacks". Nevertheless, a Jew was lynched in Georgia as well as Sicilians in Louisiana. They were not deemed 'white" as we know it. But "quasi white" if I have to invent a phrase that characterizes what I am trying to convey. 

Even today, within the supremacist and nationalist movements they differ greatly as what constitutes white. There are arguments pro and con to include Jews, Portuguese, Sicilians, white Moslems from the Balkans, northern Africans, Turks, Persians, fair skinned latinos such as Cubans and Argentinians, etc. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...