Negro's Riot

Precisely . . . in the mountains of the American southeast--the Carolinas and Georgia--the Creeks, Choctaws, Cherokee and others Amerindians intermarried heavily with the new colonists, and often the tribal leaders were more "white" than "Indian." They didn't intermarry with Africans, though, since they could see their servile status--they did own them as slaves, though. Many, but certainly not all, were driven out by Andrew Jackson in the migration which became known as the "Trail of Tears." Those who managed to hang on, deep in the mountains, have gotten their own back, though. They now run the bingo games and casinos with which they routinely fleece the white boys . . .

Not to disagree with most of what you say, Set, but some escaped slaves did get adopted into local tribes and married Amerindian wives. This was particularly true among the Seminoles (whose domain extended north beyond Florida back in those days) who would adopt anyone who wanted to join their tribe. I'm not sure, but I believe some Cherokee clans may also have given sanctuary to escaped slaves. And, as Dlowan has noted, in the Southwest blacks were commonly referred to as 'black white men' by the plains tribes, especially the Lakota and the Cheyenne. There is anecdotal evidence of Apaches and Navajo giving sanctuary to deserters from all-black Army regiments in the Southwest.

I got it from the racist demographic researchers.
And, actually, there's no basis to that statement of yours above; you just made it up.
___________________

I still don't know why dlo refutes the CIAFactbook demographics for Australia.

All those peeps are Caucasian.

Still wonder about the 14% of "Other."
That list seemed as though no one could possibly have been left out.

Didn't see any at all

Lol, Lash, when you retract your absurd lies....you know the ones:



There are no blacks in Australia
No blacks are allowed to come into Australia
No Asians are permitted into Australia

I will consider you worthy of rational discussion on this matter.


Until then, this is my final word.

You can have your fits, you can rotate your head 360 degrees, you can throw your toys, you can stamp your feet, you can post more outrageous drivel, but I shall neither read your posts nor respond to you on this issue, it is a futile exercise and a waste of time.

You all have fun now!

Let me know if ever you want to have some sort of actual discussion. It is an interesting one....and I even learned something....that our intake of people from Asia has been proportionately more than the US's since both our countries really opened up to Asian immigration, you in '65, us in '66. I would enjoy a real discussion.


But for now, careful of that nose now.....

Damn.


Always preferred the Indians, anyways...

I forgive you, but you really should get out more.

Dlowan's crazed accusation:
There are no blacks in Australia
No blacks are allowed to come into Australia
No Asians are permitted into Australia

______________
LOL!!
I, of course, never said such.

Those who indulge in stupidity such as describing different "races" in terms of caucasians, or negroes, reveal their own racist subscription to the 19th century folly about races. There is only one race--the human race. My ancestors, the Irish, are about as white as they come--but we sure as hell are not descended from the wild tribesmen of the Caucasus. And in fact, the very concept of Caucasian gives the lie to the superficial ascribing of racial characteristics based on superficial appearance.

At the time of the crusades, the great Kurdish hero, Yusuf Sal'al Din (Saladin), came from his military base in Egypt. The backbone of Egyptian military might at the time were the Mamluks. Mamluk comes from an arabic word meaning "owned," they were military slaves. (White warrior slave common in Muslim states from around the 9th century until the 19th century. "Mamluk" is Arabic for white slave, and the word is related to the word for king, "malik", indicating that a Mamluk was a slave owned by the ruler of a state --Source.)

However, when Napoleon defeated the Mamluks at the Battle of the Pyramids in 1798, they were as black as the ace of spades, to use a common English language expression. The evidence for such a statement is to be found in literally hundreds of sources. Leave a white boy out in the sun for a few hundred years, and you'll have a black boy.

The point is that superficial traits are only significant to those who come to a discussion freighted with their own racist attitudes. A black woman and a white woman have far more in common on the basis of their gender than they have differences arising from the colors of their skins. Culture and ethnicity are greater determinants of what separates people, and it is petty tribal bigotry which makes that a problem.

So, once again, superficiality is at the heart of racism. Those who believe that there are "caucasians" and "negroes" and that they constitute separate races are in the grip of the nasty racism, born in the 19th century and reaching its apotheosis with the likes of Adolf Eichmann.

Napoleon ? Pyramids ?
Set, admit it, you're just making this stuff up, right ?

(Just trying to spare Ms. Lash the burden of responding.)

Negroes don't call themselves that. They use much worse words. Just listen to your local rap station.

So, do you like rap, or are you doing a sociological study?

It's all over. Set says there are no black, Negro, white or Caucasian people. (Guessing this puts an ix-nay on the Asians, too...) You never are quite sure which direction someone may go in a conversation like this.

I'll have to hand it to him...I didn't see THAT coming.

LOL!!!

RASSENPOLITIK, Berlin: SS Hauptamt, circa. 1942 gives some good examples that Set is completely wrong.

Unfortunately, with the recent rollover to a new server, links don't work any more, Walter. I click on yours and takes me back to the A2K home page. Can you give us a summary on Rassenpolitik?

I agree with Set that the whole subject of race is so misunderstood that it has hardly any meaning. 'Black' is not a race; it is a description of skin pigmentation only. Australian aborigine 'blacks' look a lot like Africans, but their DNA comparisons show clearly that there is no kinship between these two 'races.' What, then, is 'race'? A set of characteristics shared by a group of people, not limited to -- and perhaps not even including -- skin pigmentation. There are more points of identification between East Europeans and East Asian Mongols than between those same East Europeans and their West European cousins. Not in appearance or cultural values, mind you, but in their DNA. This is the legacy of Ghengiz Khan and the Golden Horde.

I, too, recognize only the human race as having any larger meaning. 'Black' and 'white' are just labels, like 'red haired' or 'brown eyed.' They're handy for identification purposes, no more.

prolly doesn't have anything to do with the rollover -- i think the link may be a bad one:
http://www.dac.neu.edu/holocaust/Nazi%20Racial%20Policy.htm

LTX ? ! ? ! ? Tsk, tsk, tsk . . .

The Battle of the Pyramids

To a blind person... there is no race. People seem to have prejudice based on what they can see. How many times has someone liked a person who they spoke to on the telephone and then met them and had a different opinion?

Happens to me all the time! My name is Rusty and everyone say, "Oh I thought you were a guy!"