Squirley's July 2010 Screwballs Derail

[squirley]

I know that some slaves were literate (often against the wishes-- and best efforts-- of their masters); however, the suggestion that their owners were not able to read and write is preposterous.

I've never said that Slave owners were iliterate. Just because they had books read to them doesn't mean that they couldn't read. They processed information different than you and I because of the available books that they read or had recited to them.

So... you're proposing that in a few hundred years, we might discover some 19th century manuscripts in which "racism" is used innocuously? And that it's the Illuminati that's been hiding these manuscripts?

If you understand how an entire nation can be literaly embargoed into reading hatred literature or even non-hatred-filled literature by the world's elite, then you'd understand how powerful the conspiracy really is. Look at Nazi Germany, or Talmudic Jews.

I guess the mark of a really powerful conspiracy is how stupid its actions are. Why the heck would they need to repurpose a word like "racist" when they could invent an entirely new one, like "ethnicist"?

The conspiracist really understand mass psychology and they need short words to sell their ideas to a population. Long words are tough to sell to uneducated persons and are far harder to enunciate. While short words like racist are easy. Coca-Cola, Life, Nazi, Times, Pepsi, Sambo... there are many of them used by the corporate conspirators also.

Could you please repeat your definition of racism and explain why this isn't all wild speculation on your part?

I'm partially going to repeat it because in light of all of the new discoveries we've made it should be quite obvious this thread wasn't made to waste our time.

Here's my proposed definition of "racist"

racist (1)
1867-1935 as a verb, ludicrous expletive of the word race “racer”, from race (n.1). Used in reference to NASCAR “racers“ (Eng. 2005, urban slang). Origin as a verb unknown. Possibly from influential Southern U.S. slave owners by means of oral tradition now lost.

“The white slave read a book to miss Daisy. She didn’t feel like reading herself today. The only books miss Daisy read were literature without racial slurs in them such as Mark Twain (b. 1835, d. 1910) books.”

Miss Daisy unbeknowst to the association of race (1) with racism (n.2) and race (n.2) naïvely coined the term racist (n.1) associating the “engine” (1862) of “endeavour” (15th century, syn. “attempt”) of slaves to escape into the “freedom” of N. Capitalism. Abraham Lincoln’s “emancipation proclamation” (1863) created the U.S. Civil War. Prior to the American Revolutionary War (1775-1783), racism has become increasingly hectic towards world-wide domination of economic and political fields.

“Every person who is striving toward a goal like a juggernaut is a racist.” -squirley

In historical, context all evidence points out that the biological-social forms of the term have been used against southern U.S. farmers throughout the 20th century (a.k.a Rednecks). Heavy influence of Nazi theories among occult societies (K.K.K, KoC) in the U.S. south throughout the 19th and 20th century has sprung wide-held anti-Redneck sentiment due to their semantic distortions such as “Papist”, “Romanist” attacks against Catholics and similar words. Naturally by Civil rights movements in Latin America and in the U.S. during the 1960’s and 1970’s that it has automatically been synonimous to hold Rednecks as racists. Entire nations such as South Africa and Rhodesia labeled themselves “racist” nations as if in opposition to Civil Rights movements.

racism (1)
1867-1935; see racist (1)

Here's Etymonline's one:

etymonline.com

race (1)
"act of running," c.1300, from O.N. ras "running, rush (of water)," cognate with O.E. ræs, which became M.E. resen "attack, incursion," but did not survive into Mod.Eng. Both O.N. and O.E. are from P.Gmc. *ræs- (cf. M.Du. rasen "to rave, rage," Ger. rasen). Originally a northern word, it became general in English c.1550. Meaning "contest of speed" first recorded 1510s (the verb in this sense is from 1670s). Race-horse is from 1620s. Meaning "strong current of water" is from late 14c., possibly influenced by O.Fr. raz, which had a similar meaning, and is probably from Breton raz "a strait, narrow channel;" this French source also may have given race its meaning of "channel of a stream" (especially an artificial one to a mill), recorded from 1560s. The verb, in reference to an engine, is from 1862.

© source where applicable

___________

And here are the other etymologies:

Etymonline.com

race (2)
"people of common descent," c.1500, from M.Fr. razza "race, breed, lineage," possibly from It. razza, of unknown origin (cf. Sp., Port. raza). Original senses in English included "wines with characteristic flavor" (1520), "group of people with common occupation" (c.1500), and "generation" (c.1560). Meaning "tribe, nation, or people regarded as of common stock" is from c.1600. Modern meaning of "one of the great divisions of mankind based on physical peculiarities" is from 1774 (though even among anthropologists there never has been an accepted classification of these).
Just being a Negro doesn't qualify you to understand the race situation any more than being sick makes you an expert on medicine. [Dick Gregory, 1964]
Klein suggests these derive from Arabic ra's "head, beginning, origin" (cf. Heb. rosh). O.E. þeode meant both "race" and "language;" as a verb, geþeodan, it meant "to unite, to join." Race-riot attested from 1890.

© source where applicable

Etymonline.com

racism (2)
1936, see racist (2)

© source where applicable

Etymonline.com

racist (2)
1932 as a noun, 1938 as an adjective, from race (n.2); racism is first attested 1936 (from Fr. racisme, 1935), originally in the context of Nazi theories. But they replaced earlier words, racialism (1907) and racialist (1917), both often used at first in a British or South African context.

© source where applicable

So from, what has been theoreticly added is that the U.S. Southerners read books or had them read out to them by slaves. The books they read were not filled with racial hatred at all. So when the 19th and 20th century came, catholics who had been discriminated upon by U.S. Southern protestants became cooperative with secret societies such as KoC to label Rednecks as prejudiced persons. Ku Klux Klan secret societies distorted the KoC's religious discrimination accusations by posing as racial (n.2) agent provocateurs by accusing many black persons of crimes they did not commit.

God bless

-squirley

[squirley]

Hi y'all,

I'm writing to you in order for you to consider the possibility that there is such a thing as conspiracy fact by demonstrating how a site called "The Daily Beast" is flaunting lies in front of our faces as we speak regarding this topic, "conspiracy". If you are unconvinced by what you've read so far in this thread just from the mystery of how racism became synonimous with discrimination and "political correctness" in our western civilization, please read and vote in the thread I've opened up in this link:

Who is the real conspirator?

I thank you for thus having read so far.

God bless,

-squirley

[Raphael]

the mystery of how racism became synonimous with discrimination and "political correctness" in our western civilization,

Mystery?

Nope no mystery. Racism came to be considered discrimination due to the concerted efforts of the Third Reich and Apartheid South Africa (and indeed South Africa is still working towards making racism synonymous, just flipped over ... BBBEE is just as bad as Apartheid ever was).

[Kelp]

I did.



Indeed. You stated that it derived from slave owners who were referring to their run away slaves. I asked you to substantiate this claim. You have not. Until you've substantiate this claim, I can only assume you've made it up or picked it up from some sort of urban legend.



The etymology for the word "race" is pretty clear, and distinctly different from the word "race" (as in to run). Prior to the last century, as far as I can tell, words like "racialism" and "racialist" were used primarily by scientists. The first published use of the word "racist" in English was apparently in a 1932 English translation of Trotsky's, "The History of the Russian Revolution".

According to the Oxford English Dictionary (second edition, 1989) the first standard use of the word "racist" and "racism" dates to 1933-34 and comes from the German-Jewish medical scientist Magnus Hirschfeld who used it in his book titled Racism to describe National Socialists and their sympathizers.



Why do I need to do this, and why would I care? My question was simply, what is your source that "racism" comes from slave owners referring to their runaway slaves?



The etymology for "racist" is certainly much older as I've already pointed out. The English word "racist" comes from the root "race" and ultimately stems from the Middle French word "razza" which means "race, breed, lineage,".



My citation was not from Merriam-Webster, it was from the Online Etymology Dictionary.

Online Etymology Dictionary

The basic sources of this work are Weekley's "An Etymological Dictionary of Modern English," Klein's "A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the English Language," "Oxford English Dictionary" (second edition), "Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology," Holthauzen's "Etymologisches Wörterbuch der Englischen Sprache," and Kipfer and Chapman's "Dictionary of American Slang."

© source where applicable

I don't get it...

Anyways... To be honest, I didn't really intend to enter a debate. I simply wanted to know your source for the following statement:

Don't scratch your nose or you're part of the conspiracy!

People like Squirley are as blind as the people they think they are saving from the conspiracy. Any evidence that doesn't comport with their conclusions is all part of the conspiracy .

His vicepresidential slogan was "Vote For Biden" But that also stands for "Vote Forbidden".

Wow, hang out with Mary Baker Edie much?

[Adrift]

Don't scratch your nose or you're part of the conspiracy!

People like Squirley are as blind as the people they think they are saving from the conspiracy. Any evidence that doesn't comport with their conclusions is all part of the conspiracy .

Ah. Good to know. Thank you.

[Thersites]

If you understand how an entire nation can be literaly embargoed into reading hatred literature or even non-hatred-filled literature by the world's elite, then you'd understand how powerful the conspiracy really is. Look at Nazi Germany, or Talmudic Jews.

So your answer is "yes". That has to be one of the silliest things I've seen said on this website, and I've been here a while.

The conspiracist really understand mass psychology and they need short words to sell their ideas to a population. Long words are tough to sell to uneducated persons and are far harder to enunciate. While short words like racist are easy. Coca-Cola, Life, Nazi, Times, Pepsi, Sambo... there are many of them used by the corporate conspirators also.

It's not brilliant mass psychology, it's utter lunacy and an utter impossibility. Written correspondence was extremely common in the 19th century. If "racism" even existed as a word in the 19th century, much less was part of any common vernacular, we would have some record of it, either from private letters or from the ubiquitous newspapers and pamphlets of the period. There is no record of the word "racist" from that period, and it would have been logistically impossible for any conspiratorial organization to hide all references to "racist" in reference to escaped slaves unless everyone was part of the conspiracy... and that kind of defeats the purpose of being a secret conspiracy.

Here's my proposed definition of "racist"

racist (1)
1867-1935 as a verb, ludicrous expletive of the word race “racer”, from race (n.1). Used in reference to NASCAR “racers“ (Eng. 2005, urban slang). Origin as a verb unknown. Possibly from influential Southern U.S. slave owners by means of oral tradition now lost.

“The white slave read a book to miss Daisy. She didn’t feel like reading herself today. The only books miss Daisy read were literature without racial slurs in them such as Mark Twain (b. 1835, d. 1910) books.”

Yeesh... where to start? Not only did Mark Twain use words thought of today as racial slurs (The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn has been criticized for using the "n" word, and its central story involves an escaped slave) and if that weren't enough, he wasn't famous until well after the Civil War-- there is absolutely no chance that anyone in the antebellum South would have read a word of Twain... or that any of them would have any trouble thinking of blacks as inferior.

If that weren't enough, you still don't understand what Urban Dictionary is. It is not a dictionary of urban slang; it is a collection of entirely facetious reinterpretations of common words. To say that Urban Dictionary is an accurate compendium of modern English slang is equivalent to suggesting that the Onion is an accurate news source.

Miss Daisy unbeknowst to the association of race (1) with racism (n.2) and race (n.2) naïvely coined the term racist (n.1) associating the “engine” (1862) of “endeavour” (15th century, syn. “attempt”) of slaves to escape into the “freedom” of N. Capitalism. Abraham Lincoln’s “emancipation proclamation” (1863) created the U.S. Civil War. Prior to the American Revolutionary War (1775-1783), racism has become increasingly hectic towards world-wide domination of economic and political fields.

“Every person who is striving toward a goal like a juggernaut is a racist.” -squirley

The Emancipation Proclamation was issued partway through the Civil War. The Civil started in April 1861, not in 1863. The Emancipation Proclamation was an ideological re-framing of the purpose of the war: prior to that, the war had been about the right of the southern states to secede. The Emancipation Proclamation was issued partway through the war, not at its beginning.

In historical, context all evidence points out that the biological-social forms of the term have been used against southern U.S. farmers throughout the 20th century (a.k.a Rednecks). Heavy influence of Nazi theories among occult societies (K.K.K, KoC) in the U.S. south throughout the 19th and 20th century has sprung wide-held anti-Redneck sentiment due to their semantic distortions such as “Papist”, “Romanist” attacks against Catholics and similar words. Naturally by Civil rights movements in Latin America and in the U.S. during the 1960’s and 1970’s that it has automatically been synonimous to hold Rednecks as racists. Entire nations such as South Africa and Rhodesia labeled themselves “racist” nations as if in opposition to Civil Rights movements.

Nazism was a novelty of 1930s Germany. There could not be Nazi influence in the 19th century American South anymore than there could be Christian influence in the works of Aristotle.

So from, what has been theoreticly added is that the U.S. Southerners read books or had them read out to them by slaves. The books they read were not filled with racial hatred at all. So when the 19th and 20th century came, catholics who had been discriminated upon by U.S. Southern protestants became cooperative with secret societies such as KoC to label Rednecks as prejudiced persons. Ku Klux Klan secret societies distorted the KoC's religious discrimination accusations by posing as racial (n.2) agent provocateurs by accusing many black persons of crimes they did not commit.

God bless

-squirley

There really wasn't much anti-Catholic discrimination in the American South-- most of it was perpetrated by New England Protestants, the ideological heirs of the Puritanical sects which left England precisely because they thought it was too "Romish" despite the English Reformation. Your knowledge of American history is patchy at best. I'd suggest that you actually do some research and find some actual sources.

Speaking of sources, one of the most prominent abolitionists, Frederick Douglass, was a former slave who published a memoir of his time in captivity. This memoir is available for you to read here. I would strongly urge you to take it seriously as a primary source document.

[Andius]

Even if such a conspiracy were at hand, it would not happen.

I would end up taking over long before those amateur conspiracies are unleashed. And I would make all Shadownoobs bow down to the greatness that is Manwe.

[squirley]

So your answer is "yes". That has to be one of the silliest things I've seen said on this website, and I've been here a while.

I'm going to private message you to answer your question.

It's not brilliant mass psychology, it's utter lunacy and an utter impossibility. Written correspondence was extremely common in the 19th century. If "racism" even existed as a word in the 19th century, much less was part of any common vernacular, we would have some record of it, either from private letters or from the ubiquitous newspapers and pamphlets of the period. There is no record of the word "racist" from that period, and it would have been logistically impossible for any conspiratorial organization to hide all references to "racist" in reference to escaped slaves unless everyone was part of the conspiracy... and that kind of defeats the purpose of being a secret conspiracy.

You think it's impossible? Guess again having already considered the PM I'll send you. The entire world believed there were WMDs in Iraq. How do you think this could not have been accomplished in the first place. I have not disclosed this before, but there were dark spirits cooperating with the leaders of freemasonry who communicated to them the logistical information of the conspiracy movement. There is no mistery there. Most researchers often don't see this aspect nor even contemplate it as it is too difficult for some to believe in dark spirits who conspire against mankind. If this was false to you and you were a Christian you'd be some kind of a nutty christian.

Yeesh... where to start? Not only did Mark Twain use words thought of today as racial slurs (The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn has been criticized for using the "n" word, and its central story involves an escaped slave)

What?

and if that weren't enough, he wasn't famous until well after the Civil War-- there is absolutely no chance that anyone in the antebellum South would have read a word of Twain... or that any of them would have any trouble thinking of blacks as inferior.

There still is the possibility in my mind that Twain had nothing to do with helping to keep masses of people in a total black out as to what racism was going to do to them in the next couple of centuries.

If that weren't enough, you still don't understand what Urban Dictionary is. It is not a dictionary of urban slang; it is a collection of entirely facetious reinterpretations of common words. To say that Urban Dictionary is an accurate compendium of modern English slang is equivalent to suggesting that the Onion is an accurate news source.

Ok, forget about using Urban Dictionary for a source. But, you know, it just goes to show that if implemented in Education, the etymologies, eschatologies, Esquipulean beliefs and already set forth are acceptable to people with a sense of intellect in this Mayan Calendar Baktun end-date years.

The Emancipation Proclamation was issued partway through the Civil War. The Civil started in April 1861, not in 1863. The Emancipation Proclamation was an ideological re-framing of the purpose of the war: prior to that, the war had been about the right of the southern states to secede. The Emancipation Proclamation was issued partway through the war, not at its beginning.

Ok sorry my mistake, but you have to acknowledge that Civil Wars in the U.S. take years to start-up. The north wanted to take away slavery which according to the south was a God-given right just like the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

The North wants to take those rights away again from the Southern people. Many states have already forfeited their second amendment rights in exchange for more security. These states have fallen for a trap set-up by the Corporate Elite in their ruthless, diabolical quest for a One World Governement, a plan so evil and so .... well .... crazy, that it spans other dimensions in which evil spirits cooperate with the sorcery-loving Occult Elite.

Nazism was a novelty of 1930s Germany. There could not be Nazi influence in the 19th century American South anymore than there could be Christian influence in the works of Aristotle.

After WWII they had influence. The nazis did not influence the south. The Iluminati kept the south unaware of what was going on in the world and fed them (Southern Christians) only books that would keep them entertained.

That's the thing, see these people the KKK and others such as White Supremacists are no different than the NAACP for pulling out their race card against their leaders when their leaders are the actual conspirators in acts of provocation. There's good evidence Obama is labeling "conspiracy theorists" as racists just because they clearly are tired of the current U.S. and world economy and don't see the big picture that they might be pawns as well in another U.S. Civil War struggle going under way.


That's the difference between me and the "conspiracy theorists" I not only go by facts but I'm also proposing solutions. There are even many more, this squirrel's bag is chock-full-o'-them.

There really wasn't much anti-Catholic discrimination in the American South-- most of it was perpetrated by New England Protestants, the ideological heirs of the Puritanical sects which left England precisely because they thought it was too "Romish" despite the English Reformation. Your knowledge of American history is patchy at best. I'd suggest that you actually do some research and find some actual sources.

Speaking of sources, one of the most prominent abolitionists, Frederick Douglass, was a former slave who published a memoir of his time in captivity. This memoir is available for you to read here. I would strongly urge you to take it seriously as a primary source document.

Do you suggest that Anne Frank's Diaries are an accurate source of pre-war Germany's literacy? There was book burning prior to 1941-45 for crying out loud.

That's exactly what's going on today with the internet being censored unfairly. That's crux of the argument I'm making. Search obama+deception+censored in a private search engine such as ixquick.com. But it's also important not to go to war because that's probably what the corporate elite want prior to world war III. So history can repeat itself unless we do something to stop it.

If one book is enough to go to war on another country or states, there is a contradiction with the Bible because God commands for at least two. And even that isn't enough to go to war in modern-day societies.

............................................................................
Deut 17:6 "On the evidence of two witnesses or three witnesses, he who is to die shall be put to death; he shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness."
............................................................................

God bless,

-squirley

[squirley]

Don't scratch your nose or you're part of the conspiracy!
People like Squirley are as blind as the people they think they are saving from the conspiracy. Any evidence that doesn't comport with their conclusions is all part of the conspiracy .

Ok, I just posted a link to a thread in the Linguistic Anthropology section of Tweb and it got moved to the Psychiatric ward. Again, somebody just raced to throw me into the looney bin without really reading what was being laid out.

There's an article about Mark Twain in a site called The Daily Beast and M.T. was a man who lived at a time when racism started to become synonimous with race and he accuses his assistant of being a conspirator? There is something Big brother is hiding and it might be the fact that the man in the W.H. is the antichrist presiding over the world. 616 is the mark of the beast. 6:16 Proverbs 6:16-19. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!

-squirley

Wow, hang out with Mary Baker Edie much?

She seems like an interesting gal if you ask me.

[Thersites]

I'm going to private message you to answer your question.

You think it's impossible? Guess again having already considered the PM I'll send you. The entire world believed there were WMDs in Iraq. How do you think this could not have been accomplished in the first place. I have not disclosed this before, but there were dark spirits cooperating with the leaders of freemasonry who communicated to them the logistical information of the conspiracy movement. There is no mistery there. Most researchers often don't see this aspect nor even contemplate it as it is too difficult for some to believe in dark spirits who conspire against mankind. If this was false to you and you were a Christian you'd be some kind of a nutty christian.

Saddam Hussein wanted the world to believe he had nuclear weapons. Why? Because it would stop Iran from invading. Not every political development is the work of some Secret Evil Shadow Government of Malevolence

What?

My writing process isn't very methodical-- I write bits and pieces at a time, jump between ideas, and sometimes forget to finish a thought before I post. I meant to end the sentence by pointing out that Mark Twain was a famous author of the POST Civil War period. There's no way an antebellum southerner could have read any book by Twain, because he hadn't written his novels yet.

There still is the possibility in my mind that Twain had nothing to do with helping to keep masses of people in a total black out as to what racism was going to do to them in the next couple of centuries.

Has it occurred to you that I might be a member of the conspiracy, too? How do you know that everyone in this thread isn't part of the conspiracy?

Ok, forget about using Urban Dictionary for a source. But, you know, it just goes to show that if implemented in Education, the etymologies, eschatologies, Esquipulean beliefs and already set forth are acceptable to people with a sense of intellect in this Mayan Calendar Baktun end-date years.

If you mention the Mayans again, you're going on my ignore list. OK? It's for your own good.

Ok sorry my mistake, but you have to acknowledge that Civil Wars in the U.S. take years to start-up. The north wanted to take away slavery which according to the south was a God-given right just like the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Civil wars? We've only had one, and though the build-up took years (tensions about slavery existed even as the Constitution was written), it didn't take long for it to go from a tense stand-off to open hostilities. When Abraham Lincoln won the election, a number of Southern states seceded before he even took office. When Lincoln took office, he called for volunteers for the army, causing the more moderate southern states (eg Virginia) to secede in protest. In April, Fort Sumter, a federal-controlled post in Charleston harbor, was fired upon by artillery from the mainland. From there, all-out war broke out. The war didn't take years to "start up"-- it took a few months at most. The battle of Antietam, the bloodiest single-day battle in American history, took place before the Proclamation was issued. The war didn't start because of the Proclamation-- if anything, the Proclamation helped end the war more quickly because it re-framed the international image of the war: because Lincoln successfully recast the war as being about ending slavery, countries such as Britain stopped supporting the Confederacy.

The North wants to take those rights away again from the Southern people. Many states have already forfeited their second amendment rights in exchange for more security. These states have fallen for a trap set-up by the Corporate Elite in their ruthless, diabolical quest for a One World Governement, a plan so evil and so .... well .... crazy, that it spans other dimensions in which evil spirits cooperate with the sorcery-loving Occult Elite.

Add "mentioning evil spirits" to the list of things that will encourage me to put you on "ignore".

After WWII they had influence. The nazis did not influence the south. The Iluminati kept the south unaware of what was going on in the world and fed them (Southern Christians) only books that would keep them entertained.

That's the thing, see these people the KKK and others such as White Supremacists are no different than the NAACP for pulling out their race card against their leaders when their leaders are the actual conspirators in acts of provocation. There's good evidence Obama is labeling "conspiracy theorists" as racists just because they clearly are tired of the current U.S. and world economy and don't see the big picture that they might be pawns as well in another U.S. Civil War struggle going under way.

Political smears do not an ancient conspiracy indicate.

That's the difference between me and the "conspiracy theorists" I not only go by facts but I'm also proposing solutions. There are even many more, this squirrel's bag is chock-full-o'-them.

There is no difference that I can see between you and any other conspiracy theorist other than the petty details of the alleged conspiracy, yet these theories all have one thing in common: if the organizations they describe were half as powerful as the theories suggest, they would already have accomplished their goals. If they are powerful enough to hide every instance of the word "racist" referring to a runaway slave, they are certainly powerful enough to arm their members and mount a coup, or just launch a few nuclear warheads and have done. Despite all the "common sense" that goes into the formulation of these theories, they are all profoundly illogical.

Do you suggest that Anne Frank's Diaries are an accurate source of pre-war Germany's literacy? There was book burning prior to 1941-45 for crying out loud.

Anne Frank was Dutch, not German

That's exactly what's going on today with the internet being censored unfairly. That's crux of the argument I'm making. Search obama+deception+censored in a private search engine such as ixquick.com. But it's also important not to go to war because that's probably what the corporate elite want prior to world war III. So history can repeat itself unless we do something to stop it.

If one book is enough to go to war on another country or states, there is a contradiction with the Bible because God commands for at least two. And even that isn't enough to go to war in modern-day societies.

............................................................................
Deut 17:6 "On the evidence of two witnesses or three witnesses, he who is to die shall be put to death; he shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness."
............................................................................

God bless,

-squirley

Talking about Internet censorship is also on the list of things which will make you the first TWebber to be put on my "ignore" list.

(Do I get bonus points for irony? )

[MaxVel]

]There is no source. Just common sense. The generative of "racist" is open to speculation anyway. There might be a monopoly from Merriam-Webster dictionary and such if the public doesn't wake up to the oblivious fact that the globalists are destroying entire nations on behalf of the U.S. by economic sabotage, unwinnable wars and fraud. All in order to place innocent americans in the altar of world government.

So if people around the world don't stop an American sacrificing world government conspiracy, we'll be forced to adopt the Merriam-Webster definition of 'racist'?

You're either a brilliant satirist or in need of a more balanced view of life.

At least you've made me laugh. Thanks.

[squirley]

Aswers.yahoo.com

One assumes this is for a school assignment, but I will answer anyway. The answer is "Not the one you think".

The Civil War was fought over something called "Electorial votes". At the time, Electorial votes were distributed to either "Slave States" and "Non-slave States". When a State was ratified, it chose a designation, either "Slave" or "Non-Slave". When the war broke out, it was because the Congress had more Non slave States then slave states and the slave states were getting the short end of the stick in every vote. (This meant less money since distribution of goverment funds was done by vote and the non slave states didn't really want to give away money to slave states)

So, really, racism had nothing to do with the Civil war. In fact, Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederacy, abolished slavery with his first act in office. In the South, Black soldiers were given uniforms and rank and were actually treated fairly well considering the time, while the North often didn't give them even food and used them basically as cannon fodder. Along the Underground railway, many Whites helps blacks escape to Canada and freedom because they hated the South, but didn't give them food because they also hated blacks.

The War against racism didn't really begin until Fredrick Douglas and Mark Twain got involved in the movement, years after the war was over. It continues to this day.

© source where applicable

source

Mr. Douglass & Mr. Twain were the ante-racism fathers. What slavery did Abe Lincoln abolish since Jeff Davis the Confederacy's commander had already done so when the war start?

Abe Lincoln's emancipation proclamation was nothing but a legal fiction.

Same as the 14th amendment to the Constitution.

-squirley

[Adrift]

Aswers.yahoo.com

One assumes this is for a school assignment, but I will answer anyway. The answer is "Not the one you think".

The Civil War was fought over something called "Electorial votes". At the time, Electorial votes were distributed to either "Slave States" and "Non-slave States". When a State was ratified, it chose a designation, either "Slave" or "Non-Slave". When the war broke out, it was because the Congress had more Non slave States then slave states and the slave states were getting the short end of the stick in every vote. (This meant less money since distribution of goverment funds was done by vote and the non slave states didn't really want to give away money to slave states)

So, really, racism had nothing to do with the Civil war. In fact, Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederacy, abolished slavery with his first act in office. In the South, Black soldiers were given uniforms and rank and were actually treated fairly well considering the time, while the North often didn't give them even food and used them basically as cannon fodder. Along the Underground railway, many Whites helps blacks escape to Canada and freedom because they hated the South, but didn't give them food because they also hated blacks.

The War against racism didn't really begin until Fredrick Douglas and Mark Twain got involved in the movement, years after the war was over. It continues to this day.

© source where applicable

source

Mr. Douglass & Mr. Twain were the ante-racism fathers. What slavery did Abe Lincoln abolish since Jeff Davis the Confederacy's commander had already done so when the war start?

Abe Lincoln's emancipation proclamation was nothing but a legal fiction.

Same as the 14th amendment to the Constitution.

-squirley

What are the qualifications of your source?

[squirley]

What are the qualifications of your source?

Let me see. She is a User named Cindy H and she doesn't accept messages. Let me get back to you by sending her an e-mail.

[One Bad Pig]

Stop feeding him. Please.