And it wasn't right (and still isn't right) or just for white males to have the upper hand in life because of their race/gender in the first place.

i've tried that. no one else seems to think that the natives' way of life was superior to that of the europeans.



and although two wrongs don't make a right, it makes someone happy and that's reason enough to do it, right?


2+2=5
i love big brother

think about it:
they were healthy, they bathed...meh, will find book and add to list later

Jesus Christ Was White



The following excerpt is taken from The Apocalypse of Jesus Christ: A Verse
by Verse Exegesis, pages 279-280, by Pastor V.S. Herrell, which is available
from Herrell Brothers Publishing House. This excerpt regards Revelation
22:16:

"I, Jesus, sent My messenger to testify these things to you over the
Body Politics. I am the Root and Race of David, the bright and morning Star."

Now Jesus affirms that the Messenger sent to John to reveal these things was
indeed sent by Jesus, and identifies Himself as the bright and morning Star (cf.
Numbers 24:17) and the Root and Race of David (cf. Isaiah 11:1). In saying He is the
root and race of David, He is implying that He is both the source of David and the
offspring of David. He is also saying that He is racially identical to David. This is
important because both the Bible and history explicitly record a racial description of
David. In the Septuagint, we read in I Samuel 16:12 of David (cf. I Samuel 17:42):

"And he sent and fetched him: and his was ruddy, with beauty of
eyes, and good in the sight of the Master. And the Master said to Samuel, Arise, and anoint David, for he is good."

Here the word ruddyis translated for the Greek purrakos, which mean to have a
ruddy complexion. The Hebrew word here is admoniy, a derivative of Adam, and
of course Adammeans to show blood in the face, to blush or turn rosy. So the
Bible says very clearly that David was white, for the Hebrew word adam and the
description of ruddywere only applied to white men.
Now Josephus also comments upon David, using slightly different words:

"Now so soon as David appeared at his father's summons - a boy
with golden blonde skin, with fiery eyes and in other ways handsome - " (Jewish Antiquities, VI:164).

Here the words golden blonde are translated for the Greek xanthos, from which
we get the English prefix xantho-, which means yellow. The Greek word meant a
golden yellow, and when used of people it meant that they were blonde. When used
of skin color (as Josephus explicitly does), it implies the golden yellow skin
associated with blonde people. This means that the word was only and could only
be used of people of White, Nordic stock. And of course, only white people are
capable of having rosy colored cheeks, as the term adam and purrakos or ruddy
implies. So when Jesus says that He was of the race of David, He is purposely
contrasting Himself to the dark, swarthy-skinned Edomite Jews, and any other non-
whites who controlled Jerusalem at that time, and establishing once and for all times that like David, He was white.

But most people from that region at that time are portrayed as white. Skin color shouldn't matter so much as actual ethnicity.

Were those genocide? I'm talking about genocide murder..

Now, in Darfur, that's happening, BUT LOOK! White people aren't doing that. Black people are doing it to themselves because one group is darker than the other. Maybe they should be white though, since white people are the only racist people in the world..

(That may not be what you have ever implied, I'm just sick of hearing that..)



UM HI I'M A MINORITY AND I'M WHITE. I'm legally born Jewish and my mom's side of the family is Jewish. I myself am atheist. Here in Indiana, that's most definitely a minority, and I get shit for it all the time. Don't tell me that I don't know what it's like to not be a majority, I've already addressed that many times earlier in the thread.

Also, the "all history is white history" thing has been addressed as well. Please at least skim through the thread before posting.



I think some of you are mistaking my "I don't think anyone should get special treatment for anything due to their race, religion, etc." (which I thought was pretty clear) as saying I think there should be a white history month or a Jewish history month or whatever. I'm not. I don't think there should be any months. I mean, of course there's going to be a lot of white people in a U.S. History book, and in the history book, they point out why that is. They do say that in history, there was a lot of racism, and that it was wrong. In the history books I've had, anyway.

well i was thinking about this and there shouldnt be a white history month because that would cause a big uproar and lots of protesting for new ones and blah blah blah. too much for the monkeys, i mean the bush administration to handle

as headphones said, there just shouldnt be any months.

wow i think i just changed my opinion

i, jesus christ, tell you to eat shit.

did you know there's a bible verse like that?

your translations sound good. but you forget to mention almost every word has more than one meaning.

like, the word which you take to mean ruddy could mean dirty.

and how do you know david is white? you're assuming that he's white. for all you know, david could have been black and you're just mistranslating stuff.


2+2=5
i love big brother

I wasn't telling YOU that you didn't know what it's like not be a majority. If you didn't notice, I didn't quote you or mention you in any way. I was saying it more on a general perspective. As for the the U.S. history thing I don't have a problem with how it is now, I realize that it's mostly white people because it is infact white people who basically built the United States. I'm just opposed to those who don't think their should be a black history month.

Less warlike? Ever hear of the Incas or the Aztecs? The whole human sacrifice and playing ball with the decapitated head of enemy soldiers was passe in Europe by Archaic times.

And Europeans bathed too--the Roman baths were massive architectural wonders. The fact that most Europeans were too poor to afford regular baths (and most native Americans were too) doesn't mean it was a technological problem.

European civilization was stronger and more civilized than civilization in the Americas. The defining characteristics of civilization are advanced cities, division of labor, technological advancement, and complex social institutions. Europe had more of all four. Now, whether Europe was qualitatively better is another argument, but that they were more advanced and stronger is unquestionable.

^ well, i think the incas and aztecs were more civilized than the spanish.

sure they had ritual human sacrafice.

but the european invaders lied, cheated, and schemed to take over the land.

and they killed ruthlessly thousands of natives.
they purposley spread smallpox among them

the conquistadors would have killed a man, no a whole family, for a pea sized gold earing.

is that more civilized? mayhaps it is. but then we must ask ourselves, is civilization good.

2+2=5
i love big brother

im not doubting the legitimacy of this argument by saying this, but could you give examples of how?

also, scheming is not a bad thing when invading a country.
if i invaded mexico, i would probably invent a scheme to do it.

Well, you did say white people, that of which I am.

You don't think at least the other months should be honored as much as black history month? Or there should be no months at all?

i dont really understand why there are any months. should one race be honored over others? if we're really trying to stop racism, we have to stop honoring races. people are now overcompensating for what people did a hundred years ago. i dont think anyone here was personally enslaved....if im wrong, then you're old. to have a black history month, or any ______ history month puts one race on a pedestal, showing how good that is. why do we even have races? does the color of your skin really matter? do you feel that one group of people is better than another only because they're skin is darker than yours? im sorry...but i just think the entire concept of races is wrong.

I think they should all be honored as much as black history month but the only reason I think it is keeping other "months" from being honored as much is because there are more african americans so they are going to make it more well known, I guess you could say. I think it would be a bit scandalous to remove the months.




I agree with you on that but if racism didn't exist in the first place then there wouldn't be any need for all these months. When you said people are now overcompensating for what people did hundreds of years ago as far as slavery but you didn't mention how after slavery was abolished they still had to fight for their equal rights and all the racism after that. It wasn't too long ago they had to go through that either.

I think racism will always exist. I honestly wish it weren't that way but I have a feeling it will be for some time.

I honestly don't see a point in "white history month" because in History classes in schools all over the nation 90 some-odd percent of what happened in the USA (at least) involved white people. But blacks NEVER had any sort of say-so in anything, and I think it's good that we recognize how detremental the black people were to our country.

You do realize that the word 'detrimental' is a word similar to poisonous, or harmful?

yeah...but they didn't mainly kill because others were different from themselves

Yes, they bathed, but after the Middle Ages, it was thought it was unhealthy and didn't bath nearly as much as they should have. Sure, they were fine at one point, but they digressed.

The wars are over. Favoring or 'honoring' certain races is racism. No honorary months please.

My school doesn't do anything different for the month of February, so I don't really notice. Probably because there's only about 5 black kids in my school, all of whom I love very much haha.

I think it is absurd how blacks and other ethnic races get extra "special" treatment because of issues in the past. It's over. There is no "we" as many African-Americans like to refer to connect themselves with the slaves. You weren't a slave. Why should you get anything that anyone else cannot get? God forbid if there was ever a white college funding, or a white only Miss America. All hell would break loose.

I say no months and no special programs because of your ethnicity and gender.

Tell that to the several million screaming blacks when you try to eliminate their special month.

If you're still alive, give me a call. I'd like to buy you a beer.

^ Lmao, yeah really. Well, it's a free country. They can do what they want. Just stating my opinion.

Oh, and I'll take you up on that beer one of these days.

White history month NOVEMBER

black history month is to recognize all the african americans who did something great, and while they were actually doin it they were being harrassed and even killed. its kind of to make up for the past treatment of all black people.

im pretty sure all the ppl responding to this are white males
uh. no offense
oh, and there is no need for white history month. all the great things they've done are in all the history books, on tv, in museums, and being celebrated everyday

Yeah, try being taken away from your homeland, beaten to death, forced to work, and denied rights that you should be born with for years and years.

Don't call me racist, I'm half white but....

Every day is white history month, in social studies we hear about white people

We turn on the tv and there is white people

I don't have another point so I'm going to move on with my speech

Its not like there is only a black history month, there is a hispanic and asian month too (one is in may I think)

Lets just embrace a culture our ancestors ignored for years. Without no further ado, Power to the people (woot woot)