Are You Showing Support for Black Lives Matter in Second Life?

[JanuarySwan]

4 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Have you considered aliens as the possible cause of racism, or perhaps excess fluoride dumped into the water systems of the South?

Have you considered it's reasons other than the "poor whites" causing all the problems?

It's money, Luna, and political maneuvering, as well as favoritism.  

Here we part ways, Luna.  I've had enough of your posts which don't portray a modern world.   

Please don't address me anymore.  You are very prejudiced.  I think you live in a democratic bubble and because I mentioned a good Trump has proposed, you want to attack me instead of work together.  

Edited June 18, 2020 by JanuarySwan

[Luna Bliss]

4 minutes ago, JanuarySwan said:

8 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Have you considered aliens as the possible cause of racism, or perhaps excess fluoride dumped into the water systems of the South?

Have you considered it's reasons other than the "poor whites" causing all the problems?

It's money, Luna, and political maneuvering, as well as favoritism.  

Here we part ways, Luna.  I've had enough of your posts which don't portray a modern world. 

@JanuarySwan    Just because you or I think it's ridiculous to judge a human according to their pigment doesn't mean others don't find it a legitimate way to judge others and attempt to come out on top.

OF COURSE IT'S MONEY!  I've said this all along -- wealthy people get poorer people to battle so they can run off with this money.

I suggest you read some books about the Civil War, and how it's actually still raging in the US today, especially in the South.  Just because you live in a self-described multicultural area of the US and see no evidence of racism, or because you don't discriminate against Blacks, does not mean it does not exist.

Edited June 18, 2020 by Luna Bliss

[Pixie Kobichenko]

40 minutes ago, Velk Kerang said:

If we weren't in the middle of as global pandemic I'd say you really need to get out more. lol I mean I thought we pretty much covered this already. lol Your just focused on that one thing aren't ya? lol Like a dog with a bone you just don't seem to be letting that go any time soon. lol As for me using the term girlfriend sorry if that was offensive to you. It is neither disingenuous &/or pandering, but I guess if I had just called you friend or mate I would have been accused of that as well too because it really is no different then either of those terms either. So since I can kind of already see where this is going then this is where I am going to respectfully bow out and grab a bite to eat. Time to take a station break. lol I sincerely do wish you all the best. Good luck. Take care now. Have an awesome and blessed day.😎

You get an A++++ for attempt at condescension.  

[Luna Bliss]

@JanuarySwan

Ever since we were able to enslave people with darker-colored skins we've felt they were inferior and should be dominated. It's how these people in the WASP category you've described operate.  If those we'd enslaved been orange we'd feel the same about them -- orange skin BAD!   Seems silly, I know, that skin pigment would seem to be the cause, but the color is just a marker symbolizing the desire to place others on lower levels so we have more advantage. And those we enslaved first in America, and became our scapegoats, were darker-skinned.

Power almost never gives up their advantage easily, and without a fight -- this has been proven through History in all the struggles of the past between those who had power and the disadvantaged groups they dominated.  This is why we have a struggle now.

Edited June 18, 2020 by Luna Bliss

[FairreLilette]

10 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

OF COURSE IT'S MONEY!  I've said this all along -- wealthy people get poorer people to battle so they can run off with this money.

Naw, I saw your phrasing, it was "the poor whites" and you said it several times.  You also attacked me when I brought up something positive about Trump.  There is an anti-Trump campaign that goes on here even when he does do some good.  A 1 trillion dollar infrastructure bill sounds good to me, it's helpful to American's who need jobs.  

You want to believe all the Democrats are so wonderful...well, then look who was involved in the discrimination against Blacks and the GI Bill:  

When lawmakers began drafting the GI Bill in 1944, some Southern Democrats feared that returning black veterans would use public sympathy for veterans to advocate against Jim Crow laws. To make sure the GI Bill largely benefited white people, the southern Democrats drew on tactics they had previously used to ensure that the New Deal helped as few black people as possible.

https://www.history.com/news/gi-bill-black-wwii-veterans-benefits

Edited June 18, 2020 by FairreLilette

[Luna Bliss]

10 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

21 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

OF COURSE IT'S MONEY!  I've said this all along -- wealthy people get poorer people to battle so they can run off with this money.

Naw, I saw your phrasing, it was "the poor whites" and you said it several times.  You also attacked me when I brought up something positive about Trump.  There is an anti-Trump campaign that goes on here even when he does do some good.  A 1 trillion dollar infrastructure bill sounds good to me, it's helpful to American's who need jobs.  

You want to believe all the Democrats are so wonderful...well, then look who was involved in the discrimination against Blacks and the GI Bill:  

The problem is the wealthy funneling the money to themselves AND the poor Whites who blame Blacks for all their woes.  Can't you hold these two notions in your mind at the same time?

Again, I am NOT a Democrat, I don't LIKE Democrats, Democrats policies swing so far to the right we might as well call them Republicans now.  So stop making this into some polarizing political battle where you decide I'm some uber Democrat insulting Republicans.

* We have only one party now, and it is the super-wealthy multinational corporations that use the rest of us, whatever party, whatever race, in any way they can!

Edited June 18, 2020 by Luna Bliss

[Innula Zenovka]

2 hours ago, JanuarySwan said:

I can see how with Capitalistic countries the indigenous people would have no use.  Capitalism could explain the reason the indigenous people are thought of as less important; there is no need for them under Capitalism.

I think you need to carry the historical analysis a bit further.

Back in the C15th, wealth was, to all intents and purposes, land.   Or, to put it another way, land was immobile capital -- if you own land, you can live on it,  grow crops on it, raise cattle,  dig mines, and so on, and also borrow money against it.   

Colonisation of the Americas was a system whereby (primarily) seafaring nations on the east of the Atlantic seaboard discovered that there was seeming endless amounts of land over on the other side of the ocean, and the land in what we now know as North America didn't seem to belong to anyone, at least not in the sense Europeans recognised, since no one had any title deeds or anything like that, granting them exclusive title to the land.

So groups of investors joined together, to form companies with royal warrants to go and claim this unowned land (as far as they were concerned), settle it and bring it under cultivation, and thus profit -- by sailing off to the new world, they were, in effect, grabbing immobile capital (land) for free, and using it to generate products that could be exchanged for other products, goods, services, and cash.

To realise this, of course, you need people to work the land, as well as to own it, and there two ways of finding them.    One option was buy slaves from local rulers in West Africa, and then force them to work in your new plantations ("plantations" not because you were planting crops but because you were (trans)planting people -- that's what the word meant originally, which is why we in the UK (or at my school we were, way back when) were taught about the "plantation" of Ulster* when Cromwell settled the formerly rebellious Catholic province with radical Protestants from England and Scotland), and the other was to ship the unemployed "idle poor" from England as indentured servants, as an alternative to hanging them for minor criminal offences) and then as free labourers after their period of involuntary servitude ended.     

This latter method was a good way of dealing with the problem that people, whether or not they own land,  are going to have children sooner or later, and when there's a limited amount of land available, and it's owned by people who want to use it for their own purposes,  and don't want all these poor people trespassing on it.     Ship 'em off to the colonies, where they can help extract value from the newly-claimed lands, and everyone profits.

The trouble is that, after they arrive in the New World,  these landless labourers (white) are going to have children, as are the enslaved Africans, but this is easily soluble by settling more land -- more free money for someone, as soon as it's settled.     You have a seemingly inexhaustible source of wealth (at least for the next few generations) there for the taking, if you're prepared to drive the Native Americans off it and settle it yourself.     

There is a problem with this, though, that while both slave-owning  and free states want more land to exploit, using their own growing populations of native-born workers (free or enslaved) to bring it under cultivation,  there are obvious conflicts of interest between the owners of large plantations in slave states, who want large plantations worked by both newly kidnapped African slaves and by the children of their existing enslaved workforce (since slavery is an inherited condition in these colonies*) and the smaller landowners in both free and slave states, who want smaller plantations worked by the family and free labour.   There's also a conflict between the owners of factories that turn the raw materials obtained from the land into saleable goods and their free workforce, and a separate conflict of interests between the descendants of the African slaves who are either freed or who free themselves by escaping, or,  after the Civil War, who are emancipated, and the white landless workers, since they're both competing for the same jobs.

For a time these conflicts can be resolved simply by seizing more land (growing the economy, literally)  but eventually you run out of unclaimed land, and then you either annex land that's already been claimed by someone else (primarily Spain) or invest in it, and put your money to work that way.

The problem with investing -- buying shares of businesses operating on land that belongs to someone else, often in another country that you can't readily invade and take over for yourself -- is that it doesn't do much for the ever-growing population that doesn't own wealth,  and since you can no longer satisfy their needs by obtaining more land on which they can live and work,  the only other way to meet their needs seems to be by taxing people who do own the wealth (or expropriating the wealth, or at least the means of producing it) and using that, both in schemes like the New Deal and through other forms of assistance like publicly funded education, medical care and so on,   This is an idea that doesn't appeal half as much to the people who own the wealth as it does to the people who don't.

That, at least, is my broad and crude understanding of the historical and economic processes at work, based on what I've been reading recently.

 

*ETA -- I still remember being puzzled by this at school until the teacher explained to me why they used the same term for the Plantation of Ulster and for Tara in Gone With The Wind.

ETA 2 -- A commercial aspect of slavery we often overlook is that, for the enslaver, the enslaved are assets that reproduce themselves, and thus highly profitable because not only does the labour force increase naturally, at only the extra marginal cost of feeding and clothing the children until they're old enough to be put to work, but also because the children can be turned into cash, either by being sold or by being used as security for loans to buy more land.

 

Edited June 18, 2020 by Innula Zenovka

[FairreLilette]

55 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

The problem is the wealthy funneling the money to themselves AND the poor Whites who blame Blacks for all their woes.  Can't you hold these two notions in your mind at the same time?

Again, I am NOT a Democrat, I don't LIKE Democrats, Democrats policies swing so far to the right we might as well call them Republicans now.  So stop making this into some polarizing political battle where you decide I'm some uber Democrat insulting Republicans.

* We have only one party now, and it is the super-wealthy multinational corporations that use the rest of us, whatever party, whatever race, in any way they can!

It was the poor whites prior to the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960's who were of the collegiate class who didn't want blacks encroaching on their territory as that class was for wealthy whites only.  But, the Civil Rights Movements did change many things, but I AM NOT saying there are NOT white supremacists in the Untied States today because there are.   But in multi-cultural communities, not so much in the 21 st Century, although possibly a tiny bit.  I found out through one friend yesterday who encountered neo-nazis in a nearby county because he belongs to a biker group and the neo-nazis said to him "after you eat, you all better leave this area" and he's white, white doesn't matter to neo-Nazis.   

However, you may want to read about the WASP culture in this country; it seems to be pivotal to many things especially in regards to white wealth.  

But, I agree, yes, there is one party now, the super-wealthy.  Though in starting to read a little about the WASPS, I think it's always been about the wealthy.  The WASPS are and have been the very wealthy majority but it's also political as well.  

This is why some are saying in this thread we need all rights matter because we all can and have been exploited if we are the working class, average Jane and and Joe citizen and that's why we object to being labeled something like "the poor whites" for example.  Not all of us have had it made, but as Jimmy Kimmel said perhaps having white skin just made it a little less harder but I have even said I wanted to leave this country and move to Canada in this thread due to the way my family was treated.  I have French Canadian relatives in Canada.  Sometimes, I would just like to leave.

But, others are helping here, Luna, and trying to help change things and then we are just called stupid names and labels.  

Also, as far as Trump, I am not a Republican either but I'd like to discuss things without my head being bit off here but it seems an impossible hope when people don't even realize Trump is the talking head for people behind the scenes.  

Edited June 18, 2020 by FairreLilette

[Luna Bliss]

51 minutes ago, JanuarySwan said:

You are very prejudiced.  I think you live in a democratic bubble and because I mentioned a good Trump has proposed, you want to attack me instead of work together. 

No, I am attacking an idea of yours that I think is ridiculous...the notion that racism could be caused by an "alliance of the United States and England".

Once again, I'm not a Democrat.

[Luna Bliss]

21 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

This is why some are saying in this thread we need all rights matter because we all can and have been exploited if we are the working class, average Jane and and Joe citizen and that's why we object to being labeled something like "the poor whites" for example.

In the context which I was saying "poor Whites" I was saying they are Whites without much money.  Not a label...this is simply a descriptive term.

Many of these poor Whites, especially in the South, have been brainwashed to believe that POC are the source of their economic woes. So they blame Blacks and discriminate against them.  Not all poor Whites do this, but many do.

Now we can take wealthy Whites too (not the super wealthy, but more like higher middle-class) and try to understand what some of them do to perpetuate racism, but this is opening a very complex can of worms.

Edited June 18, 2020 by Luna Bliss

[Dano Seale]

1 hour ago, Pixie Kobichenko said:

In closing, I am 44.  No one refers to me as “girlfriend” in passing

I saw him say that and thought - "oh you gone done it now boy!" 😆
Pretty sure this is the same guy who was here a couple of weeks ago in another name, Bryce something or other. Same long posts, same spelling mistakes "your" for "you're", "secrete" for "secret" etc. Same, "I've done this, I've done that, I served my Country" blah blah crap! Like everyone needs to bow down and be grateful lol. He got slapped out then, he'll get slapped out again probably. Ignore him!  😉

[FairreLilette]

32 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

In the context which I was saying "poor Whites" I was saying they are Whites without much money.  Not a label...this is simply a descriptive term.

 

I thought you were making a label such as poor whites to mean we are all the same.  But, that is probably what many of us objective to in this thread.  I don't want to be stereotyped such as all whites equals bad and oppression because that's erroneous and destructive to the issues here.  It would also be erroneous of me to say it's all Germans fault for what they did to the Polish people.  

Just look at the Democrats and the GI Bill, that may start to tell a tale many aren't willing to look at.  Politics can be very exploitative and his it's own agendas in regards to human beings.  

32 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Many of these poor Whites, especially in the South, have been brainwashed to believe that POC are the source of their economic woes. So they blame Blacks and discriminate against them.  

I don't live in the South.  I'm not sure what is going on there.  

But, one thing to remember is the neo-Nazis hate many whites too.  We are that mean word too or the neo-Nazis say to some white people "you are a white insert Nword" here.  (If you know which N-word I mean).   There are crazy people in this world too.   People find all reasons to scapegoat people.  But, what is going on in the South there as a lot of us would like to know since we don't live there.  Is it Evangelicals or what?   

Edited June 18, 2020 by FairreLilette

[Ceka Cianci]

For me it felt worse in the north than the south..But I'm just going from my personal experience..

[FairreLilette]

42 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Now we can take wealthy Whites too (not the super wealthy, but more like higher middle-class) and try to understand what some of them do to perpetuate racism, but this is opening a very complex can of worms.

It's been said for quite some times, oh at least 15 years or so we are turning into a country of the HAVE and HAVE NOTS.  The wealthy upper middle class and middle class has been dwindling for quite some time.  Most of us workers are pretty much in the same boat together and most people are good people, imo.  I've only had one uncle I did not like.  This one uncle wanted to marry my Mom too, so he made problems for my Dad and my family.  Other than him, I haven't met anyone in my life who really I'd describe as a bad person.  

I have not met very many racists in my life.  I come from a family of mostly medical workers and school teachers - both of which are hired to treat everyone equally, although they did that anyways without having to be told.  California is very different, although it does have it's fair share of problems for people who want an education here and problems with the inner city and homelessness such as Skid Row and other problems.  It's pretty much the Army for us average people or take out student loans that last a million years, may as well.  

The WASPS do still exist though, though not to as great a degree as before.  There is still this thing in America though to elect a WASP as president for some reason though which has me wondering.  

Edited June 18, 2020 by FairreLilette

[FairreLilette]

5 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

For me it felt worse in the north than the south..But I'm just going from my personal experience..

Could you tell us more Ceka?  I'd like to hear, if you want to share, that is.  

[JanuarySwan]

1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said:

No, I am attacking an idea of yours that I think is ridiculous...the notion that racism could be caused by an "alliance of the United States and England".

Once again, I'm not a Democrat.

I don't find it ridiculous at all.  It is part of the infrastructure of the WASP culture, the W stands for white - White Anglo-Saxon Protestants.   I suggest you may want to read about the WASP culture.  I was proposing the idea as a possibility for white favoritism, although white Catholics were not highly favored such as those from Poland, Italy and Ireland - we were the white dogs as most of us are not Protestant.  The majority of people from Poland, Italy and Ireland are Catholic.  

 

1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said:

In the context which I was saying "poor Whites" I was saying they are Whites without much money.  Not a label...this is simply a descriptive term.

Oh, I see.  I do apologize then.  A better wording would be "poorer whites" and "wealthier whites".  

 

 

WHITE ANGLO-SAXON PROTESTANTS

Before WASP came into use in the 1960s, the term Anglo-Saxon served some of the same purposes. Like the newer term WASP, the older term Anglo-Saxon was used derisively by writers hostile to an informal alliance between Britain and the U.S. The negative connotation was especially common among Irish Americans and writers in France. Anglo-Saxon, meaning in effect the whole Anglosphere, remains a term favored by the French, used disapprovingly in contexts such as criticism of the Special Relationship of close diplomatic relations between the US and Britain and complaints about perceived "Anglo-Saxon" cultural or political dominance. It also remains in use in Ireland as a term for the British or English, and sometimes in Scottish Nationalist discourse. Irish-American humorist Finley Peter Dunne popularized the ridicule of "Anglo-Saxons", even calling President Theodore Roosevelt one. Roosevelt insisted he was Dutch.^[15] "To be genuinely Irish is to challenge WASP dominance", argues California politician Tom Hayden.^[16] The depiction of the Irish in the films of John Ford was a counterpoint to WASP standards of rectitude. "The procession of rambunctious and feckless Celts through Ford's films, Irish and otherwise, was meant to ***** a snoot at WASP or 'lace-curtain Irish' ideas of respectability."^[17]

Edited June 18, 2020 by JanuarySwan

[Ashlyn Voir]

43 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

For me it felt worse in the north than the south..But I'm just going from my personal experience..

Omg same. I’m from the north and at least I’m the south they’re a little more in your face about it than the north where they smile in your face, but know they don’t really like us. 

[JanuarySwan]

2 hours ago, Innula Zenovka said:

I think you need to carry the historical analysis a bit further.

Back in the C15th, wealth was, to all intents and purposes, land.   Or, to put it another way, land was immobile capital -- if you own land, you can live on it,  grow crops on it, raise cattle,  dig mines, and so on, and also borrow money against it.   

Colonisation of the Americas was a system whereby (primarily) seafaring nations on the east of the Atlantic seaboard discovered that there was seeming endless amounts of land over on the other side of the ocean, and the land in what we now know as North America didn't seem to belong to anyone, at least not in the sense Europeans recognised, since no one had any title deeds or anything like that, granting them exclusive title to the land.

So groups of investors joined together, to form companies with royal warrants to go and claim this unowned land (as far as they were concerned), settle it and bring it under cultivation, and thus profit -- by sailing off to the new world, they were, in effect, grabbing immobile capital (land) for free, and using it to generate products that could be exchanged for other products, goods, services, and cash.

To realise this, of course, you need people to work the land, as well as to own it, and there two ways of finding them.    One option was buy slaves from local rulers in West Africa, and then force them to work in your new plantations ("plantations" not because you were planting crops but because you were (trans)planting people -- that's what the word meant originally, which is why we in the UK (or at my school we were, way back when) were taught about the "plantation" of Ulster* when Cromwell settled the formerly rebellious Catholic province with radical Protestants from England and Scotland), and the other was to ship the unemployed "idle poor" from England as indentured servants, as an alternative to hanging them for minor criminal offences) and then as free labourers after their period of involuntary servitude ended.     

This latter method was a good way of dealing with the problem that people, whether or not they own land,  are going to have children sooner or later, and when there's a limited amount of land available, and it's owned by people who want to use it for their own purposes,  and don't want all these poor people trespassing on it.     Ship 'em off to the colonies, where they can help extract value from the newly-claimed lands, and everyone profits.

The trouble is that, after they arrive in the New World,  these landless labourers (white) are going to have children, as are the enslaved Africans, but this is easily soluble by settling more land -- more free money for someone, as soon as it's settled.     You have a seemingly inexhaustible source of wealth (at least for the next few generations) there for the taking, if you're prepared to drive the Native Americans off it and settle it yourself.     

There is a problem with this, though, that while both slave-owning  and free states want more land to exploit, using their own growing populations of native-born workers (free or enslaved) to bring it under cultivation,  there are obvious conflicts of interest between the owners of large plantations in slave states, who want large plantations worked by both newly kidnapped African slaves and by the children of their existing enslaved workforce (since slavery is an inherited condition in these colonies*) and the smaller landowners in both free and slave states, who want smaller plantations worked by the family and free labour.   There's also a conflict between the owners of factories that turn the raw materials obtained from the land into saleable goods and their free workforce, and a separate conflict of interests between the descendants of the African slaves who are either freed or who free themselves by escaping, or,  after the Civil War, who are emancipated, and the white landless workers, since they're both competing for the same jobs.

For a time these conflicts can be resolved simply by seizing more land (growing the economy, literally)  but eventually you run out of unclaimed land, and then you either annex land that's already been claimed by someone else (primarily Spain) or invest in it, and put your money to work that way.

The problem with investing -- buying shares of businesses operating on land that belongs to someone else, often in another country that you can't readily invade and take over for yourself -- is that it doesn't do much for the ever-growing population that doesn't own wealth,  and since you can no longer satisfy their needs by obtaining more land on which they can live and work,  the only other way to meet their needs seems to be by taxing people who do own the wealth (or expropriating the wealth, or at least the means of producing it) and using that, both in schemes like the New Deal and through other forms of assistance like publicly funded education, medical care and so on,   This is an idea that doesn't appeal half as much to the people who own the wealth as it does to the people who don't.

That, at least, is my broad and crude understanding of the historical and economic processes at work, based on what I've been reading recently.

 

*ETA -- I still remember being puzzled by this at school until the teacher explained to me why they used the same term for the Plantation of Ulster and for Tara in Gone With The Wind.

ETA 2 -- A commercial aspect of slavery we often overlook is that, for the enslaver, the enslaved are assets that reproduce themselves, and thus highly profitable because not only does the labour force increase naturally, at only the extra marginal cost of feeding and clothing the children until they're old enough to be put to work, but also because the children can be turned into cash, either by being sold or by being used as security for loans to buy more land.

 

I'm not so sure because once land is taken it's taken, gone and done.  The English in America had amazing houses with the finest things galore.  They were huge capitalistic consumers of finery of every kind imaginable, and not just in dress but in their mansions.    

Edited June 18, 2020 by JanuarySwan

[Ceka Cianci]

13 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

Could you tell us more Ceka?  I'd like to hear, if you want to share, that is.  

It's probably more a population thing than anything..But From the city which is Chicago where i lived, to the suburbs you had burbs that were White, burbs that were Black, burbs that were Hispanic,Italian,Polish and so on..Some burbs it was White areas Black areas Hispanic areas Indian areas Laoshon..

In the City it was areas,

you can't just go taking a leisure walk through each others burbs or areas, not without looking like you just caught a herd of deer's attention..hehehehe

The City,you just knew not to do it at all.

I'm not going to get into the really bad stuff right now because it's getting close to bed time for me and I don't want all that on my mind and getting wound up..

Anyways,

Towns around me it's a good mix throughout and living among each other.. Our house in town,we have black neighbors,white and Hispanic..

our tree went down in our front yard a few weeks back and my neighbors came out to help cut it up and we all stood around for about another hour or so just talking with each other about every day stuff..

Where i work,it's Black, White, Hispanic,well besides me also.. The only time people really give anyone a hard time, is when someone is being lazy at their job..

A lot of these guys hang out with each other on the weekends.. I know this because they'll be talking about their weekends on Mondays.

 

This all just felt like it was gonna start up on north and south tug-o-war.. So i just felt like saying something before..

My perspective is.. if you put 5 gallons worth of people in a one gallon bucket..You're bound to have more tension.

Where we live now, most people have room to stretch..hehehe

 

 

 

 

[Luna Bliss]

1 hour ago, FairreLilette said:

I don't want to be stereotyped such as all whites equals bad and oppression because that's erroneous and destructive to the issues here.  It would also be erroneous of me to say it's all Germans fault for what they did to the Polish people.  

You've spoken before about your Polish roots. I'm watching a good PBS Masterpiece Theatre series atm on WW2, a lot of it so far taking part in the early stages of the war, in Poland. I'm pining for the next episode that is simply not appearing, where a young Polish woman is looking up to husband at the top of a hill where he arrived first as they struggled to escape the Nazi's chasing them, and we're left wondering if she will make it.
It's not the battles per se that spark my interest in war movies, but what goes on behind the scenes. How do people choose what is right or wrong, and what would I do in their position? 

Anyway, about whether all Germans should bear any responsibility for what happened to your Polish ancestors. It's not easy to determine who is responsible (or to what degree they are), for such atrocities like the slaughtering of millions of Jews, or the abuse heaped on People Of Color in this country. I think I know where it all starts down at the ground level though, even as it's being fomented by those at the top who want to control us. It begins during those times when we're with a group of people and one of them makes a racist joke, yet nobody has the courage to confront the offender. Or during all the incidents leading up to WW2 that espoused the notion that Jews were subhuman, yet many did not dare come out to decry these beliefs as wrong.

All Whites alive today, and all Germans at that time, bear some responsibility in the horrors committed in their respective countries.

[Ceka Cianci]

27 minutes ago, Ashlyn Voir said:

Omg same. I’m from the north and at least I’m the south they’re a little more in your face about it than the north where they smile in your face, but know they don’t really like us. 

Exactly..

Dave Chappelle said it best.. in so many words..The racism in the south is just *MMMMwhaa* right there out in the open..hehehe

In the north they keep it on the down low..A lot do anyways.. Not all..

[Luna Bliss]

1 hour ago, FairreLilette said:

But, what is going on in the South there as a lot of us would like to know since we don't live there.  Is it Evangelicals or what?   

Well remember I said especially in the South, not only in the South.  And it's some sick religious sheet like no other...lol.  I'm not sure I even want to recall all that I've learned about it, right now.

[Innula Zenovka]

1 hour ago, JanuarySwan said:

I'm not so sure because once land is taken it's taken, gone and done.  The English in America had amazing houses with the finest things galore.  They were huge capitalistic consumers of finery of every kind imaginable, and not just in dress but in their mansions.    

I don't quite understand your point about land being taken -- yes, I agree.  You take the land and then use it for farming or mining or timber, or building or whatever it might be, to make money from it.

As to who had amazing homes, I think you mean that the English in America who had a lot of money  had amazing houses.   At first, they were the people who owned a lot of shares in the the company running the colony, or were friends of the Governor and the directors of the company back home.  

The English who came over hoping to start smaller enterprises (like the Pilgrims) didn't have so much, so lived far more modestly, and the "idle poor," the (primarily) urban underclass of unemployed servants and labourers, and their children, who got by as best they could by day labour, theft and prostitution until they were  arrested for some petty crime and sentenced to transportation as an indentured servants, had what their employers gave them.

ETA -- Come the time of the American Revolution, if that's what you meant, the signatories of the Declaration of Independence were all substantial landowners, who were doing very well.   Many of them owned slaves, who worked their plantations for them.   The indentured servants and their descendents, on the other hand, were living in shacks the backwoods, or up in the mountains of West Virginia, or in what's now North Carolina, and places like that, in their own cabins and caves, coexisting with the local tribes or not.    That's where the phrase "poor white trash" comes from -- the idea was that indentured servitude was a winnowing process, where the indentured servants who could be some use prospered, and those who couldn't were the worthless trash to be discarded.

Edited June 18, 2020 by Innula Zenovka

[Luna Bliss]

57 minutes ago, JanuarySwan said:

2 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

No, I am attacking an idea of yours that I think is ridiculous...the notion that racism could be caused by an "alliance of the United States and England".

Once again, I'm not a Democrat.

I don't find it ridiculous at all.  It is part of the infrastructure of the WASP culture, the W stands for white - White Anglo-Saxon Protestants.   I suggest you may want to read about the WASP culture.  I was proposing the idea as a possibility for white favoritism, although white Catholics were not highly favored such as those from Poland, Italy and Ireland - we were the white dogs as most of us are not Protestant.  The majority of people from Poland, Italy and Ireland are Catholic.  

I can accept that WASP culture spread from Europe to the US, and all over the globe where it stole Aboriginal lands, enslaved darker-skinned peoples, and created policies to favor those like themselves.  It's this "alliance between the United States & England"  as the cause of racism in American now that I'm disagreeing with.

* I think I'd rather phrase it as "White culture spread around the globe like a cancer, raping every person and thing it could, so that it would continue to grow and dominate as much as possible".   Endless growth on a finite planet won't work, and I think that's why the world is imploding now, and will continue to do so until we find a better system.

Edited June 18, 2020 by Luna Bliss

[lHorizonl]

I first moved to the States from Jamaica and ended up in Kentucky......freagen KENTUCKY. It didn't take long for me to know racism was a thing. But after that I have lived up and down the East Coast and now the West and just as you ladies mentioned already, racism is everywhere. Still California (northern) has been pretty nice but it is sad that the idea of me leaving California is something I have to think twice about, to believe there are so many States and only maybe 4 or 5 i can see myself comfortably moving to based on the color of my skin....sometimes it's just sad.