₦airaland Forum

bemeruca:
You will hear me say black people were doing better in that era in terms of looking after their own, family values, two parent households etc. Aside from that they were in a struggle too.



The reason Charlie said it was a mistake has nothing to do with the rights of black people. What he was saying is the civil rights act's goal of ending Jim Crow was legitimate and noble,

His argument is that; it overreach by giving government permanent authority over private businesses and employment. and that this spawned bureaucratic tools like the EEOC and disparate impact doctrine that drifted into reverse discrimination and speech suppression.

His position is that the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause was always the proper constitutional vehicle making the statute unnecessary and ultimately harmful to limited government and individual liberty. So his argument has nothing against black people.



How can black people be better off on slavery?

+
Thank you for clarifying but pls see my detailed response to basilico on Kirk's statement on the Civil Rights Act.

DeepSight:
+
Now I have watched your video (edit: looks like you just added another one).

The simple fact is that if he was only against the way in which people have manipulated the Civil Rights Act towards other ends, he should have said so clearly. His subsequent attempts to explain away his initial remarks are not honest. The Civil Rights Act was a moral and legal necessity in the United States and along with the Voting Rights Act it came to correct more than a century of deprivation of rights based on race.

Affirmative Action, and the principles of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion which he complains arose from the Civil Rights Act are not evils - and more importantly, did not in fact arise from the Act as he claimed - which I will show below. They are ideological frameworks set up to correct institutional exclusion and the marginalization which black people had suffered for ages. Without such frameworks, it is not possible to correct the institutional and economic harm done to a segment of the population for ages and which had become radically entrenched in many ways.

The same principle was deployed and still stands in South Africa after apartheid. And it makes sense. When you are moving from an apartheid system to an egalitarian system of true equality of rights, there is the necessity to correct entrenched inequalities and you can only do that by giving those who have been locked out of the system a real chance to be included - which is what undergirds the idea of saying, look, to correct the imbalance, we are now going to give priority to these people - just the same way we gave priority to white people for ages! What is not fair about that?

Do you know that for ages the American government for example, gave out virtually free expanses of land to white people? They did not do this for black people. Now that was a policy that created generations of wealthy white people - without any question of merit. At the same time it impoverished black people and shunt them to the margins of society putting them in the economic position whereby they would have to work in servitude.

If such privileges were given to generations of white people which account for the generational wealth white people have as against the generational poverty of black people - tell me, what is wrong with saying, okay, now that we are done with segregation and all that, lets give a real chance to the marginalized people by now prioritizing them?

This is the core of affirmative action and DEI and there is nothing wrong with it. In South Africa, after apartheid, it was introduced as BEE (Black Economic Empowerment) and laws were made establishing minimum quotas for black ownership of businesses and black employment, which still stand till today. For a person who talks about context it is sad that you miss the context here - no one woke up suddenly to grant the blacks these privileges from no where, the context was the deprivation and abominable discrimination they had already suffered and the only way to bring them to par on board would be to apply these privileges - which frankly are still nothing compared to the ages of discriminatory privilages granted to whites which elevated them economically in the first place.

It is important that you understand in this that segregation in the USA was nothing but apartheid as well. IN FACT, it is the very definition of apartheid BECAUSE apartheid means apartness.

I have written long so let me tie it up - If the complaint of Charlie Kirk was against affirmative action and DEI principles, then he should not have attacked the Civil Rights Act. Above, I have shown that there is in fact nothing wrong with both affirmative action and DEI in the context and circumstances, but let me take it a step further. Let me show you that he was even wrong in linking both to the Civil Rights Act -

I have argued this before and I reproduce it here.

Here goes:

As I said, the Civil Rights Act did not legislate Affirmative Action.

Title VII & Title VI prohibit employment discrimination and discrimination in federally funded programs - thus the Civil Rights Act is an anti-discrimination law. It states that employment decisions should not be made "because of an individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."

This is exactly what it set out to do because of the overwhelming existing discrimination against Black people. I hope you understand that we are talking about a movement and a law that saved blacks from segregation, much systemic discrimination including housing discrimination and accompanied with the Voting Rights Act empowered blacks to vote by removing many of the systemic impediments blocking blacks from voting.

Note that:
Title VII includes a specific section (Section 703(j)) which states that employers are not required to grant preferential treatment to any individual or group due to an imbalance in the number or percentage of protected groups in their workforce. This language was intended to prevent the act from being interpreted as a mandate for racial quotas.

Thus it is very very wrong to claim that the Civil Rights Act was problematic or "went too far" with respect to affirmative action.

Affirmative Action actually arose thereafter though executive orders and judicial pronouncements in the context of the succeeding period and the zeitgeist of the time which was directed towards restoring as much equality as possible.

Therefore it is clear that Charlie was VERY wrong in saying that the Civl Rights Act was a mistake. In fact, he was not schooled on the details of the Act as I have shown above.

Now finally, just to show you that there was something insidious about his opposition to the Civil Rights Movement as a whole, what was his problem with Martin Luther King? He made statements attacking such an icon - I cull -

"1. On the MLK Holiday: Kirk questioned the national celebration of Dr. King, stating, "I think we’ve made a huge mistake in the way we have idolized and deified Martin Luther King."

2. On King's Legacy: He referred to King as "not a good person" in various broadcasts, often citing King's personal life or his later-stage political views on economic redistribution as reasons to distance the conservative movement from his legacy."

What was the motivation behind these attacks on the person of Dr. King?

Dtruthspeaker:
Are you now pretending not to see he said "spirits don't exist" only for him to shoot himself in the head confessing that "Spirit is real"?

Anyway, you yourself are known to love lies

Re: Atheist Says Spirit Is Nothing Because It Is Non Physical & Invisible by StillDtruth: 5:27am On Apr 17, 2024
budaatum:
Only fools relies on their naked eyes alone. Some get glasses so they can see better.
more ↓
Yet you said "spirit dont exist".

So, why do.you say they do not exist, since you know only fools rely on their naked eyes alone?

+
I saw him/ her describe what he/she meant. and specifically say that for example, reading your posts is seeing evidence of your spirit.

bemeruca:
I have talked and notice how you ignored it 😂

+
You only answered for apartheid. Talk. E get why.

bemeruca:
If you believe it's my opinion then why are you asking?

You have already made up crap in your head.

+
I am asking you, talk.

bemeruca:
What does your fantasies have to do with my post?
How are your questions related to the video I posted.

+
Are you afraid or shamed of your own opinions? Two people said you certain things. Answer, I want to confirm.
I added the apartheid one myself as I think it is corelated.

Dtruthspeaker:
See the day badatum disgraced himself in his created self confusion

https://www.nairaland.com/8074757/budaatum-confesses-spirit-real#129658806

https://www.nairaland.com/8061156/atheist-says-spirit-nothing-because/1#129479047

+
Haven't really seen any embarrassment

jahsharon:
.
Even if all 230 million Nigerians collapse structures into ADC, Tinubu will still win with very high margins

+
In Nigeria of today there is the terrifying possibility that he could win the election with even one vote cast by himself.

Richtaiwo:
From my understanding, if you are not indebted to the DisCos, you are unlikely to experience significant power issues. In my estate, electricity is available almost 24 hours a day, which makes it difficult for me to relate to the frequent complaints about power supply.

Even during a national grid collapse, the only noticeable impact in my estate is a slight reduction in daytime supply, we still have uninterrupted electricity throughout the night.

+
Perhaps your estate is well situated and lucky then. No one can deny the power issues as you attempt to.

This boy, are you sure you will not also claim that Naija is doing so well that it's as good as Switzerland in all respects?

Because so long as BAT is in power looks like you will say so.

MaxInDHouse:
You are really funny my guy!🙂
In the first century a man sold his friend out for money.
And guess what?
He is one of the closest confidants of a man who claims to be the perfect teacher ever on this planet!
Another man denied his friend he even laid curses on himself swearing never to have seen him before.
And guess what?
He is also one of the closest confidants of the same man.
Another man was sleeping with his step mom and can you believe that he is also one of the followers of this same man?
Well these are verified blunders committed by Jesus' friends in the first century apart from numerous lies that people lied against him and his group.
So if you were alive in the first century and you've heard all of these would you still believe that this man is the only begotten Son of God and that only his followers can have everlasting life?🙂

+
Was the man who slept with his father's wife a friend of Jesus in his lifetime?

Pacesetter123:
And you think America attacking other countries or demanding for something before helping others will end when Trump's administration ends?
This things are American laid down policies and not of any particular president or their political parties.

+
Agreed, but never with such brazen insults, threats and disregard to their traditional European allies.

basilico:
Let's start with this black American regarding Charlie Kirks comments on black and civil rights


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SZUuTZ8ebA?si=1IlPKAFQsaKPl5Vo

And this one too.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXxmgMV15fk?si=fLASMw5ln_gPfSnN

+
Now I have watched your video (edit: looks like you just added another one).

The simple fact is that if he was only against the way in which people have manipulated the Civil Rights Act towards other ends, he should have said so clearly. His subsequent attempts to explain away his initial remarks are not honest. The Civil Rights Act was a moral and legal necessity in the United States and along with the Voting Rights Act it came to correct more than a century of deprivation of rights based on race.

Affirmative Action, and the principles of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion which he complains arose from the Civil Rights Act are not evils - and more importantly, did not in fact arise from the Act as he claimed - which I will show below. They are ideological frameworks set up to correct institutional exclusion and the marginalization which black people had suffered for ages. Without such frameworks, it is not possible to correct the institutional and economic harm done to a segment of the population for ages and which had become radically entrenched in many ways.

The same principle was deployed and still stands in South Africa after apartheid. And it makes sense. When you are moving from an apartheid system to an egalitarian system of true equality of rights, there is the necessity to correct entrenched inequalities and you can only do that by giving those who have been locked out of the system a real chance to be included - which is what undergirds the idea of saying, look, to correct the imbalance, we are now going to give priority to these people - just the same way we gave priority to white people for ages! What is not fair about that?

Do you know that for ages the American government for example, gave out virtually free expanses of land to white people? They did not do this for black people. Now that was a policy that created generations of wealthy white people - without any question of merit. At the same time it impoverished black people and shunt them to the margins of society putting them in the economic position whereby they would have to work in servitude.

If such privileges were given to generations of white people which account for the generational wealth white people have as against the generational poverty of black people - tell me, what is wrong with saying, okay, now that we are done with segregation and all that, lets give a real chance to the marginalized people by now prioritizing them?

This is the core of affirmative action and DEI and there is nothing wrong with it. In South Africa, after apartheid, it was introduced as BEE (Black Economic Empowerment) and laws were made establishing minimum quotas for black ownership of businesses and black employment, which still stand till today. For a person who talks about context it is sad that you miss the context here - no one woke up suddenly to grant the blacks these privileges from no where, the context was the deprivation and abominable discrimination they had already suffered and the only way to bring them to par on board would be to apply these privileges - which frankly are still nothing compared to the ages of discriminatory privilages granted to whites which elevated them economically in the first place.

It is important that you understand in this that segregation in the USA was nothing but apartheid as well. IN FACT, it is the very definition of apartheid BECAUSE apartheid means apartness.

I have written long so let me tie it up - If the complaint of Charlie Kirk was against affirmative action and DEI principles, then he should not have attacked the Civil Rights Act. Above, I have shown that there is in fact nothing wrong with both affirmative action and DEI in the context and circumstances, but let me take it a step further. Let me show you that he was even wrong in linking both to the Civil Rights Act -

I have argued this before and I reproduce it here.

Here goes:

As I said, the Civil Rights Act did not legislate Affirmative Action.

Title VII & Title VI prohibit employment discrimination and discrimination in federally funded programs - thus the Civil Rights Act is an anti-discrimination law. It states that employment decisions should not be made "because of an individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."

This is exactly what it set out to do because of the overwhelming existing discrimination against Black people. I hope you understand that we are talking about a movement and a law that saved blacks from segregation, much systemic discrimination including housing discrimination and accompanied with the Voting Rights Act empowered blacks to vote by removing many of the systemic impediments blocking blacks from voting.

Note that:
Title VII includes a specific section (Section 703(j)) which states that employers are not required to grant preferential treatment to any individual or group due to an imbalance in the number or percentage of protected groups in their workforce. This language was intended to prevent the act from being interpreted as a mandate for racial quotas.

Thus it is very very wrong to claim that the Civil Rights Act was problematic or "went too far" with respect to affirmative action.

Affirmative Action actually arose thereafter though executive orders and judicial pronouncements in the context of the succeeding period and the zeitgeist of the time which was directed towards restoring as much equality as possible.

Therefore it is clear that Charlie was VERY wrong in saying that the Civl Rights Act was a mistake. In fact, he was not schooled on the details of the Act as I have shown above.

Now finally, just to show you that there was something insidious about his opposition to the Civil Rights Movement as a whole, what was his problem with Martin Luther King? He made statements attacking such an icon - I cull -

"1. On the MLK Holiday: Kirk questioned the national celebration of Dr. King, stating, "I think we’ve made a huge mistake in the way we have idolized and deified Martin Luther King."

2. On King's Legacy: He referred to King as "not a good person" in various broadcasts, often citing King's personal life or his later-stage political views on economic redistribution as reasons to distance the conservative movement from his legacy."

What was the motivation behind these attacks on the person of Dr. King?

basilico:
Let's start with this black American regarding Charlie Kirks comments on black and civil rights


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SZUuTZ8ebA?si=1IlPKAFQsaKPl5Vo

+
I will watch this video, but pls, as we go along, I will appreciate it if you make your own arguments rather than sending me videos.
I will be back.

basilico:
Did I get you wrong. I was on the black pllot issue.

+
Pls look at your post and the post of mine you quoted when starting this -

https://www.nairaland.com/4508641/american-politics-thread-trump-47th/5853#138943959

Airtight Guest House. Interesting name.

basilico:
So hours are the most important thing when it comes to flying.

I've flown several times in the jump seat of 72-80 seaters.

+
Please you are making me think you are being deliberately dishonest. Please and please, if you want a serious discussion, be serious and stop pretending not to see what I write. I have told you I will come back to this issue of pilots in detail. And I will.

However you were reacting to a statement of mine when you said context is important. That statement was about Kirk's remarks on the Civil Rights Movement and Act which he called a mistake. You said context is important and I asked for the context. Only for you to divert to a completely different statement - the one on pilots.

Please basilico, can you tell me the context that explains or justifies what he said on the Civil Rights Movement/ Act.

If you pretend not to see this question one more time, I am done with you.

basilico:
If I knew the pilots were fast tracked in order to meet a racial quota, I would not fly in that plane.

+
There is nothing like a pilot being fast tracked. It's an area of specific expertise. There are minimum and irreducible tests you must pass and minimum amounts of training flights you must succeed at. That is why the argument fails. It's an area of specific expertise.

But I will give a more detailed response after you address the quote you quoted me on and raised context on.

I mentioned what he said on Civil Rights and you diverted to pilots.

Pls address what I was addressing.

I hope you are not being escapist or diversionary.

basilico:
The context is if United Airlines had not said they will increase their women and black quota of pilots from less than10% to 50% or so.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wl3UwsNZ544?si=_yINuu-7tJwotXxR

Would you also fly . You know how DEI has been pushed by liberals , including hiring a known plagiarist the as Harvard President.

+
Hang on a second. You seem to be defending the pilot statement when you quoted me with regard to the statement on the Civil Rights Movement/ Act.

Get your act together pls.

cococandy:
Something smells fishy. Like Trump’s magic ear

+
Babanla magic ear.

In decades and centuries to come, books, documentaries and movies will be made about these magical events and much will be revealed with time.

I never trusted that event for one second.

bemeruca:
Budaatum, deepsight, look at the common sense I was trying to share with you guys. At least Budaatum got some of it. As for deepsight, it's a opeless effort 😂😂

Now, I don't agree with every thing she says.

Did Independence come too early? 🇳🇬 vs 🇳🇦

Namibia stayed colonized until 1990. Nigeria left in 1960. Today, Namibia's roads are world-class while our hospitals are in darkness. What can we say about Colonialism in the Africa? 🍋 pic.twitter.com/JE1zC3ciE9

— Oloma Juice 🍋 (@islemonjuice) March 30, 2026

+
Pls be so kind as to answer these for me -

1. Is it your view that black people were better off in the states before the Civil Rights Movement?

2. Is it your view that the Civil Rights Act (and Voting Rights Act) were mistakes?

3. Is it your view that black people are better off on account of slavery?

3. Is it your view that apartheid in South Africa was good?

budaatum:
My gender is really irrelevant to whatever I have to say, and I don't want it to be focussed on and what I have to say be missed.

+
It's very rare for a Nairalanders gender to become an issue on this board. The only other person I can remember in similar terms was a poster called pilgrim1 who many alleged was viaro. Okay there was also one mavenbox/inesqor. Many years ago.

Personally I think you are the one making it an issue especially with statements such as saying you go by "they/them." We are not unenlightened, everyone knows what that suggests.

My father spent a lot of money on Rosicrucian, and my mother is displeased because of it. I don't feel he derived much from it neither, as he got lost in the mystical aspect and missed the understanding.

I love their books though, as they are food for the mind, as in they make one wonder. But then you must have gathered that atheist me loves my Bible too, and my Quran and Aesop and books in general. Sadly, I can't read as much as I used to for some reason.

+
I was rather hoping you would comment on the truth of their teachings. I found a lot of truth in the teachings of the Rosicrucian Order and even in those of Eckankar.

My understanding of religious texts has been described as spiritual by some and devil worship by many. It is an integral core of Buddhism and most religions, and is even in philosophies, if one perceives that way.

+
What do you mean by the bold. Are you saying that core Buddhism is closest to your belief system, coupled with the essentials of most religions splashed with philosophy?

First, "believe" means (to me), I don't know and have chosen to accept as true things I have no evidence for and likely have evidence against (since I will seek).

Fortunately, I have seen many die, by virtue of my connection to hospitals and the fact I know lots of old people. Everyone I know who has died has been put in a box and buried in the ground or been cremated, and none of them have lived after dying, so I see no reason to create crap in my own head and then believe in the crap I create in my head.

No, I do not believe people or their souls live after they have died. That said, I do often have long live seeming discussions with a friend of mine who is long dead. They often start as dreams, and have sometimes continued after I have fully woken up. We lived together for years and are immensely missed by me. Our discussions seem like they live, though I know they do not.

+
So you really think the physical body is all there is to us? That would be odd for one given to so much mysticism.

By God, I presume you mean Yahweh (Allah).

+
How could you have interacted with me so long on this board and make this disastrous presumption? Of course not, and I do not think of those entities as God. Though I do not begrudge those who have the creator in mind when they speak those names.

I am asking you about a necessary uncaused cause of all other existence.

basilico:
You conveniently ignore full context of someone's statement, quote only a part then conclude.Then as a typical liberal you want us to gree with you without questions.

What if I say this.

(Most of the mess that Trump is trying to clean up was caused by Obama.

Next I hate the whites ,those liberals who put him in office.)

If you ignore my first sentence and quote "I hate the whites" only , the meaning becomes totally different.
Hatred shouldn't make you look for words in a sentence while ignoring full context

+
Pls provide the context for Kirk's statement which changes the meaning or justifies it.

tctrills:
Your last paragraph is just dishonest and wicked.
I advise you to be intellectually honest or at least spend a minute or two to study before speaking.

First, point to your evidence that the present administration is doing anything to erase the history of slavery. You just made a very big claim, if you are a responsible person, you will now back it up with real evidence.

Again, the entire premise of your argument is false and I reject it for the following reasons.

1. The US has done more than any other nation to tell it's slavery history.
More books have been written, more movies made and more information is out there about the US slavery than any other country that had legalized slavery in the nineteenth century.

2. Brazil had far more slaves than the US, please how much do you know about slavery in Brazil?

3. You know so much about the plantations in the south, you can tell everything about the life of a slave Mississippi but what do you know about the life of a slave in the Benin, to or Kano empires?

4. Not only did the Arabs/ eastern world have more black slaves than the West, the west kept a better history of it's slaves than the Arabs.

5. It seems that the only people not hiding their history of slavery is the United States.

One last thing, you spoke about institutional racism. Please can you mention 2 institutions in US to 2026 that promote racism towards the blacks.

Let's learn to be intellectually honest my brother.

+
You must be living under a rock. You obviously have not been following the news since Trump resumed. No point.

budaatum:
Actually, I don't particularly identify as any gender or non-binary. I'm just budaatum.

****

+
Is there any particular reason then that you are keeping it some sort of secret. Because I have come across this question from time to time where people insist you are a woman whereas I always imagined you male.

Not that it's an issue, but it's good to be clear.

No, I haven't. I've read many books on the subject however because dad was a Rosicrucian and ma hates the fact her money was spent on it.

+
Now a while ago triplechoice had made a thread making issues about this. Not sure how that ended. But pray tell, since you appear well schooled in the doctrines of AMORC, what is your impression of their teachings.

I ask because I was once very close to signing up with them in my youth.

And I'd like to believe I am awake.

+
What does wakefulness in this regard mean to you and do you think there is spirituality to life.

Do you believe in life after death and a soul as distinct from the body.

I use small g to denote gods in general.

Yes, I believe there must have been a "causative factor for all other existent elements or things", as it is my opinion that something must have existed for there to cause a big bang (if there ever was one). It could have been an increase in pressure for instance, but we wouldn't necessarily say pressure created a big bang since something caused the increase in pressure in the first place, and I wouldn't call it a god.

For the curious, this began here.

https://www.nairaland.com/4508641/american-politics-thread-trump-47th/5851#138941496

+
What stops you from seeing that ultimate cause as God.

IjeBos:
Benalvino3 has said similar things himself.
For one, he believes the world was better off in the 60's.
Also believes slavery was a good thing for black Americans.
And I think Raumdeuter has walked up to that line(may have said similar but can't be 100% sure so don't want to put that on him).

It's that still colonized mind and self-hate.

IjeBos:
You can search up the discussion or ask him, he may just admit it.

+
Benalvino3 can you confirm that you have said these things.

IjeBos:
Do you live in a black hole?
It is not even a debatable thing that this Trump administration is trying to erase they history pertaining to slavery.

+
I tire oh.
Or under a rock.

tctrills:
Your point is that because there are no plantations left, the right is deleting history?
This is just finding issues where there are none.
Slavery is taught sufficiently in schools in the US. Just because there are no plantations left, would we now pretend that the history of slavery is being erased.

I truly don't understand what you are complaining about here.

You are fighting for plantations to be brought back because you feel the history of slavery is being forgotten?

Anyway, let's come back home to where the history of slavery is being forgotten.

My great great grand father like many others in his time had slaves, with the exception of Badagry we don't see any monuments. Every town and city in ancient Nigeria practiced slavery, how many monuments are there? I don't see any in Mbise, Egba, Kano, or kogi.

I was never taught about black on black slavery in school. So who is erasing history?

Moral of the story, charity begins at home.

+
That was not me. That was what I have been asking you to read. It was written by GloriousGbola.

I hope you learnt a thing or two.

The history of slavery is deep in the USA and it still lives in many forms, it became Jim Crowe, It became segregation, it became many things and today it lives as institutional racism which you have denied exists. You know nothing.

The present administration in the US is trying hard to erase the history and pretend the reality does not exist.

budaatum:
Are you disregarding the fact that you are the one who resurrected "your Rosicrucian/Rossí religion" here Spencer?

I have the feeling Deepsight was not even aware of that thread until you resurrected it here, but I'll let him tell you himself.

+
Ignore him. If he was serious the slightest review of any of the profiles or posts of the discussants here would sort him out.

budaatum:
Sorry SpencerForbes, but I must confess that this is the first thread I've come across created by Deepsight with budaatum in the topic. I went through the 223 topics created by Deepsight and could not find a single one referencing budaatum'.

I'd appreciate if you direct me to the ones you've "lost count of how many times you’ve created this exact same thread", please.

+
First time I am creating a thread with you in focus. Over the years, I have conducted similar interviews with many different Nairalanders as focus.

Ignore him. He is lying.

tctrills:
You know me, I have never been lazy to read any of your write-ups, so get that out of the way.

I put effort to ensure I don't send you nonsense, I deserve the same.

The first paragraph began with falsehoods, to me, it lost it's value from the first minute.

If you want people to read your articles, begin with the truth.

+
"Erase enough history and people can be deceived that slavery was a choice.

As an uninformed black man in Africa, one would find it hard to believe that America deliberately flooded housing projects with drugs or attacked black wall street or lynched young boys or used black men in syphilis studies.

This is the world they want to create where the evil did not happen.

Germany has left monuments to the Holocaust standing so it cannot be denied. But are there any plantations left standing? No. Rather the south has lionised different slave owners as civil war heroes

As an aside I read JT Edson books as a child and even then I could see there was something off about them. Eventually I saw them for what they are apologist books glorifying the south. In one of them a black dude said he was better off as a slave. Then you have stories like the hooded riders which are a naked celebration of the KKK. but a person who had no knowledge of slavery would not see the insidious white washing of the deep south and their practices."
-
The above is all i wanted you to read.

Kennyfancy:
Lol, nah Spain go lose Las las, becos you will need the 🇺🇸 soon and then 🇺🇸 will ask for so many things and that same time some of you will start shouting they want to take over Spain resources

+
The lunatic in the whitehouse will be gone before Spain needs them for anything.

Emu4life:
Spain don see US finish
The Spanish have refused to be cowards and have seen US for the World Distablizers that they are.
Unlike the other cowardly EU members.

+
Really delighted with Spain. God bless their integrity and courage.

Xxxxxxx

SpencerForbes:
Budaatum is deepsight and deepsight is budaatum🤔 I’m convinced…..

+
Lol.

On your own. Far from it.