BoxRec

I'm sure Jack would have preferred to have been pardoned while he was living. What good exactly does a pardon do after you die?

Baby Face Finster wrote:I'm sure Jack would have preferred to have been pardoned while he was living. What good exactly does a pardon do after you die?

Makes us feel better

Horse wrote:

Loynesy wrote:I'm guessing HH, you don't have much of an education, because that is the only way to excuse the breathtaking ignorance of some of your comments.

If he is ignorant: why don't you point out the ignorant points in his posts?

Loynesy wrote:HH

I cant work out whether to despair of you or ignore you. You are fundamentally dumb on so many levels, but the delicious irony, is that you do not think so.

Point out why he is dumb or be quiet.

Nayyyy!!!!

Horse - read the hate filled drivel from HomicideKlansMan Henry and decide for yourself.

Horse does have a point.
I mean an clever joke is great, like EoQ's not voting for Obama joke. People are attacking HH, but not really pointing out what is wrong with his statements. I think its generally agreed that they are short sited, but no one is pointing out the flaws in the. Doesn't that seem sort of ignorant in its own way.

Pointless subject. He is dead.

We know he was a target because he was black and it was a completely different time...why is the gov't waisting time on this shit?

DG. wrote:Horse - read the hate filled drivel from HomicideKlansMan Henry and decide for yourself.

I read what he wrote on this thread and I don't know what he has said that is so ignorant, stupid, hate filled, etc...

If someone could point it out, and explain why it is so bad, then that would be great.

HomicideHenry wrote:I mean that as well. Lincoln done did King's job for him, all it ever would need is time to make things all better, what was the damn rush? Blacks could vote, and had just as many rights as any white man did in his (King) time. He, along with X and others, pushed and pushed and many a race riot in my mind was started because of their attitudes, causing mass hysteria and telling blacks that white men were devils and blacks no longer had to listen to white man authority. Hell, King from time to time more or less stated he felt he was a 'Saviour' that he was a second coming. The man was all out for trouble, and I dont care how history wants to paint it out as being, there are two sides to every story and somewhere in between the truth lies. The man was no angel, but he certainly wasn't the devil either. But mark my words, he had his own agenda, and it isnt the picture perfect one high schools and Black History month specials want to paint it out to be.

HH, this is disappointing to say the least. I'm sure if you had been a black person in the 1950s you would've gladly listented to white authority and let 'time' pass while you were segregated into inferior jobs, housing etc.

Sure, King had his faults. So what? No man is perfect. I'm sure George Washington had his own demons too, we just don't know about it b/c it was so long ago.

Horse wrote:

DG. wrote:Horse - read the hate filled drivel from HomicideKlansMan Henry and decide for yourself.

I read what he wrote on this thread and I don't know what he has said that is so ignorant, stupid, hate filled, etc...

If someone could point it out, and explain why it is so bad, then that would be great.

He (HomicideKlanmans) knows why what he said is hate filled.

BUT - I will leave it for him to utter that drivel in the company of people who may have the time to take him to task.

Thing with me is, whats it to these people from the UK, Australia, and other countries? You all have a limited knowledge, in my opinion, of American history. Just because you hear the words "civil rights" doesn't mean that everything a civil rights activist done was 100% good and in the right. Sure there was alot of hatred and animosity to begin with down south, where King and such men as Medgar Evers often did their rallies, but sometimes they did in fact push their buttons and their luck.

For example, with taking blacks out of the equation so I can no longe be accused of being a straight up racist, lets take a look at Mahatma Ghandi. Sure the people of India were tired of being under British rule and subjected to violence, but even in Ghandi's own peace demonstrations, that man pushed when he probably shouldn't. What was the point, other than a moral victory for themselves, to have went to the sea to make salt when the British told them not to? The result was several hundred people either dead or seriously injured, and all it did was cause greater friction between India and Great Britain.

HomicideHenry wrote:Thing with me is, whats it to these people from the UK, Australia, and other countries? You all have a limited knowledge, in my opinion, of American history. Just because you hear the words "civil rights" doesn't mean that everything a civil rights activist done was 100% good and in the right. Sure there was alot of hatred and animosity to begin with down south, where King and such men as Medgar Evers often did their rallies, but sometimes they did in fact push their buttons and their luck.

For example, with taking blacks out of the equation so I can no longe be accused of being a straight up racist, lets take a look at Mahatma Ghandi. Sure the people of India were tired of being under British rule and subjected to violence, but even in Ghandi's own peace demonstrations, that man pushed when he probably shouldn't. What was the point, other than a moral victory for themselves, to have went to the sea to make salt when the British told them not to? The result was several hundred people either dead or seriously injured, and all it did was cause greater friction between India and Great Britain.

You, Sir, know nothing of the struggle and injustice faced by black people since the beginning of time. Change is coming fool!



Barack Barack!

The most powerful man on the planet may well be a black man, wel I never!

Also -the phrase 'blacks' does not sit well with me, call us Black Poeple - much nicer.

Oh yes, you are an arse.

HomicideHenry wrote:Thing with me is, whats it to these people from the UK, Australia, and other countries? You all have a limited knowledge, in my opinion, of American history. Just because you hear the words "civil rights" doesn't mean that everything a civil rights activist done was 100% good and in the right. Sure there was alot of hatred and animosity to begin with down south, where King and such men as Medgar Evers often did their rallies, but sometimes they did in fact push their buttons and their luck.

For example, with taking blacks out of the equation so I can no longe be accused of being a straight up racist, lets take a look at Mahatma Ghandi. Sure the people of India were tired of being under British rule and subjected to violence, but even in Ghandi's own peace demonstrations, that man pushed when he probably shouldn't. What was the point, other than a moral victory for themselves, to have went to the sea to make salt when the British told them not to? The result was several hundred people either dead or seriously injured, and all it did was cause greater friction between India and Great Britain.

US history in the last 100 years is probably unique in that is has played out on the public media - thus, people from all over the world have seen events from the civil rights movement first hand, have seen many films about the struggle of African Americans, the civil war, the Klan, slavery etc. This does not mean that the US is alone in its guilt - most countries have their own racial injustices - but the US has at its best served as a model for social change. That's why we 'foreigners' know so much about it and are so interested. King was a role model for oppressed people everywhere, and there was a time when the Jewish community showed solidarity with Black people (during WWII and before) due to the oppression (and later murder) going on in Europe - so this kind of struggle for equal rights is a universal theme.

Your whole take on Black people (or Ghandi etc.) getting too 'uppity', is a throwback to the slave era, and I quote:
"... he relished in the fact that he knocked white men out, and even more so rubbed it in everyone's face that he slept with white women."
"Malcom X and Martin Luther King were just as bad, they went more than out of their way to be in places they knew damned well people didnt want them to be ..."

In a nation with a constitution guaranteeing equal rights, a Black man may sleep with who he wants, knock out who he wants, and demonstrate where he wants. The idea that to do so is 'getting above his station' shows an incredibly ignorant, reactionary and racist attitude on your part. Johnson may have committed crimes, but you have to put it in the perspective of the times, when it was not uncommon for white men to murder Black people and it would never even get to court, let alone result in a conviction.
If the situation was reversed, would you be sitting in your little shack being a good little 'house honkey' and waiting until the master decides to grant you the freedom to sit at the front of a bus or in a cinema? Hell no! And if you were gifted enough to get in a boxing ring and knock the master out, you'd be rubbing his Pardon Jack Johnson!

earl of queensbury wrote:If the situation was reversed, would you be sitting in your little shack being a good little 'house honkey' and waiting until the master decides to grant you the freedom to sit at the front of a bus or in a cinema?

What is so great about the front of the bus anyway? I usually sit at the back.

Were white men and women allowed to sit at the back of the bus or cinema?

Horse wrote:

earl of queensbury wrote:If the situation was reversed, would you be sitting in your little shack being a good little 'house honkey' and waiting until the master decides to grant you the freedom to sit at the front of a bus or in a cinema?

What is so great about the front of the bus anyway? I usually sit at the back.

Were white men and women allowed to sit at the back of the bus or cinema?

Hey, what an intelligent question, Mr Horse. Now you mention it, I wonder if white people were allowed to hang from trees too?
But as to your question, look up the Jim Crow laws in Wikipedia, and you'll find out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws

verballistic wrote: what's the difference between 'blacks' and Black People?!?

that's like the political correctness of saying "african-american"...which actually discriminates against all the black folks in america who are jamaican, cuban, nigerian and other non-american blacks who live in america!!

Doesn't African American designate a person of African descent who was born in America? What's politically correct about that? The term 'black people' would then refer to all people with dark skin/of African ancestry. I mean, whites also say 'whites' or 'white Americans' then subdivide themselves into Poles, Irish, Italians, Russians etc. all with relevant modifiers (Italo-American, etc.).

verballistic wrote:

earl of queensbury wrote:

verballistic wrote: what's the difference between 'blacks' and Black People?!?

that's like the political correctness of saying "african-american"...which actually discriminates against all the black folks in america who are jamaican, cuban, nigerian and other non-american blacks who live in america!!

Doesn't African American designate a person of African descent who was born in America? What's politically correct about that? The term 'black people' would then refer to all people with dark skin/of African ancestry. I mean, whites also say 'whites' or 'white Americans' then subdivide themselves into Poles, Irish, Italians, Russians etc. all with relevant modifiers (Italo-American, etc.).

there have been countless articles (and i think even a book or two) written by black authors saying how ridiculous it is to have these politically correct, self-appointed inspectors of culture trying to tell everyone to do something they havent even thought through!! i know at least one of these was by an immigrant from west indies who got tired of always being referred to as african-american when he was jamaican!!

Yes, but if DG says he doesn't like that term, you should respect that, period. There are people who argue that if rappers use the term 'person', it must be okay for all people to use that term. But some black people are offended by that, so in those cases you should not address them as such.
I mean, there were black people who supported the whites during slavery, there are Jews who are against Israel (and, even now, Jewish communities living in Iran, Morocco etc.) but you take a specific argument and make a generalization from it. The point is, Jack Johnson was without doubt a victim of the racism prevalent at the time in the US, and he deserves to have his status reviewed in that context.

verballistic wrote:2. DG never said he wanted to be called african-american, i merely asked him what the difference was between black & Black People...is that not a valid question? Maybe you would care to answer that one, if you think there is a difference!!

DG isn't African-American. I seem to remember him saying he's West Indian.

Calm down, Verb, you don't have to nuke every discussion when it goes on for more than 3 posts.

earl of queensbury wrote:Hey, what an intelligent question, Mr Horse. Now you mention it, I wonder if white people were allowed to hang from trees too?

earl of queensbury wrote:But as to your question, look up the Jim Crow laws in Wikipedia, and you'll find out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws

I am not reading through all that. If you know then why don't you tell me?

Just getting a bit off-topic here but I generally do not like people as a whole. I really could care less what color or religion you are, I find idiots in all walks of life.

You people can bicker about blacks and whites etc, but while you are doing that, the people here who live in the US are the most retarded. You are now going to pay for mistakes made by rich, white, greedy SOB's. You now have just inherited billions of $$ in crap mortgages people could not pay back. So you will be paying off that Black, White, Mexican, Asian guy's mortgage who you do not even know.

So to hell with the past, look at the present and see how you are getting screwed by all races.

Fourstarzzzz wrote:You are now going to pay for mistakes made by rich, white, greedy SOB's.

They are not all white.

Most of them are. Take a look at the people walking out of Lehman brothers. 99% were white.

HomicideHenry wrote:As far as me missing a Klan meeting....I never attended one, but I'll stand up and say my great-grandfather donned the hood and cape for the Klan and not only went after blacks and mexicans, but after dead beat fathers who didnt take care of their children, as well as molesters, rapists, thieves and wife beaters.

So why the hell did you get so offended when I made that picture of the late great boxer Peter Jackson with the current white movie director Peter Jackson's head? Especially considering it was a joke in a BoxRecSim forum.

Horse wrote:

earl of queensbury wrote:But as to your question, look up the Jim Crow laws in Wikipedia, and you'll find out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws

I am not reading through all that. If you know then why don't you tell me?

Okay, we'll start with something easier:
http://www.starfall.com/n/level-k/index/play.htm?f

earl of queensbury wrote: Okay, we'll start with something easier:
http://www.starfall.com/n/level-k/index/play.htm?f

So, you don't know then?

Horse wrote:

earl of queensbury wrote: Okay, we'll start with something easier:
http://www.starfall.com/n/level-k/index/play.htm?f

So, you don't know then?

Hey man, there's some really witty and intelligent people on this forum, and some of them can maybe provoke me ... Sorry, but you simply lack the means to do it.