Comments by "R K." (@DarkAngel2512) on "History Debunked" channel.

John McWhorter and Glenn Laury
2
@Dave-ks9fi ?? Whoah! I think you've got the complete wrong end of the stick. I agreed with what you initially wrote and was adding to it for extra detail for people who would contest when black people came here. People are so used to thinking someone is trying to debunk them. That isnt alway the case. I was simply adding to what you said. And what I wrote wasnt obscure. It's the census.
2
When just ten years ago we were at our least racist
2
Or preferably The Far Left. I'm still liberal. Just not like these guys. I hate The Left or liberals being demonized as a whole as liberals were doing good things up until social media. These people arent really liberal. They're authoritarian under the guise of liberalism. As someone who grew up with black people in England from early 80s- 2010 I would say they were still conservative even then. In the 90s I had my Jamaican mates give me crap for hanging out with a gay chick. One of those guys has said he isnt homophobic anymore but I think still many were and are. Its more Gen Z growing up under social media where I have noticed and been shocked but also pleasantly surprised how many black kids are coming out openly and speaking up for gay rights. Somewhere after 2013 with SJW culture they went past the point of liberalism into authoritarianism.
2
How did that convo go down? Btw if it's any consolation I was one of them 4 years ago. Challenging us does plant a seed. But do it with good arguments. As mocking alone isnt conducive to growth
2
Why are they protected more than us? We're just as at risk from racism and violent attacks. Kriss Donald and Ross Parker were murdered because of their race. They're not the only white people targeted by black supremacists. Then there are cops who have been targeted. The one recently who was mowed down by a black, drunk radio host who that same night had been slating white cops on her radio show
2
@RyanG0899 Well, how was he defining British? Anyone born in Britain is British. Anyone who has been here for a significant amount of time and has citizenship and had adopted the culture is British.
1
Do those guys complain though. It seems to be black American, woke saviours complaining. I've never heard Jamaicans complain about colonialism.
1
@youtubeyoutube936 Hebrew Israelites, 5 percenter Nation Of Islam. People forget how racist some of them are. Nick Cannon is N O.I and so was Muhammad Ali. M.A was against race mixing. Malcolm X was another racist.
1
@easterworshipper730 there are black people born in Britain. Look, you dont need to take things to extremes.
1
@Dave-ks9fi Black people began to move to UK in 49 with The Windrush Gen. You can see from history how many were here. We had Notting Hill Carnival and there is pics of it dating back plus I was around in the 90s and it was becoming quite mixed then. Our census has the data from then. In England in 1991 we had 94% white people and 2% black and the rest Asian and other. In 2001 we had 91% white people and 2.3% black people and the rest other in 2011 we had 85% white people in England and 3.5% black people. London however is now something like 47% white people. It is much more concentrated there.
1
@easterworshipper730 there are two angles to it. The nationality angle and the haplogroup origin angle. By nationality they are British. But we call them British-Jamaican for clarify and distinction from someone like myself who is just English. Those British-Jamaicans are not Jamaican in nationality but are in haplogroup. But then it boils down to at what point were they Jamaican because the original Jamaicans were the Arawaks. Not the black Jamaicans you see today. So are those guys really just African? I see no issue with giving them two identifiers like we do now to give that clarity.
1
@Dave-ks9fi again you seem to have misunderstood me. I'm not arguing that England was more black back in the day. I'm saying the opposite. The figures I gave you demonstrate there werent many blacks here in the 90s. Why are you thinking I'm saying the opposite?
1
@Dave-ks9fi ok. But you did say I was lying about the figures. The figures are on the census which you can double check yourself. 1.9% blacks in the 90s. Anyway have a nice day :)
1
@easterworshipper730 my point is the Africans who went to Jamaica were not the original inhabitants of Jamaica but we still classify them as Jamaican and not African. Otherwise by your logic white Americans are not really American either. You seem unable to seperate nationality vs original inhabitants.
1
@Dave-ks9fi you said "you must be lying" but I'll take it you meant the pejorative.
1
@easterworshipper730 so you're basing someones nationality based on who found somewhere regardless of who the first natives were? So if black people decide to colonise UK then we wouldnt be British anymore as the land wouldnt be Britain anymore? Ok. So why can you not see it that way AND see it as those who were born there? What if a group of black and white people colonised somewhere. Then what?
1
@easterworshipper730 I thought you were able to get my answer from what I said in my first sentence. You seem to be saying because white people came to America after the natives and were the ones to name it America that white people are the real Americans by name alone as opposed to who lived there or who lived there first. So that's why I asked if black people colonised UK would they be the true *insert new name*? The Taino were the ones to name Jamaica yet we class the Africans who came later as Jamaicans. So neither the natives nor those who named it are the sole Jamaicans. So by that logic anyone who lives somewhere is of that nationality. Or do you class black Jamaicans as Africans? I'm trying to work out your criteria here.
1
@easterworshipper730 the land that later became known as America already existed before white people came and so did its inhabitants. So my point is are saying people are a certain nationality based on 1.who named it 2.who colonised it 3.who lived there first 4 or other? Can you clarify by number which of the above?
1
@easterworshipper730 I read the Taino's named it. But the name is besides the point unless you're saying the person who named it becomes the people of that nation as opposed to those who first lived there. So you agree the reason there are black people in Jamaica is because of white people. So if white people took Africans there and we still call those black people Jamaicans despite white people were there first then are you agreeing that black people who came after white people in UK would still be natives in UK? You realise Jamaicans were invited to UK as British Commonwealth Citizens? So same way they were brought from Africa to Jamaica they were invited from Jamaica to UK. They are British-Jamicans. Britain is a colony. White people colonised it. Why is Jamaica irrelevant? Is it because it debunks your inconsistent stance? So you wont even entertain the hypothetical about black people colonizing UK because again it might disrupt your position. Also are you implying there arent any black people intelligent enough to set up somewhere? You think whites are superior? Yep, I think your bone of contention is clear.
1
@easterworshipper730 we already established who the founders were though. So why are you acting as if I disagree when I said who the founders were. My point was Indians were the first natives to the land. Note I said land and not America. You are using a semantic arguement that they werent the original Americans because they didnt found/name it that. Thats fine. That's why I asked you to clarify your criteria. That's why I gave you the hypothetical of if UK was recolonised because by your logic we wouldnt be the natives anymore. But thanks for dragging it out over multiple comments when you could have clarified when I first asked you. For me if someone were to recolonise UK I view that we would still be native to that land. By your def you wouldnt. Going by your logic I assume you view black Jamaicans as Africans and those white colonisers as Jamaican.
1
@easterworshipper730 not sure how your example relates. If black people hold the same values as white Brits they are British. I was born here yet didnt create anything as such same as the average black person so why would I be more British than them?
1
@easterworshipper730 can you read? I said Native Indians were the original natives to the *land*. I used the word "land" for a reason because of your argument about it later being founded. So that point doesnt contradict.
1
@easterworshipper730 anyway,you care more about this than I do. I'm not that invested and have better things to do than keep coming back to this. Feel free to post a rebuttal but I genuinely dont mind if you disagree. Think what you want and I'll think how I want. Enjoy your Easter muting
1
@weaponscommanderroringusan5625 In the 80s I called black people brown because that was what I saw as a child
1
@Antonhein she remembers because it was significant and new.
1
@Dave-hu5hr 😂😂 blackface emoji. Where did you get that? My phone doesnt do that.
1
Well, they already made a film about Malcom X. Perhaps we need a film about Patrice Collours.
1
It's the inferiority complex of some African Americans. It's the "We Waz Kings" repackaged in a diff country. Exported via social media.
1
There is a lecturer I know in Sussex Uni who claims white people cant exprience racism and that we're never oppressed. He is a total tool who has never spent any proper time with black people. And now he is brainwashing others. As easy as that. We trust authority but these people are not the authority. Those who grew up with black people before the advent of social media are. These kids are still wet behind the ears. And ignorant as hell.
1
The thing is they have history. They either descended from Africans or Jamaicans. Their parents can tell then their history. I'm English. It's not like I know my history either. I just know I'm English. I dont know anything more than that about my roots.
1
Now you're sounding like racist black people. All races have achieved stuff. Let's not add to the divide. Some of us still like black people as we grew up with them. These wole idiots didnt exist until ten years ago. They dont speak for the vast majority of black people.
1
They would effect be saying they enslaved and colonised themselves.
1
I have been attacked for using "foreigner" in a conversation about non-Koreans. In Korea they call foreigners literally "way-gook-in/foreigner" and all the expats cry like babies about it. Theyre pathetic. And in one convo I got pulled up on saying it. Because they conflate it with the phrase "dirty foreigners"I assume. I was talking to one black American woman and I was going to talk about foreigners to her and felt I couldnt use that term because America is so racially charged aswell as society in general these days. Really we just need to keep speaking how we've always done and keep these things normalised. Another one I got pulled up on was using "oriental". We literally have oriental medicine shops and oriental food places that use those names. Orient just means "the east". People virtue signal too much and yes it's very exhausting. Just do you and find your crowd. But dont stop speaking how you usually would as chances are amongst the group only two out of ten will be offended. If you speak freely you give others permission to do so. I dont know if you know about Triggernometry YouTube chann but you might enjoy it. I would check out their recent video with Winston from Mumford And Sons speaking about how he got cancelled and he has quite a good message about how we must not become like the woke ny cancelling people. But how we must speak our truth at all times. We're at a crossroads where we kind of have to or we will lose all freedoms and The West will have nowhere to turn to as we're the last democracy. It's either democracy or Communism or Islamism.
1