Shooting
Control
Dribbling
Defending
Drills
Fitness
Passing
Positions
Freestyle
konichiwa bitches
-
panchester07
- Veteran Member
- Posts: 3852
- Joined: 27 Aug 2007, 04:25
Well that would be a little hard, cause in europe people are white. its not like you can have a black president in germany, when 97% of the population has blue eyes and yellow hair..but there president is awoman thoughI don't see many nations which are dominantly white having black leaders.
to know Him is to want to know Him more"
"i don't know where the limit is, but I know where it is not"
Tocar y moverse y tratarla siempre muy muy bien..'
"i don't know where the limit is, but I know where it is not"
Tocar y moverse y tratarla siempre muy muy bien..'
Well, Chancellor, but Yes, Germany has a women Chancellor. The German political system is odd. The President is the head of state in Germany, who is a man, but Merkel is who most people think of when it comes to leading Germany.
Germany is predominantly white, though the ethnic German population is not 97% (not all have blonde hair blue eyes though, but I think you were just being facetious). The German population is quite diverse actually. Only 81% of the German population is pure German of no immigrant background.
France has a pretty big black population. We all know England's diversity. The Netherlands has a lot of diversity. The point was, I don't think you can label the US as a majority racist country when we have a Black head of state.
Germany is predominantly white, though the ethnic German population is not 97% (not all have blonde hair blue eyes though, but I think you were just being facetious). The German population is quite diverse actually. Only 81% of the German population is pure German of no immigrant background.
France has a pretty big black population. We all know England's diversity. The Netherlands has a lot of diversity. The point was, I don't think you can label the US as a majority racist country when we have a Black head of state.
-
shahensha
- Veteran Member
- Posts: 2528
- Joined: 15 Nov 2006, 03:38
- Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
i really think the behaviour of people in the stadium comes down to typical nationalism influenced by callous arrogance, which is the main theme that is openly portrayed by the media.....perfectly exemplified by movies like "america fu** yeah"
racism is taken very very seriously and i highly disagree with the idea that whatever the home crowd did in that video was an example of racism
racism is taken very very seriously and i highly disagree with the idea that whatever the home crowd did in that video was an example of racism
No you're right, what happened in the stadium was not racism.
However, in my opinion what happened was even worse than racism.
Calling someone racist names is a horrible thing to do, but realistically most people can tolerate racist abuse to some extent. That is not to say you should have to put up with it, but if you cannot take any then you are pretty pathetic in my opinion, you wouldn't start crying calling someone a bully if they picked on you at school for been fat or having a deformed face, so why cry and call someone a racist when they make fun of you because of the colour of your skin. People need to toughen up a little in my opinion. What is referred to as "racist" these days is nothing compared to what the original Black Africans had to put up with in America, what the Irish and other immigrants put up with from the English and what the Jewish put up with in Germany.
Rant over and back to the topic.
I think that insulting and disrespecting those who are dead is far worse and malicious than racism. When people are suffering, drowning in tsunami's which are ravaging through the remains of their homes as the result of a massive earth quake, it is most definitely unacceptable to insult those people, regardless of who they are.
US citizens seem to have this undying hate towards Japanese because of Pearl Harbour, when really the Japanese are the only people who have the right to have a gripe. Japan was at war and attacked US military targets and personnel to great strategic effect. The US responded by dropping two atomic bombs on two of the most civilian dense populations in Japan. You tell me who is more wrong.
However, in my opinion what happened was even worse than racism.
Calling someone racist names is a horrible thing to do, but realistically most people can tolerate racist abuse to some extent. That is not to say you should have to put up with it, but if you cannot take any then you are pretty pathetic in my opinion, you wouldn't start crying calling someone a bully if they picked on you at school for been fat or having a deformed face, so why cry and call someone a racist when they make fun of you because of the colour of your skin. People need to toughen up a little in my opinion. What is referred to as "racist" these days is nothing compared to what the original Black Africans had to put up with in America, what the Irish and other immigrants put up with from the English and what the Jewish put up with in Germany.
Rant over and back to the topic.
I think that insulting and disrespecting those who are dead is far worse and malicious than racism. When people are suffering, drowning in tsunami's which are ravaging through the remains of their homes as the result of a massive earth quake, it is most definitely unacceptable to insult those people, regardless of who they are.
US citizens seem to have this undying hate towards Japanese because of Pearl Harbour, when really the Japanese are the only people who have the right to have a gripe. Japan was at war and attacked US military targets and personnel to great strategic effect. The US responded by dropping two atomic bombs on two of the most civilian dense populations in Japan. You tell me who is more wrong.
South is not the majority. The majority of the people in the United States live in the North or in and around big cities out west. The only state that is as densely populated in the south is Florida, but Florida isn't like the other Southern states, as there are a lot of latin American immigrants and retired Northerners who have moved down there. States like Alabama, Mississippi, etc, don't speak for the rest of us.klc123 wrote:I think you can? some "election campaigns" in the southern states seemed to be giving the message "don't vote for him, he's black."
You might be right. Personally, I think it was a group of tools (read: frat boy type guys) who wanted to be different from everyone else.think the behaviour of people in the stadium comes down to typical nationalism influenced by callous arrogance, which is the main theme that is openly portrayed by the media.....perfectly exemplified by movies like "america fu** yeah"
are we going to have to do this again? WE were not at war. Japan attacked us. We dropped the bombs after telling them. We gave them a chance to surrender. They didn't. Dropping the bomb, however ethical or not it might have been, was an act of war. What Japan did was not an act of war, since we weren't even in the war.US citizens seem to have this undying hate towards Japanese because of Pearl Harbour, when really the Japanese are the only people who have the right to have a gripe. Japan was at war and attacked US military targets and personnel to great strategic effect. The US responded by dropping two atomic bombs on two of the most civilian dense populations in Japan. You tell me who is more wrong.
Japanese don't really face any racism in America these days. All has been forgotten.
...Where do you get this from? Stop just making stuff up...US citizens seem to have this undying hate towards Japanese because of Pearl Harbour
US gets attacked, it's a great strategy. We warn Japan to surrender, and then bomb them when they don't it's us being assholes. Got it.Japan was at war and attacked US military targets and personnel to great strategic effect. The US responded by dropping two atomic bombs on two of the most civilian dense populations in Japan. You tell me who is more wrong.
Really, I don't want to get into a debate of justifying this, yes it would have been better to send one, see if they surrender, blah blah blah. But lets say they didn't surrender you know how many MORE lives would have been lost? Regardless it's horrible what happened.
Undeniably both are wrong, but how can something that doesn't effect a person worse than something that does? If someone is dead, and I was to "make fun of them" they don't hear, or experience any type of shame from it. This is the opposite with racism.I think that insulting and disrespecting those who are dead is far worse and malicious than racism
"Somewhere along the line, we seem to have confused comfort with happiness"
The Japanese believed they were fighting for the right reason. I know it is impossible for a yankie-doodle like yourself to step outside of your own super-inflated National Ego and see that other people may be fighting for something they believe to be good, but trust me it does happen.
If you honestly believe that America played no part in getting itself involved in the war, then your ability to observe only the "facts" that you want to believe, and ignore those you don't has reached new levels, and truly astounds me.
Dropping atomic bombs in areas attempting to maximise civilian fatalities is not an act of war, that is an act of evil. Using your logic it is like saying Stalin was right to kill millions of his people because they "didn't surrender and do what he said." The only people in history who think the Americans done the right thing against the Japanese, or anyone for that matter, is themselves. There is a reason you are the most hated and despised nation in the world and there is a reason things like 9/11 happen. As sick and twisted at terrorists are, they don't kill people for the fun of it.
"US citizens seem to have this undying hate towards Japanese because of Pearl Harbour"
What part of that is so incomprehensible to you, that you have to assume I am making stuff up because you can't get your head around it?
Warn the Japanese to surrender pfft if that is what you are taught in school then great, it's nice to see your government is trying to resolve the financial situation by "making thick sh*t even thicker."
Let me put this into perspective for you. roughly 500,000 American soldiers were killed in world war 2. 1,700 civilians were killed. Japan had over 1 million civilian deaths, the vast majority coming from American bombing. Japan had more civilians killed by America, than America lost in total from the entire war, including Germany.
Don't you even dare try to tell me, when you have no idea of the real horrors of what happened, that America saved more lives than it took.
If you honestly believe that America played no part in getting itself involved in the war, then your ability to observe only the "facts" that you want to believe, and ignore those you don't has reached new levels, and truly astounds me.
Dropping atomic bombs in areas attempting to maximise civilian fatalities is not an act of war, that is an act of evil. Using your logic it is like saying Stalin was right to kill millions of his people because they "didn't surrender and do what he said." The only people in history who think the Americans done the right thing against the Japanese, or anyone for that matter, is themselves. There is a reason you are the most hated and despised nation in the world and there is a reason things like 9/11 happen. As sick and twisted at terrorists are, they don't kill people for the fun of it.
"US citizens seem to have this undying hate towards Japanese because of Pearl Harbour"
What part of that is so incomprehensible to you, that you have to assume I am making stuff up because you can't get your head around it?
Warn the Japanese to surrender
pfft if that is what you are taught in school then great, it's nice to see your government is trying to resolve the financial situation by "making thick sh*t even thicker." Let me put this into perspective for you. roughly 500,000 American soldiers were killed in world war 2. 1,700 civilians were killed. Japan had over 1 million civilian deaths, the vast majority coming from American bombing. Japan had more civilians killed by America, than America lost in total from the entire war, including Germany.
Don't you even dare try to tell me, when you have no idea of the real horrors of what happened, that America saved more lives than it took.
History lesson time.
If we're going to talk about war crime atrocities, Japan invaded China and killed 20 million of their people. Let me say that again. Japan killed 20 million Chinese civilians. And that's a conservative estimate. Chinese historians have that number all the way up to 35+ million.
The A-bombs that the USA dropped was nowhere near 1 million casualties as you say. Not even 500,000. The number that were killed was bellow 300,000, which I'm not saying isn't a tragedy, but let's not over embellish. Also, the US wasn't going for largest amount of causalities. Had they have been, we would've bombed Tokyo. As it stands, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military points of interest, one being a sea port the other being a big manufacturer in arms.
Further more, the US didn't know what kind of damage A-bombs were going to cause because it had never been used before on actual cities. These bombs were miniscule compared to the ones that would be created in the following decades. The blast radius was only a mile, compared to the ones that would be made later which were anywhere between 30+ miles. In later wars, like Vietnam, there was pressure from some to use one of our advanced atomic and hydrogen bombs but the US said "No way" because they saw what kind of damage it had done. Had we really been "heartless" as you believe, we wouldn't have thought twice about it, but as it stands, we've never used one since because we realized how much damage was done.
Thinking we kill people for the fun of it is a pretty twisted thing to say.
Have you taken a higher end history class?
If we're going to talk about war crime atrocities, Japan invaded China and killed 20 million of their people. Let me say that again. Japan killed 20 million Chinese civilians. And that's a conservative estimate. Chinese historians have that number all the way up to 35+ million.
The A-bombs that the USA dropped was nowhere near 1 million casualties as you say. Not even 500,000. The number that were killed was bellow 300,000, which I'm not saying isn't a tragedy, but let's not over embellish. Also, the US wasn't going for largest amount of causalities. Had they have been, we would've bombed Tokyo. As it stands, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military points of interest, one being a sea port the other being a big manufacturer in arms.
Further more, the US didn't know what kind of damage A-bombs were going to cause because it had never been used before on actual cities. These bombs were miniscule compared to the ones that would be created in the following decades. The blast radius was only a mile, compared to the ones that would be made later which were anywhere between 30+ miles. In later wars, like Vietnam, there was pressure from some to use one of our advanced atomic and hydrogen bombs but the US said "No way" because they saw what kind of damage it had done. Had we really been "heartless" as you believe, we wouldn't have thought twice about it, but as it stands, we've never used one since because we realized how much damage was done.
As sick and twisted at terrorists are, they don't kill people for the fun of it.
Thinking we kill people for the fun of it is a pretty twisted thing to say.
Have you taken a higher end history class?
And by the way, 20million is bulls**t rofl. It is estimated that they killed 6 million in total. That includes all of their opposition in the pacific theatre and the US.
Full of absolute bulls**t, however i wouldn't expect anything more from you.
Don't attempt to give me a history lesson.
Full of absolute bulls**t, however i wouldn't expect anything more from you.
Don't attempt to give me a history lesson.
I guarantee you I am. You've posted some things that show your lack of history knowledge, i.e. America is the main culprit for the slave trade.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/ ... r_01.shtml
And that is from the BBCJapanese school text-books still refer to the total war Japan waged against China between 1937 and 1945, in which some 20 million Chinese died, as the ‘China incident’.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/ ... r_01.shtml
Last edited by soccer11 on 30 Mar 2011, 21:55, edited 1 time in total.
A belief that you're doing the right thing is all that's required to consider what they did okay? If that's the case do you not think that the US thought what they were doing was the "right thing" based on the situation? Of course you'll say no - but why would you do something to work against yourself.The Japanese believed they were fighting for the right reason.
Because it's simply not true. How would you even come to this conclusion? Honestly, past friends I couldn't in the slightest tell you how others feel about the Japanese. So how is it you come to that conclusion when you don't even live here?What part of that is so incomprehensible to you, that you have to assume I am making stuff up because you can't get your head around it?
"Somewhere along the line, we seem to have confused comfort with happiness"
"I know it is impossible for a yankie-doodle like yourself to step outside of your own super-inflated National Ego and see that other people may be fighting for something they believe to be good, but trust me it does happen."
this is so ironic i'm pretty sure we need a word just to express how much irony this sentence contains.
Superironiagantuan. i think that new word covers it.
this is so ironic i'm pretty sure we need a word just to express how much irony this sentence contains.
Superironiagantuan. i think that new word covers it.