• Protesters are Demanding that Princeton University Drop Woodrow Wilson's Name Because He Was a Racis
    61 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Conscript;49164773]White imperialists make up shit to go to war[/QUOTE] So nothing beyond "Well I have a hunch"?
[QUOTE=27X;49162566]It is curious that these particular activists have not engaged in the same behavior at the Stormfront home offices, nor say notoriously racist enclave like Basking Ridge or the Shore..[/QUOTE] Because they know those people will fight back. Bullies don't make it a habit to challenge those with a history of skull stomping people they don't like.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;49164750]Changing the name of place because it's namesake was racist as fuck hardly seems that damaging.[/QUOTE] It's the precedents they're setting and how retardedly exploitable they are that is going to cause damage. They're literally manufacturing a race war that doesn't currently exist.
[QUOTE=Conscript;49164773]White imperialists make up shit to go to war[/QUOTE] Lmao, just lmao. Dude, Arthur Zimmerman (The guy who sent it), even admitted to it. Lke, it happened and you denying it just to go "lol white people!!!!!" is retarded.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;49164778]So nothing beyond "Well I have a hunch"?[/QUOTE] Well they lied about the lusitania and supplies and stuff right? America wanted in the war, so why not?
[QUOTE=Conscript;49164830]Well they lied about the lusitania and supplies and stuff right? America wanted in the war, so why not?[/QUOTE] America had nothing to gain from entering the war and public opinion was heavily against it. Please tell me why you think America wanted to participate in the war.
[QUOTE=soulharvester;49164803]It's the precedents they're setting and how retardedly exploitable they are that is going to cause damage. They're literally manufacturing a race war that doesn't currently exist.[/QUOTE] I dunno, this seems like a good precedent. They should change Mississippi's flag next.
[QUOTE=technologic;49164868]America had nothing to gain from entering the war and public opinion was heavily against it. Please tell me why you think America wanted to participate in the war.[/QUOTE] Because conspiracy theories are so much more interesting than reality?
[QUOTE=Conscript;49164830]Well they lied about the lusitania and supplies and stuff right? America wanted in the war, so why not?[/QUOTE] They lied about the Lusitania because they wanted to support Britain and make a profit at the same time without officially picking a side or advertising it as a target. If anything the secrecy behind the Lusitania is further evidence of our lack of interest in joining the war. The letter to Mexico was evidence that Germany had no intention of letting us stay neutral, it practically forced us to take action when we didn't intend to otherwise. [QUOTE=Lambeth;49164881]I dunno, this seems like a good precedent. They should change Mississippi's flag next.[/QUOTE] Holding historical figures of the past who had major positive influence on our history to today's standards of progress is retarded. Literally like maybe a handful of historical figures can stand up to both the ideals of their time and our own, especially when they're being judged by these crybullies.
conscript, have you been huffing glue
[QUOTE=Conscript;49164773]White imperialists make up shit to go to war[/QUOTE] dude white people are not the source of all evil im sorry The US at the time was very isolationist but the Zimmerman telegraph hit a raw nerve.
[QUOTE=Conscript;49164830]Well they lied about the lusitania and supplies and stuff right? America wanted in the war, so why not?[/QUOTE] It would make sense for Britain to fabricate the telegram, it wouldn't make sense for the US to do so. Germany was sinking every ship carrying supplies for the war effort, the only way the US could be involved without going to war and lose men would be to support Britain and France covertly. Keeping the supplies onboard Lusitania secret wouldn't aid the US in going to war. What did the US stand to gain from joining the war themselves? They already made money on selling supplies (or at least that would be the argument), why risk your own men, turn your own industry towards making stuff you won't need in a year [I]and[/I] hasten the end of the war (which would be counter productive towards making money off of it) etc. Did the US set up the Pearl Harbor attack in WWII as well? Why did it take the US three years to fake a telegram? There are so many answers that are way more likely... [I]Or maybe that's just what they want us to believe?[/I] Or maybe you're just completely delusional.
[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;49162258]He was a prominent progressive, but yeah he said racist things because during that time it was a universal belief that blacks are not as intelligent as whites. Everyone was a racist back then. Lincoln believed whites and blacks were separate species, it was Charles Darwin who figured out that everyone is the same species. [editline]22nd November 2015[/editline] Wanted to know more about the place [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/7dI2x9e.png[/IMG] Thanks Google[/QUOTE] Nice, I'm taller than Hitler by 5cm.
[QUOTE=Conscript;49164450]Pretty sure the Zimmerman telegram was a fake.[/QUOTE] The government of the United States has manufactured reasons to go to war before but you really don't have much of a leg to stand on here. [QUOTE=soulharvester;49164898] Holding historical figures of the past who had major positive influence on our history to today's standards of progress is retarded.[/QUOTE] Pretty much every single positive historical figure has their Skeletons. Are ultra-progressives ever gonna stop celebrating Nelson Mandela or Che Guevara? Probably not.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49165176]The government of the United States has manufactured reasons to go to war before but you really don't have much of a leg to stand on here. [/QUOTE] No you see he still does because, manufactured or not, the Zimmerman Telegram was still a product of white imperialists making up shit to go to war.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;49164183]Woodrow Wilson single-handedly dragged the US into WWI without public support? Despite the public largely being against going to war the preceding three years, he just did it on a whim one day? Amazing. Who knows how long the war could've dragged on without US support.[/QUOTE] His second term was won on the campaign slogan, "He kept us out of the war"Yeah, he as an asshole that dragged the US into the war without US support. He was a racist at home as much as abroad, as well. He gave self-determination to European nationalities but god forbid any nation not made of white people take up on this belief outside of Europe. Hell, the first movie ever shown inside the White House as during his term. It was "Birth of a Nation".
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49165707]Hell, the first movie ever shown inside the White House as during his term. It was "Birth of a Nation".[/QUOTE][IMG]https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/3eoa3cLku3YWZlLXEXHpP4QBc0c=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4283369/ww_kkk.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49165707]His second term was won on the campaign slogan, "He kept us out of the war"Yeah, he as an asshole that dragged the US into the war without US support. He was a racist at home as much as abroad, as well. He gave self-determination to European nationalities but god forbid any nation not made of white people take up on this belief outside of Europe. Hell, the first movie ever shown inside the White House as during his term. It was "Birth of a Nation".[/QUOTE] I'm not saying Woodrow Wilson was a good guy, I'm just saying that I don't think you can accuse him of simply dragging the US into a war the whole nation was against. The US didn't enter WWII for two years, but after Pearl Harbor the majority probably thought it was the right idea. The population sentiment can change. Your post was also (kinda) suggesting that it was all about a loss of American lives, and honestly I'm just tired of the US' (in my opinion hypocritical) isolationist attitude. Maybe the US war effort saved more European lives in the end than the US lost? Everything isn't black or white.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;49165966]I'm not saying Woodrow Wilson was a good guy, I'm just saying that I don't think you can accuse him of simply dragging the US into a war the whole nation was against. The US didn't enter WWII for two years, but after Pearl Harbor the majority probably thought it was the right idea. The population sentiment can change. Your post was also (kinda) suggesting that it was all about a loss of American lives, and honestly I'm just tired of the US' (in my opinion hypocritical) isolationist attitude. Maybe the US war effort saved more European lives in the end than the US lost? Everything isn't black or white.[/QUOTE] the US tipped the balance, but our military was full of idiots when it came to ww1, they were using 1914 tactics in 1917, the british and the french were already well on their way tactic and force wise to winning ww1, we just hastened it with a seemingly inexhaustible supply of troops and equipment
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49165707]Hell, the first movie ever shown inside the White House as during his term. It was "Birth of a Nation".[/QUOTE] And according to people who were actually there when it was shown, he knew nothing about it beforehand, paid very little attention and talked through most of it when it was actually playing, and finally got up saying that it was an "unfortunate production". The guy who got Birth of a Nation to play at the White House, Thomas Dixon, was a former acquaintance of Wilson's when they were students at Johns Hopkins in the 1880s. He schemed up showing Wilson the film as a way to racially-counter the NAACP; otherwise he told him nothing about the movie and lied about why he was even there, saying that he just wanted to show him "the birth of a new art-- the launching of the mightiest engine for molding public opinion in the history of the world". Also, D.W. Griffith was more than happy to peddle the same idea that Wilson liked and supported the film, since, you know, he made it. [url=http://books.google.com/books?id=xOZVsyO4K2cC&pg=PA272#v=onepage&q&f=false]This book mention some good excerpts on his views about blacks, racism, and Birth of a Nation (also how Birth of a Nation unjustly affected his legacy when it shouldn't have).[/url] [editline]22nd November 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=benzi2k7;49165944][IMG]https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/3eoa3cLku3YWZlLXEXHpP4QBc0c=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4283369/ww_kkk.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] This is from Wilson's book A History of the American People, and the way Griffith framed it makes it sound like he supported the Klan. Again, he didn't. This passage from his book was about examining the natural phenomenon of post-Civil War racism that occurred in the Reconstruction years. The full, original text from Wilson's book actually reads: [quote]"Negroes constituted the majority of . . . the electorates [in South Carolina, Louisiana, and Florida]; but political power gave them no advantage of their own. Adventurers swarmed out of the North to cozen, beguile, and use them." ... "[In the villages and countrysides] the Negroes themselves were the office-holders, men who could not so much as write their names and who knew none of the uses of authority except its insolence."[/quote] Again, D.W. Griffith was a bullshitter. This is the same man who made a film glorifying the Klu Klux Klan lol. He wanted and needed Wilson's support for it, because he was the president, so he lied about it to make it seem like Wilson supported it when (according to people who were actually there) he didn't. [editline]22nd November 2015[/editline] If people aren't even able to do this kind of basic investigative research, I'm scared to think what it would be like if we actually allowed them to start picking and choosing who gets blacklisted from historical memory and who doesn't. This is just flirting with danger. It really is. The last thing we need to be doing is bending over to a bunch of retarded people (at Princeton in this case, as well as elsewhere) who clearly have no business being students-- much less who deserve to be allowed to make important decisions about the real world; they're the kinds of people that should be blacklisted and targeted (for being incredibly/dangerously stupid).
Conscript's posts remind me of a tumblr post that started off like "all countries and tribes on the planet were peaceful until white men invaded them"
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;49165966]I'm not saying Woodrow Wilson was a good guy, I'm just saying that I don't think you can accuse him of simply dragging the US into a war the whole nation was against. The US didn't enter WWII for two years, but after Pearl Harbor the majority probably thought it was the right idea. The population sentiment can change. Your post was also (kinda) suggesting that it was all about a loss of American lives, and honestly I'm just tired of the US' (in my opinion hypocritical) isolationist attitude. Maybe the US war effort saved more European lives in the end than the US lost? Everything isn't black or white.[/QUOTE] The Allies in WW1 were just as bad as the Central Powers. No matter who the victor was in that war, it was going to be a land grab for the victors afterward. So why should the US have participated in such a barbaric conflict? What was achieved for the US, especially that which survived past the Nazis rise to power? Sure, the war may have ended a few months earlier than it would have without the US but the Allies would have won eventually regardless. As for saving lives - why are the lives of a people in a country fully wanting a war worth saving over conscripts of a nation who vastly doesn't want to fight? The French and British charged into that war without any desire for peace, yet we must spend the blood of Americans forced out of their every day lives to fight and save them?
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49168625]The Allies in WW1 were just as bad as the Central Powers. No matter who the victor was in that war, it was going to be a land grab for the victors afterward. So why should the US have participated in such a barbaric conflict? What was achieved for the US, especially that which survived past the Nazis rise to power? Sure, the war may have ended a few months earlier than it would have without the US but the Allies would have won eventually regardless. As for saving lives - why are the lives of a people in a country fully wanting a war worth saving over conscripts of a nation who vastly doesn't want to fight? The French and British charged into that war without any desire for peace, yet we must spend the blood of Americans forced out of their every day lives to fight and save them?[/QUOTE] Not to mention there's all the FUCKING BULLSHIT the allied powers pulled, like the treaty of Versailles, which fueled enough anger to launch the Second World War, or the Sykes-Picot agreement, which still has an effect on Middle Eastern politics to this day.
[QUOTE=Conscript;49164773]White imperialists make up shit to go to war[/QUOTE] Do imperialists of different colours also make stuff up or not?
[QUOTE=Conscript;49164450]Pretty sure the Zimmerman telegram was a fake.[/QUOTE] Actually at that time, Mexico and the U.S were far from being friendly neighbors due to the revolution/Civil War that was going on in the former at the time and our intervention in it because of Pancho Villa's raids on American towns near the border and there was still a lot of bitter relations leftover from the Mexican War, so there were a lot of reasons for Mexico to hate the U.S. We essentially treated Mexico like shit back then and we're still feeling the consequences of all that today.
[QUOTE=Antlerp;49171657]Do imperialists of different colours also make stuff up or not?[/QUOTE] See: Japan, circa WW1-1939
Wasn't Mexico in the middle of a 3 way civil war when the Zimmerman telegram happened? Not to mention the entire northern border region was being occupied by american troops. It makes me question why the telegram even happened at all, Mexico wouldn't have been anything more than a speed bump to the US at the time. Also i know everyone jumps on the treaty of Versailles as being the poster child of bad treaties but that treaty doesn't even compare to what the treaty of saint-Germain did to Austria, and what the treaty of Trianon did to Hungary. Turkey barely escaped getting torn into colonial bits by the treaty of Sevres. The whole German Sudetenland question was a result of the treaty of saint-Germain, not to mention it was the reason why Austria and Germany didn't Anschluss at the end of world war 1. If anything Germany was lucky they didn't get a Trianon peace.
even if he was racist (like almost every fucking white person born in the past 1000 years until only very recently) this is still the guy who introduced and emphasized the concept of self-rule to imperialist powers and actually prolly did a lot of good for oppressed peoples
[QUOTE=27X;49172590]See: Japan, circa WW1-1939[/QUOTE] I think you are better off telling him that rather than me
[QUOTE=TG2;49173321]even if he was racist (like almost every fucking white person born in the past 1000 years until only very recently) this is still the guy who introduced and emphasized the concept of self-rule to imperialist powers and actually prolly did a lot of good for oppressed peoples[/QUOTE] Except his belief of self-rule only applied to white people in Europe. He literally turned away dozens of Asian and African representatives looking to free themselves from French and British colonialism.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.