The nationalist wave in the U.S. and Europe that liberals still don’t get

True.. and every immigrant group had a tough time.. The first wave of Irish in the early 1700s were called slatterns, wife beaters and drunks.

The Italians were not considered white people.. likewise Greeks and Spaniards.

 

I don't know.. South Carolina was the biggest producer of rice in the world for a while..

 

The French in Louisiana imported, bred, and sold slaves to other colonies. They built the plantation "business model" and franchised it. The founders, mainly northern statesman, were struggling with the issue of slavery since the beginning. Some were slave owners, some were not. Doesn't mean it wasn't the sons of our white founders who fought a bloody civil was to abolish slavery. At great peril to the existence of the country they founded.

 

Long before the French were involved the Dutch were hauling slaves to Recif, Brazil.

Look up "sugar jews" for the story.

 

The fact is Europeans didn't invent slavery. All the ancient empires were built by slaves. Later, colonialism employed the same methods to expand. Our founders, authors of the constitution, weren't "white devils" who set out to create a dynasty of white supremacy. They were proud visionaries later vilified for the social constructs of their era.

 

That's true.. The first plantations in Louisiana were around 1699. The first in the Carolinas were around 1670 .. The first black slaves came into New Amsterdam from Brazil.. and South Carolina shortly there after.

 

I appreciate your honesty, and objectivity. So little of either on the forum lately ...

 

Slaves bought to the malian empire or Benin empire.

The history of slavery in France was complicated. In 1315, the king Louis X le Hutin forbid stricly slavery on the french ground. The interdiction was never removed, the slavers found a solution : they never let their slaves on french ground. Once, some slaves were bring in the city of Nantes and were freed. Thereafter some edict let slaveowners keeping slave on the french ground for less than some weeks.
The king Louis XIV will proclaim the "code negre", which is the law of how slaves should be considered. It's mostly horrors.
The king Louis XVI (16th) will forbid again to bring any slave on french ground. Just after, during the revolution, slavery was claimed strictly forbidden. However, the colonies claimed secession and rallied to the Unite Kingdom.
During the revolution, two sons of slaves will became famous : the knight of Saint-Georges and Alexandre Dumas (father). The second will be an important general in the napoleonic army and both were half-black. Alexandre Dumas will have a son name Alexandre Dumas too, this son is the author of the three musketeers.
Napoleon will allow back slavery to get back most of the colonies and will sell Louisiane to the young USA.
In 1815, France will know both the napoleonic governement and the royal one, despite that, France participate to the congress of Vienna who strictly forbid to put people in slavery, and the atlantic trade. From that moment, the only slaves accepted is people who are already slave or born slave.
In 1830, French invaded and colonized it, partly as a revenge because Alger sheltered some pirates/slavers and freed some european slaves but not the non-white.
In 1848, France know they third revolution (the second is in 1830), the second republic is created and slavery strictly forbidden everywhere, even in the colonies. I woulnd not say that colonization were something good, however, by invading a lot of countries, France would bring the ban of slavery in a lot of colonies.

The strange situation in France was the fact that during the atlantic trade, slaves weren't accepted in the mainland but only colonies. Most of the french population didn't knew what real horror was slavery and a lot of intellectual believed in the propaganda.

In 1963, slavery was forbidden in saudi arabia. In 1970, it was forbidden in the Oman sultanate, in 1980, it was forbidden in mauritania but not applied. In 2015, ISIS will bring back slavery in the middle east.

 

the founders were rich white landowners who wanted freedom for the white male peasants as well as themselves. together they defeated the tyranny of the royal communists of england.

today that freedom they sacrificed for should belong to all Americans, nationalism is not white nationalism.

open borders for cheap labor to make the rich richer is not liberal nor conservative, and is not a legitimate defense against white nationalism or racism.

 

American nationalism is the exception because it was founded on freedom, all other kinds of nationalism oppress others to empower their group.

America is a resource rich land who can put its people first, right now it gives handouts to the world at the expense of its people with trade and military protection.

 

My immediate ancestors killed lots of southern democrats to free the slaves.

Tell us more.

 

"Royal communists"? What on earth is a royal communist for crying out loud?

 

America isn't too keen on other nations being free though, is it; even bona fide democracies have been overthrown by your freedom-loving foreign policy. Must have been the wrong kind of democracy, eh?

 

So...racial oppression and discrimination in the US is a thing of the past?

 

I don't believe I said racial oppression is over and a thing of the past. I simply said slavery is over, no Chinese immigrant ban and no wiping out of native Americans.

 

Right, but it's odd that millions of non white people want to come to the US to live under white supremacy.

 

Your problem is that you are "anti-Marxist-looney" and so you really really believe Marxists have shaped America. All I can do is pity people who are so lost in their own propaganda.

 

Lol, what???? This country was built by immigrants FOR immigrants. Our liberal immigration is literally our greatest strength and a primary reason we rose to be a super power so quickly.

My god pick up a book and turn off Fox News man.

 

Maybe they're unfamiliar with what that term truly means. Or the fact that anywhere is better than where they were formerly living.

 

The population at the time was almost entirely made up of whites of western eurpopean descent. Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison and Franklin all owned slaves and may have even been conflicted about that but the the eloquent language in the Constitution about all men being equal referred to whites only. This would not be remediated until the 1960s.

 

as President Trump pointed out with iraq, we have been giving freedom to other countries at our expense instead of taking their resources.

it is time America starts taking the resources of other nations who are unable to defend themselves for its poorer half of citizens, before our enemy's like russia and china take their resources.

 

When the US rose to a global superpower, it had a strong preference for white Europeans from Western Europe, and it required things like incoming immigrants must not have serious illnesses, must be able to support themselves, must be literate, etc. It was nothing like the "liberal immigration" that you are referring to, where anybody from the 3rd world is welcome as long as they know to vote Democrat.

 

They have shaped America, from at least the 1960s onward. I blame them for the unraveling of the social fabric, the civil society, and for cultural rot. I point out examples frequently.

 

A strong preference for white immigrants...lol well yeah, that's always been true, still is today in republican quarters. Hell Trump's been married to a few of them himself!

As for immigration, listen skippy, my grandpop left Italy in the early 1930's when he was a kid and just showed up on a boat. No papers. No visa application. Nothing. He just showed up and he was allowed in.

And that's the way it's been for most of this country's existence. Just like there's always been scared, insecure ignorant xenophobic racists like you berating them on arrival.

 

Ok then name some "Marxists" and say why you say they're Marxists, and be ready to back it up with reliable evidence.