Drexel professor "ironically" promotes 'white genocide'

[Uiiop]

I think there is nothing wrong with the professor's statement, and he has the right to speak his mind.

a bland "Inject edge into innocence" joke straight face is not what i call correct.
Nor is the Haiti shit to be perfectly honest.

[Community Values]

I think there is nothing wrong with the professor's statement, and he has the right to speak his mind.

There's nothing wrong with advocating for the death of a group of Haitians, and then saying "All I want for Christmas is white genocide"?

I guess he does have the right to speak his mind though, just as Drexel has the right to kick him out for speaking his mind.

[Elola]

I think there is nothing wrong with the professor's statement, and he has the right to speak his mind.

a bland "Inject edge into innocence" joke straight face is not what i call correct.
Nor is the Haiti shit to be perfectly honest.

Whites have not been historically oppressed, as whites always have an advantage in life, whether they are dirt poor or filthy rich. Had this been said about a disadvantaged minority, it would've been different.

[Jamzmania]

a bland "Inject edge into innocence" joke straight face is not what i call correct.
Nor is the Haiti shit to be perfectly honest.

Whites have not been historically oppressed, as whites always have an advantage in life, whether they are dirt poor or filthy rich. Had this been said about a disadvantaged minority, it would've been different.

I'm sure all the white slaves in North Africa and the Middle East would have agreed. Or the white farmers in Zimbabwe. Or any other number of examples of whites being shit on.

[Kubra]

I think there is nothing wrong with the professor's statement, and he has the right to speak his mind.

There's nothing wrong with advocating for the death of a group of Haitians, and then saying "All I want for Christmas is white genocide"?

I guess he does have the right to speak his mind though, just as Drexel has the right to kick him out for speaking his mind.

it's not adovacting for death if the particular group is already dead bruv

[The United Colonies of Earth]

a bland "Inject edge into innocence" joke straight face is not what i call correct.
Nor is the Haiti shit to be perfectly honest.

Whites have not been historically oppressed, as whites always have an advantage in life, whether they are dirt poor or filthy rich. Had this been said about a disadvantaged minority, it would've been different.

That's a bit much man. As Jamz says, the slaves of the barbaries and the whenwes of Zimbabwe did not have a fun time. Nobody advocated for them- well to be fair America advocated for both, except that we don't do much but complain about Mugabe, and I doubt there were any great slave liberations during the Barbary Wars.

[Napkiraly]

Whites have not been historically oppressed, as whites always have an advantage in life, whether they are dirt poor or filthy rich. Had this been said about a disadvantaged minority, it would've been different.

That's a bit much man. As Jamz says, the slaves of the barbaries and the whenwes of Zimbabwe did not have a fun time. Nobody advocated for them- well to be fair America advocated for both, except that we don't do much but complain about Mugabe, and I doubt there were any great slave liberations during the Barbary Wars.

There were no such slave liberations unfortunately. The coasts of the Mediterranean were quite empty as people sought to improve their chances of not being enslaved.

[Napkiraly]

a bland "Inject edge into innocence" joke straight face is not what i call correct.
Nor is the Haiti shit to be perfectly honest.

Whites have not been historically oppressed, as whites always have an advantage in life, whether they are dirt poor or filthy rich. Had this been said about a disadvantaged minority, it would've been different.

So it's okay to advocate for the death of white people and to celebrate a genocide that targeted white people?

[The United Colonies of Earth]

That's a bit much man. As Jamz says, the slaves of the barbaries and the whenwes of Zimbabwe did not have a fun time. Nobody advocated for them- well to be fair America advocated for both, except that we don't do much but complain about Mugabe, and I doubt there were any great slave liberations during the Barbary Wars.

There were no such slave liberations unfortunately. The coasts of the Mediterranean were quite empty as people sought to improve their chances of not being enslaved.

Damn. I had no idea it caused such a massive migration from the coastline.

[Napkiraly]

There were no such slave liberations unfortunately. The coasts of the Mediterranean were quite empty as people sought to improve their chances of not being enslaved.

Damn. I had no idea it caused such a massive migration from the coastline.

Yes. A lot of settlement along the coasts was not undertaken until the 19th century after the threat had subsided when the European powers (and the Americans) started acting against them. The finale of course was the French conquest of Algiers. That reason alone justifies the French conquest.

[Kubra]

Damn. I had no idea it caused such a massive migration from the coastline.

Yes. A lot of settlement along the coasts was not undertaken until the 19th century after the threat had subsided when the European powers (and the Americans) started acting against them. The finale of course was the French conquest of Algiers. That reason alone justifies the French conquest.

None of which ended slaver raids and transport across the sahara
like yo france hadn't even abolished slavery in the colonies when they moved on Algeria

[Aelex]

None of which ended slaver raids and transport across the sahara
like yo france hadn't even abolished slavery in the colonies when they moved on Algeria

We had, actually, by the time we moved from the conquest of the coasts to the conquest of the inland.

[Kubra]

None of which ended slaver raids and transport across the sahara
like yo france hadn't even abolished slavery in the colonies when they moved on Algeria

We had, actually, by the time we moved from the conquest of the coasts to the conquest of the inland.

In the years before the 1849 emancipation, France held the majority of population centres in Algeria. All that was left was a few saharan outposts.

[Napkiraly]

Yes. A lot of settlement along the coasts was not undertaken until the 19th century after the threat had subsided when the European powers (and the Americans) started acting against them. The finale of course was the French conquest of Algiers. That reason alone justifies the French conquest.

None of which ended slaver raids and transport across the sahara
like yo france hadn't even abolished slavery in the colonies when they moved on Algeria

I never suggested it did. From a purely self-interest perspective, it was just to begin the conquest and colonization of that part of North Africa as it removed a significant problem for Europe, particularly those living along the Med.

[Kubra]

None of which ended slaver raids and transport across the sahara
like yo france hadn't even abolished slavery in the colonies when they moved on Algeria

I never suggested it did. From a purely self-interest perspective, it was just to begin the conquest and colonization of that part of North Africa as it removed a significant problem for Europe, particularly those living along the Med.

Well you did say that ending slavery routes on the barbary coast totally justified the conquest of Algeria. Is this from a self-interest perspective?

[Napkiraly]

I never suggested it did. From a purely self-interest perspective, it was just to begin the conquest and colonization of that part of North Africa as it removed a significant problem for Europe, particularly those living along the Med.

Well you did say that ending slavery routes on the barbary coast totally justified the conquest of Algeria. Is this from a self-interest perspective?

Yes and I just explained why. It removed a problem that Europe was having.

[Kubra]

Well you did say that ending slavery routes on the barbary coast totally justified the conquest of Algeria. Is this from a self-interest perspective?

Yes and I just explained why. It removed a problem that Europe was having.

From a self-interest perspective, there's no reason to put up the slave trade defense, taking colonies has a value in itself. There's no reason for France to consider the state of europe as a whole, it may have been preferential for them if they could have reached an agreement with the pirates that the french were off limits, but everyone else was fair game.

[Napkiraly]

Yes and I just explained why. It removed a problem that Europe was having.

From a self-interest perspective, there's no reason to put up the slave trade defense, taking colonies has a value in itself. There's no reason for France to consider the state of europe as a whole, it may have been preferential for them if they could have reached an agreement with the pirates that the french were off limits, but everyone else was fair game.

Various countries had tried that and it rarely lasted for long. And the French didn't have the rest of Europe in mind, it was merely a good side effect of the conquest. The conquest started because of a diplomatic incident involving debts.

[Kubra]

From a self-interest perspective, there's no reason to put up the slave trade defense, taking colonies has a value in itself. There's no reason for France to consider the state of europe as a whole, it may have been preferential for them if they could have reached an agreement with the pirates that the french were off limits, but everyone else was fair game.

Various countries had tried that and it rarely lasted for long. And the French didn't have the rest of Europe in mind, it was merely a good side effect of the conquest. The conquest started because of a diplomatic incident involving debts.

Given that france was able to mobilize a blockade of algerian ports, something unthinkable for previous centuries, we can assume it would have lasted a little longer than any previous agreements. It might have been a bit difficult to move on, say, the spanish or british coast, cuz they also had a lot of boats, but y'know France wasn't too hot about those Austrians. Those Austrians also happened to have a small navy and undefended coastline, plus anyone the pirates were likely to cease would be orthodox, so hey who would miss em except the austrians?
It's simple, really: France could have done as the ottomans and tolerated autonomy for a french puppet in Algeria, that could do dirty work without directly implicated France, as the barbary pirates had been doing with the ottomans.

[Napkiraly]

Various countries had tried that and it rarely lasted for long. And the French didn't have the rest of Europe in mind, it was merely a good side effect of the conquest. The conquest started because of a diplomatic incident involving debts.

Given that france was able to mobilize a blockade of algerian ports, something unthinkable for previous centuries, we can assume it would have lasted a little longer than any previous agreements. It might have been a bit difficult to move on, say, the spanish or british coast, cuz they also had a lot of boats, but y'know France wasn't too hot about those Austrians. Those Austrians also happened to have a small navy and undefended coastline, plus anyone the pirates were likely to cease would be orthodox, so hey who would miss em except the austrians?
It's simple, really: France could have done as the ottomans and tolerated autonomy for a french puppet in Algeria, that could do dirty work without directly implicated France, as the barbary pirates had been doing with the ottomans.

Yes they could have. But they didn't and conquered it. And it was good.

[Kubra]

Given that france was able to mobilize a blockade of algerian ports, something unthinkable for previous centuries, we can assume it would have lasted a little longer than any previous agreements. It might have been a bit difficult to move on, say, the spanish or british coast, cuz they also had a lot of boats, but y'know France wasn't too hot about those Austrians. Those Austrians also happened to have a small navy and undefended coastline, plus anyone the pirates were likely to cease would be orthodox, so hey who would miss em except the austrians?
It's simple, really: France could have done as the ottomans and tolerated autonomy for a french puppet in Algeria, that could do dirty work without directly implicated France, as the barbary pirates had been doing with the ottomans.

Yes they could have. But they didn't and conquered it. And it was good.

Yes, because they had a self-interest that didn't involve slavery or the barbary slave raids. Namely, getting a foothold into africa and eating ottoman turf before everyone else did.

[Napkiraly]

Yes they could have. But they didn't and conquered it. And it was good.

Yes, because they had a self-interest that didn't involve slavery or the barbary slave raids. Namely, getting a foothold into africa and eating ottoman turf before everyone else did.

Yes I aware. What point are you trying to make?

[Kubra]

Yes, because they had a self-interest that didn't involve slavery or the barbary slave raids. Namely, getting a foothold into africa and eating ottoman turf before everyone else did.

Yes I aware. What point are you trying to make?

That you're making personal justification of the conquest. If you'd like, I can do the same for the massacre of Haitian whites, from a self-interest perspective, and it would be about as valid, wouldn't it?

[Napkiraly]

Yes I aware. What point are you trying to make?

That you're making personal justification of the conquest. If you'd like, I can do the same for the massacre of Haitian whites, from a self-interest perspective, and it would be about as valid, wouldn't it?

Yeah, defending annexation is the same as defending a genocide.

[Napkiraly]

One brought about a change in administration while having the nice side effect of ending slave raids once and for all, the other was a genocide.