>On December 1, 1955 Rosa Parks made history by refusing to give up her seat on Montgomery, Alabama's segregated buses.

>On December 1, 1955 Rosa Parks made history by refusing to give up her seat on Montgomery, Alabama's segregated buses.

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    she was employed by the NAACP and staked out "the most racist" bus driver whom she personally knew (he kicked her off of his bus once because she was getting lippy with him) to cause as much of a scene as possible. What's funny is that her case had little chance of succeeding in court so she was abandoned by the civil rights movement for cases where black women claimed they were struck by bus drivers because they were more inflammatorily newsworthy

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Thats the founding fathers fault for A. creating a system so shitty that every heated issue boils over until someone goes and cries to courts until they get their way and B. Having no safeguards preventing someone from intentionally implicating themselves in a crime for a political point.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        the founding fathers didn't created the extra-legal 14th amendment

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        The Founding Fathers didn't give the Supreme Court the power to invalidate laws. The Court claimed that power 20 years after the Constitution was written, and Congress let them get away with it because it was politically useful to have a way to deal with thorny issues without the Congressmen having to go on the record with votes.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Welcome to common law.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            that's not common law you retard

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Basically. The entire thing was a foundation funded operation.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      And what's wrong with that?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Leftism is literally a CIA creation.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Leftism as a term comes from the French revolution. Arguably some of the ideals of leftism date back to Caesar's time or earlier, possibly to Biblical times.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Karl Marx- famous CIA asset

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Karl Marx created leftism
            cult speak

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I went to a left-wing "how to protest" weekend class one time, very interesting and educational, and Rosa Parks was given as one of the first examples of how to do it (along with some of the lunch counter sit-ins). Basically there's this idea you're seeing ITT that protests should be "organic" or "natural" and not, like, a whole planned operation with a political strategy and goal in mind. These organizers thought differently.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          It worked though

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, it definitely wasn't the made for tv movie style account they teach kids in school about where some poor black woman spontaneously decided to hold her ground against racism one day.
      All those sorts of stunts are carefully planned in efforts to have a case to take up the court system and use for creating new legal precedents. Basically activist groups legislating without laws.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        In this case they were trying to overturn an existing law.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          You mean replace rule of law with activist positive law.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Civil disobedience and boycotts work either within the law or with no attempt to overthrow the general system. This wasn't a coup.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              It was terrorism, not civil disobedience.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >crosses in lawns are civil disobedience
                >sitting at the front of the bus is terrorism
                Wignats are so loopy that it stopped being funny

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                how many crosses were put in lawns compared to how many people blacks killed or attempted to kill during civil rights

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >w-w-whatabouddablickpipo
                Honestly kind of sad to watch

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                if putting up pieces of wood in somebody's yard is comparable to murder then you're going to lose a lot of people

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Most people don’t matter. Universal suffrage is a very, very recent invention.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                then logically the opinion of blacks shouldn't mean anything, especially not when they're screaming bloody murder because somebody left a 2x4 in their front yard

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Most representative democracies still have age and legal status requirements for voting.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Burning the piece of wood as a threat of murder, backed up by proof of incessant mob lynchings and vigilante murders that defy the rule of law - that's what turns it into terrorism. I am willing to bet money that leading black civil rights organizations (e.g. the NAACP) committed less hate crimes than leading white supremacist organizations like the KKK.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                sorry, but putting a cross in somebody's yard is not equal to murder

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >le innocent crosserino
                >ignores the rest of the post
                God, I hate wignats

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Right, I would be inclined to ignore the posts of somebody that think a cross in the yard is equal to murder because that's insane

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Sorry wignat "friend,"
                Shan't be getting baited today by your retardation and poor reading comprehension.

                Good Day,
                Anon

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >if you don't think crossed sections of cellulose in your yard is the equivalent of murder you're a nazi
                okay, have you tried reddit? You might get like 10 updoots if you post that there

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >proving him right
                You are a Nazi and you are upset they didn't kill more people, and you're asshurt that someone isn't willing to deal with your bad faith arguments and crying because they see a burning cross placed on your property as a threat and you're so autistic that unless someone is stabbing you to death or leaving a manifesto pinned to your door with a dagger it just doesn't count

                If you tried to put a burning cross on my lawn I would peel your cap back and the police would rule your death to be assisted suicide

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >You are a Nazi
                no, care to try again?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Prove you aren't then

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                why should I care what you think of me? If somebody is coming to a history board and they believe that burning a cross in somebody's yard is the equivalent of murder then they're probably chemically imbalanced or retarded, no?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                No one said it was equivalent to murder. They said it was a threat.

                Your inability to prove to me that you aren't a Nazi and a racist proves you are one, so get ready to eat a 300mph lead sandwich, retard

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                So how is threatening people with a cross in their yard which was more rare than murder justification for black race riots?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                How is being terrorized and threatened and murdered by an organized force on the basis of skin color not a justification for rioting or at least killing the perpetrators in the act?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                you're changing the subject again you retarded nagger. cross burnings were exceptionally rare, probably one of the rarest acts of the KKK. You can probably count on one hand how many occurred and there were all within one year.

                How is a historical spec such as cross burning justification for black chimpouts during civil rights, let alone today?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Lmao the other anon was right, you are autistic

                >ugh im not a nazi tho
                Clearly not. You come to my town and I will personally string you up from the nearest lamp post like a gutted hog

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                can you actually engage anything posted here?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I did; you're just too fucking stupid to understand it.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                how is calling people a nazi engaging anything? you're just impotently crying

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                If it wasn't potent you wouldn't be backpedaling and deflecting to try and win a rhetorical victory through pedantic technicality like a total fucking Melvin

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                nobody's backpedaling, you're just spamming replies and buzzwords and screeching about nazis

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >backpedals and screeches about being called a Nazi because I said it was a good idea to kill people for terrorizing you on the basis of skin color
                Thanks for agreeing with me, chump change

              • 2 months ago
                that one capitalist.

                >retard is trying to act tough to other retard

                lmao. you braindead historians are laughable retards

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                It wasn’t the cross burnings themselves, it was the cross burnings which where then followed by lynchings

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                no cross burnings were followed by a lynching, that's fairy tale level

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >ZERO cross burnings preceded a lynching across a hundred years
                Anon here with the clairvoyance of Gosh almighty

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                again you can't actually argue my point so you make outlandish claim after outlandish claim. You're making shit up off the top of your head about history because you're politically motivated to

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >again you can't actually argue my point
                I wouldn't argue YOUR point retard, I already argued MY point and you were too fucking stupid to understand it. When you smile I see turds dripping from your gummy grin to splatter on the keyboard, you shit eating retard.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                go ahead an spot a single incidence where anybody ever burned a cross in somebody's yard and then killed them

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Holy retard, make a point or shut up (and go back)

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I made several you're just too fucking stupid to understand them

              • 2 months ago
                that one capitalist.

                >MUH KKK

                https://ostarapublications.com/product/a-discourse-on-the-constitution-and-government-of-the-united-states/

                https://ostarapublications.com/product/a-disquisition-on-government/

                https://ostarapublications.com/product/the-leopards-spots-a-romance-of-the-white-mans-burden/

                https://ostarapublications.com/product/the-clansman-an-historical-romance-of-the-ku-klux-klan/

                https://ostarapublications.com/product/the-traitor-a-story-of-the-fall-of-the-invisible-empire/

                https://ostarapublications.com/product/authentic-history-ku-klux-klan-1865-1877/

                all of you are retards on the actual history of the kkk

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Making it illegal to have segregation would still be a law (if it weren't a pseudo-law through court opinion precedent instead).
          Overturning a law wouldn't make segregation illegal everywhere in the US.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            This wasn't an attempt to preemptively pass a law prohibiting segregation. They were suing to overturn existing law.

            It was terrorism, not civil disobedience.

            >filing a lawsuit and not riding a bus is terrorism
            What would you call firebombing houses and churches?

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              how many riots did blacks have compared to how many firebombings

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                In 1956? The major riots were still over a decade away.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                there were black race riots since slavery

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              It’s not hard to not be a terrorist.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Apparently it is, if boycotts and civil disobedience are terrorism.

                there were black race riots since slavery

                Oh yeah I remember the time blacks burned an entire affluent neighborhood to the ground and left 10k people homeless, or shot people for showing up to the polls. Retard.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah blacks are prone to chimpouts, I don't know why you think there were no black chimpouts until the civil rights movement

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                “Chimping out” is not exclusive to one group. There were anti-black massacres and continuous harassment of black people after slavery’s end.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                not really chimpouts if its just people defending their society from a hostile and foreign people.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >the mask falls away
                Funny how assmad these guys get if you call them a Nazi

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                A dominant ethnic group always has the right to preserve the monopoly on their territory.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                So blacks can just kill the whites down South?

                Sounds like a good deal to me

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Then maybe the dominant ethnic group shouldn’t be so lazy that they need to import slaves

                The entire question of black people in America wouldn’t have existed if your ancestors would’ve picked their own cotton Cletus.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >you arent allowed to rule black people
                why?
                southerners did pick their own cotton btw, they were called sharecroppers and most of them were White.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >you aren’t allowed to rule black people

                You want to rule another group of people but you call Yankees oppressors

                The North was too lenient

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                OH I'M A GOOD OL YANKEE
                WELL THATS JUST WHO I AM
                FOR SISTER FUCKING REDNECKS
                I DO NOT GIVE A DAMN

                EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND TRAITORS
                LAY ROTTING IN THE DUST
                I GUESS THAT WHOLE SECESSION MEME
                TURNED OUT TO BE A BUST

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                okay so when are white people allowed to chimp out again

                It’s you Southern fucks faults for importing a foreign slave group in the first place because you couldn’t pick your own cotton

                There was anti-immigrant tension in the North too but at least they were able to be integrated after some time

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                immigrants never integrated In the North.
                European identity decreased as White identity decreased, but Italians and Germans never assimilated to puritan culture.
                They still dont vote like puritAnglos do.
                ?muh slavery
                wasnt Southerners who freed them.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The North freed them because the South was autistically hell bent with moving the practice out west

                You deride blacks as lazy meanwhile the South had to import foreigners as slaves because they were too lazy to do their own work

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >you deride blacks as lazy
                yes and?
                >southerners are lazy
                Southerners worked, they were such an industrious people they needed others to work for them to feed their ambitions.
                >slavery in the west
                dont like it, dont own slaves.
                man has a right to choose if he wants to own

                Puritanism still has large influences in the culture of New England today

                re-read my post
                people in new England arent German or Italian, they are Anglo-Saxons and thats why their culture is so distinct, because immigrants dont assimilate, no one assimilates, its American shitlib drivel that you can beat afghans into zionist blm marchers or that mexicans can be propaganized to act like shitlib redditors.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Southerners worked
                Southern blacks maybe

                The North had a greater surplus than the South did and they basically never needed to rely on slave labor post 1820

                You Southrons are a bunch of lazy homosexuals

                obesity is more common in blacks

                Its more common in Southerners than anywhere else on the planet.

                Disgusting hogs, the lot of you

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                yeah because black people are fat and most of them live in the south

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I've lived in the South

                You sunburned homosexuals have beer bellies that smother your Texas belt buckles and jowels that would make Brehznev blush

                There are fat blacks but they are DRAMATICALLY outnumbered by you waddling human swine

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                no, once again, blacks have might higher levels of being overweight and obesity

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                No, once again, you human hogs in the South are a bunch of toothless fat fucks slurping down the corn syrup and lite beer

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                okay but blacks have higher levels of overweight and obese people

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >but blacks
                You're like a broken record anon

                Kill yourself you fat fuck

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                you said white people are fat when blacks have higher levels of obesity, just thought I'd correct you

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Not white people. Southerns.

                The White Negroes of America. It's why they feel such a kinship and can't go more than five posts without mentioning them.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                okay but black people are far more obese than white people

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >but black people
                Southerns never change. That's why their daughters come North for a taste of the real BVLLs

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'm not a southerner, just thought I'd correct you when you implied they're more fat than blacks

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Oh, you aren't from the South? Sorry, you were retarded and couldn't stop talking about negroes, you could see how I could make that kind of mistake lol

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                okay but blacks are far more obese than white people so I hope you remember that for future reference

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Nah, I already forgot because I don't give a fuck about what you say

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                latinx user spotted

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Whites arent the obese ones, Americans like to pin a lot of what blacks do on Southern Whites.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Especially down south obesity is still a major problem among whites. It's widespread in West Virginia.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                not as widespread as it is with blacks

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Not quite, but the diet and lifestyle factors are similar. Obesity is still a bigger problem for white Americans than for Brits and Canadians, IIRC.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                not really, once you remove mexicans and blacks whites in the US have the same obesity rates as europe

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Definitely not true.
                https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-statistics/overweight-obesity
                For non Hispanic whites it's 42%. In Canada it's 27%. In the UK it's 28%. Far below are the French and Italians, where the rate is well under 20%. Portion sizes are generally huge in the US, and sugary drinks pile on the calories for a lot of people. Food prices are also generally lower than elsewhere, including nearby Canada.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                It's true, many states consider spics white. My state which doesn't consider non-whites white boasts a 14% obesity rate, which is half that of most European countries.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >non Hispanic

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Like I just told you, but apparently you're illiterates, states like california and texas don't make the distinction between white and mexican because apparently that's offensive to beaners. Other states are the same but they have the largest spic popualtions in the US. This means even if you attempt to tally "national" "white" obesity rates, california and texas are going to include mexicans in the data regardless. That's why states that don't consider subhuman latinos white have almost abnormally low obesity rates

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >non Hispanic whites
                Read the fucking data

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Like I just told you, california and texas don't differentiate between whites and mexicans, so it doesn't amtter if the data claims to not have mexicans in the data, there's mexicans in the data and there will always be mexicans in the data because california and texas didn't have mexicans until the 20th century so they never created a racial category for mexicans before it became racist to talk about race. Also california didn't even count mexicans as citizens in the census until the 70's, I don't know about texas but it's probably the same. So you have a whole bunch of spics that are second generation getting catalogued for the first time and they don't want to be considered outsiders despite them looking like shriveled up prunes and being 4 feet tall

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >california and texas didn't have mexicans until the 20th century
                Holy fuck no. They were literally part of Mexico once.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                And?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                There were definitely Mexicans there. You're full of shit in the first place, since the US census data gives Hispanic people the option of picking whichever race they are on the census, and many choose to identify as mixed race or something else. The study I linked specifies NON HISPANIC whites as their own category, and AFAIK every survey since the 1970s has that as an option.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I don't know why you're so butthurt. Are you Mexican? The US government does everything in their power to mask Mexican presence in the US. That's why you little retarded metrics are fake because they consider Mexicans white. 99.9% of Mexicans in the US are descendants of illegal aliens. This damage controll you're doing is disgusting

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'm white. Go read the data for Christ's sake.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Why would a white person spend days of their time trying to convince other people that mexican obesity data is actually white obesity data

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Because it's true. Look at the link.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                How is it true when states that have the most spics don't consider spics a different race

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Can you prove this?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >can you prove that california and texas DON'T consider Mexicans a different race
                isn't that a logical fallacy

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Careful anon, they'll shift the goalposts on you

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You're the one who claimed it. I already posted evidence.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Malding

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                "Mexican" isn't a race, though. Some Mexicans are white, some are Native American, some are black, some are Asian, some are a mixture of any and all of the above.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Some Mexicans are white

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                That is just literally true though? Are you saying there is not a single person of exclusively or near-exclusively European descent residing within the borders of Mexico?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                There's no "white" mexicans in the US. The white mexicans in mexico are a minority of a minority but they're not the ones hopping the border. This is really pathetic

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                There is not a single person of European descent who ever moved from Mexico to the US?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >THE MOON ISN'T MADE OF CHEESE?!
                meds

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Are you really stating that in over 200 years of US history there has not been a SINGLE such person? You reacted mockingly to "some"; that implies you think literally NONE are.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE SKY IS BLUE BECAUSE OF FAIRIES
                meds

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You're the one who reacted mockingly to "some", implying you think NONE are.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                if .0000000000000001% of mexicans are pure Iberian stock in the US does that suddenly transmute 60 million spics into white people

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                No, but that's not what you were saying.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Okay so you admit that an extremely small minority doesn't make the entire population white?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Of course. But my point is that Mexico is by no means a racially monolithic country. Many of the citizens have some degree of European ancestry even if not exclusively, as well as ancestry from various other places.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Oh so now it "doesn't matter" if mexicans aren't white, an interesting position when the entire point of this conversation is that mexicans are considered white which fucks up actual white people's metrics in the US

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Where did I say that?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                If mexico isn't racially homogenous then it's interesting that mexicans would be included automatically in white (anglo) metrics

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Race is complicated enough that it's a bit of a fool's errand to try to register it as a definite series of check-boxes anyway, isn't it?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                then why claim that mexicans are white on LULZ when you know this isn't true

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I didn't claim they are, in general. I'm not that other anon.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Right but you understand what I was saying now, right? Claiming ignorance about mexican's racial makeup and spamming obesity metrics for years which includes mexicans (who are much more prone to obesity) to try and claim that white people are fat is /b/ tier posting at best but these posters never get banned

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Whataboutism
                Nah dude you're just a retard

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah I'm a retard because mexicans aren't white but they're included in white obesity statistics. It's kind of sad that you're still posting this "white" boy

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Mexicans aren't Mexicans when it embarrasses me and white people are Mexicans when it embarrasses me
                If I met you in public I would shit in your mouth so you could taste what you spew for once

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                what's your obsession with fecal matter and your asshole? this isn't the first time you've posted this

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Because it's all you're worth to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Are you coming onto me?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >noooo i need censorship to survive in the marketplace of ideas save me tranitor!!1!!

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >talk about whites having obesity problem
                >WHAT ABOUT THE BLACKS
                Why did you do that?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                all Southerners worked you bad faith retard.
                blacks are derided because they murder and rape 200% more than any other race
                >The North went for soulless industrial capitalism
                yes and?
                Southerners were preserving a more aristocratic human way of life, slavery is natural, look at the arab or the asiatic, slavery comes naturally to him, only Yankees with their dour faces shut up in their factories and offices are against a most natural and humane institution.
                >more common in Southerners
                high bf low muscle is least common among Southern Whites.
                Southern Whites are BVLL energy distilled.
                pencil neck inferiors wouldnt get it.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >yes and?
                >yes and?
                >yes and?
                Rhetorical repetition is the mark of a man who has no wit and no creativity. Your pseudo cultural cope is the seething of an eternal loser surrounded by fat fucks and methheads. Kill yourself

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >cant refute any points
                >makes no arguments
                >gets flustered when people dont assume the same position as him
                anti-Southerners are really a different breed of stupid.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                VGH THE PROVD SOVTHERN BVLLS

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Slavery is no more natural to one race than to any other.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                There are a fuckton of people of Irish, French, and Portuguese descent too though in New England which isn’t exactly “Anglo-Saxon”

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Puritanism still has large influences in the culture of New England today

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                okay so when are white people allowed to chimp out again

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      You mean the civil rights movement was a political power play? Who fucking knew. Its almost like every democratic/liberal expansion of rights is achieved through political power plays, or something. Like laws are written by the government, almost.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        It pretty disingenuous for leftists to claim that everything they've ever done were grassroots movements started behind regulars people that decided to #RESIST on a whim after experiencing "ego dissolving levels of prejudice" when they were actually staged and planned false flags

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >get tired of being asked to leave
          >organize
          >don't leave when asked
          >WTF BRO THIS IS FALSE FLAGGING NO NO NO STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP ASKING FOR RIGHTS NO
          Mald harder fag

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            strawman

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >accurately surmise a poster
              >"st-strawman f-f-fuh-fallacy"
              No strawman. Your beliefs are just that fucking laughable on their face

              Fuckin kill yourself you loser

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >surmise
                >strawman because you can't actually engage the post because you're wrong
                lol okay

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >uses the fallacy fallacy to hide his emotional weakness online
                Holy shit man just turn the computer off if you can't handle being grilled

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          that's not what false flag means

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Don't act like it's just the libs doing it. Do you really think that conservative get involved in issues like gay marriage and abortion because they think banning those things is important to the functioning of the state?

        Both on the left and right, basically all political action surrounding "social issues" is just about manipulating voters into supporting leaders who are only really interested in their own personal power and wealth.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >abortion is just like civil rights.
          Actually abortion is the exact opposite of civil rights. Abortion was passed through the supreme court with a fraudulent case in order to bypass congress, overturning roe v wade is the exact thing that should have happened just on legal precedent. The supreme court should not be allowed to bypass congress, especially not with fraudulent cases. You know what else was rife with fraudulent cases and bypassing congress? The civil rights movement

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Where was the fraud in civil rights?

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              For example in brown v board of education the case was about if separate but equal was truly separate but equal, and they found that it was. Black school received the exact same treatment as white school. The supreme court, unable to accept a loss, then said that they weren't separate but equal because it's racist, which is kind of the entire point of segregation. So segregation isn't illegal, it's just mean, so somehow it was ruled illegal by the supreme court on a whim. This is why pretty much everything ruled by the supreme court should be overturned in the last 160 years and the country would be better off for it

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                This isn't even coherent, let alone in line with the facts. Lower courts had already acknowledged the merits of the appellants' case when it was brought to SCOTUS.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                everything that makes it to the supreme court isn't automatically illegal retard

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I know. But SCOTUS ruled it to be illegal based on the facts and background of the case.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >no it was le facts and le logic nothing the supreme court has ever passed was done so fraudulently
                then explain roe v wade simianbrain

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Don't change the subject.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Don’t advocate terrorism.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                How are boycotts and nonviolent resistance terrorism?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >make post about how roe v wade being overturned is baseless political shitflinging by conservatives
                >uh actually it was a flawed decision by the supreme court using a fraudulent case that the claimant admitted she lied about
                >also this isn't the first time they did this, they did it during civil rights to
                >nuh uh every decision by the supreme court was 100% correct
                >then how was roe v wade overturned
                >....

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'm a different anon, and I'm talking about Brown v Board of Ed

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                then you're the one that changed the subject, not me you massive homosexual

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Isn't civil rights the OP subject?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Wasn't the NAACP itself funded by israelites?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      This is true. I've heard there were several other African Americans that refused to sit at the back of the bus prior to Rosa, but Rosa had the backing of israeli lawyers and journalists who used the situation as a publicity stunt.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      They'd also already tried the exact same stunt several times and were unsuccessful in causing a scene.

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    She was not an employee of the NAACP. They did not get involved until later. She was not abandoned by the CRM. They paid her legal fees and fines.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    To be honest, if you're white and using the bus, then you've fucked up in life.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Says who? You? Who are you?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >To be honest, if you're white and using the bus, then you've fucked up in life.

      To be honest if you're white and still living in America and think it's going to get better one day you've fucked up as well.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    So? I thought right wingers abhorred handouts and communism now you’re bothered because she didn’t get Ubi? Lmao so insincere

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Who's Ubi?

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Did Rosa Park want the BWC?

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >no white man I will not move from my seat

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      This is one of my favorite Boondocks scenes. The way the two guys happily go to the back of the bus and how Robert is ignored for no actual reason is very anime-ish.

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >"O'Connor and his three accomplices became the last persons executed by Texas for non-homicidal rape."

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    How was civil rights fraudulent?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      For example in brown v board of education the case was about if separate but equal was truly separate but equal, and they found that it was. Black school received the exact same treatment as white school. The supreme court, unable to accept a loss, then said that they weren't separate but equal because it's racist, which is kind of the entire point of segregation. So segregation isn't illegal, it's just mean, so somehow it was ruled illegal by the supreme court on a whim. This is why pretty much everything ruled by the supreme court should be overturned in the last 160 years and the country would be better off for it

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        This isn't even coherent, let alone in line with the facts. Lower courts had already acknowledged the merits of the appellants' case when it was brought to SCOTUS.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          everything that makes it to the supreme court isn't automatically illegal retard

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    I'm a different anon, and I'm talking about Brown v Board of Ed

    Except Brown was codified into law with the 1964 CRA while Roe never was.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      not a legalist, but if segregation was ruled constitutional then would the 1964 CRA be null?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        the Supreme Court upheld the CRA in Heart of Atlanta Motel vs United States

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          with another misinterpretation of the commerce clause, basically illegal

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Anon still hasn't explained how nonviolent protest is terrorism

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      yeah he left the thread an hour an a half ago and you're still here spamming somebody else calling them a nazi.
      meds

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Ok schizo

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          again, spamming "nazi" over and over again isn't "engaging" the thread

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not doing that.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              you're not doing much at all but autistically screeching, what's your point again? That somehow a handful of cross burnings (literally) validates all destructive black behavior?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'm not saying that. I'm just asking how the boycott was terrorism.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I didn't claim that, you keep saying that I claimed that. Fuck off

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Are you the anon who originally mentioned terrorism?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                no, fuck off retard. stop saying I am

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                He's really mad at me anon, let him rage

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              You will never have a Judeo-Bantu ethnostate.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >malding fag malds harder because I stopped playing his witless tennis match
            Shitpost like a real man and maybe you'll be worth my time

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >NOOOOOO YOU CAN'T BTFO ME WITH KNOWLEDGE ON THE SUBJECT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO SPAM AND CALL ME A DUMB nagger TO CONFIRM MY BIASES
              fuck off

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >doesn't even know that burning crosses are legally recognized threats
                >thinks riots need to be justified
                >can't even deny being a Nazi
                You have no knowledge and no rhetorical skill to obfuscate that fact

                If you didn't get the last word in every time you wouldn't have anything except your own self pity

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                every single success story of your race has been Whites pitying you kek

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                so they made burning crosses illegal despite it only occurring like 5 times in the 60's and that's supposed to make your argument less ridiculous?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Got a source to prove that it only happened five times?

                Got another one to account for any of the unreported incidents or reported incidents where the police forces full of Klansmen just ignored it or tossed the file?

                >How ridiculous that you think threats being carried out nearly half a dozen times constitutes a threat
                Once again, try it and you'll be holding your entrails with your one intact hand

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Why do you think its wrong for Whites to exercise self-interests?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Why do you think its wrong for retribution to be visited upon terrorists and racists?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Do those freedom fighter terrorists have a right to self-defense in the event bad actors want retribution? if no, why?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                you're the one claiming burning crosses legitimizes black chimpouts, do you even know how many crosses were burned? I'd say less than 10

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I would say more than a thousand.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                yeah six gorillion crosses were burned

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Easy on the white guilt there Cletus

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                okay so you have no idea how many crosses were burned, vastly overestimate the amount and have no inclination of actually learning how common it was. But you use these events, purposefully inflated for your own gain, as vindication for black race riots.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Anon the Klan was burning crosses for 45 goddamn years by the start of the 60s.

                Are you really gonna pretend that they never once burned a cross to let people know they didn't like them? That terrorism wasn't the name of the game there? Your pearl clutching and whimpering about race riots kind of falls flat when you think about how people are terrorized and brutalized for nearly a half century before snapping.

                Why do you Nazis always play this weird rhetorical game? Is it because you like to lose or is it a way to grasp at the illusion of power?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >the kkk existed so I can make shit up and learn nothing about the civil rights movement while claiming any inaction by my side was simply in reaction to what I perceive as demons, a belief that has no tangible link to reality because again, I have no knowledge of the subject
                I would pay to watch you kill yourself

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >a bunch of butthurt fags took inspiration from a fucking Hollywood movie to kill, beat, and intimidate people they already didn't like
                >and they used burning crosses to such an extent that it became part of their aesthetic
                >but it wasn't terrorism because there were race riots afterwards at some point
                I wouldn't pay to see you being fed feet first into a woodchipper because I would pirate it and burn it onto a thousand disks and pass them out at your funeral

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Hey here's a challenge, post an actual source on cross burnings

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >13 cities with multiple cross burnings in ONE fucking state

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                okay so they weren't actually burning crosses in people's lawn like the tales suggest? They were protesting at city halls?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                In that ONE instance, yes.

                It was often done on lawns and driveways or hills overlooking the property as well, when the Klan wasn't actively politically protesting and was just terrorizing people.

                So why don't you do me a favor, little bitch, and find me a source showing me that there were only five intimidation cross burnings across the length of the Civil Rights era?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >ONE instance
                >at least 13 time in one year
                so it's safe to say the predominant form of cross burning was a form of protest at city centers, meaning that blacks are allowed to protest, but not white people

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Goal posts: shifted

                So you admit that Klansmen burn crosses on the fields and driveways of people they already don't like as a form of terrorism and intimidation, often with murderous intent behind it.

                I accept your concession out of the kindness of my heart.

                Do those freedom fighter terrorists have a right to self-defense in the event bad actors want retribution? if no, why?

                >do those buzzwords have the right to buzzword buzzword buzzword
                No one has any right to be a dick. But killing terrorists motivated by racial hatred isn't ever a bad thing.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Klansmen burn crosses on the fields and driveways of people
                your source doesn't say that, it says that they did it at city halls
                your claims of lawn cross burnings are unsubstantiated

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                That's great and all but I don't recall asking for your opinion.

                It's a fact and you still haven't recovered from getting raped by the first anon.

                Are you that malding fag from a few weeks ago who got mad I posted hand pics? You post like him and are similarly retarded

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'm asking for objective historical sources and the one you provide does not agree with you, it actually paints cross burnings as a form of protest rather than a threat against individual blacks. It also backs up my claim that they were extremely rare.

                Cope

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >loses the argument
                >can't even present evidence of his claim
                >tells others to cope
                Lol malding retard

                Your concession is graciously accepted

                >buzzword
                cope leftyword salad gets turned around on its user and they 404 lol
                >no one has any right to be a dick
                why?
                >killing freedom fighters defending their native lands isnt bad
                why?
                Why are you allowed to kill them but they arent even allowed to tell you 'no'?
                You sound like a terrorist who needs to be killed

                >lefty
                Uh oh, it's a wild rightard

                >literally cannot understand why it's wrong to be a dick
                Sociopathic at best. Typical rightie
                >freedom fighters
                Already won the war and gave the people their freedom. You're thinking of what we would call terrorists, because they...terrorized people. Shocking, I know, but I gotta spell it out for you special ed boys
                ;3

                >why can you kill terrorists who are trying to burn shit on your property and keep you from exercising your rights that's mean
                The rightard cries out as he strikes you, and calls himself a victim when you butcher him like the swine he is

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >you le lost the argument
                where? cross burnings were a form of protest, they didn't contact individual blacks. It's arguable how much they were even directed at blacks at all when they were done at political capitols. Cross burnings were not done in people's yard, no sources to the contrary have been posted, so the old wives' tale of blacks complaining about cross being burned in their yards as justification for race riots is pathetic.

                Meaning you lost the argument

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >still hasn't provided evidence of his claim
                I gave you a source with a ten second Google search and you can't even do the same despite all your whimpering and yammering.

                You lost twenty posts ago anon, take the L and walk away.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'm not claiming anything, I'm claiming the absence of evidence on the subject. How do I prove to you that there's nothing that says crosses were burned in regular black people's yards for the fuck of it?

                How do you prove a negative? You lost the argument

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I proved my positive claim and you ain't proven shit except for the fact that you get triggered when you get called a Nazi. Show me a data sheet that shows how many cross burnings there were in the Civil Rights era, one that is consistent with your claim of "about five"

                You lost twenty two posts ago and can't accept it

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                So your new argument is that cross burnings existed so that means you can claim whatever you want about them

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >waah wahh wahh I lost and can only shift goalposts to defend my failure because I'm a weak little bitch
                I already proved you wrong and you haven't provided evidence to substantiate your claims. The claims changed too: they went from no burnings to five burnings, which was countered by a source for dozens of burnings across one state in one incident, where it was noted as unusual that they targeted lawmakers and houses of government. Aka: not the usual target, which was usually poor blacks and Northerners.

                All of a sudden it's not the same because it's a political protest, so outright intimidation is just fine.

                You lost, homosexual. You can keep replying but you and everyone else here in this thread knows that I win like I win everywhere and you lost like you lose every day of your life

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                How did I lose again? you just keep spamming "you lost"

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >can't even read
                No surprise there. No wonder you lost.

                Winning an argument with you is like winning a gunfight with someone who doesn't even know he's walked into my crosshairs and just stands there picking his nose.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                how did you "win"?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >provide evidence of my claim
                >you keep backpedaling and shifting goalposts
                >goes from zero cross burnings to five, source says at least 13 in one state in one month
                >"y-yeah but that just means there never were any before that" mumbles the defeated waste of sperm
                You're gonna die screaming and I'm gonna watch it happen and it's going to be fucking hilarious

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                your claim is now "cross burnings exist" after you changed it like 5 times this thread
                I never said anything to the contrary, you're now spamming
                how does that mean "you win"?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >acting retarded to let his defeat slip by
                You aren't even trying anymore lmao

                You're a bad scriptbot

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Okay cross burnings existed, good job, is that all?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Your concession means nothing anon, you already conceded twice prior in this very thread. You had a spurious argument at best and shit rhetoric to boot. The first anon was way smarter than me for bailing out as soon as he caught a whiff of your disgusting brain rot.

                Kill yourself

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I never said cross burnings didn't exist, are you retarded

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >acting obtuse to pretend you didn't get BTFO five times
                This is why you never win and I always do

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You're the one who said that your argument is that cross burnings existed, you're backpedaled all the way back to that. Nobody in this thread is going to deny cross burnings existed so I don't know what your goal is.

                The sky is blue, do I get a cookie?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You denied they happened, said it was "about five", and kept malding about threats being treated as threats by the legal system until you started yammering on and on about there being no actual cross burnings on peoples doorsteps and took my source demonstrating their use in protest, which even they at the time noted was unusual given their predominant use as intimidation, and you spent a few posts trying to reset your shitposting cycle by accepting that I raped you like your father raped your sister.

                Kill yourself anon, you lost an internet argument. If you tried to burn a cross near my house you would be splattered across three blocks

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I said that cross burnings on people's lawns were weren't common, you have still provided no evidence that they even existed. Now you've spent 2 hours backpedaling to try and say I said all cross burnings never happened

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I'll just reframe this real quick like you can't just follow the reply chain
                Anon, you can play your games all you like. Youre a bad shitposter and a bad rhetorician. Suck a log of feces out of my asshole.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                There has been no reframing, I have told you for the past hour that I can't prove that cross burning on people's lawns didn't exist because you can't prove a negative like you demanded. Then you called me a nazi

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I called you a Nazi to start you disingenuous retard

                Glad to see you growing to accept it

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I called you a Nazi to start
                you called me a nazi an hour ago when you asked me to prove a negative (that the KKK DIDN'T go to black people's houses for the fun of it and burn crosses)

                You have been crying for TWO hours that cross burnings exist when I never claimed they didn't, I said they were rare

                FOUR hours ago you also called me a nazi because you mistook me for another poster, then spent an hour trying to claim I was that poster

                Four and a half hours ago you called me a nazi again because I said I didn't think cross burning was equal to murder

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Sounds like you gotta get your head checked anon, you're running around grasping at straws

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                screeching about nazis and inventing fanfiction about history four over 4 hours should be a bannable offense

              • 2 months ago
                that one capitalist.

                i actually posted ACTUAL GOOD book links on the kkk.

                also the retard won't buy the books because as always he's an retarded braindead fuck like most historians these days.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I might look into them, it's hard to find southern books written about the era

              • 2 months ago
                that one capitalist.

                yes cause most are censored or banned or hidden in archives by these retarded jokes known as "historians"

                anyway, i'm out.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Pathetic

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous
              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                naggerhomosexual

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >buzzword
                cope leftyword salad gets turned around on its user and they 404 lol
                >no one has any right to be a dick
                why?
                >killing freedom fighters defending their native lands isnt bad
                why?
                Why are you allowed to kill them but they arent even allowed to tell you 'no'?
                You sound like a terrorist who needs to be killed

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                that bunny is so cute

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >woman sits on bus is a defining moment in black history
    buckbros......

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Everybody wants to sit in the back of the bus dumbass.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I'll never forget that fat white bitch who smoked a whole cigarette in the back of the bus while I was going to school in Florida

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        wow a whole cigarette?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Everyone smelled it and everyone glared but no one said a word. Fat white bitch didn't need it but she just had to have it right then.

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's really funny how people say blacks chimp out but the white reaction to this event was larger than any black chimp out by a country mile. It's a bus. They were (and anons in this thread) fighting over what skin color gets seats on a bus. Kafka would have been proud by the total fuckery and insanity of the situation.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      well the problem was black didn't have cars because they barely worked, so they were the main people that rode busses and benefitted off of them. The idea was that during rush hours certain seats would be reserved for whites for ease of access since they were the ones that actually needed them for work

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Once again Cletus, it’s hard to take your bitching about Black people’s work ethic seriously when your ancestors imported them because you were too lazy to do your own work

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >black people crowded into busses like sardines and prevented whites from sitting down after work
          >NOOOOOOOOOOOO YOU CAN'T MAKE ME STAND OR MOVE TO THE BACK OF THE BUS THIS IS GENOCIDE NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >fat fucks in the South can't even stand up on the bus
            Put down the Mountain Dew, hillbilly

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              obesity is more common in blacks

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          But negroes anon

          The negroes! In my head!

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          OH SNAP

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    bump

  15. 2 months ago
    that one capitalist.

    lmao. leftoid historians once showing they are fucking morons on the kkk history

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Can someone post actual evidence of anti black terrorism commited by random white civilians aka not lynchings?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Post evidence of terrorism without posting evidence of terrorism

  17. 2 months ago
    that one capitalist.

    lol lmao. so this is the so called power of LULZ?

    literal leftoid seething retard fighting with rightoids.

    also anti southerners are braindead retards

    https://ostarapublications.com/product/take-your-choice-separation-or-mongrelization-2/

    https://ostarapublications.com/product/the-impending-crisis-of-the-south-how-to-meet-it/

    https://ostarapublications.com/product/the-southerner-the-real-story-of-abraham-lincoln/

    https://ostarapublications.com/product/lincolns-negro-policy/

    https://ostarapublications.com/product/the-victim-a-romance-of-the-real-jefferson-davis/

    https://ostarapublications.com/product/a-short-history-of-the-confederate-states-of-america/

    https://confederateshop.com/

    https://ostarapublications.com/product/the-races-of-britain-a-contribution-to-the-anthropology-of-western-europe/

    https://ostarapublications.com/product/four-flags-the-indigenous-people-of-great-britain-5th-edition/

    https://barnesreview.org/product-category/books/american-history/

    https://www.ostarapublications.com/product-category/europeans-in-the-americas/

    https://sandycroftpublishing.com/category/americas/north-america/

    https://sandycroftpublishing.com/category/americas/latin_america/

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    What they will never tell you is that the man she refused to give up her seat to was disabled.

  20. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Fake and staged bullshit.

  21. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    (A photo of the bus, at the Henry Ford Museum in Michigan)

    On the question of that particular bus line, she wasn't wrong. Black riders were expected to pay the same money as white riders; and yet were forced to move to the back or give up seats to white people.

    Ignoring the poor customer service; the boycott of the bus line was simple economic pressuring; like canceling Netfix because they went liberal. The reason it was effective is because that same bus line couldn't survive without black dollars.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      actually the most effective thing they did was they set up illegal unlicensed cab services for blacks

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Agreed. They did that, they used ride sharing, and they walked.

        Point is... the bus line needed its riders more than the riders needed them. Again, I can't argue against what they were doing, because in the same position I would probably do the same.

        (a second picture)

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Your analogy is incorrect though, it's not like cancelling a netflix subscription. It's like ripping all the content off netflix and hosting your own website with the content while being sponsored by amazon to do so. You know, illegal shit.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            If the law is being used in the service of injustice, why is it immoral to break it?

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              So you admit the civil rights movement was lawlessness posing as peaceful protesting?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I think it's right and even morally mandatory to break the law if the law's wrong.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                so the civil rights movement was about breaking the law

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, because it's good to break the law when the law is immoral.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                okay so the civil rights movement was a bunch of blacks breaking the law

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, because it's moral to break the law when the law is immoral. For example, it's moral to hide israelites from the Gestapo even though that was illegal in Germany at the time. Or do you dispute this premise?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I disagree entirely. Under what social or legal contract must an individual provide business to a company which holds them in contempt?

            I agree that unlicensed cabs is a thing; and I make the same argument against Lift and Uber.

            However, a "cab service" implies being paid for the service. (unless giving a friend a ride to work is a cab service as you describe it). My understanding is that it most cases the rides were free; and that these services only lasted for the length of the strike.

            But no, I'm not going to ticket them for jaywalking either, as an attempt to get their money back on the bus.

            (final picture of the bus)

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Under what social or legal contract must an individual provide business to a company which holds them in contempt
              not having a license to transport people places with unregulated vehicles

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Not true. That only applies if you are charging people for the service. Giving someone a ride for free cannot be considered a cab service.

                Even chipping in for gas wouldn't work; unless you expect every group of friends who take a road trip to register as a cab service before driving to spring break

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                they were getting paid, they just pretended like they weren't so they could claim their illegal cap services were outside the definitions of law, you know, breaking the law

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I hate to be rude, but your attempt to double-down on what may be one of the weakest anti-bus-boycott argument is difficult to understand.

                It was a smart move, well executed, and entirely effective where it mattered. It was a non-violent act which struck at the heart of the obviously unfair bus system; and it hurt the people who mattered in the way which mattered most to them

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Breaking the law isn't "smart", it doesn't take a genius to realize why unregualted cab services are illegal

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                looking at what I assume to be another of your comments

                [...]

                ; I see you're not here to discuss objective history but to promote a racist ideology. That's fine, it's a free world; but I'm done treating you like you're seeking objective truth

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >it's racism to point out that breaking the law isn't smart

  22. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    WHEN THE LAW IS IMMORAL. Answer the fucking question, do you think it's immoral to hide israelites from the Gestapo or not?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      how is requiring registered cab services immoral, do blacks think opening a business is racist?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Segregation was law and it was immoral. Therefore, breaking the law in order to fight it was moral.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          It's pretty hypocritical and stupid to not like one law so you break a different unrelated law in protest

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Was it not what was helping to support segregation in this case?

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              No, having save and regulated cab services is not "supporting segregation". Blacks could have easily, if they wanted to, created their own black only cab services legally. But they chose the illegal route because they didn't want to bother with following the law which would take time

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Could they have easily, though? The whole system was biased.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                they could have probably put in less effort to get their own black cab services than their entire bus protest, yes. But their goal was never to have their own businesses, it was to force white businesses to cater to their will.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Are you saying you don't think legalized segregation was wrong?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                if blacks wanted to create their own businesses and banned whites from them they could have, but the movement wasn't about independence. Blacks actually lost rights too with the civil rights movement the right to create their own segregated businesses. But everybody knew blacks didn't actually want to create anything that they owned, that's why they broke the law because they wouldn't have the willingness to legally open a black cab service despite in all but name having one. Just that last hurdle of registering and starting a business was enough for them to commit mass lawbreaking

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Would you like it if most businesses discriminated against you?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                if I got to have my own white bus service and blacks got their own black owned bus service I think things would be better for everybody.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                But allowing discrimination just perpetuates existing discrepancies.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                These weren't separate buses for blacks. They were just forced to enter at a different point and sit in the back after paying up at the front. Sometimes drivers would just leave them on the curb after they paid. It was deliberately meant to convey the message that they were subordinate.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >These weren't separate buses for blacks
                why not? if blacks had their own busses they could wave their dicks around and publicly drink on them if they wanted

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The "right" to start segregated businesses wasn't really a desirable one, especially since opportunities for them to get loans, get educated, etc were limited in the first place.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                they didn't seem to be lacking in the mental fortitude to set up mass lawbreaking, it would be retarded to claim that if they didn't direct that energy at opening a legitimate business that they wouldn't have succeeded

                or are you saying blacks don't have the capacity to do things on their own

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Getting arrested was apparently preferable to living in subjugation. It's like that with a lot of groups in history.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Just saying, blacks were more than capable of creating their own businesses if they wanted, but they didn't want to actually make money or be in control of their own lives so they jsut screeching at white companies to stop being mean to them

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Were they, though? The system was set up to make it as difficult as possible for them.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                How do you know they couldn't have made their own businesses if the blacks never tried

                sounds like you think blacks can't do anything themselves yet you call me a racist

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I think there were some who did. But there were plenty more who never tried because they had no chance. As

                Easy for you to say. You're not denied loans or relegated to lower paying jobs and educational opportunities.

                explained.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >they had no chance
                Uh they had a really big chance during the civil rights movement, yet they chose subservience to white companies over making their own. I wonder why

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You mean afterwards? There's plenty of blacks who went to trade school or uni and are now middle class or at least are no longer below the poverty line.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                no I don't mean afterwards you retard

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Easy for you to say. You're not denied loans or relegated to lower paying jobs and educational opportunities.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                they could have probably put in less effort to get their own black cab services than their entire bus protest, yes. But their goal was never to have their own businesses, it was to force white businesses to cater to their will.

                They were a poor demographic in an already rather poor state. I doubt many could even afford cars - even for middle class people car ownership was a luxury not so long ago in the minds of people in 1955.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                the NAACP was funding everything they did, if the NAACP wanted to they could have started their own profitable black only bus service, but the NAACP didn't actually care about the south, they were using them as a scapegoat

  23. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    With everyone really. Everyone breaks laws, probably every day.

  24. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    I posted evidence with a claim. You claimed it wasn't true. It's on you to support your claim.

Your email address will not be published.