Black People Politics : Voting: The Treadmill To No Where

[IPXninja]

Do you know about the "No-Nothungs"? Trump did and he spoke about them in 2018.View attachment 31855

The Know Nothings were a nativist political movement in the United States in the 1850s, officially known as the Native American Party before 1855, and afterwards simply the American Party.
*Includes pictures *Includes a bibliography for further reading *Includes a table of contents “Immigration during the first five years of the 1850s reached a level five times greater than a decade earlier. Most of the new arrivals were poor Catholic peasants or laborers from Ireland and Germany who crowded into the tenements of large cities. Crime and welfare costs soared. Cincinnati's crime rate, for example, tripled between 1846 and 1853 and its murder rate increased sevenfold. Boston's expenditures for poor relief rose threefold during the same period.” - James McPherson It is not uncommon that a failed movement or group from the past might be cited as a “cautionary” example for the world today. In the wake of contemporary debates over immigration, the “Know Nothings” have been regularly cited as an example of how dangerous nativist attitudes can become and, indeed, have proven to be in America’s history. Several columnists, for instance, have striven to make comparisons between the Know Nothings of antebellum America and President Donald Trump’s immigration policies, helping in part to generate modern interest in a political party that many Americans have heard of but tend to know little about. The Know Nothing movement can actually be tied to a number of violent episodes and ethnically-charged riots that occurred during the last 1850s. The debate over immigration in the 1850s was more than a clash of worldviews - it touched upon the core of America’s values. While nativists, like the Know Nothings, believed that immigrants who embraced politics from their native lands represented a threat to America’s values, those who opposed them argued that it was precisely America’s values that made immigration a necessity and a valuable component of American life. As the Republicans and Know Nothings spread from the ashes of the Whig Party, the Republicans, led by President Lincoln, rejected nativism and embraced a kind of American exceptionalism. Lincoln did not believe that America was “better” or even more “moral” than other nations, but his brand of exceptionalism advanced the view that America represented a great experiment, one that proposed that a society based on the ideals of the Declaration of Independence (i.e. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). Should it fail, Lincoln believed it would shatter the hopes of the rest of the world as people sought to overcome despotic and tyrannical forms of rule. Thus, to the Republicans, when it came to the issue of immigration, America’s economy and democracy itself were at stake. At the same time, there was quite a bit more to the background of this short-lived, but widely impactful “third party” than xenophobia and religious intolerance. In places like Boston, where the Know Nothings took over nearly all of the city’s elected offices, including capturing the state’s governorship in 1854, the Know Nothings were largely viewed as a progressive party. While the North’s Know Nothings supported the party’s national anti-immigrant positions, it also embraced an anti-slavery policy, supported an expansion of the rights of women, believed that industries should be more heavily regulated, and supported a variety of measures intended to support the labor class. Accordingly, in order to understand the Know Nothing party’s nativism, it requires more nuance than simply condemning them as xenophobes. It is typical in the contemporary media and in political commentary to cite a caricature of the Know Nothings as an example of “hate” and a dark xenophobic history, but the movement grew out of the controversial political landscape of the mid-19th century, and the party achieved prominence and power across wide sections of America
The Know Nothing Party: The History and Legacy of America’s Most Notorious Nativist Political Party by Charles River Editors | Goodreads

One would expect that someone posting so much from Wikipedia would also explain the correlation between this and Calloway's fraudulent opinion.

Since there is no such explanation one must try to gather from the context why he thinks this is relevant.

Yes, there was a party called the Know Nothing Party. However, Dane, apparently didn't major in English because he doesn't understand how the word "Native" could be applied to the members of this party without talking about the tribes people called "Indians" who are also called Native Americans.

The problem is that Dane simply doesn't understand... words.

Native is defined as "a person born in a specified place or associated with a place by birth, whether subsequently resident there or not".

THAT is the definition. You can google it right now.

So by this definition, I am a "Native American" because I was born in America. But we don't say this because, now that we're calling the indigenous "Indians" Native Americans, this would be confusing. But when we say they are "natives" what we mean is that their entire tribal lineage is "native" to America. That doesn't mean they somehow grew out of the soil. There is no such thing as ANY group being original to the US because ALL humans came from Africa. The only question is how long ago.

And because the question is how long ago that means these words are all relative.

The reality is that everyone spread out from Africa and some went into Asia. After they were in Asia for a while they were considered Asian (native to Asia). Why? Because their tribal identity was now associated with the land they had previously MOVED TO. But the same thing happened when these ASIANS (who used to be Africans) went from Asia into North America. This is why the eskimos historically look like Mongolians. They came over following their animal food sources and they began to populate the Americas from north to south. That's why they all look alike. But don't take it from me. Take it from a Ph.D



You can see here how people crossed the land bridge FROM ASIA into Alaska. They did not come over on boats! There ocean was so vast no one really thought it could be crossed and there was a time that people even thought you would fall off the world. NOT ONLY can you see on the map how people FROM ASIA crossed into Alaska, but the DNA research of literally everyone on the planet agrees with this model. Unlike Calloway's "unorthodox research" there is a reason why this video isn't controversial in any way. That's because it's based in the scientific method which means other people can independently come to the same results/conclusions.

Calloway thought he outsmarted American history by knowing about the Know Nothing Party. But again... this isn't a secret and can be found on Wikipedia. So why haven't other scholars or historians happened upon the same conclusion as Calloway? Because he's not smart. That's why he's making incredibly fallacious conclusions. The Know Nothings were simply European Americans born in America as opposed to immigrants. You don't join a political party based on your ancestry. You do it for your own person representation. Calloway is confused. A political party has nothing to do with ancestry and therefore their identification as native Americans simply meant that the individuals who joined the part were people that were native (born in) America.

One would think that members of the conscious community (Especially hoteps) would understand that there is little legal difference between "native" or"natural" citizens of the US and "naturalized" which means the same rights are conferred after birth to a person born outside the US. Jumping to the conclusion that this POLITICAL party had something to do with who the "Native Americans" are is comical. A political party is something you CHOOSE. You can't choose to be native. Use of this word depends on CONTEXT. When used as "Native Americans" we all know what it means. This kind of acceptance allows language to be fluid; much like how gay used to mean happy but is now associated with a type of person. A person who isn't a homosexual wouldn't be wrong for saying they are gay, meaning happy. We can all have "a gay old time" without sex involved. So likewise, in the context of my individual birth I am a native but we now say "native of [your state]" or "[your state] native" or in the context of nationality we might say "native of the U.S." as anyone who has traveled outside of the country knows from dealing with folks at the border or paperwork from international flights.

sources:

Natural (Native) Born Citizen Defined

A natural (native) born citizen is one who is born with the territory of a government (country) and subject to its jurisdiction. Under the Constitution of the U

papers.ssrn.com

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_born_citizen

https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2010/acs/acsbr09-16.pdf

 

[Fine1952]

One would expect that someone posting so much from Wikipedia would also explain the correlation between this and Calloway's fraudulent opinion.

Since there is no such explanation one must try to gather from the context why he thinks this is relevant.

Yes, there was a party called the Know Nothing Party. However, Dane, apparently didn't major in English because he doesn't understand how the word "Native" could be applied to the members of this party without talking about the tribes people called "Indians" who are also called Native Americans.

The problem is that Dane simply doesn't understand... words.

Native is defined as "a person born in a specified place or associated with a place by birth, whether subsequently resident there or not".

THAT is the definition. You can google it right now.

So by this definition, I am a "Native American" because I was born in America. But we don't say this because, now that we're calling the indigenous "Indians" Native Americans, this would be confusing. But when we say they are "natives" what we mean is that their entire tribal lineage is "native" to America. That doesn't mean they somehow grew out of the soil. There is no such thing as ANY group being original to the US because ALL humans came from Africa. The only question is how long ago.

And because the question is how long ago that means these words are all relative.

The reality is that everyone spread out from Africa and some went into Asia. After they were in Asia for a while they were considered Asian (native to Asia). Why? Because their tribal identity was now associated with the land they had previously MOVED TO. But the same thing happened when these ASIANS (who used to be Africans) went from Asia into North America. This is why the eskimos historically look like Mongolians. They came over following their animal food sources and they began to populate the Americas from north to south. That's why they all look alike. But don't take it from me. Take it from a Ph.D



You can see here how people crossed the land bridge FROM ASIA into Alaska. They did not come over on boats! There ocean was so vast no one really thought it could be crossed and there was a time that people even thought you would fall off the world. NOT ONLY can you see on the map how people FROM ASIA crossed into Alaska, but the DNA research of literally everyone on the planet agrees with this model. Unlike Calloway's "unorthodox research" there is a reason why this video isn't controversial in any way. That's because it's based in the scientific method which means other people can independently come to the same results/conclusions.

Calloway thought he outsmarted American history by knowing about the Know Nothing Party. But again... this isn't a secret and can be found on Wikipedia. So why haven't other scholars or historians happened upon the same conclusion as Calloway? Because he's not smart. That's why he's making incredibly fallacious conclusions. The Know Nothings were simply European Americans born in America as opposed to immigrants. You don't join a political party based on your ancestry. You do it for your own person representation. Calloway is confused. A political party has nothing to do with ancestry and therefore their identification as native Americans simply meant that the individuals who joined the part were people that were native (born in) America.

One would think that members of the conscious community (Especially hoteps) would understand that there is little legal difference between "native" or"natural" citizens of the US and "naturalized" which means the same rights are conferred after birth to a person born outside the US. Jumping to the conclusion that this POLITICAL party had something to do with who the "Native Americans" are is comical. A political party is something you CHOOSE. You can't choose to be native. Use of this word depends on CONTEXT. When used as "Native Americans" we all know what it means. This kind of acceptance allows language to be fluid; much like how gay used to mean happy but is now associated with a type of person. A person who isn't a homosexual wouldn't be wrong for saying they are gay, meaning happy. We can all have "a gay old time" without sex involved. So likewise, in the context of my individual birth I am a native but we now say "native of [your state]" or "[your state] native" or in the context of nationality we might say "native of the U.S." as anyone who has traveled outside of the country knows from dealing with folks at the border or paperwork from international flights.

sources:

Natural (Native) Born Citizen Defined

A natural (native) born citizen is one who is born with the territory of a government (country) and subject to its jurisdiction. Under the Constitution of the U

papers.ssrn.com

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_born_citizen

https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2010/acs/acsbr09-16.pdf

Duh, Eye learned in college that wikipedia IS NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE so go spread your misinformation somewhere else fishy-fish

 

[Fine1952]

There are so many things wrong with this video.

1) The conscious community trades in a lot of information but there are no guard rails which means that an individual in the conscious community (sometimes called "hoteps") can make a name for themselves with little or no facts backing them up. Without debating anyone in academia in general, it means they can only be contradicted by the people they debate; which are mostly non-academics.

2) The conscious community already has a tendency to shun academia because of everything Egyptologists said about the pyramids. But this mirrors the misunderstandings of Europeans in general when talking about Africans; especially spirituality. There are multiple disciplines needed to reconstruct the past. For example, considering the construction of the pyramids it is more likely they used to be near a river. This could also explain why the pyramids were built in the first place. I believe, and many others are catching up, that they were used to pump water. Even today we have huge water towers to feed water into our homes. Their #1 issue was likely food security which means water for both farms and animals. Saying they were tombs was because they found mummies. But these were more likely the people responsible for such a great addition to their civilization. But understandably, a lot of people got this wrong, not just Egyptologists.

3) The guy Calloway was debating was just trying to get basic clarification and Calloway kept inserting logical fallacies as a means of undermining his *questions*. The guy couldn't even ask about "Native Americans" without Calloway arguing from his own point of view that "Native Americans" aren't "Native". By employing logical fallacies in his debate style, without getting called on it, it makes people who aren't knowledgeable think that he's simply winning the debate. His logical fallacies were also pointed out in the video I shared with you earlier.

Here is a list of logical fallacies and their definitions:

logical fallacies list - Google Search

When you string together a number of logical fallacies you can say things that are completely illogical but seem to make sense to you. But that's only if you follow their steps. This is wildly unscientific and is the reason why Calloway is a fraud.

4) Calloway doesn't believe in DNA? Of course! If you casually disbelieve the scientific bits that actually prove you wrong then of course you can build a case that you think people cannot refute. Because you just throw out the most common evidence.

5) Calloway is spreading his own cognitive bias by writing books and then using his own works to prop up his credibility in debates.

6) Calloway is SELF-PUBLISHED which means there was no gatekeeper between his ideas and making money by selling them.
(Destee wont let me post the amazon link so you can search amazon for... "It Was Told In Reverse: The Untold Truth About The Transatlantic Slave Trade ")

look at the back cover. It tells you who published it.

You can publish anything if you do it yourself. A publishing company will want credible sources if you are expecting them to publish non-fiction because now its their name and credibility on the line. Journalists can get a whole degree in journalism that teaches them how to make sure the information they provide as "news" is accurate. People who just want to make money and don't care about the science or accuracy... self-publish.

7) All the bios I could find on Dane Calloway appear to be self-written. Where did he go to school? He claims to be an educator. Where has he taught? Well-respected historian? Respected by which historians? These are all things HE says. He even says "unorthodox researcher with 15+ years of credible experience". I've never in my life told a job that I have 15+ years of "credible" programming experience. Saying your experience is credible... sounds like you ain't credible at all. But liars are typically the ones who need to say "I'm not lying". And we know he's writing his own bio because the exact same bio on imdb is on his personal website: https://imjustheretomakeyouthink.com/about/

8) And his bio doesn't even state where he was born, what school he went to, etc. WHY? Because he is a FRAUD. He's making money off everyone who LIKES what he's saying. What are his sources? It's just BS and tons of people don't have any standards for what constitutes knowledge so they don't know how to fact-check him. But the ACTUAL history professor who debunked him DOES have credentials that are listed.

9) Dane Calloway is thoroughly and more brutally debunked in this video which also asks a bunch of questions Dane Calloway can't answer.

A question to the followers of Dane Calloway, why won't Dane Calloway have a real conversation with the accredited Black/Afrikan scholars who have addressed him?
Why won't he show you verifiable DNA results to back up his claims?
Where are the credible scholars to back up Dane's claims?
Who are Dane's verifiable tribesmen?
What is the name of Dane's Tribal Chief?
What real First Nation (Tribe) is he from, that can be verified?
Why won't Dane Calloway post sources to the claims he makes?
Where is the base of Dane Calloway's Tribe

You spend all that time to come back with this nonsense

Sounds like a 'you' problem. In other words, you need to contact Dane Calloway, personally!

The DNA test is only reliable for LIVING INDIVIDUALS.


Like Eye said, voting is a futile waste of time.

 

[Fine1952]

You'd think after 100 years we would unplug from this racist political system that never had our self interest at heart. Yet looks to immigration as the solution to weaken our numbers, because they are dying at an expediential rate.

Why can't we trust each other and segregate again. Historically, we were doing so much better when we depended upon each other.




"...After more than 100 years of voting, Black Americans continue to navigate against voter suppression in the present day, according to the National Education Association (NEA)..."

The Evolution of the Black Vote and Projections for the 2024 Election Cycle - The Hilltop (thehilltoponline.com)

 

[jamesfrmphilly]

Why can't we trust each other and segregate again

did you ever live under segregation ?