mrttao
Well-known member
That is impressive.
That is impressive.
I see two T-rexes arguing over baby jesus or mary and joseph praying over a buzzsaw
If only getting rid of bugs was as easy as mowing the lawn.
You must have never seen the gear they used against Bonnie and Clyde, or what old western sheriff's used to try to try to carry if they could.
What percentage does it need to be for you to call it homogeneous? 100%? 90? 75?Also, US society has never been 'homogeneous' to begin with.
Percentages don't matter, because the idea the US has ever been 'homogeneous' is a farce from our founding, never mind the 50s as portrayed in that stupid, close to openly racist meme.What percentage does it need to be for you to call it homogeneous? 100%? 90? 75?
Yes, and said minorities are starting to see through the BS, largely thanks to Trump forcing the Dems to drop their mask on many issues,The reason for the issues that seem to be caused by race are because of government policies the dems used to stay in power.
Give money to families of minorities for being immoral and basically going against what would benefit society.
Remember what LBJ said.
"I will have these N words voting Democrat for the next 200 years"
Firstly, I'm not aware of any Muslim population of the US or in the colonial period enough to be called a "community" until well into the 20th century. There may have been random Muslims here or there, but for the most part the early US was drawn from three main populations: Northern European (Specifically Anglo, German, French, Dutch, Scottish, and Irish, and for those that like to lump all those together as "white" within the period those were all seen as distinct ethnicities that had never before really lived together under one government), Western African (Mainly from the southern coast of West Africa due to the slave trade), and American Indians (there were tribes on the East Coast that fully integrated and effectively disappeared, esp. in the Mid-Atlantic region where conflicts involving the natives were often more complicated than Settler vs Indian*), and of these three by far the largest single group was the Northern European contingent.I mean, it not like we had Quacker colonies, Pennsylvania Dutch, Amish, Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, and the various native groups at our founding, and who have been living and mingling with each other for 250+ years.
Well this is damn interesting; I never knew the Founders, any of them, claimed relation to Pochantas.* Hilarious point of historical racism... in the mid to late 19th century when "blood purity" became a Big Deal with things like the "one drop" rule, they actually had to revise where in the racial hierarchy American Indians sat in regards to "whiteness"... because you see many of the First Families of Virginia (the very wealthy and powerful elite families... you would recognize some of the names like Custis, Washington, and Lee, to name a few of the most famous) like to claim decent from Pocahontas... and if they actually WERE (they usually weren't, but many of them DID have some Native American ancestry as there WAS cross marriage in early Virginia) that would have made them not legally "white" because they would have had to much American Indian blood.
Well this is damn interesting; I never knew the Founders, any of them, claimed relation to Pochantas.
I think we are talking about the same Founders, as he did mention Washington.Just to be clear, when S'task says 'First Families of Virginia' and you say the Founders, are you talking about the same people?
Edit: Cause, that makes me think about FF of VA and then like the Founding Fathers. One is much more regionally specific than the other.