"Celebrating Diversity" is a program of white genocide/Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-white.

In my two previous debates on race, my opponents have either forfeited or given meager attempts at debating the topic. My current opponent has both stayed with the debate without forfeiting and he has put forth an effort to debate this topic. Final Argument:During slavery, African-Americans were subjected to very cruel conditions. They were sometimes branded by their owners, so that other slaveholders could not "steal" them. Female slaves were sometimes raped by their "owners," and if the male slave significant other had objections, he was subjected to flogging. One slave had tar smeared on his face which was set to flame. [1] During the Jim Crow era, African-Americans, although they had been part of the United States since its inception, were not allowed access to the same public facilities, public education, and rights of citizenship that other Americans were. They were terrorized through the Ku Klux Klan by school burnings, personal attacks and by lynching when they protested the inequity of the Jim Crow laws. [2] Most of us are aware that one of the most vocal White Nationalists and a leader of the movement, David Duke was a member of the Ku Klux Klan. What has happened, the same ideology that victimized the African-American race during slavery and Jim Crow wants to turn around and play victim now that they are no longer allowed to torture other races. The Ku Klux Klan may have been the Big Bad Wolf, now the White Nationalist movement is playing Dear Old Grandma. "My what big eyes you have, White Nationalists, and what big ears you have. " I'm not buying the "victim" role of the White Nationalist movement! I feel the reader will not either. "Genocide" is certainly not appropriate! Here are a couple of REAL life examples of genocide: After World War II began, the Nazis ordered Jewish people to leave their homes to go live in small apartments in the ghettos. The Jewish people were trapped in these ghettos and were not allowed to leave. In time the Nazis would tell some of the Jewish people that they were being transferred to another location, but would instead send them to either concentration camps where they would be worked and starved to death or to extermination camps where they would be forced to strip naked to "take a shower" and be sent into gas chambers. [3]In the months of April-July of 1984, 800,000 people, mostly Tutsis were killed "using physical characteristics as a guide " in Rwanda [4]Whites have certainly not undergone anything near the atrocities of these two groups of people; neither have they suffered anything like the members of the African-American race has. I'm sure survivors of any of those horrid events would laugh at the idea of racist White people claiming genocide for themselves. "Poor babies," they might sigh, "aww, is it really that bad. Let me give you a band-aid for your bo-bo. " As a White person, I have never suffered because of my race. I challenge my opponent to document the suffering of White people that has come exclusively because of race! My opponent is building a semantic argument for genocide rather than giving us examples of true genocide. In other words, he is taking the square peg of the current circumstances and is trying to make it fit the round hole definition of the word, "genocide. " I pointed out that the official definition of "genocide" by the Genocide Convention states: "In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:(a) Killing members of the group;" My opponent replied "Many whites have been killed by non-whites who otherwise would not have had the opportunity if non-white immigration and "assimilation" had not been imposed on the white population. That is indisputable. " "Killing" does not constitute genocide unless it is "with intent to destroy in whole or in part a. .. racial. .. group. " Sporadic murders against White people by non-Whites is not the same thing as what happened in Rwanda! Rebuttals from Round 4: "My opponent acknowledges that killings of whites. .. " Well, that is a gross misrepresentation of my position! I certainly did not say that the killings of whites by non-whites is ONLY EVER a by-product of robbery, I was pointing out that "intent to destroy in whole or in part" was not the motivation for those killings. "For the largest majority white country on Earth it would be right and proper if the children receive books filled with the names and faces of white people. .. " So, the White children are the only children who should know the history of their people? There are children of other ethnicities in their classrooms. African-Americans have been in the area that is now the United States since 1619. [5] They have a history that mostly goes untold in the American history books. As for his statement, "White historical achievement such as colonialism, industrialism. .. are often presented as negative impacts on non-whites and on the environment," my opponent is merely pointing out that history books are becoming more accurate and less "rosy. " Colonialism did have negative impacts on the natives of the colonized lands. Industrialism has had negative impacts on the environment. What is wrong with the truth? "Truth" does not equal "genocide. " "You claim that white Americans invited mass non-white immigration upon themselves? That would only be true if there had been a national debate. .. " America is a nation of immigrants. America doesn't invite immigration, America IS immigration! For America to discriminate as to who immigrates here, would be hypocritical since the Declaration of Independence declares, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. " To avoid hypocrisy, all Americans who agree with my opponent should leave the United States and go back to the country of their origin; otherwise their presence in the States agrees with immigration! "It is good that my opponent agrees with me that the governments/elites of white countries DO want their white populations to be "assimilated and immigrated" by non-whites i. e. white genocide. .. " My opponent is arguing that White people should not be allowed to celebrate diversity even if the majority of White people wish to do so (via their vote). A democratic vote does not in any way make an act of genocide lawful. No, it does not, but we are certainly not dealing with true genocide of White people; and, in democratic countries, "lawful" is determined by democratic vote! I would challenge my opponent to run for a political office if he does not like the law as it is. His opportunity to be elected is equal to that of any other law-abiding citizen. The reason why that might be a problem for him, is that the majority of other White people do not agree with him! That being the case, the majority of White people have the government they want which includes "assimilation," immigration, and the celebration of diversity. "The deliberate attempted replacement of whites with non-whites that is taking place in every "Western"(read white) country is also an act of genocide. " My opponent is being overly dramatic here. No one is replacing White people. Immigration and assimilation is adding to, not replacing. In order to replace White people, there would need to be a deportation or killing of a White person for every immigrant that comes within the borders of a "White country" as my opponent claims. Thank you for reading. [1] . http://homepage.ntlworld.com... [2] . http://www.encyclopedia.com... [3] . http://history1900s.about.com... [4] . http://www.gendercide.org... [5] . http://www.pbs.org...