Posted on 10/26/2011 4:05:34 PM PDT by Steve Van Doorn
Once in a while I go to Wikipidea in order too at last try and remove some of the socialist drivel from there site. It is a futile effort I know but sometimes I come across pages or sentences Stalin and Hitler would be proud.
Today I ran into this page on racial superiority. I will let you decide here are some of the better lines I found:
Supremacism or racial superiority
I will start with this one:
“President George W. Bush’s support for fundamentalist Christianity has been linked to his having a “Christian supremacist vision” in his policies in the Middle East.”
The Middle Ages Crusades have been described as an example of white supremacist colonialism. Centuries of European colonialism of the Americas, Africa, Australia, Oceania and Asia were justified by white supremacist attitudes.
Cornel West writes that Black Muslim supremacy arose in America as a counter to white supremacism
Again Wikipedia states:
Some academics and writers have alleged Christian supremacism as a motivation for the Crusades to the “Holy Land,” as well as for crusades against Muslims and pagans throughout Europe.
Some academics and writers allege Jewish supremacism, especially related to Israel and Zionism. Author Minna Rozen describes the 17th century Jews of Jerusalems’ view of themselves as an elite group among Jews as supremacism. Ilan Pappé writes that the First Aliyah to Israel "established a society based on Jewish supremacy." Joseph Massad holds that "Jewish supremacism" always has been a "dominating principle" of religious and secular Zionism.
I came to this page over the issue of the real history of the crusades being stupefied by their drivel and I found all this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacism
So when you found it, did you change it? That is the point of Wikipedia after all.
Do you try as hard to remove retarded misspellings?
Wikipedia is mostly liberal.
i found over the years if you don’t discuss the issue first they will ban faster then a rabbit flying through a mine field. Then just revert it back. That means each issue piece by piece it is a big job.
nope that aint my goal
So you’re cool with free-form liberal spelling.
Like that which you used above.
You betcha.
Wiki is fine for non controversial things like the Marianas trench or the land area of Argentina but when it comes to political things, its pointless to try.
If I’m researching historical events I’ll use wiki as a starting point but dig deeper elsewhere.
Wow, you really write poorly.
You shouldn’t be editing anything.
You sure do have misnomers about people
I agree. That is why so many use the site and why we can’t ignore it.
Yes, there are times that Wikipedia can be irritating. But as a whole it is a true world treasure. If you think something is inappropriate, change it, and make a case for your change. Then fight for it.
You sure do have fail at writing.
1) Who cares what Wikipedia says about “opinion” issues. Want to know the speed of light or the number of nipples on a cow, go to Wiki. Want to know which religion or political party is best, figure it out on your own.
2) Of course there is “Christian supremacy” among Christians. If you don’t think your own religion is best and most correct, then why do you even have a a religion? I know plenty of liberal Methodists who refuse to state that Methodism is best, or that even Christianity is best, or in some cases, even that Jesus is the only way to the Father. When they start that drivel, I just tell them I’d find a better way to spend Sunday morning if I agreed with them!
Glad somebody said it...
you guys are way to picky
Thanks. I agree
I think you're yankin our chain.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.