Lately every thing I say sparks an angry debate, so now I'm just going
to start asking for it. Hope you're all still talking to me by the end
of this.





White guilt is really veiled White Supremacy, because it works on the
belief that white people naturally controlled everything, and that they
should have known better. The whole premise of white guilt stems from
the idea of white people being more civilized than everyone else, which
is utter bullshit. White people just invented bigger weapons and
angrier religions.



People forget that the civilized world did not emerge until sometime
right before Kennedy got shot. And not the first Kennedy either; I'm
talking about Bobby.



People who claim to feel white guilt are actually being condescending
assholes, and your best line of defense is the clothes-line. Right in
the mouth, too. These people claim to feel ashamed that they are white,
but they are actually tossing around a world-history view in which
white people were big and advanced and mighty, and everyone else was
prancing around the jungle just happy to finally have mastered fire.
Out of nowhere, white people arrive and kick ass with just the pinky
finger left free from sipping their tea. Without taking responsibility
for their awesome power, these towering Arian Emperors bring
corruption, hate, wastefulness, and a general lack of culture to the
childlike races they conquer.



Horseshit.



The truth is, white people were just as quaint and uncivilized as any
image you may have of some cannibal dancing around with his brother's
bone through his nose; especially the proponents of white supremacy.
Think of the Ku Klux Klan, wearing fierce costumes, dancing around a
fire, calling to their angered God to help them destroy their enemies.
We have words for people like that, very very White words... like...
FILTHY SAVAGES. I like that one, it has a nice colonial ring to it.
White people were filthy savages.



Not to say anyone else was any better; that would be self-defeating.
Frankly, everyone was an asshole, and the people who don't like to
admit it can go straight to PC Hell. Native Americans were always
slaughtering each other like livestock and taking over each others'
land. Indians had a class system that made segregation look as
reasonable as having separate men's and women's bathrooms by
comparison. Africans were massacring each other and trading slaves long
before white people joined the party. So what exactly was the
difference?



Guns. Seriously. Fucking guns. A white guy saw Chinese fireworks and
said "I bet I could use that to put a chunk of metal through my
neighbor's skull all the way from my front porch..." And the rest is
history. A bunch of savages spent eons battling for supremacy, with
only occasional notable success by one or the other (usually Egyptians,
Chinese, Romans, or that one Frog). But then white people started doing
drive-by shootings in their massive sailboats and it pretty much became
a crackers-and-cheese kind of world from there. There was nothing too
spectacular about it.



Sometimes white people gave other people guns, but it worked the same
way then as it does now. We'll sell you the missile launchers, but if
you want the nukes you have to go haggle with Russia. And history has
taught us that Russia was too far of a swim for the Indians.



The funky thing about slavery is that it had a lot less to do with
guns, and a lot more to do with receipts and mail-in rebates. The
funnier thing is just as many white slaves were owned in North Africa
as Black Slaves were owned in the United States. White people were just
as bad about selling each other for table salt as anyone else, the
difference was they had Swiss Bank accounts to hide the profits in, so
no one had to know about it.



It was kind of the same thing with the beginning of white supremacy;
white people needed to figure out a way to sell each other out without
catching a lot of shit for it. White people in America needed a way to
separate their white slaves from their black slaves, without loosing
labor. The result was the invention of white supremacy, and white
solidarity, by white people who knew both things were bullshit, and
only believed in Rich Supremacy (now often referred to as the GOP).



So they told their white slaves that they had been freed because they
were the Rich white folks' brothers. They were free to go the hell away
into the woods and fend for themselves... or, they could stay, and for
a wage that was smaller than the original cost of feeding and housing
them as slaves, they could pay rent and be overseers, like big-shots.
So naturally these brilliant men started paying rent, lynching people,
growing mullets and going to war so the Rich white folks' children
wouldn't have to.



White Slave Owner: "Wow, you guys are really gung-ho about this whole turncoat/backstabber thing..."



White Guy With No Chin: "No one's ever called me 'Brother' before..."



White Slave Owner: *pats WGWNC on the back* "And no one else ever will... ever again."



Self hating white-guilters are really just liars, they don't really
want to help; they just want to sound good. They talk a lot of shit,
but when it comes down to it, they
don't want to give you reparations either. But they don't have to admit
that, because they live an ideal lifestyle where they can say all they
want with no risk of having to shell anything over. The average
white-guilter is extremely liberal (until a gay guy hits on them) and
as such lives only in areas where they have no land to hand over to any
black people; like a studio apartment in the upper-east side. This also
means they don't have a mule (in most cases).



This isn't really the worst aspect of white-guilter supremacists
though, since as a matter of fact, the only people who actually believe
in reparations are the people who would receive them, which after you
take into account all the blacks in America who are recent immigrants,
and blacks who have married white women, is almost no one.



Part of the reason for this is that the government could not possibly
get something like reparations right. It would be a lot of tax dollars
spent on something that would not actually stop anyone from
complaining. While the government does
like big expensive gestures that don't actually help the people they
are trying to shut up, no one has the time or patience for troubles
that come with that particular undertaking. The original agreement is
not very attractive by today's standards, and that would come back to
bite Congress on the ass sooner than later. First of all, to most
people, a mule's maintenance and fuel intake expense is extremely
disproportionate to its output of usefulness, and not in an acceptable
way like an SUV with spinning rims. Secondly, we've already tried the
whole land-giving thing for people we once oppressed, and that had
depressing results at best. The first time it was called
"reservations", the next time it will be called "gentrification" as
it's not especially likely those acres will be coming out of prime real
estate. The third problem is that giving money to people who might
possibly need it is communism, and seriously, fuck that.



Also people tend to think we've already given reparations based solely
on the fact that slaves bought by white people now get to live in
America, and slaves who weren't bought by white people still have to
live in Africa. Good deed for the day DONE. It's not quite right, but
it has it's merit. It's wrong that white people bought slaves, but
either way you'd be descended from slaves, and your particular
circumstances lead you to be a descendant from slaves who owns a
Nintendo and doesn't have AIDS. It's still pretty flimsy as an argument
against reparations, but it startles the shit out of most sensible
people, and then they pay attention to your next couple of paragraphs.



The real reason no one likes reparations is because everyone feels only
the guilty should be punished (billed) and no one thinks they are the
guilty party. This is fairly reasonable since no one really brags about
Great Great Grandad's Plantation these days, so even if you're
descended from slave owners, no one has really broken it to you yet.
Furthermore, most Americans actually aren't descendants of slave
owners. Even Americans who have been here for generations are
statistically low in slave-owner ancestors. When slavery was in its
prime, owners still only made up a small portion of the population, and
the slaves in the North (back when they had them) were primarily white.
Which brings up the lesser-known issue of the fact that half of all the
white people who came over on boats around thanksgiving time were
slaves. Way more people, not just black, are descended from slaves than
from slave owners, so who really gets reparations? The confederacy also
had higher casualties than the Union, so way more people are
descendants of abolitionist soldiers than Confederate fucktards. It's
hard to sort all that shit out in fair terms. And since the only white
people who actually claim to consider themselves part of the guilty
party are actually racist as hell, it will never even make it to a
vote. And Obama's not going to do shit, but you already knew that. If
you want to be really specific about getting paid back, you can also
track down the asshole salesman, usually another African, occasionally
a greasy kidnapper from Spain. Getting reparations from Spain would be
kind of cool, they do after all, have land and mules.



Some kind of comeuppance for Jim Crowe type laws might be in order though. Maybe a national flog-a-guy-in-a-pickup-tru