White vs Black was something that was ripping the United States apart since the arrival of the first slave on the continent, so I'd have a hard time crediting the KGB for it.
What could you possibly mean by 'no chance for consensus'?
Let me get this straight. One group of people has all the political power in an area. That group of people repressed another group. The second group wants to be treated like human beings.
To me, it seems that if you want to avoid conflict and strife, the first group should immediately give in to those demands. Those demands are just, and the status quo is indefensible, and the first group has the political power to solve the problem, and anyone obstructing the immediate implementation of those demands is the one causing strife.
Since they have a monopoly on power, the onus is on them to make the society they built just, not on the people they are repressing.
>The second group wants to be treated like human beings.
Who is that? The Citizens or the establishment? You have much deeper problems in your society, and it's not skin-color, that's just the game to distort you (yes and the police) from the real problems...trans vs woman, democrats vs republican, man vs woman, white vs black, vegans vs meat-eater those are some of the other ones. You always hit your nearest made up "enemy" not the one thirteen steps away. Keep the dump's entertained with problems so they don't see the bigger picture, and at one point they start to entertain themself with made up problems.
Segregationists, and their various flavors of racist allies of the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s. I don't really care which party they belong to. They had a monopoly on power, they built an unjust system, and I will firmly put all arising strife on their unwillingness to treat people of other races as human beings.
> Who is that? The Citizens or the establishment?
African Americans during the broad civil rights era. You are talking about the KGB, right? The KGB operated between 1954 to 1991, so I have to assume that whatever black versus white 'conflict' you are talking about is somewhere in that time period.
> You have much deeper problems in your society, and it's not skin-color, that's just the game to distort you (yes and the police) from the real problems
I assure you, when your society has no-n_____ water fountains, train cars, classrooms, and suburbs, your society's problems include skin color. They include it incredibly prominently.
Are you arguing about real issues that real people faced? Or are we going down some weird, theoretical rabbit hole? I have no patience for the latter.
>They had a monopoly on power, they built an unjust system, and I will firmly put all arising strife on their unwillingness to treat people of other races as human beings.
Had? Have, is the right word or did that changed i the last 2 month? But yeah absolutely, human are humans and everyone has the same right and has to be treated the same way.
>African Americans during the broad civil rights era. You are talking about the KGB, right?
I was talking about that one of the KGB strategies was to heat already existing conflicts up to the point where no consensus is possible, that just works in democratic systems where consent is the ~only way to achieve something.
>I assure you, when your society has no-n_____ water fountains
Look that's the problem, i NEVER said that skin color or religion (especially muslims...remember the hate after 2001, but also jews) is not a problem in your country, again for me there is no race just humans. But ATM it's white vs black etc, that's the opposite what Martin Luther King said like "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that", atm your countrymen create borders between community's which creates a downward spiral, and the profiteer is for sure not "we the people" but we the media and the party (the two same ones) which can profit out of it and in the meantime easily maintain the status quo (both the democrats and the republicans...they have the exact same goal, they just play different so you have the illusion of choice).
> the first black slaves were brought over by the ethnic group we now call Latinx.
No, they weren't. Latinx (or the equivalent combination of Latino/Latina) is not synonymous with Hispanic, and more to the point, even if it was, the slavers were (by modern American terms) racially White ethnic Hispanics, so it wouldn't change the White/Black racial dynamic.
That’s some pretty impressive mental gymnastics. It’s likely that the crews of those first Portuguese and Spanish slave ships included plenty of mixed Hispanic/North Africans too.
By the way North Africans raided as far as the south coast of England in order to capture slaves of their own.
This is simultaneously a fair point (the Portugeuse were the first slavers) and a miscategorization (puritans/white european invaders were quite racist and violent from the moment they landed on Plymouth rock and began stealing from / killing Natives).
This pro-slavery attitude was huge from you people.
Black people enslaved other blacks in Africa, Latinx shipped them to America where the natives were also enslaving each other. White people put an end to all 3 of these activities, everywhere. This is historical fact.
Welsh, british, scottish, all the same. All three groups were slavers, both of Africans and of the Irish, not to mention countless other Asian cultures.
You rewrite history, white wsshing it to make yourselves out to be the great white saviors despite having participated for many centuries.
“Hey the Africans sold their enemies to us so it must be Ok.”
