I know that most whites did not own slaves, nor land, and voluntarily signed on for indentures. I also know that there were whites here that were worse off than slaves, except they were white. My point to that is the slaves did not put them in that position. No matter how far they were down on the totem pole, they still had freedom to come and go as they pleased. They also had the right to own slaves, and purchase land. That was a right most slaves did not, and would not ever have. Does that make whites racist? I don't think so. I don't believe racism reared its' ugly head until there was a threat of losing the rights that many poor whites felt they were entitled to. Anita -- macbd1 <[log in to unmask]> wrote: ...Listers, With all of the 'supposed' political correctness at this list, the 'supposed' multi-culturalism, the oh-how-we-would-never-treat-others-that-way, the comparison of white Americans to Nazi Germans, the claims of "white racism extending over almost the entire US, if not near the entirity of the white population," the "political lynchings as well that targeted primarily left-wing organizers," (huh...?), the feelings that respect for the law was fundamental and that Reagan, _*unlike the people who call themselves conservative today*_, understood the dangers that are intrinsic to democracy, that 'a few' good whites (were fearful and) were bullied into submission by the KKK...., ad infintum to nauseum. Now I'm simply wondering why 'nobody' at this list has had 'the guts' to stand up and back James Brothers' statement 'in its entirety': "To assume that all/most Whites felt the non-judicial murder of Blacks was appropriate is racist." *Many/most* (68% to 90%) white Americans came willingly to this country as indentured servants (for 4 to 7 years and more) to pay for their passage, who then and later worked as hard or harder than slaves to claim and maintain freedom for themselves and family. It was many years before they were able to have even one coin, they bartered their labor for means to have food, clothes, a roof over their heads and a rough-hewn garden. Most were landless, well over 50% in many frontier counties during the 1700's, that demonstrated it was a myth that most frontiersmen were land-owning yeomen. They fought for their nation's independence and their individual liberties; and they stood ready to personally fight anyone to the death who threatened their country, freedom, family or meager belongings. They would have certainly fought to their deaths before submitting to a lifetime of slavery. Well, I could say much more but I will leave it at that..... as another poster so thankfully said..... The results of this VA-HIST's thread (so far) is a great surprise and eye-opener to me, it's a stomach-turner indeed !!! Thank you very much, James Brothers, for your comments to which I agree and greatly respect!! Neil McDonald PS - If J South had made such types of derogatory comments about natives, blacks or African-Americans there would have been no end of complaints and negative commentary. Maybe I'm beginning to understand why many at this list are so at odds with 'J South' maybe liking to 'jab' or 'stir up' some controversy while some of his 'aside' comments demonstrate a caring sensitivity. Why do some/most of you 'hush up' when contoversy arises -- is that just your way...? C'mon, stand up and be counted so everybody may understand the majority beliefs at this list.... Let's find out what's really going on in the minds of my countrymen (and women.) I sincerely care and would like to know. _____________________________________________________________ Click for free info on paralegal training and make up to $150K/ year http://track.netzero.net/s/lc?u=http://tagline.untd.us/fc/Ioyw6ijm0beANOQA4nIvvEwQKoSMmIFdHpdCdv1QIGZ8fsjB21HByb/