If white racism is a thing of the past.....

[IM2]

I keep getting told how white racism is a thing of the past. But I see no poof of it. A bunch of people repeating a claim over and over again is not proof. Information from THIS DECADE shows it's not a thing of the past. But I'm going to give the white racists here a chance to prove their claim. All they need to do is:

Prove when racism ended and its effects were allayed. Show, with data and peer-reviewed studies supporting your argument, when the effects of the hundreds of years of anti-Black racism from chattel slavery through Old Jim Crow leveled off. Show when the wealth expropriated during that oppression was repaid to those it was expropriated from and through. And remember, after you’ve addressed the end of anti-Black racism you’ll still have to explain when anti-Latinx, anti-Asian, anti-Arab, and anti-Native racism came to an end as well.

Your feelings and opinions are not satisfactory. Peer reviewed evidence must be presented detailing the end of white racism in America.

Who said anything of the sort???
I spoke of Institutional Racism.

Don't tell me what King wanted. You don't know what King wanted. Slowly happening is not satisfactory. Whites did not get such things slowly. It did not take 241 years and whites are still fighting for equality. We don't just need black politicians. Black politicians existed before Obama. What Obama showed us is a black man can be president if he says things like white people want hear it. Not the truth but how they want to hear it. And he certainly cannot push black community development as a major part of his platform if he expects t win. And even then he got an average of 41 percent of the white vote in both his victories.

What the hell are you talking about? Thousands of whites died during the civil war to free the slaves, and in the 1960's Johnson's "Great Society" laws were passed. And yet you talk like blacks haven't made inroads? And what do you mean that "whites didn't wait"? It was millennia until the average man, white or black, got any rights at all. Most were serfs, peons, or slaves.

Mark

.
Thousands of whites did not die to free slaves. They died to save the union. That was the stated aim if the north. Whites in America did not wait for freedom. Inroads is not equality and don't expect a pat on the back from me for a half done job. If you expect a whole house, you are not going t be happy when all you get built is a basement.

What bullshit. Since it was slavery that sparked the war, it only stands to reason that the war happened because people were upset enough to end slavery. If the white people didn't care, you would be a slave today.

This is an important point. While it was the white race that enslaved the blacks, it was also the white race that freed them.

Mark

Well it seems that when you look at the historical record of that time it is stated that Lincoln decided the expressed intent if the union army was to keep the union together. The potential northern soldiers did not care about fighting to free blacks. For there was slavery in the north. The war was not fought to stop slavery and whites did not die to free blacks. If that was the case, then the resulting 100 years would never have happened. And that's the important point.

So it's like this, you don't get to give yourselves credit for my freedom now while at the same time claim you are not responsible for anything because you must face how you benefitted from slavery.

If we don't get credit for your freedom now then we don't get blame for slavery that you never suffered.

It's like this, if I wasn't a slave and you didn't own slaves then you get no credit for my freedom now unless you accept the benefits you have got from slavery. Now would you like to move on to the 100 years after slavery to discuss how whites created apartheid to keep us from having equal rights and made laws that returned blacks back into slavery? Or are we going to have to read that Africans did that too?

 

[IM2]

I keep getting told how white racism is a thing of the past. But I see no poof of it. A bunch of people repeating a claim over and over again is not proof. Information from THIS DECADE shows it's not a thing of the past. But I'm going to give the white racists here a chance to prove their claim. All they need to do is:

Prove when racism ended and its effects were allayed. Show, with data and peer-reviewed studies supporting your argument, when the effects of the hundreds of years of anti-Black racism from chattel slavery through Old Jim Crow leveled off. Show when the wealth expropriated during that oppression was repaid to those it was expropriated from and through. And remember, after you’ve addressed the end of anti-Black racism you’ll still have to explain when anti-Latinx, anti-Asian, anti-Arab, and anti-Native racism came to an end as well.

Your feelings and opinions are not satisfactory. Peer reviewed evidence must be presented detailing the end of white racism in America.

Who said anything of the sort???
I spoke of Institutional Racism.

Don't tell me what King wanted. You don't know what King wanted. Slowly happening is not satisfactory. Whites did not get such things slowly. It did not take 241 years and whites are still fighting for equality. We don't just need black politicians. Black politicians existed before Obama. What Obama showed us is a black man can be president if he says things like white people want hear it. Not the truth but how they want to hear it. And he certainly cannot push black community development as a major part of his platform if he expects t win. And even then he got an average of 41 percent of the white vote in both his victories.

What the hell are you talking about? Thousands of whites died during the civil war to free the slaves, and in the 1960's Johnson's "Great Society" laws were passed. And yet you talk like blacks haven't made inroads? And what do you mean that "whites didn't wait"? It was millennia until the average man, white or black, got any rights at all. Most were serfs, peons, or slaves.

Mark

.
Thousands of whites did not die to free slaves. They died to save the union. That was the stated aim if the north. Whites in America did not wait for freedom. Inroads is not equality and don't expect a pat on the back from me for a half done job. If you expect a whole house, you are not going t be happy when all you get built is a basement.

What bullshit. Since it was slavery that sparked the war, it only stands to reason that the war happened because people were upset enough to end slavery. If the white people didn't care, you would be a slave today.

This is an important point. While it was the white race that enslaved the blacks, it was also the white race that freed them.

Mark

Well it seems that when you look at the historical record of that time it is stated that Lincoln decided the expressed intent if the union army was to keep the union together. The potential northern soldiers did not care about fighting to free blacks. For there was slavery in the north. The war was not fought to stop slavery and whites did not die to free blacks. If that was the case, then the resulting 100 years would never have happened. And that's the important point.

So it's like this, you don't get to give yourselves credit for my freedom now while at the same time claim you are not responsible for anything because you must face how you benefitted from slavery.

Wrong. There would have been no move to secede if not for slavery. Lincoln was not the only white person in the north.

BTW, "I" didn't benefit from slavery, as my ancestors arrived here in the 1880's.

Mark

So you benefit from the Aparthied in America that was sanctioned by law. Some of those laws allowed whites to return blacks back into slavery. That's how much whites cared.

 

[PredFan]

I keep getting told how white racism is a thing of the past. But I see no poof of it. A bunch of people repeating a claim over and over again is not proof. Information from THIS DECADE shows it's not a thing of the past. But I'm going to give the white racists here a chance to prove their claim. All they need to do is:

Prove when racism ended and its effects were allayed. Show, with data and peer-reviewed studies supporting your argument, when the effects of the hundreds of years of anti-Black racism from chattel slavery through Old Jim Crow leveled off. Show when the wealth expropriated during that oppression was repaid to those it was expropriated from and through. And remember, after you’ve addressed the end of anti-Black racism you’ll still have to explain when anti-Latinx, anti-Asian, anti-Arab, and anti-Native racism came to an end as well.

Your feelings and opinions are not satisfactory. Peer reviewed evidence must be presented detailing the end of white racism in America.

Hey you racist idiot! I have a relative who died in the Civil War fighting to end slavery. When will you black people give me reparations? He might have become rich and I might not have had to work for a living. When are YOU coming to pay what is due?

None of your relatives fought to end slavery. They fought to save the union. Your relative was free. Your relative earned an income. Your relative chose to fight idiot. And then we have the little matter of at least 100 years after slavery to deal with.

Bull shit. You left wing liars tell me every damn day that the Civil War was about slavery. I try to claim that it was about states rights and you liars tell me it wasn't. Keep your lies straight.

 

[IM2]

I keep getting told how white racism is a thing of the past. But I see no poof of it. A bunch of people repeating a claim over and over again is not proof. Information from THIS DECADE shows it's not a thing of the past. But I'm going to give the white racists here a chance to prove their claim. All they need to do is:

Prove when racism ended and its effects were allayed. Show, with data and peer-reviewed studies supporting your argument, when the effects of the hundreds of years of anti-Black racism from chattel slavery through Old Jim Crow leveled off. Show when the wealth expropriated during that oppression was repaid to those it was expropriated from and through. And remember, after you’ve addressed the end of anti-Black racism you’ll still have to explain when anti-Latinx, anti-Asian, anti-Arab, and anti-Native racism came to an end as well.

Your feelings and opinions are not satisfactory. Peer reviewed evidence must be presented detailing the end of white racism in America.

Hey you racist idiot! I have a relative who died in the Civil War fighting to end slavery. When will you black people give me reparations? He might have become rich and I might not have had to work for a living. When are YOU coming to pay what is due?

None of your relatives fought to end slavery. They fought to save the union. Your relative was free. Your relative earned an income. Your relative chose to fight idiot. And then we have the little matter of at least 100 years after slavery to deal with.

Bull shit. You left wing liars tell me every damn day that the Civil War was about slavery. I try to claim that it was about states rights and you liars tell me it wasn't. Keep your lies straight.

Shut up fuckhead. You're too dumb to waste time on.

 

[80zephyr]

Who said anything of the sort???
I spoke of Institutional Racism.

What the hell are you talking about? Thousands of whites died during the civil war to free the slaves, and in the 1960's Johnson's "Great Society" laws were passed. And yet you talk like blacks haven't made inroads? And what do you mean that "whites didn't wait"? It was millennia until the average man, white or black, got any rights at all. Most were serfs, peons, or slaves.

Mark

.
Thousands of whites did not die to free slaves. They died to save the union. That was the stated aim if the north. Whites in America did not wait for freedom. Inroads is not equality and don't expect a pat on the back from me for a half done job. If you expect a whole house, you are not going t be happy when all you get built is a basement.

What bullshit. Since it was slavery that sparked the war, it only stands to reason that the war happened because people were upset enough to end slavery. If the white people didn't care, you would be a slave today.

This is an important point. While it was the white race that enslaved the blacks, it was also the white race that freed them.

Mark

Yes slavery sparked the war, because the threat of it spreading to the northern states would have undermined the white manual labor work force. Furthermore, slaves became obsolete as the country moved towards industrialization.

Lincoln stated the following in this letter to Horace Greely in 1862:


Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.
Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.
I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time saveslavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and isnot either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of officialduty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personalwish that all men every where could be free.
Yours,
A. Lincoln.




Lastly, there were 179,000 Black soldiers who fought in the Civil War to secure their freedom. They had a personal vested interest.

And? Logically, if there was not enough white support to end slavery, blacks would still be slaves.

Mark

Who said anything of the sort???
I spoke of Institutional Racism.

What the hell are you talking about? Thousands of whites died during the civil war to free the slaves, and in the 1960's Johnson's "Great Society" laws were passed. And yet you talk like blacks haven't made inroads? And what do you mean that "whites didn't wait"? It was millennia until the average man, white or black, got any rights at all. Most were serfs, peons, or slaves.

Mark

.
Thousands of whites did not die to free slaves. They died to save the union. That was the stated aim if the north. Whites in America did not wait for freedom. Inroads is not equality and don't expect a pat on the back from me for a half done job. If you expect a whole house, you are not going t be happy when all you get built is a basement.

What bullshit. Since it was slavery that sparked the war, it only stands to reason that the war happened because people were upset enough to end slavery. If the white people didn't care, you would be a slave today.

This is an important point. While it was the white race that enslaved the blacks, it was also the white race that freed them.

Mark

Yes slavery sparked the war, because the threat of it spreading to the northern states would have undermined the white manual labor work force. Furthermore, slaves became obsolete as the country moved towards industrialization.

Lincoln stated the following in this letter to Horace Greely in 1862:


Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.
Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.
I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time saveslavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and isnot either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of officialduty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personalwish that all men every where could be free.
Yours,
A. Lincoln.




Lastly, there were 179,000 Black soldiers who fought in the Civil War to secure their freedom. They had a personal vested interest.

And? Logically, if there was not enough white support to end slavery, blacks would still be slaves.

Mark

"And"? Abolishing slavery was not the central issue.of why the war was fought. Preserving the union was.

That's the real "logic".

So lets not misrepresent slaves being freed as a humanitarian effort and an ultimate sacrifice on their behalf.

It was not.

What caused the war? The south wanted to keep slavery and the north wanted to abolish it. If the north didn't care if the south owned slaves, there would have been no need for the south to try to secede.
So yes, it was the north's insistence that slavery be abolished that caused the war. If the north didn't care about slavery, there would have been no reason for the south to secede.

Mark

 

[katsteve2012]

.
Thousands of whites did not die to free slaves. They died to save the union. That was the stated aim if the north. Whites in America did not wait for freedom. Inroads is not equality and don't expect a pat on the back from me for a half done job. If you expect a whole house, you are not going t be happy when all you get built is a basement.

What bullshit. Since it was slavery that sparked the war, it only stands to reason that the war happened because people were upset enough to end slavery. If the white people didn't care, you would be a slave today.

This is an important point. While it was the white race that enslaved the blacks, it was also the white race that freed them.

Mark

Yes slavery sparked the war, because the threat of it spreading to the northern states would have undermined the white manual labor work force. Furthermore, slaves became obsolete as the country moved towards industrialization.

Lincoln stated the following in this letter to Horace Greely in 1862:


Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.
Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.
I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time saveslavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and isnot either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of officialduty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personalwish that all men every where could be free.
Yours,
A. Lincoln.




Lastly, there were 179,000 Black soldiers who fought in the Civil War to secure their freedom. They had a personal vested interest.

And? Logically, if there was not enough white support to end slavery, blacks would still be slaves.

Mark

.
Thousands of whites did not die to free slaves. They died to save the union. That was the stated aim if the north. Whites in America did not wait for freedom. Inroads is not equality and don't expect a pat on the back from me for a half done job. If you expect a whole house, you are not going t be happy when all you get built is a basement.

What bullshit. Since it was slavery that sparked the war, it only stands to reason that the war happened because people were upset enough to end slavery. If the white people didn't care, you would be a slave today.

This is an important point. While it was the white race that enslaved the blacks, it was also the white race that freed them.

Mark

Yes slavery sparked the war, because the threat of it spreading to the northern states would have undermined the white manual labor work force. Furthermore, slaves became obsolete as the country moved towards industrialization.

Lincoln stated the following in this letter to Horace Greely in 1862:


Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.
Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.
I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time saveslavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and isnot either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of officialduty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personalwish that all men every where could be free.
Yours,
A. Lincoln.




Lastly, there were 179,000 Black soldiers who fought in the Civil War to secure their freedom. They had a personal vested interest.

And? Logically, if there was not enough white support to end slavery, blacks would still be slaves.

Mark

"And"? Abolishing slavery was not the central issue.of why the war was fought. Preserving the union was.

That's the real "logic".

So lets not misrepresent slaves being freed as a humanitarian effort and an ultimate sacrifice on their behalf.

It was not.

What caused the war? The south wanted to keep slavery and the north wanted to abolish it. If the north didn't care if the south owned slaves, there would have been no need for the south to try to secede.
So yes, it was the north's insistence that slavery be abolished that caused the war. If the north didn't care about slavery, there would have been no reason for the south to secede.

Mark

I already explained to you once what caused the war, and why the north objected to slavery in a previous post.

Try re reading what I stated.

The point is that you appear to be determined to glorify paid soldiers who you believe fought a war JUST to free black slaves.

There was far more to it than that, and that was NOT the primary reason for the war..

 

[80zephyr]

What bullshit. Since it was slavery that sparked the war, it only stands to reason that the war happened because people were upset enough to end slavery. If the white people didn't care, you would be a slave today.

This is an important point. While it was the white race that enslaved the blacks, it was also the white race that freed them.

Mark

Yes slavery sparked the war, because the threat of it spreading to the northern states would have undermined the white manual labor work force. Furthermore, slaves became obsolete as the country moved towards industrialization.

Lincoln stated the following in this letter to Horace Greely in 1862:


Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.
Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.
I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time saveslavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and isnot either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of officialduty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personalwish that all men every where could be free.
Yours,
A. Lincoln.




Lastly, there were 179,000 Black soldiers who fought in the Civil War to secure their freedom. They had a personal vested interest.

And? Logically, if there was not enough white support to end slavery, blacks would still be slaves.

Mark

What bullshit. Since it was slavery that sparked the war, it only stands to reason that the war happened because people were upset enough to end slavery. If the white people didn't care, you would be a slave today.

This is an important point. While it was the white race that enslaved the blacks, it was also the white race that freed them.

Mark

Yes slavery sparked the war, because the threat of it spreading to the northern states would have undermined the white manual labor work force. Furthermore, slaves became obsolete as the country moved towards industrialization.

Lincoln stated the following in this letter to Horace Greely in 1862:


Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.
Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.
I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time saveslavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and isnot either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of officialduty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personalwish that all men every where could be free.
Yours,
A. Lincoln.




Lastly, there were 179,000 Black soldiers who fought in the Civil War to secure their freedom. They had a personal vested interest.

And? Logically, if there was not enough white support to end slavery, blacks would still be slaves.

Mark

"And"? Abolishing slavery was not the central issue.of why the war was fought. Preserving the union was.

That's the real "logic".

So lets not misrepresent slaves being freed as a humanitarian effort and an ultimate sacrifice on their behalf.

It was not.

What caused the war? The south wanted to keep slavery and the north wanted to abolish it. If the north didn't care if the south owned slaves, there would have been no need for the south to try to secede.
So yes, it was the north's insistence that slavery be abolished that caused the war. If the north didn't care about slavery, there would have been no reason for the south to secede.

Mark

I already explained to you once what caused the war, and why the north objected to slavery in a previous post.

Try re reading what I stated.

The point is that you appear to be determined to glorify paid soldiers who you believe fought a war JUST to free black slaves.

There was far more to it than that, and that was NOT the primary reason for the war..

Bullshit. The south tried to secede because of slavery, and that choice was forced onto them because of pressure from the north.

Mark

 

[IM2]

Katsteve, haven't we heard this argument before somewhere?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Who said anything of the sort???
I spoke of Institutional Racism.

What the hell are you talking about? Thousands of whites died during the civil war to free the slaves, and in the 1960's Johnson's "Great Society" laws were passed. And yet you talk like blacks haven't made inroads? And what do you mean that "whites didn't wait"? It was millennia until the average man, white or black, got any rights at all. Most were serfs, peons, or slaves.

Mark

.
Thousands of whites did not die to free slaves. They died to save the union. That was the stated aim if the north. Whites in America did not wait for freedom. Inroads is not equality and don't expect a pat on the back from me for a half done job. If you expect a whole house, you are not going t be happy when all you get built is a basement.

What bullshit. Since it was slavery that sparked the war, it only stands to reason that the war happened because people were upset enough to end slavery. If the white people didn't care, you would be a slave today.

This is an important point. While it was the white race that enslaved the blacks, it was also the white race that freed them.

Mark

Well it seems that when you look at the historical record of that time it is stated that Lincoln decided the expressed intent if the union army was to keep the union together. The potential northern soldiers did not care about fighting to free blacks. For there was slavery in the north. The war was not fought to stop slavery and whites did not die to free blacks. If that was the case, then the resulting 100 years would never have happened. And that's the important point.

So it's like this, you don't get to give yourselves credit for my freedom now while at the same time claim you are not responsible for anything because you must face how you benefitted from slavery.

If we don't get credit for your freedom now then we don't get blame for slavery that you never suffered.

It's like this, if I wasn't a slave and you didn't own slaves then you get no credit for my freedom now unless you accept the benefits you have got from slavery.

I didn't benefit from slavery as I was born 100 years after it was abolished.

Now would you like to move on to the 100 years after slavery to discuss how whites created apartheid to keep us from having equal rights and made laws that returned blacks back into slavery?

Sure. But once we cover that time period, let's move on to the 50 years after that where whites abolished apartheid, made laws that gave blacks equal rights, equal employment opportunity and Affirmative Action and returned blacks back to a world where they had the freedom to succeed or fail like everyone else.

Or are we going to have to read that Africans did that too?

I don't suppose you should have to read it again as I'm sure you're fully aware that Africans sold their own people into slavery. The question is, why are you not willing to talk about that? Are we talking about slavery and who was responsible or are we only talking about the whites that were responsible?

I asked you a question earlier in the discussion but never got a response. How have you personally been negatively affected by this racist system?

 

[katsteve2012]

Yes slavery sparked the war, because the threat of it spreading to the northern states would have undermined the white manual labor work force. Furthermore, slaves became obsolete as the country moved towards industrialization.

Lincoln stated the following in this letter to Horace Greely in 1862:


Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.
Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.
I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time saveslavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and isnot either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of officialduty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personalwish that all men every where could be free.
Yours,
A. Lincoln.




Lastly, there were 179,000 Black soldiers who fought in the Civil War to secure their freedom. They had a personal vested interest.

And? Logically, if there was not enough white support to end slavery, blacks would still be slaves.

Mark

Yes slavery sparked the war, because the threat of it spreading to the northern states would have undermined the white manual labor work force. Furthermore, slaves became obsolete as the country moved towards industrialization.

Lincoln stated the following in this letter to Horace Greely in 1862:


Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.
Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.
I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time saveslavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and isnot either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of officialduty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personalwish that all men every where could be free.
Yours,
A. Lincoln.




Lastly, there were 179,000 Black soldiers who fought in the Civil War to secure their freedom. They had a personal vested interest.

And? Logically, if there was not enough white support to end slavery, blacks would still be slaves.

Mark

"And"? Abolishing slavery was not the central issue.of why the war was fought. Preserving the union was.

That's the real "logic".

So lets not misrepresent slaves being freed as a humanitarian effort and an ultimate sacrifice on their behalf.

It was not.

What caused the war? The south wanted to keep slavery and the north wanted to abolish it. If the north didn't care if the south owned slaves, there would have been no need for the south to try to secede.
So yes, it was the north's insistence that slavery be abolished that caused the war. If the north didn't care about slavery, there would have been no reason for the south to secede.

Mark

I already explained to you once what caused the war, and why the north objected to slavery in a previous post.

Try re reading what I stated.

The point is that you appear to be determined to glorify paid soldiers who you believe fought a war JUST to free black slaves.

There was far more to it than that, and that was NOT the primary reason for the war..

Bullshit. The south tried to secede because of slavery, and that choice was forced onto them because of pressure from the north.

Mark

The south tried to "secede" based on states rights. Everyone knows that.

Do you understand the real reasons why there was pressure from the north to keep slavery from expanding to that part of the country ?

Maybe you should do some reading about that topic before calling "bullshit".

 

[katsteve2012]

Katsteve, haven't we heard this argument before somewhere?

We hear it at least every week, IM2.....by someone different. SMGDH.

 

[80zephyr]

And? Logically, if there was not enough white support to end slavery, blacks would still be slaves.

Mark

And? Logically, if there was not enough white support to end slavery, blacks would still be slaves.

Mark

"And"? Abolishing slavery was not the central issue.of why the war was fought. Preserving the union was.

That's the real "logic".

So lets not misrepresent slaves being freed as a humanitarian effort and an ultimate sacrifice on their behalf.

It was not.

What caused the war? The south wanted to keep slavery and the north wanted to abolish it. If the north didn't care if the south owned slaves, there would have been no need for the south to try to secede.
So yes, it was the north's insistence that slavery be abolished that caused the war. If the north didn't care about slavery, there would have been no reason for the south to secede.

Mark

I already explained to you once what caused the war, and why the north objected to slavery in a previous post.

Try re reading what I stated.

The point is that you appear to be determined to glorify paid soldiers who you believe fought a war JUST to free black slaves.

There was far more to it than that, and that was NOT the primary reason for the war..

Bullshit. The south tried to secede because of slavery, and that choice was forced onto them because of pressure from the north.

Mark

The south tried to "secede" based on states rights. Everyone knows that.

Do you understand the real reasons why there was pressure from the north to keep slavery from expanding to that part of the country ?

Maybe you should do some reading about that topic before calling "bullshit".

A simple question. What "state right" was the south fighting for?

Mark

 

[katsteve2012]

"And"? Abolishing slavery was not the central issue.of why the war was fought. Preserving the union was.

That's the real "logic".

So lets not misrepresent slaves being freed as a humanitarian effort and an ultimate sacrifice on their behalf.

It was not.

What caused the war? The south wanted to keep slavery and the north wanted to abolish it. If the north didn't care if the south owned slaves, there would have been no need for the south to try to secede.
So yes, it was the north's insistence that slavery be abolished that caused the war. If the north didn't care about slavery, there would have been no reason for the south to secede.

Mark

I already explained to you once what caused the war, and why the north objected to slavery in a previous post.

Try re reading what I stated.

The point is that you appear to be determined to glorify paid soldiers who you believe fought a war JUST to free black slaves.

There was far more to it than that, and that was NOT the primary reason for the war..

Bullshit. The south tried to secede because of slavery, and that choice was forced onto them because of pressure from the north.

Mark

The south tried to "secede" based on states rights. Everyone knows that.

Do you understand the real reasons why there was pressure from the north to keep slavery from expanding to that part of the country ?

Maybe you should do some reading about that topic before calling "bullshit".

A simple question. What "state right" was the south fighting for?

Mark

Besides slavery there were issues of tariffs imposed on the south by northern law makers that affected the price of cotton.

The war was much more about business and economics than it was "fighting for the freedom of slaves".

You can read more about it here:

Causes Of The Civil War | HistoryNet

 

[80zephyr]

What caused the war? The south wanted to keep slavery and the north wanted to abolish it. If the north didn't care if the south owned slaves, there would have been no need for the south to try to secede.
So yes, it was the north's insistence that slavery be abolished that caused the war. If the north didn't care about slavery, there would have been no reason for the south to secede.

Mark

I already explained to you once what caused the war, and why the north objected to slavery in a previous post.

Try re reading what I stated.

The point is that you appear to be determined to glorify paid soldiers who you believe fought a war JUST to free black slaves.

There was far more to it than that, and that was NOT the primary reason for the war..

Bullshit. The south tried to secede because of slavery, and that choice was forced onto them because of pressure from the north.

Mark

The south tried to "secede" based on states rights. Everyone knows that.

Do you understand the real reasons why there was pressure from the north to keep slavery from expanding to that part of the country ?

Maybe you should do some reading about that topic before calling "bullshit".

A simple question. What "state right" was the south fighting for?

Mark

Besides slavery there were issues of tariffs imposed on the south by northern law makers that affected the price of cotton.

The war was much more about business and economics than it was "fighting for the freedom of slaves".

You can read more about it here:

Causes Of The Civil War | HistoryNet

From your link:

It is probably safe to say that the original impetus of the Civil War was set in motion when a Dutch trader offloaded a cargo of African slaves at Jamestown, Va., in 1619. It took nearly 250 eventful years longer for it to boil into a war, but that Dutchman’s boatload was at the bottom of it—a fact that needs to be fixed in the reader’s mind from the start.

This is the bottom line. If there would never had been slavery in America, there would never have been a civil war. And the reason the war was fought was because enough northerners wanted slavery to end.

Mark

 

[katsteve2012]

I already explained to you once what caused the war, and why the north objected to slavery in a previous post.

Try re reading what I stated.

The point is that you appear to be determined to glorify paid soldiers who you believe fought a war JUST to free black slaves.

There was far more to it than that, and that was NOT the primary reason for the war..

Bullshit. The south tried to secede because of slavery, and that choice was forced onto them because of pressure from the north.

Mark

The south tried to "secede" based on states rights. Everyone knows that.

Do you understand the real reasons why there was pressure from the north to keep slavery from expanding to that part of the country ?

Maybe you should do some reading about that topic before calling "bullshit".

A simple question. What "state right" was the south fighting for?

Mark

Besides slavery there were issues of tariffs imposed on the south by northern law makers that affected the price of cotton.

The war was much more about business and economics than it was "fighting for the freedom of slaves".

You can read more about it here:

Causes Of The Civil War | HistoryNet

From your link:

It is probably safe to say that the original impetus of the Civil War was set in motion when a Dutch trader offloaded a cargo of African slaves at Jamestown, Va., in 1619. It took nearly 250 eventful years longer for it to boil into a war, but that Dutchman’s boatload was at the bottom of it—a fact that needs to be fixed in the reader’s mind from the start.

This is the bottom line. If there would never had been slavery in America, there would never have been a civil war. And the reason the war was fought was because enough northerners wanted slavery to end.

Mark

And if you read more, you may gain some insight as to what some of the other causes of the war were.

Which leads back to my previous question.....do you really understand the reasons WHY most nothermers wanted slavery to end?

 

[80zephyr]

What caused the war? The south wanted to keep slavery and the north wanted to abolish it. If the north didn't care if the south owned slaves, there would have been no need for the south to try to secede.
So yes, it was the north's insistence that slavery be abolished that caused the war. If the north didn't care about slavery, there would have been no reason for the south to secede.

Mark

I already explained to you once what caused the war, and why the north objected to slavery in a previous post.

Try re reading what I stated.

The point is that you appear to be determined to glorify paid soldiers who you believe fought a war JUST to free black slaves.

There was far more to it than that, and that was NOT the primary reason for the war..

Bullshit. The south tried to secede because of slavery, and that choice was forced onto them because of pressure from the north.

Mark

The south tried to "secede" based on states rights. Everyone knows that.

Do you understand the real reasons why there was pressure from the north to keep slavery from expanding to that part of the country ?

Maybe you should do some reading about that topic before calling "bullshit".

A simple question. What "state right" was the south fighting for?

Mark

Besides slavery there were issues of tariffs imposed on the south by northern law makers that affected the price of cotton.

The war was much more about business and economics than it was "fighting for the freedom of slaves".

You can read more about it here:

Causes Of The Civil War | HistoryNet

Again, from your link:

By the 1840s, the abolitionists had decided that slavery was not simply a social evil, but a “moral wrong,” and began to agitate on that basis.


The slave issue was the impetus. Without slavery, there would have been no war.

Mark

 

[IM2]

.
Thousands of whites did not die to free slaves. They died to save the union. That was the stated aim if the north. Whites in America did not wait for freedom. Inroads is not equality and don't expect a pat on the back from me for a half done job. If you expect a whole house, you are not going t be happy when all you get built is a basement.

What bullshit. Since it was slavery that sparked the war, it only stands to reason that the war happened because people were upset enough to end slavery. If the white people didn't care, you would be a slave today.

This is an important point. While it was the white race that enslaved the blacks, it was also the white race that freed them.

Mark

Well it seems that when you look at the historical record of that time it is stated that Lincoln decided the expressed intent if the union army was to keep the union together. The potential northern soldiers did not care about fighting to free blacks. For there was slavery in the north. The war was not fought to stop slavery and whites did not die to free blacks. If that was the case, then the resulting 100 years would never have happened. And that's the important point.

So it's like this, you don't get to give yourselves credit for my freedom now while at the same time claim you are not responsible for anything because you must face how you benefitted from slavery.

If we don't get credit for your freedom now then we don't get blame for slavery that you never suffered.

It's like this, if I wasn't a slave and you didn't own slaves then you get no credit for my freedom now unless you accept the benefits you have got from slavery.

I didn't benefit from slavery as I was born 100 years after it was abolished.

Now would you like to move on to the 100 years after slavery to discuss how whites created apartheid to keep us from having equal rights and made laws that returned blacks back into slavery?

Sure. But once we cover that time period, let's move on to the 50 years after that where whites abolished apartheid, made laws that gave blacks equal rights, equal employment opportunity and Affirmative Action and returned blacks back to a world where they had the freedom to succeed or fail like everyone else.

Or are we going to have to read that Africans did that too?

I don't suppose you should have to read it again as I'm sure you're fully aware that Africans sold their own people into slavery. The question is, why are you not willing to talk about that? Are we talking about slavery and who was responsible or are we only talking about the whites that were responsible?

I asked you a question earlier in the discussion but never got a response. How have you personally been negatively affected by this racist system?

So let's cover that 50 years you talk about. Whites gave nothing. Back fought and died. Ask Martin Luther King.

Why whites like you chose to ignore everything to pat yourselves undeservedly on the back for things you did not do makes no sense. Whites like you want to take credit for all the good, but you don't want be held countable for your wrongs but you think you have the right to hold others accountable. You create a problem that did not have to be created such as apartheid and then you want credit for fixing a fucking problem you made happen. That's dumb as hell.

It's like I set your house on fire but you should give me credit for calling the fire department before it burnt down.

I have talked about Africans and slavery, But what you don't want to discuss is why did whites give some tribes guns and then pay them tor capturing their enemies in war. Because Africans did not capture other Africans, A Yoruba tribe member captured a Igbo or Hausa tribe member. That's how Africans saw things. And you see, whites are able to differentiate among whites. We can't say that whites purchased other whites in contractual agreements to be indentured servants. Whites will say the British in return for paying passage to America, contracted the services of the Irish as indentured servants. What is missed is the fact whites could have done the same with Africans without paying tribes to capture enemy tribe members then buy the captives.

You did benefit from slavery

I have been stopped close to 100 times by police for no reason and not breaking traffic laws.

I had to spend an afternoon being questioned by police for a rape of a white girl when I was no where near the incident sitting at home because the suspect was described as a black mam.

My woman at that time and I led a class action suit against a company because I was denied promotion while whites with less management experience and who had not worked in every department while I had. She was white and got sexually harassed by a racist white male because she was dating a black man.

Not to mention the thousands of racist slurs/jokes I had to hear from whites.

How many more examples do you want? If course I'm sure you will dismiss my examples. Why is it that you think I have to prove shit to you when you make claims with no proof such as the majority of your last paragraph.

 

[80zephyr]

What bullshit. Since it was slavery that sparked the war, it only stands to reason that the war happened because people were upset enough to end slavery. If the white people didn't care, you would be a slave today.

This is an important point. While it was the white race that enslaved the blacks, it was also the white race that freed them.

Mark

Well it seems that when you look at the historical record of that time it is stated that Lincoln decided the expressed intent if the union army was to keep the union together. The potential northern soldiers did not care about fighting to free blacks. For there was slavery in the north. The war was not fought to stop slavery and whites did not die to free blacks. If that was the case, then the resulting 100 years would never have happened. And that's the important point.

So it's like this, you don't get to give yourselves credit for my freedom now while at the same time claim you are not responsible for anything because you must face how you benefitted from slavery.

If we don't get credit for your freedom now then we don't get blame for slavery that you never suffered.

It's like this, if I wasn't a slave and you didn't own slaves then you get no credit for my freedom now unless you accept the benefits you have got from slavery.

I didn't benefit from slavery as I was born 100 years after it was abolished.

Now would you like to move on to the 100 years after slavery to discuss how whites created apartheid to keep us from having equal rights and made laws that returned blacks back into slavery?

Sure. But once we cover that time period, let's move on to the 50 years after that where whites abolished apartheid, made laws that gave blacks equal rights, equal employment opportunity and Affirmative Action and returned blacks back to a world where they had the freedom to succeed or fail like everyone else.

Or are we going to have to read that Africans did that too?

I don't suppose you should have to read it again as I'm sure you're fully aware that Africans sold their own people into slavery. The question is, why are you not willing to talk about that? Are we talking about slavery and who was responsible or are we only talking about the whites that were responsible?

I asked you a question earlier in the discussion but never got a response. How have you personally been negatively affected by this racist system?

So let's cover that 50 years you talk about. Whites gave nothing. Back fought and died. Ask Martin Luther King.

Why whites like you chose to ignore everything to pat yourselves undeservedly on the back for things you did not do makes no sense. Whites like you want to take credit for all the good, but you don't want be held countable for your wrongs but you think you have the right to hold others accountable. You create a problem that did not have to be created such as apartheid and then you want credit for fixing a fucking problem you made happen. That's dumb as hell.

It's like I set your house on fire but you should give me credit for calling the fire department before it burnt down.

I have talked about Africans and slavery, But what you don't want to discuss is why did whites give some tribes guns and then pay them tor capturing their enemies in war. Because Africans did not capture other Africans, A Yoruba tribe member captured a Igbo or Hausa tribe member. That's how Africans saw things. And you see, whites are able to differentiate among whites. We can't say that whites purchased other whites in contractual agreements to be indentured servants. Whites will say the British in return for paying passage to America, contracted the services of the Irish as indentured servants. What is missed is the fact whites could have done the same with Africans without paying tribes to capture enemy tribe members then buy the captives.

You did benefit from slavery

I have been stopped close to 100 times by police for no reason and not breaking traffic laws.

I had to spend an afternoon being questioned by police for a rape of a white girl when I was no where near the incident sitting at home because the suspect was described as a black mam.

My woman at that time and I led a class action suit against a company because I was denied promotion while whites with less management experience and who had not worked in every department while I had. She was white and got sexually harassed by a racist white male because she was dating a black man.

Not to mention the thousands of racist slurs/jokes I had to hear from whites.

How many more examples do you want? If course I'm sure you will dismiss my examples. Why is it that you think I have to prove shit to you when you make claims with no proof such as the majority of your last paragraph.

It is simply undeniable that he black mans plight in America has improved markedly since the birth of this country. And it is because good white men cared enough to make that happen. Because if they did not, you would still be picking cotton. It is/was the white man that held all the cards, and it was because of his kindness that you were "dealt in" at all.

Mark

 

[katsteve2012]

I already explained to you once what caused the war, and why the north objected to slavery in a previous post.

Try re reading what I stated.

The point is that you appear to be determined to glorify paid soldiers who you believe fought a war JUST to free black slaves.

There was far more to it than that, and that was NOT the primary reason for the war..

Bullshit. The south tried to secede because of slavery, and that choice was forced onto them because of pressure from the north.

Mark

The south tried to "secede" based on states rights. Everyone knows that.

Do you understand the real reasons why there was pressure from the north to keep slavery from expanding to that part of the country ?

Maybe you should do some reading about that topic before calling "bullshit".

A simple question. What "state right" was the south fighting for?

Mark

Besides slavery there were issues of tariffs imposed on the south by northern law makers that affected the price of cotton.

The war was much more about business and economics than it was "fighting for the freedom of slaves".

You can read more about it here:

Causes Of The Civil War | HistoryNet

Again, from your link:

By the 1840s, the abolitionists had decided that slavery was not simply a social evil, but a “moral wrong,” and began to agitate on that basis.


The slave issue was the impetus. Without slavery, there would have been no war.

Mark

I understand the abolitionists ideology, and I read the entire link sometime ago .

But there was still an issue involving economics as to why the north opposed the expansion of slavery.

It was not an all encompassing issue of "morality".

 

[IM2]

Well it seems that when you look at the historical record of that time it is stated that Lincoln decided the expressed intent if the union army was to keep the union together. The potential northern soldiers did not care about fighting to free blacks. For there was slavery in the north. The war was not fought to stop slavery and whites did not die to free blacks. If that was the case, then the resulting 100 years would never have happened. And that's the important point.

So it's like this, you don't get to give yourselves credit for my freedom now while at the same time claim you are not responsible for anything because you must face how you benefitted from slavery.

If we don't get credit for your freedom now then we don't get blame for slavery that you never suffered.

It's like this, if I wasn't a slave and you didn't own slaves then you get no credit for my freedom now unless you accept the benefits you have got from slavery.

I didn't benefit from slavery as I was born 100 years after it was abolished.

Now would you like to move on to the 100 years after slavery to discuss how whites created apartheid to keep us from having equal rights and made laws that returned blacks back into slavery?

Sure. But once we cover that time period, let's move on to the 50 years after that where whites abolished apartheid, made laws that gave blacks equal rights, equal employment opportunity and Affirmative Action and returned blacks back to a world where they had the freedom to succeed or fail like everyone else.

Or are we going to have to read that Africans did that too?

I don't suppose you should have to read it again as I'm sure you're fully aware that Africans sold their own people into slavery. The question is, why are you not willing to talk about that? Are we talking about slavery and who was responsible or are we only talking about the whites that were responsible?

I asked you a question earlier in the discussion but never got a response. How have you personally been negatively affected by this racist system?

So let's cover that 50 years you talk about. Whites gave nothing. Back fought and died. Ask Martin Luther King.

Why whites like you chose to ignore everything to pat yourselves undeservedly on the back for things you did not do makes no sense. Whites like you want to take credit for all the good, but you don't want be held countable for your wrongs but you think you have the right to hold others accountable. You create a problem that did not have to be created such as apartheid and then you want credit for fixing a fucking problem you made happen. That's dumb as hell.

It's like I set your house on fire but you should give me credit for calling the fire department before it burnt down.

I have talked about Africans and slavery, But what you don't want to discuss is why did whites give some tribes guns and then pay them tor capturing their enemies in war. Because Africans did not capture other Africans, A Yoruba tribe member captured a Igbo or Hausa tribe member. That's how Africans saw things. And you see, whites are able to differentiate among whites. We can't say that whites purchased other whites in contractual agreements to be indentured servants. Whites will say the British in return for paying passage to America, contracted the services of the Irish as indentured servants. What is missed is the fact whites could have done the same with Africans without paying tribes to capture enemy tribe members then buy the captives.

You did benefit from slavery

I have been stopped close to 100 times by police for no reason and not breaking traffic laws.

I had to spend an afternoon being questioned by police for a rape of a white girl when I was no where near the incident sitting at home because the suspect was described as a black mam.

My woman at that time and I led a class action suit against a company because I was denied promotion while whites with less management experience and who had not worked in every department while I had. She was white and got sexually harassed by a racist white male because she was dating a black man.

Not to mention the thousands of racist slurs/jokes I had to hear from whites.

How many more examples do you want? If course I'm sure you will dismiss my examples. Why is it that you think I have to prove shit to you when you make claims with no proof such as the majority of your last paragraph.

It is simply undeniable that he black mans plight in America has improved markedly since the birth of this country. And it is because good white men cared enough to make that happen. Because if they did not, you would still be picking cotton. It is/was the white man that held all the cards, and it was because of his kindness that you were "dealt in" at all.

Mark

It is deniable because the facts show it to be. The black mans plight is due to the white mans ignorance. Whites get no credit from me for ending problems they created.