Modern Day White American Child Slave robbers in Haiti!

I do not understand why many church groups dropped everything they were doing to rush to Haiti to try and adopt kids. I live in a city where there are many impoverished children who would love to be adopted but I don't see church groups rushing here to take them home.
 
I do not understand why many church groups dropped everything they were doing to rush to Haiti to try and adopt kids. I live in a city where there are many impoverished children who would love to be adopted but I don't see church groups rushing here to take them home.

Probaably because being impoverished in and of itself does not qualify a child for adoption. That's the same mistake these people from Idaho made. (I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that their intentions were not malicious.) And if the info in the public domain is true and whole, it appears they are guilty of kidnapping.
 
We all see how some White Church members allegedly tried to take Haitian children out
of Haiti , that may not have been orphaned, or with out the proper Haitian documentation.

These people were from Idaho, a state that has one of the lowest Black populations in the country.

They were also reported to have tired to sell a few of the children for $U.S. 10,000.00

Is this modern day slavery. ?What is behind the White rush or fetish for Black Children?

Please I need some of the insightfull USMB response and views with regards to this issue.

They tried to get them to the dominican republic right next door. Now the kids have to go back to Haiti? Great reward.

Where do you get your information?
 
We all see how some White Church members allegedly tried to take Haitian children out
of Haiti , that may not have been orphaned, or with out the proper Haitian documentation.

These people were from Idaho, a state that has one of the lowest Black populations in the country.

They were also reported to have tired to sell a few of the children for $U.S. 10,000.00

Is this modern day slavery. ?What is behind the White rush or fetish for Black Children?

Please I need some of the insightfull USMB response and views with regards to this issue.

don't we already have plenty of Negroes?

Is that really your picture?

avatar11827_8.gif
 
Hello Lonestar_logic!

I myself am descended from slaveholders, of Texas, and white. Originally, the family history is of Penn Quakers, descended of the MacGregor clan of Rob Roy fame. That particular clan had sided with wrong king, as was customary, in another of the no-where called, "Wars Between The White People," even in Europe. Many of them are even better off now, in the United States!

Even at this time, I have a cousin in an inter-racial marriage: Who won't acknowledge that I myself am alive because I know about the slave-holding history. A male-child of the marriage is now a militant. Mom doesn't want to lose touch with her. . . .laddie(?)!

The Los Angeles area of my own birth was still relatively rural, and the White People were at it again, in Europe: WWII. My own father was not involved, even having been asked to become a part of Californian, General Patton's, logistics team. My great grandfather had been an officer in Morgan's Raiders.

Los Angeles was also subject to rationing, in WWII. Eating the pet farm animals was a famous part of mom's pregnancy. Our black family housekeepers, in the house behind the pool, were probably also happy to not be hungry. Generally overlooked in most histories is simple fact--that likely even General Lee could understand. A rural, Southern. plantation life-style is actually a community. Likely any black property owner. in the linked article, knew what they were doing.

The article you linked, by Robert Grooms, is probably of value to have cited in Black History month. Any "orphans," in Idaho: Probably need to take a look at it too. Also of the need would be said, offspring of mixed marriages in far Northern California. Also of the need would be persons now in the United States, with no clue about the impact of the drought in East Africa. The United Nations even sent in "The Plague!" An entire cadre of aid workers is now there, and in parts of the famous Continent--they are being thrown out, just like in Haiti!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Spirit of Pet Piglet: Strong in kemosabe farm boy! Spirit of Writers Guild: Strong in pet vision box!)

History has been distorted by so many for so long that it's no wonder there is so much ignorance in this country. I know for a fact that after slaves were emancipated many of them stayed on the plantations and most took the surnames of their owners. Now why would a slave do that if they were so mistreated? The answer is... they wouldn't.

Let a decendant of southern slaves explain it to you then. The war didn't end after Appomattox. The armies quit fighting, but the civilians in the south didn't. Whites were generally disenfranchised but still held control over the economic strings in the south. Then, like now, most people made decisions in the best economic interests of their families/children. So, with no money, no property, what do you do if you're married with kids or even just with kids. You stay put. At least on the plantation you have a roof (albeit not much of one) and considering the average southern slave didn't venture too far from the plantation and had been denied education, I doubt if their 'world view' would have allow most to go far. Don't try to read some sort of benevolence on the part of plantation owners, slavery, being kidnapped from Africa or any of that other nonsense in, what to these people, were the only logical choices they had.

As for last names, remember, these were the last names of these people's parents, grand parents, great grand parents, and for a few great-great grand parents. The only 'family name' they ever knew. They were denied their religion, customs, and histories. So, yes, a lot of emancipated slaves stayed put, but don't you for a second believe that if they could have made another informed choice they wouldn't have.
 
There are some people who just are not capable of getting it, having forgotten their own past when they were serfs and less than dirt under the feet of the Laird.

And in this country sons and sons of those who fought for their freedom, yet thought it a great fine thing that they could, after those great Haitian people had fought and won their own, made the Haitians then pay for their freedom in cash for another 143 years, and gouged greedy profit from it. And still gouge what they can from Africa, and make them pay because it was never possible to totally subdue them all into the dust.

It is a waste of time to try to educate some of them, their lives, their souls depend upon believing that "mammy" loved them best!
 
We all see how some White Church members allegedly tried to take Haitian children out
of Haiti , that may not have been orphaned, or with out the proper Haitian documentation.

These people were from Idaho, a state that has one of the lowest Black populations in the country.

They were also reported to have tired to sell a few of the children for $U.S. 10,000.00

Is this modern day slavery. ?What is behind the White rush or fetish for Black Children?

Please I need some of the insightfull USMB response and views with regards to this issue.

They tried to get them to the dominican republic right next door. Now the kids have to go back to Haiti? Great reward.

Where do you get your information?

Some of those children were in emotional agony, the ones whose families had given permission, and those children STILL preferred HAITI and HOME, and HARDSHIP, but with family! I guess it is just hard for "some people" to get that material things, money, swimming pools, tennis courts and all are NOT EVERYTHING.
 
I do not understand why many church groups dropped everything they were doing to rush to Haiti to try and adopt kids. I live in a city where there are many impoverished children who would love to be adopted but I don't see church groups rushing here to take them home.

First of all, a lot of people in this country abort their children if they are unwanted. Secondly, we don't steal the children of impoverished people to give away to other folks. Thirdly, for those children that do need parents, we have a legal system in place that fascilitates the legal adoption of these children. Many children are adopted by loving parents every day in this country, whether they're church goers or not, so I'm not sure what your point was?
 
I do not understand why many church groups dropped everything they were doing to rush to Haiti to try and adopt kids. I live in a city where there are many impoverished children who would love to be adopted but I don't see church groups rushing here to take them home.

First of all, a lot of people in this country abort their children if they are unwanted. Secondly, we don't steal the children of impoverished people to give away to other folks. Thirdly, for those children that do need parents, we have a legal system in place that fascilitates the legal adoption of these children. Many children are adopted by loving parents every day in this country, whether they're church goers or not, so I'm not sure what your point was?
There are children in this country, available for adoption, and WITING, who go unadopted because when the "parent" go to the "adoption supermarket" all too many of them don't fit the pre-conceived notions of what their "perfect" child is. In other words, it ain't about a kid in need, it is all about the adults satisfying themselves and their egos, and their delfishness, and so on.... And those are the ones who"qualify." Then there are those who DON'T qualify, for whatever reason, and some of them just go international, where really, it is the money that matters! Oh, and then there are the ones that are determined that no birth parent ever be known to the child, it is all about posession. Read the links I posted in my thread on international adoption.
International andor Cross-racial/cultural adoption



Children in Public Foster Care Waiting to be Adopted: FY 1999 thru FY 2006

If it was up to me, adoption would be about the children, period. You want one, you put your name on the list. First come first served in FAVOR OF THE CHILDREN! You don't like the one you are offered, you go to the bottom of the list. Oh, and NO, NO international adoptions until all the ones in the US have homes. There is something really pathetic about a country as rich as the US that people let children sit in foster care til they are eighteen, then shows them the door!

There are roughly 150,000 waiting in the US.
 
I do not understand why many church groups dropped everything they were doing to rush to Haiti to try and adopt kids. I live in a city where there are many impoverished children who would love to be adopted but I don't see church groups rushing here to take them home.

First of all, a lot of people in this country abort their children if they are unwanted. Secondly, we don't steal the children of impoverished people to give away to other folks. Thirdly, for those children that do need parents, we have a legal system in place that fascilitates the legal adoption of these children. Many children are adopted by loving parents every day in this country, whether they're church goers or not, so I'm not sure what your point was?
There are children in this country, available for adoption, and WITING, who go unadopted because when the "parent" go to the "adoption supermarket" all too many of them don't fit the pre-conceived notions of what their "perfect" child is. In other words, it ain't about a kid in need, it is all about the adults satisfying themselves and their egos, and their delfishness, and so on.... And those are the ones who"qualify." Then there are those who DON'T qualify, for whatever reason, and some of them just go international, where really, it is the money that matters! Oh, and then there are the ones that are determined that no birth parent ever be known to the child, it is all about posession. Read the links I posted in my thread on international adoption.
International andor Cross-racial/cultural adoption



Children in Public Foster Care Waiting to be Adopted: FY 1999 thru FY 2006

If it was up to me, adoption would be about the children, period. You want one, you put your name on the list. First come first served in FAVOR OF THE CHILDREN! You don't like the one you are offered, you go to the bottom of the list. Oh, and NO, NO international adoptions until all the ones in the US have homes. There is something really pathetic about a country as rich as the US that people let children sit in foster care til they are eighteen, then shows them the door!

There are roughly 150,000 waiting in the US.

Your post very thoroughly refutes the theory of so called missionaries going to Haiti to adopt impoverished black children then. Or is it because of their origin of birth that they're better than the 'non-prefect' children available here for adoption?

The OP is critisizing white people for adopting black babies, insinuating it's some kind of a fashion statement, you're critisizing white people for not adopting minority babies because they're not 'perfect', so I guess you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. There's no way to win apparently.
 
Last edited:
You need to learn to fucking read to comprehend. You stated in your post that the ancestors of African American slaves should be "grateful" that they were "brought here". that suggests that the white slave owners were doing the African slaves a fucking favor for them and that rape, murder, genocide, mass displacement, and mass enslavement "wasn't that bad".

It's like saying "hey Jews, Hitler wasn't that bad... if it wasn't for Hitler, you wouldn't have a fucking state". It's a stupid and ignorant comment. As for me being a "slave" that doesn't have shit to do with what you said. You said that 52's "ancestors" should have been happy to be enslaved because they got to come to good old America and get fucked over for 400 years. As for my ancestors and myself that's another story. I'm the child of immigrants on both sides of my family, and YES I AM grateful that my relatives migrated to America. Damn grateful.

However, had I been kidnapped, taken from my family, beaten, raped, forced on a dangerous month-long voyage on a sickly disease ridden ship and then forced into labor HERE. No the Hell I would not be grateful.

What's racist about your remark is the "whitey saved the day" attitude behind it. Slave owners did no "favors" to those whom they enslaved.

Yes they should be grateful. Tell me, what color were the men that ultimately freed the slaves? Also you really should open a history book every now and then. The fact is large numbers of free Negroes owned black slaves; in fact, in numbers disproportionate to their representation in society at large. In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. According to the U.S. census report for that last year before the Civil War, there were nearly 27 million whites in the country. Some eight million of them lived in the slaveholding states.

The census also determined that there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves. Even if all slaveholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country (or 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves).

According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.

To return to the census figures quoted above, this 28 percent is certainly impressive when compared to less than 1.4 percent of all American whites and less than 4.8 percent of southern whites. The statistics show that, when free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters.

The majority of slaveholders, white and black, owned only one to five slaves. More often than not, and contrary to a century and a half of bullwhips-on-tortured-backs propaganda, black and white masters worked and ate alongside their charges; be it in house, field or workshop. The few individuals who owned 50 or more slaves were confined to the top one percent, and have been defined as slave magnates.

In 1860 there were at least six Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation. Another Negro slave magnate in Louisiana, with over 100 slaves, was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000 (3). That year, the mean wealth of southern white men was $3,978

Black Slave Owners Civil War Article by Robert M Grooms

The whole post is complete bullshit because it has nothing to do with your original point. What does the fact that there were blacks that owned slaves, something I am completely and totally aware of and have been since fourth grade, have to do with whether or not African SLAVES should be grateful for being "taken to America"? Absolutely nothing. I really couldn't care less who enslaved "them", the idea that they should be grateful for being rounded up, tortured, and displaced like animals is disgraceful.

You are far less then a damn human being if you think people are "better off" being kidnapped and forced into labor in a foreign land. Of course, then again anything is better then "living in Africa".:lol: As if civilization never existed on the continent and it's always been full of war and turmoil, rather then war and turmoil being a clear result of colonization.

Seriously, people like you make me sick. No matter how much you try to justify the slave trade there is absolutely no justification for it. None. There's absolutely no logic behind any attempt to justify it. Give it up. Nobody here but maybe 52nd hate's "the white man"... and things those 10 individuals where in Haiti trying to steal black children... but try to justify slavery on grounds that slaves were "better off" in America is racist in it's own right.

Hit a nerve huh? Fact is the negroes here in America are better off then their African couterparts due to the fact that their own people sold them into slavery and they were fortunate enough to end up in the greatest country in the world. And those that did end up here is only a fraction of the total number of slaves shipped during the the transatlantic slave trade, the majority of them went to South America . Another fact is slavery during that time was a legitimate and profitable practice.
 
Another fact is slavery during that time was a legitimate and profitable practice.

So what. just because something is "profitable does not make it right, morally or ethincally.

History:
The Middle Passage
By 1654, some 8,000-10,000 Africans each year were undergoing the Middle Passage. During the next hundred years, this number grew steadily, reaching its peak sometime around 1750, when the annual number stabilized at 60,000-70,000. Estimates on the total number of Africans who were forced to undergo the Middle Passage generally range from 9 to 15 million. Out of this number, some 3 to 5 million perished before they even reached the Americas.

The Middle Passage - A Slave Ship Speaks: The Wreck of the Henrietta Marie. Mel Fisher Maritime Heritage Society and Museum in Key West, Florida


and all because white men were too lazy to farm their own land..... and white women were too selfish to feed their own children!
 
Yes they should be grateful. Tell me, what color were the men that ultimately freed the slaves? Also you really should open a history book every now and then. The fact is large numbers of free Negroes owned black slaves; in fact, in numbers disproportionate to their representation in society at large. In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. According to the U.S. census report for that last year before the Civil War, there were nearly 27 million whites in the country. Some eight million of them lived in the slaveholding states.

The census also determined that there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves. Even if all slaveholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country (or 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves).

According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.

To return to the census figures quoted above, this 28 percent is certainly impressive when compared to less than 1.4 percent of all American whites and less than 4.8 percent of southern whites. The statistics show that, when free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters.

The majority of slaveholders, white and black, owned only one to five slaves. More often than not, and contrary to a century and a half of bullwhips-on-tortured-backs propaganda, black and white masters worked and ate alongside their charges; be it in house, field or workshop. The few individuals who owned 50 or more slaves were confined to the top one percent, and have been defined as slave magnates.

In 1860 there were at least six Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation. Another Negro slave magnate in Louisiana, with over 100 slaves, was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000 (3). That year, the mean wealth of southern white men was $3,978

Black Slave Owners Civil War Article by Robert M Grooms

The whole post is complete bullshit because it has nothing to do with your original point. What does the fact that there were blacks that owned slaves, something I am completely and totally aware of and have been since fourth grade, have to do with whether or not African SLAVES should be grateful for being "taken to America"? Absolutely nothing. I really couldn't care less who enslaved "them", the idea that they should be grateful for being rounded up, tortured, and displaced like animals is disgraceful.

You are far less then a damn human being if you think people are "better off" being kidnapped and forced into labor in a foreign land. Of course, then again anything is better then "living in Africa".:lol: As if civilization never existed on the continent and it's always been full of war and turmoil, rather then war and turmoil being a clear result of colonization.

Seriously, people like you make me sick. No matter how much you try to justify the slave trade there is absolutely no justification for it. None. There's absolutely no logic behind any attempt to justify it. Give it up. Nobody here but maybe 52nd hate's "the white man"... and things those 10 individuals where in Haiti trying to steal black children... but try to justify slavery on grounds that slaves were "better off" in America is racist in it's own right.

Hit a nerve huh? Fact is the negroes here in America are better off then their African couterparts due to the fact that their own people sold them into slavery and they were fortunate enough to end up in the greatest country in the world. And those that did end up here is only a fraction of the total number of slaves shipped during the the transatlantic slave trade, the majority of them went to South America . Another fact is slavery during that time was a legitimate and profitable practice.

There is something wrong with someone who would argue the virtues of slavery. You need psychological help.
 
Another fact is slavery during that time was a legitimate and profitable practice.

So what. just because something is "profitable does not make it right, morally or ethincally.

History:
The Middle Passage
By 1654, some 8,000-10,000 Africans each year were undergoing the Middle Passage. During the next hundred years, this number grew steadily, reaching its peak sometime around 1750, when the annual number stabilized at 60,000-70,000. Estimates on the total number of Africans who were forced to undergo the Middle Passage generally range from 9 to 15 million. Out of this number, some 3 to 5 million perished before they even reached the Americas.

The Middle Passage - A Slave Ship Speaks: The Wreck of the Henrietta Marie. Mel Fisher Maritime Heritage Society and Museum in Key West, Florida


and all because white men were too lazy to farm their own land..... and white women were too selfish to feed their own children!

Ah your ignorance surfaces yet again. The slave trade flourished in the early middle ages, as early as 869, especially between Muslim traders and western African kingdoms. For moralists, the most important aspect of that trade should be that Muslims were selling goods to the African kingdoms and the African kingdoms were paying with their own people. In most instances, no violence was necessary to obtain those slaves. Contrary to legends and novels and Hollywood movies, the white traders did not need to savagely kill entire tribes in order to exact their tribute in slaves. All they needed to do is bring goods that appealed to the kings of those tribes. The kings would gladly sell their own kin.

The Origins of the Slave Trade
 
The whole post is complete bullshit because it has nothing to do with your original point. What does the fact that there were blacks that owned slaves, something I am completely and totally aware of and have been since fourth grade, have to do with whether or not African SLAVES should be grateful for being "taken to America"? Absolutely nothing. I really couldn't care less who enslaved "them", the idea that they should be grateful for being rounded up, tortured, and displaced like animals is disgraceful.

You are far less then a damn human being if you think people are "better off" being kidnapped and forced into labor in a foreign land. Of course, then again anything is better then "living in Africa".:lol: As if civilization never existed on the continent and it's always been full of war and turmoil, rather then war and turmoil being a clear result of colonization.

Seriously, people like you make me sick. No matter how much you try to justify the slave trade there is absolutely no justification for it. None. There's absolutely no logic behind any attempt to justify it. Give it up. Nobody here but maybe 52nd hate's "the white man"... and things those 10 individuals where in Haiti trying to steal black children... but try to justify slavery on grounds that slaves were "better off" in America is racist in it's own right.

Hit a nerve huh? Fact is the negroes here in America are better off then their African couterparts due to the fact that their own people sold them into slavery and they were fortunate enough to end up in the greatest country in the world. And those that did end up here is only a fraction of the total number of slaves shipped during the the transatlantic slave trade, the majority of them went to South America . Another fact is slavery during that time was a legitimate and profitable practice.

There is something wrong with someone who would argue the virtues of slavery. You need psychological help.

Why? Because you can't handle the truth I need psychological help?
 
Another fact is slavery during that time was a legitimate and profitable practice.

So what. just because something is "profitable does not make it right, morally or ethincally.

History:
The Middle Passage
By 1654, some 8,000-10,000 Africans each year were undergoing the Middle Passage. During the next hundred years, this number grew steadily, reaching its peak sometime around 1750, when the annual number stabilized at 60,000-70,000. Estimates on the total number of Africans who were forced to undergo the Middle Passage generally range from 9 to 15 million. Out of this number, some 3 to 5 million perished before they even reached the Americas.

The Middle Passage - A Slave Ship Speaks: The Wreck of the Henrietta Marie. Mel Fisher Maritime Heritage Society and Museum in Key West, Florida


and all because white men were too lazy to farm their own land..... and white women were too selfish to feed their own children!

...The kings would gladly sell their own kin. ...

ALL Kings would gladly sell out anyone in order to retain power. This is a global constant, and has nothing to do with the real issue at hand.

AGAIN, dumbshit, JUST BECAUSE A PRACTICE EXISTS, DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT!

There is no justification in anyone, ever, enslaving another human being. Period, and all your rationalizations do not make it anything other than what it was/is.

Some things are ALWAYS wrong, unethiical, immoral, reprehensible, no matter who does it.

I don't care how you twist it.

Dealing drugs is PROFITABLE, but WRONG.

PIMPING your kids is profitable, but WRONG.

MUGGING OLD PEOPLE can be profitable, but is WRONG.

STEALING CARS and chopping them can be profitable, but is WRONG.

BEING A (PRO) ASSASSIN can be PROFITABLE, but is WRONG....

Buying and/or selling another's life may be, and may have been PROFITABLE but it is WRONG. You cannot justify or rationalize that away!

Some things are ALWAYS wrong, unethiical, immoral, reprehensible, no matter who does it.
 
Hit a nerve huh? Fact is the negroes here in America are better off then their African couterparts due to the fact that their own people sold them into slavery and they were fortunate enough to end up in the greatest country in the world. And those that did end up here is only a fraction of the total number of slaves shipped during the the transatlantic slave trade, the majority of them went to South America . Another fact is slavery during that time was a legitimate and profitable practice.

There is something wrong with someone who would argue the virtues of slavery. You need psychological help.

Why? Because you can't handle the truth I need psychological help?

No. Because chattel slavery is a sick practice. Only someone who is psychologically 'bent' can or would think there was any virtue in that. Besides, if you think that, you are so far from the truth that anyone who heard or listened to you wouldn't be hearing the truth anyway. Think about it. You're trying to defend a system that in order to control people, split families, cut off limbs, raped, hanged and committed all sort of horrors. And you apparently think there was some virtue to all of that. So, you tell me, what does that say about your psychology?
 
So what. just because something is "profitable does not make it right, morally or ethincally.

History:
The Middle Passage
By 1654, some 8,000-10,000 Africans each year were undergoing the Middle Passage. During the next hundred years, this number grew steadily, reaching its peak sometime around 1750, when the annual number stabilized at 60,000-70,000. Estimates on the total number of Africans who were forced to undergo the Middle Passage generally range from 9 to 15 million. Out of this number, some 3 to 5 million perished before they even reached the Americas.

The Middle Passage - A Slave Ship Speaks: The Wreck of the Henrietta Marie. Mel Fisher Maritime Heritage Society and Museum in Key West, Florida


and all because white men were too lazy to farm their own land..... and white women were too selfish to feed their own children!

...The kings would gladly sell their own kin. ...

ALL Kings would gladly sell out anyone in order to retain power. This is a global constant, and has nothing to do with the real issue at hand.

AGAIN, dumbshit, JUST BECAUSE A PRACTICE EXISTS, DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT!

There is no justification in anyone, ever, enslaving another human being. Period, and all your rationalizations do not make it anything other than what it was/is.

Some things are ALWAYS wrong, unethiical, immoral, reprehensible, no matter who does it.

I don't care how you twist it.

Dealing drugs is PROFITABLE, but WRONG.

PIMPING your kids is profitable, but WRONG.

MUGGING OLD PEOPLE can be profitable, but is WRONG.

STEALING CARS and chopping them can be profitable, but is WRONG.

BEING A (PRO) ASSASSIN can be PROFITABLE, but is WRONG....

Buying and/or selling another's life may be, and may have been PROFITABLE but it is WRONG. You cannot justify or rationalize that away!

Some things are ALWAYS wrong, unethiical, immoral, reprehensible, no matter who does it.

You're an idiot, For one thing you can't judge the events that took place hundreds of years by todays standards. That's just plain stupid. Yet that's exactly what you're trying to do.
 
There is something wrong with someone who would argue the virtues of slavery. You need psychological help.

Why? Because you can't handle the truth I need psychological help?

No. Because chattel slavery is a sick practice. Only someone who is psychologically 'bent' can or would think there was any virtue in that. Besides, if you think that, you are so far from the truth that anyone who heard or listened to you wouldn't be hearing the truth anyway. Think about it. You're trying to defend a system that in order to control people, split families, cut off limbs, raped, hanged and committed all sort of horrors. And you apparently think there was some virtue to all of that. So, you tell me, what does that say about your psychology?

I would agree it is a sick practice now, but it wasn't then. You and idiot number four are trying to apply todays standards to the events that occurred hundreds of years ago and that, as I've already stated, is stupid.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top