Why Do Republicans Feel Compelled To Say "We're The Party of Lincoln?"

[IM2]

It wasn't that blacks replaced indentured servants because evil white men in the America's decided to oppress them...there simply weren't enough people in Great Britain desperate enough to sign up for indentured service! The economy in Great Britain had improved...jobs were to be had...there wasn't the need to barter away a portion of your life in servitude in order to keep from starving! Better economic conditions in Great Britain is what stopped indentured servitude...not the importation of slave labor.

That is incorrect.

"From the standpoint of the masters, the poor whites of Europe presented equally serious problems. The supply of poor whites, like the supply of Indians, was limited; and poor whites, like Indians, but for different reasons, could escape and blend into the whiteness of their countrymen. The most serious problem, however, was that poor whites had tenuous but nonetheless important connections with circuits of power. There were pressure groups in England that concerned themselves with the plight of poor whites. This fact alone drastically limited the options of Colonial masters. For in order to safeguard the relatively limited supply of poor whites, it was necessary to make costly -- from the standpoint of the masters -- concessions to white servants and to improve their living conditions.

The last group -- the group finally selected -- did not have these disadvantages, as Oscar and Mary F. Handlin noted: "Farthest removed from the English, least desired, [the African] communicated with no friends who might be deterred from following. Since his coming was involuntary, nothing that happened to him would increase or decrease his numbers. To raise the status of Europeans by shortening their terms would ultimately increase the available hands by inducing their compatriots to emigrate; to reduce the Negro's term would produce an immediate loss and no ultimate gain. By mid century the servitude of Negroes seem generally lengthier than that of whites; and thereafter the consciousness dawns that the Blacks will toil for the whole of their lives. ..."

Unhappily for the Africans, they had none of the disadvantages of the Indians and poor whites, and they had -- again from the standpoint of the planters -- distinct advantages. They were marked by color and hence could not escape so easily. The supply seemed to be inexhaustible, and the labor of Africans was relatively inexpensive when compared with the cost of transporting and maintaining white indentured servants for a limited number of years. This last fact was decisive, and it was clearly understood by the colonists as early as 1645. It was in that year that Emanuel Downing sent a famous letter to his brother-in-law John Winthrop, saying, among other things: "If upon a Just Warre the Lord shold deliver [Narragansett Indians] into our hands, wee might easily have men woemen and children enough to exchange for Moores, which wilbe more gaynefull pilladge for us then wee conceive, for I doe not see how wee can thrive untill we get into a stock of slaves sufficient to doe all our business, for our children's children will hardly see this great Continent filled with people, soe that our servants will still desire free dome to plant for themselves, and not stay but for verie great wages. And I suppose you know verie well how wee shall mayneteyne 20 Moores cheaper than one Englishe servant."

Twenty Africans for the price of one English servant -- how could a Puritan resist such a deal! And how could he overlook the final and deciding factor: the Africans were vulnerable. There were no large power groups nearby to retaliate in their name. Nor did they have power groups on the international scene to raise troublesome questions. They were, in fact, naked before their enemies, and their enemies were legion.

As the pointer on the roulette wheel neared the African number, the power brokers of England suddenly and dramatically increased the odds against Africans by announcing a new policy of restricted white emigration and massive support of the African Slave Trade. With the formation of the Royal African Company (1672), the wheel of fate came to an abrupt halt before the black square. For henceforth, as James C. Ballagh has pointed out, it would be "the policy of the king, and of the Duke of York, who stood at the head of the [Royal African] Company, to hasten the adoption of slavery by enactments cutting off the supply of indented servants, at the same time that large importations of slaves were made by their agents."

'The Road Not Taken', by Lerone Bennett

 

[Oldstyle]

So now you're going to accuse my ancestor who commanded a black volunteer Civil War regiment of "apartheid"? Let me school YOU a little, professor! The Confederates vowed to hang any white officer caught leading black troops. My ancestor knew that and still volunteered to serve with the 54th. He also refused to accept his pay until the black troops who served under him were paid the same amount as white troops. That's not some "racist white fictional account"...that's what took place. To be quite blunt...you're a bit of an asshole for assuming that all whites are racists because SOME whites oppressed blacks!

I will ignore your whiny ignorance about how I am assuming that all whites are racists. The fact is that no matter what you say, after the civil war America had apartheid that whites created and benefitted from. That includes you and your family. What you think AA is whites have received since at least July 4, 1776.

You're pathetic. I can't believe a grown ass man cries as much as you do. Yes...blacks were discriminated against! Yes...that wasn't fair. Newsflash for ya', Sparky! We've had a black President! Cities in the deep South have black Police Chiefs and Mayors! The most popular athletes in the country are black. The highest paid entertainers in the country are black! Don't you think it's time to come into the new century and admit that racism simply doesn't exist like it once did? The biggest problem facing the black community today isn't whites "keeping them down" it's a culture that glorifies the wrong things and leaders who are more concerned about getting their piece of the pie than they are about fixing black issues. THAT is what's destroying black communities across America today...it isn't some lingering "apartheid" that you see behind every bush and fence!

Here we go, another dumb white racist trying to lecture me about what the black community needs.

So I am going to be brief. Fuck what you think. This is not about being satisfied because racism doesn't exist like it once dd. It's easy for a bloated white man who doesn't have to face the racism that isn't like it used to be to sit on his fat ass talking about how much better things are. But until there is NO racism, not that it is still exists but be happy there is less, the fight will continue.

I'm a "bloated white man" because I point out that racism doesn't exist like it used to? Fuck what I think? Good come back! Well not really...it's the come back of someone who doesn't HAVE a come back! What is it that makes me a "racist"? That I'm calling you out on YOUR rather obvious racism? That I'm pointing out that we HAVE elected a black man President? That we HAVE black Mayors and black Police Chiefs in the very southern cities where white authorities once used dogs and fire hoses on black protestors?

We have fewer murders today than in the past. Are we to be satisfied and stop trying to end murder because there is less of it? This is the type of logic whites like you use. Me refusing to be satisfied with less racism does not make me a racist.

Your attempts to change the discussion of how you have everything you have due to what you think AA is shows that you have problems. You bought up the civil war and when I started talking about what happened after the war you try this shit. Your entire argument is blacks should be grateful to whites.

It' s like this you miserable, trifling ass white racist piece of dung. Racism should never have existed so no one has to be happy because there is less of it today. It's easy for a white man like you to say this because your ass has never faced it. I do not have to pat whites on the back for reducing a problem they created. We blacks have reduced crime and other things in our hoods and are not credited for that because it has not ended. But you want us to praise your white asses for a reduction. So yes, fuck what you think.

Miserable, trifling ass white racist piece of dung? Sure is nice to have a civil discussion with a fellow intellectual, "Professor"! (eye roll)

Racism should never have existed? Interesting concept. I would argue that racism per se exists in man and always has. We formed tribes and looked at outsiders with distrust from the very start. Various forms of tribalism have been carried down from the cave men until now. Whether it was Mongols, Romans, Persians, Greeks, Prussians, Cossacks, Apache or Eskimo humans form into groups and invariably view other groups with suspicion. What you seem to think only exists between blacks and whites exists not only there but virtually everywhere. Mexicans feel superior to El Salvadorans...El Salvadorans feel superior to people from Guatemala. Why? Because they are from different "tribes"! Thirty years ago Irish kids from Southie in Boston would beat up blacks they found in "their" neighborhood but they would also beat up white kids from other areas outside of Southie simply because they weren't from Southie and were therefore suspect. You're not getting rid of tribalism...I'm sorry but you're not. The "tribes" will change...that part of human nature will not.