Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Indeed, John Brown was an insurrectionist and fought for abolition, which was a political movement at that time. To not call it a political act is denying reality, but I see why the Left does because they don't want to draw any parallels to it to the modern day political insurrectionist.I identify with John Brown. He was called an insurrectionist too.
Wait.........wut?A bunch of angry republican whites rebelling against the current political norm...is that what that was?
No.
It was a revolt against the peculiar institution of Slavery, not politics. Brown's plan was to incite a race war in which slaves would revolt en masse, presumably something like Haiti.
If by "republican" you actually mean "Republican" that political party was five years old and existed only in the north and west. Brown's motivation was religious, not political. In fact in the presidential campaign of the next year (1860), the Republican Party distanced itself from Brown's action.
Slavery had had opposition from religious corners as far back as Columbus' chaplain Bartholomé de las Casas. That opposition and controversy had been brewing for decades if not centuries.
Slavery is not about politics? The vast number of men who have walked the earth have been slaves of the state.
Slavery is all about politics. Politics is all about forming one group to exercise power over another group. The color of ones skin just so happens to be a great way to create divides in society in order to divide and conquer, which is what politics is all about. In Europe they had trouble with this when it came to Jewish persecution because it was hard to tell Jews apart from the rest of society because they were not of a different color, so they made them wear such things as pointed hats and stars of David, etc.
Slavery and racism have been around since the dawn of man in order for men to oppress and exploit their fellow man. It is human nature, and not just the nature of conservative white men who formed the US. Once again, another myth from the Left.
And no, the US did not begin the black slave trade.
More slaves were sold to places like South America and Caribbean than in the US. The US only brought in lower than 15% of the slave trade.
The difference was, in the US slaves were allowed to have families and reproduce, which then produced more slaves in the US than abroad.
Ironically, you could say that slaves were treated better in the US than in any other country because they were allowed to have families instead of just being worked to death. But the US is targeted by the Left as the worst nation on earth and the only one that is systemically racist, etc.
The kicker is that there is now more slaves in the world than at any other time in history, yet the Left is far more focused on slavery from the past, with slaves of the past, to score political points by trying to paint their political rivals as racists to gain votes while completely ignoring the real slaves of today that are largely invisible to them. Why? Because seeking to free the modern day slaves has no political upside in terms of getting votes.
Indeed, John Brown was an insurrectionist and fought for abolition, which was a political movement at that time. To not call it a political act is denying reality, but I see why the Left does because they don't want to draw any parallels to it to the modern day political insurrectionist.I identify with John Brown. He was called an insurrectionist too.
You have made your point but don't expect the Left to acknowledge it in any way.
The Left has no desire to have any meaningful dialogue such as this. After all, they control academia and the media, so all they have to do is censor people like you and deride them to silence you. I wonder what John Brown would have done about all this control and censorship?
I agree. John Brown is one of my personal heros. In the current time, I wish democrats looked at history and stopped demonizing the opposition...please?A bunch of angry republican whites rebelling against the current political norm...is that what that was?
No.
It was a revolt against the peculiar institution of Slavery, not politics. Brown's plan was to incite a race war in which slaves would revolt en masse, presumably something like Haiti.
If by "republican" you actually mean "Republican" that political party was five years old and existed only in the north and west. Brown's motivation was religious, not political. In fact in the presidential campaign of the next year (1860), the Republican Party distanced itself from Brown's action.
Slavery had had opposition from religious corners Stas far back as Columbus' chaplain Bartholomé de las Casas. That opposition and controversy had been brewing for decades if not centuries.
Nope, are you inferring that?Are you somehow claiming that a rebellion against slavery is the equivalent to a rebellion to support a failed Presidents lies?I identify with John Brown. He was called an insurrectionist too.
A bunch of angry republican whites rebelling against the current political norm...is that what that was?
No, maybe you did. History is a living thing. History isn't in just in books or graveyards.Really. Delicious, how democrats er, liberals um "deconstruct" everything but NEVER themselves... never themselves.Are you somehow claiming that a rebellion against slavery is the equivalent to a rebellion to support a failed Presidents lies?I identify with John Brown. He was called an insurrectionist too.
Hard to figure out where she thinks she's going here. She starts out with John Brown/Harper's Ferry and veered off the road into 'politifcal parties' and 'Muslims'.
And now she's off to "democrats [sic]" and "liberals".
YOUR OWN TOPIC isn't about either "democrats", "Democrats" or "Liberals". It WAS about John Brown at Harper's Ferry. In the History forum. Are you lost?
I agree. John Brown is one of my personal heros. In the current time, I wish democrats looked at history and stopped demonizing the opposition...please?A bunch of angry republican whites rebelling against the current political norm...is that what that was?
No.
It was a revolt against the peculiar institution of Slavery, not politics. Brown's plan was to incite a race war in which slaves would revolt en masse, presumably something like Haiti.
If by "republican" you actually mean "Republican" that political party was five years old and existed only in the north and west. Brown's motivation was religious, not political. In fact in the presidential campaign of the next year (1860), the Republican Party distanced itself from Brown's action.
Slavery had had opposition from religious corners Stas far back as Columbus' chaplain Bartholomé de las Casas. That opposition and controversy had been brewing for decades if not centuries.
Human beings are all political animals. Both politics and religion are the same in that it involves how people should live their lives. Again, John Brown was a political force as he touched the political nerve of a nation on the verge of Civil War. So you are wrong.Indeed, John Brown was an insurrectionist and fought for abolition, which was a political movement at that time. To not call it a political act is denying reality, but I see why the Left does because they don't want to draw any parallels to it to the modern day political insurrectionist.I identify with John Brown. He was called an insurrectionist too.
You have made your point but don't expect the Left to acknowledge it in any way.
The Left has no desire to have any meaningful dialogue such as this. After all, they control academia and the media, so all they have to do is censor people like you and deride them to silence you. I wonder what John Brown would have done about all this control and censorship?
WRONG. Abolition was a moral/religious movement, at that time and for 350 years prior. John Brown was a religiously-driven activist, not a political animal. Although if you insist on finding some you'd find his views staunchly Liberal:
>> Brown said repeatedly that all of his anti-slavery activities, both in Kansas and Harpers Ferry, were in accordance with the Golden Rule.[4][5] He said the most famous sentence in the Declaration of Independence—all men are created equal—"meant the same thing" << (Wiki)
And once again you're determined to somehow twist a history thread into your own butthurt about "the Left". Go buy a history book.
History is what Left wing academics tell him it is.No, maybe you did. History is a living thing. History isn't in just in books or graveyards.Really. Delicious, how democrats er, liberals um "deconstruct" everything but NEVER themselves... never themselves.Are you somehow claiming that a rebellion against slavery is the equivalent to a rebellion to support a failed Presidents lies?I identify with John Brown. He was called an insurrectionist too.
Hard to figure out where she thinks she's going here. She starts out with John Brown/Harper's Ferry and veered off the road into 'politifcal parties' and 'Muslims'.
And now she's off to "democrats [sic]" and "liberals".
YOUR OWN TOPIC isn't about either "democrats", "Democrats" or "Liberals". It WAS about John Brown at Harper's Ferry. In the History forum. Are you lost?
A bunch of angry republican whites rebelling against the current political norm...is that what that was?
Well, see, the thing is . . . no matter how possibly justified Brown's intentions were—freeing slaves from southern plantations—he made the grave mistake of thinking he could raid a federal armory for weapons to arm a slave army. The first person to die as a result of his raid just happened to be black, so there was that as well. Rumor has it John Brown was quite the fanatic—on the order of any cult leader.
If nothing else John Brown's fate should serve as a prime example of what happens when private citizens attack the U.S. Government. Too bad, in our modern era, domestic terror organizations such as BLM and Antifa get away with "murder" John Brown could have only dreamed of.
Human beings are all political animals. Both politics and religion are the same in that it involves how people should live their lives. Again, John Brown was a political force as he touched the political nerve of a nation on the verge of Civil War. So you are wrong.Indeed, John Brown was an insurrectionist and fought for abolition, which was a political movement at that time. To not call it a political act is denying reality, but I see why the Left does because they don't want to draw any parallels to it to the modern day political insurrectionist.I identify with John Brown. He was called an insurrectionist too.
You have made your point but don't expect the Left to acknowledge it in any way.
The Left has no desire to have any meaningful dialogue such as this. After all, they control academia and the media, so all they have to do is censor people like you and deride them to silence you. I wonder what John Brown would have done about all this control and censorship?
WRONG. Abolition was a moral/religious movement, at that time and for 350 years prior. John Brown was a religiously-driven activist, not a political animal. Although if you insist on finding some you'd find his views staunchly Liberal:
>> Brown said repeatedly that all of his anti-slavery activities, both in Kansas and Harpers Ferry, were in accordance with the Golden Rule.[4][5] He said the most famous sentence in the Declaration of Independence—all men are created equal—"meant the same thing" << (Wiki)
And once again you're determined to somehow twist a history thread into your own butthurt about "the Left". Go buy a history book.
From a Left wing perspective, you believe that society should adopt Left wing ideals, and to fall short in any way is injustice. Your moral arrogance is bolstered by the belief that not believing in God is superior to those that do because God cannot be proven with science and science leads you to all truth.
Lets see here, 99% of abolitionist where white Republican Christians fighting slavery. And very few of us wanted or got any profits from slavery.....
Perhaps my earlier post in this thread was bit hasty. One can admire John Brown and perhaps should. However, John Brown committed his entire existence and that of his sons even to fighting his cause. He took his cause to it farthest limit and did not look back or try to change horses mid-fight. His cause and life and historic actions are very much a cautionary tale or should be for anyone else considering a campaign of direct violence for moral purposes. As an earlier iteration of our government crushed John Brown so will our government of today crush any would be leaders of uprisings. It's a stretch to do so but John Brown could be compared to our Founding Fathers, whom the British very much tried to similarly crush. Some movements gain traction and succeed, others die at the end of a swinging hangman's rope.
Lets see here, 99% of abolitionist where white Republican Christians fighting slavery. And very few of us wanted or got any profits from slavery.....
Politics is in everything because people are political creatures. You can nit pick as to what degree politics effects us but to not understand this is to not understand human nature. The Catholic church is full of such politics and even dictated to world empires at one time. Sure, they are not the political power they used to be but they still play politics by doing such things as the Pope giving sermons on the evils of building walls, a clear shot at Trump, and not saying much at all about abortion even though abortion by Catholic official teaching is mass genocide because it is not politically expedient in the Left wing political world wide culture.Human beings are all political animals. Both politics and religion are the same in that it involves how people should live their lives. Again, John Brown was a political force as he touched the political nerve of a nation on the verge of Civil War. So you are wrong.Indeed, John Brown was an insurrectionist and fought for abolition, which was a political movement at that time. To not call it a political act is denying reality, but I see why the Left does because they don't want to draw any parallels to it to the modern day political insurrectionist.I identify with John Brown. He was called an insurrectionist too.
You have made your point but don't expect the Left to acknowledge it in any way.
The Left has no desire to have any meaningful dialogue such as this. After all, they control academia and the media, so all they have to do is censor people like you and deride them to silence you. I wonder what John Brown would have done about all this control and censorship?
WRONG. Abolition was a moral/religious movement, at that time and for 350 years prior. John Brown was a religiously-driven activist, not a political animal. Although if you insist on finding some you'd find his views staunchly Liberal:
>> Brown said repeatedly that all of his anti-slavery activities, both in Kansas and Harpers Ferry, were in accordance with the Golden Rule.[4][5] He said the most famous sentence in the Declaration of Independence—all men are created equal—"meant the same thing" << (Wiki)
And once again you're determined to somehow twist a history thread into your own butthurt about "the Left". Go buy a history book.
Now you even copied the word "wrong" from my post.
Brown's event had political ramifications, obviously. But he didn't take his actions out of political fervor, NOR is everything political as you seem to believe. He took his position out of religious belief. So did Bartholomé de las Casas, and I know you know who he was because you copied that whole post of mine. De las Casas didn't have a political basis either. He was a priest.
From a Left wing perspective, you believe that society should adopt Left wing ideals, and to fall short in any way is injustice. Your moral arrogance is bolstered by the belief that not believing in God is superior to those that do because God cannot be proven with science and science leads you to all truth.
Finally you've abandoned copying off my paper and are now just pulling shit out of your ass. NOWHERE here or anywhere else have I posted anything remotely resembling that "society should adopt left wing ideals" or in fact "should adopt" anything, nor have I posted anything about belief/non-belief in God being "superior" to anything else so you're just a goddam liar.
Oh and note to goddam liar --- my perspective isn't "left wing" whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean, it's History. We're in the fucking History forum, Shitforbrains. And NO, Stupid, politics and religion are NOT the same thing at all. What level of Retard School do you go to to come up with that kind of malarkey?
Lets see here, 99% of abolitionist where white Republican Christians fighting slavery. And very few of us wanted or got any profits from slavery.....
Modern democrats from elected officials to everyday voters brainwashed by propaganda to lunatic intelligentsia will NEVER acknowledge their party's racist, slave owning heritage; not gonna happen. You are still trying to hold rational dialogue with people (democrats) who only want to silence and destroy us.
