Zone1 Here's Why White Guilt About Slavery Is Insane

Prager U. Didn't even have to get past the titles.

So let's review how the South Went Republican.

1964, LBJ signs the Civil Rights Act.

Five southern States vote for Barry "Deep Down you Know he's Nuts" Goldwater while the rest of the country voted for LBJ.

In 1968, some Southern states went for Humphrey, some for Nixon, some for George Wallace, who ran on a racist platform. This is when Tricky Dick started employing the Southern Strategy.

1972- It worked. Nixon completely swept the South (and most of the rest of the country except MA.)

1976- The South went for Jimmy Carter, but not by as much as you think. He didn't win overwhelming votes, and the black vote is what put him over the top.

1980- The only southern state Carter won was his home state of GA.

The South has been more or less reliably Republican ever since. True, it took a while for some of those old Democrats like Robert Byrd to kick the bucket, but once they did, they were replaced by racist republicans.
Even you admit the South was democrat until Carter was president. So he hurt the Democrat party a hell of a lot;
as you hurt the democrats right now. When will you rejoin the Republicans since your bros did long ago.
Prager U features the woman who is a professor. Did not know your bigotry included a black woman.
 
Modern woke pseudo-history paints a fabricated story of slavery; that white men came to Africa, stole Africans from their lands, and brought them to America. It was White American men, and only White American men, who were guilty of this, and it was a large majority of them as well. This was unique to the world at the time and in world history, and is a special evil in the history of mankind.

Of course, this is all complete nonsense, and is just woke propaganda we were taught in schools or are being told by politicians or media pundits today. But it's important to look at the context and just how insanely wrong these claims are. Let's look at total number of slaves, for example:

It is absolutely true that the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, in which Africans captured other Africans and sold them, shipped approximately 12.5 million slaves across the Atlantic to the Americas.

The Issue becomes where those slaves were taken. A woke liberal would probably assume that 12.5 million slaves were taken from Africa and sent to the American south. That would be insanely false. The breakdown looks like this:
  • 5.4 million were sent to Brazil
  • 3.6 million were sent to the Carribean
  • 1.2 million were sent to Jamaica
  • 900,000 were sent to St. Dominique (French Colony)
  • 889,000 were sent to Cuba
  • 470,000 were sent to the United States

So in this cry of woke left Democrat social justice warriors... cries of the unique evil of America, white men, etc... they make the claims they do when American only partook in 3% of the Trans-Atlantic Slave trade.

Add to that how there were only about 390,000 slave owners in the USA out of a population of 31 million... and you have approximately 1.2% of the population participating or benefitting from it, yet is that what Democrats, leftists, or educators say, address, or teach?

Slavery is an evil that has existed as long as human history has. All races have been enslaved, many continue to be. As far as America is concerned, it basically happened for 90 years nearly 200 years ago. However, no woke Democrat can legitimately point the finger at the USA as some unique evil in slavery, nor can they say we were any leader in it. They need to point the finger at Africans of the times first, and then all the South American/Brazilian/Carribean nations who were far greater participants.

And this is just the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. Again, Slavery exists across the world at far greater rates throughout history.

So, any person who wants to demonize the USA and White people as a unique evil as far as slavery, or as a major historical cause of it, is just revealing their tragic indoctrination and ignorance of history.

Once again, your retelling of what you believe Democrats are saying about slavery is total bullshit. Maybe you should stop making spurious claims about Democrats since you clearly don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

White people aren't being blamed for slavery, moron. They're being blamed for attempting to perpetuate the permanent "second class citizen" category for people who aren't white. For clinging to stupid racist notions that non-whites are "inferior", either socially or intellectually, to white Europeans.

They are also being called to account for the very real stripping of wealth from blacks post slavery, while white plantation owners were compensated for their "loss of property", when the slaves were freed, the slaves were simply turned loose with nothing but the clothes on their backs. Few received the "forty acres and a mule", which was the freedom promise.

They're telling black stories of massacre and disentitlement, which has existed since the time of the nation's founding, and which make the descendants of slave owners who continue to have access to the wealth and family assets they've controlled since the founding of the nation, continued to allow them to exploit their reparations, while enslaved peoples and their descendants, were being barred from the schools, and professions which would have allowed the former slaves to prosper.

Sadly, you lack the background or the study of history to put everything into context. Right wing media just has you frothing with rage at the idea that black people are still complaining about racism.
 
Once again, your retelling of what you believe Democrats are saying about slavery is total bullshit. Maybe you should stop making spurious claims about Democrats since you clearly don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

White people aren't being blamed for slavery, moron. They're being blamed for attempting to perpetuate the permanent "second class citizen" category for people who aren't white. For clinging to stupid racist notions that non-whites are "inferior", either socially or intellectually, to white Europeans.

They are also being called to account for the very real stripping of wealth from blacks post slavery, while white plantation owners were compensated for their "loss of property", when the slaves were freed, the slaves were simply turned loose with nothing but the clothes on their backs. Few received the "forty acres and a mule", which was the freedom promise.

They're telling black stories of massacre and disentitlement, which has existed since the time of the nation's founding, and which make the descendants of slave owners who continue to have access to the wealth and family assets they've controlled since the founding of the nation, continued to allow them to exploit their reparations, while enslaved peoples and their descendants, were being barred from the schools, and professions which would have allowed the former slaves to prosper.

Sadly, you lack the background or the study of history to put everything into context. Right wing media just has you frothing with rage at the idea that black people are still complaining about racism.
Democrats in the South exacerbated slavery. While 'white people' in the South perpetuated slavery the North disagreed. We fought a Civil War over it because the South (Democrats) wanted to preserve slavery which was a way of life and economics in the South and threatened to secede. When the fired on Fort Sumter in 1861, they sparked the Civil War. hundreds and thousands of white men were slaughtering each other over the prospect of freeing Southern slaves. There were also many blacks fighting for the North.

Wealth compounding is not a crime. Most of the slave owners were small farmers not plantation, elite owners. The passing down of wealth didn't manifest with them. Many of those descendants are poor today. Ancestry does not account for present wealth. If any group needs to pay reparations it's the Democrats who tried to keep the institution of slavery, tried to secede and started a Civil War over it.
 
Last edited:
Even you admit the South was democrat until Carter was president. So he hurt the Democrat party a hell of a lot;
as you hurt the democrats right now. When will you rejoin the Republicans since your bros did long ago.
Prager U features the woman who is a professor. Did not know your bigotry included a black woman.

I strongly suggest you take a quick course of American History 101, or at the very least, given a crash course in US Black History, because your rampant racism and partisanship has destroyed any notion of historical perspective.

Stop looking at your history as "Republicans versus Democrats", with Republicans cast in the role of the good guys and Democrats the embodiment of evil, because that's a completely false narrative. Anyone with even a grade school grasp of US History would know that.
 
You most certainly HAVE made an argument that Republicans today are racists when you compared them to Democrats of old in post #167.
I could say that both you and the American Nazi Party are supporters of the GOP. Doesn't mean I think you are a Nazi.

Your statistics (post #274) doesn't make racism systemic nor does it justify special treatment. You are trying to define systemic racism in a vacuum. Systemic racism is what existed before the 1960's going all the way back to the middle of the 17th century when mixing of the races was forbidden.
I'm defining racism by the effect it has on people. The 'system' is more than just the government.

The devil is in the details. If blacks are being treated poorly by cops, DEI won't change that nor is it even intended to address that. If there are economic disparities that doesn't mean it's due to racism. Healthcare is an issue for everyone. It's not a race issue. You keep making arguments of racism today but you really are arguing racism in the past has harmed blacks today and they need special treatment to compensate for that. What about MY arguments against that? I don't have to be willfully blind to disagree with special treatment. I don't have to be willfully blind to believe no one today was involved in any of the past deeds and shouldn't be awarded damages or be required to pay damages.
Blacks have always gotten special treatment. Usually of the negative kind. My dad got a job that a Black man probably wouldn't have gotten. We lived in a house a Black family wasn't allowed to buy. Both gave me a leg up in world. I'm not making a case for general reparations but some, specific ones, like this one, are valid.
 
I strongly suggest you take a quick course of American History 101, or at the very least, given a crash course in US Black History, because your rampant racism and partisanship has destroyed any notion of historical perspective.

Stop looking at your history as "Republicans versus Democrats", with Republicans cast in the role of the good guys and Democrats the embodiment of evil, because that's a completely false narrative. Anyone with even a grade school grasp of US History would know that.
Why do you object to the black woman professor? Democrats do create laws. Then they refuse to follow them.

Is there a right to riot? Because it is what Democrats do right now.
 
I strongly suggest you take a quick course of American History 101, or at the very least, given a crash course in US Black History, because your rampant racism and partisanship has destroyed any notion of historical perspective.

Stop looking at your history as "Republicans versus Democrats", with Republicans cast in the role of the good guys and Democrats the embodiment of evil, because that's a completely false narrative. Anyone with even a grade school grasp of US History would know that.
There is no such thing as 'black history' there is only history. There are plenty of historical accounts that show real history. America looked at slavery and ultimately rejected it. I suggest you expand your knowledge instead of relying on grade school history. Here are some facts:



Educate yourself. Americans are capable of looking at their own history and not condoning all of it as you falsely portray. If you want to be really informed look at media such as News Nation.
 
Last edited:
I voted for Carter as a loyal Democrat. Then you claimed you were a Republican. So why did you flip to being a Democrat since your story told a bit back makes no sense at all.

Well, it makes no sense to you.

So here's my Voting background. First election I voted in was 1980, and i voted for Reagan. Why? Because being young, I thought Carter was weak. And i voted Republican all the way up until 2008, although I really didn't like any of the candidates that much.

After I had medical issues in 2008, and my company screwed me, I realized a basic truth. I don't make enough money to vote Republican and neither do you.
 
Even you admit the South was democrat until Carter was president. So he hurt the Democrat party a hell of a lot;

No, it wasn't guy. It is considered a Conservative, Democratic candidate after four elections of supporting either Republicans or third-party candidates. Heck, Nixon even made some inroads in 1960, as did Eisenhower. So the last time the South was reliably Democrat was under FDR.
 
No, it wasn't guy. It is considered a Conservative, Democratic candidate after four elections of supporting either Republicans or third-party candidates. Heck, Nixon even made some inroads in 1960, as did Eisenhower. So the last time the South was reliably Democrat was under FDR.
Joe, you knew this very well when you were a Republican, so why did you flip to Democrats. I kid you of course. Your version of history is what Democrat masters say to you.
 
No, it wasn't guy. It is considered a Conservative, Democratic candidate after four elections of supporting either Republicans or third-party candidates. Heck, Nixon even made some inroads in 1960, as did Eisenhower. So the last time the South was reliably Democrat was under FDR.
Here is this mystery again. So, to you the slavers were conservatives? And to you just republicans can be conservative? And what do you mean by conservative when it was okay for the south as you tell your tale, to be conservative? Republicans arre not for slavery. We are well known as urging America to fight for freedom.
 
I could say that both you and the American Nazi Party are supporters of the GOP. Doesn't mean I think you are a Nazi.
You could say that but given that the Democratic Party justified slavery on the grounds of white supremacy - something Republicans have never done - a more apt analogy would be comparing Democrats to the American Nazi Party.
 
Well, it makes no sense to you.

So here's my Voting background. First election I voted in was 1980, and i voted for Reagan. Why? Because being young, I thought Carter was weak. And i voted Republican all the way up until 2008, although I really didn't like any of the candidates that much.

After I had medical issues in 2008, and my company screwed me, I realized a basic truth. I don't make enough money to vote Republican and neither do you.


You flipped to republican when I flipped to republican.
Do yhou like the democrats where you live? Rod Blagojevich mean a thing to you?

Republican politicians never screwed you. You joined the firm and read the contract.
I spent decades living as a Democrat. When you post, you don't understand the Democrats history.
 
I'm defining racism by the effect it has on people. The 'system' is more than just the government.
You are defining systemic racism in a vacuum. A more apt comparison would be when racism really was systemic because it was legally codified. Just because you see a racist around every bend and behind every bush does not make it so. Democrats should feel guilty for what their party has done. But I don't. I'm not a Democrat. Doling out special treatment for votes is idiotic. Especially when it hasn't worked. If you disagree I suggest you take a stroll through an inner city at night and get back to me.
 
You could say that but given that the Democratic Party justified slavery on the grounds of white supremacy - something Republicans have never done - a more apt analogy would be comparing Democrats to the American Nazi Party.
The Nazis were socialists. Guess who will deny it and defend the Nazis? I spent years as a very loyal Democrat. At that time I despised any Republican. Then I woke up. All it took for me to change was to actually study history and see what Democrats do right now. Carter woke me up.
 
15th post
Blacks have always gotten special treatment. Usually of the negative kind.
I don't disagree. I fail to see my culpability though. There's a novel idea in jurisprudence; perpetrators of harm are held accountable, innocent people are not.

My dad got a job that a Black man probably wouldn't have gotten. We lived in a house a Black family wasn't allowed to buy. Both gave me a leg up in world. I'm not making a case for general reparations but some, specific ones, like this one, are valid.
The thing I liked about your specific example is that it tied the direct descendants - who had a valid claim - to the offender (Los Angeles County).
 
No, it wasn't guy. It is considered a Conservative, Democratic candidate after four elections of supporting either Republicans or third-party candidates. Heck, Nixon even made some inroads in 1960, as did Eisenhower. So the last time the South was reliably Democrat was under FDR.
The change in the South took place after Jimmy Carter was president. He still swept the south. He fucked things up. I saw it happen. I flipped to being a Republican thanks to the Carter strategy.
 
I could say that both you and the American Nazi Party are supporters of the GOP. Doesn't mean I think you are a Nazi.


I'm defining racism by the effect it has on people. The 'system' is more than just the government.


Blacks have always gotten special treatment. Usually of the negative kind. My dad got a job that a Black man probably wouldn't have gotten. We lived in a house a Black family wasn't allowed to buy. Both gave me a leg up in world. I'm not making a case for general reparations but some, specific ones, like this one, are valid.
If you are talking about California, where as a CA Broker we learned the law so well, CA had eliminated redlining, outlawed discrimination based on race and we were warned not to use black as any excuse. It was so strict a woman broker I knew slightly was put in prison for wanting to rent to renters who did not live in Oakland, CA. CA considered it racist though Oakland had plenty of white residents.

The tipping point for the California Real Estate Association to pursue an initiative for a state constitutional amendment in California was the enactment of the Rumford Fair Housing Act in 1963. The Rumford Fair Housing Act was passed by the California Legislature to help end racial discrimination by property owners and landlords who refused to rent or sell their property to "colored" people.<a href="1964 California Proposition 14 - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>17<span>]</span></a> It was drafted by William Byron Rumford, the first African American from Northern California to serve in the legislature. The Act provided that landlords could not deny people housing because of ethnicity, religion, or national origin (later the law would be extended to apply to sex, marital status, physical handicap, or familial status).<a href="1964 California Proposition 14 - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>18<span>]</span></a> Future Governor Ronald Reagan opposed this and other legislative attempts to enact fair housing, but the Rumford Fair Housing Act was signed into law by Governor Pat Brown.<a href="1964 California Proposition 14 - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>19<span>]</span></a>
 
The other big thing that IM2resentful skips over is that reparations paid to the above people were DIRECT VICTIMS.

It is beyond insulting that he thinks Jews who survived hell on Earth, were physically maimed for life, and suffered the loss of their families, homes, and livelihoods are in any way comparable to blacks who not only were never slaves, but have received blatant favoritism in getting into prestigious universities and law and medical schools for the past 50 years.
Just to clarify, those weren’t reparations.
Those cases involved legal compensation for specific, ongoing violations or ordinary pensions—not payments made as redress for historical injustice acknowledged by the government.
 

Latest Discussions

Back
Top Bottom