CDZ Is Slavery America's Original Sin?

[Donald H]

Some of them may be treated badly, but the legal framework of any discrimination has been dismantled for over 50 years now. And to me the biggest cause of the problems is the attempted "fix" via the welfare State that did nothing to help poor people, including blacks, in the long term by giving short term supposed solutions.

I'm saying that they 'were' treated badly Marty but I think you have a point on the legal framework has been dismantled, etc years. What do you think has happened to the illegal framework?

I agree that the welfare state couldn't fix the problem. The 'problem' was created, as we both agree it was, and the welfare state could have only dealt with a portion of the problem.

But the body shop (welfare state) did eliminate a few of the smaller dents. It's just that the big dents were too big to fix and it required eliminating the whole person (car) to fix it. So the car had to be carted off the the prison (junkyard) where a steel fence could be erected around it so that it wouldn't negatively effect other cars.

But now maybe it's time to deal with the solution on how to fix the wrecks that America has created? Turn the fence into a big high wall?

That wouldn't even be a fix for the wrecked brown cars and the black wrecks wouldn't be fixed at all!

 

[Donald H]

Welcome back so soon Mac!

Psalm 14:1 The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."

I feel as confident about that being skyfairy nonsense as I'm confident in us both understanding America's problem with wrecking things beyond repair.

 

[Staidhup]

From the very beginning Genocide is embedded throughout the history of mankind. It defines who we are and from once we came, conquering, enslavement, and extermination is not unique to the new world. The only difference is the advancement of the the written word that documents past events.
To equate the founding fathers reluctance to address slavery and native inhabitants as the original sin of this country is liberal nonsense, as with the transference of past actions under todays political correct microscope negates the fact that Native Americans themselves engaged in genocide, slavery, and human sacrifice. So as a species we are flawed, maybe that is what Christ’s real message is all about.

Genocide as a set program is actually only a recent concept, primitive peoples couldn't waste resources by slaughtering conquered victims just for the hell of it. Maybe they would wipe out all the men, but that was usually only if they didn't need the labor. Even in those cases the women and children were kept as breeding stock and easily acclimated labor.

During the classical to the modern period most countries didn't have the organizational level to really commit genocide. They could exploit ruthlessly, but the dedicated work to eliminate an entire people "just because" only came about during the modern period.

I beg to differ, we can agree to disagree. In the context of lets say 1,000 BC up to an including the18th or 19th century genocide was neither relevant or did not exist due to the lack of organizational capacity, Really? The slaughter(s) which occurred between neighboring tribes was in your opinion just a casual war when in fact entire tribes or nations were totally annihilated. I agree the scope and breadth were limited by lack of technology however that does not negate that intentional (organized) genocide did not happen.

 

[harmonica]

No one likes talking about the genocide of the native inhabitants that Europeans found in America ...

the NAs did the SAME thing

 

[harmonica]

No one likes talking about the genocide of the native inhabitants that Europeans found in America ...

Huh! Good point. I was going to say yes, you could consider slavery America's Original Sin, but there is the wipe-out of the Indians. (Cleveland and otherwise.) But I guess not: because that's the same deal as COVID ---- it wasn't about people. As much as 90% of American Indians, South first and North next, died of diseases never seen here before: tuberculosis, smallpox, measles (worse than you think), many others. The only disease believed to have come from the Americas to Europe was syphillis. But WE did not kill those Indians with those diseases (except one time, maybe, those infected blankets...); it was the little germies that did that, just like with COVID. The mayors and governors constantly blame, blame, us the people, but it's not us, it's the virus doing it.

So no, back to slavery as the Original Sin. Because that was done by people, and it didn't work out, did it? Brought all these blacks here and they reproduced and now look at the situation. They're better off and we're much worse off.

the NAs did the same thing to include TORTURE

 

[danielpalos]

If slavery had existed for 150 years before the creation of the United States, how can it be described as our original sin? The answer is that it can't be blamed on our country unless you miraculously reset the date of its creation to 1619, when the first African slaves were sold to British colonialists in Jamestown. The principal reason for buying African slaves was their natural resistance to malaria., which was killing off the European workers in the Southern Colonies. Once purchased, they became an indispensable asset to labor intensive agriculture in those colonies.

Slavery was never popular in the Northern Colonies, and abolitionist movements began to spring up in the mid 1700s. However, resentment of the British government's authoritarian policies was also building and finally erupted into the War for Independence from Great Britain. After winning that war, the Colonies realized that their independence could not be protected unless a common government was formed. A proposed Constitution was hotly debated among the former colonies, and was ratified only after allowing the southern States to retain slavery in return for accepting joint responsibility for the war debts that had been accrued.

This compromise enabled the creation of the United States, but did not end the ever-growing abolitionist movement which culminated in the Civil War. Hundreds of thousands of Americans died in that conflagration, and it is an insult to those who died for that cause to now be accused of supporting the institution they fought against. If there is any original sin to be assigned, it was the widespread rape of African women by their slave masters. But this is not and should not be an indictment of the entire United States of America.

https://historicjamestowne.org/history/the-first-africans/

Our "original sin" is being unfaithful to our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.

What is not covered by our Ten simple Amendments?

 

[martybegan]

From the very beginning Genocide is embedded throughout the history of mankind. It defines who we are and from once we came, conquering, enslavement, and extermination is not unique to the new world. The only difference is the advancement of the the written word that documents past events.
To equate the founding fathers reluctance to address slavery and native inhabitants as the original sin of this country is liberal nonsense, as with the transference of past actions under todays political correct microscope negates the fact that Native Americans themselves engaged in genocide, slavery, and human sacrifice. So as a species we are flawed, maybe that is what Christ’s real message is all about.

Genocide as a set program is actually only a recent concept, primitive peoples couldn't waste resources by slaughtering conquered victims just for the hell of it. Maybe they would wipe out all the men, but that was usually only if they didn't need the labor. Even in those cases the women and children were kept as breeding stock and easily acclimated labor.

During the classical to the modern period most countries didn't have the organizational level to really commit genocide. They could exploit ruthlessly, but the dedicated work to eliminate an entire people "just because" only came about during the modern period.

I beg to differ, we can agree to disagree. In the context of lets say 1,000 BC up to an including the18th or 19th century genocide was neither relevant or did not exist due to the lack of organizational capacity, Really? The slaughter(s) which occurred between neighboring tribes was in your opinion just a casual war when in fact entire tribes or nations were totally annihilated. I agree the scope and breadth were limited by lack of technology however that does not negate that intentional (organized) genocide did not happen.

There wasn't the social consciousness to call it genocide, it was taking the other guys shit and killing those not needed. They weren't killed because they were jews or armenians, they were killed for as the gamers call it "phat lootz"

 

[irosie91]

No one likes talking about the genocide of the native inhabitants that Europeans found in America ...

Exploitation, not genocide, and Europeans were exploiting each other for centuries before they landed in the Americas.

Considering the technological gap if the Europeans truly tried to wipe out the natives there wouldn't be a single Hispanic person with native blood left around.

there are ALWAYS survivors-----but I agree that the
use of the word "genocide" for the tragedy inflicted
on native americans by the "white" europeans" is, slightly, an OVERSTATEMENT. Your use of the word
"Europeans" -----is kinda defective too

 

[martybegan]

No one likes talking about the genocide of the native inhabitants that Europeans found in America ...

Exploitation, not genocide, and Europeans were exploiting each other for centuries before they landed in the Americas.

Considering the technological gap if the Europeans truly tried to wipe out the natives there wouldn't be a single Hispanic person with native blood left around.

there are ALWAYS survivors-----but I agree that the
use of the word "genocide" for the tragedy inflicted
on native americans by the "white" europeans" is, slightly, an OVERSTATEMENT. Your use of the word
"Europeans" -----is kinda defective too

The Spanish were the worst, but all Europeans came over and exploited, again, due to the technological disparity I am not shocked.

 

[irosie91]

No one likes talking about the genocide of the native inhabitants that Europeans found in America ...

Exploitation, not genocide, and Europeans were exploiting each other for centuries before they landed in the Americas.

Considering the technological gap if the Europeans truly tried to wipe out the natives there wouldn't be a single Hispanic person with native blood left around.

there are ALWAYS survivors-----but I agree that the
use of the word "genocide" for the tragedy inflicted
on native americans by the "white" europeans" is, slightly, an OVERSTATEMENT. Your use of the word
"Europeans" -----is kinda defective too

The Spanish were the worst, but all Europeans came over and exploited, again, due to the technological disparity I am not shocked.

be shocked. Contrary to the critical race theory
morons----Spain is in Europe----and the people of Spain who invaded
the Americas were <gasp> WHITE -----and damned determined about it. (and they were damned bad and racist against ANYTHING not white and catholic)
Spain was in a state of reaction against the
MOORS-----who were also, generally "white---with
a little too much mix for Spanish taste and WORSE---not catholic.

 

[Circe]

the NAs did the same thing to include TORTURE

Yeah, I know and don't want to talk about it. There is a reason Ben Franklin, George Washington, all of the 18th century Americans who actually got out and did things hated Indians. It was the incredible drunkenness and the rape, but also ----- never mind.

 

[Circe]

In the context of lets say 1,000 BC up to an including the18th or 19th century genocide was neither relevant or did not exist due to the lack of organizational capacity, Really? The slaughter(s) which occurred between neighboring tribes was in your opinion just a casual war when in fact entire tribes or nations were totally annihilated. I agree the scope and breadth were limited by lack of technology however that does not negate that intentional (organized) genocide did not happen.

Well, that IS the function of war. To kill alllllllllllllll the enemies and take their land and resources. Were people thinking it was all Geneva Convention-y?

No. It's still killing the enemy; we just haven't had an enemy worth killing out for a long time.

We will eventually, or they'll kill us out.

 

[irosie91]

the NAs did the same thing to include TORTURE

Yeah, I know and don't want to talk about it. There is a reason Ben Franklin, George Washington, all of the 18th century Americans who actually got out and did things hated Indians. It was the incredible drunkenness and the rape, but also ----- never mind.

Ben Franklin?

 

[Circe]

the NAs did the same thing to include TORTURE

Yeah, I know and don't want to talk about it. There is a reason Ben Franklin, George Washington, all of the 18th century Americans who actually got out and did things hated Indians. It was the incredible drunkenness and the rape, but also ----- never mind.

Ben Franklin?

Yeah. He really hated Indians --- a lot of whites did. They had good reasons.

I recall reading this, but I looked it up for you:


Benjamin Franklin had no sympathy for the Indians, calling them savages, despite their claim to the land.

“The year following, a treaty being to be held with the Indians at Carlisle, the governor sent a message to the House, proposing that they should nominate some of their members, to be join'd with some members of council, as commissioners for that purpose. The House named the speaker (Mr. Norris) and myself; and, being commission'd, we went to Carlisle, and met the Indians accordingly.

"As those people are extremely apt to get drunk, and, when so, are very quarrelsome and disorderly, we strictly forbade the selling any liquor to them; and when they complain'd of this restriction, we told them that if they would continue sober during the treaty, we would give them plenty of rum when business was over. They promis'd this, and they kept their promise, because they could get no liquor, and the treaty was conducted very orderly, and concluded to mutual satisfaction.

"They then claim'd and received the rum; this was in the afternoon: they were near one hundred men, women, and children, and were lodg'd in temporary cabins, built in the form of a square, just without the town. In the evening, hearing a great noise among them, the commissioners walk'd out to see what was the matter. We found they had made a great bonfire in the middle of the square; they were all drunk, men and women, quarreling and fighting. Their dark-colour'd bodies, half naked, seen only by the gloomy light of the bonfire, running after and beating one another with firebrands, accompanied by their horrid yellings, form'd a scene the most resembling our ideas of hell that could well be imagin'd; there was no appeasing the tumult, and we retired to our lodging.

"At midnight a number of them came thundering at our door, demanding more rum, of which we took no notice. The next day, sensible they had misbehav'd in giving us that disturbance, they sent three of their old counselors to make their apology. The orator acknowledg'd the fault, but laid it upon the rum; and then endeavoured to excuse the rum by saying, 'The Great Spirit, who made all things, made everything for some use, and whatever use he design'd anything for, that use it should always be put to. Now, when he made rum,' he said, 'Let this be for the Indians to get drunk with,' and it must be so.

"And, indeed, if it be the design of Providence to extirpate these savages in order to make room for cultivators of the earth, it seems not improbable that rum may be the appointed means. It has already annihilated all the tribes who formerly inhabited the sea-coast.”

 

[martybegan]

No one likes talking about the genocide of the native inhabitants that Europeans found in America ...

Exploitation, not genocide, and Europeans were exploiting each other for centuries before they landed in the Americas.

Considering the technological gap if the Europeans truly tried to wipe out the natives there wouldn't be a single Hispanic person with native blood left around.

there are ALWAYS survivors-----but I agree that the
use of the word "genocide" for the tragedy inflicted
on native americans by the "white" europeans" is, slightly, an OVERSTATEMENT. Your use of the word
"Europeans" -----is kinda defective too

The Spanish were the worst, but all Europeans came over and exploited, again, due to the technological disparity I am not shocked.

be shocked. Contrary to the critical race theory
morons----Spain is in Europe----and the people of Spain who invaded
the Americas were <gasp> WHITE -----and damned determined about it. (and they were damned bad and racist against ANYTHING not white and catholic)
Spain was in a state of reaction against the
MOORS-----who were also, generally "white---with
a little too much mix for Spanish taste and WORSE---not catholic.

One also has to remember a little thing called the Inquisition with the Spanish.

 

[irosie91]

No one likes talking about the genocide of the native inhabitants that Europeans found in America ...

Exploitation, not genocide, and Europeans were exploiting each other for centuries before they landed in the Americas.

Considering the technological gap if the Europeans truly tried to wipe out the natives there wouldn't be a single Hispanic person with native blood left around.

there are ALWAYS survivors-----but I agree that the
use of the word "genocide" for the tragedy inflicted
on native americans by the "white" europeans" is, slightly, an OVERSTATEMENT. Your use of the word
"Europeans" -----is kinda defective too

The Spanish were the worst, but all Europeans came over and exploited, again, due to the technological disparity I am not shocked.

be shocked. Contrary to the critical race theory
morons----Spain is in Europe----and the people of Spain who invaded
the Americas were <gasp> WHITE -----and damned determined about it. (and they were damned bad and racist against ANYTHING not white and catholic)
Spain was in a state of reaction against the
MOORS-----who were also, generally "white---with
a little too much mix for Spanish taste and WORSE---not catholic.

One also has to remember a little thing called the Inquisition with the Spanish.

EXCELLENT-----the little known (make that never discussed) reality is that the "ethics" of the Inquisition
in Spanish controlled south america was not only imposed on Jews----but also on native americans who had no CHOICE but to "convert" to catholicism. Should we mention that fact?

 

[martybegan]

No one likes talking about the genocide of the native inhabitants that Europeans found in America ...

Exploitation, not genocide, and Europeans were exploiting each other for centuries before they landed in the Americas.

Considering the technological gap if the Europeans truly tried to wipe out the natives there wouldn't be a single Hispanic person with native blood left around.

there are ALWAYS survivors-----but I agree that the
use of the word "genocide" for the tragedy inflicted
on native americans by the "white" europeans" is, slightly, an OVERSTATEMENT. Your use of the word
"Europeans" -----is kinda defective too

The Spanish were the worst, but all Europeans came over and exploited, again, due to the technological disparity I am not shocked.

be shocked. Contrary to the critical race theory
morons----Spain is in Europe----and the people of Spain who invaded
the Americas were <gasp> WHITE -----and damned determined about it. (and they were damned bad and racist against ANYTHING not white and catholic)
Spain was in a state of reaction against the
MOORS-----who were also, generally "white---with
a little too much mix for Spanish taste and WORSE---not catholic.

One also has to remember a little thing called the Inquisition with the Spanish.

EXCELLENT-----the little known (make that never discussed) reality is that the "ethics" of the Inquisition
in Spanish controlled south america was not only imposed on Jews----but also on native americans who had no CHOICE but to "convert" to catholicism. Should we mention that fact?

It's all part of the same thing, how the Spanish projected their power, and how they were much more ruthless then then English. Probably due to their centuries of being on the front line of the Christianity vs. Islam fight.

 

[irosie91]

No one likes talking about the genocide of the native inhabitants that Europeans found in America ...

Exploitation, not genocide, and Europeans were exploiting each other for centuries before they landed in the Americas.

Considering the technological gap if the Europeans truly tried to wipe out the natives there wouldn't be a single Hispanic person with native blood left around.

there are ALWAYS survivors-----but I agree that the
use of the word "genocide" for the tragedy inflicted
on native americans by the "white" europeans" is, slightly, an OVERSTATEMENT. Your use of the word
"Europeans" -----is kinda defective too

The Spanish were the worst, but all Europeans came over and exploited, again, due to the technological disparity I am not shocked.

be shocked. Contrary to the critical race theory
morons----Spain is in Europe----and the people of Spain who invaded
the Americas were <gasp> WHITE -----and damned determined about it. (and they were damned bad and racist against ANYTHING not white and catholic)
Spain was in a state of reaction against the
MOORS-----who were also, generally "white---with
a little too much mix for Spanish taste and WORSE---not catholic.

One also has to remember a little thing called the Inquisition with the Spanish.

EXCELLENT-----the little known (make that never discussed) reality is that the "ethics" of the Inquisition
in Spanish controlled south america was not only imposed on Jews----but also on native americans who had no CHOICE but to "convert" to catholicism. Should we mention that fact?

It's all part of the same thing, how the Spanish projected their power, and how they were much more ruthless then then English. Probably due to their centuries of being on the front line of the Christianity vs. Islam fight.

that which I find HILARIOUSLY ironic is that NOW---suddenly-----all hispanics are called "PERSONS OF
OF COLOR"-------it was the spanish OVER-LORDS of
South america and parts of North america who invented the 1/8 rule of "NIGGA"----Octaroon ---
a person of 1/8 negro ancestry was designated
a SLAVE for life--------that means ONE GREAT GRAND-PARENT----passed on the "CURSE"----by what law? ---
well------uhm-----the catholic overlords like the disgusting pig HERNAN CORTEZ who murdered
Montezuma ----so he could grab the GOLD for---(himself)----but SAINT QUEEN ISABELLA ----grabbed it from him. A little known factoid-----Queen Isabella was such a good catholic that some regard her a SAINT!!!!! (disclaimer-----sorry catholics----I do not blame you ALL)

 

[danielpalos]

No one likes talking about the genocide of the native inhabitants that Europeans found in America ...

Exploitation, not genocide, and Europeans were exploiting each other for centuries before they landed in the Americas.

Considering the technological gap if the Europeans truly tried to wipe out the natives there wouldn't be a single Hispanic person with native blood left around.

there are ALWAYS survivors-----but I agree that the
use of the word "genocide" for the tragedy inflicted
on native americans by the "white" europeans" is, slightly, an OVERSTATEMENT. Your use of the word
"Europeans" -----is kinda defective too

The Spanish were the worst, but all Europeans came over and exploited, again, due to the technological disparity I am not shocked.

be shocked. Contrary to the critical race theory
morons----Spain is in Europe----and the people of Spain who invaded
the Americas were <gasp> WHITE -----and damned determined about it. (and they were damned bad and racist against ANYTHING not white and catholic)
Spain was in a state of reaction against the
MOORS-----who were also, generally "white---with
a little too much mix for Spanish taste and WORSE---not catholic.

One also has to remember a little thing called the Inquisition with the Spanish.

EXCELLENT-----the little known (make that never discussed) reality is that the "ethics" of the Inquisition
in Spanish controlled south america was not only imposed on Jews----but also on native americans who had no CHOICE but to "convert" to catholicism. Should we mention that fact?

They never fought a war to keep slavery. Only right wingers, do that.

 

[Gary Lee]

If slavery had existed for 150 years before the creation of the United States, how can it be described as our original sin? The answer is that it can't be blamed on our country unless you miraculously reset the date of its creation to 1619, when the first African slaves were sold to British colonialists in Jamestown. The principal reason for buying African slaves was their natural resistance to malaria., which was killing off the European workers in the Southern Colonies. Once purchased, they became an indispensable asset to labor intensive agriculture in those colonies.

Slavery was never popular in the Northern Colonies, and abolitionist movements began to spring up in the mid 1700s. However, resentment of the British government's authoritarian policies was also building and finally erupted into the War for Independence from Great Britain. After winning that war, the Colonies realized that their independence could not be protected unless a common government was formed. A proposed Constitution was hotly debated among the former colonies, and was ratified only after allowing the southern States to retain slavery in return for accepting joint responsibility for the war debts that had been accrued.

This compromise enabled the creation of the United States, but did not end the ever-growing abolitionist movement which culminated in the Civil War. Hundreds of thousands of Americans died in that conflagration, and it is an insult to those who died for that cause to now be accused of supporting the institution they fought against. If there is any original sin to be assigned, it was the widespread rape of African women by their slave masters. But this is not and should not be an indictment of the entire United States of America.

https://historicjamestowne.org/history/the-first-africans/

[/QUOTE