You can't blame anyone for what happened 150 years ago, unless they are democrats

[IM2]

We keep getting told how democrats had slaves and how republicans freed the slaves. I have been told I need to educate myself to learn real black history in America.

Some democrats owned slaves in the 1800's. A republican freed the slaves in the 1860's.

Now why is it that when we discuss slavery we are told by white conservatives how we can't blame or hold anyone today responsible for the past when we are black and talk about how whites did things, but white conservatives can blame democrats of today for something that happened 150-200 years ago?

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

We keep getting told how democrats had slaves and how republicans freed the slaves. I have been told I need to educate myself to learn real black history in America.

Some democrats owned slaves in the 1800's. A republican freed the slaves in the 1860's.

Now why is it that when we discuss slavery we are told by white conservatives how we can't blame or hold anyone today responsible for the past when we are black and talk about how whites did things, but white conservatives can blame democrats of today for something that happened 150-200 years ago?

Why don't you learn from the past and don't make the same mistake in the present and future, or don't and repeat history.

Blacks were not the only slaves here in America and even blacks owned slaves during that time and if you disagree then look it up and enjoy learning the truth. Also Slaves were sold by conquering Tribes in Africa to slave traders and a lot of the Slave traders dealt with Moors in certain regions.

Now I know this goes against your train of thought only Whites enslaved the Black and Native American race but if you really look at history and the history of slavery you will realize the entire human race has been guilty of the practice and not just whites or Conservative men.

Lincoln was not out to free the Slaves when he became President and had actually defended slave owners in the past, so this notion the GOP was the one that freed the slaves is cute because if you really dig into the real reason it was to punish the South for it insurrection and to take away it free labor force which made it an Economic reason and less about the right of freedom of the Slave.

Again I know that does not suit your Trotsky point of view because in your mind Lincoln wanted a war with the Southern Confederate States while all the long all he wanted was to abolish slavery over a period of time but because the Confederate Southern States were against the idea of losing their free labor force and the Federal Government telling new possible States and territories they could not have slaves caused them to react the way they did and then Lincoln had no choice but to punish them for their betrayal against the Union.

Now you will deny the reality that Slavery in America was more than African Slaves and then deny the reality that Lincoln was a defender of Slave owners when he was younger, and then deny the reality that Tribes in Africa sold other tribes into slavery just because you want to blame White America for your pathetic excuse of a life.

Now go read history and not the one where only whites are racist and the plague of the world!

Oh, Slavery is still alive today and practice amongst Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and Whites right here in the States and if you deny that then you know nothing at all!

 

[OldLady]

We keep getting told how democrats had slaves and how republicans freed the slaves. I have been told I need to educate myself to learn real black history in America.

Some democrats owned slaves in the 1800's. A republican freed the slaves in the 1860's.

Now why is it that when we discuss slavery we are told by white conservatives how we can't blame or hold anyone today responsible for the past when we are black and talk about how whites did things, but white conservatives can blame democrats of today for something that happened 150-200 years ago?

Why don't you learn from the past and don't make the same mistake in the present and future, or don't and repeat history.

Blacks were not the only slaves here in America and even blacks owned slaves during that time and if you disagree then look it up and enjoy learning the truth. Also Slaves were sold by conquering Tribes in Africa to slave traders and a lot of the Slave traders dealt with Moors in certain regions.

Now I know this goes against your train of thought only Whites enslaved the Black and Native American race but if you really look at history and the history of slavery you will realize the entire human race has been guilty of the practice and not just whites or Conservative men.

Lincoln was not out to free the Slaves when he became President and had actually defended slave owners in the past, so this notion the GOP was the one that freed the slaves is cute because if you really dig into the real reason it was to punish the South for it insurrection and to take away it free labor force which made it an Economic reason and less about the right of freedom of the Slave.

Again I know that does not suit your Trotsky point of view because in your mind Lincoln wanted a war with the Southern Confederate States while all the long all he wanted was to abolish slavery over a period of time but because the Confederate Southern States were against the idea of losing their free labor force and the Federal Government telling new possible States and territories they could not have slaves caused them to react the way they did and then Lincoln had no choice but to punish them for their betrayal against the Union.

Now you will deny the reality that Slavery in America was more than African Slaves and then deny the reality that Lincoln was a defender of Slave owners when he was younger, and then deny the reality that Tribes in Africa sold other tribes into slavery just because you want to blame White America for your pathetic excuse of a life.

Now go read history and not the one where only whites are racist and the plague of the world!

Oh, Slavery is still alive today and practice amongst Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and Whites right here in the States and if you deny that then you know nothing at all!

I agree with what you said about the reasons for the Civil War and Lincoln's motives. It wasn't about freeing the slaves, at least not from the government's perspective. The slavery issue, which DID actually matter to a lot of people, worked really well to recruit young cannon fodder, though, so the government used it.
I haven't heard OP blaming his pathetic excuse of a life on anyone. I haven't heard he's got a pathetic excuse of a life.
The cultural segregation of the races isn't over. That's all. OP is still pushing because the job isn't done. That's really evident in just about every thread here.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

We keep getting told how democrats had slaves and how republicans freed the slaves. I have been told I need to educate myself to learn real black history in America.

Some democrats owned slaves in the 1800's. A republican freed the slaves in the 1860's.

Now why is it that when we discuss slavery we are told by white conservatives how we can't blame or hold anyone today responsible for the past when we are black and talk about how whites did things, but white conservatives can blame democrats of today for something that happened 150-200 years ago?

Why don't you learn from the past and don't make the same mistake in the present and future, or don't and repeat history.

Blacks were not the only slaves here in America and even blacks owned slaves during that time and if you disagree then look it up and enjoy learning the truth. Also Slaves were sold by conquering Tribes in Africa to slave traders and a lot of the Slave traders dealt with Moors in certain regions.

Now I know this goes against your train of thought only Whites enslaved the Black and Native American race but if you really look at history and the history of slavery you will realize the entire human race has been guilty of the practice and not just whites or Conservative men.

Lincoln was not out to free the Slaves when he became President and had actually defended slave owners in the past, so this notion the GOP was the one that freed the slaves is cute because if you really dig into the real reason it was to punish the South for it insurrection and to take away it free labor force which made it an Economic reason and less about the right of freedom of the Slave.

Again I know that does not suit your Trotsky point of view because in your mind Lincoln wanted a war with the Southern Confederate States while all the long all he wanted was to abolish slavery over a period of time but because the Confederate Southern States were against the idea of losing their free labor force and the Federal Government telling new possible States and territories they could not have slaves caused them to react the way they did and then Lincoln had no choice but to punish them for their betrayal against the Union.

Now you will deny the reality that Slavery in America was more than African Slaves and then deny the reality that Lincoln was a defender of Slave owners when he was younger, and then deny the reality that Tribes in Africa sold other tribes into slavery just because you want to blame White America for your pathetic excuse of a life.

Now go read history and not the one where only whites are racist and the plague of the world!

Oh, Slavery is still alive today and practice amongst Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and Whites right here in the States and if you deny that then you know nothing at all!

I agree with what you said about the reasons for the Civil War and Lincoln's motives. It wasn't about freeing the slaves, at least not from the government's perspective. The slavery issue, which DID actually matter to a lot of people, worked really well to recruit young cannon fodder, though, so the government used it.
I haven't heard OP blaming his pathetic excuse of a life on anyone. I haven't heard he's got a pathetic excuse of a life.
The cultural segregation of the races isn't over. That's all. OP is still pushing because the job isn't done. That's really evident in just about every thread here.

Then you have not read much of the OP'er nonsense.


The OP''er is a race baiting poster just like Steve McGarrett and a dime a dozen!

 

[IM2]

We keep getting told how democrats had slaves and how republicans freed the slaves. I have been told I need to educate myself to learn real black history in America.

Some democrats owned slaves in the 1800's. A republican freed the slaves in the 1860's.

Now why is it that when we discuss slavery we are told by white conservatives how we can't blame or hold anyone today responsible for the past when we are black and talk about how whites did things, but white conservatives can blame democrats of today for something that happened 150-200 years ago?

Why don't you learn from the past and don't make the same mistake in the present and future, or don't and repeat history.

Blacks were not the only slaves here in America and even blacks owned slaves during that time and if you disagree then look it up and enjoy learning the truth. Also Slaves were sold by conquering Tribes in Africa to slave traders and a lot of the Slave traders dealt with Moors in certain regions.

Now I know this goes against your train of thought only Whites enslaved the Black and Native American race but if you really look at history and the history of slavery you will realize the entire human race has been guilty of the practice and not just whites or Conservative men.

Lincoln was not out to free the Slaves when he became President and had actually defended slave owners in the past, so this notion the GOP was the one that freed the slaves is cute because if you really dig into the real reason it was to punish the South for it insurrection and to take away it free labor force which made it an Economic reason and less about the right of freedom of the Slave.

Again I know that does not suit your Trotsky point of view because in your mind Lincoln wanted a war with the Southern Confederate States while all the long all he wanted was to abolish slavery over a period of time but because the Confederate Southern States were against the idea of losing their free labor force and the Federal Government telling new possible States and territories they could not have slaves caused them to react the way they did and then Lincoln had no choice but to punish them for their betrayal against the Union.

Now you will deny the reality that Slavery in America was more than African Slaves and then deny the reality that Lincoln was a defender of Slave owners when he was younger, and then deny the reality that Tribes in Africa sold other tribes into slavery just because you want to blame White America for your pathetic excuse of a life.

Now go read history and not the one where only whites are racist and the plague of the world!

Oh, Slavery is still alive today and practice amongst Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and Whites right here in the States and if you deny that then you know nothing at all!

.

There were no white slaves. The Irish were never slaves.

I know what Lincoln was.

Just over 1 percent of all blacks living here owned slaves. Most of them purchased family members.

The problem is with a government that made such a system legal based only on race. Whites did that. Whites made black the only qualification for slavery. .

That's what history shows us. Deal with it.

 

[IM2]

We keep getting told how democrats had slaves and how republicans freed the slaves. I have been told I need to educate myself to learn real black history in America.

Some democrats owned slaves in the 1800's. A republican freed the slaves in the 1860's.

Now why is it that when we discuss slavery we are told by white conservatives how we can't blame or hold anyone today responsible for the past when we are black and talk about how whites did things, but white conservatives can blame democrats of today for something that happened 150-200 years ago?

Why don't you learn from the past and don't make the same mistake in the present and future, or don't and repeat history.

Blacks were not the only slaves here in America and even blacks owned slaves during that time and if you disagree then look it up and enjoy learning the truth. Also Slaves were sold by conquering Tribes in Africa to slave traders and a lot of the Slave traders dealt with Moors in certain regions.

Now I know this goes against your train of thought only Whites enslaved the Black and Native American race but if you really look at history and the history of slavery you will realize the entire human race has been guilty of the practice and not just whites or Conservative men.

Lincoln was not out to free the Slaves when he became President and had actually defended slave owners in the past, so this notion the GOP was the one that freed the slaves is cute because if you really dig into the real reason it was to punish the South for it insurrection and to take away it free labor force which made it an Economic reason and less about the right of freedom of the Slave.

Again I know that does not suit your Trotsky point of view because in your mind Lincoln wanted a war with the Southern Confederate States while all the long all he wanted was to abolish slavery over a period of time but because the Confederate Southern States were against the idea of losing their free labor force and the Federal Government telling new possible States and territories they could not have slaves caused them to react the way they did and then Lincoln had no choice but to punish them for their betrayal against the Union.

Now you will deny the reality that Slavery in America was more than African Slaves and then deny the reality that Lincoln was a defender of Slave owners when he was younger, and then deny the reality that Tribes in Africa sold other tribes into slavery just because you want to blame White America for your pathetic excuse of a life.

Now go read history and not the one where only whites are racist and the plague of the world!

Oh, Slavery is still alive today and practice amongst Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and Whites right here in the States and if you deny that then you know nothing at all!

I agree with what you said about the reasons for the Civil War and Lincoln's motives. It wasn't about freeing the slaves, at least not from the government's perspective. The slavery issue, which DID actually matter to a lot of people, worked really well to recruit young cannon fodder, though, so the government used it.
I haven't heard OP blaming his pathetic excuse of a life on anyone. I haven't heard he's got a pathetic excuse of a life.
The cultural segregation of the races isn't over. That's all. OP is still pushing because the job isn't done. That's really evident in just about every thread here.

Then you have not read much of the OP'er nonsense.


The OP''er is a race baiting poster just like Steve McGarrett and a dime a dozen!

No, the race baiters are you guys.

 

[Pogo]

Blacks were not the only slaves here in America and even blacks owned slaves during that time and if you disagree then look it up and enjoy learning the truth. Also Slaves were sold by conquering Tribes in Africa to slave traders and a lot of the Slave traders dealt with Moors in certain regions.

True, Africans were not the only slaves and also true that slavery as a social institution has manifested independently on every continent. But as to the first part Africans made up the overwhelming majority of slavery in North and South America. Columbus had tried enslaving Native Americans when he got here and Cromwell sent tens of thousands of Irish captives but by far the model that eventually took off and worked economically was the African transAtlantic slave trade run by European merchants. There's a reason for that.

When slavery developed through history as a social striation around the world, it had been about spoils of war between neighboring tribes --- tribe A defeats tribe B in war and as a result takes B's land, as well as its crops, its villages -- and its people. But tribe A and tribe B would have been neighbors and ethnically/geographically related. An African, or European, or Native American slave was "owned" by another African, European or Native American. But the idea of "harvesting" people from one continent and then transporting them across an ocean to a distant land which for them may as well have been another planet where they had no language in common, no culture in common, no religious tradition in common, not even their own body types, became a huge advantage for the slaveholder as a psychological tool.

A slave in Africa, if he escapes --- is IN Africa, his own land. He can fairly easily find familiar land, familiar people, familiar culture. He can communicate in a familiar language. An African slave escaping in the Americas is in a completely foreign world where he has no idea what's over the horizon, won't be able to communicate when he gets there and will have nothing to relate or attach to. And further, when he encounters other people his skin color immediately gives him away That was the enormous psychological tool, and it's why African slaves were forbidden education, forbidden religion and kept to a practical minimum on learning the European language and indulging in cultural exercise --- to keep them vulnerable.

Metter of fact, when the Ku Klux Klan started dressing up in sheets and riding around it was continuing a long-established tradition of "night riders" or "slave patrols" that passed themselves off as "ghosts" to keep the African slaves in fear and superstition.

Literally MILLIONS of Africans were brought across the Atlantic to North, South, Central and Caribbean America-- no comparison to perhaps fifty thousand Irish sent by Cromwell -- who, when they arrived, did have a common language with the outside, did have religious and cultural traditions in common with their masters, did have a race in common as well, and were afforded a term to work off their "indentured servitude". So not only is there no comparison in the numbers, there's also no comparison to the status; "slavery" for an African prisoner was entirely different from "indentured servitude" for a European prisoner. The European had no language or cultural or religious barrier and his term was finite. And if he was released or escaped he didn't look on the outside any different from his captors' people. The African was dropped into a completely foreign world he had deliberately been given no tools to cope with, and his situation had no end, even for his children. He was told he was inferior and that's just the way of things.

This transAtlantic slave trade is also where the concept of racism starts. In order to justify itself against its moral opponents especially in the Church, the trade had to convince the masses that these strange creatures from this strange continent were "not really humans anyway, so it's OK". Much like a farmer would own cattle. Religious clerics were engaged to sell that propaganda, even while other religious clerics disputed it. The powerful institution of Christianity was used both to rationalize slavery and to oppose it. But prior to all this the concept that one race would be somehow ranked as "inferior" to another based on skin color, was nonexistent.

So the African component of slavery in the Americas cannot possibly be minimized. While it's technically true they were not the only slaves, about the only legacy of the Irish is the lilt in contemporary Caribbean speech where most of them were sent (such as in Jamaica). The legacy on the Africans is far more pervasive, including the overwhelming psychological and cultural warfare waged on it.

Lincoln was not out to free the Slaves when he became President and had actually defended slave owners in the past, so this notion the GOP was the one that freed the slaves is cute because if you really dig into the real reason it was to punish the South for it insurrection and to take away it free labor force which made it an Economic reason and less about the right of freedom of the Slave.

That's basically accurate I think. Although it's erroneous to conflate the Lincoln and his government with a political party. It was the government, not a political party, that waged the war, which had at least some support from both parties. But the war itself was, as most wars are, based on economics and which side would have an economic advantage. That particular rivalry had been brewing for really as long as this country had existed, the proverbial "fourscore and seven years ago", and dated to long before the pressures of the Abolition movement became associated with it.

Both the widespread idea that "the Civil War was all about slavery" and the competing idea that "the Civil War was all about economics" miss the mark by oversimplifying and ignoring contexts. Just as similar ideas about Lincoln's motivations do. The underlying dynamics were complex and cannot possibly reduce to a single sentence or theme.

 

[OldLady]

We keep getting told how democrats had slaves and how republicans freed the slaves. I have been told I need to educate myself to learn real black history in America.

Some democrats owned slaves in the 1800's. A republican freed the slaves in the 1860's.

Now why is it that when we discuss slavery we are told by white conservatives how we can't blame or hold anyone today responsible for the past when we are black and talk about how whites did things, but white conservatives can blame democrats of today for something that happened 150-200 years ago?

Why don't you learn from the past and don't make the same mistake in the present and future, or don't and repeat history.

Blacks were not the only slaves here in America and even blacks owned slaves during that time and if you disagree then look it up and enjoy learning the truth. Also Slaves were sold by conquering Tribes in Africa to slave traders and a lot of the Slave traders dealt with Moors in certain regions.

Now I know this goes against your train of thought only Whites enslaved the Black and Native American race but if you really look at history and the history of slavery you will realize the entire human race has been guilty of the practice and not just whites or Conservative men.

Lincoln was not out to free the Slaves when he became President and had actually defended slave owners in the past, so this notion the GOP was the one that freed the slaves is cute because if you really dig into the real reason it was to punish the South for it insurrection and to take away it free labor force which made it an Economic reason and less about the right of freedom of the Slave.

Again I know that does not suit your Trotsky point of view because in your mind Lincoln wanted a war with the Southern Confederate States while all the long all he wanted was to abolish slavery over a period of time but because the Confederate Southern States were against the idea of losing their free labor force and the Federal Government telling new possible States and territories they could not have slaves caused them to react the way they did and then Lincoln had no choice but to punish them for their betrayal against the Union.

Now you will deny the reality that Slavery in America was more than African Slaves and then deny the reality that Lincoln was a defender of Slave owners when he was younger, and then deny the reality that Tribes in Africa sold other tribes into slavery just because you want to blame White America for your pathetic excuse of a life.

Now go read history and not the one where only whites are racist and the plague of the world!

Oh, Slavery is still alive today and practice amongst Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and Whites right here in the States and if you deny that then you know nothing at all!

I agree with what you said about the reasons for the Civil War and Lincoln's motives. It wasn't about freeing the slaves, at least not from the government's perspective. The slavery issue, which DID actually matter to a lot of people, worked really well to recruit young cannon fodder, though, so the government used it.
I haven't heard OP blaming his pathetic excuse of a life on anyone. I haven't heard he's got a pathetic excuse of a life.
The cultural segregation of the races isn't over. That's all. OP is still pushing because the job isn't done. That's really evident in just about every thread here.

Then you have not read much of the OP'er nonsense.


The OP''er is a race baiting poster just like Steve McGarrett and a dime a dozen!

No, the race baiters are you guys.

Here we go again with the "race baiting" thing. No one answered me about what in hell "race baiting" is or how this or that thread is determined to be "race baiting."
There is no such thing, here, as opening a thread in Race Relations without inviting in certain posters to respond. Is that baiting? No, that's posing a question that is going to interest some people with opposing or similar views.
Look at this thread's title. Look at the OP. It looks like a reasonable comment on numerous posts he received yesterday in another thread.
I don't see it, but no one has actually given me a good definition or examples of what race baiting is supposed to be.

 

[OldLady]

Blacks were not the only slaves here in America and even blacks owned slaves during that time and if you disagree then look it up and enjoy learning the truth. Also Slaves were sold by conquering Tribes in Africa to slave traders and a lot of the Slave traders dealt with Moors in certain regions.

True, Africans were not the only slaves and also true that slavery as a social institution has manifested independently on every continent. But as to the first part Africans made up the overwhelming majority of slavery in North and South America. Columbus had tried enslaving Native Americans when he got here and Cromwell sent tens of thousands of Irish captives but by far the model that eventually took off and worked economically was the African transAtlantic slave trade run by European merchants. There's a reason for that.

When slavery developed through history as a social striation around the world, it had been about spoils of war between neighboring tribes --- tribe A defeats tribe B in war and as a result takes B's land, as well as its crops, its villages -- and its people. But tribe A and tribe B would have been neighbors and ethnically/geographically related. An African, or European, or Native American slave was "owned" by another African, European or Native American. But the idea of "harvesting" people from one continent and then transporting them across an ocean to a distant land which for them may as well have been another planet where they had no language in common, no culture in common, no religious tradition in common, not even their own body types, became a huge advantage for the slaveholder as a psychological tool.

A slave in Africa, if he escapes --- is IN Africa, his own land. He can fairly easily find familiar land, familiar people, familiar culture. An African slave escaping in the Americas is in a completely foreign world where he has no idea what's over the horizon, won't be able to communicate when he gets there and will have nothing to relate or attach to. And further, when he encounters other people his skin color immediately gives him away That was the enormous psychological tool, and it's why African slaves were forbidden education, forbidden religion and kept to a practical minimum on learning the European language and indulging in cultural exercise --- to keep them vulnerable.

Metter of fact, when the Ku Klux Klan started dressing up in sheets and riding around it was continuing a long-established tradition of "night riders" or "slave patrols" that passed themselves off as "ghosts" to keep the African slaves in fear and superstition.

Literally MILLIONS of Africans were brought across the Atlantic to North, South, Central and Caribbean America-- no comparison to perhaps fifty thousand Irish sent by Cromwell -- who, when they arrived, did have a common language with the outside, did have religious and cultural traditions in common with their masters, did have a race in common as well, and were afforded a term to work off their "indentured servitude". So not only is there no comparison in the numbers, there's also no comparison to the status; "slavery" for an African prisoner was entirely different from "indentured servitude" for a European prisoner. The European had no language or cultural or religious barrier and his term was finite. And if he was released or escaped he didn't look on the outside any different from his captors' people. The African was dropped into a completely foreign world he had deliberately been given no tools to cope with, and his situation had no end, even for his children. He was told he was inferior and that's just the way of things.

This transAtlantic slave trade is also where the concept of racism starts. In order to justify itself against its moral opponents especially in the Church, the trade had to convince the masses that these strange creatures from this strange continent were "not really humans anyway, so it's OK". Much like a farmer would own cattle. Religious clerics were engaged to sell that propaganda, even while other religious clerics disputed it. The powerful institution of Christianity was used both to rationalize slavery and to oppose it. But prior to all this the concept that one race would be somehow ranked as "inferior" to another based on skin color, was nonexistent.

So the African component of slavery in the Americas cannot possibly be minimized. While it's technically true they were not the only slaves, about the only legacy of the Irish is the lilt in contemporary Caribbean speech where most of them were sent (such as in Jamaica). The legacy on the Africans is far more pervasive, including the overwhelming psychological and cultural warfare waged on it.

Lincoln was not out to free the Slaves when he became President and had actually defended slave owners in the past, so this notion the GOP was the one that freed the slaves is cute because if you really dig into the real reason it was to punish the South for it insurrection and to take away it free labor force which made it an Economic reason and less about the right of freedom of the Slave.

That's basically accurate I think. Although it's erroneous to conflate the Lincoln and his government with a political party. It was the government, not a political party, that waged the war, which had at least some support from both parties. But the war itself was, as most wars are, based on economics and which side would have an economic advantage. That particular rivalry had been brewing for really as long as this country had existed, the proverbial "fourscore and seven years ago", and dated to long before the pressures of the Abolition movement became associated with it.

Both the widespread idea that "the Civil War was all about slavery" and the competing idea that "the Civil War was all about economics" miss the mark by oversimplifying and ignoring contexts. Just as similar ideas about Lincoln's motivations do. The underlying dynamics were complex and cannot possibly reduce to a single sentence or theme.

Thank you, sir.

 

[Pogo]

We keep getting told how democrats had slaves and how republicans freed the slaves. I have been told I need to educate myself to learn real black history in America.

Some democrats owned slaves in the 1800's. A republican freed the slaves in the 1860's.

Now why is it that when we discuss slavery we are told by white conservatives how we can't blame or hold anyone today responsible for the past when we are black and talk about how whites did things, but white conservatives can blame democrats of today for something that happened 150-200 years ago?

Why don't you learn from the past and don't make the same mistake in the present and future, or don't and repeat history.

Blacks were not the only slaves here in America and even blacks owned slaves during that time and if you disagree then look it up and enjoy learning the truth. Also Slaves were sold by conquering Tribes in Africa to slave traders and a lot of the Slave traders dealt with Moors in certain regions.

Now I know this goes against your train of thought only Whites enslaved the Black and Native American race but if you really look at history and the history of slavery you will realize the entire human race has been guilty of the practice and not just whites or Conservative men.

Lincoln was not out to free the Slaves when he became President and had actually defended slave owners in the past, so this notion the GOP was the one that freed the slaves is cute because if you really dig into the real reason it was to punish the South for it insurrection and to take away it free labor force which made it an Economic reason and less about the right of freedom of the Slave.

Again I know that does not suit your Trotsky point of view because in your mind Lincoln wanted a war with the Southern Confederate States while all the long all he wanted was to abolish slavery over a period of time but because the Confederate Southern States were against the idea of losing their free labor force and the Federal Government telling new possible States and territories they could not have slaves caused them to react the way they did and then Lincoln had no choice but to punish them for their betrayal against the Union.

Now you will deny the reality that Slavery in America was more than African Slaves and then deny the reality that Lincoln was a defender of Slave owners when he was younger, and then deny the reality that Tribes in Africa sold other tribes into slavery just because you want to blame White America for your pathetic excuse of a life.

Now go read history and not the one where only whites are racist and the plague of the world!

Oh, Slavery is still alive today and practice amongst Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and Whites right here in the States and if you deny that then you know nothing at all!

.

There were no white slaves. The Irish were never slaves.

I know what Lincoln was.

Just over 1 percent of all blacks living here owned slaves. Most of them purchased family members.

The problem is with a government that made such a system legal based only on race. Whites did that. Whites made black the only qualification for slavery. .

That's what history shows us. Deal with it.

This is an excellent summary (the video), thanks for posting it. Makes many of the points I just posted and also describes the arms race set up by European merchants that so fucked up African balances of power, and introduced the incentive that made internal capture of slaves "a reason for war rather than a result of it".

You're wrong about the Irish slaves. Despot Oliver Cromwell, after a series of massacres in raiding Ireland, left his brother Henry there as governor, who sent an estimated 30,000 to 80,000 Irish slaves to the West Indies as the aforementioned "indentured servants", where they joined a labor force of African slaves and intermarried. It is believed that into the 19th century there were blacks in the West Indies speaking Gaelic (Irish) and the Irish lilt in the English speech is audible even today.

Here's a good essay that mentions that part and many other parts of the journey -- Hear That Long Snake Moan. You'll find this background on pages 8-9.

 

[Pogo]

Blacks were not the only slaves here in America and even blacks owned slaves during that time and if you disagree then look it up and enjoy learning the truth. Also Slaves were sold by conquering Tribes in Africa to slave traders and a lot of the Slave traders dealt with Moors in certain regions.

True, Africans were not the only slaves and also true that slavery as a social institution has manifested independently on every continent. But as to the first part Africans made up the overwhelming majority of slavery in North and South America. Columbus had tried enslaving Native Americans when he got here and Cromwell sent tens of thousands of Irish captives but by far the model that eventually took off and worked economically was the African transAtlantic slave trade run by European merchants. There's a reason for that.

When slavery developed through history as a social striation around the world, it had been about spoils of war between neighboring tribes --- tribe A defeats tribe B in war and as a result takes B's land, as well as its crops, its villages -- and its people. But tribe A and tribe B would have been neighbors and ethnically/geographically related. An African, or European, or Native American slave was "owned" by another African, European or Native American. But the idea of "harvesting" people from one continent and then transporting them across an ocean to a distant land which for them may as well have been another planet where they had no language in common, no culture in common, no religious tradition in common, not even their own body types, became a huge advantage for the slaveholder as a psychological tool.

A slave in Africa, if he escapes --- is IN Africa, his own land. He can fairly easily find familiar land, familiar people, familiar culture. An African slave escaping in the Americas is in a completely foreign world where he has no idea what's over the horizon, won't be able to communicate when he gets there and will have nothing to relate or attach to. And further, when he encounters other people his skin color immediately gives him away That was the enormous psychological tool, and it's why African slaves were forbidden education, forbidden religion and kept to a practical minimum on learning the European language and indulging in cultural exercise --- to keep them vulnerable.

Metter of fact, when the Ku Klux Klan started dressing up in sheets and riding around it was continuing a long-established tradition of "night riders" or "slave patrols" that passed themselves off as "ghosts" to keep the African slaves in fear and superstition.

Literally MILLIONS of Africans were brought across the Atlantic to North, South, Central and Caribbean America-- no comparison to perhaps fifty thousand Irish sent by Cromwell -- who, when they arrived, did have a common language with the outside, did have religious and cultural traditions in common with their masters, did have a race in common as well, and were afforded a term to work off their "indentured servitude". So not only is there no comparison in the numbers, there's also no comparison to the status; "slavery" for an African prisoner was entirely different from "indentured servitude" for a European prisoner. The European had no language or cultural or religious barrier and his term was finite. And if he was released or escaped he didn't look on the outside any different from his captors' people. The African was dropped into a completely foreign world he had deliberately been given no tools to cope with, and his situation had no end, even for his children. He was told he was inferior and that's just the way of things.

This transAtlantic slave trade is also where the concept of racism starts. In order to justify itself against its moral opponents especially in the Church, the trade had to convince the masses that these strange creatures from this strange continent were "not really humans anyway, so it's OK". Much like a farmer would own cattle. Religious clerics were engaged to sell that propaganda, even while other religious clerics disputed it. The powerful institution of Christianity was used both to rationalize slavery and to oppose it. But prior to all this the concept that one race would be somehow ranked as "inferior" to another based on skin color, was nonexistent.

So the African component of slavery in the Americas cannot possibly be minimized. While it's technically true they were not the only slaves, about the only legacy of the Irish is the lilt in contemporary Caribbean speech where most of them were sent (such as in Jamaica). The legacy on the Africans is far more pervasive, including the overwhelming psychological and cultural warfare waged on it.

Lincoln was not out to free the Slaves when he became President and had actually defended slave owners in the past, so this notion the GOP was the one that freed the slaves is cute because if you really dig into the real reason it was to punish the South for it insurrection and to take away it free labor force which made it an Economic reason and less about the right of freedom of the Slave.

That's basically accurate I think. Although it's erroneous to conflate the Lincoln and his government with a political party. It was the government, not a political party, that waged the war, which had at least some support from both parties. But the war itself was, as most wars are, based on economics and which side would have an economic advantage. That particular rivalry had been brewing for really as long as this country had existed, the proverbial "fourscore and seven years ago", and dated to long before the pressures of the Abolition movement became associated with it.

Both the widespread idea that "the Civil War was all about slavery" and the competing idea that "the Civil War was all about economics" miss the mark by oversimplifying and ignoring contexts. Just as similar ideas about Lincoln's motivations do. The underlying dynamics were complex and cannot possibly reduce to a single sentence or theme.

Thank you, sir.

This is why I drink coffee.

 

[Pogo]

I also don't get the title of this thread. I presume it's supposed to mean "Democrats", not "democrats", but the first African slaves in North America were brought here (by Spanish merchants) three hundred years before the Democratic Party ever existed and way before there was a country here, or even colonies, in the 1530s.

That story actually has a happy ending.--- the captives, about 150 Africans, overpowered their captors upon landing in what is now South Carolina, and escaped, never to be seen again, presumably integrating with and living with the Native Americans they found, which was then the only other population. The next ones would not be so lucky.

 

[IM2]

I also don't get the title of this thread. I presume it's supposed to mean "Democrats", not "democrats", but the first African slaves in North America were brought here (by Spanish merchants) three hundred years before the Democratic Party ever existed and way before there was a country here, or even colonies, in the 1530s.

That story actually has a happy ending.--- the captives, about 150 Africans, overpowered their captors upon landing in what is now South Carolina, and escaped, never to be seen again, presumably integrating with and living with the Native Americans they found, which was then the only other population. The next ones would not be so lucky.

The title is about the obtuse ability for these republicans to blame racism on democrats today for what happened 150 years ago while telling us who start detailing how the racism that began long before that has impacted the black community today need to not blame people from today for what happened 150-200 years ago.

 

[Pogo]

I also don't get the title of this thread. I presume it's supposed to mean "Democrats", not "democrats", but the first African slaves in North America were brought here (by Spanish merchants) three hundred years before the Democratic Party ever existed and way before there was a country here, or even colonies, in the 1530s.

That story actually has a happy ending.--- the captives, about 150 Africans, overpowered their captors upon landing in what is now South Carolina, and escaped, never to be seen again, presumably integrating with and living with the Native Americans they found, which was then the only other population. The next ones would not be so lucky.

The title is about the obtuse ability for these republicans to blame racism on democrats today for what happened 150 years ago while telling us who start detailing how the racism that began long before that has impacted the black community today need to not blame people from today for what happened 150-200 years ago.

That's true enough. I keep telling these parrots that political parties exist only to consolidate power and not to represent a fixed ideology. Clearly the ideological thrusts of the two political parties over the last 150 years have migrated markedly from where they started, especially at the turn of the century. It's the height of lackadaisical intellectual sloth to pretend that the terms "Democrat" and "Republican" mean anywhere near what they meant in 1867.

 

[Mudda]

Why would anyone want to BLAME whites? Whites brought Africans over here, taught them how to be civilized, and then died setting them free. So they had to work off their education and whatnot. Everyone has to work in life to get somewhere. So maybe a "thank you" would be nice.

 

[Cossack1483]

In defense of defense of an abused and beleagured citizenry , the Ku Klux Klan was formed Christmas Eve , 152 years ago. Not for Self but for Others.

 

[Pogo]

In defense of defense of an abused and beleagured citizenry , the Ku Klux Klan was formed Christmas Eve , 152 years ago. Not for Self but for Others.

Nope - you have the date correct but those six guys simply formed a whimsical social club because they were bored. Had no purpose for "others". It really had no purpose for anything except self-amusement (hence the silly K-alliteration).

Of course, it didn't stay that way once it was taken over in the next year by the already long-established "night rider" elements. These elements also formed at least two dozen other similar vigilante groups all around the same time. The reason we remember the Klan better than we remember the Knights of the Rising Sun etc, is because it was the Klan that got re-formed in 1915, piggybacking on the notoriety of the "Birth of a Nation" film and the overt and rampant racism of the time, and developed into a far larger and far more influential group than it or any other of the 19th Century groups had ever been. Another one of those obscure groups was the White League, commemorated in the Liberty Place monument that New Orleans just removed.

 

[Pogo]

Why would anyone want to BLAME whites? Whites brought Africans over here, taught them how to be civilized, and then died setting them free. So they had to work off their education and whatnot. Everyone has to work in life to get somewhere. So maybe a "thank you" would be nice.

Yyyyeah ummm.... what thrift store sold you your history book?

 

[Mudda]

Why would anyone want to BLAME whites? Whites brought Africans over here, taught them how to be civilized, and then died setting them free. So they had to work off their education and whatnot. Everyone has to work in life to get somewhere. So maybe a "thank you" would be nice.

Yyyyeah ummm.... what thrift store sold you your history book?

I think it was called "reality and the facts people don't want to see" bookstore.

 

[Pogo]

Why would anyone want to BLAME whites? Whites brought Africans over here, taught them how to be civilized, and then died setting them free. So they had to work off their education and whatnot. Everyone has to work in life to get somewhere. So maybe a "thank you" would be nice.

Yyyyeah ummm.... what thrift store sold you your history book?

I think it was called "reality and the facts people don't want to see" bookstore.

In the "crapola that nobody wants" bin.