Total Posts:84|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Republican Historical Revisionism

royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 8:30:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Good Old Days of Slavery
A North Carolina high school is still teaching that American slaves were happy and carefree willing servants.
January 5, 2005 |

These days it's getting harder to tell whether history is repeating itself or if human beings are just becoming more cliche. This was underscored last week when it came to light that Cary Christian Academy, a private school in North Carolina, was using the deceptively titled pamphlet "Southern Slavery, As It Was" in their curriculum. Among the more notable claims presented by authors Doug Wilson and Stephen Wilkins were neglected virtues like: "Many Southern blacks supported the South because of long established bonds of affection and trust that had been forged over generations with their white masters and friends." Or this gem: "There has never been a multi-racial society which has existed with such mutual intimacy and harmony in the history of the world."

Listen close and you can almost hear the banjoes strumming in the background. Officials at the school defended the 43-page tract, arguing that they want to present students with "both sides" of the Civil War story and that students also read speeches by Abraham Lincoln. Ironically enough, the "both sides" approach does not include the perspectives of the actual black people who lived through slavery. A random selection from John Blassingame's "Slave Testimony" yields this first-person dissenting opinion: "[The mistress] took her in the morning, before sunrise, into a room and had all the doors shut. She tied her hands and then took her frock over her head, and gathered it up in her left hand, and with her right commenced to beating her naked body with bunches of willow twigs. She would beat her until her arm was tired and then thrash her on the floor, and stamp on her with her foot and kick her and choke her to stop her screams. She continued the torture until ten o'clock. The poor child never recovered. A white swelling came from the bruises on her legs of which she died in two or three years."

Any few pages in your college-worn copy of "The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass" would put the lie to Wilson and Wilkins claim that "Slave life was to them a life of plenty, of simple pleasures, of food, clothes, and good medical care." And one wonders where Harriet Tubman, bludgeoned so badly as a child that she suffered from bouts of narcolepsy for the rest of her life, fits into this backdrop of happy plantation scenery. And far from supporting the South out of their "bonds of affection," nearly all black Confederates, as James McPherson points out in "The Negro's Civil War," were conscript laborers who constantly sought means to escape across Union lines. To put it simply, this was a case of bondage not bonds. It is pathetic that five years into the 21st century, the societal learning curve is so obtuse that we must still make statements like: American slavery was a violent, oppressive institution responsible for the brutal subjugation and dehumanization of millions of people over the course of three centuries.

Wilson and Wilkins claims that slave life was characterized by "good medical care" is particularly bizarre given the fact that enslaved black people were frequently used as subjects of 19th century medical experimentation. The historian Katherine Bankole, in fact, pointed out in her book "Slavery and Medicine" that given the high mortality rates for the most minor surgeries during the era, doctors in antebellum Louisiana "perfected" their Caesarian-section technique on black women before applying it to white ones.

This is not about accurate history, but about providing the South with a human rights alibi, 139 years past slavery. It is about a vast capacity for willful self-delusion, the need to provide self-absolution for the sins of the so-deemed Peculiar Institution. Thus you see the kind of historical hairsplitting of "Southern Slavery, As It Was": Slavery was wrong ... but not as bad you might think.

And sadly enough, it's not only in the far precincts of the Christian right that we hear these kinds of weak rationales. The Southern Alibi tradition rests upon the now " outmoded arguments of historian Ulrich B. Phillips' "American Negro Slavery." First published in 1918, the book glazed the old arguments that slavery had been a benign and beneficial institution to the enslaved with a new scholarly sheen. Phillips' perspective had a striking longevity, finding expression even in the dissenting works that appeared in the 1950s and 1960s, all the way down to Robert Fogel and Stanley Engerman's "Time on the Cross" which appeared in 1974 arguing that poor treatment of blacks would have made slavery unprofitable as an economic institution. Back in my graduate school days, my friend and fellow historian Khalil Muhammad and I were amazed to find that we " and a single white student " were the sole voices in a 15-person colloquium who were willing to argue that slavery was an unqualified moral wrong.

All these defenses " whether presented at academic conferences or passed out to adolescents in private academies of the far right, are invested in viewing slavery as a labor system operated by rational, managerial white folk " the plantation equivalents of Jack Welch or Lee Iacocca. But in order for these theories to work, they also have to overlook the concomitant cruelties of sexual exploitation of enslaved black women, which was common enough to be a defining characteristic of the institution. Again, even a commonplace text like Harriet Jacobs' "Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl" or Deborah White's "Aren't I A Woman" would illustrate the fact that rape was an intricate part of enslavement in this country. Nor can these depictions of slavery-lite explain away the dissolution of families for profit and the inhuman breeding of blacks to produce additional chattel for the slave owners.

It would be easy to dismiss these disputes as the arid exercises of the History Forensics Society were the implications for our everyday lives not so serious. Truth told, Wilkins and Wilson are only inches away from the "happy darky" illustrations of black life and if this is "Southern Slavery, As It Was" then they would be hard-pressed to explain the literal hundred of slave revolts, attempted revolts, poisonings and fires that defined the South between the Revolutionary and Civil Wars. In airbrushing the brutality of slavery, we make it possible to ignore the tremendous power that race had " and continues to have " in shaping this society. To cut to the quick, until we are willing to grapple with slavery as it was, we will remain incapable of dealing with America as it is.
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 8:52:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's sad that stuff like this even needs to be said. I'm sure that people will be here soon to point out that the Europeans didn't capture the Africans, but rather other Africans sold them, as though that fact somehow mends the cruelties suffered by slaves. And of course there's the classic argument that Europeans did Africans a favor by bringing them to America so they wouldn't have to live in the sh!t hole that is Africa. My only response to that is that kidnapping a bunch of children from a house that you are in the process of setting on fire is not an act of heroism.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 8:59:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/7/2012 8:52:25 AM, Frederick53 wrote:
It's sad that stuff like this even needs to be said. I'm sure that people will be here soon to point out that the Europeans didn't capture the Africans, but rather other Africans sold them

I am waiting eagerly for them to come. I am taking a class about this, so I have plenty of responses.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 9:01:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Oh, and most historians agree that Africa only really became a horrible place to live in as a result of Islamic and European Christian slavery.
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 9:02:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Europeans didn't capture the Africans, the Africans sold themselves into slavery to escape from Africa.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 9:20:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/7/2012 9:02:08 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
Europeans didn't capture the Africans, the Africans sold themselves into slavery to escape from Africa.

Evidence, please? This is completely retarded. The enslaved Africans were captured by rival chiefs and rulers with the backing, aid, and weapons of European military leaders and sold to the Europeans. The few chiefs that did resist joining the slave trade were demolished by a united front of Europeans and their "ruling class" African toadies. Africans leaders actually engaged in the slave trade as a means of protecting their own people; without the military supplies provided by the Europeans, other African chiefs would enslave them and their people and sell them. Moreover, African leaders who participated in the trade were granted immunity to sale; in some instances, European leaders actually went to great length to recover any members of the "ruling class" who were sold into slavery.

In addition, this is false. Some Europeans did, in fact, lead raids into the interior of Africa to capture slaves.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 9:22:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The reason that Africa became so unsafe was that the slave trade increased the incentive for raids and warfare (since custom permitted the victors to enslave the losers) and thus increased the amount of destruction in the area. People could have focused on growing crops and surviving, but instead they had to repel slavers and enslave other people in order to ensure that they themselves would not be enslaved.
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 9:24:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/7/2012 9:20:28 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Evidence, please?

My evidence is common sense. No one wants to live in Africa.

This is completely retarded. The enslaved Africans were captured by rival chiefs and rulers with the backing, aid, and weapons of European military leaders and sold to the Europeans.

See? That proves my point. Africans were enslaving each other and selling them to Europeans.

The few chiefs that did resist joining the slave trade were demolished by a united front of Europeans and their "ruling class" African toadies. Africans leaders actually engaged in the slave trade as a means of protecting their own people; without the military supplies provided by the Europeans, other African chiefs would enslave them and their people and sell them.

If no one enslaved anyone, this wouldn't be a problem.

Moreover, African leaders who participated in the trade were granted immunity to sale; in some instances, European leaders actually went to great length to recover any members of the "ruling class" who were sold into slavery.

So pretty much, they didn't care if they sold other people into slavery as long as they weren't being sold into slavery..

In addition, this is false. Some Europeans did, in fact, lead raids into the interior of Africa to capture slaves.

Evidence, please?
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 9:34:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/7/2012 9:24:35 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 10/7/2012 9:20:28 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Evidence, please?

My evidence is common sense. No one wants to live in Africa.

Are you trolling? Africa really was not that much different from other places in that era, and I'm pretty sure that the Africans wanted to be home, as evidenced by the fact that they constructed an entire narrative that involved striving to return home while they were enslaved.

So, you are either trolling or engaging in the usual European nonsense scholarship.

Also, if nobody wants to live in Africa, the Europeans wouldn't have colonized it and the white Afrikaan community wouldn't still be there today.
This is completely retarded. The enslaved Africans were captured by rival chiefs and rulers with the backing, aid, and weapons of European military leaders and sold to the Europeans.

See? That proves my point. Africans were enslaving each other and selling them to Europeans.

Only because if they didn't, they would have been enslaved and sold to Europeans. The European military prowess and demand for slaves created the problem. It was their fault.

You are basically claiming that I am culpable for murder if someone tells me that if I don't kill you, I will myself be killed. The leaders were offered no choice. They had to enslave or be enslaved. The leaders that did refuse to participate were enslaved.
The few chiefs that did resist joining the slave trade were demolished by a united front of Europeans and their "ruling class" African toadies. Africans leaders actually engaged in the slave trade as a means of protecting their own people; without the military supplies provided by the Europeans, other African chiefs would enslave them and their people and sell them.

If no one enslaved anyone, this wouldn't be a problem.

Yes, it would be. The Europeans were already kidnapping slaves on their own from the coastal areas. There was already a more powerful group that was enslaving people. If a more powerful group that is enslaving people offers you immunity from enslavement and threatens to enslave you if you refuse, what would you do?
Moreover, African leaders who participated in the trade were granted immunity to sale; in some instances, European leaders actually went to great length to recover any members of the "ruling class" who were sold into slavery.

So pretty much, they didn't care if they sold other people into slavery as long as they weren't being sold into slavery..

Yeah, that was my point.
In addition, this is false. Some Europeans did, in fact, lead raids into the interior of Africa to capture slaves.

Evidence, please?

I can direct you to some authors.

Abdul Sheriff, Boubacar Barry, and Walter Rodney write extensively about this.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 9:37:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
To be fair, Africa 17th century onwards was worse to live in than European Countries. It'd still be better to be a free man in Africa than an enslaved one in European Nations.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 9:38:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/7/2012 9:34:24 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Are you trolling? Africa really was not that much different from other places in that era, and I'm pretty sure that the Africans wanted to be home, as evidenced by the fact that they constructed an entire narrative that involved striving to return home while they were enslaved.

Nonsense. Africa has never been a pleasant place and never will be.

So, you are either trolling or engaging in the usual European nonsense scholarship.

Scholarship? I want a scholarship.

Also, if nobody wants to live in Africa, the Europeans wouldn't have colonized it and the white Afrikaan community wouldn't still be there today.

Everyone knows Europeans are so greedy they'll snatch anything they can get their hands on. Doesn't matter if it's good or not, they'll take it anyway just so you can't have it.

Only because if they didn't, they would have been enslaved and sold to Europeans. The European military prowess and demand for slaves created the problem. It was their fault.

No it wasn't. It was still the Africans doing the enslaving.

You are basically claiming that I am culpable for murder if someone tells me that if I don't kill you, I will myself be killed.

In all honesty, I believe that to be true.

The leaders were offered no choice. They had to enslave or be enslaved. The leaders that did refuse to participate were enslaved.

They refused to make the correct choice, and took the cowardly way out.

Yes, it would be. The Europeans were already kidnapping slaves on their own from the coastal areas.

So you say.

There was already a more powerful group that was enslaving people. If a more powerful group that is enslaving people offers you immunity from enslavement and threatens to enslave you if you refuse, what would you do?

Refuse.

Yeah, that was my point.

And that's the problem.

I can direct you to some authors.

Abdul Sheriff, Boubacar Barry, and Walter Rodney write extensively about this.

I'm illiterate.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 9:41:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/7/2012 9:35:48 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Obvious trolling is obvious.

Great. I'll never get on the weekly stupid at this rate.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 9:46:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/7/2012 9:41:54 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 10/7/2012 9:35:48 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Obvious trolling is obvious.

Great. I'll never get on the weekly stupid at this rate.

Why do you want to get on the Weekly Stupid?
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 9:51:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/7/2012 9:01:44 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Oh, and most historians agree that Africa only really became a horrible place to live in as a result of Islamic and European Christian slavery.

Yes, and not just slavery, but by military and political intervention.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 9:59:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/7/2012 9:46:23 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 10/7/2012 9:41:54 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 10/7/2012 9:35:48 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Obvious trolling is obvious.

Great. I'll never get on the weekly stupid at this rate.

Why do you want to get on the Weekly Stupid?

That's like asking "Why do you want to be James Bond?" It's obvious, and anyone who doesn't understand just lacks balls.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 10:47:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/7/2012 9:02:08 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
Europeans didn't capture the Africans, the Africans sold themselves into slavery to escape from Africa.

Actually Africans sold other Africans into slavery. When one tribe warred against another they would sell the captives. It was Africans perpetuating the slave trade, for their own profit. If Africans didn't sell other Africans into slavery the process of obtaining slaves would be much more difficult.

As far as Europe goes, they would often take slaves during war. Just like the Romans did. The US just bought slaves from other Africans, because we didn't seek conquest in Africa like the Europeans did.

In Jamestown white settlers were sold to the Native Americans as slaves in exchange for more land. One famous instance is when Henry Spelman was sold into slavery, in order to gain land, and so that he may learn the native language to act as a translator. Henry Spelman was the nephew of Sir Henry Spelman (a member of parliament, and the High Sheriff of Norfolk).

The Spanish were known to take Native Americans as slaves during their conquests.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 11:05:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/7/2012 8:30:40 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
The Good Old Days of Slavery
A North Carolina high school is still teaching that American slaves were happy and carefree willing servants.
January 5, 2005 |





These days it's getting harder to tell whether history is repeating itself or if human beings are just becoming more cliche. This was underscored last week when it came to light that Cary Christian Academy, a private school in North Carolina, was using the deceptively titled pamphlet "Southern Slavery, As It Was" in their curriculum. Among the more notable claims presented by authors Doug Wilson and Stephen Wilkins were neglected virtues like: "Many Southern blacks supported the South because of long established bonds of affection and trust that had been forged over generations with their white masters and friends." Or this gem: "There has never been a multi-racial society which has existed with such mutual intimacy and harmony in the history of the world."

Actually slaves were well treated by some slave owners. Many slave owners considered them part of the family, much like many people today consider their dog as part of the family. Like with today's pets, if a slave was considered part of the family, and treated right, they may have a sense of loyalty and/or friendship with their master.
On the other side of the coin, the vast majority of saves were mistreated. As their numbers grew, so did the mistreatment. It was the mistreatment of saves that was focused on by abolitionists. the depiction of the abused slaves were generated and circulated by abolitionists, to condemn slavery in general, even though there were slave owners who did not abuse their slaves.
Many slave owners released their slaves according to their own moral judgment. Usually it was put in their will, because they relied on the slaves economically.

Slavery in Egypt was similar. Society condemned mistreatment of slaves in Egypt, but slaves were still mistreated. The book of the dead even condemns the mistreatment of slaves. The Bible says Moses killed a man who was beating a slave, and so people generally assume slaves were mistreated in Egypt; the more historically accurate scenario is that he killed a man who was mistreating a slave.

Slavery it's-self is an immoral act, and many slave owners agreed that it was immoral. The southern economy was dependent on slaves, and that is why the south was opposed to abolitionism. The south had a worker deficit (hard to imagine today with out worker surplus), if they abolished slavery they would not only lose profit, but they would also lose workers.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 11:09:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
This thread has literally nothing to do with the republican party
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
imabench
Posts: 21,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 11:11:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/7/2012 9:41:54 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 10/7/2012 9:35:48 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Obvious trolling is obvious.

Great. I'll never get on the weekly stupid at this rate.

Again, you dont have to be an idiot to get on the weekly stupid. Just ask darkkermit, zaradi, oberherr, airmax, wallstreetatheist, blackvoid, royal, TUF, or literally anybody else.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 11:12:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/7/2012 11:09:10 AM, thett3 wrote:
This thread has literally nothing to do with the republican party

Seriously control find "Republican" and you'll find only 3 (5 now), none of which are in the actual story. What's the point of including it in the title then? Oh its a not so subtle baseless ad hominem? I see
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
imabench
Posts: 21,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 11:13:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/7/2012 11:09:10 AM, thett3 wrote:
This thread has literally nothing to do with the republican party

+1
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 11:13:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/7/2012 11:12:16 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 10/7/2012 11:09:10 AM, thett3 wrote:
This thread has literally nothing to do with the republican party

Seriously control find CENSORED and you'll find only 3 (5 now), none of which are in the actual story. What's the point of including it in the title then? Oh its a not so subtle baseless ad hominem? I see

The truth comes out.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 11:13:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Why not make it "North Carolinian historical revisionism" or "white historical revisionism" or "Southern historical revisionism"? All of those titles are misleading, but nowhere near as much as yours
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 11:20:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/7/2012 11:09:10 AM, thett3 wrote:
This thread has literally nothing to do with the republican party

this
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 11:28:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/7/2012 10:47:35 AM, DanT wrote:
Actually Africans sold other Africans into slavery. When one tribe warred against another they would sell the captives. It was Africans perpetuating the slave trade, for their own profit. If Africans didn't sell other Africans into slavery the process of obtaining slaves would be much more difficult.

Africans did. And it did make it easier..

But the Great demand for slaves which Europeans introduced changed the system significantly..
Firstly making collection of slaves Much more of a business, and Not just a part of Already happening raids or whatnot...
So groups began raiding others JUST to carry off people...

And also.. the slavery that had existed in north africa was, to my understanding, generally more humane.. Usually involving taking children of others to essentially be raised as part of your group... not so much controlling groups of grown adults and forcing them to hard labor by overwhelming force and threat of horrible violence.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 12:56:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/7/2012 8:52:25 AM, Frederick53 wrote:
It's sad that stuff like this even needs to be said. I'm sure that people will be here soon to point out that the Europeans didn't capture the Africans, but rather other Africans sold them, as though that fact somehow mends the cruelties suffered by slaves. And of course there's the classic argument that Europeans did Africans a favor by bringing them to America so they wouldn't have to live in the sh!t hole that is Africa. My only response to that is that kidnapping a bunch of children from a house that you are in the process of setting on fire is not an act of heroism.

I'm a prophet.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 1:08:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/7/2012 12:56:43 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 10/7/2012 8:52:25 AM, Frederick53 wrote:
It's sad that stuff like this even needs to be said. I'm sure that people will be here soon to point out that the Europeans didn't capture the Africans, but rather other Africans sold them, as though that fact somehow mends the cruelties suffered by slaves. And of course there's the classic argument that Europeans did Africans a favor by bringing them to America so they wouldn't have to live in the sh!t hole that is Africa. My only response to that is that kidnapping a bunch of children from a house that you are in the process of setting on fire is not an act of heroism.

I'm a prophet.

Yah.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 1:09:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/7/2012 12:56:43 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 10/7/2012 8:52:25 AM, Frederick53 wrote:
It's sad that stuff like this even needs to be said. I'm sure that people will be here soon to point out that the Europeans didn't capture the Africans, but rather other Africans sold them, as though that fact somehow mends the cruelties suffered by slaves. And of course there's the classic argument that Europeans did Africans a favor by bringing them to America so they wouldn't have to live in the sh!t hole that is Africa. My only response to that is that kidnapping a bunch of children from a house that you are in the process of setting on fire is not an act of heroism.

I'm a prophet.

That may only have happened because you posted it.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13