# First slave owner in America was black



## National Socialist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)

The Black Slave Owners - SlaveRebellion.org

Damn racist southerners!


----------



## National Socialist

Yea its some of that fancy history stuff those government approved agenda's don't teach...amazing what you can learn when you learn to think for yourself.


----------



## Redfish

The guy who wants to enslave the american people to a tyranical government is also black.


----------



## National Socialist

True.But he is just the head of the regime.


----------



## LeftofLeft

Africans captured and sold fellow Africans to white people on Europe and The US. In 2013, there are more than 25 million Africans enslaved in West Africa. Shouldn't the reparations crowd be going after the Africans.


----------



## Redfish

LeftofLeft said:


> Africans captured and sold fellow Africans to white people on Europe and The US. In 2013, there are more than 25 million Africans enslaved in West Africa. Shouldn't the reparations crowd be going after the Africans.



they don't have any money.    reparations require money.   so they can only go after the evil american public, even though no living american was a slave owner or a slave.


----------



## Sallow

Even the wiki is screwed.

Gotta love it.


----------



## jwoodie

LeftofLeft said:


> Africans captured and sold fellow Africans to white people on Europe and The US. In 2013, there are more than 25 million Africans enslaved in West Africa. Shouldn't the reparations crowd be going after the Africans.



And let's not forget that American slavery was an inherited British institution.


----------



## National Socialist

Sallow said:


> Even the wiki is screwed.
> 
> Gotta love it.



You are saying its lying eh?LiveLeak.com - First Slave owner in the US was black and more history they don't want you to know
Father of U.S. slavery was a black man
The Anthony Johnson Story | Confederate Colonel


----------



## eflatminor

AnCapAtheist said:


> First slave owner in America was black



Now stop that.  Don't you realize there's an agenda here?


----------



## LeftofLeft

Sallow said:


> Even the wiki is screwed.
> 
> Gotta love it.



Denying that African slavery still exists.


----------



## JakeStarkey

_Anthony Johnson was an Angolan held as an indentured servant by a merchant in the Colony of Virginia in 1620, but later freed to become a successful tobacco farmer and property owner. Notably, he was the first true slave owner: that is, the first to hold a black African servant as a slave in the mainland American colonies. Upon his death in 1670, a court ruled *that [Johnson] was "a negro and by consequence, an alien", and the colony seized his land*._
https://www.google.com/#sclient=psy...08,d.cGE&fp=cf1e741616151cb2&biw=1217&bih=558


----------



## JakeStarkey

_From Indentured Servitude to Racial Slavery 

   We sometimes imagine that such oppressive laws were put quickly into full force by greedy landowners. But that's not the way slavery was established in colonial America. It happened gradually -- one person at a time, one law at a time, even one colony at a time.
     All servants imported and brought into the Country. . . who were not Christians in their native Country. . . shall be accounted and be slaves. All Negro, mulatto and Indian slaves within this dominion. . . shall be held to be real estate. If any slave resists his master. . . correcting such slave, and shall happen to be killed in such correction. . . the master shall be free of all punishment. . . as if such accident never happened. 
  - Virginia General Assembly declaration, 1705 _ 
Africans in America | Part 1 | Narrative | From Indentured Servitude to Racial Slavery


----------



## Mad Scientist

Governor of Maine had slaves as well.


----------



## konradv

eflatminor said:


> AnCapAtheist said:
> 
> 
> 
> First slave owner in America was black
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now stop that.  Don't you realize there's an agenda here?
Click to expand...


Yeah, the agenda seems to be to absolve slave owners "because everybody did it".  What's routinely ignored, however, is that it was in the Americas that race entered the equation.  Previously slavery had been the result of war, debt, criminality or religion.  Race-based slavery meant that even nominally "freed men" weren't really free.  We're still suffering from the effects of that part of our history and stories like the OP are counter-productive, because they attempt to whitewash history rather than deal with the facts.


----------



## Wyatt earp

AnCapAtheist said:


> Yea its some of that fancy history stuff those government approved agenda's don't teach...amazing what you can learn when you learn to think for yourself.



you were listening to Herman Caine yesterday dont lie.


----------



## tyroneweaver

Sallow said:


> Even the wiki is screwed.
> 
> Gotta love it.



I'm looking for a rich liberal woman to marry so I can sit on miy fat ass  all day and watch tv...will you marry me?


----------



## LeftofLeft

konradv said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AnCapAtheist said:
> 
> 
> 
> First slave owner in America was black
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now stop that.  Don't you realize there's an agenda here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, the agenda seems to be to absolve slave owners "because everybody did it".  What's routinely ignored, however, is that it was in the Americas that race entered the equation.  Previously slavery had been the result of war, debt, criminality or religion.  Race-based slavery meant that even nominally "freed men" weren't really free.  We're still suffering from the effects of that part of our history and stories like the OP are counter-productive, because they attempt to whitewash history rather than deal with the facts.
Click to expand...


Whites stopped trading African slaves. Africans still do it. Who is engaged in ignoring?


----------



## Wyatt earp

LeftofLeft said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now stop that.  Don't you realize there's an agenda here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the agenda seems to be to absolve slave owners "because everybody did it".  What's routinely ignored, however, is that it was in the Americas that race entered the equation.  Previously slavery had been the result of war, debt, criminality or religion.  Race-based slavery meant that even nominally "freed men" weren't really free.  We're still suffering from the effects of that part of our history and stories like the OP are counter-productive, because they attempt to whitewash history rather than deal with the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whites stopped trading African slaves. Africans still do it. Who is engaged in ignoring?
Click to expand...


White American perverts run over to Asia for the slave trade even today.. we all know about it.


----------



## konradv

LeftofLeft said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now stop that.  Don't you realize there's an agenda here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the agenda seems to be to absolve slave owners "because everybody did it".  What's routinely ignored, however, is that it was in the Americas that race entered the equation.  Previously slavery had been the result of war, debt, criminality or religion.  Race-based slavery meant that even nominally "freed men" weren't really free.  We're still suffering from the effects of that part of our history and stories like the OP are counter-productive, because they attempt to whitewash history rather than deal with the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whites stopped trading African slaves. Africans still do it. Who is engaged in ignoring?
Click to expand...


You seem to be ignoring my point.  Try reading with comprehension.


----------



## FA_Q2

konradv said:


> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the agenda seems to be to absolve slave owners "because everybody did it".  What's routinely ignored, however, is that it was in the Americas that race entered the equation.  Previously slavery had been the result of war, debt, criminality or religion.  Race-based slavery meant that even nominally "freed men" weren't really free.  We're still suffering from the effects of that part of our history and stories like the OP are counter-productive, because they attempt to whitewash history rather than deal with the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whites stopped trading African slaves. Africans still do it. Who is engaged in ignoring?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to be ignoring my point.  Try reading with comprehension.
Click to expand...


Slavery is slavery.  It really does not matter what it is based upon.  We might still be paying the piper so to speak but we would be doing so no matter what we based that slavery on.

It was all wrong and will always be wrong.


----------



## NYcarbineer

AnCapAtheist said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)
> 
> The Black Slave Owners - SlaveRebellion.org
> 
> Damn racist southerners!



Show us how many blacks in pre-Civil War America owned white slaves,

and we'll go from there.


----------



## regent

That indicates that capitalism rises above personal characteristics.


----------



## tinydancer

AnCapAtheist said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)
> 
> The Black Slave Owners - SlaveRebellion.org
> 
> Damn racist southerners!



If we are to be historically correct, the first American slave owners were First Nations. 
They enslaved other tribesmen, women and children. Later on First Nations jumped into possessing black slaves as well. 

If we are talking about whites owning slaves that would be the first settlers who owned white children as slaves. 

And yes, the first slaves in the British colonies now known as the good old USA were children. Oh and the Irish. Cromwell delighted in rounding up the Irish for colonies inthe Caribbean and for the Brit colony in America.


----------



## Decus

Approximately 1% of the US popoulation owned slaves just prior to the Civil War. I read somewhere that 4,000 free blacks owned slaves as well.

99% of the population that didn't own slaves were as guilty as the 1% that that did own slaves. Seems logical ....


----------



## JakeStarkey

FA_Q2 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whites stopped trading African slaves. Africans still do it. Who is engaged in ignoring?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be ignoring my point.  Try reading with comprehension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery is slavery.  It really does not matter what it is based upon.  We might still be paying the piper so to speak but we would be doing so no matter what we based that slavery on.
> 
> It was all wrong and will always be wrong.
Click to expand...


It is a difference of degree, yes, not kind, but it was a viciousness with which the consequences we still live.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Decus said:


> Approximately 1% of the US popoulation owned slaves just prior to the Civil War. I read somewhere that 4,000 free blacks owned slaves as well.
> 
> 99% of the population that didn't own slaves were as guilty as the 1% that that did own slaves. Seems logical ....




Antebellum slavery

The standard image of Southern slavery is that of a large plantation with hundreds of slaves. In fact, such situations were rare. Fully 3/4 of Southern whites did not even own slaves; of those who did, 88% owned twenty or fewer. Whites who did not own slaves were primarily yeoman farmers. Practically speaking, the institution of slavery did not help these people. And yet most non-slaveholding white Southerners identified with and defended the institution of slavery. Though many resented the wealth and power of the large slaveholders, they aspired to own slaves themselves and to join the priviledged ranks. In addition, slavery gave the farmers a group of people to feel superior to. They may have been poor, but they were not slaves, and they were not black. They gained a sense of power simply by being white.


----------



## konradv

FA_Q2 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whites stopped trading African slaves. Africans still do it. Who is engaged in ignoring?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be ignoring my point.  Try reading with comprehension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery is slavery.  It really does not matter what it is based upon.  We might still be paying the piper so to speak but we would be doing so no matter what we based that slavery on.
> 
> It was all wrong and will always be wrong.
Click to expand...


You're wrong about that.  In the past freed slaves we're indistinguishable from the general population.  Race slavery changed all that.  If slavery had included all races and being black didn't automatically put you down a rung, I'd agree with you, but that's just not the case.


----------



## National Socialist

konradv said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AnCapAtheist said:
> 
> 
> 
> First slave owner in America was black
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now stop that.  Don't you realize there's an agenda here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> Yeah, the agenda seems to be to absolve slave owners "because everybody did it".  What's routinely ignored, however, is that it was in the Americas that race entered the equation.  Previously slavery had been the result of war, debt, criminality or religion.  Race-based slavery meant that even nominally "freed men" weren't really free.  We're still suffering from the effects of that part of our history and stories like the OP are counter-productive, because they attempt to whitewash history rather than deal with the facts.
Click to expand...

Nope. But the idiots in the secession thread want to claim it was fought so slavery could go on...yet here we have blacks owning slaves and blacks also fought for the CSA.


bear513 said:


> AnCapAtheist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea its some of that fancy history stuff those government approved agenda's don't teach...amazing what you can learn when you learn to think for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you were listening to Herman Caine yesterday dont lie.
Click to expand...

Nope. I don't get that radio station up here unfortunately.



NYcarbineer said:


> AnCapAtheist said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)
> 
> The Black Slave Owners - SlaveRebellion.org
> 
> Damn racist southerners!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show us how many blacks in pre-Civil War America owned white slaves,
> 
> and we'll go from there.
Click to expand...

White Slaves, African Slave Traders, and the Hidden History of Slavery

Figure it out for yourself.


----------



## konradv

AnCapAtheist said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now stop that.  Don't you realize there's an agenda here?
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> Yeah, the agenda seems to be to absolve slave owners "because everybody did it".  What's routinely ignored, however, is that it was in the Americas that race entered the equation.  Previously slavery had been the result of war, debt, criminality or religion.  Race-based slavery meant that even nominally "freed men" weren't really free.  We're still suffering from the effects of that part of our history and stories like the OP are counter-productive, because they attempt to whitewash history rather than deal with the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. But the idiots in the secession thread want to claim it was fought so slavery could go on...yet here we have blacks owning slaves and blacks also fought for the CSA.
Click to expand...


I think you're just knee-jerk posting based on your own bias.  Try addressing my point, instead of parroting facts about a very small minority, just to make yourself feel better.


----------



## National Socialist

What's your point?


----------



## FA_Q2

konradv said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be ignoring my point.  Try reading with comprehension.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery is slavery.  It really does not matter what it is based upon.  We might still be paying the piper so to speak but we would be doing so no matter what we based that slavery on.
> 
> It was all wrong and will always be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're wrong about that.  In the past freed slaves we're indistinguishable from the general population.  Race slavery changed all that.  If slavery had included all races and being black didn't automatically put you down a rung, I'd agree with you, but that's just not the case.
Click to expand...


I can concede that point.  

It was more difficult for the blacks recover from slavery and attain equality because their reality was visible to all.


----------



## tinydancer

It's bullshit that slavery was based on race.

Slavery was based on the need for a productive human animal if you want to bring this down to truth and not a political discussion.

Irish 14 year old slave vs a 14 year old black slave from Africa the higher money at the slave traders is going with the black.

It was what the Africans could and did in the fields that Cromwell's Irish slaves could not do as well.

Think horse trading.

I'm not wanting to ever demean slavery as it continues even as I type, but one has to look at the truth behind slavery.

Humans were dehumanized and became chattel. Humans are today dehumanized and are chattel on this planet. Nothing to do with race.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Slavery predates America, to say it's based on race is ludicrous. Learn some freaking history people.


----------



## FA_Q2

TemplarKormac said:


> Slavery predates America, to say it's based on race is ludicrous. Learn some freaking history people.



You kind off missed the point in the last pages though.  It would not matter if it was based on race or not.  The fact was, many blacks were slaves and after they were freed, they were still associated with slaves.  In essence, if you were a white slave then freed, no one knew and you could live as though you were always free.  If you were black and always free, everyone regarded you as a former slave anyway and beneath them.


----------



## bodecea

AnCapAtheist said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)
> 
> The Black Slave Owners - SlaveRebellion.org
> 
> Damn racist southerners!



Simply not true.  John Rolfe, Pocahontas's white husband, was the first slaveowner in the colonies.


----------



## National Socialist

bodecea said:


> AnCapAtheist said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)
> 
> The Black Slave Owners - SlaveRebellion.org
> 
> Damn racist southerners!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simply not true.  John Rolfe, Pocahontas's white husband, was the first slaveowner in the colonies.
Click to expand...


Not according to historians.


----------



## konradv

tinydancer said:


> It's bullshit that slavery was based on race.
> 
> Slavery was based on the need for a productive human animal if you want to bring this down to truth and not a political discussion.
> 
> Irish 14 year old slave vs a 14 year old black slave from Africa the higher money at the slave traders is going with the black.
> 
> It was what the Africans could and did in the fields that Cromwell's Irish slaves could not do as well.
> 
> Think horse trading.
> 
> I'm not wanting to ever demean slavery as it continues even as I type, but one has to look at the truth behind slavery.
> 
> Humans were dehumanized and became chattel. Humans are today dehumanized and are chattel on this planet. Nothing to do with race.



It has everything to do with race in the Americas.  Whatever situation you're referring to with regard to slavery of other ethnic groups the fact remains, when that situation ended, they were indistinguishable from the general population.  The same cannot be said for African slaves in America.  They were stigmatized after emancipation and we're still feeling its effect to this day.


----------



## konradv

TemplarKormac said:


> Slavery predates America, to say it's based on race is ludicrous. Learn some freaking history people.



Pay attention!!!  It may not have been based on race in the Old World, but rather on war, debt criminality or religion.  However, in the New World those enslaved were overwhelmingly African and even after freedom was granted, were still second-class citizens.  Slavery does pre-date America, but a twist was added to it here, the effects of which we're still feeling.


----------



## NYcarbineer

AnCapAtheist said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now stop that.  Don't you realize there's an agenda here?
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> Yeah, the agenda seems to be to absolve slave owners "because everybody did it".  What's routinely ignored, however, is that it was in the Americas that race entered the equation.  Previously slavery had been the result of war, debt, criminality or religion.  Race-based slavery meant that even nominally "freed men" weren't really free.  We're still suffering from the effects of that part of our history and stories like the OP are counter-productive, because they attempt to whitewash history rather than deal with the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. But the idiots in the secession thread want to claim it was fought so slavery could go on...yet here we have blacks owning slaves and blacks also fought for the CSA.
> 
> Nope. I don't get that radio station up here unfortunately.
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AnCapAtheist said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)
> 
> The Black Slave Owners - SlaveRebellion.org
> 
> Damn racist southerners!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show us how many blacks in pre-Civil War America owned white slaves,
> 
> and we'll go from there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> White Slaves, African Slave Traders, and the Hidden History of Slavery
> 
> Figure it out for yourself.
Click to expand...


You're claiming that slavery wasn't based on race in America.  Prove it by showing us where the white slaves were.  Show us where whites were bought and sold as property in the US.


----------



## NYcarbineer

lol,

of course slavery in the South wasn't about race.  If it would have been about race, then after the Civil War ended,

you would have seen institutionalized race segregation emerge in the South, 

to the point that sometime in the future you would have needed a whole series of federal laws and actions to remedy such a condition.

Of course that never happened!!! 

lol


----------



## bodecea

AnCapAtheist said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AnCapAtheist said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)
> 
> The Black Slave Owners - SlaveRebellion.org
> 
> Damn racist southerners!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simply not true.  John Rolfe, Pocahontas's white husband, was the first slaveowner in the colonies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not according to historians.
Click to expand...


Oh?   The Origins of Slavery in Virginia


----------



## TemplarKormac

bodecea said:


> AnCapAtheist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simply not true.  John Rolfe, Pocahontas's white husband, was the first slaveowner in the colonies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to historians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh?   The Origins of Slavery in Virginia
Click to expand...


Ahaha, you take no time to do any meaningful research! You need to learn, not whine.

Evidence of slavery predates written records, and has existed in many cultures.[8] Slavery is rare among hunter&#8211;gatherer populations, as slavery is a system of social stratification. Mass slavery also requires economic surpluses and a high population density to be viable. Due to these factors, the practice of slavery would have only proliferated after the invention of agriculture during the Neolithic Revolution about 11,000 years ago.[4]

Slavery was known in civilizations as old as Sumer, as well as almost every other ancient civilization, including Ancient Egypt, Ancient China, the Akkadian Empire, Assyria, Ancient India, Ancient Greece, the Roman Empire, the Islamic Caliphate, and the pre-Columbian civilizations of the Americas.[8] Such institutions were a mixture of debt-slavery, punishment for crime, the enslavement of prisoners of war, child abandonment, and the birth of slave children to slaves.[9]

...

In 1619 twenty Africans were brought by a Dutch soldier and sold to the English colony of Jamestown, Virginia as indentured servants. It is possible that Africans were brought to Virginia prior to this, both because neither John Rolfe our source on the 1619 shipment nor any contemporary of his ever says that this was the first contingent of Africans to come to Virginia and because the 1625 Virginia census lists one black as coming on a ship that appears to only have landed people in Virginia prior to 1619.[173] 

History of slavery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anthony Johnson was a black Angolan held as an indentured servant by a merchant in the Colony of Virginia in 1620, but later freed to become a successful tobacco farmer and property owner. Notably, he was the first true slave owner: that is, the first to hold a black African servant as a slave in the mainland American colonies. Upon his death in 1670, a court ruled that he was "a negro and by consequence, an alien", and the colony seized his land.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)

Siddown.


----------



## TemplarKormac

konradv said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery predates America, to say it's based on race is ludicrous. Learn some freaking history people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pay attention!!!  It may not have been based on race in the Old World, but rather on war, debt criminality or religion.  However, in the New World those enslaved were overwhelmingly African and even after freedom was granted, were still second-class citizens.  Slavery does pre-date America, but a twist was added to it here, the effects of which we're still feeling.
Click to expand...


You folks are purposefully unintelligent. Read my above post.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Given that the author of this thread has become USMB's latest prolific practitioner of the pointless posts,

this might be a silly question, 

but does anyone have a guess at what his point is?


----------



## LeftofLeft

NYcarbineer said:


> lol,
> 
> of course slavery in the South wasn't about race.  If it would have been about race, then after the Civil War ended,
> 
> you would have seen institutionalized race segregation emerge in the South,
> 
> to the point that sometime in the future you would have needed a whole series of federal laws and actions to remedy such a condition.
> 
> Of course that never happened!!!
> 
> lol



Thank God for Republicans who wanted to end Slavery and Segregation


----------



## NYcarbineer

LeftofLeft said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol,
> 
> of course slavery in the South wasn't about race.  If it would have been about race, then after the Civil War ended,
> 
> you would have seen institutionalized race segregation emerge in the South,
> 
> to the point that sometime in the future you would have needed a whole series of federal laws and actions to remedy such a condition.
> 
> Of course that never happened!!!
> 
> lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank God for Republicans who wanted to end Slavery and Segregation
Click to expand...


You mean like Lincoln, who in the secession thread is getting roundly trashed by our local conservatives for his 'crimes'?

That Republican Party?


----------



## TemplarKormac

NYcarbineer said:


> Given that the author of this thread has become USMB's latest prolific practitioner of the pointless posts,
> 
> this might be a silly question,
> 
> but does anyone have a guess at what his point is?



That these baseless liberal claims that white people were the first ones to own slaves in the American colonies is wrong?

Or were you paying attention?


----------



## Sallow

JakeStarkey said:


> _From Indentured Servitude to Racial Slavery
> 
> We sometimes imagine that such oppressive laws were put quickly into full force by greedy landowners. But that's not the way slavery was established in colonial America. It happened gradually -- one person at a time, one law at a time, even one colony at a time.
> All servants imported and brought into the Country. . . who were not Christians in their native Country. . . shall be accounted and be slaves. All Negro, mulatto and Indian slaves within this dominion. . . shall be held to be real estate. If any slave resists his master. . . correcting such slave, and shall happen to be killed in such correction. . . the master shall be free of all punishment. . . as if such accident never happened.
> - Virginia General Assembly declaration, 1705 _
> Africans in America | Part 1 | Narrative | From Indentured Servitude to Racial Slavery



Basically the type of slavery that the United States practiced is different then that of Indentured Servitude.

Additionally, slavery/indentured servitude was practiced in the colonies since the late 1500s.


----------



## Redfish

Sallow said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> _From Indentured Servitude to Racial Slavery
> 
> We sometimes imagine that such oppressive laws were put quickly into full force by greedy landowners. But that's not the way slavery was established in colonial America. It happened gradually -- one person at a time, one law at a time, even one colony at a time.
> All servants imported and brought into the Country. . . who were not Christians in their native Country. . . shall be accounted and be slaves. All Negro, mulatto and Indian slaves within this dominion. . . shall be held to be real estate. If any slave resists his master. . . correcting such slave, and shall happen to be killed in such correction. . . the master shall be free of all punishment. . . as if such accident never happened.
> - Virginia General Assembly declaration, 1705 _
> Africans in America | Part 1 | Narrative | From Indentured Servitude to Racial Slavery
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basically the type of slavery that the United States practiced is different then that of Indentured Servitude.
> 
> Additionally, slavery/indentured servitude was practiced in the colonies since the late 1500s.
Click to expand...


yes, shallow, you are correct.  Lincoln (a republican) ended it.   The civil rights act was passed by republicans despite the fillibustering of democrats.


----------



## NYcarbineer

TemplarKormac said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given that the author of this thread has become USMB's latest prolific practitioner of the pointless posts,
> 
> this might be a silly question,
> 
> but does anyone have a guess at what his point is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That these baseless liberal claims that white people were the first ones to own slaves in the American colonies is wrong?
> 
> Or were you paying attention?
Click to expand...


Who here was making that specific claim and what does it matter?  

Did you happen to notice that the only reason this so-called first slave was declared a slave was BECAUSE he was black?


----------



## jwoodie

My point would be that the United States has become the whipping boy for all of the world's sins regarding slavery, despite these facts.

1.  The British instituted slavery in North America and continued it into the 1800's under worse conditions than in the U.S.  Slavery in South America continued for 100 years after U.S. independence.
2.  During the Constitutional debate, many Southern States were willing to give up slavery in return for just compensation, but the Northern States refused this or any other resolution of the slavery issue.
3.  The United States fought the bloodiest war in its history to end slavery.

Thus we are pilloried not for our actions but for our ideals.  As they say, no good deed goes unpunished.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> First slave owner in America was black



And? 

Are you so moronic as to believe this mitigates any aspect of slavery in America, or the predominance of its practice in the South? 

One human holding another human in bondage is heinous and reprehensible, regardless of race. 

Last, that blacks held slaves was always known, an indication of the insidious nature of the institution.


----------



## NYcarbineer

LeftofLeft said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol,
> 
> of course slavery in the South wasn't about race.  If it would have been about race, then after the Civil War ended,
> 
> you would have seen institutionalized race segregation emerge in the South,
> 
> to the point that sometime in the future you would have needed a whole series of federal laws and actions to remedy such a condition.
> 
> Of course that never happened!!!
> 
> lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank God for Republicans who wanted to end Slavery and Segregation
Click to expand...


Was secession constitutional?


----------



## bodecea

Redfish said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> _From Indentured Servitude to Racial Slavery
> 
> We sometimes imagine that such oppressive laws were put quickly into full force by greedy landowners. But that's not the way slavery was established in colonial America. It happened gradually -- one person at a time, one law at a time, even one colony at a time.
> All servants imported and brought into the Country. . . who were not Christians in their native Country. . . shall be accounted and be slaves. All Negro, mulatto and Indian slaves within this dominion. . . shall be held to be real estate. If any slave resists his master. . . correcting such slave, and shall happen to be killed in such correction. . . the master shall be free of all punishment. . . as if such accident never happened.
> - Virginia General Assembly declaration, 1705 _
> Africans in America | Part 1 | Narrative | From Indentured Servitude to Racial Slavery
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basically the type of slavery that the United States practiced is different then that of Indentured Servitude.
> 
> Additionally, slavery/indentured servitude was practiced in the colonies since the late 1500s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes, shallow, you are correct.  Lincoln (a republican) ended it.   The civil rights act was passed by republicans despite the fillibustering of democrats.
Click to expand...


Correction...the 1965 Civil Rights Act was passed by NORTHERN Republicans and Democrats despite the filibustering of SOUTHERN Republicans and Democrats.


----------



## pioneerpete

konradv said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery predates America, to say it's based on race is ludicrous. Learn some freaking history people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pay attention!!!  It may not have been based on race in the Old World, but rather on war, debt criminality or religion.  However, in the New World those enslaved were overwhelmingly African and even after freedom was granted, were still second-class citizens.  Slavery does pre-date America, but a twist was added to it here, the effects of which we're still feeling.
Click to expand...


Are the effects that Blacks are killing Blacks at a rate that eclipses any number you can attribute to the KKK? Jews were almost burned into extinction by the Nazis, but somehow they overcame and established wealth, and don't kill themselves at a rate greater than any other race on the planet.


----------



## National Socialist

NYcarbineer said:


> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol,
> 
> of course slavery in the South wasn't about race.  If it would have been about race, then after the Civil War ended,
> 
> you would have seen institutionalized race segregation emerge in the South,
> 
> to the point that sometime in the future you would have needed a whole series of federal laws and actions to remedy such a condition.
> 
> Of course that never happened!!!
> 
> lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank God for Republicans who wanted to end Slavery and Segregation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like Lincoln, who in the secession thread is getting roundly trashed by our local conservatives for his 'crimes'?
> 
> That Republican Party?
Click to expand...

I am no Republican conservative shit head...man do you idiots ever realize not everyone fits your idiotic childish stereotypes? Lincoln was a war criminal plain and simple.


NYcarbineer said:


> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol,
> 
> of course slavery in the South wasn't about race.  If it would have been about race, then after the Civil War ended,
> 
> you would have seen institutionalized race segregation emerge in the South,
> 
> to the point that sometime in the future you would have needed a whole series of federal laws and actions to remedy such a condition.
> 
> Of course that never happened!!!
> 
> lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank God for Republicans who wanted to end Slavery and Segregation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was secession constitutional?
Click to expand...

Yes.


----------



## TemplarKormac

NYcarbineer said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given that the author of this thread has become USMB's latest prolific practitioner of the pointless posts,
> 
> this might be a silly question,
> 
> but does anyone have a guess at what his point is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That these baseless liberal claims that white people were the first ones to own slaves in the American colonies is wrong?
> 
> Or were you paying attention?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who here was making that specific claim and what does it matter?
> 
> Did you happen to notice that the only reason this so-called first slave was declared a slave was BECAUSE he was black?
Click to expand...


Given liberal behavior during the Zimmerman trial, I think this fits right in.


----------



## Sallow

LeftofLeft said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol,
> 
> of course slavery in the South wasn't about race.  If it would have been about race, then after the Civil War ended,
> 
> you would have seen institutionalized race segregation emerge in the South,
> 
> to the point that sometime in the future you would have needed a whole series of federal laws and actions to remedy such a condition.
> 
> Of course that never happened!!!
> 
> lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank God for Republicans who wanted to end Slavery and Segregation
Click to expand...


Be thankful they weren't conservative, but liberal.


----------



## Sallow

pioneerpete said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery predates America, to say it's based on race is ludicrous. Learn some freaking history people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pay attention!!!  It may not have been based on race in the Old World, but rather on war, debt criminality or religion.  However, in the New World those enslaved were overwhelmingly African and even after freedom was granted, were still second-class citizens.  Slavery does pre-date America, but a twist was added to it here, the effects of which we're still feeling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are the effects that Blacks are killing Blacks at a rate that eclipses any number you can attribute to the KKK? Jews were almost burned into extinction by the Nazis, but somehow they overcame and established wealth, and don't kill themselves at a rate greater than any other race on the planet.
Click to expand...


Jews were able to overcome the Christian Nazis, because the world fought against them. You miss the whole world war thing, did ya?


----------



## pioneerpete

Sallow said:


> pioneerpete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pay attention!!!  It may not have been based on race in the Old World, but rather on war, debt criminality or religion.  However, in the New World those enslaved were overwhelmingly African and even after freedom was granted, were still second-class citizens.  Slavery does pre-date America, but a twist was added to it here, the effects of which we're still feeling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are the effects that Blacks are killing Blacks at a rate that eclipses any number you can attribute to the KKK? Jews were almost burned into extinction by the Nazis, but somehow they overcame and established wealth, and don't kill themselves at a rate greater than any other race on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jews were able to overcome the Christian Nazis, because the world fought against them. You miss the whole world war thing, did ya?
Click to expand...


So we have been fighting a world war for the jews for the last almost 70 years? Asian population thrives here. Jews thrive here. Italians thrive here. Every ethnic group that has come to this country has found a way to thrive and make a place in society. Maybe you have been missing black war Chicago the last few months. The world is trying to give the blacks a leg up and they still fuck it up. So segregated didn't work for them, freedom doesn't work for them. Maybe it is just them.


----------



## Vox

Sallow said:


> pioneerpete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pay attention!!!  It may not have been based on race in the Old World, but rather on war, debt criminality or religion.  However, in the New World those enslaved were overwhelmingly African and even after freedom was granted, were still second-class citizens.  Slavery does pre-date America, but a twist was added to it here, the effects of which we're still feeling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are the effects that Blacks are killing Blacks at a rate that eclipses any number you can attribute to the KKK? Jews were almost burned into extinction by the Nazis, but somehow they overcame and established wealth, and don't kill themselves at a rate greater than any other race on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jews were able to overcome the Christian Nazis, because the world fought against them. You miss the whole world war thing, did ya?
Click to expand...


nazis weren't Christians, they were mostly atheists


----------



## JakeStarkey

Such a claim is absolutely ignorant and misguided that American slavery and race are not related and are unimportant in the overall history of race and slavery in British North American and what became the American colonies and then the United State.  American Exceptionalism includes the exceptional place of race and slavery in our history.  Witness:

_     "All servants imported and brought into the Country. . . who were not Christians in their native Country. . . shall be accounted and be slaves. *All Negro, mulatto and Indian slaves *within this dominion. . . shall be held to be real estate. If any slave resists his master. . . correcting such slave, and shall happen to be killed in such correction. . . the master shall be free of all punishment. . . as if such accident never happened."     - Virginia General Assembly declaration, 1705 

*From Indentured Servitude to Racial Slavery *      We sometimes imagine that such oppressive laws were put quickly into full force by greedy landowners. But that's not the way slavery was established in colonial America. It happened gradually -- one person at a time, one law at a time, even one colony at a time._ Africans in America | Part 1 | Narrative | From Indentured Servitude to Racial Slavery

I suggest that all take the time to read the site carefully.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Vox said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pioneerpete said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are the effects that Blacks are killing Blacks at a rate that eclipses any number you can attribute to the KKK? Jews were almost burned into extinction by the Nazis, but somehow they overcame and established wealth, and don't kill themselves at a rate greater than any other race on the planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jews were able to overcome the Christian Nazis, because the world fought against them. You miss the whole world war thing, did ya?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nazis weren't Christians, they were mostly atheists
Click to expand...


Link?  And when you can't provide it?


----------



## Sallow

Vox said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pioneerpete said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are the effects that Blacks are killing Blacks at a rate that eclipses any number you can attribute to the KKK? Jews were almost burned into extinction by the Nazis, but somehow they overcame and established wealth, and don't kill themselves at a rate greater than any other race on the planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jews were able to overcome the Christian Nazis, because the world fought against them. You miss the whole world war thing, did ya?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nazis weren't Christians, they were mostly atheists
Click to expand...


Nazis were Christian heroes.

Pope Pius signed a condordat with them. Which is a Christian Alliance.


----------



## Sallow

pioneerpete said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pioneerpete said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are the effects that Blacks are killing Blacks at a rate that eclipses any number you can attribute to the KKK? Jews were almost burned into extinction by the Nazis, but somehow they overcame and established wealth, and don't kill themselves at a rate greater than any other race on the planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jews were able to overcome the Christian Nazis, because the world fought against them. You miss the whole world war thing, did ya?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we have been fighting a world war for the jews for the last almost 70 years? Asian population thrives here. Jews thrive here. Italians thrive here. Every ethnic group that has come to this country has found a way to thrive and make a place in society. Maybe you have been missing black war Chicago the last few months. The world is trying to give the blacks a leg up and they still fuck it up. So segregated didn't work for them, freedom doesn't work for them. Maybe it is just them.
Click to expand...


You seem to forget that slavery in this country has something like a 160 year history..and was prevalent in the colonies.

You'd have to make the case that Jews were separated from the families, culture and homeland, and lived for generations without a culture or education. And you'd have to also point out that Jews were treated like property for the same amount of time.

That didn't happen.


----------



## pioneerpete

My question is this: Has every person that was born inside the US for the last 50+ years had the benefit of the constitution and rights that they guarantee?

How long is enough time to give until we prove this experiment of desegregation did not work?

Took 40 years to turn Detroit into a 3rd world country. That is like 3 generations to those people.


----------



## Sallow

pioneerpete said:


> My question is this: Has every person that was born inside the US for the last 50+ years had the benefit of the constitution and rights that they guarantee?
> 
> How long is enough time to give until we prove this experiment of desegregation did not work?



No.


----------



## pioneerpete

Sallow said:


> pioneerpete said:
> 
> 
> 
> My question is this: Has every person that was born inside the US for the last 50+ years had the benefit of the constitution and rights that they guarantee?
> 
> How long is enough time to give until we prove this experiment of desegregation did not work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
Click to expand...


So what do I personally need to pay to get the black monkey off my back so we can go back to being equal?


----------



## Wyatt earp

Sallow said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jews were able to overcome the Christian Nazis, because the world fought against them. You miss the whole world war thing, did ya?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nazis weren't Christians, they were mostly atheists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nazis were Christian heroes.
> 
> Pope Pius signed a condordat with them. Which is a Christian Alliance.
Click to expand...


dont be a drama lama you know he had a gun pointed at his head  when he signed it.


----------



## Sallow

pioneerpete said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pioneerpete said:
> 
> 
> 
> My question is this: Has every person that was born inside the US for the last 50+ years had the benefit of the constitution and rights that they guarantee?
> 
> How long is enough time to give until we prove this experiment of desegregation did not work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what do I personally need to pay to get the black monkey off my back so we can go back to being equal?
Click to expand...


Stop calling human beings "black monkey" would be a good first step.


----------



## Sallow

bear513 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> nazis weren't Christians, they were mostly atheists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nazis were Christian heroes.
> 
> Pope Pius signed a condordat with them. Which is a Christian Alliance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dont be a drama lama you know he had a gun pointed at his head  when he signed it.
Click to expand...


Musta missed that one.


----------



## pioneerpete

Sallow said:


> pioneerpete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what do I personally need to pay to get the black monkey off my back so we can go back to being equal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop calling human beings "black monkey" would be a good first step.
Click to expand...


When they begin to act in such a way they would be treated that way. Until then I will continue my white flight, and let blacks fend for themselves. They have proven the world over that they can't do it.


----------



## pioneerpete

Is this because of slavery?

2 More Killed In Baltimore City As Hundreds March To Stop The Violence « CBS Baltimore

Is this?

http://www.indystar.com/article/201...her-reported-violence-Downtown?nclick_check=1


----------



## JakeStarkey

pioneerpete said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pioneerpete said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what do I personally need to pay to get the black monkey off my back so we can go back to being equal?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop calling human beings "black monkey" would be a good first step.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When they begin to act in such a way they would be treated that way. Until then I will continue my white flight, and let blacks fend for themselves. They have proven the world over that they can't do it.
Click to expand...


No,  you have proven that you are not entitled to American citizenship.


----------



## TemplarKormac

JakeStarkey said:


> pioneerpete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop calling human beings "black monkey" would be a good first step.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When they begin to act in such a way they would be treated that way. Until then I will continue my white flight, and let blacks fend for themselves. They have proven the world over that they can't do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No,  you have proven that you are not entitled to American citizenship.
Click to expand...


Wow. Who died and made you president?


----------



## pioneerpete

JakeStarkey said:


> pioneerpete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop calling human beings "black monkey" would be a good first step.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When they begin to act in such a way they would be treated that way. Until then I will continue my white flight, and let blacks fend for themselves. They have proven the world over that they can't do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No,  you have proven that you are not entitled to American citizenship.
Click to expand...


Come and try to take it. End up the same way as TM


----------



## Sallow

pioneerpete said:


> Is this because of slavery?
> 
> 2 More Killed In Baltimore City As Hundreds March To Stop The Violence « CBS Baltimore
> 
> Is this?
> 
> http://www.indystar.com/article/201...her-reported-violence-Downtown?nclick_check=1



Almost every civilization that has practiced slavery has suffered from it.

And for a real long time.


----------



## pioneerpete

Slavery is causing this?

Two Chicago boys, ages 5 and 7, in critical condition after July 4th shootings, police say - Crimesider - CBS News


----------



## TemplarKormac

Sallow said:


> pioneerpete said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this because of slavery?
> 
> 2 More Killed In Baltimore City As Hundreds March To Stop The Violence « CBS Baltimore
> 
> Is this?
> 
> http://www.indystar.com/article/201...her-reported-violence-Downtown?nclick_check=1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Almost every civilization that has practiced slavery has suffered from it.
> 
> And for a real long time.
Click to expand...


So? You liberals keep making a big deal about it when a black man doesn't get his way.


----------



## pioneerpete

White people don't owe black people jack shit.


----------



## Sallow

pioneerpete said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pioneerpete said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what do I personally need to pay to get the black monkey off my back so we can go back to being equal?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop calling human beings "black monkey" would be a good first step.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When they begin to act in such a way they would be treated that way. Until then I will continue my white flight, and let blacks fend for themselves. They have proven the world over that they can't do it.
Click to expand...


What exactly are you expecting?

The type of institutional racism suffered in this country by black folks was and is pretty devastating.

Just as "wealth" is inherited so is poverty.

That in itself is a pretty hard cycle to break, even if a country considers you equal.

That's not the case here.

You cannot pretend to be white if you are not.

And the bars are often hire for non whites in this country.


----------



## Sallow

TemplarKormac said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pioneerpete said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this because of slavery?
> 
> 2 More Killed In Baltimore City As Hundreds March To Stop The Violence « CBS Baltimore
> 
> Is this?
> 
> http://www.indystar.com/article/201...her-reported-violence-Downtown?nclick_check=1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Almost every civilization that has practiced slavery has suffered from it.
> 
> And for a real long time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So? You liberals keep making a big deal about it when a black man doesn't get his way.
Click to expand...


For someone so in love with history you seem woefully ignorant of it.


----------



## Vox

Sallow said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jews were able to overcome the Christian Nazis, because the world fought against them. You miss the whole world war thing, did ya?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nazis weren't Christians, they were mostly atheists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nazis were Christian heroes.
> 
> Pope Pius signed a condordat with them. Which is a Christian Alliance.
Click to expand...


Bullshit.

learn some history not from the libbtard brainwashing stories


----------



## Sallow

pioneerpete said:


> Slavery is causing this?
> 
> Two Chicago boys, ages 5 and 7, in critical condition after July 4th shootings, police say - Crimesider - CBS News



Slavery > Institutional Racism > Poverty > Lack of Education and Resources.

Yeah.


----------



## Sallow

Vox said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> nazis weren't Christians, they were mostly atheists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nazis were Christian heroes.
> 
> Pope Pius signed a condordat with them. Which is a Christian Alliance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> learn some history not from the libbtard brainwashing stories
Click to expand...


What part of that is bullshit?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Sallow said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost every civilization that has practiced slavery has suffered from it.
> 
> And for a real long time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So? You liberals keep making a big deal about it when a black man doesn't get his way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For someone so in love with history you seem woefully ignorant of it.
Click to expand...


Hah! Is this all you come at me with? I've already slapped one of your friends around for being woefully lacking in the history department, you wanna go?


----------



## pioneerpete

Sallow said:


> pioneerpete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop calling human beings "black monkey" would be a good first step.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When they begin to act in such a way they would be treated that way. Until then I will continue my white flight, and let blacks fend for themselves. They have proven the world over that they can't do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What exactly are you expecting?
> 
> The type of institutional racism suffered in this country by black folks was and is pretty devastating.
> 
> Just as "wealth" is inherited so is poverty.
> 
> That in itself is a pretty hard cycle to break, even if a country considers you equal.
> 
> That's not the case here.
> 
> You cannot pretend to be white if you are not.
> 
> And the bars are often hire for non whites in this country.
Click to expand...


So you are saying that the black kid born next door is at a disadvantage? If they are equal human beings then how are there advantages? Plenty of poor white folk in the south. Yet when I pick up the paper I don't see them killing each other in the middle of town.


----------



## Ravi

TemplarKormac said:


> Slavery predates America, to say it's based on race is ludicrous. Learn some freaking history people.


It was in the US and colonial America. Only people of color could be slaves, for instance blacks or Native Americans. White people could not be owned.


----------



## pioneerpete

That is amazing. Blacks killing blacks in 2013 is the fault of slavery in the 1800s. That is a pretty interesting opinion. Whites owe blacks nothing. If they can't fend for themselves it is not my responsibility to help them.


----------



## freedombecki

Redfish said:


> The guy who wants to enslave the american people to a tyranical government is also black.


You're right. He and his minions are doing their damnedest to obfuscate the real costs of "Affordable Health Care Act" which is anything but affordable for the ones who have to pay for it (mainly the Middle Class) and free for people who are also getting free food, free rent, free communications devices, and get-out-of-jail-free cards for crimes they commit with jurists being picked who will not convict them of anything they do if they are a minority, but will throw the book at someone who stops them from committing the crime.


----------



## freedombecki

Ravi said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery predates America, to say it's based on race is ludicrous. Learn some freaking history people.
> 
> 
> 
> It was in the US and colonial America. Only people of color could be slaves, for instance blacks or Native Americans. White people could not be owned.
Click to expand...

Whites could indenture themselves for 7 years and serve as slaves, Ravi, in every state in the Union. After that, they could use time served as apprenticeship and either work for pay or go into business for self if they had saved anything at all. Some did not have the option as promised.


----------



## Vox

Sallow said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nazis were Christian heroes.
> 
> Pope Pius signed a condordat with them. Which is a Christian Alliance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> learn some history not from the libbtard brainwashing stories
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of that is bullshit?
Click to expand...


all of it


----------



## Ravi

freedombecki said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery predates America, to say it's based on race is ludicrous. Learn some freaking history people.
> 
> 
> 
> It was in the US and colonial America. Only people of color could be slaves, for instance blacks or Native Americans. White people could not be owned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whites could indenture themselves for 7 years and serve as slaves, Ravi, in every state in the Union. After that, they could use time served as apprenticeship and either work for pay or go into business for self if they had saved anything at all.
Click to expand...

Yes, they had that choice. They still weren't slaves but thanks for the red herring.


----------



## pioneerpete

Ravi said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was in the US and colonial America. Only people of color could be slaves, for instance blacks or Native Americans. White people could not be owned.
> 
> 
> 
> Whites could indenture themselves for 7 years and serve as slaves, Ravi, in every state in the Union. After that, they could use time served as apprenticeship and either work for pay or go into business for self if they had saved anything at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they had that choice. They still weren't slaves but thanks for the red herring.
Click to expand...


Why don't blacks blame the black Africans that sold them in the first place? You don't really hear much of that.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Ravi said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery predates America, to say it's based on race is ludicrous. Learn some freaking history people.
> 
> 
> 
> It was in the US and colonial America. Only people of color could be slaves, for instance blacks or Native Americans. White people could not be owned.
Click to expand...


Why are you trolling? No. The advent of slavery came about with the invention of agriculture, over 11,000 years ago, in the Neolithic Era. I will hear no more of your lies. And as [MENTION=29697]freedombecki[/MENTION]: made clear:



> When White servitude is acknowledged as having existed in America, it is almost always termed as temporary "indentured servitude" or part of the convict trade, which, after the Revolution of 1776, centered on Australia instead of America. The "convicts" transported to America under the 1723 Waltham Act, perhaps numbered 100,000.
> 
> The indentured servants who served a tidy little period of 4 to 7 years polishing the master's silver and china and then taking their place in colonial high society, were a minuscule fraction of the great unsung hundreds of thousands of White slaves who were worked to death in this country from the early l7th century onward.
> 
> Up to one-half of all the arrivals in the American colonies were Whites slaves and they were America's first slaves. These Whites were slaves for life, long before Blacks ever were. This slavery was even hereditary. White children born to White slaves were enslaved too.



http://www.revisionisthistory.org/forgottenslaves.html


----------



## Sallow

Vox said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> learn some history not from the libbtard brainwashing stories
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What part of that is bullshit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> all of it
Click to expand...


Fo' real Mr. Vox.

Reichskonkordat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Vatican Concordat With Hitler's Reich | America Magazine



History is not your forte..


----------



## JakeStarkey

pioneerpete said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pioneerpete said:
> 
> 
> 
> When they begin to act in such a way they would be treated that way. Until then I will continue my white flight, and let blacks fend for themselves. They have proven the world over that they can't do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No,  you have proven that you are not entitled to American citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come and try to take it. End up the same way as TM
Click to expand...


Your attitude exactly points to what I am worried about on the far right: victimization and a sense of entitlement.


----------



## JakeStarkey

TemplarKormac said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pioneerpete said:
> 
> 
> 
> When they begin to act in such a way they would be treated that way. Until then I will continue my white flight, and let blacks fend for themselves. They have proven the world over that they can't do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No,  you have proven that you are not entitled to American citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow. Who died and made you president?
Click to expand...


Anybody like petey who has a victimization and entitlement complex based on race.


----------



## JakeStarkey

TemplarKormac said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pioneerpete said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this because of slavery?
> 
> 2 More Killed In Baltimore City As Hundreds March To Stop The Violence « CBS Baltimore
> 
> Is this?
> 
> http://www.indystar.com/article/201...her-reported-violence-Downtown?nclick_check=1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Almost every civilization that has practiced slavery has suffered from it.
> 
> And for a real long time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So? You liberals keep making a big deal about it when a black man doesn't get his way.
Click to expand...


Good Americans from right to left make a big deal when any American is denied his freedom, liberty, and rights,.


----------



## TemplarKormac

JakeStarkey said:


> pioneerpete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No,  you have proven that you are not entitled to American citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come and try to take it. End up the same way as TM
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your attitude exactly points to what I am worried about on the far right: victimization and a sense of entitlement.
Click to expand...


Damned right we have a sense of entitlement Jake! We deserve to be citizens here, we were born here, and have rights under the 14th Amendment. 

If you want entitlement and victimization, look at how the liberals are reacting over Trayvon Martin. Look how they reacted over Obamacare.


----------



## pioneerpete

JakeStarkey said:


> pioneerpete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No,  you have proven that you are not entitled to American citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come and try to take it. End up the same way as TM
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your attitude exactly points to what I am worried about on the far right: victimization and a sense of entitlement.
Click to expand...


I see. If I pay for your section 8 housing in the 8 mile area of Detroit, will you go there and change the situation?


----------



## freedombecki

Ravi said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was in the US and colonial America. Only people of color could be slaves, for instance blacks or Native Americans. White people could not be owned.
> 
> 
> 
> Whites could indenture themselves for 7 years and serve as slaves, Ravi, in every state in the Union. After that, they could use time served as apprenticeship and either work for pay or go into business for self if they had saved anything at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they had that choice. They still weren't slaves but thanks for the red herring.
Click to expand...

I can understand your brainwashing. I recommend reading for you: "They Were White and They Were Slaves," by Michael A. Hoffman II.


----------



## TemplarKormac

JakeStarkey said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost every civilization that has practiced slavery has suffered from it.
> 
> And for a real long time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So? You liberals keep making a big deal about it when a black man doesn't get his way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good Americans from right to left make a big deal when any American is denied his freedom, liberty, and rights,.
Click to expand...


I agree with this post! However, I hope this applies to black and white. No need to be disingenuous. NOBODY should be denied freedom, liberty and rights.


----------



## JakeStarkey

pioneerpete said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whites could indenture themselves for 7 years and serve as slaves, Ravi, in every state in the Union. After that, they could use time served as apprenticeship and either work for pay or go into business for self if they had saved anything at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they had that choice. They still weren't slaves but thanks for the red herring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't blacks blame the black Africans that sold them in the first place? You don't really hear much of that.
Click to expand...


I am sure those who were shipped from Africa did just that.  You would, I would.

However, those born here had every right to blame their masters who were overwhelmingly white.


----------



## pioneerpete

JakeStarkey said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No,  you have proven that you are not entitled to American citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Who died and made you president?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anybody like petey who has a victimization and entitlement complex based on race.
Click to expand...


Call me what you want, but I've never known numbers and percentages to be members of the KKK. All those little figures point towards blacks being incapable of sustaining their own family, education, community, or killer instinct.


----------



## Vox

Sallow said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> What part of that is bullshit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> all of it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fo' real Mr. Vox.
> 
> Reichskonkordat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> The Vatican Concordat With Hitler's Reich | America Magazine
> 
> 
> 
> History is not your forte..
Click to expand...


did you at least read what you've posted?
or you have a comprehension DISability?

The Reichskonkordat was a treaty between the Holy See and Weimar Republic when the nazis weren't yet known as to what they are and what threat thy pose - it was signed on 20 July 1933 by Secretary of State Eugenio Pacelli (who later became Pope Pius XII) and *Vice Chancellor Franz von Papen* on behalf of Pope Pius XI and* President Paul von Hindenburg *respectively.

The Enabling Act was exactly 4 months old 

History is clearly NOT YOUR forte


----------



## TemplarKormac

JakeStarkey said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No,  you have proven that you are not entitled to American citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Who died and made you president?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anybody like petey who has a victimization and entitlement complex based on race.
Click to expand...


Hold on. How is he having a "victimization and entitlement complex" Jake? He isn't using his past as a cudgel, he doesn't scream for entitlement because his ancestors were brought here on slave ships! He doesn't cry like a child when he doesn't get his way. 

Now, look at a black liberal. Remember those traits I just described? Apply them here.


----------



## JakeStarkey

pioneerpete said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Who died and made you president?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anybody like petey who has a victimization and entitlement complex based on race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Call me what you want, but I've never known numbers and percentages to be members of the KKK. All those little figures point towards blacks being incapable of sustaining their own family, education, community, or killer instinct.
Click to expand...


You have every right to your opinion, but . . .


----------



## pioneerpete

JakeStarkey said:


> pioneerpete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they had that choice. They still weren't slaves but thanks for the red herring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't blacks blame the black Africans that sold them in the first place? You don't really hear much of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sure those who were shipped from Africa did just that.  You would, I would.
> 
> However, those born here had every right to blame their masters who were overwhelmingly white.
Click to expand...


Are those people still alive today?


----------



## JakeStarkey

> The Enabling Act was exactly 4 months old
> 
> History is clearly NOT YOUR forte



[PDF]
1 Volume 7. Nazi Germany, 1933-1945 Reich Concordat between ...

germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/pdf/eng/English80.pdf*

Nazi Germany, 1933-1945. Reich Concordat between the Holy See and the German Reich (July 20, 1933). Although the Catholic Church represented only a third of the German population, the Nazi .... learning in Rome. 2. The bull for the ...

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/catholic_church_nazi_germany.htm


----------



## JakeStarkey

pioneerpete said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pioneerpete said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't blacks blame the black Africans that sold them in the first place? You don't really hear much of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure those who were shipped from Africa did just that.  You would, I would.
> 
> However, those born here had every right to blame their masters who were overwhelmingly white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are those people still alive today?
Click to expand...


Not important at all, whereas almost four centuries of race hatred on both sides is important today.


----------



## Sallow

Vox said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> all of it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fo' real Mr. Vox.
> 
> Reichskonkordat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> The Vatican Concordat With Hitler's Reich | America Magazine
> 
> 
> 
> History is not your forte..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> did you at least read what you've posted?
> or you have a comprehension DISability?
> 
> The Reichskonkordat was a treaty between the Holy See and Weimar Republic when the nazis weren't yet known as to what they are and what threat thy pose - it was signed on 20 July 1933 by Secretary of State Eugenio Pacelli (who later became Pope Pius XII) and *Vice Chancellor Franz von Papen* on behalf of Pope Pius XI and* President Paul von Hindenburg *respectively.
> 
> The Enabling Act was exactly 4 months old
> 
> History is clearly NOT YOUR forte
Click to expand...


I read it fine.

Hitler was Chancellor.


----------



## pioneerpete

JakeStarkey said:


> pioneerpete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anybody like petey who has a victimization and entitlement complex based on race.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Call me what you want, but I've never known numbers and percentages to be members of the KKK. All those little figures point towards blacks being incapable of sustaining their own family, education, community, or killer instinct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have every right to your opinion, but . . .
Click to expand...


70% of blacks born to single parent home, 40% of blacks don't graduate high school, in the last decade 100,000 black males have died of murder, 93% of those were killed by other blacks.....................................

How many generations removed from slavery do you have to be before this stuff improves?


----------



## Vox

Sallow said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fo' real Mr. Vox.
> 
> Reichskonkordat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> The Vatican Concordat With Hitler's Reich | America Magazine
> 
> 
> 
> History is not your forte..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> did you at least read what you've posted?
> or you have a comprehension DISability?
> 
> The Reichskonkordat was a treaty between the Holy See and Weimar Republic when the nazis weren't yet known as to what they are and what threat thy pose - it was signed on 20 July 1933 by Secretary of State Eugenio Pacelli (who later became Pope Pius XII) and *Vice Chancellor Franz von Papen* on behalf of Pope Pius XI and* President Paul von Hindenburg *respectively.
> 
> The Enabling Act was exactly 4 months old
> 
> History is clearly NOT YOUR forte
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read it fine.
> 
> Hitler was Chancellor.
Click to expand...


SO?

he didn't commit any crimes YET.

He was no difference from the prime-ministers of Great Britain or respective leaders of France or USA


----------



## TemplarKormac

The Enabling Act of 1933 was signed on March 23, 1933. The Reichskonkordat was signed four months later on July 20, 1933. It essentially gave rise to Nazi Germany, until it fell in 1945.


----------



## Redfish

JakeStarkey said:


> pioneerpete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure those who were shipped from Africa did just that.  You would, I would.
> 
> However, those born here had every right to blame their masters who were overwhelmingly white.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are those people still alive today?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not important at all, whereas almost four centuries of race hatred on both sides is important today.
Click to expand...


Damn,  and we all thought that obama was going to be the first post-racism president.   But what has he done--------stirred up more racism than any president in recent history.

"the cops acted stupidly"   "if I had a son he would look like Trayvon"    his DOJ refused to prosecute the black thugs at the philly polling place.  

the guy has been terrible for race relations,  and its truly sad because he could have done a lot to repair the damage,  instead he has increased it.


Uhhhh,   could it be part of the divide and conquer plan?


----------



## hortysir

NYcarbineer said:


> AnCapAtheist said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)
> 
> The Black Slave Owners - SlaveRebellion.org
> 
> Damn racist southerners!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show us how many blacks in pre-Civil War America owned white slaves,
> 
> and we'll go from there.
Click to expand...


Just as soon as you can point to a case of a white person seeking reparations


----------



## Vox

TemplarKormac said:


> The Enabling Act of 1933  was signed on March 23, 1933. The Reichskonkordat was signed four months later on July 20, 1933. It essentially gave rise to Nazi Germany, until it fell in 1945.



they pretend not to understand that at that point of time nobody yet knew what Hitler was.

And since the US recognized much more heinous regime exactly the same year ( Nov 16, 1933) and after it was already known to the US that up to 10 million people were slaughtered in an artificial famine by that regime ( USSR) in Ukraine and the libtard Democrat president pushed that recognition, you, libtards, better STFU


----------



## TemplarKormac

Vox said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Enabling Act of 1933  was signed on March 23, 1933. The Reichskonkordat was signed four months later on July 20, 1933. It essentially gave rise to Nazi Germany, until it fell in 1945.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they pretend not to understand that at that point of time nobody yet knew what Hitler was.
> 
> And since the US recognized much more heinous regime exactly the same year ( Nov 16, 1933) and after it was already known to the US that up to 10 million people were slaughtered in an artificial famine by that regime ( USSR) in Ukraine and the libtard Democrat president pushed that recognition, you, libtards, better STFU
Click to expand...


Interesting. So, Obama backing the Muslim Brotherhood isn't a new thing...


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

> nazis weren't Christians, they were mostly atheists



Pure Balderdash. Can we stop the idiotic position that Nazi Germany was an atheist movement already? It was not.

The strongest thread that this theory rests on is the fact that Rudolph Hess supported atheism by decreeing "No National Socialist may suffer any detriment on the ground that he does not profess any particular faith or confession or on the ground that he does not make any religious profession at all."

That's a far cry from Nazi Germany being atheist. 

The Nazi regime strongly opposed "godless communism" on the whole. Hitler himself opposed secular schools: "Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith."

The predominant religion in Nazi Germany was Protestant, with Catholicism running second. Martin Luther's _On Jews and Their Lies_ was sometimes used as a justification for national socialism and the final solution. If one actually reads Luther's treatise, one can hear its sentiments echoed by Himmler centuries later. 

I am in no way judging or demeaning Christianity by that unfortunate nastiness. It's more an example of how man's inhumanity to man knows no scruples when it comes to seeking whatever means necessary to justify it. I do, however, roundly condemn the use of Nazi Germany  and "the final solution" by Christians with an agenda as an example of atheism, when anybody with an ounce of sense can see it for what it is: the culmination of centuries of European bias against Jews. No agenda, theist or atheist alike, need be applied.


----------



## pioneerpete

This is the fault of slavery:

Murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm more upset that we even brought them here to begin with.


----------



## Vox

TemplarKormac said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Enabling Act of 1933  was signed on March 23, 1933. The Reichskonkordat was signed four months later on July 20, 1933. It essentially gave rise to Nazi Germany, until it fell in 1945.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they pretend not to understand that at that point of time nobody yet knew what Hitler was.
> 
> And since the US recognized much more heinous regime exactly the same year ( Nov 16, 1933) and after it was already known to the US that up to 10 million people were slaughtered in an artificial famine by that regime ( USSR) in Ukraine and the libtard Democrat president pushed that recognition, you, libtards, better STFU
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting. So, Obama backing the Muslim Brotherhood isn't a new thing...
Click to expand...


No, it is not.
As is not suppressing the voices who tell the truth:

Gareth Jones Soviet Union Newspaper Articles 1930-33


      Gareth Jones left Cambridge University in 1929, having gained a First-Class Honours in French, Russian and German to join Mr. David Lloyd George, former Prime Minister to Great Britain (1916-1922). He commenced his new employment as a Foreign Affairs Advisor on January 1st, 1930.

From 1930 to 1933, Gareth visited the Soviet Union on three occasions and after each, he wrote articles for a number of newspapers regarding conditions he observed resulting from Stalin's Five-Year Plan.

On the first occasion in 1930, Gareth reported back to Lloyd George at his country retreat in Churt, Surrey . There he met Lord Lothian, a former wartime secretary to Lloyd George (and later the British Ambassador to the U.S. ), who recommended that Gareth should publish his articles in The Times. 

His second independent visit to ' Russia ' in 1931 (as the USSR was widely known at the time in the West) occurred after being head-hunted for his Soviet expertise by the leading American public relations expert, Dr Ivy Lee. It was at Lee's request that Gareth accompanied a young Jack Heinz II (heir to the food manufacturing empire) to Russia and Ukraine , whereby sleeping on the 'bug-infested floors' of Soviet peasantry, they personally experienced the onset of starvation in Ukraine . Heinz took Gareth's copious diary notes and in early 1932 anonymously published (though containing a foreword under Gareth's name) a damning appraisal of 'starving' peasant life in the USSR . Due to the Great Depression, Gareth's one year contract with Lee was terminated and he returned from New York in mid-1932 to rejoin David Lloyd George's employ. 

In October 1932, there were increasing rumours within informed London circles and other circumstantial evidence which Gareth had gleamed from recently acquired copies of Izvestia of an on-going famine. As a result he wrote two newspaper articles in a series entitled "Will there be soup?" to highlight the forthcoming winter crisis, before arranging his affairs so as to observe it for himself at his earliest opportunity in the following March..

Early in 1933, Gareth made an extensive tour of Europe . In February one month after Adolf Hitler had been made Chancellor of Germany (and just 3 days before the burning of the Reichstag), Gareth was afforded the 'privilege' to become the first foreign journalist to fly with the newly elected dictator to a rally in Frankfurt-am-Main. 

The following month in early March 1933, after an 'off-limits' walking tour of the Soviet Ukraine, Gareth, a young man of just 27 years, exposed to the world the terrible famine-genocide that had befallen the Soviet Union and gave reasons for this tragic state of events. It was in the same week that Malcolm Muggeridge had three unsigned famine articles in the Manchester Guardian published, though at the time, due to the more reported Jewish problems in Germany , they went almost unnoticed. Gareth's story however, broke world-wide with much credence (by virtue of his position with Lloyd George) from a Berlin press interview on the 29th March 1933, and was published in the USA as 'exclusives' on the same day by Pulitzer prize winners; H. R Knickerbocker (1931) and Edgar Adsel Mowrer (1933).. 

Even though Gareth revealed the truth, he was publicly denounced as a liar by several Moscow resident Western journalists, including The New York Times' and incumbent 1932 Pulitzer Prize Winner, Walter Duranty. In 1937, Eugene Lyons, a Moscow based correspondent, who repudiated Gareth four years earlier, was apologetic for his actions in his book Assignment in Utopia:

"Throwing down Jones was as unpleasant a chore as fell to any of us in years of juggling facts to please dictatorial regimesbut throw him down we did, unanimously and in almost identical formulas of equivocation. Poor Gareth Jones must have been the most surprised human being alive when the facts he so painstakingly garnered from our mouths were snowed under by our denials."

Undaunted, in a published letter to the New York Times, Gareth reasserted his observations of famine and also stingingly rebutted Duranty describing Moscow-based foreign correspondents as being "masters of euphemism".


----------



## pioneerpete

Saturday Night Card Game (Will banning racism be held racist?)

Blacks sue against a law that was meant to make everyone equal. Who else does that????


----------



## Redfish

pioneerpete said:


> Saturday Night Card Game (Will banning racism be held racist?)
> 
> Blacks sue against a law that was meant to make everyone equal. Who else does that????



I hate to compare the two,  but SOME blacks and gays do not want equality,  they want special treatment because they don't think they can compete equally.   please note, I said SOME.


----------



## pioneerpete

Redfish said:


> pioneerpete said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saturday Night Card Game (Will banning racism be held racist?)
> 
> Blacks sue against a law that was meant to make everyone equal. Who else does that????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to compare the two,  but SOME blacks and gays do not want equality,  they want special treatment* because they don't think they can compete equally*.   please note, I said SOME.
Click to expand...


Fault of slavery no doubt


----------



## TemplarKormac

Vox said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> they pretend not to understand that at that point of time nobody yet knew what Hitler was.
> 
> And since the US recognized much more heinous regime exactly the same year ( Nov 16, 1933) and after it was already known to the US that up to 10 million people were slaughtered in an artificial famine by that regime ( USSR) in Ukraine and the libtard Democrat president pushed that recognition, you, libtards, better STFU
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. So, Obama backing the Muslim Brotherhood isn't a new thing...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not.
> As is not suppressing the voices who tell the truth:
> 
> Gareth Jones Soviet Union Newspaper Articles 1930-33
> 
> 
> Gareth Jones left Cambridge University in 1929, having gained a First-Class Honours in French, Russian and German to join Mr. David Lloyd George, former Prime Minister to Great Britain (1916-1922). He commenced his new employment as a Foreign Affairs Advisor on January 1st, 1930.
> 
> From 1930 to 1933, Gareth visited the Soviet Union on three occasions and after each, he wrote articles for a number of newspapers regarding conditions he observed resulting from Stalin's Five-Year Plan.
> 
> On the first occasion in 1930, Gareth reported back to Lloyd George at his country retreat in Churt, Surrey . There he met Lord Lothian, a former wartime secretary to Lloyd George (and later the British Ambassador to the U.S. ), who recommended that Gareth should publish his articles in The Times.
> 
> His second independent visit to ' Russia ' in 1931 (as the USSR was widely known at the time in the West) occurred after being head-hunted for his Soviet expertise by the leading American public relations expert, Dr Ivy Lee. It was at Lee's request that Gareth accompanied a young Jack Heinz II (heir to the food manufacturing empire) to Russia and Ukraine , whereby sleeping on the 'bug-infested floors' of Soviet peasantry, they personally experienced the onset of starvation in Ukraine . Heinz took Gareth's copious diary notes and in early 1932 anonymously published (though containing a foreword under Gareth's name) a damning appraisal of 'starving' peasant life in the USSR . Due to the Great Depression, Gareth's one year contract with Lee was terminated and he returned from New York in mid-1932 to rejoin David Lloyd George's employ.
> 
> In October 1932, there were increasing rumours within informed London circles and other circumstantial evidence which Gareth had gleamed from recently acquired copies of Izvestia of an on-going famine. As a result he wrote two newspaper articles in a series entitled "Will there be soup?" to highlight the forthcoming winter crisis, before arranging his affairs so as to observe it for himself at his earliest opportunity in the following March..
> 
> Early in 1933, Gareth made an extensive tour of Europe . In February one month after Adolf Hitler had been made Chancellor of Germany (and just 3 days before the burning of the Reichstag), Gareth was afforded the 'privilege' to become the first foreign journalist to fly with the newly elected dictator to a rally in Frankfurt-am-Main.
> 
> The following month in early March 1933, after an 'off-limits' walking tour of the Soviet Ukraine, Gareth, a young man of just 27 years, exposed to the world the terrible famine-genocide that had befallen the Soviet Union and gave reasons for this tragic state of events. It was in the same week that Malcolm Muggeridge had three unsigned famine articles in the Manchester Guardian published, though at the time, due to the more reported Jewish problems in Germany , they went almost unnoticed. Gareth's story however, broke world-wide with much credence (by virtue of his position with Lloyd George) from a Berlin press interview on the 29th March 1933, and was published in the USA as 'exclusives' on the same day by Pulitzer prize winners; H. R Knickerbocker (1931) and Edgar Adsel Mowrer (1933)..
> 
> Even though Gareth revealed the truth, he was publicly denounced as a liar by several Moscow resident Western journalists, including The New York Times' and incumbent 1932 Pulitzer Prize Winner, Walter Duranty. In 1937, Eugene Lyons, a Moscow based correspondent, who repudiated Gareth four years earlier, was apologetic for his actions in his book Assignment in Utopia:
> 
> "Throwing down Jones was as unpleasant a chore as fell to any of us in years of juggling facts to please dictatorial regimesbut throw him down we did, unanimously and in almost identical formulas of equivocation. Poor Gareth Jones must have been the most surprised human being alive when the facts he so painstakingly garnered from our mouths were snowed under by our denials."
> 
> Undaunted, in a published letter to the New York Times, Gareth reasserted his observations of famine and also stingingly rebutted Duranty describing Moscow-based foreign correspondents as being "masters of euphemism".
Click to expand...


Great read, Vox.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are those people still alive today?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not important at all, whereas almost four centuries of race hatred on both sides is important today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn,  and we all thought that obama was going to be the first post-racism president.   But what has he done--------stirred up more racism than any president in recent history.
Click to expand...


Nah, far right racist remark.  The opposition from the racist of the far right has stirred up the problem tremendously.  BHO is not a good president, imo, but race has nothing to do with it.

An aside: I think non-racist America gave Obama close 2nd election, in part, because of the race stupidity in the election

I am glad that can't, apparently, negatively affect elections anymore. IOW,  the racists from the right helped to re-elect him.


----------



## konradv

pioneerpete said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whites could indenture themselves for 7 years and serve as slaves, Ravi, in every state in the Union. After that, they could use time served as apprenticeship and either work for pay or go into business for self if they had saved anything at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they had that choice. They still weren't slaves but thanks for the red herring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't blacks blame the black Africans that sold them in the first place? You don't really hear much of that.
Click to expand...


Slavery _per se_ was not an unusual situation in Africa or other places in the world.  It's when you get to the Americas with its race-based version that even when you got your freedom, you still weren't truly free.  That's the root of the problem.  If all the freed slaves had immediately become equal citizens as was the norm in Roman times, for example, we wouldn't be still dealing with its after effects now.


----------



## pioneerpete

konradv said:


> pioneerpete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they had that choice. They still weren't slaves but thanks for the red herring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't blacks blame the black Africans that sold them in the first place? You don't really hear much of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery _per se_ was not an unusual situation in Africa or other places in the world.  It's when you get to the Americas with its race-based version that even when you got your freedom, you still weren't truly free.  That's the root of the problem.  If all the freed slaves had immediately become equal citizens as was the norm in Roman times, for example, we wouldn't be still dealing with its after effects now.
Click to expand...


So you are saying that is the reason we get this in 2013?

Saturday Night Card Game (Will banning racism be held racist?)


----------



## konradv

pioneerpete said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pioneerpete said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't blacks blame the black Africans that sold them in the first place? You don't really hear much of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery _per se_ was not an unusual situation in Africa or other places in the world.  It's when you get to the Americas with its race-based version that even when you got your freedom, you still weren't truly free.  That's the root of the problem.  If all the freed slaves had immediately become equal citizens as was the norm in Roman times, for example, we wouldn't be still dealing with its after effects now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are saying that is the reason we get this in 2013?
> 
> Saturday Night Card Game (Will banning racism be held racist?)
Click to expand...


I'm saying the effects of race-based slavery and racism have fucked up nearly everyone in this country.  It's plainly evident in the posts that talk about blacks and native Americans owning slaves or who sold them in the first place, as if that made things any better or different.  It just means that the poster is either very new to the country and ignorant of its history or in extreme denial.


----------



## tinydancer

konradv said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's bullshit that slavery was based on race.
> 
> Slavery was based on the need for a productive human animal if you want to bring this down to truth and not a political discussion.
> 
> Irish 14 year old slave vs a 14 year old black slave from Africa the higher money at the slave traders is going with the black.
> 
> It was what the Africans could and did in the fields that Cromwell's Irish slaves could not do as well.
> 
> Think horse trading.
> 
> I'm not wanting to ever demean slavery as it continues even as I type, but one has to look at the truth behind slavery.
> 
> Humans were dehumanized and became chattel. Humans are today dehumanized and are chattel on this planet. Nothing to do with race.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has everything to do with race in the Americas.  Whatever situation you're referring to with regard to slavery of other ethnic groups the fact remains, when that situation ended, they were indistinguishable from the general population.  The same cannot be said for African slaves in America.  They were stigmatized after emancipation and we're still feeling its effect to this day.
Click to expand...


Oh kiss my ass darling. Get back to me after you explain how First Nations rocked their world on slave trading. 

Race wasn't the issue in the early Americas.  The slave owners were buying the best and the strongest like live stock.

This upsets me so. But it is the truth.Geese louise it really gets me.


----------



## Ravi

TemplarKormac said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery predates America, to say it's based on race is ludicrous. Learn some freaking history people.
> 
> 
> 
> It was in the US and colonial America. Only people of color could be slaves, for instance blacks or Native Americans. White people could not be owned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you trolling? No. The advent of slavery came about with the invention of agriculture, over 11,000 years ago, in the Neolithic Era. I will hear no more of your lies. And as [MENTION=29697]freedombecki[/MENTION]: made clear:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When White servitude is acknowledged as having existed in America, it is almost always termed as temporary "indentured servitude" or part of the convict trade, which, after the Revolution of 1776, centered on Australia instead of America. The "convicts" transported to America under the 1723 Waltham Act, perhaps numbered 100,000.
> 
> The indentured servants who served a tidy little period of 4 to 7 years polishing the master's silver and china and then taking their place in colonial high society, were a minuscule fraction of the great unsung hundreds of thousands of White slaves who were worked to death in this country from the early l7th century onward.
> 
> Up to one-half of all the arrivals in the American colonies were Whites slaves and they were America's first slaves. These Whites were slaves for life, long before Blacks ever were. This slavery was even hereditary. White children born to White slaves were enslaved too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hoffman reveals: The Forgotten Slaves--Whites in Servitude
Click to expand...

Nice unsourced BS. The owning of white people has never been legal in the United States. The owning of people of color has been.


----------



## Ravi

freedombecki said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whites could indenture themselves for 7 years and serve as slaves, Ravi, in every state in the Union. After that, they could use time served as apprenticeship and either work for pay or go into business for self if they had saved anything at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they had that choice. They still weren't slaves but thanks for the red herring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can understand your brainwashing. I recommend reading for you: "They Were White and They Were Slaves," by Michael A. Hoffman II.
Click to expand...


Don't be such a ninny. Why on earth would you take the word of a Holocaust denier?


----------



## editec

AnCapAtheist said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)
> 
> The Black Slave Owners - SlaveRebellion.org
> 
> Damn racist southerners!





Columbus took some Caribs as slaves on  their first trip to the new world.  

I believe he and his crew were not Black.


----------



## editec

American Communist said:


> Governor of Maine had slaves as well.



Not in Maine he didn't.

Massachusetts outlawed slavery in 1780.  Maine was part of MA until 1820.

But King was a merchant and a diplomate (to Spain, I think)  so it would not surprise me to learn he owned slaves when he was living elsewhere.


----------



## editec

Decus said:


> Approximately 1% of the US popoulation owned slaves just prior to the Civil War. I read somewhere that 4,000 free blacks owned slaves as well.
> 
> 99% of the population that didn't own slaves were as guilty as the 1% that that did own slaves. Seems logical ....



I don't know where you got that statistic but it is my understanding that about 25% of the FAMILIES in the CSA owned slaves.

Most slaves were owned by a few industrial farming owers that is true, but many families owned one or two slaves.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Crunch the numbers, and I believe one will find that, including the North and West (where it was illegal except for Utah Territory), that 4 to 7% of white families owned slaves.


----------



## konradv

tinydancer said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's bullshit that slavery was based on race.
> 
> Slavery was based on the need for a productive human animal if you want to bring this down to truth and not a political discussion.
> 
> Irish 14 year old slave vs a 14 year old black slave from Africa the higher money at the slave traders is going with the black.
> 
> It was what the Africans could and did in the fields that Cromwell's Irish slaves could not do as well.
> 
> Think horse trading.
> 
> I'm not wanting to ever demean slavery as it continues even as I type, but one has to look at the truth behind slavery.
> 
> Humans were dehumanized and became chattel. Humans are today dehumanized and are chattel on this planet. Nothing to do with race.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has everything to do with race in the Americas.  Whatever situation you're referring to with regard to slavery of other ethnic groups the fact remains, when that situation ended, they were indistinguishable from the general population.  The same cannot be said for African slaves in America.  They were stigmatized after emancipation and we're still feeling its effect to this day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh kiss my ass darling. Get back to me after you explain how First Nations rocked their world on slave trading.
> 
> Race wasn't the issue in the early Americas.  The slave owners were buying the best and the strongest like live stock.
> 
> This upsets me so. But it is the truth.Geese louise it really gets me.
Click to expand...


Like I said, extreme denial.  Race became an issue or the freed slaves would have become accepted as full citizens.  History proves they weren't.


----------



## National Socialist

JakeStarkey said:


> Crunch the numbers, and I believe one will find that, including the North and West (where it was illegal except for Utah Territory), that 4 to 7% of white families owned slaves.



And what % of non whites did? Mexicans,Indians,Blacks etc.


----------



## JakeStarkey

AnCapAtheist said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Crunch the numbers, and I believe one will find that, including the North and West (where it was illegal except for Utah Territory), that 4 to 7% of white families owned slaves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what % of non whites did? Mexicans,Indians,Blacks etc.
Click to expand...


If we accept the overinflated number of 4000 black slave holders, then about .001% of black families owned black chattel slaves.  I am sure some Mexican families owned black slaves in Texas, so I suggest you search the US Census 1860 for such.  We know American Natives did not practice American negro chattel slavery unless they had joined American society, such as the Cherokees.  The numbers of families practicing Negro chattel slavery would be very, very low, and I suggest you check the census as well.


----------



## Decus

editec said:


> Decus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Approximately *1% of the US popoulation* owned slaves just prior to the Civil War. I read somewhere that 4,000 free blacks owned slaves as well.
> 
> 99% of the population that didn't own slaves were as guilty as the 1% that that did own slaves. Seems logical ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know where you got that statistic but it is my understanding that about 25% of the FAMILIES in the CSA owned slaves.
> 
> Most slaves were owned by a few industrial farming owers that is true, but many families owned one or two slaves.
Click to expand...



I said US population - see above. I appreciate your pointing out that the CSA statistics. The fact remains that a minority of the population owned slaves. The US is one of the most racially tolerant countries in the world - which should be celebrated. Instead we continue to rehash this tragic tale. Was it a regrettable period of history - absolutely. However it is time to move on.

You might want to look at the history of Asians in the US. Prejudice against them stiil exists. They rise above it and avail themselves of the opportunities this country provides. Why can't others?

Compared to other countries, this is something to be proud of:

A fascinating map of the world?s most and least racially tolerant countries


----------



## Vox

Decus said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Decus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Approximately *1% of the US popoulation* owned slaves just prior to the Civil War. I read somewhere that 4,000 free blacks owned slaves as well.
> 
> 99% of the population that didn't own slaves were as guilty as the 1% that that did own slaves. Seems logical ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know where you got that statistic but it is my understanding that about 25% of the FAMILIES in the CSA owned slaves.
> 
> Most slaves were owned by a few industrial farming owers that is true, but many families owned one or two slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I said US population - see above. I appreciate your pointing out that the CSA statistics. The fact remains that a minority of the population owned slaves. The US is one of the most racially tolerant countries in the world - which should be celebrated. Instead we continue to rehash this tragic tale. Was it a regrettable period of history - absolutely. However it is time to move on.
> 
> You might want to look at the history of Asians in the US. Prejudice against them stiil exists. They rise above it and avail themselves of the opportunities this country provides. Why can't others?
> 
> Compared to other countries, this is something to be proud of:
> 
> A fascinating map of the world?s most and least racially tolerant countries
Click to expand...


Intereassting map. The leftist Europe is far more racist than it could be expected by their rhetoric on the international scale


----------



## National Socialist

Either way I don't condone slavery but I also realize the CSA was fighting for the right to determine their own destiny and not be under the thumb of a tyrant dictator. Yes slavery was in their constitution and yes it was wrong but they should have been the ones to decide to release their slaves...everyone says Lincoln is a great man but has ANYONE here read what he really though of slavery and blacks in general? I have...he was a disgusting racist piece of shit who used slavery for his own political gain. The CSA constitution banned the slave trade and eventually probably within 20-30 years all slaves would have been released or died off...kind of hard to keep a trade going when you have no more slaves coming in...Lincoln wanted a war because he wanted to drastically change the way the government was and the power it held. He did so much to the detriment of the country we now live in.


----------



## JakeStarkey

> The US is one of the most racially tolerant countries in the world -



Utter and abominable nonsense and called out as such.

The reactions we have from some of the far right to a black president, some of it presented on this board, contradicts such a witless statement.

We have many black on the left that are racist, and we have seen it on this board.

We are racially "tolerant" because some of us have to continually monitor the idiots in the country who are haters to the bone of those different than them.

Racism is a deadly poison that permeates society, cultural, and politics.


----------



## rdean

AnCapAtheist said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)
> 
> The Black Slave Owners - SlaveRebellion.org
> 
> Damn racist southerners!



Did you read your link?

"Why was the page I created deleted?"

Fucking hilarious!


----------



## Clementine

Redfish said:


> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> Africans captured and sold fellow Africans to white people on Europe and The US. In 2013, there are more than 25 million Africans enslaved in West Africa. Shouldn't the reparations crowd be going after the Africans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they don't have any money.    reparations require money.   so they can only go after the evil american public, even though no living american was a slave owner or a slave.
Click to expand...


Leftist leaders are often lawyers.    Therefore, it's not about right and wrong or seeking true justice.   It's about finding the deepest pockets and finding a way to get their hands on the money.


----------



## konradv

AnCapAtheist said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)
> 
> The Black Slave Owners - SlaveRebellion.org
> 
> Damn racist southerners!



Did you read the page?

(excerpt)
_ Notably, he was the first true slave owner: that is, the first to hold a black African servant as a slave in the mainland American colonies. Upon his death in 1670, *a court ruled that he was "a negro and by consequence, an alien", and the colony seized his land.*_

It sort of puts the lie to the notion that slavery in the Americas wasn't all about race.  As a "Negro" he was automatically an alien and could be legally dispossessed.


----------



## rdean

Clementine said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> Africans captured and sold fellow Africans to white people on Europe and The US. In 2013, there are more than 25 million Africans enslaved in West Africa. Shouldn't the reparations crowd be going after the Africans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they don't have any money.    reparations require money.   so they can only go after the evil american public, even though no living american was a slave owner or a slave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leftist leaders are often lawyers.    Therefore, it's not about right and wrong or seeking true justice.   It's about finding the deepest pockets and finding a way to get their hands on the money.
Click to expand...


Republican leaders are mostly lawyers.  But don't worry.  There is a cleansing coming with the GOP.  "We don't want smart people" "Education is for snobs" "We don't want elite".  Instead of being the party of Jethro, it was be the party of only Jethro.


----------



## candycorn

konradv said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AnCapAtheist said:
> 
> 
> 
> First slave owner in America was black
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now stop that.  Don't you realize there's an agenda here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, the agenda seems to be to absolve slave owners "because everybody did it".  What's routinely ignored, however, is that it was in the Americas that race entered the equation.  Previously slavery had been the result of war, debt, criminality or religion.  Race-based slavery meant that even nominally "freed men" weren't really free.  We're still suffering from the effects of that part of our history and stories like the OP are counter-productive, because they attempt to whitewash history rather than deal with the facts.
Click to expand...


We also 'learned' this week that its okay to just up and leave the union, the North started the Civil War and that slaves were revered by their owners.

Just so many fun facts...errr 'facts' out there


----------



## JakeStarkey

And "We that its okay to just up and leave the union, the North started the Civil War and that slaves were revered by their owners" are "facts" known by educated American youth and young adults to be fabrications by a weak-minded faction in America who are afraid of their country, its history, and its greatness.  

This, in part, is why the GOP is beginning a tremendous undergoing that will change it for the better and for the country's betterment during the next decade.  The southern white evangeicl euro-centric version of American Exceptionalism is going into the gutter at last.


----------



## National Socialist

candycorn said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now stop that.  Don't you realize there's an agenda here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the agenda seems to be to absolve slave owners "because everybody did it".  What's routinely ignored, however, is that it was in the Americas that race entered the equation.  Previously slavery had been the result of war, debt, criminality or religion.  Race-based slavery meant that even nominally "freed men" weren't really free.  We're still suffering from the effects of that part of our history and stories like the OP are counter-productive, because they attempt to whitewash history rather than deal with the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We also 'learned' this week that its okay to just up and leave the union, the North started the Civil War and that slaves were revered by their owners.
> 
> Just so many fun facts...errr 'facts' out there
Click to expand...

You learn lots of things if you know where to look and what to look for. I learned there are more willfully ignorant people than I previously knew about! You are certainly among them.


----------



## candycorn

AnCapAtheist said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the agenda seems to be to absolve slave owners "because everybody did it".  What's routinely ignored, however, is that it was in the Americas that race entered the equation.  Previously slavery had been the result of war, debt, criminality or religion.  Race-based slavery meant that even nominally "freed men" weren't really free.  We're still suffering from the effects of that part of our history and stories like the OP are counter-productive, because they attempt to whitewash history rather than deal with the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We also 'learned' this week that its okay to just up and leave the union, the North started the Civil War and that slaves were revered by their owners.
> 
> Just so many fun facts...errr 'facts' out there
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You learn lots of things if you know where to look and what to look for. I learned there are more willfully ignorant people than I previously knew about! You are certainly among them.
Click to expand...


No, what you do is highlight distinctions that make no difference and try to legitimise your lame positions by amplifying those distinctions.  A few years back there was this guy...probably a sock of yours...that tried to point out that Saddam didnt use WMDs  by insisting biological weapons were not used.  He used chemical weapons which are every bit as deadly...but the boy couldnt see it. 

Whites owned blacks.
It was wrong.
The States in the South left the union because of it.
It was illegal.
They started the Civil War.
The North ended it under extraordinarily charitable terms given 1860's society.

Those are the facts.  Spin all you want to.


----------



## Ravi

konradv said:


> AnCapAtheist said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)
> 
> The Black Slave Owners - SlaveRebellion.org
> 
> Damn racist southerners!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read the page?
> 
> (excerpt)
> _ Notably, he was the first true slave owner: that is, the first to hold a black African servant as a slave in the mainland American colonies. Upon his death in 1670, *a court ruled that he was "a negro and by consequence, an alien", and the colony seized his land.*_
> 
> It sort of puts the lie to the notion that slavery in the Americas wasn't all about race.  As a "Negro" he was automatically an alien and could be legally dispossessed.
Click to expand...

He was also a slave himself to begin with. Freedom was relatively meaningless in the Americas and then in the USA for black people during that time and for almost two more centuries.

But hey, some blacks were bad so that makes the fact that the USA condoned slavery A-OK.


----------



## National Socialist

candycorn said:


> AnCapAtheist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We also 'learned' this week that its okay to just up and leave the union, the North started the Civil War and that slaves were revered by their owners.
> 
> Just so many fun facts...errr 'facts' out there
> 
> 
> 
> You learn lots of things if you know where to look and what to look for. I learned there are more willfully ignorant people than I previously knew about! You are certainly among them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, what you do is highlight distinctions that make no difference and try to legitimise your lame positions by amplifying those distinctions.  A few years back there was this guy...probably a sock of yours...that tried to point out that Saddam didnt use WMDs  by insisting biological weapons were not used.  He used chemical weapons which are every bit as deadly...but the boy couldnt see it.
> 
> Whites owned blacks.
> It was wrong.
> The States in the South left the union because of it.
> It was illegal.
> They started the Civil War.
> The North ended it under extraordinarily charitable terms given 1860's society.
> 
> Those are the facts.  Spin all you want to.
Click to expand...

Did Black People Own Slaves? | American Renaissance
The same happened in reverse as well. It was wrong.
Yep South did secede and had every right to do so. They voluntarily became a member of the Union they voluntarily left. No where was it stated one could not leave if it wanted to. It was no civil war. Please look up definition of civil war its defined as one or more groups of people trying to control a nation that is not what happened...the south seceded it wanted nothing to do with the north. So therefore it was no civil war. The South defended its self after asking the north to remove its forces from CSA territory but the north decided to send in reinforcements in essence to pick a fight with a sovereign nation.The USA has gone to war for less you can in no way knock the CSA for doing the same. Like I said remain willfully ignorant if you choose. Some of us decide to educate ourselves past a 3rd grade level.


----------



## onecut39

Neat the way everyone is blaming everyone else for being a slaveholder, as if that, in any way, vindicates everything.


----------



## FA_Q2

Decus said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Decus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Approximately *1% of the US popoulation* owned slaves just prior to the Civil War. I read somewhere that 4,000 free blacks owned slaves as well.
> 
> 99% of the population that didn't own slaves were as guilty as the 1% that that did own slaves. Seems logical ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know where you got that statistic but it is my understanding that about 25% of the FAMILIES in the CSA owned slaves.
> 
> Most slaves were owned by a few industrial farming owers that is true, but many families owned one or two slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I said US population - see above. I appreciate your pointing out that the CSA statistics. The fact remains that a minority of the population owned slaves. The US is one of the most racially tolerant countries in the world - which should be celebrated. Instead we continue to rehash this tragic tale. Was it a regrettable period of history - absolutely. However it is time to move on.
> 
> You might want to look at the history of Asians in the US. Prejudice against them stiil exists. They rise above it and avail themselves of the opportunities this country provides. Why can't others?
> 
> Compared to other countries, this is something to be proud of:
> 
> A fascinating map of the world?s most and least racially tolerant countries
Click to expand...


That is a cultural thing and worthy of a thread in itself.  There are serious culture problems that Black Americans face today within their own race that they MUST deal with.  It is becoming a blight on that community and the worst part about it is that the worse it gets, the worse the culture making bad gets.  It is a self-sustaining loop of destruction.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Serious culture problems face White Americans today within their own race that they MUST deal with. It is becoming a blight on that community and the worst part about it is until southern white euro-centric evangelicalism that supports it changes, the worse the culture making gets. It is a self-sustaining loop of destruction.


----------



## candycorn

AnCapAtheist said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AnCapAtheist said:
> 
> 
> 
> You learn lots of things if you know where to look and what to look for. I learned there are more willfully ignorant people than I previously knew about! You are certainly among them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, what you do is highlight distinctions that make no difference and try to legitimise your lame positions by amplifying those distinctions.  A few years back there was this guy...probably a sock of yours...that tried to point out that Saddam didnt use WMDs  by insisting biological weapons were not used.  He used chemical weapons which are every bit as deadly...but the boy couldnt see it.
> 
> Whites owned blacks.
> It was wrong.
> The States in the South left the union because of it.
> It was illegal.
> They started the Civil War.
> The North ended it under extraordinarily charitable terms given 1860's society.
> 
> Those are the facts.  Spin all you want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did Black People Own Slaves? | American Renaissance
> The same happened in reverse as well. It was wrong.
> Yep South did secede and had every right to do so. They voluntarily became a member of the Union they voluntarily left. No where was it stated one could not leave if it wanted to. It was no civil war. Please look up definition of civil war its defined as one or more groups of people trying to control a nation that is not what happened...the south seceded it wanted nothing to do with the north. So therefore it was no civil war. The South defended its self after asking the north to remove its forces from CSA territory but the north decided to send in reinforcements in essence to pick a fight with a sovereign nation.The USA has gone to war for less you can in no way knock the CSA for doing the same. Like I said remain willfully ignorant if you choose. Some of us decide to educate ourselves past a 3rd grade level.
Click to expand...


You dropped out in 2nd grade.

So I guess part of Louisiana could just decide to leave Louisiana if it wanted to?  We could have an unlimited number of states.  

You're a professional idiot.


----------



## Decus

JakeStarkey said:


> The US is one of the most racially tolerant countries in the world -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Utter and abominable nonsense and called out as such.
> 
> The reactions we have *from some* of the far right to a black president, some of it presented on this board, contradicts such a witless statement.
> 
> We have many black on the left that are racist, and we have seen it on this board.
> 
> We are racially "tolerant" because some of us have to continually monitor the idiots in the country who are haters to the bone of those different than them.
> 
> Racism is a deadly poison that permeates society, cultural, and politics.
Click to expand...


You say "from some" (above). Why not say "all". You know you want to. While your at it, be sure to let those two Swedish researchers and the kind folks at the Washington Post know that you will be reviewing their work in the future and to inform you ahead of time before publishing more of this kind of stuff.


----------



## National Socialist

candycorn said:


> AnCapAtheist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, what you do is highlight distinctions that make no difference and try to legitimise your lame positions by amplifying those distinctions.  A few years back there was this guy...probably a sock of yours...that tried to point out that Saddam didnt use WMDs  by insisting biological weapons were not used.  He used chemical weapons which are every bit as deadly...but the boy couldnt see it.
> 
> Whites owned blacks.
> It was wrong.
> The States in the South left the union because of it.
> It was illegal.
> They started the Civil War.
> The North ended it under extraordinarily charitable terms given 1860's society.
> 
> Those are the facts.  Spin all you want to.
> 
> 
> 
> Did Black People Own Slaves? | American Renaissance
> The same happened in reverse as well. It was wrong.
> Yep South did secede and had every right to do so. They voluntarily became a member of the Union they voluntarily left. No where was it stated one could not leave if it wanted to. It was no civil war. Please look up definition of civil war its defined as one or more groups of people trying to control a nation that is not what happened...the south seceded it wanted nothing to do with the north. So therefore it was no civil war. The South defended its self after asking the north to remove its forces from CSA territory but the north decided to send in reinforcements in essence to pick a fight with a sovereign nation.The USA has gone to war for less you can in no way knock the CSA for doing the same. Like I said remain willfully ignorant if you choose. Some of us decide to educate ourselves past a 3rd grade level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dropped out in 2nd grade.
> 
> So I guess part of Louisiana could just decide to leave Louisiana if it wanted to?  We could have an unlimited number of states.
> 
> You're a professional idiot.
Click to expand...


Yes. If the people elected to then yes. You are a professional sheep. So...


----------



## eagle7_31

JakeStarkey said:


> And "We that its okay to just up and leave the union, the North started the Civil War and that slaves were revered by their owners" are "facts" known by educated American youth and young adults to be fabrications by a weak-minded faction in America who are afraid of their country, its history, and its greatness.
> 
> This, in part, is why the GOP is beginning a tremendous undergoing that will change it for the better and for the country's betterment during the next decade.  The southern white evangeicl euro-centric version of American Exceptionalism is going into the gutter at last.




Another revisionist historian. Funny.


----------



## JakeStarkey

> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> And "We that its okay to just up and leave the union, the North started the Civil War and that slaves were revered by their owners" are "facts" known by educated American youth and young adults to be fabrications by a weak-minded faction in America who are afraid of their country, its history, and its greatness.
> 
> This, in part, is why the GOP is beginning a tremendous undergoing that will change it for the better and for the country's betterment during the next decade.  The southern white evangeicl euro-centric version of American Exceptionalism is going into the gutter at last.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another revisionist historian. Funny.
Click to expand...

 This is a typical response of a typical weak-headed American Exceptionalist of the type I describe above.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Decus said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US is one of the most racially tolerant countries in the world -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Utter and abominable nonsense and called out as such.
> 
> The reactions we have *from some* of the far right to a black president, some of it presented on this board, contradicts such a witless statement.
> 
> We have many black on the left that are racist, and we have seen it on this board.
> 
> We are racially "tolerant" because some of us have to continually monitor the idiots in the country who are haters to the bone of those different than them.
> 
> Racism is a deadly poison that permeates society, cultural, and politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say "from some" (above). Why not say "all". You know you want to. While your at it, be sure to let those two Swedish researchers and the kind folks at the Washington Post know that you will be reviewing their work in the future and to inform you ahead of time before publishing more of this kind of stuff.
Click to expand...


Decus, you have no idea what I think.  You have no way to deny those types _of some _on the far right exist, and they are a poison in our system, as are the *many blacks I noticed *and you ignored who are racist as well.

Racism is an ill in this country that must be excised.


----------



## Decus

JakeStarkey said:


> Decus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Utter and abominable nonsense and called out as such.
> 
> The reactions we have *from some* of the far right to a black president, some of it presented on this board, contradicts such a witless statement.
> 
> We have many black on the left that are racist, and we have seen it on this board.
> 
> We are racially "tolerant" because some of us have to continually monitor the idiots in the country who are haters to the bone of those different than them.
> 
> Racism is a deadly poison that permeates society, cultural, and politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say "from some" (above). Why not say "all". You know you want to. While your at it, be sure to let those two Swedish researchers and the kind folks at the Washington Post know that you will be reviewing their work in the future and to inform you ahead of time before publishing more of this kind of stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Decus, you have no idea what I think.  You have no way to deny those types _of some _on the far right exist, and they are a poison in our system, as are the *many blacks I noticed *and you ignored who are racist as well.
> 
> Racism is an ill in this country that must be excised.
Click to expand...


I agree that racism is wrong. I also know that we have come further than many other countries. We may not have reached the point of being completely open to others but we have made progress - and that should be acknowledged.


----------



## thanatos144

And yet those who wished to keep slavery were White democrats and now white libertarians....So?


----------



## eagle7_31

JakeStarkey said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> And "We that its okay to just up and leave the union, the North started the Civil War and that slaves were revered by their owners" are "facts" known by educated American youth and young adults to be fabrications by a weak-minded faction in America who are afraid of their country, its history, and its greatness.
> 
> This, in part, is why the GOP is beginning a tremendous undergoing that will change it for the better and for the country's betterment during the next decade.  The southern white evangeicl euro-centric version of American Exceptionalism is going into the gutter at last.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another revisionist historian. Funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a typical response of a typical weak-headed American Exceptionalist of the type I describe above.
Click to expand...



So now we get 3rd world balkanization, Lwing style?. Also slavery was legal in the original 13 colonies in case you forgot.


----------



## National Socialist

thanatos144 said:


> And yet those who wished to keep slavery were White democrats and now white libertarians....So?



The stupid in this one is STRONG...show me 1 instance anyone here said they wanted to keep slavery moron..I for one already said Slavery was a horrible thing and I think it was wrong....you should go to Africa and the ME and tell those horrible people to let their slaves go! I bet they would listen to ya...


----------



## thanatos144

AnCapAtheist said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet those who wished to keep slavery were White democrats and now white libertarians....So?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The stupid in this one is STRONG...show me 1 instance anyone here said they wanted to keep slavery moron..I for one already said Slavery was a horrible thing and I think it was wrong....you should go to Africa and the ME and tell those horrible people to let their slaves go! I bet they would listen to ya...
Click to expand...


Excuse me? Your the one that wants the south to rise again .


----------



## JakeStarkey

eagle7_31 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another revisionist historian. Funny.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a typical response of a typical weak-headed American Exceptionalist of the type I describe above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So now we get 3rd world balkanization, Lwing style?. Also slavery was legal in the original 13 colonies in case you forgot.
Click to expand...


One, there is no balkanization happening, and, two, that doesn't matter at all.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Decus said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Decus said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say "from some" (above). Why not say "all". You know you want to. While your at it, be sure to let those two Swedish researchers and the kind folks at the Washington Post know that you will be reviewing their work in the future and to inform you ahead of time before publishing more of this kind of stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Decus, you have no idea what I think.  You have no way to deny those types _of some _on the far right exist, and they are a poison in our system, as are the *many blacks I noticed *and you ignored who are racist as well.
> 
> Racism is an ill in this country that must be excised.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that racism is wrong. I also know that we have come further than many other countries. We may not have reached the point of being completely open to others but we have made progress - and that should be acknowledged.
Click to expand...


Yes, we have, thank heavens, we have, and we have much more to go.  The final two generations of black and white racists will be gone in fifty years, and our descendants have that to look forward, too.


----------



## candycorn

AnCapAtheist said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AnCapAtheist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did Black People Own Slaves? | American Renaissance
> The same happened in reverse as well. It was wrong.
> Yep South did secede and had every right to do so. They voluntarily became a member of the Union they voluntarily left. No where was it stated one could not leave if it wanted to. It was no civil war. Please look up definition of civil war its defined as one or more groups of people trying to control a nation that is not what happened...the south seceded it wanted nothing to do with the north. So therefore it was no civil war. The South defended its self after asking the north to remove its forces from CSA territory but the north decided to send in reinforcements in essence to pick a fight with a sovereign nation.The USA has gone to war for less you can in no way knock the CSA for doing the same. Like I said remain willfully ignorant if you choose. Some of us decide to educate ourselves past a 3rd grade level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You dropped out in 2nd grade.
> 
> So I guess part of Louisiana could just decide to leave Louisiana if it wanted to?  We could have an unlimited number of states.
> 
> You're a professional idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. If the people elected to then yes. You are a professional sheep. So...
Click to expand...


Hey, I like this idea; I can declare that my 1/4 of the floor here in my high rise condo is a separate state; my assistant who lives out in Glendale can declare her 4 acres as two separate states...  Neat.  

Every April 15 you'd have 700-800 thousand new states being born....

And on April 16 you'd have another 700-800 thousand because gee, you'd have to pay taxes to the new state where you live; why not just say you're not part of the new state either and keep all your money?  

It was a high price to pay to maintain human bondage based on skin color.


----------



## National Socialist

thanatos144 said:


> AnCapAtheist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet those who wished to keep slavery were White democrats and now white libertarians....So?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The stupid in this one is STRONG...show me 1 instance anyone here said they wanted to keep slavery moron..I for one already said Slavery was a horrible thing and I think it was wrong....you should go to Africa and the ME and tell those horrible people to let their slaves go! I bet they would listen to ya...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuse me? Your the one that wants the south to rise again .
Click to expand...

I said that? Where? The south never stopped being...so why would it need to rise again?



JakeStarkey said:


> eagle7_31 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a typical response of a typical weak-headed American Exceptionalist of the type I describe above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now we get 3rd world balkanization, Lwing style?. Also slavery was legal in the original 13 colonies in case you forgot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One, there is no balkanization happening, and, two, that doesn't matter at all.
Click to expand...

There is balkanization but not in the separate state sense not yet anyways...Latino's are taking back the southwest,your liberals have the west and east corners of the country,your conservatives are mostly in the south and ya got freedom loving folks spread everywhere...its balkanizing alright just not the way most assumed it would and the way that it is balkanizing is a precursor to what is to come...Rome fell and so will the USA.



candycorn said:


> AnCapAtheist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You dropped out in 2nd grade.
> 
> So I guess part of Louisiana could just decide to leave Louisiana if it wanted to?  We could have an unlimited number of states.
> 
> You're a professional idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. If the people elected to then yes. You are a professional sheep. So...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, I like this idea; I can declare that my 1/4 of the floor here in my high rise condo is a separate state; my assistant who lives out in Glendale can declare her 4 acres as two separate states...  Neat.
> 
> Every April 15 you'd have 700-800 thousand new states being born....
> 
> And on April 16 you'd have another 700-800 thousand because gee, you'd have to pay taxes to the new state where you live; why not just say you're not part of the new state either and keep all your money?
> 
> It was a high price to pay to maintain human bondage based on skin color.
Click to expand...

Sounds great to me! See you don't seem to realize each and every one of us is a sovereign person I mean unless you signed some contract for someone to own you? I sure in the hell didn't. Oh and it has nothing to do with skin color,nations have separated based on numerous reasons. Race,Religion,Ideology,Economic reasons etc etc.


----------



## candycorn

AnCapAtheist said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AnCapAtheist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The stupid in this one is STRONG...show me 1 instance anyone here said they wanted to keep slavery moron..I for one already said Slavery was a horrible thing and I think it was wrong....you should go to Africa and the ME and tell those horrible people to let their slaves go! I bet they would listen to ya...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me? Your the one that wants the south to rise again .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said that? Where? The south never stopped being...so why would it need to rise again?
> 
> 
> There is balkanization but not in the separate state sense not yet anyways...Latino's are taking back the southwest,your liberals have the west and east corners of the country,your conservatives are mostly in the south and ya got freedom loving folks spread everywhere...its balkanizing alright just not the way most assumed it would and the way that it is balkanizing is a precursor to what is to come...Rome fell and so will the USA.
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AnCapAtheist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. If the people elected to then yes. You are a professional sheep. So...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, I like this idea; I can declare that my 1/4 of the floor here in my high rise condo is a separate state; my assistant who lives out in Glendale can declare her 4 acres as two separate states...  Neat.
> 
> Every April 15 you'd have 700-800 thousand new states being born....
> 
> And on April 16 you'd have another 700-800 thousand because gee, you'd have to pay taxes to the new state where you live; why not just say you're not part of the new state either and keep all your money?
> 
> It was a high price to pay to maintain human bondage based on skin color.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds great to me! See you don't seem to realize each and every one of us is a sovereign person I mean unless you signed some contract for someone to own you? I sure in the hell didn't. Oh and it has nothing to do with skin color,nations have separated based on numerous reasons. Race,Religion,Ideology,Economic reasons etc etc.
Click to expand...


I have no right to suceed from society any more than you do.  Try to tell the guy at Jack in the Box you're not going to pay sales tax and see what happens or drive faster than the speed limit because you don't recognize the laws.  You don't seem to realize that in a society, you sacrifice some of your soverignity (sp?).  Sorry.

The South didn't realize it and went to war over the insistance that they continue to hold another race in bondage.

It's a poor/disgusting example to cite in your bizarre, batshit crazy stance that you're able to self-govern.


----------



## TNHarley

DUH
Didn't we buy them from blacks? LOL


----------



## National Socialist

candycorn said:


> AnCapAtheist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me? Your the one that wants the south to rise again .
> 
> 
> 
> I said that? Where? The south never stopped being...so why would it need to rise again?
> 
> 
> There is balkanization but not in the separate state sense not yet anyways...Latino's are taking back the southwest,your liberals have the west and east corners of the country,your conservatives are mostly in the south and ya got freedom loving folks spread everywhere...its balkanizing alright just not the way most assumed it would and the way that it is balkanizing is a precursor to what is to come...Rome fell and so will the USA.
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I like this idea; I can declare that my 1/4 of the floor here in my high rise condo is a separate state; my assistant who lives out in Glendale can declare her 4 acres as two separate states...  Neat.
> 
> Every April 15 you'd have 700-800 thousand new states being born....
> 
> And on April 16 you'd have another 700-800 thousand because gee, you'd have to pay taxes to the new state where you live; why not just say you're not part of the new state either and keep all your money?
> 
> It was a high price to pay to maintain human bondage based on skin color.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds great to me! See you don't seem to realize each and every one of us is a sovereign person I mean unless you signed some contract for someone to own you? I sure in the hell didn't. Oh and it has nothing to do with skin color,nations have separated based on numerous reasons. Race,Religion,Ideology,Economic reasons etc etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no right to suceed from society any more than you do.  Try to tell the guy at Jack in the Box you're not going to pay sales tax and see what happens or drive faster than the speed limit because you don't recognize the laws.  You don't seem to realize that in a society, you sacrifice some of your soverignity (sp?).  Sorry.
> 
> The South didn't realize it and went to war over the insistance that they continue to hold another race in bondage.
> 
> It's a poor/disgusting example to cite in your bizarre, batshit crazy stance that you're able to self-govern.
Click to expand...

Actually yes I do...I am under no orders and have no contract to participate in society. I can secede if I want to. I do to a certain point. I do drive faster than the speed limit every single day also don't wear a seat belt. Its just a small FUCK YOU to the establishment that I am a sovereign individual not a fucking drone or robot they control. I sacrifice NONE of my sovereignty I was born a free individual and I remain a free individual until the day I die or I give up my sovereignty willingly and not under ANY duress. The south went to war to fight back against tyranny and what they saw (correctly) the destruction of our republic into a mob ruled society with a dictator at its head. We have never been the same since that tyrant Lincoln took power.Kennedy tried and he was the last real president we had...we saw where that got him...


----------



## Lakhota

> First slave owner in America was black



Is that a true statement?  I don't think so...



> Africans coming to Jamestown between 1630 and 1640 could expect to be freed after serving their indented period of time about seven to ten years for Africans and Indians.  At this time there was no system of perpetual servitude or slave for life, but the system was rapidly evolving.  Between 1640 and 1660 slavery was becoming a customary reality.  In 1640 three servants of Hugh Gwyn, a Dutchman called Victor, a Scotchman named James Gregory, and John Punch, a negro, having run away from their master were overtaken in Maryland and brought back to stand trial for the misbehavior.  The verdict of the court would change the system of indentured servitude and set the system in transition to plantation slavery.  The court ruled that the three servants shall received punishment by whipping and have thirty stripes apiece.  The court ordered that the Dutchman and the Scotchman should first serve out their times with their master according to their Indentures and one whole year apiece after the time of their service is expired and that they shall served the colony for three years. *The third being a negro. . .shall serve his said master or his assigns for the time of his natural life. *



Much More: The Black Slave Owners - SlaveRebellion.org


----------



## National Socialist

Lakhota said:


> First slave owner in America was black
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that a true statement?  I don't think so...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Africans coming to Jamestown between 1630 and 1640 could expect to be freed after serving their indented period of time about seven to ten years for Africans and Indians.  At this time there was no system of perpetual servitude or slave for life, but the system was rapidly evolving.  Between 1640 and 1660 slavery was becoming a customary reality.  In 1640 three servants of Hugh Gwyn, a Dutchman called Victor, a Scotchman named James Gregory, and John Punch, a negro, having run away from their master were overtaken in Maryland and brought back to stand trial for the misbehavior.  The verdict of the court would change the system of indentured servitude and set the system in transition to plantation slavery.  The court ruled that the three servants shall received punishment by whipping and have thirty stripes apiece.  The court ordered that the Dutchman and the Scotchman should first serve out their times with their master according to their Indentures and one whole year apiece after the time of their service is expired and that they shall served the colony for three years. *The third being a negro. . .shall serve his said master or his assigns for the time of his natural life. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Much More: The Black Slave Owners - SlaveRebellion.org
Click to expand...


https://www.google.com/webhp?source...f.&fp=9fe61fbe687758b0&ion=1&biw=1366&bih=667

Take your pick...of course you are going to find sites that dispute it...slavery is a white racist thing..how dare the truth be opposite of that.


----------



## Lakhota

It just seems terribly convenient that a white colonial court in 1654 Virginia would choose to legitimize "slavery" by labeling Anthony Johnson (a black man) as being the first slave owner.  Terribly convenient...



> In 1654 Anthony Johnson went to court and sued his white neighbor for keeping his black servant John Casor.  Casor claimed that Johnson had kept him his serv [an] t seven years longer than hee should or ought.  Johnson who the courts described as an old Negro, claimed that he was entitled to ye Negro [Casor] for his life. Johnson realized that if he continued and persisted in his suit, Casor could win damages against him.  So, Johnson brought suit against his white neighbor Robert Parker, whom Johnson charged had detained Casor under pretense [that] the s[ai]d  John Casor is a freeman. The courts now ruled in his favor and John Casor was returned to him and Parker had to pay the court costs.
> 
> This case establishes perpetual servitude in North America, and it is ironic that the case was brought to the court by an African who had arrived from Angola in 1621.  Slavery was established in 1654 when Anthony Johnson, Northampton County, convinced the court that he was entitled to the lifetime service of John Casor; this was the first judicial approval of life servitude, except as punishment for a crime.



Much More: The Black Slave Owners - SlaveRebellion.org


----------



## National Socialist

Same goofy link....


----------



## Lakhota

> *John Punch* was an African indentured servant who lived in seventeenth century, colonial York County, Virginia. In 1640, he was bound as a servant for life as punishment for having tried to escape from his indenture. Some genealogists and historians describe Punch as "the first African documented to be enslaved for life in what would eventually become the United States."[1]
> 
> In July 2012, Ancestry.com published a paper documenting the combination of historic research and Y-DNA analysis that supports the conclusion that Punch was an eleventh-generation maternal grandfather of President Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the United States.[2][3][4] Punch was an ancestor through the Bunch family, free people of color in colonial Virginia, who were ancestors of Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham.[2] Her ancestors were primarily of European-American ethnicity. Her line of Bunch ancestors had largely intermarried with whites, and probably appeared white by 1720. Children born to white women were free because of the status of the mother.[1] DNA testing of the male Bunch descendants has revealed that John Punch was probably from present-day Cameroon, in West Africa.[1]
> 
> Punch is also believed to be one of the ancestors of the American diplomat, Ralph Bunche, the first African American to win the Nobel Peace Prize.[5]
> 
> In 1640, Punch was an indentured servant of the Virginia planter Hugh Gwyn. He escaped to Maryland with two other indentured servants, a Dutchman and a Scot.[1] All three men were caught and sentenced to whippings. In addition, the European men were sentenced to have their terms of indenture extended by four years each, but Punch was sentenced to a life of servitude.[1] Historians consider this difference in penalties to mark this case as one of the first to make a racial distinction between black and white indentured servants.[6]
> 
> It is documented that John Casor was the first legally sanctioned slave in Virginia, through a court case of 1654.[7][8] While some genealogists and historians describe Punch as the first slave, he was technically still an indentured servant, as he was sentenced to serve the remainder of his life in servitude as punishment for escaping.[6] Casor, by contrast, was found to have been a slave since his arrival in Virginia.



John Punch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

John Casor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## National Socialist

There is a difference between Indentured Servant and Slave.


----------



## JakeStarkey

"There is balkanization but not in the separate state sense not yet anyways"  The USA will fall, yes, as all countries do, but, no, there is no balkanization: absolutely no evidence for it at all.


----------



## Lakhota

AnCapAtheist said:


> There is a difference between Indentured Servant and Slave.



That's generally true.  However, what's the difference between indefinite/perpetual servitude and slavery?  _Hint:_ semantics - with no pretense of humanity.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Very little indentured servitude in perpetuity, and still then, a hope that the economic slavery would end.

For the slave, no hope at all in the institution itself.


----------



## National Socialist

JakeStarkey said:


> "There is balkanization but not in the separate state sense not yet anyways"  The USA will fall, yes, as all countries do, but, no, there is no balkanization: absolutely no evidence for it at all.



You don't see it do you? I do...its not real hard...its starting to fracture...it will be a while yes but I see it within my lifetime.


----------



## Lakhota

Although Anthony Johnson (a black man) may be "labelled" as the first slave owner in America - it seems obvious that Hugh Gwyn (a white man) was actually the first "legal" slave owner in America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Punch_(slave)


----------



## rdean

Only right wingers could come up with "blacks brought slavery to the US" and the Civil War was the fault of blacks because they brought slaves into the country.  I missed the part where White Southern Christians tried to stop them,  but were overwhelmed with all the black slave holders, but I'm sure that's next.

I couldn't make this stuff up.  But this?  This is "rich".

I guess that's what happens when you buy all your food from the "Land of Milk and Cookies".


----------



## Ravi

AnCapAtheist said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First slave owner in America was black
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that a true statement?  I don't think so...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Africans coming to Jamestown between 1630 and 1640 could expect to be freed after serving their indented period of time about seven to ten years for Africans and Indians.  At this time there was no system of perpetual servitude or slave for life, but the system was rapidly evolving.  Between 1640 and 1660 slavery was becoming a customary reality.  In 1640 three servants of Hugh Gwyn, a Dutchman called Victor, a Scotchman named James Gregory, and John Punch, a negro, having run away from their master were overtaken in Maryland and brought back to stand trial for the misbehavior.  The verdict of the court would change the system of indentured servitude and set the system in transition to plantation slavery.  The court ruled that the three servants shall received punishment by whipping and have thirty stripes apiece.  The court ordered that the Dutchman and the Scotchman should first serve out their times with their master according to their Indentures and one whole year apiece after the time of their service is expired and that they shall served the colony for three years. *The third being a negro. . .shall serve his said master or his assigns for the time of his natural life. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Much More: The Black Slave Owners - SlaveRebellion.org
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/webhp?source...f.&fp=9fe61fbe687758b0&ion=1&biw=1366&bih=667
> 
> Take your pick...of course you are going to find sites that dispute it...slavery is a white racist thing..how dare the truth be opposite of that.
Click to expand...

Slavery in the United States was a racist thing. That's why only people of color could be owned.


----------



## Agit8r

AnCapAtheist said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)
> 
> The Black Slave Owners - SlaveRebellion.org
> 
> Damn racist southerners!



I hate to break this to ya, but the first slaves and slave owners on this continent were among the indigenous peoples


----------



## JakeStarkey

AnCapAtheist said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There is balkanization but not in the separate state sense not yet anyways"  The USA will fall, yes, as all countries do, but, no, there is no balkanization: absolutely no evidence for it at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see it do you? I do...its not real hard...its starting to fracture...it will be a while yes but I see it within my lifetime.
Click to expand...


I think you see through a glass darkly and the view is distorted.   But . . . this Board is for sharing ideas.  Thank you.


----------



## editec

The revisionist contortions that slavery apologists go through trying to somehow make slavery less offensive to sane people are a thing to behold, arent they?


----------



## JakeStarkey

They truly are, and yet they come back time and again to have their noses rubbed into their own crap that they have lost the dialogue on slavery and the Civil War and race nationally.  The younger generations overwhelmingly think the reactionary far right all white arguments are absolute nonsense.


----------



## National Socialist

Ravi said:


> AnCapAtheist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that a true statement?  I don't think so...
> 
> 
> 
> Much More: The Black Slave Owners - SlaveRebellion.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/webhp?source...f.&fp=9fe61fbe687758b0&ion=1&biw=1366&bih=667
> 
> Take your pick...of course you are going to find sites that dispute it...slavery is a white racist thing..how dare the truth be opposite of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slavery in the United States was a racist thing. That's why only people of color could be owned.
Click to expand...

Actually it wasn't a race thing it was a need workers buy slaves thing. Whites did it,Blacks did it,Mexicans did it. Ya don't see white folks whining about the slavery of their ancestors do you? 



Agit8r said:


> AnCapAtheist said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)
> 
> The Black Slave Owners - SlaveRebellion.org
> 
> Damn racist southerners!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to break this to ya, but the first slaves and slave owners on this continent were among the indigenous peoples
Click to expand...

I never said this continent numb nuts. I said America or what was to become America. In what the historians consider that the black guy Anthony Johnson was the first. Oh and Europeans were here first so....


----------



## NYcarbineer

AnCapAtheist said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AnCapAtheist said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/webhp?source...f.&fp=9fe61fbe687758b0&ion=1&biw=1366&bih=667
> 
> Take your pick...of course you are going to find sites that dispute it...slavery is a white racist thing..how dare the truth be opposite of that.
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery in the United States was a racist thing. That's why only people of color could be owned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually it wasn't a race thing it was a need workers buy slaves thing. Whites did it,Blacks did it,Mexicans did it. Ya don't see white folks whining about the slavery of their ancestors do you?
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AnCapAtheist said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)
> 
> The Black Slave Owners - SlaveRebellion.org
> 
> Damn racist southerners!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hate to break this to ya, but the first slaves and slave owners on this continent were among the indigenous peoples
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said this continent numb nuts. I said America or what was to become America. In what the historians consider that the black guy Anthony Johnson was the first. Oh and Europeans were here first so....
Click to expand...


Were you going to tell us where all the white slaves were in America or not?


----------



## NYcarbineer

editec said:


> The revisionist contortions that slavery apologists go through trying to somehow make slavery less offensive to sane people are a thing to behold, arent they?



It's the American version of the holocaust deniers.


----------



## National Socialist

Oh sure...just waiting for someone to ask.The Irish Slave Trade ? The Forgotten ?White? Slaves | Global Research
There ya go.


----------



## NYcarbineer

AnCapAtheist said:


> Same goofy link....



For someone with nothing to say you sure do make alot of posts.


----------



## konradv

AnCapAtheist said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AnCapAtheist said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/webhp?source...f.&fp=9fe61fbe687758b0&ion=1&biw=1366&bih=667
> 
> Take your pick...of course you are going to find sites that dispute it...slavery is a white racist thing..how dare the truth be opposite of that.
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery in the United States was a racist thing. That's why only people of color could be owned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually it wasn't a race thing it was a need workers buy slaves thing. Whites did it,Blacks did it,Mexicans did it. Ya don't see white folks whining about the slavery of their ancestors do you?
Click to expand...


White people don't whine about it, because servitude or slavery in the past doesn't effect their present.  Slavery of Africans and their continued second-class status after it ended, had and continues to have effects to this day.  It's not about who sold them or that fact that others of their race owned slaves, but that even afterwards the effects lingered.


----------



## Ravi

AnCapAtheist said:


> Oh sure...just waiting for someone to ask.The Irish Slave Trade ? The Forgotten ?White? Slaves | Global Research
> There ya go.



That was the British. Do have an actual point or do you plan on flailing forever?


----------



## konradv

AnCapAtheist said:


> Oh sure...just waiting for someone to ask.The Irish Slave Trade ? The Forgotten ?White? Slaves | Global Research
> There ya go.



There's a reason it's forgotten, because when it was over they melded into the general  society.  Not so for Africans.  They couldn't escape their appearance.


----------



## National Socialist

So slavery is the reason Blacks have it so bad now? Man talk about apologists...sometimes ya just need to call it like it is...Some races obviously are more cut out for a jungle than a civilized society.


----------



## National Socialist

Ravi said:


> AnCapAtheist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure...just waiting for someone to ask.The Irish Slave Trade ? The Forgotten ?White? Slaves | Global Research
> There ya go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was the British. Do have an actual point or do you plan on flailing forever?
Click to expand...


And they were sold into slavery in America jack ass.


----------



## National Socialist

Hoffman reveals: The Forgotten Slaves--Whites in Servitude


----------



## Ravi

AnCapAtheist said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AnCapAtheist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure...just waiting for someone to ask.The Irish Slave Trade ? The Forgotten ?White? Slaves | Global Research
> There ya go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was the British. Do have an actual point or do you plan on flailing forever?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And they were sold into slavery in America jack ass.
Click to expand...


No, they were sold into slavery into Colonial Britain. There is a huge difference. You can pretend all you want but you'll never get past the fact that the United States of America enslaved people of color and not white people.


----------



## Ravi

AnCapAtheist said:


> Hoffman reveals: The Forgotten Slaves--Whites in Servitude



This guy is a fucking white supremicist. Why the hell are you linking to him? Are you a white supremicist?


----------



## National Socialist

Ravi said:


> AnCapAtheist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was the British. Do have an actual point or do you plan on flailing forever?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And they were sold into slavery in America jack ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they were sold into slavery into Colonial Britain. There is a huge difference. You can pretend all you want but you'll never get past the fact that the United States of America enslaved people of color and not white people.
Click to expand...

Wrong again ass clown.


Ravi said:


> AnCapAtheist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hoffman reveals: The Forgotten Slaves--Whites in Servitude
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This guy is a fucking white supremicist. Why the hell are you linking to him? Are you a white supremicist?
Click to expand...


Waaaaaaa Waaaaaaaaa Waaaaaa...are you done fucking crying you big baby? Just because you can't accept the simple fact history isn't as white washed as u want it to be doesn't mean you need to cry over it.


----------



## NYcarbineer

AnCapAtheist said:


> Oh sure...just waiting for someone to ask.The Irish Slave Trade ? The Forgotten ?White? Slaves | Global Research
> There ya go.



To the extent that any of that is true, 

why on earth would you see that as a reason to denigrate the black slavery experience.

You're like someone telling a woman who was raped to quit bitching about it...

...you weren't the only woman who was ever raped.

Why do you need to go to such elaborate lengths to act out on your own personal racism?


----------



## Ravi

AnCapAtheist said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AnCapAtheist said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they were sold into slavery in America jack ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they were sold into slavery into Colonial Britain. There is a huge difference. You can pretend all you want but you'll never get past the fact that the United States of America enslaved people of color and not white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again ass clown.
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AnCapAtheist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hoffman reveals: The Forgotten Slaves--Whites in Servitude
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This guy is a fucking white supremicist. Why the hell are you linking to him? Are you a white supremicist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Waaaaaaa Waaaaaaaaa Waaaaaa...are you done fucking crying you big baby? Just because you can't accept the simple fact history isn't as white washed as u want it to be doesn't mean you need to cry over it.
Click to expand...

No need to get so emotional about your epic failure and exposure.


----------



## National Socialist

Lol's. Did you even see what I said yesterday that ALL slavery was wrong and evil? My original point of this thread was to point out a Black man was the first slave owner and black slave owners were quite common in the US. I bet people would be shocked to know that blacks also fought in the CSA Army.


----------



## National Socialist

Ravi said:


> AnCapAtheist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they were sold into slavery into Colonial Britain. There is a huge difference. You can pretend all you want but you'll never get past the fact that the United States of America enslaved people of color and not white people.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again ass clown.
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> This guy is a fucking white supremicist. Why the hell are you linking to him? Are you a white supremicist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Waaaaaaa Waaaaaaaaa Waaaaaa...are you done fucking crying you big baby? Just because you can't accept the simple fact history isn't as white washed as u want it to be doesn't mean you need to cry over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need to get so emotional about your epic failure and exposure.
Click to expand...

Now Now...don't pout.


----------



## JakeStarkey

> "Wrong again ass clown"



This whiner "can't accept the simply fact history" simply is not the way he wants it to be.

He cries and whines and simply can't accept the facts and narrative.


----------



## National Socialist

Little nazi...go play in traffic..you whiners are the ones that want to revise history not me...I am just pointing out facts historians agree on.


----------



## NYcarbineer

AnCapAtheist said:


> So slavery is the reason Blacks have it so bad now? Man talk about apologists...sometimes ya just need to call it like it is...*Some races obviously are more cut out for a jungle than a civilized society*.



Isn't it funny how the white supremacist/racist types who come onto this board sometimes manage to conceal their true selves for awhile,

as something less odious, perhaps as libertarians, or populists, or the like,

but eventually the toll on one's mental acumen to perpetuate such a subterfuge gets the best of their small capacity minds,

and boom!!  the real 'person' bursts out!

lolol


----------



## JakeStarkey

> Little nazi...go play in traffic..



You are merely pointing out an alternative reality history that is very subordinate to the main stream history.  You can't get away from race and slavery as defining narratives in American history.  Your thinking is in the very small minority and is quickly vanishing.  The younger generations overwhelmingly reject your nonsense.  Tis what tis.


----------



## National Socialist

NYcarbineer said:


> AnCapAtheist said:
> 
> 
> 
> So slavery is the reason Blacks have it so bad now? Man talk about apologists...sometimes ya just need to call it like it is...*Some races obviously are more cut out for a jungle than a civilized society*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it funny how the white supremacist/racist types who come onto this board sometimes manage to conceal their true selves for awhile,
> 
> as something less odious, perhaps as libertarians, or populists, or the like,
> 
> but eventually the toll on one's mental acumen to perpetuate such a subterfuge gets the best of their small capacity minds,
> 
> and boom!!  the real 'person' bursts out!
> 
> lolol
Click to expand...

Hm. So now point out fact is turned into me being a racist...eh I can live with that if it means I tell the truth which I do.


----------



## Ravi

AnCapAtheist said:


> Little nazi...go play in traffic..you whiners are the ones that want to revise history not me...I am just pointing out facts historians agree on.



Little nazi, how droll. You're the one that links to the opinions and revisions of neo-nazi assholes.


----------



## JakeStarkey




----------



## Survivalist

Sorry to tell you all, but the first slaveholders in America were virtually all the known Native American tribes.  Slavery was a way of life probably for the first Asiatic or Europeans native tribes to set foot on the continant thousands of years ago.

Just because they didn't have Black slaves does not get them off the morality hook.

Slaves of many of the native tribes were treated very poorly.  The slaves and prisoners of the Aztecs and Mayans were brutally sacrificed in temples.  Clearly a violation of human rights.


----------



## JakeStarkey

No one is suggesting that at all, Survivalist.  All peoples in history had slaves.

In British North America, the colonists and then Americans made slavery definable by color.  To be black was to be a slave in the public mindset.

That is the issue, and the one the alternative reality historians here can't get around.


----------



## OldUSAFSniper

The institution of slavery is a sad footnote in the history of this great nation.  It was and is a stain that everyone should do their part to ensure NEVER happens again, regardless of who was/is responsible.  We have human trafficking now and it should make every person literally weep that it exists in any form.

Having said that, I am not responsible for an insitution which ceased to exist over 150 years ago.  IF there was a black ex-slave currently alive, then I would say they deserve reperations.  But I am fairly confident there is not.  Reperations is simply another form of the entitlement mentality with a "write me a check" bottom line.  Reperations would do nothing to stem the race baiters.

We should understand slavery and how it was such an evil institution.  Then we should move on to tackle the problems we face today.


----------



## Survivalist

JakeStarkey said:


> No one is suggesting that at all, Survivalist.  All peoples in history had slaves.
> 
> In British North America, the colonists and then Americans made slavery definable by color.  To be black was to be a slave in the public mindset.
> 
> That is the issue, and the one the alternative reality historians here can't get around.



Not just the Europeans who were enslaving the Blacks.  The Arabs were not only the primary ones first rounding up Blacks, but were also the ones who regarded them with the most disdain.  Black slaves to this day, among others, are still being sold to Arabs in Saudia Arabia and othe countries.  Blacks in Togo are still selling themselves as slaves to this day.

If Blacks want to have this stigma removed, they should first clean up their own act in their own backyards.

In my opinion, only real racists would consider Whites enslaving Blacks as more "racist" than one group enslaving any other group.


----------



## JakeStarkey

However, you are responsible for its effects today in our society and for helping to eliminate those effects.  I agree that reparations has nothing to do with the issue.


----------



## ClosedCaption

There were Jewish Nazis too...but don't mention that tho


----------



## JakeStarkey

> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is suggesting that at all, Survivalist.  All peoples in history had slaves.
> 
> In British North America, the colonists and then Americans made slavery definable by color.  To be black was to be a slave in the public mindset.
> 
> That is the issue, and the one the alternative reality historians here can't get around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Blacks want to have this stigma removed, they should first clean up their own act in their own backyards.
Click to expand...


If you are talking about blacks enslaving blacks, (1) the overwhelming number of black slavers were in Africa, and (2) the very few black slaver owners here were corrupted by the system.

You cannot get away from white culpability in the problem.


----------



## Survivalist

JakeStarkey said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is suggesting that at all, Survivalist.  All peoples in history had slaves.
> 
> In British North America, the colonists and then Americans made slavery definable by color.  To be black was to be a slave in the public mindset.
> 
> That is the issue, and the one the alternative reality historians here can't get around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Blacks want to have this stigma removed, they should first clean up their own act in their own backyards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are talking about blacks enslaving blacks, (1) the overwhelming number of black slavers were in Africa, and (2) the very few black slaver owners here were corrupted by the system.
> 
> You cannot get away from white culpability in the problem.
Click to expand...


As a liberal, you still think  it is 1863, with the evil White slaveholders whipping his Black slaves who don't work hard enough.

That was in the past.  Now is the future, and if Blacks want more credability, more respect then they need to take care of their own problems that have been entirely their own for at least 50 years in every country in Africa and the Carribean that they control.

CBC News In Depth: Modern slavery


----------



## ClosedCaption

Ever notice that people the farthest removed always have the worst ideas.

Just throw a stack of self help books in the hood and everything will be fine.  Derp!


----------



## squeeze berry

konradv said:


> AnCapAtheist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery in the United States was a racist thing. That's why only people of color could be owned.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it wasn't a race thing it was a need workers buy slaves thing. Whites did it,Blacks did it,Mexicans did it. Ya don't see white folks whining about the slavery of their ancestors do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White people don't whine about it, because servitude or slavery in the past doesn't effect their present.  Slavery of Africans and their co*ntinued second-class status after it ended, had and continues to have* effects to this day.  It's not about who sold them or that fact that others of their race owned slaves, but that even afterwards the effects lingered.
Click to expand...


let's have some proof of this


----------



## ClosedCaption

squeeze berry said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AnCapAtheist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it wasn't a race thing it was a need workers buy slaves thing. Whites did it,Blacks did it,Mexicans did it. Ya don't see white folks whining about the slavery of their ancestors do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> White people don't whine about it, because servitude or slavery in the past doesn't effect their present.  Slavery of Africans and their co*ntinued second-class status after it ended, had and continues to have* effects to this day.  It's not about who sold them or that fact that others of their race owned slaves, but that even afterwards the effects lingered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> let's have some proof of this
Click to expand...


http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/webid-meynihan.htm

Now lets have some denial.


----------



## squeeze berry

ClosedCaption said:


> squeeze berry said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> White people don't whine about it, because servitude or slavery in the past doesn't effect their present.  Slavery of Africans and their co*ntinued second-class status after it ended, had and continues to have* effects to this day.  It's not about who sold them or that fact that others of their race owned slaves, but that even afterwards the effects lingered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> let's have some proof of this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/webid-meynihan.htm
> 
> Now lets have some denial.
Click to expand...


lol

this was from 1965 and there are no facts, only conjecture


----------



## g5000

FA_Q2 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery predates America, to say it's based on race is ludicrous. Learn some freaking history people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You kind off missed the point in the last pages though.  It would not matter if it was based on race or not.  The fact was, many blacks were slaves and after they were freed, they were still associated with slaves.  In essence, if you were a white slave then freed, no one knew and you could live as though you were always free.  If you were black and always free, everyone regarded you as a former slave anyway and beneath them.
Click to expand...


This is exactly right.

Alexis de Tocqueville, _Democracy in America_:



> It is important to make an accurate distinction between slavery itself and its consequences. The immediate evils produced by slavery were very nearly the same in antiquity as they are among the moderns, but the consequences of these evils were different. The slave among the ancients belonged to the same race as his master, and was often the superior of the two in education and intelligence. Freedom was the only distinction between them; and when freedom was conferred, they were easily confounded together. The ancients, then, had a very simple means of ridding themselves of slavery and its consequences: that of enfranchisement; and they succeeded as soon as they adopted this measure generally. Not but that in ancient states the vestiges of servitude subsisted for some time after servitude itself was abolished. There is a natural prejudice that prompts men to despise whoever has been their inferior long after he has become their equal; and the real inequality that is produced by fortune or by law is always succeeded by an imaginary inequality that is implanted in the manners of the people. But among the ancients this secondary consequence of slavery had a natural limit; for the freedman bore so entire a resemblance to those born free that it soon became impossible to distinguish him from them.





> The modern slave differs from his master not only in his condition but in his origin. You may set the Negro free, but you cannot make him otherwise than an alien to the European. Nor is this all we scarcely acknowledge the common features of humanity in this stranger whom slavery has brought among us. His physiog- nomy is to our eyes hideous, his understanding weak, his tastes low; and we are almost inclined to look upon him as a being intermediate between man and the brutes. The moderns, then, after they have abolished slavery, have three prejudices to contend against, which are less easy to attack and far less easy to conquer than the mere fact of servitude: the prejudice of the master, the prejudice of the race, and the prejudice of color.



http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/1_ch18.htm


----------



## g5000

pioneerpete said:


> Slavery is causing this?
> 
> Two Chicago boys, ages 5 and 7, in critical condition after July 4th shootings, police say - Crimesider - CBS News



Like all White Nationalists, you suffer from a pathological case of confirmation bias.


----------



## squeeze berry

g5000 said:


> pioneerpete said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery is causing this?
> 
> Two Chicago boys, ages 5 and 7, in critical condition after July 4th shootings, police say - Crimesider - CBS News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like all White Nationalists, you suffer from a pathological case of confirmation bias.
Click to expand...


so can you prove slavery causes crimes by african americans?


----------



## g5000

squeeze berry said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pioneerpete said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery is causing this?
> 
> Two Chicago boys, ages 5 and 7, in critical condition after July 4th shootings, police say - Crimesider - CBS News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like all White Nationalists, you suffer from a pathological case of confirmation bias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so can you prove slavery causes crimes by african americans?
Click to expand...


Where did I say that?


----------



## FA_Q2

squeeze berry said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> squeeze berry said:
> 
> 
> 
> let's have some proof of this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/webid-meynihan.htm
> 
> Now lets have some denial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol
> 
> this was from 1965 and there are no facts, only conjecture
Click to expand...


Separate but equal???
When did blacks get the right to vote?

Yes, even after slavery they were second class citizens.  That was true all the way up until they were FINALLY given equal access under the law and allowed to vote.  From that point on is when they began to be able to fight for other to even recognize them as equal as up until then, they were LEGALLY INFERIOR.

This really has never been in contention.  I have no idea how you can ask for proof of something that is that obvious.


----------



## FA_Q2

JakeStarkey said:


> Serious culture problems face White Americans today within their own race that they MUST deal with. It is becoming a blight on that community and the worst part about it is until southern white euro-centric evangelicalism that supports it changes, the worse the culture making gets. It is a self-sustaining loop of destruction.



Well, that blather was worthless.

What I stated is backed by facts  you are just being childish.  If you think there is nothing to the fact that blacks are facing very real and very large cultural influences then challenge that.  Dont act like an 8 year old.


----------



## FA_Q2

JakeStarkey said:


> However, you are responsible for its effects today in our society and for helping to eliminate those effects.  I agree that reparations has nothing to do with the issue.



And what do you suppose is going to do that?  What responsibility for that problem does he bear?

That is bullshit and simply another way to try and cash in on guilt that should not even exist.  The only responsibility that we all share is that the law is not biased and we are not making racist decisions.  Outside of that, there is nothing for us to really do or for us to be responsible for.


----------



## ClosedCaption

squeeze berry said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> squeeze berry said:
> 
> 
> 
> let's have some proof of this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/webid-meynihan.htm
> 
> Now lets have some denial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol
> 
> this was from 1965 and there are no facts, only conjecture
Click to expand...


Give me some more denial theres even footnotes linking to more information.

Gimmie some more..http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/moynfootnote.htm



> Slavery
> 
> The most perplexing question abut American slavery, which has never been altogether explained, and which indeed most Americans hardly know exists, has been stated by Nathan Glazer as follows: *"Why was American slavery the most awful the world has ever known?"12 The only thing that can be said with certainty is that this is true: it was.*
> 
> American slavery was profoundly different from, and in its lasting effects on individuals and their children, indescribably worse than, any recorded servitude, ancient or modern. The peculiar nature of American slavery was noted by Alexis de Tocqueville and others, but it was not until 1948 that Frank Tannenbaum, a South American specialist, pointed to the striking differences between Brazilian and American slavery. The feudal, Catholic society of Brazil had a legal and religious tradition which accorded the slave a place as a human being in the hierarchy of society  a luckless, miserable place, to be sure, but a place withal. In contrast, there was nothing in the tradition of English law or Protestant theology which could accommodate to the fact of human bondage  the slaves were therefore reduced to the status of chattels  often, no doubt, well cared for, even privileged chattels, but chattels nevertheless.




This is where I post links to stuff and you reply with nothing but sarcasm.  You asked for proof bud, it's on you.


----------



## squeeze berry

FA_Q2 said:


> squeeze berry said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/webid-meynihan.htm
> 
> Now lets have some denial.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol
> 
> this was from 1965 and there are no facts, only conjecture
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Separate but equal???
> When did blacks get the right to vote?
> 
> Yes, even after slavery they were second class citizens.  That was true all the way up until they were FINALLY given equal access under the law and allowed to vote.  From that point on is when they began to be able to fight for other to even recognize them as equal as up until then, they were LEGALLY INFERIOR.
> 
> This really has never been in contention.  I have no idea how you can ask for proof of something that is that obvious.
Click to expand...



you do realize that jim crow was not universal, right?

and the article was still from 1965


----------



## ClosedCaption

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/blj/vol20/feagin.pdf



Here is one from 2008 just in case Squeeze thinks old information is bad information for reasons he cant explain


----------



## ClosedCaption

squeeze berry said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> squeeze berry said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol
> 
> this was from 1965 and there are no facts, only conjecture
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Separate but equal???
> When did blacks get the right to vote?
> 
> Yes, even after slavery they were second class citizens.  That was true all the way up until they were FINALLY given equal access under the law and allowed to vote.  From that point on is when they began to be able to fight for other to even recognize them as equal as up until then, they were LEGALLY INFERIOR.
> 
> This really has never been in contention.  I have no idea how you can ask for proof of something that is that obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you do realize that jim crow was not universal, right?
> 
> and the article was still from 1965
Click to expand...


Rhetorical questions and lack of point already?  I thought you would've at least waited a little more till you threw the kitchen sink


----------



## g5000

The inability of negroes to assimilate into American culture cannot be explaind by a single cause.  I know...I know...that is a shock to those here who believe it has something to do with the inferior genes of a species that is subhuman to Whites, and I hate to be the one to break the bad news, but we all have our burning crosses to bear.

As Alexis de Tocqueville so presciently foresaw, freeing the slaves would not result in rapid acceptance into the larger society as it had in antiquity.  The difference between antiquity and modern slavery is that the ancient slaves were virtually indistinguishable in appearance and background and education from their masters.

While the freed slave of antiquity had to merely deal with the prejudice of the master who despised someone who had been his inferior, the black slave was further burdened with the prejudice of race, and the prejudice of color.  

While some white people may have been enslaved in America to a small extent, they were not targeted for special prejudices like blacks were upon achieving their freedom.  Not even close.

Being "freed" did not mean being free.  Not at all.  As FA_Q2 pointed out, white society continued to subjugate blacks long, long, long after the Civil War.  Just as Alexis de Toqueville predicted would happen.


That's not to say blacks are entirely innocent for their plight.  But in their anger, much of which is entirely understandable, they have chosen demogogues who take advantage of their anger for personal wealth, fame, and power.

Take a guy like Al Sharpton, for example.  Look at his blatant exploitation of Tawana Brawley to launch himself into the national spotlight.

We can find many examples of black leadership that is downright ugly and counter-productive and we would be justified at being frustrated at the black community's constant self-destruction in its choice of leadership.

We also find black culture actually criticizes anyone who tries to get along and get ahead on their own merits.  This is what I refer to as the "bucket of crabs" problem.  We all know the story of an open bucket of crabs from which no crab escapes because as soon as one begins to climb out, the others pull it back in.  From where I sit, the black community seems to behave the same way.  And that is a real shame.

Even in the present day, Barack Obama had to kneel before Al Sharpton and kiss his ring to get the go-ahead to run for President.  You can see Obama actually blushing in their post-blessing photo op.

However, the black community is not exclusive in this behavior.  Just look at the modern GOP.  We see a party destroying itself in a very public fashion.  While screaming that fags are going to destroy marriage, they very nearly selected a serial adulterer, Newt Gingrich, as the recent GOP candidate for President!  And we have a GOP governor who abandoned his post and ordered his staff to lie to the people of his state about his whereabouts so he could run to Argentina to screw his mistress.  And when he was caught, he actually used the _Bible _to justify himself for not resigning.  The GOP has rewarded him by elevating him to _national _office!

One has to ask oneself, "Is this _REALLY _the best they can do?"

One could post many links to many stories of blacks or Republicans self-destructing.  At least the black community has an excuse for being so fricking dysfunctional.  The GOP has none.  It has had nothing but privilege.  It is such a shame both communities parted ways in the 60s.  They would have kept each other honest.


----------



## squeeze berry

ClosedCaption said:


> squeeze berry said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Separate but equal???
> When did blacks get the right to vote?
> 
> Yes, even after slavery they were second class citizens.  That was true all the way up until they were FINALLY given equal access under the law and allowed to vote.  From that point on is when they began to be able to fight for other to even recognize them as equal as up until then, they were LEGALLY INFERIOR.
> 
> This really has never been in contention.  I have no idea how you can ask for proof of something that is that obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you do realize that jim crow was not universal, right?
> 
> and the article was still from 1965
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rhetorical questions and lack of point already?  I thought you would've at least waited a little more till you threw the kitchen sink
Click to expand...



the point is assumptions are not facts


----------



## squeeze berry

g5000 said:


> The inability of negroes to assimilate into American culture cannot be explaind by a single cause.  I know...I know...that is a shock to those here who believe it has something to do with the inferior genes of a species that is subhuman to Whites, and I hate to be the one to break the bad news, but we all have our burning crosses to bear.
> 
> As Alexis de Tocqueville so presciently foresaw, freeing the slaves would not result in rapid acceptance into the larger society as it had in antiquity.  The difference between antiquity and modern slavery is that the ancient slaves were virtually indistinguishable in appearance and background and education from their masters.
> 
> While the freed slave of antiquity had to merely deal with the prejudice of the master who despised someone who had been his inferior, the black slave was further burdened with the prejudice of race, and the prejudice of color.
> 
> While some white people may have been enslaved in America to a small extent, they were not targeted for special prejudices like blacks were upon achieving their freedom.  Not even close.
> 
> Being "freed" did not mean being free.  Not at all.  As FA_Q2 pointed out, white society continued to subjugate blacks long, long, long after the Civil War.  Just as Alexis de Toqueville predicted would happen.
> 
> 
> That's not to say blacks are entirely innocent for their plight.  But in their anger, much of which is entirely understandable, they have chosen demogogues who take advantage of their anger for personal wealth, fame, and power.
> 
> Take a guy like Al Sharpton, for example.  Look at his blatant exploitation of Tawana Brawley to launch himself into the national spotlight.
> 
> We can find many examples of black leadership that is downright ugly and counter-productive and we would be justified at being frustrated at the black community's constant self-destruction in its choice of leadership.
> 
> We also find black culture actually criticizes anyone who tries to get along and get ahead on their own merits.  This is what I refer to as the "bucket of crabs" problem.  We all know the story of an open bucket of crabs from which no crab escapes because as soon as one begins to climb out, the others pull it back in.  From where I sit, the black community seems to behave the same way.  And that is a real shame.
> 
> Even in the present day, Barack Obama had to kneel before Al Sharpton and kiss his ring to get the go-ahead to run for President.  You can see Obama actually blushing in their post-blessing photo op.
> 
> However, the black community is not exclusive in this behavior.  Just look at the modern GOP.  We see a party destroying itself in a very public fashion.  While screaming that fags are going to destroy marriage, they very nearly selected a serial adulterer, Newt Gingrich, as the recent GOP candidate for President!  And we have a GOP governor who abandoned his post and ordered his staff to lie to the people of his state about his whereabouts so he could run to Argentina to screw his mistress.  And when he was caught, he actually used the _Bible _to justify himself for not resigning.  The GOP has rewarded him by elevating him to _national _office!
> 
> One has to ask oneself, "Is this _REALLY _the best they can do?"
> 
> One could post many links to many stories of blacks or Republicans self-destructing.  At least the black community has an excuse for being so fricking dysfunctional.  The GOP has none.  It has had nothing but privilege.  It is such a shame both communities parted ways in the 60s.  They would have kept each other honest.



link to all the "privilege"

facts only, no conjecture

ps demonstrate how dems are any better


----------



## konradv

squeeze berry said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AnCapAtheist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it wasn't a race thing it was a need workers buy slaves thing. Whites did it,Blacks did it,Mexicans did it. Ya don't see white folks whining about the slavery of their ancestors do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> White people don't whine about it, because servitude or slavery in the past doesn't effect their present.  Slavery of Africans and their co*ntinued second-class status after it ended, had and continues to have* effects to this day.  It's not about who sold them or that fact that others of their race owned slaves, but that even afterwards the effects lingered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> let's have some proof of this
Click to expand...


Are you new to the country or just in deep denial?  If you are in America, just look around.


----------



## ClosedCaption

squeeze berry said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> squeeze berry said:
> 
> 
> 
> you do realize that jim crow was not universal, right?
> 
> and the article was still from 1965
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rhetorical questions and lack of point already?  I thought you would've at least waited a little more till you threw the kitchen sink
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the point is assumptions are not facts
Click to expand...


I know what something isn't...What is your point?  Cant deny it, cant refute it...so is the smoke screen all you got?


----------



## konradv

squeeze berry said:


> link to all the "privilege"
> 
> facts only, no conjecture



Why should we do your work for you?  No one can open your eyes but yourself.  If you're really living in this country, perhaps you should walk around WITHOUT your head up your butt.


----------



## JakeStarkey

> link to all the "privilege"  facts only, no conjecture



The above is the horse crap whine of the week and it is only Monday.  This is a white man's country, always has been, and some few whites are friggin whining because they have to share what they have taken for granted for centuries.  WTF?


----------



## squeeze berry

konradv said:


> squeeze berry said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> White people don't whine about it, because servitude or slavery in the past doesn't effect their present.  Slavery of Africans and their co*ntinued second-class status after it ended, had and continues to have* effects to this day.  It's not about who sold them or that fact that others of their race owned slaves, but that even afterwards the effects lingered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> let's have some proof of this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you new to the country or just in deep denial?  If you are in America, just look around.
Click to expand...


it's 2013

ps what am I supposed to be looking at?


----------



## squeeze berry

ClosedCaption said:


> squeeze berry said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rhetorical questions and lack of point already?  I thought you would've at least waited a little more till you threw the kitchen sink
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the point is assumptions are not facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know what something isn't...What is your point?  Cant deny it, cant refute it...so is the smoke screen all you got?
Click to expand...


no facts again


----------



## squeeze berry

JakeStarkey said:


> link to all the "privilege"  facts only, no conjecture
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The above is the horse crap whine of the week and it is only Monday.  This is a white man's country, always has been, and some few whites are friggin whining because they have to share what they have taken for granted for centuries.  WTF?
Click to expand...


what am I supposed to share?


----------



## ClosedCaption

konradv said:


> squeeze berry said:
> 
> 
> 
> link to all the "privilege"
> 
> facts only, no conjecture
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should we do your work for you?  No one can open your eyes but yourself.  If you're really living in this country, perhaps you should walk around WITHOUT your head up your butt.
Click to expand...


That's his game.  He pretend the info doesn't exist and asks others for it (not to change his mind but as an annoyance) then when that info is posted he ignores, finds fault, doesn't like the font size ANYTHING to dismiss it...without actually saying he doesn't believe it.

Saying he doesn't believe it would make him look like a true fool, so he does this dance of "links, links, links" then pushes them all aside when he gets them.

He so loves his ignorance


----------



## squeeze berry

ClosedCaption said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> squeeze berry said:
> 
> 
> 
> link to all the "privilege"
> 
> facts only, no conjecture
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should we do your work for you?  No one can open your eyes but yourself.  If you're really living in this country, perhaps you should walk around WITHOUT your head up your butt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's his game.  He pretend the info doesn't exist and asks others for it (not to change his mind but as an annoyance) then when that info is posted he ignores, finds fault, doesn't like the font size ANYTHING to dismiss it...without actually saying he doesn't believe it.
> 
> Saying he doesn't believe it would make him look like a true fool, so he does this dance of "links, links, links" then pushes them all aside when he gets them.
> 
> He so loves his ignorance
Click to expand...


show us how slavery has directly caused any black person's failures


----------



## konradv

squeeze berry said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should we do your work for you?  No one can open your eyes but yourself.  If you're really living in this country, perhaps you should walk around WITHOUT your head up your butt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's his game.  He pretend the info doesn't exist and asks others for it (not to change his mind but as an annoyance) then when that info is posted he ignores, finds fault, doesn't like the font size ANYTHING to dismiss it...without actually saying he doesn't believe it.
> 
> Saying he doesn't believe it would make him look like a true fool, so he does this dance of "links, links, links" then pushes them all aside when he gets them.
> 
> He so loves his ignorance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> show us how slavery has directly caused any black person's failures
Click to expand...


Show us how the legacy of slavery has been completely wiped out.  You're the one making an assertion in contravention to all evidence.  PROVE IT.


----------



## JakeStarkey

> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> link to all the "privilege"  facts only, no conjecture
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The above is the horse crap whine of the week and it is only Monday.  This is a white man's country, always has been, and some few whites are friggin whining because they have to share what they have taken for granted for centuries.  WTF?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what am I supposed to share?
Click to expand...


You are floating on the shame of denial, aren't you?


----------



## squeeze berry

JakeStarkey said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The above is the horse crap whine of the week and it is only Monday.  This is a white man's country, always has been, and some few whites are friggin whining because they have to share what they have taken for granted for centuries.  WTF?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what am I supposed to share?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are floating on the shame of denial, aren't you?
Click to expand...


couldn't answer the question, could you?


----------



## squeeze berry

konradv said:


> squeeze berry said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's his game.  He pretend the info doesn't exist and asks others for it (not to change his mind but as an annoyance) then when that info is posted he ignores, finds fault, doesn't like the font size ANYTHING to dismiss it...without actually saying he doesn't believe it.
> 
> Saying he doesn't believe it would make him look like a true fool, so he does this dance of "links, links, links" then pushes them all aside when he gets them.
> 
> He so loves his ignorance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> show us how slavery has directly caused any black person's failures
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show us how the legacy of slavery has been completely wiped out.  You're the one making an assertion in contravention to all evidence.  PROVE IT.
Click to expand...


show us it even exists


----------



## FA_Q2

squeeze berry said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> squeeze berry said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol
> 
> this was from 1965 and there are no facts, only conjecture
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Separate but equal???
> When did blacks get the right to vote?
> 
> Yes, even after slavery they were second class citizens.  That was true all the way up until they were FINALLY given equal access under the law and allowed to vote.  From that point on is when they began to be able to fight for other to even recognize them as equal as up until then, they were LEGALLY INFERIOR.
> 
> This really has never been in contention.  I have no idea how you can ask for proof of something that is that obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you do realize that jim crow was not universal, right?
> 
> and the article was still from 1965
Click to expand...


The date of the article is irrelevant as is the fact that crow laws were not universal.  The reality is that they existed and well into the 1900s.  That alone speaks to the simple fact that blacks were not in the same class as whites.  They could and were denied basic rights like the right to vote.

That cannot be denied.


----------



## JakeStarkey

When squeeze starts the deny and why routine, it goes on forever.  Squeeze is wrong, we all know Squeeze is wrong, so let's keep asking for   evidence why he is right.


----------



## squeeze berry

FA_Q2 said:


> squeeze berry said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Separate but equal???
> When did blacks get the right to vote?
> 
> Yes, even after slavery they were second class citizens.  That was true all the way up until they were FINALLY given equal access under the law and allowed to vote.  From that point on is when they began to be able to fight for other to even recognize them as equal as up until then, they were LEGALLY INFERIOR.
> 
> This really has never been in contention.  I have no idea how you can ask for proof of something that is that obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you do realize that jim crow was not universal, right?
> 
> and the article was still from 1965
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The date of the article is irrelevant as is the fact that crow laws were not universal.  The reality is that they existed and well into the 1900s.  That alone speaks to the simple fact that blacks were not in the same class as whites.  They could and were denied basic rights like the right to vote.
> 
> That cannot be denied.
Click to expand...



all black people were denied the right to vote until when?

all jurisdictions?

how did colored water fountains cause black unemployment in 2013?


----------



## thanatos144

FA_Q2 said:


> squeeze berry said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Separate but equal???
> When did blacks get the right to vote?
> 
> Yes, even after slavery they were second class citizens.  That was true all the way up until they were FINALLY given equal access under the law and allowed to vote.  From that point on is when they began to be able to fight for other to even recognize them as equal as up until then, they were LEGALLY INFERIOR.
> 
> This really has never been in contention.  I have no idea how you can ask for proof of something that is that obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you do realize that jim crow was not universal, right?
> 
> and the article was still from 1965
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The date of the article is irrelevant as is the fact that crow laws were not universal.  The reality is that they existed and well into the 1900s.  That alone speaks to the simple fact that blacks were not in the same class as whites.  They could and were denied basic rights like the right to vote.
> 
> That cannot be denied.
Click to expand...


Yep those democrats were assholes


----------



## squeeze berry

JakeStarkey said:


> When squeeze starts the deny and why routine, it goes on forever.  Squeeze is wrong, we all know Squeeze is wrong, so let's keep asking for   evidence why he is right.



if I'm wrong then you will be able to show a direct connection between slavery and black illegitimacy rates, or lower SAT scores or............

get the picture now Komrade?


----------



## Cowman

I love the whole push of "Black people did it" to absolve the sins of the predominant slavery of blacks by whites in this country.


----------



## Cowman

thanatos144 said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> squeeze berry said:
> 
> 
> 
> you do realize that jim crow was not universal, right?
> 
> and the article was still from 1965
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The date of the article is irrelevant as is the fact that crow laws were not universal.  The reality is that they existed and well into the 1900s.  That alone speaks to the simple fact that blacks were not in the same class as whites.  They could and were denied basic rights like the right to vote.
> 
> That cannot be denied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep those democrats were assholes
Click to expand...


Those god-fearing conservative democrats.


----------



## squeeze berry

Cowman said:


> I love the whole push of "Black people did it" to absolve the sins of the predominant slavery of blacks by whites in this country.



no , it's the double standards of blaming all whites , esp. southern whites, and giving a free pass to the others involved


----------



## JakeStarkey

> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> When squeeze starts the deny and why routine, it goes on forever.  Squeeze is wrong, we all know Squeeze is wrong, so let's keep asking for   evidence why he is right.
> 
> 
> 
> you will be able to show a direct connection between slavery and black illegitimacy rates, or lower SAT scores or............
Click to expand...

 The 'why and deny' continues.  Someone who scores between 80 and 90IQ asking for 'slavery and black legitimacy rates' is a hoot


----------



## Intense

*Moved to History Forum.*


----------



## thanatos144

squeeze berry said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love the whole push of "Black people did it" to absolve the sins of the predominant slavery of blacks by whites in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no , it's the double standards of blaming all whites , esp. southern whites, and giving a free pass to the others involved
Click to expand...


are you saying southern white Democrats didn't own slaves?


----------



## ClosedCaption

thanatos144 said:


> squeeze berry said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love the whole push of "Black people did it" to absolve the sins of the predominant slavery of blacks by whites in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no , it's the double standards of blaming all whites , esp. southern whites, and giving a free pass to the others involved
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> are you saying southern white Democrats didn't own slaves?
Click to expand...


He's not saying anything.  That's his act.


----------



## bodecea

TemplarKormac said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AnCapAtheist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to historians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh?   The Origins of Slavery in Virginia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahaha, you take no time to do any meaningful research! You need to learn, not whine.
> 
> Evidence of slavery predates written records, and has existed in many cultures.[8] Slavery is rare among huntergatherer populations, as slavery is a system of social stratification. Mass slavery also requires economic surpluses and a high population density to be viable. Due to these factors, the practice of slavery would have only proliferated after the invention of agriculture during the Neolithic Revolution about 11,000 years ago.[4]
> 
> Slavery was known in civilizations as old as Sumer, as well as almost every other ancient civilization, including Ancient Egypt, Ancient China, the Akkadian Empire, Assyria, Ancient India, Ancient Greece, the Roman Empire, the Islamic Caliphate, and the pre-Columbian civilizations of the Americas.[8] Such institutions were a mixture of debt-slavery, punishment for crime, the enslavement of prisoners of war, child abandonment, and the birth of slave children to slaves.[9]
> 
> ...
> 
> In 1619 twenty Africans were brought by a Dutch soldier and sold to the English colony of Jamestown, Virginia as indentured servants. It is possible that Africans were brought to Virginia prior to this, both because neither John Rolfe our source on the 1619 shipment nor any contemporary of his ever says that this was the first contingent of Africans to come to Virginia and because the 1625 Virginia census lists one black as coming on a ship that appears to only have landed people in Virginia prior to 1619.[173]
> 
> History of slavery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Anthony Johnson was a black Angolan held as an indentured servant by a merchant in the Colony of Virginia in 1620, but later freed to become a successful tobacco farmer and property owner. Notably, he was the first true slave owner: that is, the first to hold a black African servant as a slave in the mainland American colonies. Upon his death in 1670, a court ruled that he was "a negro and by consequence, an alien", and the colony seized his land.
> 
> Anthony Johnson (colonist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Siddown.
Click to expand...


Isn't the point about the origins of slavery in the English colonies?    


And..last I checked...1619 is before 1620.


----------



## Pheonixops

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> First slave owner in America was black
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *And? *
> 
> Are you so moronic as to believe this mitigates any aspect of slavery in America, or the predominance of its practice in the South?
> 
> One human holding another human in bondage is heinous and reprehensible, regardless of race.
> 
> Last, that blacks held slaves was always known, an indication of the insidious nature of the institution.
Click to expand...


They are wrong..................  "in *1638*, a ship returned to Salem from the West Indies after a seven-month voyage. Its cargo included cotton, tobacco and, as far as we know, the *first African slaves to be imported into Massachusetts*." 

"In *1641 *Massachusetts Bay Colony was the first of Britain's mainland colonies to make *slavery legal. *"

Antonio Johnson vs Casor was in 1654.


----------



## JakeStarkey

And it does not matter who owned the first slaves.  No one really knows if the Africans in 1619 were indentured servants or slaves, and that Johnson was black in no way undermines the role of race and slavery in British North American and the United States.  Johnson was treated as less than white and his property escheated to the state, demonstrating that all blacks were considered unequal to whites.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Cowman said:


> I love the whole push of "Black people did it" to absolve the sins of the predominant slavery of blacks by whites in this country.



This is very very very old conservative propaganda, part of the whole white people as victims thing that conservatives have embraced.


----------



## NYcarbineer

AnCapAtheist said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)
> 
> The Black Slave Owners - SlaveRebellion.org
> 
> Damn racist southerners!



Since the Spanish were enslaving native peoples in Florida in the 16th century,

unless the Spanish were black,  you're full of shit.


----------



## JakeStarkey

NYcarbineer said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love the whole push of "Black people did it" to absolve the sins of the predominant slavery of blacks by whites in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is very very very old conservative propaganda, part of the whole white people as victims thing that conservatives have embraced.
Click to expand...


Only those conservatives that still uphold the American Exceptionalist White Euro-Centric theory espoused by political reactionaries and social traditionalists and out right racists on the far right who claim 'victimazation' by history: tuff.


----------



## Pheonixops

bodecea said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Basically the type of slavery that the United States practiced is different then that of Indentured Servitude.
> 
> Additionally, slavery/indentured servitude was practiced in the colonies since the late 1500s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes, shallow, you are correct.  Lincoln (a republican) ended it.   The civil rights act was passed by republicans despite the fillibustering of democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correction...the 1965 Civil Rights Act was passed by *NORTHERN Republicans and Democrats* despite the filibustering of* SOUTHERN Republicans and Democrats.*
Click to expand...


Aka Liberals vs. conservatives respectively.


----------



## squeeze berry

ClosedCaption said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> squeeze berry said:
> 
> 
> 
> no , it's the double standards of blaming all whites , esp. southern whites, and giving a free pass to the others involved
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you saying southern white Democrats didn't own slaves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's not saying anything.  That's his act.
Click to expand...


the master of double standards has spoken


----------



## JakeStarkey

Yup, squeeze, you are talking to yourself, the double standard dude yourself.


----------



## squeeze berry

JakeStarkey said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love the whole push of "Black people did it" to absolve the sins of the predominant slavery of blacks by whites in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is very very very old conservative propaganda, part of the whole white people as victims thing that conservatives have embraced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only those conservatives that still uphold the American Exceptionalist White Euro-Centric theory espoused by political reactionaries and social traditionalists and out right racists on the far right who claim 'victimazation' by history: tuff.
Click to expand...


in reality it's the blame whitet crowd's propaganda to shift the blame to white people for something that happened decades if not centuries ago

show us a cause and effect Komrade


----------



## squeeze berry

JakeStarkey said:


> Yup, squeeze, you are talking to yourself, the double standard dude yourself.



can't have a buyer without a seller


----------



## Pheonixops

pioneerpete said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pioneerpete said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't blacks blame the black Africans that sold them in the first place? You don't really hear much of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure those who were shipped from Africa did just that.  You would, I would.
> 
> However, those born here had every right to blame their masters who were overwhelmingly white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are those people still alive today?
Click to expand...


Some of their attitudes are quite prevalent today.


----------



## squeeze berry

Pheonixops said:


> pioneerpete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure those who were shipped from Africa did just that.  You would, I would.
> 
> However, those born here had every right to blame their masters who were overwhelmingly white.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are those people still alive today?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of their attitudes are quite prevalent today.
Click to expand...


irrelevant

show cause and effect


----------



## FA_Q2

squeeze berry said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> squeeze berry said:
> 
> 
> 
> you do realize that jim crow was not universal, right?
> 
> and the article was still from 1965
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The date of the article is irrelevant as is the fact that crow laws were not universal.  The reality is that they existed and well into the 1900s.  That alone speaks to the simple fact that blacks were not in the same class as whites.  They could and were denied basic rights like the right to vote.
> 
> That cannot be denied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> all black people were denied the right to vote until when?
> 
> all jurisdictions?
> 
> how did colored water fountains cause black unemployment in 2013?
Click to expand...


Not my contention though I think that a strong argument can be made that the cultural problems the blacks face within themselves have some connection to that as well as the entitlement society that we have set up. 

There are a myriad of reasons that blacks in America today face a difficult climb and certainly some of those harken back to the reality that they were not treated equally.  You seem to be under the impression that hard core racism has not existed for a long time when that really is not true.  It was not that long ago.

You also seem to be confusing my statements with some of the other posters here.  I, so far, have not made any claims that there is something owed or some sort of societal fix required for this current situation.  Virtually all of the fix is going to need to come from the black community mostly by recognizing the internal problems that they are having.  There are some things that we should be doing but that is less about the black community than it is about general problems that we all face.  Things like school choice would do wonders here not only for black Americans but for ALL Americans.  It is just likely to help them more as the inner city slums have the worst schools in this entire country.


----------



## Pheonixops

AnCapAtheist said:


> Either way I don't condone slavery but I also realize the CSA was fighting for the right to determine their own destiny and not be under the thumb of a tyrant dictator. Yes slavery was in their constitution and yes it was wrong but they should have been the ones to decide to release their slaves...everyone says Lincoln is a great man but has ANYONE here read what he really though of slavery and blacks in general? I have...he was a disgusting racist piece of shit who used slavery for his own political gain. *The CSA constitution banned the slave trade *and eventually probably within 20-30 years all slaves would have been released or died off...kind of hard to keep a trade going when you have no more slaves coming in...Lincoln wanted a war because he wanted to drastically change the way the government was and the power it held. He did so much to the detriment of the country we now live in.



It didn't ban the slave trade, it banned the importation of slaves but allowed for domestic slave trading. The slaves procreated and their offspring were automatically slaves. This clever clause was meant to cut off the competition from overseas.
"Slave breeding in the United States were those practices of slave ownership that aimed to influence the* reproduction of slaves in order to increase the wealth of slaveholders.*[1]

Slave breeding included coerced sexual relations between male and female slaves, promoting pregnancies of slaves, sexual relations between master and slave with the aim of producing slave children, and favoring female slaves who produced a relatively large number of children.[1]

The purpose of *slave breeding was to produce new slaves without incurring the cost of purchase, to fill labor shortages caused by the termination of the Atlantic slave trade, and to attempt to improve the health and productivity of slaves.* Slave breeding was condoned in the South because slaves were considered to be subhuman chattel, and were not entitled to the same rights accorded to free persons."


----------



## Pheonixops

g5000 said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery predates America, to say it's based on race is ludicrous. Learn some freaking history people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You kind off missed the point in the last pages though.  It would not matter if it was based on race or not.  The fact was, many blacks were slaves and after they were freed, they were still associated with slaves.  In essence, if you were a white slave then freed, no one knew and you could live as though you were always free.  If you were black and always free, everyone regarded you as a former slave anyway and beneath them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is exactly right.
> 
> Alexis de Tocqueville, _Democracy in America_:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is important to make an accurate distinction between slavery itself and its consequences. The immediate evils produced by slavery were very nearly the same in antiquity as they are among the moderns, but the consequences of these evils were different. The slave among the ancients belonged to the same race as his master, and was often the superior of the two in education and intelligence. Freedom was the only distinction between them; and when freedom was conferred, they were easily confounded together. The ancients, then, had a very simple means of ridding themselves of slavery and its consequences: that of enfranchisement; and they succeeded as soon as they adopted this measure generally. Not but that in ancient states the vestiges of servitude subsisted for some time after servitude itself was abolished. There is a natural prejudice that prompts men to despise whoever has been their inferior long after he has become their equal; and the real inequality that is produced by fortune or by law is always succeeded by an imaginary inequality that is implanted in the manners of the people. But among the ancients this secondary consequence of slavery had a natural limit; for the freedman bore so entire a resemblance to those born free that it soon became impossible to distinguish him from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The modern slave differs from his master not only in his condition but in his origin. You may set the Negro free, but you cannot make him otherwise than an alien to the European. Nor is this all we scarcely acknowledge the common features of humanity in this stranger whom slavery has brought among us. His physiog- nomy is to our eyes hideous, his understanding weak, his tastes low; and we are almost inclined to look upon him as a being intermediate between man and the brutes. The moderns, then, after they have abolished slavery, have three prejudices to contend against, which are less easy to attack and far less easy to conquer than the mere fact of servitude: the prejudice of the master, the prejudice of the race, and the prejudice of color.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tocqueville: Book I Chapter 18
Click to expand...


Nice.


----------



## thanatos144

NYcarbineer said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love the whole push of "Black people did it" to absolve the sins of the predominant slavery of blacks by whites in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is very very very old conservative propaganda, part of the whole white people as victims thing that conservatives have embraced.
Click to expand...


not conservative tactic a Democrat tactics


----------



## thanatos144

squeeze berry said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, squeeze, you are talking to yourself, the double standard dude yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can't have a buyer without a seller
Click to expand...


to the excuses slavery? that's f****** pathetic


----------



## National Socialist

Liberals condemn slavery that ended almost 150 years ago here but don't give a damn about slavery in the middle east,Africa or Asia going on as we speak...interesting.


----------



## Pheonixops

squeeze berry said:


> Pheonixops said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pioneerpete said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are those people still alive today?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of their attitudes are quite prevalent today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> irrelevant
> 
> show cause and effect
Click to expand...


Am I claiming "cause and effect"?


----------



## JakeStarkey

AnCapAtheist said:


> Liberals condemn slavery that ended almost 150 years ago here but don't give a damn about slavery in the middle east,Africa or Asia going on as we speak...interesting.



Link?  And doubt conservatives and liberts are any more interested.  Research it and get back to us.


----------



## Pheonixops

AnCapAtheist said:


> Liberals condemn slavery that ended almost 150 years ago here but don't give a damn about slavery in the middle east,Africa or Asia going on as we speak...interesting.



Is the thread you started regarding slavery now in "middle east,Africa or Asia", or the bogus assertion (that has been debunked) that you made in your OP? Both your bogus claim in the OP and the blanket and inaccurate generalization that you made above; is basically horse shit.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

AnCapAtheist said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)
> 
> The Black Slave Owners - SlaveRebellion.org
> 
> Damn racist southerners!



Whiny bitch.


----------



## squeeze berry

OohPooPahDoo said:


> AnCapAtheist said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)
> 
> The Black Slave Owners - SlaveRebellion.org
> 
> Damn racist southerners!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whiny bitch.
Click to expand...


then we can all agree that white southerners and only white southerners  are wholly responsible for the trans-Atlantic slave trade?


----------



## thanatos144

squeeze berry said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AnCapAtheist said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)
> 
> The Black Slave Owners - SlaveRebellion.org
> 
> Damn racist southerners!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whiny bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> then we can all agree that white southerners and only white southerners  are wholly responsible for the trans-Atlantic slave trade?
Click to expand...


are you still trying to deal in absolutes?


----------



## konradv

squeeze berry said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AnCapAtheist said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)
> 
> The Black Slave Owners - SlaveRebellion.org
> 
> Damn racist southerners!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whiny bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> then we can all agree that white southerners and only white southerners  are wholly responsible for the trans-Atlantic slave trade?
Click to expand...


We seem to agree that you have as yet failed to add anything substantive to the thread.


----------



## National Socialist

Pheonixops said:


> AnCapAtheist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals condemn slavery that ended almost 150 years ago here but don't give a damn about slavery in the middle east,Africa or Asia going on as we speak...interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the thread you started regarding slavery now in "middle east,Africa or Asia", or the bogus assertion (that has been debunked) that you made in your OP? Both your bogus claim in the OP and the blanket and inaccurate generalization that you made above; is basically horse shit.
Click to expand...


My point made right there...oh and nothing has been disproven unless you want to call historians liars...we all know you lib statist fucks aren't exactly good with facts and all.


----------



## Pheonixops

AnCapAtheist said:


> Pheonixops said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AnCapAtheist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals condemn slavery that ended almost 150 years ago here but don't give a damn about slavery in the middle east,Africa or Asia going on as we speak...interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the thread you started regarding slavery now in "middle east,Africa or Asia", or the bogus assertion (that has been debunked) that you made in your OP? Both your bogus claim in the OP and the blanket and inaccurate generalization that you made above; is basically horse shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point made right there...oh and nothing has been disproven unless you want to call historians liars...we all know you lib statist fucks aren't exactly good with facts and all.
Click to expand...


What point? Yes it has been dis-proven with multiple sources and FACTS. Did you miss the part about slavery in Massachusetts that I posted and how it preceded Johnson v. Casor? Or did you somehow "miss" those facts and the facts that other people have posted that totally make your assertion look silly? Here:
"They are wrong.................. "in *1638*, a ship returned to Salem from the West Indies after a seven-month voyage. Its cargo included cotton, tobacco and, as far as we know, *the first African slaves* to be imported into* Massachusetts*."

"In *1641* Massachusetts Bay Colony was the *first of Britain's mainland colonies to make slavery legal.* "

Antonio Johnson vs Casor was in *1654*.  

How am I a "statist", what's your definition of a "statist"?


----------



## ClosedCaption

Statist is another way of the righties calling someone a fag.  They really don't know it just sounds pithy


----------



## Cowman

squeeze berry said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love the whole push of "Black people did it" to absolve the sins of the predominant slavery of blacks by whites in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no , it's the double standards of blaming all whites , esp. southern whites, and giving a free pass to the others involved
Click to expand...


I don't feel blamed. Funny that you do.


----------



## National Socialist

Do I really need to give you idiots a definition...hell I forgot who I was talking about here course I do..
Definition of STATIST

Statist (defined) - "An advocate of statism"

Statism (defined) - "Concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry"

You want to allow the government to control everything up to and including people...I am a free sovereign individual who has never signed a contract with government nor given ANY indication I am its subject.


----------



## Ravi

AnCapAtheist said:


> Do I really need to give you idiots a definition...hell I forgot who I was talking about here course I do..
> Definition of STATIST
> 
> Statist (defined) - "An advocate of statism"
> 
> Statism (defined) - "Concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry"
> 
> You want to allow the government to control everything up to and including people...I am a free sovereign individual who has never signed a contract with government nor given ANY indication I am its subject.


I'd rather you explain to us why only people of color could be owned in the USA and not white people.


----------



## JakeStarkey

AnCapAtheist said:


> Do I really need to give you idiots a definition...hell I forgot who I was talking about here course I do..
> Definition of STATIST
> 
> Statist (defined) - "An advocate of statism"
> 
> Statism (defined) - "Concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry"
> 
> You want to allow the government to control everything up to and including people...I am a free sovereign individual who has never signed a contract with government nor given ANY indication I am its subject.



You have just defined yourself not as a liberty republican but simply an anarcho-weirdo.


----------



## squeeze berry

konradv said:


> squeeze berry said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whiny bitch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then we can all agree that white southerners and only white southerners  are wholly responsible for the trans-Atlantic slave trade?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We seem to agree that you have as yet failed to add anything substantive to the thread.
Click to expand...


seems you have yet to provide anything but lies


----------



## squeeze berry

Ravi said:


> AnCapAtheist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do I really need to give you idiots a definition...hell I forgot who I was talking about here course I do..
> Definition of STATIST
> 
> Statist (defined) - "An advocate of statism"
> 
> Statism (defined) - "Concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry"
> 
> You want to allow the government to control everything up to and including people...I am a free sovereign individual who has never signed a contract with government nor given ANY indication I am its subject.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd rather you explain to us why only people of color could be owned in the USA and not white people.
Click to expand...



easy

because only the africans were willing to sell their own kind


----------



## JakeStarkey

squeeze berry said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AnCapAtheist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do I really need to give you idiots a definition...hell I forgot who I was talking about here course I do..
> Definition of STATIST
> 
> Statist (defined) - "An advocate of statism"
> 
> Statism (defined) - "Concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry"
> 
> You want to allow the government to control everything up to and including people...I am a free sovereign individual who has never signed a contract with government nor given ANY indication I am its subject.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd rather you explain to us why only people of color could be owned in the USA and not white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> easy  because only the africans were willing to sell their own kind
Click to expand...


You do not compute well, squeeze, and are fail.


----------



## squeeze berry

JakeStarkey said:


> squeeze berry said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd rather you explain to us why only people of color could be owned in the USA and not white people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> easy  because only the africans were willing to sell their own kind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do not compute well, squeeze, and are fail.
Click to expand...


then you might be able to tell us all what I'm supposed to share

and where else slaves were available

I'll wait, but I'm sure you will never have an answer, just a dodge


----------



## JakeStarkey

squeeze, none of what you write makes sense.  What are you trying to communicate to us?


----------



## konradv

squeeze berry said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> squeeze berry said:
> 
> 
> 
> then we can all agree that white southerners and only white southerners  are wholly responsible for the trans-Atlantic slave trade?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We seem to agree that you have as yet failed to add anything substantive to the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> seems you have yet to provide anything but lies
Click to expand...


Please list them in detail and be specific about how I lied.


----------



## MaryL

Perhaps I am wasting time responding to this silly thread. The exceedingly vast majority of  actual slave owners were white in the US. Slavery itself regardless of what race is enslaved, is/was one of those weird evils  that we tolerate because it's "GOOD" for the economy. We still tolerate so much in this world that we know is harmful, from addictive narcotics for underground profits to destroying rainforests and fracking.


----------



## thanatos144

squeeze berry said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> squeeze berry said:
> 
> 
> 
> easy  because only the africans were willing to sell their own kind
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do not compute well, squeeze, and are fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> then you might be able to tell us all what I'm supposed to share
> 
> and where else slaves were available
> 
> I'll wait, but I'm sure you will never have an answer, just a dodge
Click to expand...

Hey You know what it is true democrats in the north had slaves just like democrats in the south.... Are you happy now? The Republican owned slaves only had to fear being freed so a democrat could steal them. Or shall we forget Republicans were abolitionists and democrats were not?

Fact is my friend your south was ran by slave owning democrats and it stayed that way for decades. It only started to change when republicans started to can a foot hold there. Now look at it? It is a less racist area then the north.... Do you know why???? Cause Democrats took the north.


----------



## squeeze berry

JakeStarkey said:


> squeeze, none of what you write makes sense.  What are you trying to communicate to us?



I rest my case


----------



## squeeze berry

konradv said:


> squeeze berry said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> We seem to agree that you have as yet failed to add anything substantive to the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> seems you have yet to provide anything but lies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please list them in detail and be specific about how I lied.
Click to expand...


legacy of slavery


----------



## Pheonixops

AnCapAtheist said:


> Do I really need to give you idiots a definition...hell I forgot who I was talking about here course I do..
> Definition of STATIST
> 
> Statist (defined) - "An advocate of statism"
> 
> Statism (defined) - "Concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry"
> 
> You want to allow the government to control everything up to and including people...I am a *free sovereign individual* who has never signed a contract with government nor given ANY indication I am its subject.




Why do you seem so wound up? I simply asked you for your definition of a 'statist'. If you look at my sig line, you can see what I believe, so once again your assertion is wrong. You seem so vocally "anti" this "anti" that, especially with that crap that I put in bold above;it leads me to believe that "thou protest too much"...................

Let's back to the inaccurate assertion that you made in your OP;it seems you avoided the the Massachusetts information again.


----------



## JakeStarkey

squeeze berry said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> squeeze, none of what you write makes sense.  What are you trying to communicate to us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I rest my case
Click to expand...


That you have nothing to say.  OK, we all knew that.


----------



## Ravi

squeeze berry said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AnCapAtheist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do I really need to give you idiots a definition...hell I forgot who I was talking about here course I do..
> Definition of STATIST
> 
> Statist (defined) - "An advocate of statism"
> 
> Statism (defined) - "Concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry"
> 
> You want to allow the government to control everything up to and including people...I am a free sovereign individual who has never signed a contract with government nor given ANY indication I am its subject.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd rather you explain to us why only people of color could be owned in the USA and not white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> easy
> 
> because only the africans were willing to sell their own kind
Click to expand...

Nope, try again.


----------



## whitehall

Pop-culture history has managed to forget the two hundred years of slavery under both British rule and the fledgling United States in exchange for blaming the entire embarrassment on the four year history of the Confederate States. To add insult to injury the segregationist democrat party manages to blame segregation on republicans.


----------



## thanatos144

whitehall said:


> Pop-culture history has managed to forget the two hundred years of slavery under both British rule and the fledgling United States in exchange for blaming the entire embarrassment on the four year history of the Confederate States. To add insult to injury the segregationist democrat party manages to blame segregation on republicans.



England made slavery illegal decades before the USA did.... If I am correct the colonies had slave after England made it illegal.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Something like the 1830s, about fifty years after the colonies became the USA.


----------



## NYcarbineer

AnCapAtheist said:


> Liberals condemn slavery that ended almost 150 years ago here but don't give a damn about slavery in the middle east,Africa or Asia going on as we speak...interesting.



And this from the guy who believes the states had the right to effectively dismantle our nation all for the sake of preserving slavery?

Who are you trying to kid?


----------



## NYcarbineer

whitehall said:


> Pop-culture history has managed to forget the two hundred years of slavery under both British rule and the fledgling United States in exchange for blaming the entire embarrassment on the four year history of the Confederate States. To add insult to injury the segregationist democrat party manages to blame segregation on republicans.



Can you name the modern day segregationist Democrats?


----------



## NYcarbineer

squeeze berry said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> squeeze berry said:
> 
> 
> 
> easy  because only the africans were willing to sell their own kind
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do not compute well, squeeze, and are fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> then you might be able to tell us all what I'm supposed to share
> 
> and where else slaves were available
> 
> I'll wait, but I'm sure you will never have an answer, just a dodge
Click to expand...


Native Americans were enslaved in great numbers.


----------



## National Socialist

NYcarbineer said:


> AnCapAtheist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals condemn slavery that ended almost 150 years ago here but don't give a damn about slavery in the middle east,Africa or Asia going on as we speak...interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this from the guy who believes the states had the right to effectively dismantle our nation all for the sake of preserving slavery?
> 
> Who are you trying to kid?
Click to expand...


Wrong but hey you statist fucks make a habit of that so...


----------



## squeeze berry

JakeStarkey said:


> squeeze berry said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> squeeze, none of what you write makes sense.  What are you trying to communicate to us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I rest my case
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you have nothing to say.  OK, we all knew that.
Click to expand...


again, what should i share?

answer the question


----------



## squeeze berry

Ravi said:


> squeeze berry said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd rather you explain to us why only people of color could be owned in the USA and not white people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> easy
> 
> because only the africans were willing to sell their own kind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, try again.
Click to expand...


who else was selling?

try again


----------



## squeeze berry

NYcarbineer said:


> squeeze berry said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do not compute well, squeeze, and are fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then you might be able to tell us all what I'm supposed to share
> 
> and where else slaves were available
> 
> I'll wait, but I'm sure you will never have an answer, just a dodge
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Native Americans were enslaved in great numbers.
Click to expand...


the Indians fought and refused to be enslaved

try again


----------



## JakeStarkey

You do not know Native American history.  They enslaved each other, they enslaved whites and blacks when they could, and they were enslaved by whites.  Charleston, South Carolina by the 1680 was the center of bringing blacks into the lower South and sending Indians to the Barbadoes.

You are ignorant.


----------



## NYcarbineer

squeeze berry said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> squeeze berry said:
> 
> 
> 
> then you might be able to tell us all what I'm supposed to share
> 
> and where else slaves were available
> 
> I'll wait, but I'm sure you will never have an answer, just a dodge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Native Americans were enslaved in great numbers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the Indians fought and refused to be enslaved
> 
> try again
Click to expand...


There's no need to be an asshole.  You're wrong.  Grow up.


----------



## squeeze berry

NYcarbineer said:


> squeeze berry said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Native Americans were enslaved in great numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the Indians fought and refused to be enslaved
> 
> try again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no need to be an asshole.  You're wrong.  Grow up.
Click to expand...


link for the indians submitting

ps you tell me to grow up? lol


----------



## Mushroom

American Communist said:


> Governor of Maine had slaves as well.



Excuse me, but who would this be, and how was this possible?

You see, Maine was not even a state until 1820, when it entered the nation as a Free state as part of the Missouri Compromise.

And slavery had been illegal in Massachusetts since before 1790, over 30 years before Maine became a state.

So I would absolutely love to see some reference to this.


----------



## Mushroom

NYcarbineer said:


> Native Americans were enslaved in great numbers.



Yea, by the Spanish and other Indian tribes.  Not by the Americans.  About the only place in all of the Colonies where there was any major "Indian Slave Trade" was South Carolina.  And this was only during a brief period of time, from 1670-1720.  The practice had already been dead for over 50 years before the Revolution started.

Slavery among the indigenous peoples of the Americas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## JakeStarkey

This thread rocked in failing the OP.

From now on, when folks such as AnCapAtheist and squeezeberry, start such threads, we just laugh, refer them to this thread, and ignore them.


----------



## editec

Apparently some people imagine that somehow if any BLACK person was involving in US slavery, that mitigates the nature of the crime itself.

That was the point of this thread, (I suppose) a thread that is historically inaccurate.

Death to all slavers.


----------



## National Socialist

Its not historically inaccurate what you people need to comprehend is stop blaming white folks for slavery 100% yep whites did own slaves,so did blacks,mexicans and indians. Africans are the ones that sold their own kind into slavery...slavery still exists to this day in Africa,the Mid East and Asia. Slavery was wrong it should have never happened plain and simple. But at least I am willing to see the whole picture unlike so many of you.


----------



## NYcarbineer

AnCapAtheist said:


> Its not historically inaccurate what you people need to comprehend is stop blaming white folks for slavery 100% yep whites did own slaves,so did blacks,mexicans and indians. Africans are the ones that sold their own kind into slavery...slavery still exists to this day in Africa,the Mid East and Asia. Slavery was wrong it should have never happened plain and simple. But at least I am willing to see the whole picture unlike so many of you.



You white supremacists have been trotting out this canard for decades.  

btw, I haven't heard anyone lately deny that there were non-whites in the slave business.  Who are you talking about?


----------



## NYcarbineer

editec said:


> Apparently some people imagine that somehow if any BLACK person was involving in US slavery, that mitigates the nature of the crime itself.
> 
> That was the point of this thread, (I suppose) a thread that is historically inaccurate.
> 
> Death to all slavers.



In a way it's like those who try to blame the Iraq war on the Democrats.


----------



## National Socialist

LOL...white supremacist...way to kill any point you might have had. I guess white supremacists are for equal rights for homosexuals? Listen to rap music? Yep...I must be a real horrible white supremacist...its more like you and anyone like you is a fucking idiot who can't grasp reality so you resort to name calling like that in an attempt to shut people up.

No one is denying it but you still won't accept the fact it wasn't just a white thing...Jewish ship owners were the first and the majority of who brought the slaves here...Africans sold them into slavery..so it starts there..


----------



## National Socialist

NYcarbineer said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently some people imagine that somehow if any BLACK person was involving in US slavery, that mitigates the nature of the crime itself.
> 
> That was the point of this thread, (I suppose) a thread that is historically inaccurate.
> 
> Death to all slavers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a way it's like those who try to blame the Iraq war on the Democrats.
Click to expand...


Democrats Share the Blame for Tragedy of Iraq War
 Democrat dominated Senate approved the actions to go to war....so what were you saying?


----------



## JakeStarkey

The failure of the white racists to mitigate the race's role in Negro chattel slavery is highlighted in 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/history/301683-first-slave-owner-in-america-was-black-9.html


----------



## squeeze berry

JakeStarkey said:


> The failure of the white racists to mitigate the race's role in Negro chattel slavery is highlighted in
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/history/301683-first-slave-owner-in-america-was-black-9.html



no dumbass,

the point is that the black race shares equally at the very least.

The rest of the thread was just more blame whitey for everything


----------



## Ravi

squeeze berry said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The failure of the white racists to mitigate the race's role in Negro chattel slavery is highlighted in
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/history/301683-first-slave-owner-in-america-was-black-9.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no dumbass,
> 
> the point is that the black race shares equally at the very least.
> 
> The rest of the thread was just more blame whitey for everything
Click to expand...

No, they don't share equally. They would have if color didn't dictate who could be a slave in the USA.


----------



## editec

AnCapAtheist said:


> Its not historically inaccurate what you people need to comprehend is stop blaming white folks for slavery 100% yep whites did own slaves,so did blacks,mexicans and indians. Africans are the ones that sold their own kind into slavery...slavery still exists to this day in Africa,the Mid East and Asia. Slavery was wrong it should have never happened plain and simple. But at least I am willing to see the whole picture unlike so many of you.



We see the whole picture, AnCap.

And part of the picture is people revising history (as in this case) in the hopes that by doing do they can somehow mitigate the venal nature of the crime of slavery.

Nobody who pays attention to the history of slavery blames _white folks for slavery 100%_.


----------



## Mushroom

NYcarbineer said:


> You white supremacists have been trotting out this canard for decades.
> 
> btw, I haven't heard anyone lately deny that there were non-whites in the slave business.  Who are you talking about?



And this is where I pretty much tune all of this out.







Myself, I simply look at this in a completely neutral stance, as a part of history.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Of course, I am also aware of other individuals as William Ellison, who was one of the richest men in South Carolina.  He had over 1,000 acres of land, major facilities for processing cotton as well as manufacturing cotton gins, and over 60 slaves.  His sons and grandsons were supporters of the Confederacy, and his grandson served in the Confederate Army.

And yes, William Ellison was born as a slave.

So what?  I don't see in that anything other then people are people, and some will seek to own others, regardless of their own race or that of others.  I do not see any kind of "race" here at all really, simply people following human nature as they have for tens of thousands of years.

And I guess that makes me some kind of "white power supporter" to some.  Oh well, can't shoot people for being stupid.


----------



## ClosedCaption

squeeze berry said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The failure of the white racists to mitigate the race's role in Negro chattel slavery is highlighted in
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/history/301683-first-slave-owner-in-america-was-black-9.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no dumbass,
> 
> *the point is that the black race shares equally at the very least.*
> The rest of the thread was just more blame whitey for everything
Click to expand...


Just like the Jews and the Holocaust.  There were Jewish Nazis so that means they share the blame.

Wait...no?  It's different now right?


----------



## JakeStarkey

> And this is where I pretty much tune all of this out.



http://www.usmessageboard.com/history/301683-first-slave-owner-in-america-was-black-9.html


----------



## NYcarbineer

AnCapAtheist said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently some people imagine that somehow if any BLACK person was involving in US slavery, that mitigates the nature of the crime itself.
> 
> That was the point of this thread, (I suppose) a thread that is historically inaccurate.
> 
> Death to all slavers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a way it's like those who try to blame the Iraq war on the Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democrats Share the Blame for Tragedy of Iraq War
> Democrat dominated Senate approved the actions to go to war....so what were you saying?
Click to expand...


See what I mean?

The House Democrats voted against the war.  If the Democrats had had their way there would have been no Iraq war;

the authorization would have never gotten out of the House of Representatives.


----------



## NYcarbineer

AnCapAtheist said:


> LOL...white supremacist...way to kill any point you might have had. I guess white supremacists are for equal rights for homosexuals? Listen to rap music? Yep...I must be a real horrible white supremacist...its more like you and anyone like you is a fucking idiot who can't grasp reality so you resort to name calling like that in an attempt to shut people up.
> 
> No one is denying it but you still won't accept the fact it wasn't just a white thing...Jewish ship owners were the first and the majority of who brought the slaves here...Africans sold them into slavery..so it starts there..



So the guy who has stated openly on this board that he believes whites are superior to blacks bristles at being called a 'white supremacist'??

I'll modify the description,

you are either a 'white supremacist too stupid to know that he is one', or you're a 'white supremacist too stupid to know what one is'.

Take your pick.


----------



## National Socialist

NYcarbineer said:


> AnCapAtheist said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL...white supremacist...way to kill any point you might have had. I guess white supremacists are for equal rights for homosexuals? Listen to rap music? Yep...I must be a real horrible white supremacist...its more like you and anyone like you is a fucking idiot who can't grasp reality so you resort to name calling like that in an attempt to shut people up.
> 
> No one is denying it but you still won't accept the fact it wasn't just a white thing...Jewish ship owners were the first and the majority of who brought the slaves here...Africans sold them into slavery..so it starts there..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the guy who has stated openly on this board that he believes whites are superior to blacks bristles at being called a 'white supremacist'??
> 
> I'll modify the description,
> 
> you are either a 'white supremacist too stupid to know that he is one', or you're a 'white supremacist too stupid to know what one is'.
> 
> Take your pick.
Click to expand...


I think the white race is more advanced...that in its self makes white's superior right now. Maybe in the future the black race will evolve more...right now they aren't. Oh and White Supremacists think the white race is superior to all races...Its a fact Asians are more advanced than whites...


----------



## JakeStarkey

AnCapAtheist calls himself a racist.


----------



## FA_Q2

AnCapAtheist said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AnCapAtheist said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL...white supremacist...way to kill any point you might have had. I guess white supremacists are for equal rights for homosexuals? Listen to rap music? Yep...I must be a real horrible white supremacist...its more like you and anyone like you is a fucking idiot who can't grasp reality so you resort to name calling like that in an attempt to shut people up.
> 
> No one is denying it but you still won't accept the fact it wasn't just a white thing...Jewish ship owners were the first and the majority of who brought the slaves here...Africans sold them into slavery..so it starts there..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the guy who has stated openly on this board that he believes whites are superior to blacks bristles at being called a 'white supremacist'??
> 
> I'll modify the description,
> 
> you are either a 'white supremacist too stupid to know that he is one', or you're a 'white supremacist too stupid to know what one is'.
> 
> Take your pick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the white race is more advanced...that in its self makes white's superior right now. Maybe in the future the black race will evolve more...right now they aren't. Oh and White Supremacists think the white race is superior to all races...Its a fact Asians are more advanced than whites...
Click to expand...


No, its not actually.  Whites are not more advanced than blacks and Asians are not more advanced than whites.  The problems that stratify blacks below white in aptitude tests and average earnings as well as the same things showing Asians as superior in both areas are direct results of cultural norms within those groups.  The largest factors likely being the importance of education and family.  With Asians, family is EXTREMELY important.  This is so much so that the family usually outweighs your own needs  something that is rather foreign to whites in general.  Blacks on the other hand suffer in this area where single motherhood is at startling rates.  Education is another factor where Asian culture values education VERY highly and that is key to success.  Asians value education more than other cultures do, in general.


----------



## NYcarbineer

AnCapAtheist said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AnCapAtheist said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL...white supremacist...way to kill any point you might have had. I guess white supremacists are for equal rights for homosexuals? Listen to rap music? Yep...I must be a real horrible white supremacist...its more like you and anyone like you is a fucking idiot who can't grasp reality so you resort to name calling like that in an attempt to shut people up.
> 
> No one is denying it but you still won't accept the fact it wasn't just a white thing...Jewish ship owners were the first and the majority of who brought the slaves here...Africans sold them into slavery..so it starts there..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the guy who has stated openly on this board that he believes whites are superior to blacks bristles at being called a 'white supremacist'??
> 
> I'll modify the description,
> 
> you are either a 'white supremacist too stupid to know that he is one', or you're a 'white supremacist too stupid to know what one is'.
> 
> Take your pick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the white race is more advanced...that in its self makes white's superior right now. Maybe in the future the black race will evolve more...right now they aren't. Oh and White Supremacists think the white race is superior to all races...Its a fact Asians are more advanced than whites...
Click to expand...


And all the blacks who are smarter than you?  What do your racial averages mean to them?


----------



## NYcarbineer

JakeStarkey said:


> AnCapAtheist calls himself a racist.



He seems to think my high IQ makes him smarter because we're the same color.


----------



## JakeStarkey

NYcarbineer said:


> AnCapAtheist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> Yeah, the agenda seems to be to absolve slave owners "because everybody did it".  What's routinely ignored, however, is that it was in the Americas that race entered the equation.  Previously slavery had been the result of war, debt, criminality or religion.  Race-based slavery meant that even nominally "freed men" weren't really free.  We're still suffering from the effects of that part of our history and stories like the OP are counter-productive, because they attempt to whitewash history rather than deal with the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. But the idiots in the secession thread want to claim it was fought so slavery could go on...yet here we have blacks owning slaves and blacks also fought for the CSA.
> 
> Nope. I don't get that radio station up here unfortunately.
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show us how many blacks in pre-Civil War America owned white slaves,
> 
> and we'll go from there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> White Slaves, African Slave Traders, and the Hidden History of Slavery
> 
> Figure it out for yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're claiming that slavery wasn't based on race in America.  Prove it by showing us where the white slaves were.  Show us where whites were bought and sold as property in the US.
Click to expand...


Show us in their millions or hundreds of thousands or scores of thousands or tens of thousands.  You stupid racist excuses for pieces of shyte.  Your arguments are exactly what the younger generations of Americans almost to a man and woman are polite to you but have nothing to do with you.


----------



## Mushroom

JakeStarkey said:


> And this is where I pretty much tune all of this out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/history/301683-first-slave-owner-in-america-was-black-9.html
Click to expand...


OK, and you have now shown me that you see everything through the eyes of partisan politics, I really do not see what your point is to be honest.

If you think that racism is entirely a "right wing" problem, then you are completely ignoring the problem of racial issues in this country.

Let's play a game, shall we?  Out of these 4 people, which is the Republican?





















There we have 3 Democrats, and 1 Republican.


----------



## JakeStarkey

> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this is where I pretty much tune all of this out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/history/301683-first-slave-owner-in-america-was-black-9.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, and you have now shown me that you see everything through the eyes of partisan politics, I really do not see what your point is to be honest.
Click to expand...


Yes, you see things through partisan politics.  We are talking about the history of slavery, not the wacks of the far reactionary right pretend revisionism that somehow the blame is not squarely on white euro-centric behavior from the 1460s until the 19th century.

The dwindling number of far right reactionary deniers are dying out and will be gone completely within fifty years.


----------



## Mushroom

JakeStarkey said:


> Yes, you see things through partisan politics.  We are talking about the history of slavery, not the wacks of the far reactionary right pretend revisionism that somehow the blame is squarely on white euro-centric behavior from the 1460s until the 19th century.
> 
> The dwindling number of far right reactionary deniers are dying out and will be gone completely within fifty years.



Yet you feel the need to try to inject politics in over and over again, placing all of the blame upon one side.  And you call me Partisan?






Actually, I see nothing in this that deals with politics at all.  An ignorant racist is an ignorant racist, I could not care less what political ideology they claim to believe.  I eschew them even if they _claim_ they are on my side.

In fact, there are people in here I found some agreement with, but their blatent racism makes me wish there was a "Flush" button next to the "Like" one.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Mushroom, there is no politics in the white euro-centric basis of Negro chattel slavery in the history of North America.

We who understand it will simply not permit the far right reactionary wacks to attempt to revise history without being outed as the losers they are.


----------



## regent

Not so long ago it was pretty much an accepted truth that Blacks were not good athletes: the evidence, there were none in the pros. Then Jackie Robinson came along.


----------

