First slave owner in America was black

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.


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

all jurisdictions?

how did colored water fountains cause black unemployment in 2013?

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.
 
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."
 
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.

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.

Tocqueville: Book I Chapter 18

Nice.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.:lol:
 
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.:lol:

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.
 
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.:lol:

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.

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. :lol:

How am I a "statist", what's your definition of a "statist"?
 
Last edited:
Statist is another way of the righties calling someone a fag. They really don't know it just sounds pithy
 
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.
 

Forum List

Back
Top