How Far Back In American History Are Blacks Allowed To Go Back?

[MarcATL]

The ones fighting to keep jim crow and slavery were democrats...definitely not Republicans...the party of Abolition.

I just explained to you how it was the Southern Culture that did that.

Culture means that's what the entire population did. That means all. As in, all whites...in the South.

Still want to go down that road you're on?

 

[2aguy]

I've seen the sentiment of "stop looking back into the past" , "oh, you're only hampering yourself", "look forward, don't look back", "you're in chains", etc. etc. spewed on USMB by almost exclusively rightwing whites.

All I want to know is, what year is it OK to go back to? What date is the cut off for starting American history will make whites happy?

If you have the exact time as well, that would be a bonus.

Far as I know, 1534. Unless you want to count South America and the Caribbean which would date to slightly earlier.

In 1534 a Spanish fleet arrived in what is now South Carolina with, I think about 150 captured Africans. Happily, those captives rose up and overthrew their captors and escaped to live with the indigenous tribes. Those that followed were not so successful, though they tried.

What about before that.....the Africans who held their own people as slaves....and who currently have a thriving slave trade in several parts of today's Africa? The Europeans didn't capture the slaves, Africans did.....when Black Americans finally turn on their African ancestors it will be the moment they will begin to finally be free of the democrat slave party.

What an ignorant post. "The Africans", really? Are "The Africans" some kind of Borg now?

"The Europeans" were holding their own people as slaves too, long as you don't distinguish between "Greeks" and "Romans" and so on.

Holy shit, "The Africans". Doesn't that speak volumes. Oh by the way "The Americans" did the same thing, and so did "The Asians" Broad Brush-R-Us.

Here's what (else) you don't get.

Slavery, as practiced throughout the world on every continent except Antarctica, had been a consequence of the "spoils of war". When my tribe conquers your tribe we take your land, your cattle, your houses, your women, your youth to do our work for us as slaves. When your tribe conquers mine you do the same. People become part of "territory".

The TransAtlantic slave trade was a whole different thing. This time those captive people were transported thousands of miles to another continent altogether, a place as incomprehensible to them as aliens abducting us to planet Zorg would be to us. There they were barked at in an unfamiliar language and had their own cultures, languages, religions and even their own family ties obliterated. NONE of that would have happened under "traditional" slavery. They would have been in a familiar place around familiar cultures and familiar languages. So they're in no way the same thing.

Besides which, who do you think SET UP that system? Colonial Inuits?

But no, let's reduce all that to "The Africans" as if "they all look alike to me".

Yes....moron, slavery was a world wide activity....ended here through a Civil War.....the Trans Atlantic slave trade was based on sales of African Slaves by African tribes......without those African slave takers, there would have been no African slaves in the U.S.....

Africans made the Trans Atlantic Slave trade.........they sold their victims to Europeans....the Americans ended slavery, there is still actual slavery in parts of Africa.....

NO STUPID. It was based on merchants, out to make money, who used human cargo to do it by shipping them from their OLD colonial continent to their NEW ones.

But hey, let's blame the victims.

As for your colonialist "the Americans ended slavery" fable, guess what, the French, the Spanish, the Dutch and the Brits had already done so, so that was already inevitable to the latecomers in the CSA. Had they been allowed their slave State it would have collapsed gradually rather than suddenly. Slavery was well on the way out when the indolent plantationists were still clinging to it. They in their time, like you now, were practicing the art of Self-Delusion.

Moron....

guess what, the French, the Spanish, the Dutch and the Brits had already done so, so that was already inevitable to the latecomers in the CS

Big F*****g deal....they didn't have large populations of slaves in their home countries you dumb ass...........they didn't have to deal with the problem other than passing a law........we had to fight and kill a bunch of democrats to get them to let go of their slaves...

 

[2aguy]

The ones fighting to keep jim crow and slavery were democrats...definitely not Republicans...the party of Abolition.

I just explained to you how it was the Southern Culture that did that.

Culture means that's what the population did. That means all. As in, all whites...in the South.

Still want to go down that road you're on?

White Republicans in the South didn't fight to keep jim crow, white democrats did.

 

[ph3iron]

I've seen the sentiment of "stop looking back into the past" , "oh, you're only hampering yourself", "look forward, don't look back", "you're in chains", etc. etc. spewed on USMB by almost exclusively rightwing whites.

All I want to know is, what year is it OK to go back to? What date is the cut off for starting American history will make whites happy?

If you have the exact time as well, that would be a bonus.

Maybe we should do what the Brits did, give reparations to the hundreds of slave owners

 

[MarcATL]

White Republicans in the South didn't fight to keep jim crow, white democrats did.

Not according to history, you need to read the book: When Affirmative Action Was White: An Untold History of Racial Inequality in Twentieth-Century America.

Will you?

 

[ph3iron]

Far as I know, 1534. Unless you want to count South America and the Caribbean which would date to slightly earlier.

In 1534 a Spanish fleet arrived in what is now South Carolina with, I think about 150 captured Africans. Happily, those captives rose up and overthrew their captors and escaped to live with the indigenous tribes. Those that followed were not so successful, though they tried.

What about before that.....the Africans who held their own people as slaves....and who currently have a thriving slave trade in several parts of today's Africa? The Europeans didn't capture the slaves, Africans did.....when Black Americans finally turn on their African ancestors it will be the moment they will begin to finally be free of the democrat slave party.

What an ignorant post. "The Africans", really? Are "The Africans" some kind of Borg now?

"The Europeans" were holding their own people as slaves too, long as you don't distinguish between "Greeks" and "Romans" and so on.

Holy shit, "The Africans". Doesn't that speak volumes. Oh by the way "The Americans" did the same thing, and so did "The Asians" Broad Brush-R-Us.

Here's what (else) you don't get.

Slavery, as practiced throughout the world on every continent except Antarctica, had been a consequence of the "spoils of war". When my tribe conquers your tribe we take your land, your cattle, your houses, your women, your youth to do our work for us as slaves. When your tribe conquers mine you do the same. People become part of "territory".

The TransAtlantic slave trade was a whole different thing. This time those captive people were transported thousands of miles to another continent altogether, a place as incomprehensible to them as aliens abducting us to planet Zorg would be to us. There they were barked at in an unfamiliar language and had their own cultures, languages, religions and even their own family ties obliterated. NONE of that would have happened under "traditional" slavery. They would have been in a familiar place around familiar cultures and familiar languages. So they're in no way the same thing.

Besides which, who do you think SET UP that system? Colonial Inuits?

But no, let's reduce all that to "The Africans" as if "they all look alike to me".

Yes....moron, slavery was a world wide activity....ended here through a Civil War.....the Trans Atlantic slave trade was based on sales of African Slaves by African tribes......without those African slave takers, there would have been no African slaves in the U.S.....

Africans made the Trans Atlantic Slave trade.........they sold their victims to Europeans....the Americans ended slavery, there is still actual slavery in parts of Africa.....

NO STUPID. It was based on merchants, out to make money, who used human cargo to do it by shipping them from their OLD colonial continent to their NEW ones.

But hey, let's blame the victims.

As for your colonialist "the Americans ended slavery" fable, guess what, the French, the Spanish, the Dutch and the Brits had already done so, so that was already inevitable to the latecomers in the CSA. Had they been allowed their slave State it would have collapsed gradually rather than suddenly. Slavery was well on the way out when the indolent plantationists were still clinging to it. They in their time, like you now, were practicing the art of Self-Delusion.

Moron....

guess what, the French, the Spanish, the Dutch and the Brits had already done so, so that was already inevitable to the latecomers in the CS

Big F*****g deal....they didn't have large populations of slaves in their home countries you dumb ass...........they didn't have to deal with the problem other than passing a law........we had to fight and kill a bunch of democrats to get them to let go of their slaves...

See above, Brits gave reparations to 900? slave owners.
Almost broke the country

 

[ph3iron]

White Republicans in the South didn't fight to keep jim crow, white democrats did.

Not according to history, you need to read the book: When Affirmative Action Was White: An Untold History of Racial Inequality in Twentieth-Century America.

Will you?

Of course not.
All you have to ask is "would you rather be born black or white?"
Usually shuts the rubes up

 

[2aguy]

The ones fighting to keep jim crow and slavery were democrats...definitely not Republicans...the party of Abolition.

I just explained to you how it was the Southern Culture that did that.

Culture means that's what the entire population did. That means all. As in, all whites...in the South.

Still want to go down that road you're on?

The democrat party controlled the governments of the southern states...

The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow. Jim Crow Stories . Democratic Party | PBS

 

[2aguy]

White Republicans in the South didn't fight to keep jim crow, white democrats did.

Not according to history, you need to read the book: When Affirmative Action Was White: An Untold History of Racial Inequality in Twentieth-Century America.

Will you?

Yeah....right...

Deroy Murdock: What Joe Biden should remember when he evokes Jim Crow

History.com called this period “a large-scale experiment in interracial democracy unlike that of any other society following the abolition of slavery.” The GOP’s Radical Reconstruction yielded “the South’s first state-funded public-school systems, more equitable taxation legislation, laws against racial discrimination in public transport and accommodations, and ambitious economic development programs (including aid to railroads and other enterprises).”

This all stopped in 1877, in the aftermath of buoyant Southern white-Democrat power, a Democrat U.S. House of Representatives, and Democrats’ insistence that Reconstruction end before they would certify the hotly contested election of Republican presidential nominee Rutherford B. Hayes. Democrats killed Reconstruction, enacted Jim Crow segregation laws, and deployed their terrorist wing – the Ku Klux Klan – to oppress and murder black men, women, and children, all while Democrats cheered.

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

Just go back to the time of the show, What’s Happening. It was an awesome fun show, with a spirited team.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

Yeah....right...

Deroy Murdock: What Joe Biden should remember when he evokes Jim Crow

History.com called this period “a large-scale experiment in interracial democracy unlike that of any other society following the abolition of slavery.” The GOP’s Radical Reconstruction yielded “the South’s first state-funded public-school systems, more equitable taxation legislation, laws against racial discrimination in public transport and accommodations, and ambitious economic development programs (including aid to railroads and other enterprises).”

This all stopped in 1877, in the aftermath of buoyant Southern white-Democrat power, a Democrat U.S. House of Representatives, and Democrats’ insistence that Reconstruction end before they would certify the hotly contested election of Republican presidential nominee Rutherford B. Hayes. Democrats killed Reconstruction, enacted Jim Crow segregation laws, and deployed their terrorist wing – the Ku Klux Klan – to oppress and murder black men, women, and children, all while Democrats cheered.

So you agree that these Southern Democrats had an ideology, and as such expressed a certain type of rhetoric, right?

 

[miketx]

Nope. How does racism defeat racism and not create racism from the people who aren't racists who are now being targeted by racist democrats?

I dunno, you tell me.

I'm not the one who came up w/that logic or term, you did.

What you, and your ilk, are doing, sir, is labeling fighting and/or speaking out against racism, as racism. That's ludicrous.

But put that aside for a moment, do you understand what institutional aka structural racism is?

Institutional racism is what you have been letting democrats herd you into for decades.

 

[2aguy]

Yeah....right...

Deroy Murdock: What Joe Biden should remember when he evokes Jim Crow

History.com called this period “a large-scale experiment in interracial democracy unlike that of any other society following the abolition of slavery.” The GOP’s Radical Reconstruction yielded “the South’s first state-funded public-school systems, more equitable taxation legislation, laws against racial discrimination in public transport and accommodations, and ambitious economic development programs (including aid to railroads and other enterprises).”

This all stopped in 1877, in the aftermath of buoyant Southern white-Democrat power, a Democrat U.S. House of Representatives, and Democrats’ insistence that Reconstruction end before they would certify the hotly contested election of Republican presidential nominee Rutherford B. Hayes. Democrats killed Reconstruction, enacted Jim Crow segregation laws, and deployed their terrorist wing – the Ku Klux Klan – to oppress and murder black men, women, and children, all while Democrats cheered.

So you agree that these Southern Democrats had an ideology, and as such expressed a certain type of rhetoric, right?

Yes.....southern democrats were racists....modern democrats are racists........your point?

 

[MarcATL]

Institutional racism is what you have been letting democrats herd you into for decades.

Define it.

 

[MarcATL]

Yes.....southern democrats were racists....modern democrats are racists........your point?

Good.

So the rhetoric espoused by Southern Democrats back then was basically never espoused by Republicans, back then. Correct?

 

[miketx]

Institutional racism is what you have been letting democrats herd you into for decades.

Define it.

You already have you moron.

 

[MarcATL]

You already have you moron.

Humor me, remind me how I defined it previously

 

[2aguy]

Yes.....southern democrats were racists....modern democrats are racists........your point?

Good.

So the rhetoric espoused by Southern Democrats back then was basically never espoused by Republicans, back then. Correct?

Nope...... actual laws that discriminated against Blacks, jim crow, poll taxes, literacy tests, the klan, were created by the democrats....... racism was prevalent throughout all cultures at the time....but actual laws passed to hurt Blacks, to dehumanize blacks were all on the democrats......

 

[Likkmee]

Anywhere "kittens" settled and governed has resulted in utter and complete disaster.
Meeeeeow

 

[Cosmos]

Nope. How does racism defeat racism and not create racism from the people who aren't racists who are now being targeted by racist democrats?

I dunno, you tell me.

I'm not the one who came up w/that logic or term, you did.

What you, and your ilk, are doing, sir, is labeling fighting and/or speaking out against racism, as racism. That's ludicrous.

But put that aside for a moment, do you understand what institutional aka structural racism is?

Institutional racism is what you have been letting democrats herd you into for decades.

Institutional racism is the basis for the Democrat Party. It's called "Identity Politics". Everybody knows this.