CDZ Is Slavery America's Original Sin?

[martybegan]

The Spanish were the worst, but all Europeans came over and exploited, again, due to the technological disparity I am not shocked

Worse in comparison with the Anglo-Saxons, as an example? And how this 'worseness' can be measured?

The Latin American countries have a significantly larger proportion of the Natives and mestizos in their population, than the US does. That draws some conclusions, doesn't it?

That has mostly to do with the Spanish cultures lack of issues with interbreeding with the natives, something the more puritanical English settlers did far less.

When it came to exploiting however, the Spanish were far more ruthless, again probably due to their history of fighting off Islamic invaders for centuries before their colonization movement.

Can you give some examples of such ruthlessness? In comparison with the Anglos.

Fall of Tenochtitlan - Wikipedia.

 

[ESay]

The Spanish were the worst, but all Europeans came over and exploited, again, due to the technological disparity I am not shocked

Worse in comparison with the Anglo-Saxons, as an example? And how this 'worseness' can be measured?

The Latin American countries have a significantly larger proportion of the Natives and mestizos in their population, than the US does. That draws some conclusions, doesn't it?

That has mostly to do with the Spanish cultures lack of issues with interbreeding with the natives, something the more puritanical English settlers did far less.

When it came to exploiting however, the Spanish were far more ruthless, again probably due to their history of fighting off Islamic invaders for centuries before their colonization movement.

Can you give some examples of such ruthlessness? In comparison with the Anglos.

Fall of Tenochtitlan - Wikipedia.

Well, the big is seen from afar. After the civilizations of Central and South America, one can guess that Northern America had only a handful of the Natives wandering around in the wilderness.

I am in no way want to say that the Spanish were angels, far from it. But the English wars with the Natives cant be compared with the Spanish conquests, they are not even in the same league.

I dont know whether their is a reliable data about the casualties among the Natives per capita under the English and Spanish rule. But as I said above, the share of the Natives in Latin America is significantly higher than in the US. And that indirectly says about ruthlessness not in the Anglos' favour.

 

[martybegan]

The Spanish were the worst, but all Europeans came over and exploited, again, due to the technological disparity I am not shocked

Worse in comparison with the Anglo-Saxons, as an example? And how this 'worseness' can be measured?

The Latin American countries have a significantly larger proportion of the Natives and mestizos in their population, than the US does. That draws some conclusions, doesn't it?

That has mostly to do with the Spanish cultures lack of issues with interbreeding with the natives, something the more puritanical English settlers did far less.

When it came to exploiting however, the Spanish were far more ruthless, again probably due to their history of fighting off Islamic invaders for centuries before their colonization movement.

Can you give some examples of such ruthlessness? In comparison with the Anglos.

Fall of Tenochtitlan - Wikipedia.

Well, the big is seen from afar. After the civilizations of Central and South America, one can guess that Northern America had only a handful of the Natives wandering around in the wilderness.

I am in no way want to say that the Spanish were angels, far from it. But the English wars with the Natives cant be compared with the Spanish conquests, they are not even in the same league.

I dont know whether their is a reliable data about the casualties among the Natives per capita under the English and Spanish rule. But as I said above, the share of the Natives in Latin America is significantly higher than in the US. And that indirectly says about ruthlessness not in the Anglos' favour.

The Spanish had a more organized opponent, and went at them with gusto, not seen with the Anglo colonization. You saw it as the English went across the world, using force when needed, but usually using economic pressure.

 

[ESay]

The Spanish were the worst, but all Europeans came over and exploited, again, due to the technological disparity I am not shocked

Worse in comparison with the Anglo-Saxons, as an example? And how this 'worseness' can be measured?

The Latin American countries have a significantly larger proportion of the Natives and mestizos in their population, than the US does. That draws some conclusions, doesn't it?

That has mostly to do with the Spanish cultures lack of issues with interbreeding with the natives, something the more puritanical English settlers did far less.

When it came to exploiting however, the Spanish were far more ruthless, again probably due to their history of fighting off Islamic invaders for centuries before their colonization movement.

Can you give some examples of such ruthlessness? In comparison with the Anglos.

Fall of Tenochtitlan - Wikipedia.

Well, the big is seen from afar. After the civilizations of Central and South America, one can guess that Northern America had only a handful of the Natives wandering around in the wilderness.

I am in no way want to say that the Spanish were angels, far from it. But the English wars with the Natives cant be compared with the Spanish conquests, they are not even in the same league.

I dont know whether their is a reliable data about the casualties among the Natives per capita under the English and Spanish rule. But as I said above, the share of the Natives in Latin America is significantly higher than in the US. And that indirectly says about ruthlessness not in the Anglos' favour.

The Spanish had a more organized opponent, and went at them with gusto, not seen with the Anglo colonization. You saw it as the English went across the world, using force when needed, but usually using economic pressure.

Yes, but the result was the same - drastical decline of the native population (if we say about the Americas).

 

[martybegan]

The Spanish were the worst, but all Europeans came over and exploited, again, due to the technological disparity I am not shocked

Worse in comparison with the Anglo-Saxons, as an example? And how this 'worseness' can be measured?

The Latin American countries have a significantly larger proportion of the Natives and mestizos in their population, than the US does. That draws some conclusions, doesn't it?

That has mostly to do with the Spanish cultures lack of issues with interbreeding with the natives, something the more puritanical English settlers did far less.

When it came to exploiting however, the Spanish were far more ruthless, again probably due to their history of fighting off Islamic invaders for centuries before their colonization movement.

Can you give some examples of such ruthlessness? In comparison with the Anglos.

Fall of Tenochtitlan - Wikipedia.

Well, the big is seen from afar. After the civilizations of Central and South America, one can guess that Northern America had only a handful of the Natives wandering around in the wilderness.

I am in no way want to say that the Spanish were angels, far from it. But the English wars with the Natives cant be compared with the Spanish conquests, they are not even in the same league.

I dont know whether their is a reliable data about the casualties among the Natives per capita under the English and Spanish rule. But as I said above, the share of the Natives in Latin America is significantly higher than in the US. And that indirectly says about ruthlessness not in the Anglos' favour.

The Spanish had a more organized opponent, and went at them with gusto, not seen with the Anglo colonization. You saw it as the English went across the world, using force when needed, but usually using economic pressure.

Yes, but the result was the same - drastical decline of the native population (if we say about the Americas).

The decline in North America was far slower, and it took until the US was actually formed to get to the end.

 

[ESay]

The Spanish were the worst, but all Europeans came over and exploited, again, due to the technological disparity I am not shocked

Worse in comparison with the Anglo-Saxons, as an example? And how this 'worseness' can be measured?

The Latin American countries have a significantly larger proportion of the Natives and mestizos in their population, than the US does. That draws some conclusions, doesn't it?

That has mostly to do with the Spanish cultures lack of issues with interbreeding with the natives, something the more puritanical English settlers did far less.

When it came to exploiting however, the Spanish were far more ruthless, again probably due to their history of fighting off Islamic invaders for centuries before their colonization movement.

Can you give some examples of such ruthlessness? In comparison with the Anglos.

Fall of Tenochtitlan - Wikipedia.

Well, the big is seen from afar. After the civilizations of Central and South America, one can guess that Northern America had only a handful of the Natives wandering around in the wilderness.

I am in no way want to say that the Spanish were angels, far from it. But the English wars with the Natives cant be compared with the Spanish conquests, they are not even in the same league.

I dont know whether their is a reliable data about the casualties among the Natives per capita under the English and Spanish rule. But as I said above, the share of the Natives in Latin America is significantly higher than in the US. And that indirectly says about ruthlessness not in the Anglos' favour.

The Spanish had a more organized opponent, and went at them with gusto, not seen with the Anglo colonization. You saw it as the English went across the world, using force when needed, but usually using economic pressure.

Yes, but the result was the same - drastical decline of the native population (if we say about the Americas).

The decline in North America was far slower, and it took until the US was actually formed to get to the end.

Well, it might be discussed if we had the charts about the casualties per capita and per year. I have no one. But in the long shot, the figures (as I see them today) arent in English favor.

 

[Correll]

Right wing bigotry is the continuing sin. Blacks were citizens of our Republic after 1808; the sin was Right Wingers preferring Sin to promoting the general welfare.

your brain is a sin
..blacks commit murder at FOUR times the rate--that's a sin

Under our form of Capitalism? Black codes were worse.

blacks commit ''sin''/etc --plain and frk simple

With Original Sinners, who doesn't?

you sure do babble shit a lot
...slaves were a commodity

The Sin was that we have a declaration of independence and our federal Constitution; all it required was the moral of true witness bearing.

Why do you talk like you have brain damage?

 

[danielpalos]

Right wing bigotry is the continuing sin. Blacks were citizens of our Republic after 1808; the sin was Right Wingers preferring Sin to promoting the general welfare.

your brain is a sin
..blacks commit murder at FOUR times the rate--that's a sin

Under our form of Capitalism? Black codes were worse.

blacks commit ''sin''/etc --plain and frk simple

With Original Sinners, who doesn't?

you sure do babble shit a lot
...slaves were a commodity

The Sin was that we have a declaration of independence and our federal Constitution; all it required was the moral of true witness bearing.

Why do you talk like you have brain damage?

Why do you read like you do?

 

[Correll]

Right wing bigotry is the continuing sin. Blacks were citizens of our Republic after 1808; the sin was Right Wingers preferring Sin to promoting the general welfare.

your brain is a sin
..blacks commit murder at FOUR times the rate--that's a sin

Under our form of Capitalism? Black codes were worse.

blacks commit ''sin''/etc --plain and frk simple

With Original Sinners, who doesn't?

you sure do babble shit a lot
...slaves were a commodity

The Sin was that we have a declaration of independence and our federal Constitution; all it required was the moral of true witness bearing.

Why do you talk like you have brain damage?

Why do you read like you do?

Now, like that. That sentence made sense, it was coherent. Why can't you maintain that level of.... thinking?

 

[harmonica]

..just like interning Japanese Americans in WW2 = hindsight is 20/20 -YOU people would think differently if you lived then

Many people at that time recognized the gross injustice of fdr's concentration camps, so that excuse doesn't fly.

they weren't concentration camps ----
it was necessary for security
many people AGREED with it --so it does fly

 

[harmonica]

An ancient evil, the tolerance of slavery in "a nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that "all men are created equal" was a contradiction that could not forever stand. No amount of brilliant statecraft and clever compromises could put off the inevitable reckoning.

slavery isn't a sin--it's the way of the world

Sin is as old as man, but it's still sin. Logic continues to escape you.

no such thing as sin---that's man made = fake

 

[harmonica]

Right wing bigotry is the continuing sin. Blacks were citizens of our Republic after 1808; the sin was Right Wingers preferring Sin to promoting the general welfare.

your brain is a sin
..blacks commit murder at FOUR times the rate--that's a sin

Under our form of Capitalism? Black codes were worse.

blacks commit ''sin''/etc --plain and frk simple

With Original Sinners, who doesn't?

you sure do babble shit a lot
...slaves were a commodity

The Sin was that we have a declaration of independence and our federal Constitution; all it required was the moral of true witness bearing.

sin is a man made word = bullshit/fake

 

[Unkotare]

..just like interning Japanese Americans in WW2 = hindsight is 20/20 -YOU people would think differently if you lived then

Many people at that time recognized the gross injustice of fdr's concentration camps, so that excuse doesn't fly.

they weren't concentration camps ----
it was necessary for security
many people AGREED with it --so it does fly

They most certainly WERE concentration camps, by definition and by fdr's own admission.
There was no security risk, as fdr's own intelligence agents told him.
Many Americans saw the horrific injustice for what it was, so "back in them there days" does not fly as an excuse.

 

[Unkotare]

An ancient evil, the tolerance of slavery in "a nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that "all men are created equal" was a contradiction that could not forever stand. No amount of brilliant statecraft and clever compromises could put off the inevitable reckoning.

slavery isn't a sin--it's the way of the world

Sin is as old as man, but it's still sin. Logic continues to escape you.

no such thing as sin---that's man made = fake

Never turn your back on someone who has some reason to deny morality.

 

[Flash]

If anything is a sin it is Socialism.

 

[Unkotare]

Right wing bigotry is the continuing sin. Blacks were citizens of our Republic after 1808; the sin was Right Wingers preferring Sin to promoting the general welfare.

your brain is a sin
..blacks commit murder at FOUR times the rate--that's a sin

Under our form of Capitalism? Black codes were worse.

blacks commit ''sin''/etc --plain and frk simple

With Original Sinners, who doesn't?

you sure do babble shit a lot
...slaves were a commodity

The Sin was that we have a declaration of independence and our federal Constitution; all it required was the moral of true witness bearing.

sin is a man made word = bullshit/fake

Every word is "man made." Denying sin does not absolve you from it.

 

[harmonica]

Right wing bigotry is the continuing sin. Blacks were citizens of our Republic after 1808; the sin was Right Wingers preferring Sin to promoting the general welfare.

your brain is a sin
..blacks commit murder at FOUR times the rate--that's a sin

Under our form of Capitalism? Black codes were worse.

blacks commit ''sin''/etc --plain and frk simple

With Original Sinners, who doesn't?

you sure do babble shit a lot
...slaves were a commodity

The Sin was that we have a declaration of independence and our federal Constitution; all it required was the moral of true witness bearing.

sin is a man made word = bullshit/fake

Every word is "man made." Denying sin does not absolve you from it.

hahhahahhahahahaha
gravity is real
the sun is real
sin is not =made up by the religious people = BELIEF only

 

[Unkotare]

Right wing bigotry is the continuing sin. Blacks were citizens of our Republic after 1808; the sin was Right Wingers preferring Sin to promoting the general welfare.

your brain is a sin
..blacks commit murder at FOUR times the rate--that's a sin

Under our form of Capitalism? Black codes were worse.

blacks commit ''sin''/etc --plain and frk simple

With Original Sinners, who doesn't?

you sure do babble shit a lot
...slaves were a commodity

The Sin was that we have a declaration of independence and our federal Constitution; all it required was the moral of true witness bearing.

sin is a man made word = bullshit/fake

Every word is "man made." Denying sin does not absolve you from it.

hahhahahhahahahaha
gravity is real
the sun is real
sin is not =made up by the religious people = BELIEF only

"Sun" is a man made word.
"Gravity" is a man made word.

 

[harmonica]

..just like interning Japanese Americans in WW2 = hindsight is 20/20 -YOU people would think differently if you lived then

Many people at that time recognized the gross injustice of fdr's concentration camps, so that excuse doesn't fly.

they weren't concentration camps ----
it was necessary for security
many people AGREED with it --so it does fly

They most certainly WERE concentration camps, by definition and by fdr's own admission.
There was no security risk, as fdr's own intelligence agents told him.
Many Americans saw the horrific injustice for what it was, so "back in them there days" does not fly as an excuse.

no they were not

 

[Unkotare]

..just like interning Japanese Americans in WW2 = hindsight is 20/20 -YOU people would think differently if you lived then

Many people at that time recognized the gross injustice of fdr's concentration camps, so that excuse doesn't fly.

they weren't concentration camps ----
it was necessary for security
many people AGREED with it --so it does fly

They most certainly WERE concentration camps, by definition and by fdr's own admission.
There was no security risk, as fdr's own intelligence agents told him.
Many Americans saw the horrific injustice for what it was, so "back in them there days" does not fly as an excuse.

no they were not

As a matter of FACT, they were concentration camps. If you don't like English, find another language. In English, they were concentration camps.

How far off topic do you intend to take this poor thread?