Sen. Cotton Introduces Bill to Cut Funding to Schools Teaching ‘1619 Project’

[OKTexas]

And you wonder why so many people plan to vote against Republicans in November.
Racism is rampant in their ranks.
I hope a reporter asks Trump and every vulnerable Reublican if they agree with Cotton:.
"We have to study the history of slavery and its role and impact on the development of our country because otherwise we can’t understand our country. As the Founding Fathers said, it was the necessary evil upon which the union was built, but the union was built in a way, as Lincoln said, to put slavery on the course to its ultimate extinction,” he said.'

Bill by Sen. Tom Cotton targets curriculum on slavery | Arkansas Democrat Gazette

WASHINGTON -- A New York Times-based school curriculum emphasizing American slavery instead of American independence has been targeted by U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton.

www.arkansasonline.com

Damn, and which party helped create and support the KKK....dumbass.

None.

That was easy. What'd I win?

Here's your prize.
View attachment 367667

So you actually think a YouTube upload constitutes a "source". That's pathetic.

I could upload a YouTube video claiming I'm the queen of Burma. Wouldn't make it a fucking fact, now would it.

Here they are, all the names in alpha order, just for your wangly ass, the founders of the Ku Klux Klan, at 205 West Madison Street in Pulaski Tennessee, Christmas 1865:

1. (Maj) James R. Crowe
2. Calvin Jones
3. (Capt) John Booker Kennedy
4. (Capt) John Lester
5. (Maj) Frank O. McCord
6. Richard R. Reed

*ZERO* of them were Democrats. In fact Democrats didn't even exist in that time and place.

Now quit wasting my time. Go look up any of the 8634314 times I've already posted all of this over the last EIGHT FUCKING YEARS. Now don't EVER waddle onto this board trying to pass off a YouTube wanker with its comments turned off as a "source".

But speaking of which let's examine what little it does say, your video from "ERROR MEDIA".... roll it.

>> Because blacks had founded the Republican Party and were taking control of Congress at the Federal and State level. <<

BULL
FUCKING
SHIT.

Blacks didn't found the Republican Party and they weren't, black or otherwise, taking control of Congress at the Federal OR state level, as NONE OF THAT HAD EVEN STARTED YET. Tennessee in 1865 was not even part of the United States, you colossally lost dumbass. The founding of the Klan PREDATED Reconstruction.

You're a liar, the commiecrat party was formed in 1828, TN was admitted as a State, June 1, 1796, it was the 16th State. I guess it's you that's the colossally lost dumbass.

 

[Pogo]

And you wonder why so many people plan to vote against Republicans in November.
Racism is rampant in their ranks.
I hope a reporter asks Trump and every vulnerable Reublican if they agree with Cotton:.
"We have to study the history of slavery and its role and impact on the development of our country because otherwise we can’t understand our country. As the Founding Fathers said, it was the necessary evil upon which the union was built, but the union was built in a way, as Lincoln said, to put slavery on the course to its ultimate extinction,” he said.'

Bill by Sen. Tom Cotton targets curriculum on slavery | Arkansas Democrat Gazette

WASHINGTON -- A New York Times-based school curriculum emphasizing American slavery instead of American independence has been targeted by U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton.

www.arkansasonline.com

Damn, and which party helped create and support the KKK....dumbass.

None.

That was easy. What'd I win?

Here's your prize.
View attachment 367667

So you actually think a YouTube upload constitutes a "source". That's pathetic.

I could upload a YouTube video claiming I'm the queen of Burma. Wouldn't make it a fucking fact, now would it.

Here they are, all the names in alpha order, just for your wangly ass, the founders of the Ku Klux Klan, at 205 West Madison Street in Pulaski Tennessee, Christmas 1865:

1. (Maj) James R. Crowe
2. Calvin Jones
3. (Capt) John Booker Kennedy
4. (Capt) John Lester
5. (Maj) Frank O. McCord
6. Richard R. Reed

*ZERO* of them were Democrats. In fact Democrats didn't even exist in that time and place.

Now quit wasting my time. Go look up any of the 8634314 times I've already posted all of this over the last EIGHT FUCKING YEARS. Now don't EVER waddle onto this board trying to pass off a YouTube wanker with its comments turned off as a "source".

But speaking of which let's examine what little it does say, your video from "ERROR MEDIA".... roll it.

>> Because blacks had founded the Republican Party and were taking control of Congress at the Federal and State level. <<

BULL
FUCKING
SHIT.

Blacks didn't found the Republican Party and they weren't, black or otherwise, taking control of Congress at the Federal OR state level, as NONE OF THAT HAD EVEN STARTED YET. Tennessee in 1865 was not even part of the United States, you colossally lost dumbass. The founding of the Klan PREDATED Reconstruction.

You're a liar, the commiecrat party was formed in 1828, TN was admitted as a State, June 1, 1796, it was the 16th State. I guess it's you that's the colossally lost dumbass.

Actually the 1830s but that's not important. Let's go to the glaring facts you missed.

Tennessee seceded from the United States in 1861. I can see how you'd forget, it's pretty obscure.
It was readmitted after the Civil War in 1866. Therefore in 1865 it was (still) not part of the United States.

Your ass, sir. Bon appétit. Will there be anything else?

 

[OKTexas]

You are totally ignorant of history... Fucking Idiot...

The US would have never formed if they had not let DEMOCRAT states keep thier slaves...

The Democratic Party was founded in 1828. Forty years after the ratification of the constitution.

And now for the rest of the story. The commiecrat party was formed by slaveholders. LMAO

.

Not sure what "the commiecrat party" might be but the Democratic Party was founded by Martin van Buren, who was certainly not a slaveholder.

Neither were the vast majority of the southerners who fought in the civil war. Your point?

.

 

[Pogo]

You are totally ignorant of history... Fucking Idiot...

The US would have never formed if they had not let DEMOCRAT states keep thier slaves...

The Democratic Party was founded in 1828. Forty years after the ratification of the constitution.

And now for the rest of the story. The commiecrat party was formed by slaveholders. LMAO

.

Not sure what "the commiecrat party" might be but the Democratic Party was founded by Martin van Buren, who was certainly not a slaveholder.

Neither were the vast majority of the southerners who fought in the civil war. Your point?

Historican correction. Martin van Buren was no more a slaveholder than Ulysses Grant was.

And just for further correction, there were no "DEMOCRAT STATES" when the country formed. The Democratic Party did not exist. No parties existed. The poster with his head up his ass posted that immediately after the sentence, "You are totally ignorant of history... Fucking Idiot...", which certainly qualifies him for Irony of the Month.

 

[OKTexas]

That many slave owners were also great men formulated the concept of a democratic republic and human rights in ways that inspired much of the world for centuries?

You can’t be a great man and own slaves. The Southern gentlemen That “ formulated democratic republic and human rights” as you put it, did so for themselves. That did not include slaves or even women nor the Native American. They were great if you were a white male plantation owner. It’s the same with the declaration of independents. It applied to the white guys sitting around the table, not to women, American Indians or slaves...

You can't be a man at all if you try to judge generations long past by today's standards. BTW, the American indians, ie transplanted Asians, also held and bought and sold slaves, long before whites ever came to what's now known as North America.

Indeed. The practice of slavery has been recorded on every continent save Antarctica at some point in history, certainly including within Europe.

What differs in this case is specifically transAtlantic slavery, the practice of capturing humans from one continent and shipping them off in chains to entirely another, a journey which to them might as well be one of us being abducted by interstellar aliens. "Traditional" slavery was part of the spoils of war --- my tribe conquers yours, that means I get your land, your crops, and your people. When your tribe conquers mine, the reverse happens.

But that's simply a social status between neighboring tribes, who are already familiar with each others' land, language and customs. TransAtlantic slavery was much deeper in that in order to justify that human trafficking the victims had to be sold as something less than human, so the merchants who had started that trade, merchants from Spain, France, England, Portugal mainly --- invented the idea of racism. "Savages".

And that ALL started more than 250 years before there were any political parties, or countries as we define them, on either of these continents at all.

Comparing that to the sort of slavery between neighboring Native Americans or between neighboring Europeans, is ultimately dishonest. And speaking of ignorance I love the way the poster above speaks of "the American Indians" ---- as if they're some kind of monolith just because they all have a common race. Broad-brush much?

Damn, you're so full of shit it's pathetic. The very first legal slave owner in the US was a free black man. You can pretend slavery is somehow morally different depending who was practicing it, I ain't fucking buying it.

.

 

[Pogo]

That many slave owners were also great men formulated the concept of a democratic republic and human rights in ways that inspired much of the world for centuries?

You can’t be a great man and own slaves. The Southern gentlemen That “ formulated democratic republic and human rights” as you put it, did so for themselves. That did not include slaves or even women nor the Native American. They were great if you were a white male plantation owner. It’s the same with the declaration of independents. It applied to the white guys sitting around the table, not to women, American Indians or slaves...

You can't be a man at all if you try to judge generations long past by today's standards. BTW, the American indians, ie transplanted Asians, also held and bought and sold slaves, long before whites ever came to what's now known as North America.

Indeed. The practice of slavery has been recorded on every continent save Antarctica at some point in history, certainly including within Europe.

What differs in this case is specifically transAtlantic slavery, the practice of capturing humans from one continent and shipping them off in chains to entirely another, a journey which to them might as well be one of us being abducted by interstellar aliens. "Traditional" slavery was part of the spoils of war --- my tribe conquers yours, that means I get your land, your crops, and your people. When your tribe conquers mine, the reverse happens.

But that's simply a social status between neighboring tribes, who are already familiar with each others' land, language and customs. TransAtlantic slavery was much deeper in that in order to justify that human trafficking the victims had to be sold as something less than human, so the merchants who had started that trade, merchants from Spain, France, England, Portugal mainly --- invented the idea of racism. "Savages".

And that ALL started more than 250 years before there were any political parties, or countries as we define them, on either of these continents at all.

Comparing that to the sort of slavery between neighboring Native Americans or between neighboring Europeans, is ultimately dishonest. And speaking of ignorance I love the way the poster above speaks of "the American Indians" ---- as if they're some kind of monolith just because they all have a common race. Broad-brush much?

Damn, you're so full of shit it's pathetic. The very first legal slave owner in the US was a free black man. You can pretend slavery is somehow morally different depending who was practicing it, I ain't fucking buying it.

Actually I posted nothing about "morals". I described the glaring differences between taking slaves from a neighboring tribe, which was done worldwide, and shipping them across to an entirely different continent. I pointed out the dishonesty in trying to equate the two.

The first transAtlantic African slaves were brought here (meaning the North American continent) in 1526. If you've got something from earlier than that, bring it on.

 

[OKTexas]

And you wonder why so many people plan to vote against Republicans in November.
Racism is rampant in their ranks.
I hope a reporter asks Trump and every vulnerable Reublican if they agree with Cotton:.
"We have to study the history of slavery and its role and impact on the development of our country because otherwise we can’t understand our country. As the Founding Fathers said, it was the necessary evil upon which the union was built, but the union was built in a way, as Lincoln said, to put slavery on the course to its ultimate extinction,” he said.'

Bill by Sen. Tom Cotton targets curriculum on slavery | Arkansas Democrat Gazette

WASHINGTON -- A New York Times-based school curriculum emphasizing American slavery instead of American independence has been targeted by U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton.

www.arkansasonline.com

Damn, and which party helped create and support the KKK....dumbass.

None.

That was easy. What'd I win?

Here's your prize.
View attachment 367667

So you actually think a YouTube upload constitutes a "source". That's pathetic.

I could upload a YouTube video claiming I'm the queen of Burma. Wouldn't make it a fucking fact, now would it.

Here they are, all the names in alpha order, just for your wangly ass, the founders of the Ku Klux Klan, at 205 West Madison Street in Pulaski Tennessee, Christmas 1865:

1. (Maj) James R. Crowe
2. Calvin Jones
3. (Capt) John Booker Kennedy
4. (Capt) John Lester
5. (Maj) Frank O. McCord
6. Richard R. Reed

*ZERO* of them were Democrats. In fact Democrats didn't even exist in that time and place.

Now quit wasting my time. Go look up any of the 8634314 times I've already posted all of this over the last EIGHT FUCKING YEARS. Now don't EVER waddle onto this board trying to pass off a YouTube wanker with its comments turned off as a "source".

But speaking of which let's examine what little it does say, your video from "ERROR MEDIA".... roll it.

>> Because blacks had founded the Republican Party and were taking control of Congress at the Federal and State level. <<

BULL
FUCKING
SHIT.

Blacks didn't found the Republican Party and they weren't, black or otherwise, taking control of Congress at the Federal OR state level, as NONE OF THAT HAD EVEN STARTED YET. Tennessee in 1865 was not even part of the United States, you colossally lost dumbass. The founding of the Klan PREDATED Reconstruction.

You're a liar, the commiecrat party was formed in 1828, TN was admitted as a State, June 1, 1796, it was the 16th State. I guess it's you that's the colossally lost dumbass.

Actually the 1830s but that's not important. Let's go to the glaring facts you missed.

Tennessee seceded from the United States in 1861. I can see how you'd forget, it's pretty obscure.
It was readmitted after the Civil War in 1866. Therefore in 1865 it was (still) not part of the United States.

Your ass, sir. Bon appétit. Will there be anything else?

So you think you think you know more than the US supreme court, got it. LMAO

.

 

[SeaGal]

Comparing that to the sort of slavery between neighboring Native Americans or between neighboring Europeans, is ultimately dishonest.

No. Rationalizing 'sorts' of slavery as greater or lesser evils is intellectually dishonest. Do you really believe that papyrus bonds chafed any less than chains?...or the silver mines of Athens any less strenuous than the cotton fields of Georgia?

 

[OKTexas]

That many slave owners were also great men formulated the concept of a democratic republic and human rights in ways that inspired much of the world for centuries?

You can’t be a great man and own slaves. The Southern gentlemen That “ formulated democratic republic and human rights” as you put it, did so for themselves. That did not include slaves or even women nor the Native American. They were great if you were a white male plantation owner. It’s the same with the declaration of independents. It applied to the white guys sitting around the table, not to women, American Indians or slaves...

You can't be a man at all if you try to judge generations long past by today's standards. BTW, the American indians, ie transplanted Asians, also held and bought and sold slaves, long before whites ever came to what's now known as North America.

Indeed. The practice of slavery has been recorded on every continent save Antarctica at some point in history, certainly including within Europe.

What differs in this case is specifically transAtlantic slavery, the practice of capturing humans from one continent and shipping them off in chains to entirely another, a journey which to them might as well be one of us being abducted by interstellar aliens. "Traditional" slavery was part of the spoils of war --- my tribe conquers yours, that means I get your land, your crops, and your people. When your tribe conquers mine, the reverse happens.

But that's simply a social status between neighboring tribes, who are already familiar with each others' land, language and customs. TransAtlantic slavery was much deeper in that in order to justify that human trafficking the victims had to be sold as something less than human, so the merchants who had started that trade, merchants from Spain, France, England, Portugal mainly --- invented the idea of racism. "Savages".

And that ALL started more than 250 years before there were any political parties, or countries as we define them, on either of these continents at all.

Comparing that to the sort of slavery between neighboring Native Americans or between neighboring Europeans, is ultimately dishonest. And speaking of ignorance I love the way the poster above speaks of "the American Indians" ---- as if they're some kind of monolith just because they all have a common race. Broad-brush much?

Damn, you're so full of shit it's pathetic. The very first legal slave owner in the US was a free black man. You can pretend slavery is somehow morally different depending who was practicing it, I ain't fucking buying it.

Actually I posted nothing about "morals". I described the glaring differences between taking slaves from a neighboring tribe, which was done worldwide, and shipping them across to an entirely different continent. I pointed out the dishonesty in trying to equate the two.

The first transAtlantic African slaves were brought here (meaning the North American continent) in 1526. If you've got something from earlier than that, bring it on.

LMAO, almost 250 years before the US declared independence, but hey, it's all our fault, RIGHT? FOAD!

.

 

[OKTexas]

Comparing that to the sort of slavery between neighboring Native Americans or between neighboring Europeans, is ultimately dishonest.

No. Rationalizing 'sorts' of slavery as greater or lesser evils is intellectually dishonest. Do you really believe that papyrus bonds chafed any less than chains?...or the silver mines of Athens any less strenuous than the cotton fields of Georgia?

They always have to blame everything on the US, even when it didn't exist. Makes you wonder how they've escaped Darwin's law to this point.

.

 

[Pogo]

That many slave owners were also great men formulated the concept of a democratic republic and human rights in ways that inspired much of the world for centuries?

You can’t be a great man and own slaves. The Southern gentlemen That “ formulated democratic republic and human rights” as you put it, did so for themselves. That did not include slaves or even women nor the Native American. They were great if you were a white male plantation owner. It’s the same with the declaration of independents. It applied to the white guys sitting around the table, not to women, American Indians or slaves...

You can't be a man at all if you try to judge generations long past by today's standards. BTW, the American indians, ie transplanted Asians, also held and bought and sold slaves, long before whites ever came to what's now known as North America.

Indeed. The practice of slavery has been recorded on every continent save Antarctica at some point in history, certainly including within Europe.

What differs in this case is specifically transAtlantic slavery, the practice of capturing humans from one continent and shipping them off in chains to entirely another, a journey which to them might as well be one of us being abducted by interstellar aliens. "Traditional" slavery was part of the spoils of war --- my tribe conquers yours, that means I get your land, your crops, and your people. When your tribe conquers mine, the reverse happens.

But that's simply a social status between neighboring tribes, who are already familiar with each others' land, language and customs. TransAtlantic slavery was much deeper in that in order to justify that human trafficking the victims had to be sold as something less than human, so the merchants who had started that trade, merchants from Spain, France, England, Portugal mainly --- invented the idea of racism. "Savages".

And that ALL started more than 250 years before there were any political parties, or countries as we define them, on either of these continents at all.

Comparing that to the sort of slavery between neighboring Native Americans or between neighboring Europeans, is ultimately dishonest. And speaking of ignorance I love the way the poster above speaks of "the American Indians" ---- as if they're some kind of monolith just because they all have a common race. Broad-brush much?

Damn, you're so full of shit it's pathetic. The very first legal slave owner in the US was a free black man. You can pretend slavery is somehow morally different depending who was practicing it, I ain't fucking buying it.

Actually I posted nothing about "morals". I described the glaring differences between taking slaves from a neighboring tribe, which was done worldwide, and shipping them across to an entirely different continent. I pointed out the dishonesty in trying to equate the two.

The first transAtlantic African slaves were brought here (meaning the North American continent) in 1526. If you've got something from earlier than that, bring it on.

LMAO, almost 250 years before the US declared independence, but hey, it's all our fault, RIGHT? FOAD!

Actually exactly 250 years as it happens. Again, obscure history I guess, like the Civil War.

I posted nothing about "faults", and I have no idea what the fuck a "foad" is.

 

[Pogo]

Comparing that to the sort of slavery between neighboring Native Americans or between neighboring Europeans, is ultimately dishonest.

No. Rationalizing 'sorts' of slavery as greater or lesser evils is intellectually dishonest. Do you really believe that papyrus bonds chafed any less than chains?...or the silver mines of Athens any less strenuous than the cotton fields of Georgia?

Once again for the Illiterati --- I've posted nothing about "evils, greater or lesser". I pointed out the distinction between two starkly different practices and the inherent dishonesty in equating those two very different practices.

If you choose to inject "evils" where none were stated, that's on you.

 

[Pogo]

And you wonder why so many people plan to vote against Republicans in November.
Racism is rampant in their ranks.
I hope a reporter asks Trump and every vulnerable Reublican if they agree with Cotton:.
"We have to study the history of slavery and its role and impact on the development of our country because otherwise we can’t understand our country. As the Founding Fathers said, it was the necessary evil upon which the union was built, but the union was built in a way, as Lincoln said, to put slavery on the course to its ultimate extinction,” he said.'

Bill by Sen. Tom Cotton targets curriculum on slavery | Arkansas Democrat Gazette

WASHINGTON -- A New York Times-based school curriculum emphasizing American slavery instead of American independence has been targeted by U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton.

www.arkansasonline.com

Damn, and which party helped create and support the KKK....dumbass.

None.

That was easy. What'd I win?

Here's your prize.
View attachment 367667

So you actually think a YouTube upload constitutes a "source". That's pathetic.

I could upload a YouTube video claiming I'm the queen of Burma. Wouldn't make it a fucking fact, now would it.

Here they are, all the names in alpha order, just for your wangly ass, the founders of the Ku Klux Klan, at 205 West Madison Street in Pulaski Tennessee, Christmas 1865:

1. (Maj) James R. Crowe
2. Calvin Jones
3. (Capt) John Booker Kennedy
4. (Capt) John Lester
5. (Maj) Frank O. McCord
6. Richard R. Reed

*ZERO* of them were Democrats. In fact Democrats didn't even exist in that time and place.

Now quit wasting my time. Go look up any of the 8634314 times I've already posted all of this over the last EIGHT FUCKING YEARS. Now don't EVER waddle onto this board trying to pass off a YouTube wanker with its comments turned off as a "source".

But speaking of which let's examine what little it does say, your video from "ERROR MEDIA".... roll it.

>> Because blacks had founded the Republican Party and were taking control of Congress at the Federal and State level. <<

BULL
FUCKING
SHIT.

Blacks didn't found the Republican Party and they weren't, black or otherwise, taking control of Congress at the Federal OR state level, as NONE OF THAT HAD EVEN STARTED YET. Tennessee in 1865 was not even part of the United States, you colossally lost dumbass. The founding of the Klan PREDATED Reconstruction.

You're a liar, the commiecrat party was formed in 1828, TN was admitted as a State, June 1, 1796, it was the 16th State. I guess it's you that's the colossally lost dumbass.

Actually the 1830s but that's not important. Let's go to the glaring facts you missed.

Tennessee seceded from the United States in 1861. I can see how you'd forget, it's pretty obscure.
It was readmitted after the Civil War in 1866. Therefore in 1865 it was (still) not part of the United States.

Your ass, sir. Bon appétit. Will there be anything else?

So you think you think you know more than the US supreme court, got it. LMAO

Let's see, before we lose track --- so far you didn't know "the Indians" were not a monolith, you didn't know transAtlantic slavery was vastly different from intracontinental forms that preceded it, you didn't know Martin van Buren was not a slaveholder, you didn't know Tennessee seceded in 1861, you didn't know about San Miguel de Gualdape, you don't know how to read, and now you're imagining the Supreme Court has something to do with Tennessee seceding.

You're having quite a night there Hunior.

 

[petro]

It amazes me how selective the dimwits are when they make stupid shit like this an issue... They forget that the KKK was a DEMOCRAT ORGANIZATION and if you weren't a Klansman you didn't go up in the democrat leadership..

Still the Neanderthal dim witted post that assumes every party for 200 plus years with the same name had the same values.

You and petro have the same ignorance issue... Your ignorant of US history...

Don't mix me up with the idiotic newbie pyetro, who apparently can't pick an original screen name.


Thank you.

 

[SeaGal]

No. Rationalizing 'sorts' of slavery as greater or lesser evils is intellectually dishonest. Do you really believe that papyrus bonds chafed any less than chains?...or the silver mines of Athens any less strenuous than the cotton fields of Georgia?

Once again for the Illiterati --- I've posted nothing about "evils, greater or lesser". I pointed out the distinction between two starkly different practices and the inherent dishonesty in equating those two very different practices.

If you choose to inject "evils" where none were stated, that's on you.

This thread makes reference to the 'evil' of slavery. Slavery, by any definition, involves the forced labor of one human by another human 'master'. You are making a 'distinction without a difference'.

 

[Theowl32]

That many slave owners were also great men formulated the concept of a democratic republic and human rights in ways that inspired much of the world for centuries?

You can’t be a great man and own slaves. The Southern gentlemen That “ formulated democratic republic and human rights” as you put it, did so for themselves. That did not include slaves or even women nor the Native American. They were great if you were a white male plantation owner. It’s the same with the declaration of independents. It applied to the white guys sitting around the table, not to women, American Indians or slaves...

You can't be a man at all if you try to judge generations long past by today's standards. BTW, the American indians, ie transplanted Asians, also held and bought and sold slaves, long before whites ever came to what's now known as North America.

Indeed. The practice of slavery has been recorded on every continent save Antarctica at some point in history, certainly including within Europe.

What differs in this case is specifically transAtlantic slavery, the practice of capturing humans from one continent and shipping them off in chains to entirely another, a journey which to them might as well be one of us being abducted by interstellar aliens. "Traditional" slavery was part of the spoils of war --- my tribe conquers yours, that means I get your land, your crops, and your people. When your tribe conquers mine, the reverse happens.

But that's simply a social status between neighboring tribes, who are already familiar with each others' land, language and customs. TransAtlantic slavery was much deeper in that in order to justify that human trafficking the victims had to be sold as something less than human, so the merchants who had started that trade, merchants from Spain, France, England, Portugal mainly --- invented the idea of racism. "Savages".

And that ALL started more than 250 years before there were any political parties, or countries as we define them, on either of these continents at all.

Comparing that to the sort of slavery between neighboring Native Americans or between neighboring Europeans, is ultimately dishonest. And speaking of ignorance I love the way the poster above speaks of "the American Indians" ---- as if they're some kind of monolith just because they all have a common race. Broad-brush much?

You such a piece of hypocritical ignorant shit. Really.

The Barbary Coast slave trade was Europeans being enslaved from Europe to Africa.

The Trans-Sahara slave trade was going on for 700 years before Europe got involved. Which means the slave trade was a well established INDUSTRY and NO Europeans didn't capture Africans with nets and kidnap them.

Africans were complicit in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade.

What we also know is a republican has never owned a slave. We also know Republicans freed the slaves, desegregated the schools in this country......

Oh never mind. You a patronizing idiot racist.

 

[Pogo]

No. Rationalizing 'sorts' of slavery as greater or lesser evils is intellectually dishonest. Do you really believe that papyrus bonds chafed any less than chains?...or the silver mines of Athens any less strenuous than the cotton fields of Georgia?

Once again for the Illiterati --- I've posted nothing about "evils, greater or lesser". I pointed out the distinction between two starkly different practices and the inherent dishonesty in equating those two very different practices.

If you choose to inject "evils" where none were stated, that's on you.

This thread makes reference to the 'evil' of slavery. Slavery, by any definition, involves the forced labor of one human by another human 'master'. You are making a 'distinction without a difference'.

This is not my thread. The post you quoted is, as always, DIRECTLY addressing the post IT quoted. In this case the poster I quoted tried to dismiss slavery with a false equivalence. So I called him on it. Then he did it again. So, so did I.

 

[Pogo]

That many slave owners were also great men formulated the concept of a democratic republic and human rights in ways that inspired much of the world for centuries?

You can’t be a great man and own slaves. The Southern gentlemen That “ formulated democratic republic and human rights” as you put it, did so for themselves. That did not include slaves or even women nor the Native American. They were great if you were a white male plantation owner. It’s the same with the declaration of independents. It applied to the white guys sitting around the table, not to women, American Indians or slaves...

You can't be a man at all if you try to judge generations long past by today's standards. BTW, the American indians, ie transplanted Asians, also held and bought and sold slaves, long before whites ever came to what's now known as North America.

Indeed. The practice of slavery has been recorded on every continent save Antarctica at some point in history, certainly including within Europe.

What differs in this case is specifically transAtlantic slavery, the practice of capturing humans from one continent and shipping them off in chains to entirely another, a journey which to them might as well be one of us being abducted by interstellar aliens. "Traditional" slavery was part of the spoils of war --- my tribe conquers yours, that means I get your land, your crops, and your people. When your tribe conquers mine, the reverse happens.

But that's simply a social status between neighboring tribes, who are already familiar with each others' land, language and customs. TransAtlantic slavery was much deeper in that in order to justify that human trafficking the victims had to be sold as something less than human, so the merchants who had started that trade, merchants from Spain, France, England, Portugal mainly --- invented the idea of racism. "Savages".

And that ALL started more than 250 years before there were any political parties, or countries as we define them, on either of these continents at all.

Comparing that to the sort of slavery between neighboring Native Americans or between neighboring Europeans, is ultimately dishonest. And speaking of ignorance I love the way the poster above speaks of "the American Indians" ---- as if they're some kind of monolith just because they all have a common race. Broad-brush much?

You such a piece of hypocritical ignorant shit. Really.

The Barbary Coast slave trade was Europeans being enslaved from Europe to Africa.

The Trans-Sahara slave trade was going on for 700 years before Europe got involved. Which means the slave trade was a well established INDUSTRY and NO Europeans didn't capture Africans with nets and kidnap them.

Africans were complicit in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade.

What we also know is a republican has never owned a slave. We also know Republicans freed the slaves, desegregated the schools in this country......

Oh never mind. You a patronizing idiot racist.

Here's a post that suddenly abandoned ship upon looking up "Ulysses Grant" in its childish quest to construct an Ass-ociation Fallacy. Wuh-oh.

Cute.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I’m still waiting to to see the lies you are so offended by. The example you just cited showed a claim that colonists wanted to break from Britain to preserve slavery and they made a correction to say “some” colonists. Following the break from Britain we did indeed preserve slavery and even write it i to our constitution .

Would you like me to write you an essay, professor?
I've already given you a couple of citations in which historians dispute the accuracy and honesty of the
1619 project.
As far as writing slavery into the constitution the issue was contentious since the founding of the country
and the north and south was always at odds about the matter until the Civil War settled it for good.

You won't really know the truth until you study it. What the Constitution Really Says About Race and Slavery
The constitution dealt with it because it had to as a reality of America. Not because it wanted to.

You first point about an activist authoring the piece is a little silly to me. Who else would undertake such a project? A white nationalist??

No. only an activist would write such an inflammatory piece. And only an activist would
write so dishonestly and with such bias.

If someone like Hannah-Jones really wrote honestly about this nation, instead of like Howard Zinn or
Noam Chomsky (highlighting only the bad, ignoring the exculpatory), then she would give a more complete picture of the strong abolitionist movement that opposed slavery from the start, if she mentions it at all.

But I don't think that is in her or what the NY Times wanted.

 

[SeaGal]

This is not my thread. The post you quoted is, as always, DIRECTLY addressing the post IT quoted. In this case the poster I quoted tried to dismiss slavery with a false equivalence. So I called him on it.

I realize that it is not your thread, but you are contributing to it. I also understand that you feel compelled to call someone out on what you believe is a false equivalence. I feel the same way when confronted with what I believe to be flawed reasoning. Isn't all slavery evil?...or are only some 'kinds' of slavery evil?...others less evil?

Do bonds of papyrus or rawhide chafe less than chains? Trying to make a distinction between geographical differences of the enslaved is faulty logic.