What's new
By:
Filters

FCDC circa 1970

Status
Not open for further replies.
Carmelooooooo..we have been invited to a post Thanksgiving party by the OTs who are still in...they said they had so much fun last year at the Halloween party, they want to play some more...are you in? :coolwink:

Diana
 
Enthetan said:
There's an interesting book "Out of America: A Black Man Confronts Africa", where journalist Keith Richburg, who spent three years in Africa as the Africa bureau chief for the Washington Post, came to an interesting conclusion.

Yes, slavery was bad. So? Take a look at human history. Humans do bad things to other humans. There's been lots of white-on-white slavery. The very word "slave" comes to us from all the Slavs that were enslaved. The Romans enslaved other Europeans. The peasants of Europe were effectively slaves to their feudal lords.

African Muslims took over one million Europeans as slaves from piracy and raids of coastal European towns. I don't see a fuss being made over those.
Click to expand...

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Slavery was and is wrong. America was built using slave muscle. The heirarchy still remains. The problem will not abate until it is fully confronted, not just by individuals, but institutionally.

Yes, it has occurred in other civilizations. I am not a part of those civilizations. I'm a part of the USA. Thus, I try to do what I can to rectify what I think are critical problems in the USA. I'm not interested if other people (including Africans) were also wrong.
 
The Anabaptist Jacques said:
You simply post conclusions from others who use history to forward their opinions. That is not what history is; that is not how professional historians view or use history. History is a series of accepted judgments.
Click to expand...

Accepting the judgments of a certain "authority" is what got the people on this board into so much trouble earlier.
 
Winston Smith said:
In "Democracy in America," Alexis de Toqueville points out the difference between slave holding states and "free" states thus (paraphrasing): One can witness the industrious farmers in Ohio, producing many times what the Kentucky farms do across the river (I think Ohio river?) purely because the slaves have no incentive to produce. In the first book one about half way through. He had a scathing criticism of the practice, pointing out that forcing labor never
works well--and FREE independent farmers do very well indeed. Fuck this stuff about "on the backs of slaves whites got rich." Pure bull shite. de Toqueville also stated owning slaves was a huge drain on masters--taking care of them for life, feeding, housing. You don't have to take care of wage earners, they take care of themselves.
Click to expand...

You point out the crucial fact about slavery: slaves only work as hard as they need to in order to avoid punishment. Free men working to support their families generally work alot harder.

Slavery in America was only workable when land was so cheap, because the country had so few people, that the inefficiency of slaves didn't matter.
 
Mystic said:
In summation: Slavery sucks.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

So I support slavery? No.

Do I think it was a terrible thing? Yes. The US would have been better off, over the long run, if we had not imported slaves.

Am I willing to have somebody run a guilt trip on me over what happened centuries before I was born? No.

Am I willing to open my wallet for "reparations" to people who were never slaves, when neither I nor my ancestors were involved in the US slave trade? Hell no!
 
I think it's great that the "masters" beat and humiliated slaves out of the goodness of their own hearts, instead of with a profit motive. It's so good to see that racism and capitalism had nothing to do with slavery, but instead, it was motivated by Christian charity. They just wanted to give the blacks a home, and a crust of bread.
 
uniquemand said:
I think it's great that the "masters" beat and humiliated slaves out of the goodness of their own hearts, instead of with a profit motive. It's so good to see that racism and capitalism had nothing to do with slavery, but instead, it was motivated by Christian charity. They just wanted to give the blacks a home, and a crust of bread.
Click to expand...

The elites of the colonial South wanted black slaves for the same reason that current-day elites want illegal immigrants: they wanted cheap servants to do the work they didn't want to do, and over whom they had enough power that they wouldn't talk back.
 
The Anabaptist Jacques said:
The reason your posts are so immature when it comes to history is that history is not a matter of good guys and bad guys, or right opinion versus wrong opinion.

You simply post conclusions from others who use history to forward their opinions. That is not what history is; that is not how professional historians view or use history. History is a series of accepted judgments.

You need to read history books; not political or social opinions and conclusions that use snippets from history to strengthen those opinions or win an argument.

You are just a fanatic of certain political and social views and use snapshots of history, out of context, to support your fanaticsm. And I use the word fanatic as Winston Churchill defined it: "A fanatic is someone who won't change his mind and can't change the subject." (why else would you derail all the hotties and babes on this thread to push your views?)

It is good that you have an interest in history, but you don't understand what history is or how to use it.

Slavery, in all the other civilization and cultures of the world was qualitatively different than slavery in America.

The difference is that all those other civilizations were not founded on the idea that all men were created equal and that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That incongruency in the basis of this nation brought certain economic interests into conflict with the principles and the cultural and moral beliefs of the episteme that existed in the United States at the time.

It isn't simply a matter of "so what?"

From Herodotus onward, an element of history is moral evaluation as much as anything else.

Slavery in the Arab world, or in Ancient Rome or Greece, or in Africa, or anywhere else in history never posed a moral dilemma in society. It did in America.

And this is how and why history is not simply a matter of using facts out of context to strengthen a political or social or prejudiced opinion.

The Anabaptist Jacques
Click to expand...

You seem to have exchanged one cult for another.

In Scientology, only one viewpoint was tolerated. If you had a contrary viewpoint, the solution was not discussion, but "look up your words and review your materials, find out what YOU misunderstood". And if that didn't shut down the dissent, then that meant the dissenter was bad, and he had to be shut off from potentially contaminating others.

In modern-day academia, in the "social sciences", dissenting opinion that deviates from the politically-correct narrative is similarly unappreciated.

Argumentation from the sophist "I'm smart, therefore you're wrong" perspective does not work on me. It not working on me got me in trouble in Scientology, lead to my finally leaving, and I'm not likely to change.
 
Last edited:
The Anabaptist Jacques said:
The reason your posts are so immature when it comes to history is that history is not a matter of good guys and bad guys, or right opinion versus wrong opinion.

You simply post conclusions from others who use history to forward their opinions. That is not what history is; that is not how professional historians view or use history. History is a series of accepted judgments.

You need to read history books; not political or social opinions and conclusions that use snippets from history to strengthen those opinions or win an argument.

You are just a fanatic of certain political and social views and use snapshots of history, out of context, to support your fanaticsm. And I use the word fanatic as Winston Churchill defined it: "A fanatic is someone who won't change his mind and can't change the subject." (why else would you derail all the hotties and babes on this thread to push your views?)

It is good that you have an interest in history, but you don't understand what history is or how to use it.

Slavery, in all the other civilization and cultures of the world was qualitatively different than slavery in America.

The difference is that all those other civilizations were not founded on the idea that all men were created equal and that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That incongruency in the basis of this nation brought certain economic interests into conflict with the principles and the cultural and moral beliefs of the episteme that existed in the United States at the time.

It isn't simply a matter of "so what?"

From Herodotus onward, an element of history is moral evaluation as much as anything else.

Slavery in the Arab world, or in Ancient Rome or Greece, or in Africa, or anywhere else in history never posed a moral dilemma in society. It did in America.

And this is how and why history is not simply a matter of using facts out of context to strengthen a political or social or prejudiced opinion.

The Anabaptist Jacques
Click to expand...

2lkyadt.png
[/IMG]
 
Enthetan said:
You seem to have exchanged one cult for another.

In Scientology, only one viewpoint was tolerated. If you had a contrary viewpoint, the solution was not discussion, but "look up your words and review your materials, find out what YOU misunderstood". And if that didn't shut down the dissent, then that meant the dissenter was bad, and he had to be shut off from potentially contaminating others.

In modern-day academia, in the "social sciences", dissenting opinion that deviates from the politically-correct narrative is similarly unappreciated.

Argumentation from the sophist "I'm smart, therefore you're wrong" perspective does not work on me. It got me in trouble in Scientology, lead to my finally leaving, and I'm not likely to change.
Click to expand...

This also:

15ydcgj.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top