Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Now they run from the Philippines and elsewhere in SE Asia to the Persian Gulf. They also run from E Europe to Turkey and W Europe. And from Nepal to India. Human trafficking is alive and well in the world.
An ounce of truth .... and a pound of bull.
I've been acquainted with Filipinos from several regions and/or tribal groups for over 25 years. It's true that the nation is plagued by corruption and political in-fighting; also that a "quasi-private" network, which always carries a potential for abuse, is used to supplant and get around an overloaded and, by necessity, underfunded bureaucracy.
But within that less-than-perfiect situation, the vast majority of immigration is administered and carried out legally, and with various safeguards --- insurance, etc. --- for the participants. (Due to the dyanamics of the current market, the majority of "initital" participants in the Philippine diaspora are women; the men usually join them later.)
It's also been my experince that Canada, with its reputation for stability and order, is preferred over the United States as a destiantion for many Filipino emigrants. But regardles, the overwhelming majority adapt and -- compared to what they knew before -- prosper. There is, of course, an underside and the potential for abuse in nations less conditioned by the rule of law, but this has always been the case and can't be legislated out of existence by some pipe-dream of a globalized bureaucracy.
Human progress is slow and often risky. But as the gradual dimunition of the various forms of involuntary servitude proves, we are moving in the right direction, and the Filipino people, who understand far better than most that life isn't always "as advertised" by the politicians, are one of the more prominent groups on the front lines of that process. I'm proud to number a few of them among my closest friends.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 06-01-2013 at 01:53 PM..
To the OP's point, no, most Northerners are not ignorant of slavery in the North.
However, when people call it the "war of northern aggression" and are actually serious, we at least know what you guys down south "learned" about the "Civil War" in public school.
Which is to say, LOL.
Well, the north invaded the south, burned cities, wrecked infrastructure, killed and stole livestock and murdered fellow american civilians...and you're PROUD of that? That's why some call it the war of northern aggression.
The south wanted to secede peacefully with no bloodshed and go their own way. What kind of government is it that forces people to stay together at the point of a bayonet?
America was founded on revolution because the colonists wanted to form a type of government that represented them. The same thing the south wanted to achieve peacefully.
It's emotionally convenient to ignore the economic advantages slavery provided to the entire United States. Even Abraham Lincoln was less concerned with slavery as a human rights issue, than he was with the political/cultural divisions it brought to the country.
It's the same kind of failure that exists today when consumers ignore the connection between cheap clothing at Wal-Mart, and human beings who are working under sweatshop conditions in Pakistan, India, or China.
I recently got my hands on a book called Complicity: How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from Slavery by Anne Farrow, Joel Lang and Jennifer Frank of The Hartford Courant. What most surprised me about this book was how surprised the authors said they were about how deeply rooted slavery was in the North's development on all levels of society. It sort of blew my mind that they didn't know about this. Perhaps because I'm from the South, where slavery is an inescapable fact of the past, is why it seemed so absurd to me that people from the North were so scandalized by the fundamental role slavery played in their own regional past/success.
Or maybe these authors were especially sheltered from it? I don't know. It seems surreal to me that there are so many Northerners who would be unaware of this. Is it because they have their own version of a Lost Cause mythology or something? Are Northerners really that unaware of slavery's role in their own region and seriously think it was a Southern only phenomenon...?
Yes, many people just flat-out don't know about it, some don't believe it and some....well, they just don't care to know. Some people simply aren't interested in things which are not directly affecting them. It's always been that way and always WILL be that way.
People WITH money, who want to make MORE money, can always figure out how to use other people, in order to reach their goals. It was true back then, it is true now.
I don't see how the impression that the North's complicity in their reliance on the by products of slavery is any different than our current complicity as American consumers.
When we shop around for the cheapest product, often we are purchasing the product from a producer who has workplace practices that are just as bad, if not worse, than slavery. Even if you purchase products from high-end stores, you are still likely to be purchasing from an abusive, third-world sector. The recent factory collapse in India is a good example. Just because they do not use the word "slavery" doesn't mean it isn't. And this is going on right now. We blithely ignore it because it would significantly hit our pocketbooks if we were responsible consumers.
If we don't care about it when it is happening right now, why would you expect that anyone would know or care about something that happened over 135 years ago?
Northerners don't tend to be aware of this. Keep in mind that your typical Northerner's family doesn't even seem to predate the Civil War (that obviously can't be completely true, but it seems that way).
Slavery wasn't as much a cultural institution in the North as it was in the South (keep in mind that South Carolina was founded as essentially a slave-based economy), but slavery was quite present in the North. But owning slaves is expensive and that's one reason it died out in the North. It would have died out in Virginia and Kentucky except that it was profitable to raise and sell slaves down the river. But Delaware had some slavery up until the Civil War and New Jersey had de facto slavery for almost as long (they changed the name of it). New York and Boston heavily profited from the early slave trade and New York continued to profit from the interstate slave trade until right up till the Civil War.
My family came over in the 1600's and as far as I can make out from family histories and genealogies, we were working class folk, chasing the dream of "40 acres, a mule, and freedom." We settled in the mountains of Eastern Kentucky where very few people kept slaves. It was all small farms, trapping for fur, and a little moonshine on the side - no need or money for slaves, and yet half of Kentucky was below the Mason Dixon Line. A couple of minor Civil War battles were fought here in Colorado, but very few settlers were slave owners. I believe this to be true of most of the Western US.
Lincoln couldn't have cared less about slavery. Get serious.
Here..in his own words;
from Lincoln's First Inaugural Address....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[b]I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.[/B
Lincoln wanted to end slavery in the Federal territories. He believed slavery would die a natural death if you simply stopped its spread. He didn't think it was possible to simply end slavery in 1860.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunther Rall
That's not what caused the war of northern aggression....despite what you may have "learned" in public school.
If the Civil War began when troops from South Carolina fired on a U.S. fort, why is it the war of Northern aggression? It seems to me that the aggressive act was from South Carolina.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tcrackly
Maine was part of Massachusetts up until 1820 and subsequently followed Ma anti-slavery statute. Maine did benefit substantially in the shipping end of the slave trade. Slavery and Maine
Replace Maine with New Hampshire, then. The point I was making is that immigration isn't why slavery died out in the North. It has more to do with climate.
There is no doubt that Northerners benefited from the institution of slavery. Midwesterners didn't benefit much, if you want to ponder the implications of a Midwesterner President pushing to end slavery in the Federal territories.
Most of us don't care what happened 150 years ago.
Plus,as someone pointed out,most of the northern whites ancestors were not EVEN here yet. Most came between 1880 to 1910.
I reallly don't know why lots of southerner's want to make it seem the south was peaceful and wanted to live their lives and other lada di da.
What about the slaves' lives? How was their life supposed to be peaceful?
Lincoln wanted to end slavery in the Federal territories. He believed slavery would die a natural death if you simply stopped its spread. He didn't think it was possible to simply end slavery in 1860.
Go read post #19 again.Read lincoln's own words.
(LMAO...if the censors have left it up..truth apparently really bothers people here...)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgmwhatever
If the Civil War began when troops from South Carolina fired on a U.S. fort, why is it the war of Northern aggression? It seems to me that the aggressive act was from South Carolina.
South Carolina had peacefully seceded...it was no longer part of the u.s. The u.s can't have forts in foreign countries without permission.
The south offered to pay for the fort and evacuate the northern troops. lincoln didn't want that. He HAD to have his war, so he sent troops to reinforce the fort.
That's an invasion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgm1234556whatever
Replace Maine with New Hampshire, then. The point I was making is that immigration isn't why slavery died out in the North. It has more to do with climate.
Even the southern leaders knew that slavery would die out. Go read some (real) history.
The industrial revolution was just around the corner and machines were doing the work of 20 men.
Now why would anyone want to keep high maintenance farm animals when a machine was faster, cheaper and didn't have to be fed, clothed and supported?
Northerners don't tend to be aware of this. Keep in mind that your typical Northerner's family doesn't even seem to predate the Civil War (that obviously can't be completely true, but it seems that way).
Slavery wasn't as much a cultural institution in the North as it was in the South (keep in mind that South Carolina was founded as essentially a slave-based economy), but slavery was quite present in the North. But owning slaves is expensive and that's one reason it died out in the North. It would have died out in Virginia and Kentucky except that it was profitable to raise and sell slaves down the river. But Delaware had some slavery up until the Civil War and New Jersey had de facto slavery for almost as long (they changed the name of it). New York and Boston heavily profited from the early slave trade and New York continued to profit from the interstate slave trade until right up till the Civil War.
You are spot on about this. The North was as old, if not older, than the South originally. Slaves were employed, forcefully, from the beginning in America, period. Most Northerners are more than aware as American History was rigorously taught in the North.
However, the North was diluted tremendously during the 19th and early part of the 20th centuries. Irish, Italians, Poles, Slavs etc did not tend to migrate South with the exception of the abused Italians in Louisiana's cotton industries. So no, they would not have been as keen or sensitive to it. How could they? They came as low-paid workers for American factories and industries. Their eyes and dreams were pinned to long hours, low pay, and utter squalor for living conditions. A step up.
To say that the North was not aware is ignorant. However, most of history tilts slavery as a Southern tradition, a backbone of the Cotton industry. The South was more of an agrarian society so the dependency for slavery was greater than it ever was in the North OVER TIME. The north shifted to a industrial base much more quickly and therefore relied on immigrant labor. Those immigrants from Europe worked for abysmal wages and eventually founded unions to get their kids out of the factories and what was considered a decent wage. Ford was paying $5 a day when the Model T was being built...that was roughly twice what any other common laborer could get for any other job.
That and the North after all, and for the most part, anti-slavery. Easier to do when you weren't so "agrarian" to be sure but, it's obvious the seeds of anti-slavery started there. Certainly not in the South. Don't judge the North too harshly. They gave quite a few African Americans the first real chance they had in America. Not with a red carpet but, an opportunity nonetheless. No worse than the Irish and Italians living in slums at the time. And besides, I don't recall the South being kind to them at all. Especially AFTER the Civil War. Do you? Enter, the KKK. NOT a Northern tradition but, it found its way up there too.
One need only drive through Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Scranton, Philly, Chicago, Buffalo, TODAY to see the remnants of that industrial age. Drive through Detroit and Cleveland and marvel at the miles of row houses and envision 10-15 people living in each one at the time. Very little of that type of rustbelt exists anywhere in the South. There are a few sharecropper shacks still standing here and there though.
It's ironic that a large portion of the African American population actually migrated North out of the sharecropper fields to the North for those "better" factory jobs. They were actually treated better than in the South....marginally. The North was a better opportunity for them during the early part of the 20th century than the South.
In the end, the African American community should look to the North as their first step up in society and perhaps look at it through those eyes. I don't think they ever got that deal in the South. One could argue that even today it's still more of a struggle to be Black in the South than it is in the North?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
