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.
I have to be honest and say that despite me not caring for most of Obama's ideology, and efforts to socialize our country (aka significantly transform us), I never really cared what his racial makeup was.
Even more important, the sins of his ancestors are irrelevant to what he is as a person.
To use two hypothetical examples, if a white kid of KKK parents goes on to be a decent human being, the sins of his parents are irrelevant to the person he is.
So lets take the opposite side of the hypothetical example to further drive home the point.
If MLK came from radical black parents who were members of the Black Panthers, that does taint who he was as a person?
Heck if anything it would be a virtue that he overcame the hatefulness of his parents, and went on to be a man of peace.
That may be completely rational, but that's not how the left's "cancel culture" works. To the left, everyone is responsible and liable for what their predecessors did, hence all the demands for reparations, etc. So, sorry, Obama's guilty because the white side of his family owned slaves.
How do Black plantation owners get a pass in your imagined scenario?
Because not a single one of them was in a position to create or pass laws that strengthened the institution of Slavery. They were powerless to change the system. It might surprise people to know that it was not uncommon for an ardent abolitionist to own slaves. They did what people still do today. If you have a considerable amount of money you turn it into something more valuable than cash. Slave barons held so much power that they made holding slaves more valuable than holding cash.
I disagree. White people were mainly concerned with two things, miscegenation and labor. You can see the same thing in other countries, such as South Africa under Apartheid.
When people think of the American Civil War they don't usually think of communism. But Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto in 1848 during the European Revolutions. And labor was a very big concern for Northern whites.
Slavery depressed low-skilled wages and created a massive gap between rich and poor. Abraham Lincoln's Vice President, Andrew Johnson, was practically a socialist. He wanted to end slavery because he hated the "planter class"(IE the billionaire-class) of the south, and he wanted to carve up their plantations and give the land to free white people. At the same time, Lincoln pushed through the Homestead Act, which gave land away for free across the territories.
Prior to the homestead act, land was auctioned off in large tracts, but the only people who could afford it were rich investors who could buy it in bulk for much lower-than-market prices. And who would then sell it for huge profits or turn it into sprawling plantations.
The reason northern whites wanted to prevent the spread of slavery into the territories was because they didn't want to have to compete against slave-labor. As Lincoln said....
"Whether slavery shall go into Nebraska, or other new territories, is not a matter of exclusive concern to the people who may go there. The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of free white people. This they cannot be, to any considerable extent, if slavery shall be planted within them. Slave States are places for poor white people to remove FROM; not to remove TO. New free States are the places for poor people to go to and better their condition."
A poor white farmer could only have a decent life in a free-state. In a slave-state he would either be ground into poverty or put out of business entirely. By abolishing slavery and giving poor whites free land through the homestead acts, it allowed the small white farmer the opportunity to live a good life. This is partly why the State of Oklahoma was one of the most-socialist states at the turn of the century. Which probably seems a bit strange to Oklahomans today.
I agree with the bolded. Slavery was harmful not beneficial to most whites. I suspect it's why my ancestors left Virginia for a free state before the Civil War. Whites were mostly then as now ambivalent about blacks.
Which brings us to the second issue, miscegenation. This should come as no surprise to anyone, but Americans were incredibly racist, and northerners were far more racist than southerners. Northerners were appalled by all the miscegenation happening in the south. The real evil of slavery was it was producing so many mulattos, all of which "out-of-wedlock". The Christian religion was being undermined by this abomination, with the exploitation of women everywhere. They wanted to end slavery for moral reasons, and to keep from having brown grandchildren.
And as much as Americans want to yell to the heavens how they're not racist. I think the vast majority of white American parents are still overwhelmingly opposed to their daughter dating "outside her race". They may not say it out loud, and they may try to frame it out of genuine concern for her well-being, but in their heart they have to know what it is.
Basically, slavery was breeding an entire country of mulattos, and had the Confederacy seceded, it would have looked exactly like Brazil today. Ironically, those racist southern whites were actually saved by the North from slavery.
I agree with the bolded but not all of the rest. Slavery was harmful not beneficial to most whites. I suspect it's why my ancestors left Virginia for a free state before the Civil War. Being benevolent to white homesteaders has nothing to do with Communism or Socialism really. Benevolence is an ancient British and Colonial and Christian concept of doing right by fellow man. Whites were mostly then as now ambivalent about blacks.
I don't think being opposed to miscegenation makes one racist or bad in any way. It's just normal and natural to want to preserve your ancestry. Most mixed race people were born after the 1964 Civil Rights Act and similar changes after that time. America is looking and becoming more like Brazil today.
Who are these generalized and all encompassing "whites" you are referring to?
[HINT] I know the answer, but want to see if you do.
Needless to say the correct answer does not lend itself to the current collective guilt you think all white people should feel.
`
You put those parameters on what I said, not me. I also never said anything about wanting white people anyone to feel guilty. Again, that is something that you put parameters on. You're answering a question with a question that isn't relevant to mine.
Whites not only kept those Africans enslaved after bringing them to America, they continued to keep them enslaved for generations. That's after whites had already slaughtered and waged war on the indigenous people of America.
^
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vector1
Who are these generalized and all encompassing "whites" you are referring to?
[HINT] I know the answer, but want to see if you do.
Needless to say the correct answer does not lend itself to the current collective guilt you think all white people should feel.
`
Quote:
Originally Posted by KodeBlue
You put those parameters on what I said, not me. I also never said anything about wanting white people anyone to feel guilty. Again, that is something that you put parameters on. You're answering a question with a question that isn't relevant to mine.
Your own words quoted in my reply above are fairly easy to understand. The ubiquitous "white people" did XYZ, according not to me or Joe Blow, but rather by you.
So I have asked you who these "white people" were prior to America even starting their fledgling experiment in the late 18th century?
Not to put too fine a point on it, but if white people enslaved blacks prior to America, and SOME (my distinction, not yours) continued the practice, who if anyone should bear the responsibility for having done so.
The X % that did, or every white person, even those who fought and died to bring the abhorrent practice to an end?
Last, my third question relates to the "whites" having slaughtered and waged war on the indigenous people of America.
Are you taking about the various whites from a variety of countries (i.e. not Americans) who did XYZ against the red people. If so, which specific people of a white extraction did the aforementioned evil to the red people?
Last bonus question, if you care to answer.
Are you aware of which various red people (i.e. tribes ) were literally "slaughtering" other red people well before the white man ever set foot on the North American continent?
Whites not only kept those Africans enslaved after bringing them to America, they continued to keep them enslaved for generations. That's after whites had already slaughtered and waged war on the indigenous people of America.
How many wars have Blacks waged and how much slaughtering have they done? Your whiny complaints in hope of scapegoating Whites are silly and sad.
Blacks slaughter "and wage war" on themselves in both the United States and Africa, as well as have the highest inter-racial murder rates in the West. Are you sure that you are up for accounting based politics?
If so and this system is destroyed, what system will protect you enough to allow for your continued free speech and racially motivated political agitation?
Generalizing those actions to "Whites" is extremely racist. The truth is that slave owning was primarily relegated to certain tribes, but also within the wealthy class. Hundreds of millions of Whites who, had nothing to do with slavery have arrived or have been born here since. They often had extremely difficult lives, but their relatives don't complain like you do or even complain like the relatives of post-slavery African immigrants. You are looking a gift horse in the mouth, and will likely be the cause of his demise.
"Whites" were and still are trafficked for slavery across East and Central Europe, the Near East, and Turkey for centuries.
Twenty of them were plowing together, with double teams and heavy plows. They were superintended by a Negro man who carried a whip, which he frequently cracked at them
Quote:
I think it told a more painful story than any I had ever heard, of the cruelty of slavery. It was emphasized by a tall and powerful Negro who walked to and fro in the rear of the line, frequently cracking his whip, and calling out in the surliest manner, to one and another, 'Shove your hoe, there! Shove your hoe!' But I never saw him strike anyone with the whip.
How many wars have Blacks waged and how much slaughtering have they done? Your whiny complaints in hope of scapegoating Whites are silly and sad.
Blacks slaughter "and wage war" on themselves in both the United States and Africa, as well as have the highest inter-racial murder rates in the West. Are you sure that you are up for accounting based politics?
If so and this system is destroyed, what system will protect you enough to allow for your continued free speech and racially motivated political agitation?
Generalizing those actions to "Whites" is extremely racist. The truth is that slave owning was primarily relegated to certain tribes, but also within the wealthy class. Hundreds of millions of Whites who, had nothing to do with slavery have arrived or have been born here since. They often had extremely difficult lives, but their relatives don't complain like you do or even complain like the relatives of post-slavery African immigrants. You are looking a gift horse in the mouth, and will likely be the cause of his demise.
"Whites" were and still are trafficked for slavery across East and Central Europe, the Near East, and Turkey for centuries.
Your post has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I won't even get into the hypocrisy of it. I rather you address what I'm in talking about.
The Union
didn't fight the confederacy to end slavery. Slavery was abolished for political reasons, not moral reasons. And literally everyone in the Union hated black people and wanted them removed from the country. The only reason they weren't was because there was no where to send them. Abraham Lincoln begged black people to leave.
Uh- no. Slavery was the issue. The compromises that were made, making one new territory a free state and another new territory a slave state didn't work. The issue was tearing the nation apart.
From the first it was both moral and political in equal measure. Several attempts to compromise were tried; moving slaves back to Africa was only one of them.
The Emancipation Declaration was indeed a political statement, but it was the only one that could be enforced by arms, so it was the only one that worked.
There were more sinners than saints in everything connected to the slavery issue, that's for sure.
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.
To the left, everyone is responsible and liable for what their predecessors did, hence all the demands for reparations, etc. So, sorry, Obama's guilty because the white side of his family owned slaves.
