Vanilla Forums has been nominated for a second time in the CMS Critic "Critic's Choice" awards, and we need your vote! Read more here, and then do the thing (please).
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Confederate Heritage

1262728293032»

Posts

  • TerrendosTerrendos Decorative Monocle Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Duffel wrote: »
    "American slavery" as in slavery that was racially based, permanent, and hereditary. Most historical systems of slavery weren't either of the first two, and since most people didn't have children until their "term" was up the last wasn't usually a problem either. Also, slavery usually didn't lead to prejudice against a given group because in most systems anybody that committed certain crimes/went far enough into debt/whatever could end up as a slave. White people in the US knew it couldn't happen to them, so it was inevitable that whites would justify this by saying that blacks were naturally inferior. Which most white people in this country were doing up until a few decades ago.

    American slavery was a fairly different animal from the things we see in most historical cultures.

    Might you have your cause and effect backwards? I thought that one of the reasons africans were taken as slaves was because white explorers found them in tribes, assumed that it was because they were inferior, and decided to put them to work to get good use of them.

    But I could definitely be wrong. I know that in the early days of British colonization in the US there were black indentured servants who became free men and owned land, etc. So it's entirely possible the slavery came before the prejudice.

    Sig1.png
  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Kagera wrote: »
    Yeah by the time of the Civil War most of the Western world had already moved on to other less obvious forms of forced labor. Like orphaned children and the like.

    Actually there was a fairly big movement in the western world Against child labour. There where also several labour movement demanding fair pay and acceptable working conditions. You guys never heard of them because they where often lead by the comunists.

    Hey I saw Sweeney Todd AND read Oliver Twist, you can't fool me!

    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited February 2009
    Terrendos wrote: »
    Duffel wrote: »
    "American slavery" as in slavery that was racially based, permanent, and hereditary. Most historical systems of slavery weren't either of the first two, and since most people didn't have children until their "term" was up the last wasn't usually a problem either. Also, slavery usually didn't lead to prejudice against a given group because in most systems anybody that committed certain crimes/went far enough into debt/whatever could end up as a slave. White people in the US knew it couldn't happen to them, so it was inevitable that whites would justify this by saying that blacks were naturally inferior. Which most white people in this country were doing up until a few decades ago.

    American slavery was a fairly different animal from the things we see in most historical cultures.

    Might you have your cause and effect backwards? I thought that one of the reasons africans were taken as slaves was because white explorers found them in tribes, assumed that it was because they were inferior, and decided to put them to work to get good use of them.

    But I could definitely be wrong. I know that in the early days of British colonization in the US there were black indentured servants who became free men and owned land, etc. So it's entirely possible the slavery came before the prejudice.

    Back then, they generally held to what most of the tribes expected (which was the same as was done for poor white immigrants). Then they got greedy.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • ShimShamShimSham Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Terrendos wrote: »
    I thought that one of the reasons africans were taken as slaves was because white explorers found them in tribes, assumed that it was because they were inferior, and decided to put them to work to get good use of them.

    But I could definitely be wrong. I know that in the early days of British colonization in the US there were black indentured servants who became free men and owned land, etc. So it's entirely possible the slavery came before the prejudice.
    Actually as Europeans explored the western coast of Africa more and more they encountered small villages of Africans. The more warring African groups had a history of enslaving their captured enemies. As they met Europeans they began to trade slaves to them in exchange for a lot of European items. The Africans weren't wiped out by disease near to the level Native Americans were, so that wasn't a big problem. Being in much closer proximity, they shared many of the same immunities.

    As European powers acquired these slaves, they started to ship them to the Americas, as indentured servitude evolved into a much less cost efficient system.

    Originally, indentured servants were much cheaper than slaves, and life expectancy in the Americas was AWFUL. The servants were brought in based on a contract that promised them land after 3-7 years or so. But so many of the servants died before their masters ever had to give them that land. This explains why slaves weren't in as high of demand, they were more expensive and still likely to die pretty soon.

    But as conditions improved in the Americas, buying slaves over servants became much more cost efficient, since you were buying a person that would likely live for a while and reproduce. And there were still plenty of African and other groups ready to strip the west coast of Africa for slaves. Plus you have to consider that indentured servants were also living and they were redeeming their promise for land, and land as close to the east coast became more and more valuable. With slaves, didn't have that problem.

    DrMario1.jpg
    XBOX LIVE - VAULT BOY 42
  • InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    And slavery almost died out due to simple lack of revenue generation, but then the cotton gin got made.

    B7ozVfx.png
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    And, in a stunning display of stupid combining both the very subject of this thread and general GOP idiocy, a MO congresscritter compared the Freedom of Choice act to "the war of Northern aggression".

    There isn't enough (facepalm) in the world.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • SpeakerSpeaker Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    And, in a stunning display of stupid combining both the very subject of this thread and general GOP idiocy, a MO congresscritter compared the Freedom of Choice act to "the war of Northern aggression".

    There isn't enough (facepalm) in the world.

    What I like is how it mixes with the usual comparison of Roe v. Wade to Dred Scott.

    But come on. When you shrink a party down to the rural South . . . these things happen.

    The Glorious Conquest still begets hard feelings down there.

    Being walkers with the dawn and morning,
    Walkers with the sun and morning, we are not afraid of night,
    Nor days of gloom, nor darkness -
    Being walkers with the sun and morning.
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    And, in a stunning display of stupid combining both the very subject of this thread and general GOP idiocy, a MO congresscritter compared the Freedom of Choice act to "the war of Northern aggression".

    There isn't enough (facepalm) in the world.
    He's actually a state rep, not a congressman.

  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited February 2009
    Thanatos wrote: »
    And, in a stunning display of stupid combining both the very subject of this thread and general GOP idiocy, a MO congresscritter compared the Freedom of Choice act to "the war of Northern aggression".

    There isn't enough (facepalm) in the world.
    He's actually a state rep, not a congressman.

    I don't suppose we have any forumites from that state who are willing to go to a session and play a banjo whenever that guy speaks?

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Thanatos wrote: »
    And, in a stunning display of stupid combining both the very subject of this thread and general GOP idiocy, a MO congresscritter compared the Freedom of Choice act to "the war of Northern aggression".

    There isn't enough (facepalm) in the world.
    He's actually a state rep, not a congressman.

    This is correct.

    The funny thing is, Missouri wasn't even in the Confederacy. Also from the article
    Stevenson immediately retracted his statement, assuring he meant no ill will toward anyone and raising his own Cherokee Indian heritage as proof of his sensitivity to slavery.
    via ThinkProgress, the actual audio

    Republican takes strong stand against slavery

    (A little bit smarmy and transparent on the Cherokee thing but a better handling of this type of thing than most national politicians a la Allen or Lott)

    11793-1.png
    Spoiler:
  • DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    And, in a stunning display of stupid combining both the very subject of this thread and general GOP idiocy, a MO congresscritter compared the Freedom of Choice act to "the war of Northern aggression".

    There isn't enough (facepalm) in the world.

    ...the...War of Northern Agression?

    THE SOUTH FIRED THE FIRST SHOT! Arrgh!

    Though, this is nothing compared to the different words we have for the Finnish Civil War. Let's see...The Civil War, the War of 1918, the People's War, the Rebellion, the Red Rebellion, the War of Brothers/Siblings, the Class War, and the War of Freedom.

  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    And, in a stunning display of stupid combining both the very subject of this thread and general GOP idiocy, a MO congresscritter compared the Freedom of Choice act to "the war of Northern aggression".

    There isn't enough (facepalm) in the world.

    ...the...War of Northern Agression?

    THE SOUTH FIRED THE FIRST SHOT! Arrgh!

    Though, this is nothing compared to the different words we have for the Finnish Civil War. Let's see...The Civil War, the War of 1918, the People's War, the Rebellion, the Red Rebellion, the War of Brothers/Siblings, the Class War, and the War of Freedom.

    There are actually a number of alternate names for the US Civil War ranging from only the slightly slanted "War Between States" (implying equal legitimacy between the Union and Confederacy), to the Second American Revolution or the War for Southern Independence.

    11793-1.png
    Spoiler:
  • ShimShamShimSham Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Am I the only one that calls the "Revolutionary War," the "American War for Independence" ?

    DrMario1.jpg
    XBOX LIVE - VAULT BOY 42
  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    I just call it the American Revolution.

    Also, Ben Franklin's Prank on Europe.

    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
Sign In or Register to comment.