Actually, I called the Confederates traitors. The terrorists were the slaveowners and the people who supported their efforts to keep slaves in check.
Dunadan: read the rest of the definitions. One of them says:
Terrorism is the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear through violence or its threat.
Oh hey, that sounds like what they were doing to slaves.
your definition means muggers are terrorists, bullies are terrorists, people who intimidate other people are terrorists, mothers who discipline their children are terrorists. do you see why this is a problem? or do you need me to write a damn essay about it before you admit that you just want to apply a republican buzz word to a specific group that you don't like.
or maybe everyones a terrorist.
Pretty much. It's why the term is a crapshoot and primarily reserved for hyperbole.
saying that the white people oppressing black slaves were terrorists is a misuse of the term. wite people didn't use terror as a means of oppresion, they used outright force.
And, honestly, to say that white slave owners just used force and not fear to control and oppress blacks is so absolutely disingenuous that it blows my mind. What do you think the KKK and cross burning were?
i hear the KKK were burning crosses before the civil war.... they used time machines....
Read a history book. Slavery continued to exist after the Civil War. Or you can just make more bullshit jokes to show that you don't really know what you're talking about. Your choice.
Pretty much. It's why the term is a crapshoot and primarily reserved for hyperbole.
And, honestly, to say that white slave owners just used force and not fear to control and oppress blacks is so absolutely disingenuous that it blows my mind. What do you think the KKK and cross burning were?
The KKK (don't know about crossburning) didn't exist until after the war was over. It was formed with the intention of oppressing freed slaves and had nothing to do with maintaining the slave system.
Slavery was undoubtedly evil, but I don't know if I would use 'terrorism' as a means to describe its perpetuation. It would be more accurate to say that the ruling authorities in slave areas were simply inhumanly brutal. Cruelty and disregard for human rights does not equal terrorism, which (I thought) was the use of violence to achieve some political/religious/whatever/ goal - usually by a non-state actor.
Actually, the idea behind the KKK was to terrorize blacks so that they would willingly return to being slaves. It also served to intimidate former slaves (though, in all actuality, they still were slaves) from running off from their plantations or trying to flee to territories which were complying with Lincoln's orders to free the slaves. Slavery didn't just magically end after the Civil War like a lot of people think. I'm not saying you hold this view, but many do seem to think that the war ended and then all the slave owners were like, "well shit... Off ya go n***ers, you're free to roam wild plains now." A lot of people also don't seem to realize that there were free blacks in the South that also owned slaves. Not many by any means, but there were some. There were also white slaves. And guess what? Not all slaves were unwittingly snatched up from Africa by white men. Most were sold to the Europeans (primarily the Dutch) by rivaling African tribes.
wow, you don't get it do you. cross burning wasn't introduced until 1915..... you are fucking wrong and need to check your facts. the original clan was only active for about 2 years and was mostly just a bunch of disorganized groups doing random acts of violence.
Who needed the Klan when you had randomly organized white mobs to lynch uppity negroes and riot through black communities? Then you had the vigilante groups that were the forebears of the Klan that waged campaigns of intimidation against blacks and Northerners.
Who needed the Klan when you had randomly organized white mobs to lynch uppity negroes and riot through black communities? Then you had the vigilante groups that were the forebears of the Klan that waged campaigns of intimidation against blacks and Northerners.
Yup. Lynchings never happened in the North. Racism also doesn't exist up there.
Who needed the Klan when you had randomly organized white mobs to lynch uppity negroes and riot through black communities? Then you had the vigilante groups that were the forebears of the Klan that waged campaigns of intimidation against blacks and Northerners.
Yup. Lynchings never happened in the North. Racism also doesn't exist up there.
Who needed the Klan when you had randomly organized white mobs to lynch uppity negroes and riot through black communities? Then you had the vigilante groups that were the forebears of the Klan that waged campaigns of intimidation against blacks and Northerners.
Yup. Lynchings never happened in the North. Racism also doesn't exist up there.
This negates what I said how? Oh that's right, it doesn't. Just because bad things were happening up north doesn't mean atrocious shit wasn't happening in the south. And we're talking about the Confederacy, which was the South, so stop trying to change the fucking subject.
What are we talking about now? Trucker hats and NASCAR or literature, music and the like? They're not the same thing.
The literature and music are pretty awesome. Plus I love the food. Can't get enough of barbecue.
Just don't like the social atmosphere. It seems that everything positive is harder to implement in the South. And the freaking Bible Belt. My view is a bit skewed though since it comes mostly from TV and internet. The big cities probably aren't all that different from the North, and rural areas suck everywhere.
Southern Lit is awesome (Faulkner woo) but I can't stand southern food. If it's not fried and/or pork you're probably not getting it.
Also some stuff is considered 'Southern' that really has no right to be - like the KY Derby. It's in Louisville, which about as southern as St. Louis.
Funny how, being born and raised down here, I may have a pretty decent idea of what sucks and what's good about the south. Southern cooking/soul food? Great. Pride in the Confederacy? Bad. Southern hospitality? Awesome. People making dim excuses for still flying the Confederate flag? Retarded. Feel free to contradict me though.
Funny how, being born and raised down here, I may have a pretty decent idea of what sucks and what's good about the south. Southern cooking/soul food? Great. Pride in the Confederacy? Bad. Southern hospitality? Awesome. People making dim excuses for still flying the Confederate flag? Retarded. Feel free to contradict me though.
i'd much rather just let you have your opinion while shaking my head at the generalizations.
Who needed the Klan when you had randomly organized white mobs to lynch uppity negroes and riot through black communities? Then you had the vigilante groups that were the forebears of the Klan that waged campaigns of intimidation against blacks and Northerners.
Yup. Lynchings never happened in the North. Racism also doesn't exist up there.
Funny how, being born and raised down here, I may have a pretty decent idea of what sucks and what's good about the south. Southern cooking/soul food? Great. Pride in the Confederacy? Bad. Southern hospitality? Awesome. People making dim excuses for still flying the Confederate flag? Retarded. Feel free to contradict me though.
i'd much rather just let you have your opinion while shaking my head at the generalizations.
I think "the Confederacy sucked and being proud of it is nonsensical" and "the Confederate Flag is a symbol of terrible shit, who with any sense wants to be associated with it" are pretty decent generalizations. I don't, however, think those generalizations are applicable to the majority of Southerners.
According to that list, Massachusetts didn't have anything happen and Missiouri is more equal than I thought!
Yeah when New England has two total lynchings during that time and both are of white guys, I feel fairly justified in saying lynchings essentially didn't happen in the North
Funny how, being born and raised down here, I may have a pretty decent idea of what sucks and what's good about the south. Southern cooking/soul food? Great. Pride in the Confederacy? Bad. Southern hospitality? Awesome. People making dim excuses for still flying the Confederate flag? Retarded. Feel free to contradict me though.
i'd much rather just let you have your opinion while shaking my head at the generalizations.
I think "the Confederacy sucked and being proud of it is nonsensical" and "the Confederate Flag is a symbol of terrible shit, who with any sense wants to be associated with it" are pretty decent generalizations. I don't, however, think those generalizations are applicable to the majority of Southerners.
your opinion. im not gonna waste time trying to change it, you are pretty set in the confederate = evil, terrorist, traitor, slave owners, rapists and murderers....
According to that list, Massachusetts didn't have anything happen and Missiouri is more equal than I thought!
Yeah when New England has two total lynchings during that time and both are of white guys, I feel fairly justified in saying lynchings essentially didn't happen in the North
Well that's a bit unfair because New England, at the time, did include Connecticut and New York.
But it's more unfair because the Union was bigger than New England.
Who needed the Klan when you had randomly organized white mobs to lynch uppity negroes and riot through black communities? Then you had the vigilante groups that were the forebears of the Klan that waged campaigns of intimidation against blacks and Northerners.
Yup. Lynchings never happened in the North. Racism also doesn't exist up there.
Funny how, being born and raised down here, I may have a pretty decent idea of what sucks and what's good about the south. Southern cooking/soul food? Great. Pride in the Confederacy? Bad. Southern hospitality? Awesome. People making dim excuses for still flying the Confederate flag? Retarded. Feel free to contradict me though.
i'd much rather just let you have your opinion while shaking my head at the generalizations.
I think "the Confederacy sucked and being proud of it is nonsensical" and "the Confederate Flag is a symbol of terrible shit, who with any sense wants to be associated with it" are pretty decent generalizations. I don't, however, think those generalizations are applicable to the majority of Southerners.
your opinion. im not gonna waste time trying to change it, you are pretty set in the confederate = evil, terrorist, traitor, slave owners, rapists and murderers....
Good idea. Trying to change the opinion of a black dude about the goodness (or lack thereof) of the Confederacy isn't a good use of anyone's time. I like how you castigate me for having unreasonable opinions, then don't even assign the proper opinions to me. For the record, people who supported the Confederacy certainly were traitors to the United States and enablers of slavery or slave owners. Murderers and rapists, sure, a small percentage of Confederates were. Terrorists? Absolutely, if they were involved in violence used to intimidate slaves and black people in the South. And I can't think of one good thing that happened thanks to the Confederacy. As for evil, a lot was done in the Confederacy and in the Confederacy's name, but I generally hesitate to call anyone evil. It's such a nebulous term that it tends to have very little useful meaning.
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited February 2009
I think we need to be a little bit clearer about whether we are talking about the modern South (which in general is a shithole, but generalizations are not good descriptors of specific people) and the Confederacy. Also, I still disagree that the Confederacy was a terrorist organization, but that's a disagreement over semantics, rather than any qualitative difference how how much they sucked.
I'm more curious if he's still as bitter towards the African people that originally conquered, captured and sold the remaining living as slaves as he is to the southern american traitors (who were descendants of the English traitors from Great Britian) that subsequently bought, used as farm animals, and often resold them.
I'm more curious if he's still as bitter towards the African people that originally conquered, captured and sold the remaining living as slaves as he is to the southern american traitors (who were descendants of the English traitors from Great Britian) that subsequently bought, used as farm animals, and often resold them.
Nah, not much bitterness towards them. It might be because they didn't spend the subsequent 500 years grinding black people under their boot. Incidentally, this is probably why throwing out the whole "well Africans sold other Africans to the white slavers" is a poor way to deflect the conversation about American slavery and the actions of white people in perpetuating the institution.
I'm more curious if he's still as bitter towards the African people that originally conquered, captured and sold the remaining living as slaves as he is to the southern american traitors (who were descendants of the English traitors from Great Britian) that subsequently bought, used as farm animals, and often resold them.
Oh I'm sure he's positively thrilled about the existence of African tribal warfare--can't get enough of it. Jesus Christ, this is a stupid thing to say.
I'm more curious if he's still as bitter towards the African people that originally conquered, captured and sold the remaining living as slaves as he is to the southern american traitors (who were descendants of the English traitors from Great Britian) that subsequently bought, used as farm animals, and often resold them.
Oh I'm sure he's positively thrilled about the existence of African tribal warfare--can't get enough of it. Jesus Christ, this is a stupid thing to say.
I hadn't really considered that angle, but now that I do, I feel even less bitterness. It's not like living in Africa is generally all that awesome, and many parts of the continent are still suffering the effects of tribal politics. Besides, they got it as badly, if not worse, from white people than American blacks did. I think the African slavers and their ancestors have probably paid their karmic debt by now, with interest.
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
edited February 2009
Also slavery as practiced in Africa was really a whole different thing from slavery as it developed in the New World. It's been a long time since I studied this, but IIRC African slavery was not always perpetual and generally did not extend to a slave's children.
I'm more curious if he's still as bitter towards the African people that originally conquered, captured and sold the remaining living as slaves as he is to the southern american traitors (who were descendants of the English traitors from Great Britian) that subsequently bought, used as farm animals, and often resold them.
Oh I'm sure he's positively thrilled about the existence of African tribal warfare--can't get enough of it. Jesus Christ, this is a stupid thing to say.
Besides that, the slavery practiced in the Americas (and maybe Europe and Exodus) was unique, in that no other group made slavery heritable or racial, so that the Africans were actually selling the slaves under the assumption that it'd only last for ten years tops, an assumption that the Europeans quickly decided not to honor.
A black state senator is pushing a bill that would require South Carolina cities and counties to give their workers a paid day off for Confederate Memorial Day or lose millions in state funds.
Democratic Sen. Robert Ford's bill won initial approval from a Senate subcommittee Tuesday. It would force county and municipal governments to follow the schedule of holidays used by the state, which gives workers 12 paid days off, including May 10 to honor Confederate war dead. Mississippi and Alabama also recognize Confederate Memorial Day.
Years ago, Ford said, he pushed a bill to make both that day and Martin Luther King Jr. Day paid holidays. He considered it an effort to help people understand the history of both the civil rights movement and the Confederacy in a state where the Orders of Secession are engraved in marble in the Statehouse lobby, portraits of Confederate generals look down on legislators in their chambers and the Confederate flag flies outside.
Seems like a compromise that isn't the worst thing in the world. But is the senator a racist? I'll let you decide.
He's retarded. Confederate Memorial Day? There's a freaking Confederate Memorial Day now?
What part of they were traitors who fought to keep slavery U.S. doesn't understand? I seriously don't know any other country that would honor a treasonous faction that tried to secede from the rest of the country like this. The Finnish Civil War certainly is as far from being a thing of pride as possible. And nobody tried to keep their right to perform a horrible crime against humanity on that one.
In addition to the Confederates being traitors, do we really need separate paid holidays for every specific war? Why not one for WWI or the War of 1812? We already have a day for every American soldier who ever died - Memorial Day. Maybe I'll hit up Vegas for the long weekend on Barbary Wars Memorial Day.
...to the shores of Tripoli...
20 on red, and where's that girl with my Long Island?
I'm more curious if he's still as bitter towards the African people that originally conquered, captured and sold the remaining living as slaves as he is to the southern american traitors (who were descendants of the English traitors from Great Britian) that subsequently bought, used as farm animals, and often resold them.
Oh I'm sure he's positively thrilled about the existence of African tribal warfare--can't get enough of it. Jesus Christ, this is a stupid thing to say.
Besides that, the slavery practiced in the Americas (and maybe Europe and Exodus) was unique, in that no other group made slavery heritable or racial, so that the Africans were actually selling the slaves under the assumption that it'd only last for ten years tops, an assumption that the Europeans quickly decided not to honor.
You could argue that the caste system in India, which predates American slavery, is a very similar kind of system.
matt has a problem on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
I'm more curious if he's still as bitter towards the African people that originally conquered, captured and sold the remaining living as slaves as he is to the southern american traitors (who were descendants of the English traitors from Great Britian) that subsequently bought, used as farm animals, and often resold them.
Oh I'm sure he's positively thrilled about the existence of African tribal warfare--can't get enough of it. Jesus Christ, this is a stupid thing to say.
I hadn't really considered that angle, but now that I do, I feel even less bitterness. It's not like living in Africa is generally all that awesome, and many parts of the continent are still suffering the effects of tribal politics. Besides, they got it as badly, if not worse, from white people than American blacks did. I think the African slavers and their ancestors have probably paid their karmic debt by now, with interest.
Well, the reason I even bother to bring it up in these conversations is because I love how the north/south slave debate totally gets recycled over and over while the Native Americans (to whom I have heritage in more than one strain) got fucked a lot more by the American people as a whole, but nobody gives a shit.
I'm more curious if he's still as bitter towards the African people that originally conquered, captured and sold the remaining living as slaves as he is to the southern american traitors (who were descendants of the English traitors from Great Britian) that subsequently bought, used as farm animals, and often resold them.
Oh I'm sure he's positively thrilled about the existence of African tribal warfare--can't get enough of it. Jesus Christ, this is a stupid thing to say.
Besides that, the slavery practiced in the Americas (and maybe Europe and Exodus) was unique, in that no other group made slavery heritable or racial, so that the Africans were actually selling the slaves under the assumption that it'd only last for ten years tops, an assumption that the Europeans quickly decided not to honor.
You really think that the African kings were such suckers that some Europeans came by and said "We're going to buy these people from you, and take them across the ocean, but we'll totally let them go, honest" and they believed them, and didn't figure it out even after none of them came back for two hundred years?
I'm more curious if he's still as bitter towards the African people that originally conquered, captured and sold the remaining living as slaves as he is to the southern american traitors (who were descendants of the English traitors from Great Britian) that subsequently bought, used as farm animals, and often resold them.
Oh I'm sure he's positively thrilled about the existence of African tribal warfare--can't get enough of it. Jesus Christ, this is a stupid thing to say.
I hadn't really considered that angle, but now that I do, I feel even less bitterness. It's not like living in Africa is generally all that awesome, and many parts of the continent are still suffering the effects of tribal politics. Besides, they got it as badly, if not worse, from white people than American blacks did. I think the African slavers and their ancestors have probably paid their karmic debt by now, with interest.
Well, the reason I even bother to bring it up in these conversations is because I love how the north/south slave debate totally gets recycled over and over while the Native Americans (to whom I have heritage in more than one strain) got fucked a lot more by the American people as a whole, but nobody gives a shit.
what you 'brought up' has nothing to do with american indian policy.
I'm more curious if he's still as bitter towards the African people that originally conquered, captured and sold the remaining living as slaves as he is to the southern american traitors (who were descendants of the English traitors from Great Britian) that subsequently bought, used as farm animals, and often resold them.
Oh I'm sure he's positively thrilled about the existence of African tribal warfare--can't get enough of it. Jesus Christ, this is a stupid thing to say.
Besides that, the slavery practiced in the Americas (and maybe Europe and Exodus) was unique, in that no other group made slavery heritable or racial, so that the Africans were actually selling the slaves under the assumption that it'd only last for ten years tops, an assumption that the Europeans quickly decided not to honor.
You really think that the African kings were such suckers that some Europeans came by and said "We're going to buy these people from you, and take them across the ocean, but we'll totally let them go, honest" and they believed them, and didn't figure it out even after none of them came back for two hundred years?
I think being under the yoke of European colonialism may have distracted them a little.
I'm more curious if he's still as bitter towards the African people that originally conquered, captured and sold the remaining living as slaves as he is to the southern american traitors (who were descendants of the English traitors from Great Britian) that subsequently bought, used as farm animals, and often resold them.
Oh I'm sure he's positively thrilled about the existence of African tribal warfare--can't get enough of it. Jesus Christ, this is a stupid thing to say.
Besides that, the slavery practiced in the Americas (and maybe Europe and Exodus) was unique, in that no other group made slavery heritable or racial, so that the Africans were actually selling the slaves under the assumption that it'd only last for ten years tops, an assumption that the Europeans quickly decided not to honor.
You really think that the African kings were such suckers that some Europeans came by and said "We're going to buy these people from you, and take them across the ocean, but we'll totally let them go, honest" and they believed them, and didn't figure it out even after none of them came back for two hundred years?
I think being under the yoke of European colonialism may have distracted them a little.
European colonialism in africa didn't take off until after the slave trade was pretty much dead. Even as late as 1800 the europeans only had basically trading posts and bases along the coast. It was not until methods were developed for fighting malaria and tropical diseases that entire nations were brought under colonial rule, for the most part in the 1840s-1900s.
Funny how, being born and raised down here, I may have a pretty decent idea of what sucks and what's good about the south. Southern cooking/soul food? Great. Pride in the Confederacy? Bad. Southern hospitality? Awesome. People making dim excuses for still flying the Confederate flag? Retarded. Feel free to contradict me though.
i'd much rather just let you have your opinion while shaking my head at the generalizations.
I think "the Confederacy sucked and being proud of it is nonsensical" and "the Confederate Flag is a symbol of terrible shit, who with any sense wants to be associated with it" are pretty decent generalizations. I don't, however, think those generalizations are applicable to the majority of Southerners.
your opinion. im not gonna waste time trying to change it, you are pretty set in the confederate = evil, terrorist, traitor, slave owners, rapists and murderers....
If you're too above the discussion to engage, you're free to not post.
There must've been a Not My Problem field over west Africa. Seriously, if you look closer at the way African slavers operated, you'll find that they obtained slaves through conquest, kidnapping, or trade, and the slaves were almost always from enemy tribes. I doubt that they were all that concerned with what would eventually happen to their enemies after they'd sold them off.
I'm more curious if he's still as bitter towards the African people that originally conquered, captured and sold the remaining living as slaves as he is to the southern american traitors (who were descendants of the English traitors from Great Britian) that subsequently bought, used as farm animals, and often resold them.
Oh I'm sure he's positively thrilled about the existence of African tribal warfare--can't get enough of it. Jesus Christ, this is a stupid thing to say.
Besides that, the slavery practiced in the Americas (and maybe Europe and Exodus) was unique, in that no other group made slavery heritable or racial, so that the Africans were actually selling the slaves under the assumption that it'd only last for ten years tops, an assumption that the Europeans quickly decided not to honor.
You really think that the African kings were such suckers that some Europeans came by and said "We're going to buy these people from you, and take them across the ocean, but we'll totally let them go, honest" and they believed them, and didn't figure it out even after none of them came back for two hundred years?
And that's why it's OK to fly the Confederate flag.
And that's why it's OK to fly the Confederate flag.
A classic line of reasoning use in such all time favorites as "And that's why it's OK to be racist" and "And that's why slavery wasn't that bad." From the makers of "It doesn't count if you're in Another State" and "Just this Once" Rationalizations Inc
You gotta love the "Well, other people did it too, so that makes it okay!" reasoning. Oh, and the old classic "How dare you accuse these people of wrongdoings without bringing up every other person who has done something bad ever! HYPOCRITE!!"
Which is of course completely relevant to the discussion, yes siree!
DarkCrawler on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
According to that list, Massachusetts didn't have anything happen and Missiouri is more equal than I thought!
Yeah when New England has two total lynchings during that time and both are of white guys, I feel fairly justified in saying lynchings essentially didn't happen in the North
Hey to be fair other States had their own methods of prejudice.
For instance here in good ol' California we basically just focused on Asians and Latinos.
You gotta love the "Well, other people did it too, so that makes it okay!" reasoning. Oh, and the old classic "How dare you accuse these people of wrongdoings without bringing up every other person who has done something bad ever! HYPOCRITE!!"
Which is of course completely relevant to the discussion, yes siree!
This is in the same vein as "Hitler had a Jewish grandparent", right?
Posts
Who needed the Klan when you had randomly organized white mobs to lynch uppity negroes and riot through black communities? Then you had the vigilante groups that were the forebears of the Klan that waged campaigns of intimidation against blacks and Northerners.
Yup. Lynchings never happened in the North. Racism also doesn't exist up there.
XBL : lJesse Custerl | MWO: Jesse Custer | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
:?:
Relevance?
This negates what I said how? Oh that's right, it doesn't. Just because bad things were happening up north doesn't mean atrocious shit wasn't happening in the south. And we're talking about the Confederacy, which was the South, so stop trying to change the fucking subject.
Also some stuff is considered 'Southern' that really has no right to be - like the KY Derby. It's in Louisville, which about as southern as St. Louis.
i'd much rather just let you have your opinion while shaking my head at the generalizations.
Actually no. They essentially didn't. And strawmen suck donkey dick.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I think "the Confederacy sucked and being proud of it is nonsensical" and "the Confederate Flag is a symbol of terrible shit, who with any sense wants to be associated with it" are pretty decent generalizations. I don't, however, think those generalizations are applicable to the majority of Southerners.
Yeah when New England has two total lynchings during that time and both are of white guys, I feel fairly justified in saying lynchings essentially didn't happen in the North
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
your opinion. im not gonna waste time trying to change it, you are pretty set in the confederate = evil, terrorist, traitor, slave owners, rapists and murderers....
Well that's a bit unfair because New England, at the time, did include Connecticut and New York.
But it's more unfair because the Union was bigger than New England.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Secession_map_1865.svg
There's a key towards the bottom middle to explain the colors.
...wow. 91% of all lynchings have happened in the South. o_O
I had no idea that the difference was that huge.
Good idea. Trying to change the opinion of a black dude about the goodness (or lack thereof) of the Confederacy isn't a good use of anyone's time. I like how you castigate me for having unreasonable opinions, then don't even assign the proper opinions to me. For the record, people who supported the Confederacy certainly were traitors to the United States and enablers of slavery or slave owners. Murderers and rapists, sure, a small percentage of Confederates were. Terrorists? Absolutely, if they were involved in violence used to intimidate slaves and black people in the South. And I can't think of one good thing that happened thanks to the Confederacy. As for evil, a lot was done in the Confederacy and in the Confederacy's name, but I generally hesitate to call anyone evil. It's such a nebulous term that it tends to have very little useful meaning.
Nah, not much bitterness towards them. It might be because they didn't spend the subsequent 500 years grinding black people under their boot. Incidentally, this is probably why throwing out the whole "well Africans sold other Africans to the white slavers" is a poor way to deflect the conversation about American slavery and the actions of white people in perpetuating the institution.
Oh I'm sure he's positively thrilled about the existence of African tribal warfare--can't get enough of it. Jesus Christ, this is a stupid thing to say.
I hadn't really considered that angle, but now that I do, I feel even less bitterness. It's not like living in Africa is generally all that awesome, and many parts of the continent are still suffering the effects of tribal politics. Besides, they got it as badly, if not worse, from white people than American blacks did. I think the African slavers and their ancestors have probably paid their karmic debt by now, with interest.
Besides that, the slavery practiced in the Americas (and maybe Europe and Exodus) was unique, in that no other group made slavery heritable or racial, so that the Africans were actually selling the slaves under the assumption that it'd only last for ten years tops, an assumption that the Europeans quickly decided not to honor.
In addition to the Confederates being traitors, do we really need separate paid holidays for every specific war? Why not one for WWI or the War of 1812? We already have a day for every American soldier who ever died - Memorial Day. Maybe I'll hit up Vegas for the long weekend on Barbary Wars Memorial Day.
...to the shores of Tripoli...
20 on red, and where's that girl with my Long Island?
Maybe you could, but that would even be more irrelevant.
Edit: Also I don't think that Brahmins could actually buy and sell untouchables. Maybe they could, I'm no expert.
Well, the reason I even bother to bring it up in these conversations is because I love how the north/south slave debate totally gets recycled over and over while the Native Americans (to whom I have heritage in more than one strain) got fucked a lot more by the American people as a whole, but nobody gives a shit.
You really think that the African kings were such suckers that some Europeans came by and said "We're going to buy these people from you, and take them across the ocean, but we'll totally let them go, honest" and they believed them, and didn't figure it out even after none of them came back for two hundred years?
what you 'brought up' has nothing to do with american indian policy.
arguably the two were of equal badness.
I think being under the yoke of European colonialism may have distracted them a little.
European colonialism in africa didn't take off until after the slave trade was pretty much dead. Even as late as 1800 the europeans only had basically trading posts and bases along the coast. It was not until methods were developed for fighting malaria and tropical diseases that entire nations were brought under colonial rule, for the most part in the 1840s-1900s.
If you're too above the discussion to engage, you're free to not post.
And that's why it's OK to fly the Confederate flag.
A classic line of reasoning use in such all time favorites as "And that's why it's OK to be racist" and "And that's why slavery wasn't that bad." From the makers of "It doesn't count if you're in Another State" and "Just this Once" Rationalizations Inc
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Which is of course completely relevant to the discussion, yes siree!
Hey to be fair other States had their own methods of prejudice.
For instance here in good ol' California we basically just focused on Asians and Latinos.
This is in the same vein as "Hitler had a Jewish grandparent", right?