Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

Jason Whitlock: Colin Kaepernick is a fraud

124678

Comments

  • dncdnc Member Posts: 56,827
    Sledog said:

    Democrats vehemently and violently opposed so it took some tim. They had to be killed to give up slavery.

    Same as it ever was.
    #CancelTheDNC
  • dncdnc Member Posts: 56,827

    Great getting stuck in the minutia of the details as always. My point stands. Chile, Peru, who gives a shit? Where are they now? They died before the abolition from overwork, exhaustion, torture

    This thread went from America was the fucking worst and South America did things the right way along with Europe, to splitting hairs over which shitty SA country was actually the worst for the survival of their slaves, of which they had millions more of than the US ever did.

    Hth, fuck off
    Doogs hate facts
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 111,791 Founders Club
    HHusky said:

    Totally agree. And almost all of us should be grateful our ancestors ended up in America--many were escaping grinding poverty, persecution, prosecution or starvation.

    See also, Australia.
    Still the same today

    There's a reason we have a wall and borders

    So far......
  • SFGbobSFGbob Member Posts: 33,181
    HHusky said:

    Yes and no. It was also a humanitarian impulse. But it is easier to be humanitarian when it doesn't seem to be costing you anything.
    The humanitarian impulse existed here in the US. Jefferson's moral quandary over the issue wasn't unique even with slaveholders. But you're right, it's easy to be magnanimous when it costs you nothing. People have always like to show how "woke" they are even back then.
  • PostGameOrangeSlicesPostGameOrangeSlices Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 27,040 Swaye's Wigwam
    edited July 2020
    dnc said:

    Doogs hate facts
    This is fucking ridiculous. You are better than this.

    The fact is I was correct in the point I was making. You were ignoring the bigger point to focus on whether it was Peru or Chile and it had no bearing on my argument

    Jesus
  • HHuskyHHusky Member Posts: 23,122
    SFGbob said:

    The humanitarian impulse existed here in the US. Jefferson's moral quandary over the issue wasn't unique even with slaveholders. But you're right, it's easy to be magnanimous when it costs you nothing. People have always like to show how "woke" they are even back then.
    And Jefferson stands in huge contrast to Washington, despite the fact they both recognized the moral issue. Washington tried to do something--posthumously, and not enough for cancel culture, I'm sure. But something! Jefferson's debts were enormous, which may explain why he actually did little to address the issue, even posthumously.
  • HouhuskyHouhusky Member Posts: 5,537
    The US didnt abolish slavery first but it was the first country founded on the ideals of the Scottish Enlightenment, natural/inalienable rights, and individual liberty.

    The articles of confederation (the first Constitution of the US) was signed by 48 people from 13 states, all signers exhibited considerable aversion to slavery except for those from South Carolina and Georgia. The compromise, in 1787, was that all new states admitted to the union in what was considered then to be the Northwest territory (Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and the part of Minnesota) would be slave free states. Haiti, significantly smaller, was the first country in the Western Hemisphere to ban slavery in 1804.

    The US was ahead of its time in the ratification of law setting aside significant land that would exist as slave free. If not for having to fight the American Revolution the US would have very likely had the stomach and resources to abolish slavery outright within its boarders upon its formation.

    The foundation of the country was largely set by anti slavery economists and philosophers like Adam Smith, Benjamin Rush, Arthur Lee, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Thomas Paine, and Thomas Jefferson.
  • TurdBomberTurdBomber Member Posts: 20,004 Standard Supporter

    No, the U.S. abolishing slavery in the 1860s was not a trailblazing act. Like I said, most of Europe and the Americas had already done it prior, in some cases by hundreds of years. That a lot of those same countries still held slaves in their colonies doesn't conflict with that fact.

    You should try struggling to grasp that a little less.
    Um, yes, young man. Yes it does. Completely and unequivocally.
  • dncdnc Member Posts: 56,827

    This is fucking ridiculous. You are better than this.

    The fact is I was correct in the point I was making. You were ignoring the bigger point to focus on whether it was Peru or Chile and it had no bearing on my argument

    Jesus
    But it does have a bearing on your argument because if that .5 million was spread between Peru and Chile than neither imported more than the US.
  • TurdBomberTurdBomber Member Posts: 20,004 Standard Supporter
    edited July 2020
    SFGbob said:

    That's not a accident that you don't know that. That information is intentionally downplayed.
    I'd venture a guess that 95% of BLM activists and Allies are completely unaware of this, too.

    And probably 85% of the entire US population, because it hurts the Narrative.
  • dncdnc Member Posts: 56,827
    Houhusky said:

    The US didnt abolish slavery first but it was the first country founded on the ideals of the Scottish Enlightenment, natural/inalienable rights, and individual liberty.

    The articles of confederation (the first Constitution of the US) was signed by 48 people from 13 states, all signers exhibited considerable aversion to slavery except for those from South Carolina and Georgia. The compromise, in 1787, was that all new states admitted to the union in what was considered then to be the Northwest territory (Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and the part of Minnesota) would be slave free states. Haiti, significantly smaller, was the first country in the Western Hemisphere to ban slavery in 1804.

    The US was ahead of its time in the ratification of law setting aside significant land that would exist as slave free. If not for having to fight the American Revolution the US would have very likely had the stomach and resources to abolish slavery outright within its boarders upon its formation.

    The foundation of the country was largely set by anti slavery economists and philosophers like Adam Smith, Benjamin Rush, Arthur Lee, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Thomas Paine, and Thomas Jefferson.

    This is a very quality post.

    The reality of US involvement in slavery is complicated. We were basically held hostage by a fairly small minority of slave owners for a long damn time until we finally got pissed enough about it to elect a President from an abolitionist party and the slavers got so triggered that they seceded.
  • dncdnc Member Posts: 56,827

    I'd venture a guess that 95% of BLM activists and Allies are completely unaware of this, too.
    I'd wager it wouldn't change much if they were, though I agree more knowledge and understanding of history is always better.
  • PostGameOrangeSlicesPostGameOrangeSlices Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 27,040 Swaye's Wigwam
    edited July 2020
    dnc said:

    But it does have a bearing on your argument because if that .5 million was spread between Peru and Chile than neither imported more than the US.
    Again focused on the smaller details and not the big picture.

    As if Chile having 400,000 and Peru 100,000 makes a fucking difference when neither country has barely any black people. If they were like the US they would have millions.


    Im right. Case closed. Fuck off.
  • TurdBomberTurdBomber Member Posts: 20,004 Standard Supporter

    Exactly. On a global scale the lucky slaves ended up in America. It's why we have 30 million plus African Americans in this country who have a huge influence on culture, pop culture, our economy, etc.

    How come Chile doesnt have many black people in it? They had the same amount of slaves as the US according to those charts...

    Because the Spanish were indescribably cruel to everyone and most slaves in Spanish countries died

    It is blowing my mind that more people dont know this
    Don't even get me started on Cortez's killing sprees throughout today's Mexico. Amazing Brutality.
  • LebamDawgLebamDawg Member Posts: 8,771 Standard Supporter
    well we? might as well cover the darker side of this issue also

    black ownership of slaves - it is an informative article

    https://www.africanamerica.org/topic/did-black-people-own-slaves

    So what do the actual numbers of black slave owners and their slaves tell us? In 1830, the year most carefully studied by Carter G. Woodson, about 13.7 percent (319,599) of the black population was free. Of these, 3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves, out of a total of 2,009,043 slaves owned in the entire United States, so the numbers of slaves owned by black people over all was quite small by comparison with the number owned by white people.
  • TurdBomberTurdBomber Member Posts: 20,004 Standard Supporter
    dnc said:

    I'd wager it wouldn't change much if they were, though I agree more knowledge and understanding of history is always better.
    Would they at least start burning Brazilian Flags, too? Fair is Fair.
  • dncdnc Member Posts: 56,827
    LebamDawg said:

    well we? might as well cover the darker side of this issue also

    black ownership of slaves - it is an informative article

    https://www.africanamerica.org/topic/did-black-people-own-slaves

    So what do the actual numbers of black slave owners and their slaves tell us? In 1830, the year most carefully studied by Carter G. Woodson, about 13.7 percent (319,599) of the black population was free. Of these, 3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves, out of a total of 2,009,043 slaves owned in the entire United States, so the numbers of slaves owned by black people over all was quite small by comparison with the number owned by white people.

    It's interesting but basically a historical footnote.
  • NorthwestFreshNorthwestFresh Member Posts: 7,972
    dnc said:

    It's interesting but basically a historical footnote.
    Do the descendants of the slave-owning blacks get reparations for their great-great-great grandpop holding slaves? Or are they pitching in with me, whose ancestors didn’t hit the shore of the States until 1910? Take up some slack.
  • TurdBomberTurdBomber Member Posts: 20,004 Standard Supporter
    dnc said:

    It's interesting but basically a historical footnote.
    Ah. So it's not the institution of slavery that's the problem. It's the number you own.

    How many slaves can a person own without getting in trouble, then?
Sign In or Register to comment.