I was taught the food pyramid was the healthiest way to eat. And an ice age was imminent. Also, the world would be out of oil by 1990 and there would be a mass starvation event. However, I was never taught the civil war was about states rights.
This is just the point I originally made, that we get taught things that aren’t true. Bob’s fixation with the specifics of what exactly was taught, predictably, misses the point.
I spent a ton of time reading and learning about the Civil War as a teenager ...
You can’t separate the issues of the late 1850s and leading into the Civil War time period without slavery being a massive issue.
To say it was the only issue though is missing the point a bit.
The Northern states at that point were far more industrial and the South far more agriculturally based. Trying to find common ground was virtually impossible. Slavery obviously the most focal part of the disagreements.
Then far more than now the importance of State’s rights was a paramount issue. To understand that you have to understand the principles as to how the nation was founded and why certain separations and protections were built in to ensure states had influence to keep the federal government from overstepping.
For those that need perspective, understand that Robert E. Lee made his decision on which side to serve on based on the direction of his state. Times have changed obviously.
We also need to understand the lessons of history. We have evolved throughout history but basic principles remain. Knowing how to avoid those pitfalls matters. As a country, we’d be well served right now to understand lessons of the past.
One side betrayed their country and fought a war, that killed 2% of the population, to own human beings. Your centrist “well if you look at both sides” bullshit is not necessary.
I don’t know why they didn’t hold hands, sing kumbaya and drop bombs on foreign countries to settle it like moderates. But sometimes you have to actually fight evil and not just hate both extremes (owning slaves and not owning slaves being the “extremes” in this example”).
I spent a ton of time reading and learning about the Civil War as a teenager ...
You can’t separate the issues of the late 1850s and leading into the Civil War time period without slavery being a massive issue.
To say it was the only issue though is missing the point a bit.
The Northern states at that point were far more industrial and the South far more agriculturally based. Trying to find common ground was virtually impossible. Slavery obviously the most focal part of the disagreements.
Then far more than now the importance of State’s rights was a paramount issue. To understand that you have to understand the principles as to how the nation was founded and why certain separations and protections were built in to ensure states had influence to keep the federal government from overstepping.
For those that need perspective, understand that Robert E. Lee made his decision on which side to serve on based on the direction of his state. Times have changed obviously.
We also need to understand the lessons of history. We have evolved throughout history but basic principles remain. Knowing how to avoid those pitfalls matters. As a country, we’d be well served right now to understand lessons of the past.
One side betrayed their country and fought a war, that killed 2% of the population, to own human beings. Your centrist “well if you look at both sides” bullshit is not necessary.
I don’t know why they didn’t hold hands, sing kumbaya and drop bombs on foreign countries to settle it like moderates. But sometimes you have to actually fight evil and not just hate both extremes (owning slaves and not owning slaves being the “extremes” in this example”).
Which was more evil, @TheKobeStopper: Capturing slaves who look just like you and selling them? Or buying them?
I'm sure it's painful to look at both sides, but weren't both sides deeply involved in that evil?
I spent a ton of time reading and learning about the Civil War as a teenager ...
You can’t separate the issues of the late 1850s and leading into the Civil War time period without slavery being a massive issue.
To say it was the only issue though is missing the point a bit.
The Northern states at that point were far more industrial and the South far more agriculturally based. Trying to find common ground was virtually impossible. Slavery obviously the most focal part of the disagreements.
Then far more than now the importance of State’s rights was a paramount issue. To understand that you have to understand the principles as to how the nation was founded and why certain separations and protections were built in to ensure states had influence to keep the federal government from overstepping.
For those that need perspective, understand that Robert E. Lee made his decision on which side to serve on based on the direction of his state. Times have changed obviously.
We also need to understand the lessons of history. We have evolved throughout history but basic principles remain. Knowing how to avoid those pitfalls matters. As a country, we’d be well served right now to understand lessons of the past.
One side betrayed their country and fought a war, that killed 2% of the population, to own human beings. Your centrist “well if you look at both sides” bullshit is not necessary.
I don’t know why they didn’t hold hands, sing kumbaya and drop bombs on foreign countries to settle it like moderates. But sometimes you have to actually fight evil and not just hate both extremes (owning slaves and not owning slaves being the “extremes” in this example”).
I’d recommend you do a little review of history when it comes to owning human beings and all the variations that looked like.
Indentured servitude was real and ugly but will never hit the current mainstream talking points as readily as slavery. This isn’t trying to claim that one was “better” than the other ... both were terrible and fortunately they’ve both been long rooted out of American society.
Long winded way of saying that if you look back on activities 160+ years ago through the lease of today your going to be missing context. To understand the issues at the time you have to understand why it was what it was at that point. You have to be willing to ask yourself why slavery existed? You have to be willing to ask yourself why indentured servitude existed well over 200+ years ago.
The world then was far different than it is today. Thankfully we continue to evolve and have evolved significantly. Think about it this way ... a child born at the end of the Civil War could have been a great grandchild born in the 1930s ... who is a great grandparent to a child born today. Let’s hope that by the time that child born today becomes a great grandparent the world has continued to significantly evolve for the better.
I spent a ton of time reading and learning about the Civil War as a teenager ...
You can’t separate the issues of the late 1850s and leading into the Civil War time period without slavery being a massive issue.
To say it was the only issue though is missing the point a bit.
The Northern states at that point were far more industrial and the South far more agriculturally based. Trying to find common ground was virtually impossible. Slavery obviously the most focal part of the disagreements.
Then far more than now the importance of State’s rights was a paramount issue. To understand that you have to understand the principles as to how the nation was founded and why certain separations and protections were built in to ensure states had influence to keep the federal government from overstepping.
For those that need perspective, understand that Robert E. Lee made his decision on which side to serve on based on the direction of his state. Times have changed obviously.
We also need to understand the lessons of history. We have evolved throughout history but basic principles remain. Knowing how to avoid those pitfalls matters. As a country, we’d be well served right now to understand lessons of the past.
One side betrayed their country and fought a war, that killed 2% of the population, to own human beings. Your centrist “well if you look at both sides” bullshit is not necessary.
I don’t know why they didn’t hold hands, sing kumbaya and drop bombs on foreign countries to settle it like moderates. But sometimes you have to actually fight evil and not just hate both extremes (owning slaves and not owning slaves being the “extremes” in this example”).
Which was more evil, @TheKobeStopper: Capturing slaves who look just like you and selling them? Or buying them?
I'm sure it's painful to look at both sides, but weren't both sides deeply involved in that evil?
I was taught the food pyramid was the healthiest way to eat. And an ice age was imminent. Also, the world would be out of oil by 1990 and there would be a mass starvation event. However, I was never taught the civil war was about states rights.
This is just the point I originally made, that we get taught things that aren’t true. Bob’s fixation with the specifics of what exactly was taught, predictably, misses the point.
Translation: I talked out my ass and was called on it, after initially trying to support my bullshit claims with some links that didn't support my bullshit claims, I now want to change the subject and talk about how in general we're taught things that aren't true and not about the "specifics" that I brought up.
When I was young, we were taught the Indians and Pilgrams had a nice meal and we did aren’t projects relating to it.
So then you were taught the truth.
The Wampanoag Indians who attended the first Thanksgiving had occupied the land for thousands of years and were key to the survival of the colonists during the first year they arrived in 1620, according to the National Museum of the American Indian. After the Pilgrims successfully harvested their first crops in autumn 1621, at least 140 people gathered to eat and partake in games, historians say. No one knows exactly what prompted the two groups to dine together, but there were at least 90 native men and 50 Englishmen present, according to Kathleen Wall, a colonial foodways culinarian at Plimoth Plantation. They most likely ran races and shot at marks as forms of entertainment, Wall said. The English likely ate off of tables, while the native people dined on the ground.
I spent a ton of time reading and learning about the Civil War as a teenager ...
You can’t separate the issues of the late 1850s and leading into the Civil War time period without slavery being a massive issue.
To say it was the only issue though is missing the point a bit.
The Northern states at that point were far more industrial and the South far more agriculturally based. Trying to find common ground was virtually impossible. Slavery obviously the most focal part of the disagreements.
Then far more than now the importance of State’s rights was a paramount issue. To understand that you have to understand the principles as to how the nation was founded and why certain separations and protections were built in to ensure states had influence to keep the federal government from overstepping.
For those that need perspective, understand that Robert E. Lee made his decision on which side to serve on based on the direction of his state. Times have changed obviously.
We also need to understand the lessons of history. We have evolved throughout history but basic principles remain. Knowing how to avoid those pitfalls matters. As a country, we’d be well served right now to understand lessons of the past.
One side betrayed their country and fought a war, that killed 2% of the population, to own human beings. Your centrist “well if you look at both sides” bullshit is not necessary.
I don’t know why they didn’t hold hands, sing kumbaya and drop bombs on foreign countries to settle it like moderates. But sometimes you have to actually fight evil and not just hate both extremes (owning slaves and not owning slaves being the “extremes” in this example”).
Which was more evil, @TheKobeStopper: Capturing slaves who look just like you and selling them? Or buying them?
I'm sure it's painful to look at both sides, but weren't both sides deeply involved in that evil?
I spent a ton of time reading and learning about the Civil War as a teenager ...
You can’t separate the issues of the late 1850s and leading into the Civil War time period without slavery being a massive issue.
To say it was the only issue though is missing the point a bit.
The Northern states at that point were far more industrial and the South far more agriculturally based. Trying to find common ground was virtually impossible. Slavery obviously the most focal part of the disagreements.
Then far more than now the importance of State’s rights was a paramount issue. To understand that you have to understand the principles as to how the nation was founded and why certain separations and protections were built in to ensure states had influence to keep the federal government from overstepping.
For those that need perspective, understand that Robert E. Lee made his decision on which side to serve on based on the direction of his state. Times have changed obviously.
We also need to understand the lessons of history. We have evolved throughout history but basic principles remain. Knowing how to avoid those pitfalls matters. As a country, we’d be well served right now to understand lessons of the past.
One side betrayed their country and fought a war, that killed 2% of the population, to own human beings. Your centrist “well if you look at both sides” bullshit is not necessary.
I don’t know why they didn’t hold hands, sing kumbaya and drop bombs on foreign countries to settle it like moderates. But sometimes you have to actually fight evil and not just hate both extremes (owning slaves and not owning slaves being the “extremes” in this example”).
Which was more evil, @TheKobeStopper: Capturing slaves who look just like you and selling them? Or buying them?
I'm sure it's painful to look at both sides, but weren't both sides deeply involved in that evil?
What on earth are you talking about?
What I'm talking about is your complete white-washing of one side of the transatlantic slave trade. Most slaves were not actually "sold into slavery." They were already slaves for rival tribes on their home continent, captured in battle, after defeat or just for the fuck of it by more powerful tribesman who didn't want to do the grunt work required to survive in Africa at the time.
It's funny how you never mention the Walmart angle while chronically bitching about the immorality and evils of the men who shopped there. It's almost as if you're a willfully ignorant shill with gaping holes in your logic and argument.
Care to discuss the Barbary Pirates sometime? Course not, you fucking ignorant hypocrite.
I spent a ton of time reading and learning about the Civil War as a teenager ...
You can’t separate the issues of the late 1850s and leading into the Civil War time period without slavery being a massive issue.
To say it was the only issue though is missing the point a bit.
The Northern states at that point were far more industrial and the South far more agriculturally based. Trying to find common ground was virtually impossible. Slavery obviously the most focal part of the disagreements.
Then far more than now the importance of State’s rights was a paramount issue. To understand that you have to understand the principles as to how the nation was founded and why certain separations and protections were built in to ensure states had influence to keep the federal government from overstepping.
For those that need perspective, understand that Robert E. Lee made his decision on which side to serve on based on the direction of his state. Times have changed obviously.
We also need to understand the lessons of history. We have evolved throughout history but basic principles remain. Knowing how to avoid those pitfalls matters. As a country, we’d be well served right now to understand lessons of the past.
One side betrayed their country and fought a war, that killed 2% of the population, to own human beings. Your centrist “well if you look at both sides” bullshit is not necessary.
I don’t know why they didn’t hold hands, sing kumbaya and drop bombs on foreign countries to settle it like moderates. But sometimes you have to actually fight evil and not just hate both extremes (owning slaves and not owning slaves being the “extremes” in this example”).
Which was more evil, @TheKobeStopper: Capturing slaves who look just like you and selling them? Or buying them?
I'm sure it's painful to look at both sides, but weren't both sides deeply involved in that evil?
What on earth are you talking about?
What I'm talking about is your complete white-washing of one side of the transatlantic slave trade. Most slaves were not actually "sold into slavery." They were already slaves for rival tribes on their home continent, captured in battle, after defeat or just for the fuck of it by more powerful tribesman who didn't want to do the grunt work required to survive in Africa at the time.
It's funny how you never mention the Walmart angle while chronically bitching about the immorality and evils of the men who shopped there. It's almost as if you're a willfully ignorant shill with gaping holes in your logic and argument.
Care to discuss the Barbary Pirates sometime? Course not, you fucking ignorant hypocrite.
There's slavery that exists in the world today. Do you ever hear Kobe talking about fighting that evil? Much easier to rail against the evils of slavery in the United States that ended over 150 years ago, then to do anything about the slavery that's going on right now in Africa.
And why is it that slavery in the US, which involved only a tiny fraction of the African slave trade, is the only historical example of slavery the left ever wants to talk about? Do you ever hear them talk about the slavery in the Muslim world that involved way more black slaves than ever came to the US.
I spent a ton of time reading and learning about the Civil War as a teenager ...
You can’t separate the issues of the late 1850s and leading into the Civil War time period without slavery being a massive issue.
To say it was the only issue though is missing the point a bit.
The Northern states at that point were far more industrial and the South far more agriculturally based. Trying to find common ground was virtually impossible. Slavery obviously the most focal part of the disagreements.
Then far more than now the importance of State’s rights was a paramount issue. To understand that you have to understand the principles as to how the nation was founded and why certain separations and protections were built in to ensure states had influence to keep the federal government from overstepping.
For those that need perspective, understand that Robert E. Lee made his decision on which side to serve on based on the direction of his state. Times have changed obviously.
We also need to understand the lessons of history. We have evolved throughout history but basic principles remain. Knowing how to avoid those pitfalls matters. As a country, we’d be well served right now to understand lessons of the past.
One side betrayed their country and fought a war, that killed 2% of the population, to own human beings. Your centrist “well if you look at both sides” bullshit is not necessary.
I don’t know why they didn’t hold hands, sing kumbaya and drop bombs on foreign countries to settle it like moderates. But sometimes you have to actually fight evil and not just hate both extremes (owning slaves and not owning slaves being the “extremes” in this example”).
Which was more evil, @TheKobeStopper: Capturing slaves who look just like you and selling them? Or buying them?
I'm sure it's painful to look at both sides, but weren't both sides deeply involved in that evil?
What on earth are you talking about?
What I'm talking about is your complete white-washing of one side of the transatlantic slave trade. Most slaves were not actually "sold into slavery." They were already slaves for rival tribes on their home continent, captured in battle, after defeat or just for the fuck of it by more powerful tribesman who didn't want to do the grunt work required to survive in Africa at the time.
It's funny how you never mention the Walmart angle while chronically bitching about the immorality and evils of the men who shopped there. It's almost as if you're a willfully ignorant shill with gaping holes in your logic and argument.
Care to discuss the Barbary Pirates sometime? Course not, you fucking ignorant hypocrite.
There's slavery that exists in the world today. Do you ever hear Kobe talking about fighting that evil? Much easier to rail against the evils of slavery in the United States that ended over 150 years ago, then to do anything about the slavery that's going on right now in Africa.
And why is it that slavery in the US, which involved only a tiny fraction of the African slave trade, is the only historical example of slavery the left ever wants to talk about? Do you ever hear them talk about the slavery in the Muslim world that involved way more black slaves than ever came to the US.
Or the fact that 80+ percent of African slaves went to South America, Central America and the Caribbean.
I spent a ton of time reading and learning about the Civil War as a teenager ...
You can’t separate the issues of the late 1850s and leading into the Civil War time period without slavery being a massive issue.
To say it was the only issue though is missing the point a bit.
The Northern states at that point were far more industrial and the South far more agriculturally based. Trying to find common ground was virtually impossible. Slavery obviously the most focal part of the disagreements.
Then far more than now the importance of State’s rights was a paramount issue. To understand that you have to understand the principles as to how the nation was founded and why certain separations and protections were built in to ensure states had influence to keep the federal government from overstepping.
For those that need perspective, understand that Robert E. Lee made his decision on which side to serve on based on the direction of his state. Times have changed obviously.
We also need to understand the lessons of history. We have evolved throughout history but basic principles remain. Knowing how to avoid those pitfalls matters. As a country, we’d be well served right now to understand lessons of the past.
One side betrayed their country and fought a war, that killed 2% of the population, to own human beings. Your centrist “well if you look at both sides” bullshit is not necessary.
I don’t know why they didn’t hold hands, sing kumbaya and drop bombs on foreign countries to settle it like moderates. But sometimes you have to actually fight evil and not just hate both extremes (owning slaves and not owning slaves being the “extremes” in this example”).
Which was more evil, @TheKobeStopper: Capturing slaves who look just like you and selling them? Or buying them?
I'm sure it's painful to look at both sides, but weren't both sides deeply involved in that evil?
What on earth are you talking about?
What I'm talking about is your complete white-washing of one side of the transatlantic slave trade. Most slaves were not actually "sold into slavery." They were already slaves for rival tribes on their home continent, captured in battle, after defeat or just for the fuck of it by more powerful tribesman who didn't want to do the grunt work required to survive in Africa at the time.
It's funny how you never mention the Walmart angle while chronically bitching about the immorality and evils of the men who shopped there. It's almost as if you're a willfully ignorant shill with gaping holes in your logic and argument.
Care to discuss the Barbary Pirates sometime? Course not, you fucking ignorant hypocrite.
There's slavery that exists in the world today. Do you ever hear Kobe talking about fighting that evil? Much easier to rail against the evils of slavery in the United States that ended over 150 years ago, then to do anything about the slavery that's going on right now in Africa.
And why is it that slavery in the US, which involved only a tiny fraction of the African slave trade, is the only historical example of slavery the left ever wants to talk about? Do you ever hear them talk about the slavery in the Muslim world that involved way more black slaves than ever came to the US.
Or the fact that 80+ percent of African slaves went to South America, Central America and the Caribbean.
Why isn't Uruguay paying reparations?
Because those countries are empty bags in a legal sense.
I spent a ton of time reading and learning about the Civil War as a teenager ...
You can’t separate the issues of the late 1850s and leading into the Civil War time period without slavery being a massive issue.
To say it was the only issue though is missing the point a bit.
The Northern states at that point were far more industrial and the South far more agriculturally based. Trying to find common ground was virtually impossible. Slavery obviously the most focal part of the disagreements.
Then far more than now the importance of State’s rights was a paramount issue. To understand that you have to understand the principles as to how the nation was founded and why certain separations and protections were built in to ensure states had influence to keep the federal government from overstepping.
For those that need perspective, understand that Robert E. Lee made his decision on which side to serve on based on the direction of his state. Times have changed obviously.
We also need to understand the lessons of history. We have evolved throughout history but basic principles remain. Knowing how to avoid those pitfalls matters. As a country, we’d be well served right now to understand lessons of the past.
One side betrayed their country and fought a war, that killed 2% of the population, to own human beings. Your centrist “well if you look at both sides” bullshit is not necessary.
I don’t know why they didn’t hold hands, sing kumbaya and drop bombs on foreign countries to settle it like moderates. But sometimes you have to actually fight evil and not just hate both extremes (owning slaves and not owning slaves being the “extremes” in this example”).
Which was more evil, @TheKobeStopper: Capturing slaves who look just like you and selling them? Or buying them?
I'm sure it's painful to look at both sides, but weren't both sides deeply involved in that evil?
What on earth are you talking about?
What I'm talking about is your complete white-washing of one side of the transatlantic slave trade. Most slaves were not actually "sold into slavery." They were already slaves for rival tribes on their home continent, captured in battle, after defeat or just for the fuck of it by more powerful tribesman who didn't want to do the grunt work required to survive in Africa at the time.
It's funny how you never mention the Walmart angle while chronically bitching about the immorality and evils of the men who shopped there. It's almost as if you're a willfully ignorant shill with gaping holes in your logic and argument.
Care to discuss the Barbary Pirates sometime? Course not, you fucking ignorant hypocrite.
There's slavery that exists in the world today. Do you ever hear Kobe talking about fighting that evil? Much easier to rail against the evils of slavery in the United States that ended over 150 years ago, then to do anything about the slavery that's going on right now in Africa.
And why is it that slavery in the US, which involved only a tiny fraction of the African slave trade, is the only historical example of slavery the left ever wants to talk about? Do you ever hear them talk about the slavery in the Muslim world that involved way more black slaves than ever came to the US.
Or the fact that 80+ percent of African slaves went to South America, Central America and the Caribbean.
Why isn't Uruguay paying reparations?
Compare the life expectancy of African slaves in the Caribbean and South America to the US. I'm not sugar coating slavery in the United States, it was an awful and brutal dehumanizing institution but in comparison to the treatment of slaves in South America it wasn't anywhere near as bad.
Comments
I don’t know why they didn’t hold hands, sing kumbaya and drop bombs on foreign countries to settle it like moderates. But sometimes you have to actually fight evil and not just hate both extremes (owning slaves and not owning slaves being the “extremes” in this example”).
I'm sure it's painful to look at both sides, but weren't both sides deeply involved in that evil?
Indentured servitude was real and ugly but will never hit the current mainstream talking points as readily as slavery. This isn’t trying to claim that one was “better” than the other ... both were terrible and fortunately they’ve both been long rooted out of American society.
Long winded way of saying that if you look back on activities 160+ years ago through the lease of today your going to be missing context. To understand the issues at the time you have to understand why it was what it was at that point. You have to be willing to ask yourself why slavery existed? You have to be willing to ask yourself why indentured servitude existed well over 200+ years ago.
The world then was far different than it is today. Thankfully we continue to evolve and have evolved significantly. Think about it this way ... a child born at the end of the Civil War could have been a great grandchild born in the 1930s ... who is a great grandparent to a child born today. Let’s hope that by the time that child born today becomes a great grandparent the world has continued to significantly evolve for the better.
I had to learn it on the Street.
My turkey crown made from orange and brown construction paper is still talked about
The Wampanoag Indians who attended the first Thanksgiving had occupied the land for thousands of years and were key to the survival of the colonists during the first year they arrived in 1620, according to the National Museum of the American Indian. After the Pilgrims successfully harvested their first crops in autumn 1621, at least 140 people gathered to eat and partake in games, historians say. No one knows exactly what prompted the two groups to dine together, but there were at least 90 native men and 50 Englishmen present, according to Kathleen Wall, a colonial foodways culinarian at Plimoth Plantation. They most likely ran races and shot at marks as forms of entertainment, Wall said. The English likely ate off of tables, while the native people dined on the ground.
It's funny how you never mention the Walmart angle while chronically bitching about the immorality and evils of the men who shopped there. It's almost as if you're a willfully ignorant shill with gaping holes in your logic and argument.
Care to discuss the Barbary Pirates sometime? Course not, you fucking ignorant hypocrite.
And why is it that slavery in the US, which involved only a tiny fraction of the African slave trade, is the only historical example of slavery the left ever wants to talk about? Do you ever hear them talk about the slavery in the Muslim world that involved way more black slaves than ever came to the US.
Why isn't Uruguay paying reparations?