• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Civil War was about economics

TurtleDude said:
whites who think blacks need to be treated like children and coddled by the government are racists. whites who think blacks aren't smart enough to get into top schools on merit, are racists. Whites who excuse blacks committing crimes that the same whites would not give other whites a pass for are racists. Whites who whined about South Africa but not black on black tribal oppression in Africa are racists. And blacks who benefit from this nonsense and pretend to be leaders of their people are racists
Click to expand...
Well, that is a typical libertarian leaning rant, yes. Not accurate much in my opinion, but it is fun to read.
 
JamesBY said:
Well, that is a typical libertarian leaning rant, yes. Not accurate much in my opinion, but it is fun to read.
Click to expand...

so what exactly is your leaning? btw who pushes for affirmative action?
 
TurtleDude said:
whites who think blacks need to be treated like children and coddled by the government are racists. whites who think blacks aren't smart enough to get into top schools on merit, are racists. Whites who excuse blacks committing crimes that the same whites would not give other whites a pass for are racists. Whites who whined about South Africa but not black on black tribal oppression in Africa are racists. And blacks who benefit from this nonsense and pretend to be leaders of their people are racists
Click to expand...

If blacks could be enslaved, systematically discriminated against, and disenfranchised for centuries and generations, just based on their skin color, they can be helped and given a hand for a few generations, just based on their skin color. That's not racism. That's just fair.

It's like someone walking on the street, minding their own business, and having someone come up, knock their teeth out, and level them on the ground. Then, when people try to go help them, the guy who punched them starts complaining about why they are getting preferential treatment. LOL.
 
ataraxia said:
If blacks could be enslaved, systematically discriminated against, and disenfranchised for centuries and generations, just based on their skin color, they can be helped and given a hand for a few generations, just based on their skin color. That's not racism. That's just fair.

It's like someone walking on the street, minding their own business, and having someone come up, knock their teeth out, and level them on the ground. Then, when people try to go help them, the guy who punched them starts complaining about why they are getting preferential treatment. LOL.
Click to expand...

stupid analogy.

here is the correct one

someone's great grandfather was knocked to the ground and injured

150 years later, someone who has the same skin color as the attackers is told he has to pay the great grandson a sum of money for the injury the crime victim suffered.
 
TurtleDude said:
stupid analogy.

here is the correct one

someone's great grandfather was knocked to the ground and injured

150 years later, someone who has the same skin color as the attackers is told he has to pay the great grandson a sum of money for the injury the crime victim suffered.
Click to expand...

The folks who were told they can't go to certain public restrooms, can't apply for certain jobs, can't go to certain public (or private) schools, can't drink out of certain public fountains, can't sit in certain places on the bus, who have been lynched, beaten, and told they are not quite human, who have been threatened by being hung from a nearby tree just because of their skin color, who have had to explain to their young children what that burning cross is outside of their bedroom window, etc, etc... are still around to tell you you are wrong.

Besides, we are not even talking about reparations. We are talking about a hand with educational opportunities.
 
ataraxia said:
The folks who were told they can't go to certain public restrooms, can't apply for certain jobs, can't go to certain public (or private) schools, can't drink out of certain public fountains, can't sit in certain places on the bus, who have been lynched, beaten, and told they are not quite human, who have been threatened by being hung by a nearby tree just because of their skin color, who have had to explain to their young children what that burning cross is outside of their bedroom window, etc, etc... are still around to tell you you are wrong.

Besides, we are not even talking about reparations. We are talking about a hand with educational opportunities.
Click to expand...

why should a white man-say a Jewish one whose parents fled the Nazis and who has a 3.9 GPA from Amherst and a top one percent LSAT score be turned down at Yale Law School or Michigan in favor of a black who has a 3.5 GPA from OSU and a LSAT in the tenth percentile?
 
TurtleDude said:
why should a white man-say a Jewish one whose parents fled the Nazis and who has a 3.9 GPA from Amherst and a top one percent LSAT score be turned down at Yale Law School or Michigan in favor of a black who has a 3.5 GPA from OSU and a LSAT in the tenth percentile?
Click to expand...

For the same reason they have to park a little further away to leave room for a handicapped person in the grocery store parking lot. When a demographic or group has been systematically handicapped and hurt for generations, it's only fair for all society to give them a little extra consideration to help them get back on their feet.

The Jewish guy does not come from a background where education was systematically denied him for generations. Einstein may have been hunted by the Nazis, but he and his whole family still got a pretty decent education.
 
TurtleDude said:
I'd love to compare my educational background in American History and the civil war era with yours. the fact is, why this sudden astroturf level frenzy from the Trump haters over the civil war? Lets see if you can honestly explain why? and its the Democrat party that is responsible for institutionalized anti black racism.
Click to expand...

I suspect you'd love it less afterward.

To address briefly your two questions: 1. What frenzy? There is consternation over Confederate monuments, generated mostly by racists trying to appropriate them, and some of this has spilled over into discussion of the Civil War at places like this forum. 2. Democrats were, not are, mostly responsible for the racist policies that followed the Civil War. This is due to Democrats being the dominant the political force in the South from the end of the Civil War until the mid 20th Century. That of course is no longer the case. Democrat racists began losing ground to Republican racists after WWII and the final turn around came with the Johnson Presidency and passage of the Civil Rights Act. Your team now owns what remains of institutional racism.
 
blackjack50 said:
This is actually REALLY easy. Moving west you had agrarian States. Not industrial. These states would compete with the south in terms of Goods. And if they started not using slavery...it would jeopardize their economic system. Their aristocratic system. We can take them at their word. I'm only saying their words were motivated by money. Not morals. Either side. Much like now. You can trust the politicians to make decisions based on pocket books. Not what is actually good for people. Especially their rights.
Click to expand...

You seem to be splitting hairs. "Money, not morals?" They wanted the money from a system that used slaves. They wanted to preserve the slave system, one based on their stated opinions that blacks were inferior, thus slave-worthy. Whether they thought they were immoral or not, they preached an objectively immoral position. Whether the North was cynically motivated by money or by morals, they preached an objectively moral position. Seems to me you made a pretty effective argument that the war, if not about slavery in some ideal system, was fought by the South to preserve a system based on slavery. It feared the abolitionists in the North who would jeopardize that slave-based system. The North contained plenty of abolitionists, politicians and citizens, who acted for idealistic reasons, as it may have contained plenty of politicians who did so cynically, because it got them votes or motivated soldiers to fight. You still can't get past the statements of the seceding states and Jeff Davis themselves. Don't see what the argument is about, as, again, without slavery, no Civil War.

But let's leave it where it lies, unless you have more to add. But post-war, do you believe that 1-the Amendments that followed were not influenced by any notion of the immorality of slavery? 2- that the South's post-reconstruction actions were not related to a desire to retain the serf-like conditions that prevailed pre-war?
 
ataraxia said:
For the same reason they have to park a little further away to leave room for a handicapped person in the grocery store parking lot. When a demographic or group has been systematically handicapped and hurt for generations, it's only fair for all society to give them a little extra consideration to help them get back on their feet.

The Jewish guy does not come from a background where education was systematically denied him for generations. Einstein may have been hunted by the Nazis, but he and his whole family still got a pretty decent education.
Click to expand...

sorry I completely reject that sort of idiocy and I don't believe in group rights. For all you know that black guy is the son of a wealthy father and had all the breaks but he figured he'd get affirmative action so he didn't study as hard as the man denied a spot

When I was at Yale, most of the blacks there (other than those on the coaches' preference lists-something I don't have a problem with) were from wealthy families. often they had more advantages than lots of the white kids. I never understood why a black guy who went to Andover or Groton, St Xavier Cincinnati, or St Ignatious in Cleveland was disadvantaged compared to many of my white classmates who went to middle of the road public schools.
 
JackA said:
I suspect you'd love it less afterward.

To address briefly your two questions: 1. What frenzy? There is consternation over Confederate monuments, generated mostly by racists trying to appropriate them, and some of this has spilled over into discussion of the Civil War at places like this forum. 2. Democrats were, not are, mostly responsible for the racist policies that followed the Civil War. This is due to Democrats being the dominant the political force in the South from the end of the Civil War until the mid 20th Century. That of course is no longer the case. Democrat racists began losing ground to Republican racists after WWII and the final turn around came with the Johnson Presidency and passage of the Civil Rights Act. Your team now owns what remains of institutional racism.
Click to expand...

the institutionalized racism in the USA is the racism of low expectations directed towards blacks.
 
Yale as a private school should be able, as any libertarian would argue, to set its own admission standards.
 
TurtleDude said:
the institutionalized racism in the USA is the racism of low expectations directed towards blacks.
Click to expand...

Low expectations are a mindset. An institution is a school system that fails blacks, electoral and political systems that discriminate against blacks, policing that discriminates against blacks. The mindsets behind such institutions may be partially, and minimally, those of low expectations but they are also mindsets of low respect, low empathy and low social identity.
 
JamesBY said:
Yale as a private school should be able, as any libertarian would argue, to set its own admission standards.
Click to expand...

I agree and I don't think the federal government had the PROPER power to enact Title VII. but since Title VII is the law, racially based discrimination should be illegal-whether its denying a black a job despite having superior qualifications over a white candidate or an Asian or White kid being turned down in favor of a far less qualified black for a seat at Harvard Medical school or Cornell Law school
 
TurtleDude said:
here is the correct one

someone's great grandfather was knocked to the ground and injured

150 years later, someone who has the same skin color as the attackers is told he has to pay the great grandson a sum of money for the injury the crime victim suffered.
Click to expand...

Not a correct analogy. Here's a more correct one:

Family A steals the wealth of family B and keeps B from working to better their circumstances for a couple centuries. That circumstance stops, but family A has gotten wealthy and powerful, while merely agreeing not to keep B from working to better themselves. For another century, A discriminates against B, keeping them at an economic and political disadvantage, so that B's work yields much less fruit than comparable work by family A. Finally, family C imposes on A that A can no longer discriminate against B (all while A and C discriminate in measurable ways anyhow). The descendants of family A have much more wealth and power than B, because A stole the wealth and power of B. Now C wants to find ways to get the descendents of the original members of A to give back some of their unearned gains to B.
 
ashurbanipal said:
Not a correct analogy. Here's a more correct one:

Family A steals the wealth of family B and keeps B from working to better their circumstances for a couple centuries. That circumstance stops, but family A has gotten wealthy and powerful, while merely agreeing not to keep B from working to better themselves. For another century, A discriminates against B, keeping them at an economic and political disadvantage, so that B's work yields much less fruit than comparable work by family A. Finally, family C imposes on A that A can no longer discriminate against B (all while A and C discriminate in measurable ways anyhow). The descendants of family A have much more wealth and power than B, because A stole the wealth and power of B. Now C wants to find ways to get the descendents of the original members of A to give back some of their unearned gains to B.
Click to expand...
The problem with your analogy is the assumption that all members of A are wealthy and powerful and have suppressed all members of B. And that all the troubles of family B are directly and intentionally imposed by family A. And I'm not sure how family C fits into it.
 
ashurbanipal said:
Not a correct analogy. Here's a more correct one:

Family A steals the wealth of family B and keeps B from working to better their circumstances for a couple centuries. That circumstance stops, but family A has gotten wealthy and powerful, while merely agreeing not to keep B from working to better themselves. For another century, A discriminates against B, keeping them at an economic and political disadvantage, so that B's work yields much less fruit than comparable work by family A. Finally, family C imposes on A that A can no longer discriminate against B (all while A and C discriminate in measurable ways anyhow). The descendants of family A have much more wealth and power than B, because A stole the wealth and power of B. Now C wants to find ways to get the descendents of the original members of A to give back some of their unearned gains to B.
Click to expand...

Or, in a visual form:

5902ecf9cd452907ef9d07a2dde7d0ce--affirmative-action-white-privilege.jpg
 
pinqy said:
The problem with your analogy is the assumption that all members of A are wealthy and powerful and have suppressed all members of B. And that all the troubles of family B are directly and intentionally imposed by family A.
Click to expand...

The analogy makes no such assumptions. It may be true that some members of A are worse off than some members of B. And it may be that members of B made some choices that made their circumstances even worse. Neither possibility, even if true, reduces the responsibility A has to settle equitably with B, by returning the wealth that should have been B's, and would have been had A not previously ground B into dust.
 
TurtleDude said:
When I was at Yale, most of the blacks there (other than those on the coaches' preference lists-something I don't have a problem with) were from wealthy families. often they had more advantages than lots of the white kids. I never understood why a black guy who went to Andover or Groton, St Xavier Cincinnati, or St Ignatious in Cleveland was disadvantaged compared to many of my white classmates who went to middle of the road public schools.
Click to expand...

Some blacks are highly advantaged, sure. But were those advantaged blacks you knew at Yale there because of affirmative action?
 
TurtleDude said:
sorry I completely reject that sort of idiocy and I don't believe in group rights. For all you know that black guy is the son of a wealthy father and had all the breaks but he figured he'd get affirmative action so he didn't study as hard as the man denied a spot

When I was at Yale, most of the blacks there (other than those on the coaches' preference lists-something I don't have a problem with) were from wealthy families. often they had more advantages than lots of the white kids. I never understood why a black guy who went to Andover or Groton, St Xavier Cincinnati, or St Ignatious in Cleveland was disadvantaged compared to many of my white classmates who went to middle of the road public schools.
Click to expand...

If you know Ivy League schools, you will know that many of them give special admissions consideration to kids from families where they are the first ones applying to college. Should they stop that too?
 
ashurbanipal said:
Yeah, that about captures the point.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but only the South paid the price for the slave labor the entire country benefited from. Somehow all of you gloss over that point. And that was my whole point with the OP.

Hypocrisy.
 
ataraxia said:
If you know Ivy League schools, you will know that many of them give special admissions consideration to kids from families where they are the first ones applying to college. Should they stop that too?
Click to expand...

why should they-if they had done that, then only rich kids could afford those schools since they wouldn't have big endowments. and that isn't racial discrimination,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom