• 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!

Is the Confederate flag a symbol of treason?

Is the Confederate flag a symbol of treason?


  • Total voters
    82
Status
Not open for further replies.
Wait! Now you are complaining about personal attacks?

As I have just posted... this is EXACTLY what he did to me in the first place. Actually, this might be the third time. What a hypocritical whiner... Pathetic.
 
Last edited:
Let me put it this way: If the people who lived in Africa had been white, Christians who dressed like Europeans/Americans and had similar cultures as them BUT who also had the physical ability and cheap selling price, then I don't believe they would have been enslaved. I believe that Europeans and Americans would not have enslaved people so similar to them even if they were relatively cheap and had the right physical ability.

See, that's where your getting disconnected.
 
Because I didn't see it.

And now I'm not going to answer it because it ends with a personal attack. Oh well.

Suuure, and the fact that it shoots holes in your logic is not the real reason.

Well done sir!
 
I think you're having trouble understanding why I'm right, because you don't even know what I said. I never said that progressives were the firs to try and make blacks a permanent under class.

I said they were the first to create an entire movement around the idea, for the political clout that they could gain from it and that creating that permanent under-class and eventua sub-culture didn't start in earnest, before the coming of the Libbos/Progressos.

Now, you have my permission to bask in my radiance for as long as you like!

This is ridiculous. This kind of third grade behavior is beyond contempt in a forum that is supposed to be about intellectual exchange.
 
This is ridiculous. This kind of third grade behavior is beyond contempt in a forum that is supposed to be about intellectual exchange.

You better leave, now. :rofl
 
Actually, apstd is always on the stupid lists and such in the Basement and I have found him refreshingly not stupid. In fact, he makes some very good points. I am not sure that I have ever debated with him or really read much of him in the 2 years that he has been here.

Please go back and reread the last few pages with his posts. Everything will be crystal clear.

from 1554

You're trying to say that white people one day up and said, "I hate niggers. Let's go to Africa and make'em slaves", and that notion is bull****.

1573

But, I still believe that the actual movement to make blacks a permanent under-class was started by the Progressives, when they saw the political power to be gained.

1577
Those of us with a significant amount of common sense understand this without having to see any evidence.

the penultimate 1595

Facts? No. That crap? Oh hell-to-the-yeah!

1605 - who could forget

The color of their skin was nothing more than coindence.

the not so very quaint childhood regression of 1620

Shhhhh! The grown-ups are talking!
 
Last edited:
Please go back and reread the last few pages with his posts. Everything will be crystal clear.

from 1554

I haven't read the debate between you guys... but with regards to TPD he has been pretty much on. Not worried either way...
 
I haven't read the debate between you guys... but with regards to TPD he has been pretty much on. Not worried either way...

Not knowing what you meant, I googled TPD and came up with Total and Permanent Disablity. Is that what you were referring to?


TPD - What does TPD stand for? Acronyms and abbreviations by the ...
acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/TPD40+ items – Also found in: Wikipedia, 0.01 sec. Acronym, Definition. TPD ...
Total and Permanent Disablement insurance
 
Not knowing what you meant, I googled TPD and came up with Total and Permanent Disablity. Is that what you were referring to?

thePlayDrive ;)
 
Were Africans enslaved because they were thought to be inferior?

In colonial America, Africans weren't enslaved because they were thought to be inferior. On the contrary, they were valued for their skill as farmers and desired for their labor. Planters had previously tried enslaving Native Americans, but many escaped and hid among neighboring tribes or were stricken by diseases brought to the New World by Europeans.

In the early years of the colonies, the majority of workers were poor indentured servants from England. In fact, during Virginia's first century, 100,000 of the 130,000 Englishmen who crossed the Atlantic were indentured servants. Conditions of servitude were miserable, and nearly two thirds died before their term of indenture ended. After several decades, African slaves began arriving in the U.S. and worked side by side with indentured servants.

Many played together, intermarried, and ran away together. Racial categories were fluid, and slavery was not yet codified into law.

In the mid-17th century, a crisis arose in the colonies. As economic conditions in Mother England improved, the number of volunteers willing to journey across the Atlantic to endure such harsh treatment dropped dramatically, causing a labor shortage. At the same time, tension and hostilities were mounting domestically, as more servants were surviving their indenture and demanding land from the planter elite. The entire plantation labor system and colonial social hierarchy was threatened; the situation came to a head when poor servants and slaves allied and attacked the elite classes during Bacon's Rebellion.

After the system of indentured servitude proved unstable, planters turned increasingly to African slavery and began writing laws to divide Blacks from whites. Coincidentally, African slaves became more available at this time. Poor whites were given new entitlements and opportunities, including as overseers to police the slave population. Over time, they began to identify more with wealthy whites, and the degradation of slavery became identified more and more with Blackness.


RACE - The Power of an Illusion . Background Readings | PBS

Many good points in this post...

Which interestingly has been ignored..........
 
Were Africans enslaved because they were thought to be inferior?...

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition

Alexander Stephens, Vice-President of the Confederate States of America

Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
That's not a racial stereotype; that's a fact. Blacks, who grew up in Africa were better suited for working long hours in the hot, humid climate of the South.

What do you think would happen, if you put a bunch of Norwegians in 100 degree heat, chopping sugar cane all day? They would all be dead, by the end of the week. :rofl

Sounds to me like you believe in fundamental biological differences between races. There is a one-word term for that kind of belief.

Oh? Do tell. Do explain how they would have went out of their way to pay MORE money for African slaves with some bit of historical documentation that hey did it ONLY because african slaves were black....

:roll:

What you're getting at is the generally accepted beliefs about race among the Colonists (yes, it's fair to go back that far).

BTW, your argument is an unintentional but strong dig against unrestrained capitalism. And I happen to agree with that part of it.

You don't think religion had nothing to do with it?

Religion is a driving factor in how folks were treated hundreds of years ago..... as well as race.

I don't think that could explain it, though. Think about it: All the slaves that had become Christians, did that earn them their freedom?

And, the indians believed Europeans were too weak to survive in North America.

There's a feeling of superiority in every culture.

Which led to the slaughter of millions of Caucasians and the destruction of their way of life? I forgot about that...

It was used as a justification, but nobody ever said "Hey, black people are inferior, let's enslave them."

They got their slaves where they were available, and then justified it.

Again, this raises the question of racial attitudes dating back even before America was born.
 
What you're getting at is the generally accepted beliefs about race among the Colonists (yes, it's fair to go back that far).
You mean generally accepted beliefs about SLAVERY... not race. They are not mutually inclusive...


BTW, your argument is an unintentional but strong dig against unrestrained capitalism. And I happen to agree with that part of it.
Thats because its common sense economics...... As for the "dig against" part, you'll have to explain how you feel it is a "dig against capitalism".



I don't think that could explain it, though. Think about it: All the slaves that had become Christians, did that earn them their freedom?
No. I never said it would. I was responding to a poster who was making a big deal about the colonists and others calling the africans "savages". The point was that anyone who didn't have a belief in a god and lived in a tribal type community was considered a savage... regardless of race. The comment was not pertaining to slavery, but to the use of the word savage. If I really had to explain how my comment applied to the topic in this manner, It makes me wonder what else you are misunderstanding.




Which led to the slaughter of millions of Caucasians and the destruction of their way of life? I forgot about that...
Their way of life was to be a slave, for they failed to defend themselves from being conquered by stronger african tribes that defeated them, captured them, and sold them into slavery.... :roll:



Again, this raises the question of racial attitudes dating back even before America was born.
You mean the reason for slavery, which by the way, started before America was born, which by the way is the only appropriate historical context the institution of slavery in America can ever be viewed in.....
 
Sounds to me like you believe in fundamental biological differences between races. There is a one-word term for that kind of belief.

Yea: Science

I mean you are willing to accept blacks are physically prone to high blood pressure, cycle cell anemia and asthma, but that we are not built for the African climate? We also have smaller rib cages, denser bones and narrower hips etc. Race can be identified by simple bones. So these and many other scientific facts are racist?

Their are genetic differences between the races, this is just a scientific fact, not racism. I mean their is only what? A 95.8 to 98.9 percent difference between apes and humans, look how wide a gap that small percentage is. Why is it racist to admit physical differences exist between the races?
 
Last edited:
You mean generally accepted beliefs about SLAVERY... not race. They are not mutually inclusive...

Don't try to sweep this under the rug. Even if racism wasn't the major fuel for what got us into slavery of blacks, it was without question the primary fuel for keeping the South in it.

Thats because its common sense economics...... As for the "dig against" part, you'll have to explain how you feel it is a "dig against capitalism".

You just answered my question. If "common sense economics" means enslaving an entire group of people, and that's the sole moral justification required for that slavery, then something is fundamentally wrong with that on a moral level.

No. I never said it would. I was responding to a poster who was making a big deal about the colonists and others calling the africans "savages". The point was that anyone who didn't have a belief in a god and lived in a tribal type community was considered a savage... regardless of race. The comment was not pertaining to slavery, but to the use of the word savage. If I really had to explain how my comment applied to the topic in this manner, It makes me wonder what else you are misunderstanding.

Calm down. I'm simply critiquing what you said. I do agree that Africans' tribal religions did factor into racism against them, but it wasn't the sole criterion by any stretch.

Their way of life was to be a slave, for they failed to defend themselves from being conquered by stronger african tribes that defeated them, captured them, and sold them into slavery.... :roll:

Even if you meant this as sarcasm, this was very much part of the justification used for enslaving blacks.

You mean the reason for slavery, which by the way, started before America was born, which by the way is the only appropriate historical context the institution of slavery in America can ever be viewed in.....

The scale of slavery as we know it didn't really get rolling until after the Revolution. BTW, the northern states had outlawed slavery within a few decades after the Revolution. What a shame the South didn't come on board.

Yea: Science

I mean you are willing to accept blacks are physically prone to high blood pressure, cycle cell anemia and asthma, but that we are not built for the African climate? We also have smaller rib cages, denser bones and narrower hips etc. Race can be identified by simple bones. So these and many other scientific facts are racist?

Their are genetic differences between the races, this is just a scientific fact, not racism. I mean their is only what? A 95.8 to 98.9 percent difference between apes and humans, look how wide a gap that small percentage is. Why is it racist to admit physical differences exist between the races?

You're getting into some dangerous territory here.

First of all, the word "race" is a social construct. Always has been, always will be. "Ethnicity" is the term you're looking for in your pseudoscientific analysis.

Second, any tiny differences between typical genetic makeup of people of African descent and European descent is vastly outweighed by what they have in common. That's why we are not classified into various subspecies.

Third, different ethnicities have interbred, blurring the lines between them. This isn't just a recent phenomenon; there's a reason why most African-Americans have lighter skin than West Africans.
 
You're getting into some dangerous territory here.

First of all, the word "race" is a social construct. Always has been, always will be. "Ethnicity" is the term you're looking for in your pseudoscientific analysis.

Second, any tiny differences between typical genetic makeup of people of African descent and European descent is vastly outweighed by what they have in common. That's why we are not classified into various subspecies.

Third, different ethnicities have interbred, blurring the lines between them. This isn't just a recent phenomenon; there's a reason why most African-Americans have lighter skin than West Africans.

You're forgetting about acclimation and the African resistance to malaria and yellow fever, that white Europeans didn't have.
 
Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition

Alexander Stephens, Vice-President of the Confederate States of America

Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That says literally nothing to contradict my evidence. In fact, it kinda goes to supporting what I posted.
 
Many good points in this post...

Which interestingly has been ignored..........

Thank you. I thought so to. A good source like PBS covers exactly what we are talking about and only Thunder dared to comment against it.


Were Africans enslaved because they were thought to be inferior?

In colonial America, Africans weren't enslaved because they were thought to be inferior. On the contrary, they were valued for their skill as farmers and desired for their labor. Planters had previously tried enslaving Native Americans, but many escaped and hid among neighboring tribes or were stricken by diseases brought to the New World by Europeans.

In the early years of the colonies, the majority of workers were poor indentured servants from England. In fact, during Virginia's first century, 100,000 of the 130,000 Englishmen who crossed the Atlantic were indentured servants. Conditions of servitude were miserable, and nearly two thirds died before their term of indenture ended. After several decades, African slaves began arriving in the U.S. and worked side by side with indentured servants.

Many played together, intermarried, and ran away together. Racial categories were fluid, and slavery was not yet codified into law.

In the mid-17th century, a crisis arose in the colonies. As economic conditions in Mother England improved, the number of volunteers willing to journey across the Atlantic to endure such harsh treatment dropped dramatically, causing a labor shortage. At the same time, tension and hostilities were mounting domestically, as more servants were surviving their indenture and demanding land from the planter elite. The entire plantation labor system and colonial social hierarchy was threatened; the situation came to a head when poor servants and slaves allied and attacked the elite classes during Bacon's Rebellion.

After the system of indentured servitude proved unstable, planters turned increasingly to African slavery and began writing laws to divide Blacks from whites. Coincidentally, African slaves became more available at this time. Poor whites were given new entitlements and opportunities, including as overseers to police the slave population. Over time, they began to identify more with wealthy whites, and the degradation of slavery became identified more and more with Blackness.


RACE - The Power of an Illusion . Background Readings | PBS
 
Thank you. I thought so to. A good source like PBS covers exactly what we are talking about and only Thunder dared to comment against it.....

so African slavery had nothing to do with racism?

that's like arguing the Holocaust had nothing to do with feelings of racial superiority.
 
Sounds to me like you believe in fundamental biological differences between races. There is a one-word term for that kind of belief

This is an interesting comment. Aren't there fundamental biological differences? Skin. Hair. Eye color and shape. Size???

Then we get into why Mexicans and Kenyans win all the marathons. Why? Could it be that as a race they are more used to distance and heat? I don't know but I would not call talking about it or wondering about it racism.
 
so African slavery had nothing to do with racism?

that's like arguing the Holocaust had nothing to do with feelings of racial superiority.

Apparently you did not read the article that I posted. Until you do there is really nothing to debate...
 
As I have just posted... this is EXACTLY what he did to me in the first place. Actually, this might be the third time. What a hypocritical whiner... Pathetic.
LOL, you obviously didn't read my response to apdst's post, so I'll repost it for you:

No, not complaining. If I personally attack someone, I fully expect them to not take my conversation seriously anymore since when I start attacks, I've ended all attempts at serious discussion. I have the same rule with other people. When the attacks start, the serious discussion stops.

It's really embarrassing that you continually post without reading the thread.
 
Suuure, and the fact that it shoots holes in your logic is not the real reason.

Well done sir!
This is just another example of you asking me a question that I was already asked by someone else and responded to and then accusing me of not responding to because "it shoots holes in my logic". LOL. Apdst and I think Caine also asked me the same/similar question in this same conversation, if I was afraid to answer it then I wouldn't haven't answered it then.

Stop embarrassing yourself.
 
Apparently you did not read the article that I posted. Until you do there is really nothing to debate...

yes, I have not read the article you posted.

why? because its now simply historical FACT, that racism and the African slave-trade were connected with glue.
 
There have been a lot of posts since I left yesterday, so I'll just answer the general question of the posts directed at me: Why do I think that "racism" was a factor in the decision to enslave Africans even when I also believe that other factors like location and money factored in?

Answer: First, much of the literature during the time, scientific and otherwise, posited the inferiority of Africans because of their skin color, their culture and their non-Christianity. This means that the inferiority of Africans was already in the consciousness of Europeans and Americans at the start of the the transatlantic slave trade. Second, the English and Americans tended to only enslave people from societies that deemed inferior to their own: Native Americans, Slavs, etc.. While some Englishmen were also enslaved, they were not nearly at the levels of Africans and Native Americans. Consequently, it's clear that the "race" played a role in determining who was low enough to be enslaved.

* I put "race" in quotations marks since the divisions weren't articulated as "race" during the times we're talking about.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom