• 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.
Honestly, arguing that the enslavement of millions of black Africans has nothing to do with white supremacy & racism, is just another example of historical revisionism coming from the mouths of those defending the Confederacy.
 
LOL, you obviously didn't read my response to apdst's post, so I'll repost it for you:



It's really embarrassing that you continually post without reading the thread.


Why would I read your post to apdst? LOL! Whatever buddy... You think that I take you seriously? I don't warn people that I don't take them seriously... I just simply lose respect for the and it is up to them to figure the intent of my posts.

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.

You are a piece of work. I literally haven't had anybody try to play such pathetic little word games like this with 8 year old logic since... well, I was probably 8 years old.

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.

You tweaked your argument...
 
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.
You are so clueless about slavery.
The main reason for keeping the south in it was an AGRICULTURE BASED ECONOMY. Even today, Agriculture finds the dirt cheapest illegal immigrant labor to do its work. The north didn't have an agriculture based economy. The folks in the north were still about equally as racist as those in the south.



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.
Yes, there is. However, its not how they thought ONE-HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS AGO. You have to view this in historical perspective. You can't apply modern moral principles to history spanning over a century and a half ago.




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.
OMFG You still don't get it.



Even if you meant this as sarcasm, this was very much part of the justification used for enslaving blacks.
Dude... It doesn't matter WHO bought them. They were up for sale by the conquering tribe. Which means if they were bought by whites, they surely would have been bought by the Arab nations who were ALSO involved in slave purchases.



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.
Hard to imagine an industrial economy that didn't have the need for MANY hands in hard conditions outlawed slavery while the agricultural economy that DID (and still does) have the need for many hands, working hard conditions, and doing it cheap as to maximize profits (and at the same time keep the costs of their products low) would need to keep slavery around.

Simple economics.
 
yes, I have not read the article you posted.

why? .

Because the historical fact that I posted would somehow distort your preconcieved ideas and burst your bubble... that's why.

You and tPD are of like mind. :)
 
so African slavery had nothing to do with racism?

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

African Slavery had everything to do with economics.
 
Because the historical fact that I posted would somehow distort your preconcieved ideas and burst your bubble... that's why....

unless it acknowledges that the African slave-trade was fundamentally racist, than it is not factual.

arguing that the enslavement of millions of Africans, had nothing to do with slavery, is historical revisionism.
 
Last edited:
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.

Wow.... So why are you still participating in this thread if you are just going to.......

chimpanzee-with-its-fingers-in-its-ears.jpg
 
unless it acknowledges that the African slave-trade was fundamentally racist, than it is not factual.

arguing that the enslavement of millions of Africans, had nothing to do with slavery, is historical revisionism.

So if it doesn't fit with your opinion then it isn't factually accurate? :lol:
 
You're getting into some dangerous territory here.

Oh no! I am racist against, myself!!!! :lol:

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.

You have got to be kidding me. :doh You know what I mean and I don't care as "a rose by any other name."

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.

What the hell does "subspecies" and our "similarities" have to do with my statements? Nothing. The "Negro" has genetic differences from the "Caucasoid" and the "Mongoloid" "ethnicity." <--- Oh LMAO! PC gone mad.

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.

This again has nothing to do with slavery or African genetics in the 1860's. It has nothing to do with the fact we were physically able to withstand the long hours in the field better than your average Native American, Asian or European. Which in the end contributed to blacks being in bondage whether you (in a PC tizzy) care to accept the truth or not.

So far you got nothing man. A lot of hot air backed up by unimportant fallacy arguments that do not apply.

Need to up your game man.
 
Last edited:
You think that I take you seriously?
So stop responding to me.

word games
How is it a word game to point out that I already answered a question that you accused me of being afraid to answer?

You tweaked your argument...
If by "tweaked", you mean "wrote it out in a more detailed and organized fashion", then yes.
 
Honestly, arguing that the enslavement of millions of black Africans has nothing to do with white supremacy & racism, is just another example of historical revisionism coming from the mouths of those defending the Confederacy.
while i do believe that our foray with slavery is certainly tied at the hip with racism,... slavery and racism, as institutions, are not inextricably linked.
one might even argue that slavery is a cause of people believing that blacks were inferior...by that i mean, those whom would allow themselves to be exploited on such a large scale would lend itself to believing those folks are inferior and weak... not sure if i buy it, but it can be argued nonetheless.

we need not forget that it was blacks who enslaved other blacks who were then sold off.... and i'm quite certain they were not compelled to do so by racism.
I do happen to believe that the economic agenda of slavery overrides the racist agenda of slavery all throughout history.
 
Honestly, arguing that the enslavement of millions of black Africans has nothing to do with white supremacy & racism, is just another example of historical revisionism coming from the mouths of those defending the Confederacy.

Race is a modern idea - it hasn't always been with us. In ancient times, language, religion, status, and class distinctions were more important than physical appearance. In America, a set of specific historical circumstances led to the world's first race-based slave system.

The concept of race did not originate with science. On the contrary, science emerged in the late 18th century and helped validate existing racial ideas and "prove" a natural hierarchy of groups. Throughout our history, the search for racial differences has been fueled by preconceived notions of inferiority and superiority. Even today, scientists are influenced by their social context.

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.

Ideas of racial inferiority have been institutionalized - both explicitly and implicitly - within our laws, government, and public policies. Not surprisingly, racial definitions have also changed over time, depending on the political context. They have also been arbitrary and inconsistent from group to group.

Mexicans, for example, were classified as white until 1930, when nativists lobbied successfully for them to be classified separately in order to target them for discrimination and emphasize their distinctness from whites. Historically, African Americans in the Jim Crow South were classified according to "blood" ancestry, but the amount (one quarter, one sixteenth, one drop) varied from state to state, which meant that, as historian James Horton points out, "you could cross a state line and literally, legally change race."

 
oh, its not my opinion that the African slave-trade was racist.

its a fact.

Then prove it. That is what a debate is about. Nobody gives a squirel **** about your opinion...
 
we need not forget that it was blacks who enslaved other blacks who were then sold off.... and i'm quite certain they were not compelled to do so by racism.
.
People always bring this up, but the "blacks enslaving blacks" thing doesn't have the significance that many claim it does. Africans weren't "enslaving their own" as people like to say. For the most part, African slavery was about doing something with prisoners of war and members of enemy tribes/societies. This practice was common throughout history in almost every civilization to a certain extent.

This, however, was not at all the foundation of American slavery nor did the relationship between enemy tribes/societies mirror the relationship of the white slave master and the black slave or the American master and the African slave.
 
People always bring this up, but the "blacks enslaving blacks" thing doesn't have the significance that many claim it does. Africans weren't "enslaving their own" as people like to say. For the most part, African slavery was about doing something with prisoners of war and members of enemy tribes/societies. This practice was common throughout history in almost every civilization to a certain extent.

This, however, was not at all the foundation of American slavery nor did the relationship between enemy tribes/societies mirror the relationship of the white slave master and the black slave or the American master and the African slave.

Yea I have got to agree with Theplaydrive on this one. It is pretty irrelevant to the discussion as a whole.
 
So stop responding to me.

Why would I want to do that?

How is it a word game to point out that I already answered a question that you accused me of being afraid to answer?

That isn't the word game... but it is interesting that you don't answer direct question with direct responses. Very telling. That isn't how people debate.

If by "tweaked", you mean "wrote it out in a more detailed and organized fashion", then yes.

Yes... more detailed and in a fashion that combines arguments such as mine so as to make your "tweaked" newer version sound more reasonable.
 
People always bring this up, but the "blacks enslaving blacks" thing doesn't have the significance that many claim it does. Africans weren't "enslaving their own" as people like to say. For the most part, African slavery was about doing something with prisoners of war and members of enemy tribes/societies. This practice was common throughout history in almost every civilization to a certain extent.

This, however, was not at all the foundation of American slavery nor did the relationship between enemy tribes/societies mirror the relationship of the white slave master and the black slave or the American master and the African slave.

Of course not.
A labor product was put on the market that had a demand for said product.... that product being a slave.

Supply and Demand.

The supply came from dominate tribes.......... The demand came from the need for many hands to do the work at a low cost. One could say the initial up-front cost wasn't low, but if you took care of your slave (your investment) you got your money's worth out of it many times over.
 
Wow.... So why are you still participating in this thread if you are just going to.......

chimpanzee-with-its-fingers-in-its-ears.jpg

Is that Dixon or ToT... hard to tell.
 
Then prove it. That is what a debate is about. Nobody gives a squirel **** about your opinion...

you want me to prove, that the African slave-trade was racist?

that's like asking me to prove that the Holocaust killed millions of Jews.

:lamo
 
Last edited:
People always bring this up, but the "blacks enslaving blacks" thing doesn't have the significance that many claim it does. Africans weren't "enslaving their own" as people like to say. For the most part, African slavery was about doing something with prisoners of war and members of enemy tribes/societies. This practice was common throughout history in almost every civilization to a certain extent.
you are ignoring that black societies did, indeed, enslave other blacks.... not just captured and sold them off.. huge swaths of the populations of various african countries were ,indeed, slaves
there's a lot more to the slavery story than racism.
and yes, it does have significance... hell dude, Ethiopia had an estimated 2 million slaves a full 50 years after we had ended slavery here, Nigeria had roughly the same number at the same point in time... don't tell me that doesn't have significance.

This, however, was not at all the foundation of American slavery nor did the relationship between enemy tribes/societies mirror the relationship of the white slave master and the black slave or the American master and the African slave.
the foundation of American slavery was not always rooted in racism either... although it certainly did manifest itself as such with the passage of time.
hell,we had over 100 years of institutional slavery before it was racialized.
 
you want me to prove, that the African slave-trade was racist?

that's like asking me to prove that the Holocaust killed millions of Jews.

:lamo


Yet you have still refused to do so.........................

We are waiting in anxious anticipation......
 
you are ignoring that black societies did, indeed, enslave other blacks.... not just captured and sold them off.. huge swaths of the populations of various african countries were ,indeed, slaves
there's a lot more to the slavery story than racism.
and yes, it does have significance... hell dude, Ethiopia had an estimated 2 million slaves a full 50 years after we had ended slavery here, Nigeria had roughly the same number at the same point in time... don't tell me that doesn't have significance.

As far as America and Europe go? No not really. It is nothing but anther link in an economic chain.

the foundation of American slavery was not always rooted in racism either... although it certainly did manifest itself as such with the passage of time.
hell,we had over 100 years of institutional slavery before it was racialized.

This is true.
 
you don't answer direct question with direct responses.
I just explained to you that I responded to the same question you asked me when it was asked by 1-2 other posters. If answer question X when it's posed to me by other posters, but I don't answer question X when it's posed by you, the problem is you. It's not that I'm "afraid" of the question...since I...answered the question, LOL.

Yes... more detailed and in a fashion that combines arguments such as mine so as to make your "tweaked" newer version sound more reasonable.
Meh, I welcome you to read my posts in this part of the thread because every argument I put in the one we're currently talking about was in several individual posts by me yesterday. I essentially just put them altogether. Those are in this thread for you to read so it's pretty clear that you're just living up to your pattern of making comments about people before actually reading what they say.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom