• 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!

African American Heritage

Mmm?

  • No, blacks lack heritage.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    15
Your link simply repeats your previous post. It provides not a single incident of me abusing the accusation of racism.

I fail to see what else the insinuation "that I don't believe racism exists" is meant to convey.
 
Last edited:
So your saying that the contributions of black historical figures had no impact on what this country is today?

No, I'm saying that the American way of teaching history doesn't teach about African Americans and the impact we've had. Which is why we have moronic right wingers who claim that the civil war was about taxes or some other crazy **** against all evidence pointing to the contrary.

Actually, our "history" classes are white washed versions where we learn that George Washington was a really good guy who wanted freedom for all Americans and ra-ra-rah with a 6 pack and a shotgun. If people had a grasp of US history beyond the greatest hits album which is presented as "fact", we'd have less right wingers spewing stupid **** like "Hey! You can always go back to Africa!"

Are you saying that the civil war wouldn't have happened if the south banned slavery and still separated?

No.

I noticed that the US didn't go after any other country for practicing slavery after the civil war was over.

Of course it didn't. Actually, it never has. Which is why we still do deals with countries where slavery is still around. Liberia and Benin come to mind.
 
Last edited:
Then again, you probably meant to use "revisionism" in a negative sense, which was a response of historical discipline conservatives against the Marxist historians.

I wouldn't say Marxist historians. I reject progressive and romantic interpretations of history mostly because of their very simplistic raisons d'etre. It's not enough to analyze history through singular vacuumed interpretations of a materialist or emotional perspective. Both should be taken into consideration.
 
Is this supposed to be a joke? I agree that Lincoln was a great President but the Emancipation Proclamation was a purely political move on his part. It only freed the slaves in the Confederate states and not in those slave-owning states that sided with the Union.

LBJ was far less cynical in supporting civil rights because he was quite aware of the political consequences

It was sarcasm. Republicans love to lay claim to Abe Lincoln when it comes to freeing the slaves, but guys like sawyer try to pain LBJ as a cynical politician for doing his part for oppressed people in the US; so Lincoln was 100% good because he was a Republican who did something for oppressed blacks, but LBJ was just a Democrat searching for the nigger vote when he signed the Civil Rights Act. It's hypocrisy.
 
It was sarcasm. Republicans love to lay claim to Abe Lincoln when it comes to freeing the slaves, but guys like sawyer try to pain LBJ as a cynical politician for doing his part for oppressed people in the US; so Lincoln was 100% good because he was a Republican who did something for oppressed blacks, but LBJ was just a Democrat searching for the nigger vote when he signed the Civil Rights Act. It's hypocrisy.

The best part is that they'll turn around with the same hypocrisy, claim Lincoln didn't free a single slave with the E.P., tell you that the civil war wasn't about slavery and defend the "States right" to own slaves. It's like watching a dog eat its own tail.
 

Are you claiming that I stated something about racism not existing or that you stated this?

Is this quote of mine something you have trouble with?

The so called race card was minted by the right wing through their own racist beliefs and policies. It exists only because racists invented it, created it, coined it and made it possible. To remind people of the real existence of racism and its effects IS NOT playing any such card however. It is merely invoking reality. And that goes directly against the right wing cause celebre to take the very topic of racism off the table since it hurts them and makes them look bad.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't say Marxist historians. I reject progressive and romantic interpretations of history mostly because of their very simplistic raisons d'etre. It's not enough to analyze history through singular vacuumed interpretations of a materialist or emotional perspective. Both should be taken into consideration.

I would say Marxist historians, because some of the greatest historians of the 20th century were Marxists, and were using Marx's analysis of History as well as class to inform previously obscured material. This lead to Charles Beard and many others giving a wide revision of American history, which then lead to a conservative reaction against their contributions to the discipline.

My criticism was in the way you had used "revisionist history," not what ought be the historical narrative.
 
Last edited:
The best part is that they'll turn around with the same hypocrisy, claim Lincoln didn't free a single slave with the E.P., tell you that the civil war wasn't about slavery and defend the "States right" to own slaves. It's like watching a dog eat its own tail.

Freed the southern slaves, but gave them nothing else.
 
It appears that you have confused yourself.

not really, just don't feel like walking you through the blatantly obvious and already explained
 
What about Boston?

You said you couldn;t think of anything about Irish American Heritage. The formerly puritan city was transformed into a catholic one by the massive influx of Irish.

Boston is now the embodiment of Irish American heritage.
 
Not really sure what the above has to do with my post, but my earlier criticism was limited to black history month, and the penchant to hike out minor historical figures, as "filler" for the holiday

I'm sorry. Got a little knee jerk reactive. I've discussed the general black culture issue elsewhere and in a broader context most of the time I hear people expressing the view that there shouldn't be any acknowledgement of America's black culture and especially history with a mindset that doing so is racist. Of course, it's rediculous IMHO but I do find a lot of decent people with that position who I think just need to see the double standard. Oddly people with that view think that by ignoring and encouraging others to ignore ethnicity (when it comes to blacks), with the best of intentions, they're fighting racism.
 
You couldn't think of Boston?

Pretty much any North Eastern state can be claimed for its Irish American history. NY and Jersey both have a **** ton of Irish.
 
Pretty much any North Eastern state can be claimed for its Irish American history. NY and Jersey both have a **** ton of Irish.

Chicago's Irish as hell too. San Fran has a pretty large Irish community, too (due in part to the railroads).
 
No, I'm saying that the American way of teaching history doesn't teach about African Americans and the impact we've had.
Of course not.Black history is relegated to a month instead of integrated with the rest of American history. This reenforces the idea that black history is only important to black Americans or that blacks made no contributions to the country other than to black people instead of contributions to the country as a whole.

Actually, our "history" classes are white washed versions where we learn that George Washington was a really good guy who wanted freedom for all Americans and ra-ra-rah with a 6 pack and a shotgun.

Personally I care more about their contributions to this country than the negative stuff that they may have done in their person lives.History classes don't need commentary on how someone was a evil slave owner, a communist, a womanizer or some other negative thing.



we'd have less right wingers spewing stupid **** like "Hey! You can always go back to Africa!"

Its racist that utter than crap regardless if they are liberal or conservative.


So if the US would have went to war with the south anyways even if the south banned slavery then this would mean that the civil war was not mostly about slavery. Did I misunderstand what you wrote?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom