• 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!

Should Black History Month be abolished?

Should Black History Month be abolished?

  • Yes

    Votes: 12 46.2%
  • No

    Votes: 14 53.8%

  • Total voters
    26
Were?

We are enslaved right now and forced to pay taxes to run free schools, medical care, food stamps, bi-lingual teachers, and prisons for every criminal scumbag illegal alien. You see, my Governess, slavery comes in various forms.

*Facepalm*

Slavery comes in different forms, of course, but everything you just stated is not slavery. That's just paying your taxes.

Two very different things.
 
Last edited:
Why does one race get to have a history month while the others do not? That's favoritism.

Well you can't ask Gerald Ford anymore because he is dead.

He signed it in 1976. He was GOP. I don't recall if the US Congress was GOP or DEM that year.

The GOP was swept out of office from The White House, the Senate, and the US House that November and Carter was elected.

Everyone thought the GOP was going to become extinct due to Nixon and Ford (Ford pardoned him before the trial).

Wiki has a good write up on it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_History_Month
 
There already is a gay pride month. June. That's why all the pride festivals happen then.

I know it's about blacks not gays, but the question is still valid: why would anyone be proud for just breathing?

My mama told that pride is what you feel after you or someone you love does something remarkable and good. Why would anyone be proud for being black or gay?

Also, if you are black AND gay, are you double proud? If you look at the list above, one lucky person can be proud 6 months every year. If I did that, my chest would hurt.
 
Better idea.

Abolish all federal holidays.

In industry most workers all get Federal holidays off -- about 10 to 12 annually.

They are worked to death the other 20 workdays of the month.

So a 3 day weekend (4 days at Thanksgiving commonly) is more than welcome by most people.

I guess if you don't work for a living you would not care about this issue.

Don't know if you do or don't.

Even Mexican construction workers get Federal holidays off because their bosses get those days off too.

And Mexicans cannot work safely without gringo supervision.

So repealing all the Federal holidays, besides being unpatriotic on July 4th, would be very unpopular.

You can usually easily give something, but you usually cannot easily take it away.

Even so, Black History Month is not a holiday. You sort of got off track here.
 
White history has 11 months out of the year. So MANY racists around here!!!

Do the mods allow the use of the various N words here?

Just wondering. Trinnity on her politics forum uses the baddest N word a lot. And she does not mind it.

What about here? and what about the other N words that are not as bad ?
 
And I hope you realise that white people were once enslaved, too.

You do realize that the whites who were enslaved weren't put into slavery BECAUSE they were white, right? That's why I included and underlined the quote in the Mississippi Articles of Secession.
 
Why do you feel guilty about holidays?

I'm not saying it affects me or anything, but just that there is a lot of people out there that use holidays like this to attempt to make people feel guilty.
 
You do realize that the whites who were enslaved weren't put into slavery BECAUSE they were white, right? That's why I included and underlined the quote in the Mississippi Articles of Secession.

But I'm talking about the Africans. The Africans weren't enslaved because they were black, either. They were enslaved because they were efficient, and they fared much better than their previous Native American slave population did.
 
Well, it's not "White" History nor is it "Black" History: it's just history.

Thing is, if you take a multicultural/multiracial class (as many, perhaps most classes are now in high school) and teach them American history, almost all of the history they are taught is white history...which leaves the nonwhite kids asking themselves, "Hey - what about us? Don't we count, too?" It's a big boost to kids to be able to look back and say, "Hey, that guy was one of us! See - we can do that too!"

All those who take offense at there being Black/Hispanic/Asian/whatever history months need to take a reality check - it doesn't hurt us for there to be emphasis on histories of other races - if anything, it helps us when we get involved by showing those of other races that yeah, we appreciate what their race has done and we acknowledge what their own heroes have done.
 
But never were they enslaved BECAUSE they were white...which is why I included the underlined quote in the Mississippi Articles of Secession.

Except of course they were.
 
But I'm talking about the Africans. The Africans weren't enslaved because they were black, either. They were enslaved because they were efficient, and they fared much better than their previous Native American slave population did.

Again, look at the Mississippi Articles of Secession - they wanted black slaves because the slaves were black.
 
Maybe only 9. In the Tavern I heard that May is hamburger month.

Ah, the hamburger. White on the outside, black on the inside. I love the hamburger. Two races of flavor living side by side in harmony. I feel like the hamburger represents our nation's ability to overcome its demons and move forward into a racially integrated, more open, more tolerant future free of our petty need to diminish and trivialize others based on something so insignificant as a person's skin color.

Or it could represent two white people in an orgy with a black person. It's really all how you choose to look at it.
 
Last edited:
Again, look at the Mississippi Articles of Secession - they wanted black slaves because the slaves were black.
I'm not talking about Mississippi. I'm talking about the Europeans who originally enslaved the Africans (or bought them from African slave traders) and sold them through the Triangular Trade Route/Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade.
 
Last edited:
Except of course they were.
Well they weren't enslaved because they were white; if that was true the whole European population would of enslaved themselves.

They were enslaved for a variety of reasons.
 
Ah, the hamburger. White on the outside, black on the inside. I love the hamburger. Two races of flavor living side by side in harmony. I feel like the hamburger represents our nation's ability to overcome its demons and move forward into a racially integrated, more open, more tolerant future free of our petty need to diminish and trivialize others based on something so insignificant as a person's skin color.

Put some mustard and ketchup on it and you're another step closer to that sainthood.

Or it could represent two white people in an orgy with a black person. It's really all how you choose to look at it.

Dessert? We have oreo cookies...
 
But I'm talking about the Africans. The Africans weren't enslaved because they were black, either. They were enslaved because they were efficient, and they fared much better than their previous Native American slave population did.

I'd like to see you back that up, because not only was it easier to purchase "home-grown" slaves...but they already knew English, and so would have been much easier to train.
 
I'd like to see you back that up, because not only was it easier to purchase "home-grown" slaves...but they already knew English, and so would have been much easier to train.
I understand that Mississippi did not purchase their slaves from Africa after the Atlantic Slave Trade ended. Of course they purchased "home-grown" slaves; that's a way cheaper method to purchase slaves than getting them from Africa. And some raped some of their female slaves so they didn't have to buy new ones.

But once again, I'm not talking about Mississippi. I'm talking about the Europeans who went to Africa and either enslaved Africans or purchased them from African slave traders, and brought them back to the Americas. Those slaves were not enslaved because they were black. They were enslaved because they were a more efficient working force than the Europeans' previous slave force of Native Americans, who usually tended to die off pretty quickly from disease. Africans are genetically better at physical labour, which was what was required of them to be efficient slaves. They were physically stronger and overall tougher than most other groups if indigenous people during this era.

Also, Africans lived in tribal societies, and as a result conflict was always existing. It was easy fro the Europeans to ask a specific tribe or a warlord to give up their prisoners as slaves in exchange for guns and other various western equipment. And as a result of this, it increased the fighting and conflict even more, making it even easier for the Europeans to purchases more and more African slaves.

And Europeans almost never conducted slave raids because they didn't have to. Local warlords were always capturing people in numerous little raids and skirmishes, and when white slave traders showed up, they could easily make money off their captives.
 
Last edited:
I understand that Mississippi did not purchase their slaves from Africa after the Atlantic Slave Trade ended. Of course they purchased "home-grown" slaves; that's a way cheaper method to purchase slaves than getting them from Africa. And some raped some of their female slaves so they didn't have to buy new ones.

But once again, I'm not talking about Mississippi. I'm talking about the Europeans who went to Africa and either enslaved Africans or purchased them from African slave traders, and brought them back to the Americas. Those slaves were not enslaved because they were black. They were enslaved because they were a more efficient working force than the Europeans' previous slave force of Native Americans, who usually tended to die off pretty quickly from disease. Africans are genetically better at physical labour, which was what was required of them to be efficient slaves. They were physically stronger and overall tougher than most other groups if indigenous people during this era.

Also, Africans lived in tribal societies, and as a result conflict was always existing. It was easy fro the Europeans to ask a specific tribe or a warlord to give up their prisoners as slaves in exchange for guns and other various western equipment. And as a result of this, it increased the fighting and conflict even more, making it even easier for the Europeans to purchases more and more African slaves.

While you are factually correct, your points do not detract from my central point, which was that blacks were kept as slaves in America because they were black...and there's a plethora of evidence to support that. I mean, look at George Wallace's quote, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!" Just as slaveowners kept black slaves as slaves because they were black a century before, Wallace wanted segregation from blacks because they were black (along with all the assumptions and accusations that were included).
 
Back
Top Bottom