• 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!

Go figure

apdst said:
You act as if slavery never existed in Canada.
Click to expand...

Where did I state that? Canada did have indentured slavery and treated certain groups horribly
 
Nickyjo said:
Because it is 400 years old this month. Same reason I celebrate my friend's 75th birthday next week, and we did things bigger on my 25th wedding anniversary. Apparently this has been in the works for month. Significant number. Duh. What possible connection with a "Baquet pep rally," whatever that was?

Are people that clueless or that paranoid to wonder why this is being done?

Are people being disingenuous when they ask this question? Did they ask it on July 4, 1976?
Click to expand...
The "Baquet pep rally" refers to the (now infamous) NYT Town Hall where the chief editor, Dean Baquet, explained to journalists how they were going to be beating the issues of race and racism to death for the foreseeable future.

Apparently 1619 gets quite a bit of play in American textbooks as "the year slavery began in the colonies" (despite this being woefully untrue; see the Smithsonian article above), and 400 years exactly is a big, round number, hence I can fathom the argument that 2019 would be a logical year to commemorate "the start of slavery". Timing issues aside, we're not talking about a simple commemoration, and no, you most certainly didn't do bigger things on your 25th anniversary.

In the Times' own words, these specials kick off The 1619 Project, a "major initiative" (ibid.) that "aims to reframe the country's history" (ibid.). They're giving away copies of this week's first edition, called "The Slavery Edition", gratis.

You may believe they're concerned citizens who really, really care about the centenary of a slave ship sailing into Virginia, and perhaps you're right, but I'll believe this if and when the Times' "major initiative" doesn't turn into a months-long crapstorm stirring up animosity (particularly animosity towards your president). I don't trust them as far as I can throw them when it comes to objective journalism. One also wonders why a newspaper, of all businesses, is undertaking a major project to "reframe the country's history". Perhaps they should rename themselves to the New York Historical Revision Society.
 
COTO said:
The "Baquet pep rally" refers to the (now infamous) NYT Town Hall where the chief editor, Dean Baquet, explained to journalists how they were going to be beating the issues of race and racism to death for the foreseeable future.

Apparently 1619 gets quite a bit of play in American textbooks as "the year slavery began in the colonies" (despite this being woefully untrue; see the Smithsonian article above), and 400 years exactly is a big, round number, hence I can fathom the argument that 2019 would be a logical year to commemorate "the start of slavery". Timing issues aside, we're not talking about a simple commemoration, and no, you most certainly didn't do bigger things on your 25th anniversary.

In the Times' own words, these specials kick off The 1619 Project, a "major initiative" (ibid.) that "aims to reframe the country's history" (ibid.). They're giving away copies of this week's first edition, called "The Slavery Edition", gratis.

You may believe they're concerned citizens who really, really care about the centenary of a slave ship sailing into Virginia, and perhaps you're right, but I'll believe this if and when the Times' "major initiative" doesn't turn into a months-long crapstorm stirring up animosity (particularly animosity towards your president). I don't trust them as far as I can throw them when it comes to objective journalism. One also wonders why a newspaper, of all businesses, is undertaking a major project to "reframe the country's history". Perhaps they should rename themselves to the New York Historical Revision Society.
Click to expand...

I think that parts of US history should be "reframed." I learned about 1619 in grammar school, but precious little else about how brutal our brand of slavery was, rape of slaves by masters, etc, other than how it affected the path to the Civil War. Ditto about other issues, such as lynching, quasi-slavery that followed Emancipation, or labor struggles.
 
Please forgive me if this repeats. I had it on my screen and lost it. Someone asked for links to articles on (some) conservative reaction to the NYTimes piece on slavery. Here they are in all their liberal glory. There is also some commentary below on what Gingrich said. I am still confused by this. Is it because it is the Times, Grand Priestess of the Church of Enemies of the People? Would people complain if USA Today did something like this, or if a news station had a feature on it? We commemorate the birth of Christ, Pearl Harbor Day, Thanksgiving, etc. I visited the Custer Battlefield on its 100th anniversary (what was he thinking?). Point is we do this all the time. What gives, Newt et al.?

Republicans are freaking out over a NY Times project on history of slavery in the US: ‘Evil propaganda machine’ – Alternet.org

The NY Times’ 1619 Project discusses slavery’s impact on American society. Conservatives are not happy. | Media Matters for America

Newt Gingrich Upset the New York Times Project on Slavery Does Not Praise White People for Ending It | Contemptor

“I think slavery a terrible thing. I think putting slavery in context is important…But, for most Americans, most of the time, there were a lot of other things going on. There were several hundred thousand white Americans who died in the Civil War in order to free the slaves.”
Again, the project explores slavery’s centrality to America’s founding in toto, not the white people who died to end it 250 years and untold amounts of suffering after it began. If Gingrich wants that story, there’s a Ken Burns documentary he can watch.
Oddly (or not!), Gingrich does not want monuments built to honor the hundreds of thousands of people who died in defense of slavery to be taken down. It’s almost as if he does not want America to reckon with its slave-owning past at all. Which is an odd stance for a purported historian.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Where did I state that? Canada did have indentured slavery and treated certain groups horribly
Click to expand...

Oh, indentured slavery? All the slaves in Canada were slaves by choice? :lamo
 
apdst said:
Oh, indentured slavery? All the slaves in Canada were slaves by choice? :lamo
Click to expand...

By 1800 the other provinces of British North America had effectively limited slavery through court decisions requiring the strictest proof of ownership, which was rarely available. In 1819, John Robinson Attorney General of Upper Canada declared that by residing in Canada, black residents were set free, and that Canadian courts would protect their freedom.[34] Slavery remained legal, however, until the British Parliament's Slavery Abolition Act finally abolished slavery in most parts of the British Empire effective 1 August 1834.

Today there are four surviving slave cemeteries in Canada: in St-Armand, Quebec, Shelburne, Nova Scotia and Priceville and Dresden in Ontario.
Click to expand...
Slavery in Canada - Wikipedia

Slavery was banned in what would become Canada, before Canada became Canada

Canada did have Indentured Servants until the early 1900's. So no, Canada did not have slavery like that of the US of A. That would fall on Great Britain, which outlawed it in what would become Canada
 
Nickyjo said:
I think that parts of US history should be "reframed." I learned about 1619 in grammar school, but precious little else about how brutal our brand of slavery was, rape of slaves by masters, etc, other than how it affected the path to the Civil War. Ditto about other issues, such as lynching, quasi-slavery that followed Emancipation, or labor struggles.
Click to expand...
I find this somewhat hard to believe given what I know about the US school curriculum, but fine, let's say this stuff isn't taught in US schools.

Is there any benefit to learning it? Is there anything in your life enhanced by a greater awareness of lynching, rape, and brutality dating back to the early 17th Century? Would you likewise benefit from studying Japanese torture techniques employed against the Chinese, or the cruelty of the vikings, or the precise atrocities committed on the Barbary Coast?

Not all knowledge is good or useful knowledge. Likewise, not everyone who conveys knowledge has a noble intent in doing so. Focusing on the brutality of colonial slavery would be appropriate in the face of public demands to reinstate slavery (in the spirit of learning history so as not to repeat it), but in the absence of such demands, I see absolutely no good coming from dwelling on it. It's far more likely to stir up hatred in blacks against whites, as well as fuel support for backwards proposals such as reparations. If these proposals ever become law of the land, the hatred of whites for blacks will grow every bit as quickly as the hatred that brought the laws about. You may be standing on the precipice of all-out race and class warfare, with the fools at the NYT ready to lead the charge in their quest to end your president.

If you see America in any way becoming a more just, more peaceable, or a more prosperous nation as a result of the 1619 Project, kindly explain your logic to me because I just don't see it.
 
COTO said:
I find this somewhat hard to believe given what I know about the US school curriculum, but fine, let's say this stuff isn't taught in US schools.

Is there any benefit to learning it? Is there anything in your life enhanced by a greater awareness of lynching, rape, and brutality dating back to the early 17th Century? Would you likewise benefit from studying Japanese torture techniques employed against the Chinese, or the cruelty of the vikings, or the precise atrocities committed on the Barbary Coast?

Not all knowledge is good or useful knowledge. Likewise, not everyone who conveys knowledge has a noble intent in doing so. Focusing on the brutality of colonial slavery would be appropriate in the face of public demands to reinstate slavery (in the spirit of learning history so as not to repeat it), but in the absence of such demands, I see absolutely no good coming from dwelling on it. It's far more likely to stir up hatred in blacks against whites, as well as fuel support for backwards proposals such as reparations. If these proposals ever become law of the land, the hatred of whites for blacks will grow every bit as quickly as the hatred that brought the laws about. You may be standing on the precipice of all-out race and class warfare, with the fools at the NYT ready to lead the charge in their quest to end your president.

If you see America in any way becoming a more just, more peaceable, or a more prosperous nation as a result of the 1619 Project, kindly explain your logic to me because I just don't see it.
Click to expand...

We might as well close the Holocaust Museum, get rid of the useless US Arizona, create Playland at the Beach in Normandy, and turn the scene of Pickett’s Charge into a skateboard park while we’re at it. The Alamo would make a nice Cineplex as well.
 
ludin said:
it depends on how they framed it and if they actually told the truth.
The main party for slavery are democrats that started with Jackson.
Democrats fought every civil rights act that there was and the starting on the KKK were all democrats.

they continue their slavery programs today just in a different form trying to get everyone dependent on government.
for some reason though i doubt the NY time mentioned this.

The founder of planned parenthood is a devout democrat and racist.
it is funny that she put most of the planned parenthood in black communities.
which also corresponds to the plummet in black births.
Click to expand...

This dumb ****ing **** again. Democrats back then were conservatives. They are the republicans of today. everybody but dumb dishonest right wingers knows that
 
Nickyjo said:
We might as well close the Holocaust Museum, get rid of the useless US Arizona, create Playland at the Beach in Normandy, and turn the scene of Pickett’s Charge into a skateboard park while we’re at it. The Alamo would make a nice Cineplex as well.
Click to expand...
Self-motivated people visit these places specifically to learn. The horrors therein aren't foisted on us as part of the daily news cycle.

More importantly, none of these places wield history like a cudgel to stir up hatred and influence politics. They don't have an agenda. The NYT very much does.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Slavery in Canada - Wikipedia

Slavery was banned in what would become Canada, before Canada became Canada

Canada did have Indentured Servants until the early 1900's. So no, Canada did not have slavery like that of the US of A. That would fall on Great Britain, which outlawed it in what would become Canada
Click to expand...

Your own source proves you're wrong.
 
apdst said:
Your own source proves you're wrong.
Click to expand...

How so

Canada was not a country until 1867, slavery was abolished in the British Kingdom (at least most of it) in 1834. Before Canada was formed. So slavery was not legal in Canada. It was legal in the US, when the US was the US
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
How so

Canada was not a country until 1867, slavery was abolished in the British Kingdom (at least most of it) in 1834. Before Canada was formed. So slavery was not legal in Canada. It was legal in the US, when the US was the US
Click to expand...

Oh, so slavery in The United States doesn't count if it was prior to 1776?
 
apdst said:
Oh, so slavery in The United States doesn't count if it was prior to 1776?
Click to expand...

Right, the US of A would not have supported slavery if it was abolished before 1776. The colonies were ruled by Great Britain before that

Of course the truth is the US did have slavery after 1776
 
I feel a duty to express my pride as a Canadian: No slavery here because we weren't technically a country. smug.gif

In fairness, we did figure it out "kidnapping + brutal slavery = bad" first.
 
Sampson Simpson said:
This dumb ****ing **** again. Democrats back then were conservatives. They are the republicans of today. everybody but dumb dishonest right wingers knows that
Click to expand...

Talk about dumb. I always find it amusing, in a One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest sort of way, that we are always told, the parties switched every time it is pointed out that the Democrats supported something that leftists, today, find appalling. We are really supposed to believe that the entire two parties just switch it up from time to time? All of the slavery supporting Democrats just up and switched party affiliation, same with Republicans? Then, they did it again during the civil rights movement? Yeah, you go with that. I think I hear Nurse Ratched calling for you.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Right, the US of A would not have supported slavery if it was abolished before 1776. The colonies were ruled by Great Britain before that

Of course the truth is the US did have slavery after 1776
Click to expand...

Just like Canada had slavery, too. Right?
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Before Canada became a country, slavery existed in what became Canada. It was abolished before Canada became a country.
Click to expand...

Don't cut yourself, while splitting those hairs.
 
COTO said:
Self-motivated people visit these places specifically to learn. The horrors therein aren't foisted on us as part of the daily news cycle.

More importantly, none of these places wield history like a cudgel to stir up hatred and influence politics. They don't have an agenda. The NYT very much does.
Click to expand...

Are you required to read the NYTimes? Who’s foisting you?

In my view, they are doing us a service, no different than was probably done with news articles on the significant years after Pearl Harbor, or 9/11, or for that matter Bobby Thompson’s home run in 1951. This is an important part of history, like lynching, or the Haymarket riots, that has been under-taught.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom