[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
{quote]No, it’s not hyprocritical. Most of us here benefited from the exploitation and displacement of the Indians. That’s just a fact. Does that mean we should go live on reservations? No. But it doesn’t mean that we can’t be cognizant either of the great injustice done to them. America is a great country, but we have our share of skeletons in the closet and have committed our share of atrocities. Acknowledging this does not diminish our greatness or the many positive things we’ve done.
jsbrook, just wanted to say that, I like your viewpoint here and on a variety of other threads on a wide range of topics. You are a smart guy and pretty good one as well![/quote]
Thank you. I lke what you have to say as well, and you’ve been a voice of reason on many threads!
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Why do ghetto moms have ten kids by ten different fathers? Because drinking and drugging and sex are escapes from a world of despair.
[/quote]
Yet their “escape” is the very thing that keeps them there. An education and a job is the true escape.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
No, it’s not hyprocritical. Most of us here benefited from the exploitation and displacement of the Indians. That’s just a fact. Does that mean we should go live on reservations? No. But it doesn’t mean that we can’t be cognizant either of the great injustice done to them. America is a great country, but we have our share of skeletons in the closet and have committed our share of atrocities. Acknowledging this does not diminish our greatness or the many positive things we’ve done.
But for you to look down your noses in judgement while reclining on the dead bodies that built your standing in society is horrible hypocritical. Everyone shares the guilt. Everyone. Therefore there is no room for judgement.
If you have a magic potion that will go back in history 300 years and erase all the wrongs perpetrated on the Indians, then you may have something worth crowing about. But to see only the bad that the evil whiteman has done is hypocritical.
[/quote]
I don’t only see the bad that ‘the evil whiteman’ has done. I see plenty of the good as well. I don’t really see how you can say all Americans today are culpable. None of us were alive. It’s one thing to acknowledge that America could not exist as it does today without the extermination and displacement of the Indians. I certainly acknowledge this. It’s still not hypocritical to deem this as having been wrong.
I am responsible for MY actions (and inactions). I am not responsible for what people did 300 years ago. It would be wrong to stand here and condemn them if not acknowledging how I personanly benefit from past actions, however wrong they were. But I’m not doing that. I’m not gonna go live on some isolated island because I disagree with what early americans did. Just like I’m not gonna leave America if I don’t agree with everything the goverment does.
But that doesn’t mean I can’t criticize. And criticism doesn’t mean I can’t appreicate how great our country is and how lucky I am to live here. Young germans today aren’t hypocrites for condemming what the Nazis did during the Holocaust. Nor are they responsible.
This thread really surprises me. Does anyone not think that the OP was a troll?
Some posters have observed that there was plenty of guilt to go around regarding the slave trade. Some have also noted that contemporary white Americans, lacking functioning time machines, should not be held accountable for the actions of their forebears. Both these seem like tenable positions.
But for crying out loud, the thread wasn’t titled “Slavery - blame to go around?” or “Slavery - tragic history, but let’s move on.” It was titled “Slavery Good?”, and the poster asserted that so-called whiny and ungrateful American blacks ought to be thankful (!) that their ancestors were taken into slavery. Fuck that.
This thread was a troll. I can’t believe that ANY of the subsequent posters would want to defend Pretzel Logic’s position. Do you?
This thread was a troll. I can’t believe that ANY of the subsequent posters would want to defend Pretzel Logic’s position. Do you?
No. But the thread has diverged into several worthwhile tangents…[/quote]
It’s safe to say that’s a major understatement.
I find it amazing that by simply showing evidence that African slaves were brought to America primarily for their agricultural knowledge in crops brought to the contitnent by settlers, I was labelled a woe-is-me, white person hating liberal, lol.
This thread was a troll. I can’t believe that ANY of the subsequent posters would want to defend Pretzel Logic’s position. Do you?
No. But the thread has diverged into several worthwhile tangents…
It’s safe to say that’s a major understatement.
I find it amazing that by simply showing evidence that African slaves were brought to America primarily for their agricultural knowledge in crops brought to the contitnent by settlers, I was labelled a woe-is-me, white person hating liberal, lol.
[/quote]
No you were labeled a punk-assed idiot. There is a difference.
This thread was a troll. I can’t believe that ANY of the subsequent posters would want to defend Pretzel Logic’s position. Do you?
No. But the thread has diverged into several worthwhile tangents…
It’s safe to say that’s a major understatement.
I find it amazing that by simply showing evidence that African slaves were brought to America primarily for their agricultural knowledge in crops brought to the contitnent by settlers, I was labelled a woe-is-me, white person hating liberal, lol.
[/quote]
I certainly wouldn’t call you a white person hating liberal. But, no offense, I don’t know that you showed that. I have to go back and read through the thread. Missed some posts while I was away. Off-hand, I’m highly skeptical. The crops in Africa and America were completely different. And there was a huge language barrier. None of the plantation owners would have been able to understand anything the slaves were saying so as to ‘learn’ from them. They also didn’t respect their intelligence very much. They viewed them as savage. From every history class I’ve ever taken, it seems they were pretty much a labor force. Certainly the primary reason they were brought here.
Panther, you sort of did the same thing as Rainjack. He posted about how slaves were valued like farm animals for their work capacity. Absolutely. But no evidence as to deliberate, concerted breeding along these lines. (though I do hope to investigate his more recent post with some source material on the subject). You posted that slaves largely come from rice-farming regions in Africa. Nothing about whether their knowledge of rice farming was the reason they were brought here or WHY indiviuals from these regions were though to be the ‘best’. As far as I know, cotton and other food crops were the big cash crops and not rice.
This thread was a troll. I can’t believe that ANY of the subsequent posters would want to defend Pretzel Logic’s position. Do you?
No. But the thread has diverged into several worthwhile tangents…
It’s safe to say that’s a major understatement.
I find it amazing that by simply showing evidence that African slaves were brought to America primarily for their agricultural knowledge in crops brought to the contitnent by settlers, I was labelled a woe-is-me, white person hating liberal, lol.
I certainly wouldn’t call you a white person hating liberal. But, no offense, I don’t know that you showed that. I have to go back and read through the thread. Missed some posts while I was away. Off-hand, I’m highly skeptical. The crops in Africa and America were completely different. And there was a huge language barrier. None of the plantation owners would have been able to understand anything the slaves were saying so as to ‘learn’ from them. They also didn’t respect their intelligence very much. They viewed them as savage. From every history class I’ve ever taken, it seems they were pretty much a labor force. Certainly the primary reason they were brought here.
[/quote]
Actually jsbrook, the view that blacks were inferior didn’t come about until after slavery was introduced to the Americas and as was already said by almost everyone here, was a way for slave masters to justify slavery.
Interesting to note that according to George M. Fredrickson, a professor of history at Stanford, in his book “Racism: A Short History”, the view of a certain race as inherently inferior to (or subhuman realtive to) another is a uniquely American form of racism and probably grew as a RESULT of the Africa-to-America slave trade rather than being the REASON for the it in the first place.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Panther, you sort of did the same thing as Rainjack. He posted about how slaves were valued like farm animals for their work capacity. Absolutely. But no evidence as to deliberate, concerted breeding along these lines. (though I do hope to investigate his more recent post with some source material on the subject). You posted that slaves largely come from rice-farming regions in Africa. Nothing about whether their knowledge of rice farming was the reason they were brought here or WHY indiviuals from these regions were though to be the ‘best’. As far as I know, cotton and other food crops were the big cash crops and not rice.[/quote]
Rice was a major money crop at the time slavery was first introduced to the Americas from the Carolinas down to Louisiana. It was actually known as the gold crop (or was it gold grain?). Anyway. I took a really interesting course on this subject my SO year of college. Wish I still had the reference material.
Actually jsbrook, the view that blacks were inferior didn’t come about until after slavery was introduced to the Americas and as was already said by almost everyone here, was a way for slave masters to justify slavery.
Interesting to note that according to George M. Fredrickson, a professor of history at Stanford, in his book “Racism: A Short History”, the view of a certain race as inherently inferior to (or subhuman realtive to) another is a uniquely American form of racism and probably grew as a RESULT of the Africa-to-America slave trade rather than being the REASON for the it in the first place.[/quote]
Yeah, you’re pretty much right on this one. And it was used to justify slavery since the free labor was needed. Phrenology and various other disciplines were used to create a body of ‘evidence’ as to AFrican-American inferiority. Still, Europeans and Americans pretty much viewed African tribes as savages.
[quote]Panther1015 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Panther, you sort of did the same thing as Rainjack. He posted about how slaves were valued like farm animals for their work capacity. Absolutely. But no evidence as to deliberate, concerted breeding along these lines. (though I do hope to investigate his more recent post with some source material on the subject). You posted that slaves largely come from rice-farming regions in Africa. Nothing about whether their knowledge of rice farming was the reason they were brought here or WHY indiviuals from these regions were though to be the ‘best’. As far as I know, cotton and other food crops were the big cash crops and not rice.
Rice was a major money crop at the time slavery was first introduced to the Americas from the Carolinas down to Louisiana. It was actually known as the gold crop (or was it gold grain?). Anyway. I took a really interesting course on this subject my SO year of college. Wish I still had the reference material.[/quote]
My cousin’s a history professor. I’ll ask him about it. He really knows his shit. Even if that is why Africans were INITIALLY brought over, it’s not why slavery took off and became an institution. Americans just wanted the laborers.
No argument there. Absolutely slavery became an institution in this country because of the growing need for laborers. Pretty much every post of mine in this thread was simply arguing the initial reasons for slavery in America and also to debunk a widely believed myth that slaves were selectively bred for physically superior traits (a myth I believed at one time too).
My cousin’s a history professor. I’ll ask him about it. He really knows his shit. Even if that is why Africans were INITIALLY brought over, it’s not why slavery took off and became an institution. Americans just wanted the laborers.
No argument there. Absolutely slavery became an institution in this country because of the growing need for laborers. Pretty much every post of mine in this thread was simply arguing the initial reasons for slavery in America and also to debunk a widely believed myth that slaves were selectively bred for physically superior traits (a myth I believed at one time too).
Yes no doubt those Dhows were the scourge of the med and the Atlantic…weren’t they?
Certainly no match for a British Ship of the line. Your lack of knowledge of almost excusable but your linking together these absurd ideas is truly comical.
British Naval Ships owned by private companies…good God son does Admiral Nelson ring a bell with students anymore? Any idea when the hero of Trafalgar passed? Whom he was fighting and what weapons were used?
I will disagree with almost every point you made but trying to teach a close mind is an excercise in frustration.
Clearly there is a differnece between those educated in the traditional sense and those under a culture of political correctness as can be seen from our discussion.
Learn the facts before you twist them into politcally correct ideas. It will be the scourge of your generation.
…
When I said the Arab-controlled trade routes, I ment the silk road. I’m the one that has been mentioning european naval dominance, remember? And yes, british war ships were often owned by private companies befroe the advent of the steam ship, and armour plating. Look it up if you are in doubt. I checked with P.D. Curtin, The World and the West, 2000.[/quote]
Dude that is some funny shit.
P.D. Curtin are you kidding me. in the book you referenced ,the introduction starts with his statement that he is going to refute the misconceptions that historians have shared for the previous hundred years concerning European colonialism. He is a revisionist PC psuedo intellect passing off drivel as scholarship.
I am sure you ate it up but like I stated before try and learn the facts before you try and argue history. Opinions come later.
P.D. Curtin are you kidding me. in the book you referenced ,the introduction starts with his statement that he is going to refute the misconceptions that historians have shared for the previous hundred years concerning European colonialism. He is a revisionist PC psuedo intellect passing off drivel as scholarship.
I am sure you ate it up but like I stated before try and learn the facts before you try and argue history. Opinions come later.
[/quote]
No, the introductory paragraph mentions how difficult it is to avoid ethnocentrism in writing history, and how this is especially difficult when dealing with europe. The truth is, it’s almost impossible to escape. Why, for instance, is europe in the center of the map? If you consider trying to include non-european history in books revisionist, you are an idiot.
But to stay on point, are you denying the use of private commercial ships in the protection of trade routes?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Elkhntr1 wrote:
Why do ghetto moms have ten kids by ten different fathers? Because drinking and drugging and sex are escapes from a world of despair.
Yet their “escape” is the very thing that keeps them there. An education and a job is the true escape.[/quote]
Zap, that’s true enough, but learned helplessness will do terrible things to a person.
P.D. Curtin are you kidding me. in the book you referenced ,the introduction starts with his statement that he is going to refute the misconceptions that historians have shared for the previous hundred years concerning European colonialism. He is a revisionist PC psuedo intellect passing off drivel as scholarship.
I am sure you ate it up but like I stated before try and learn the facts before you try and argue history. Opinions come later.
No, the introductory paragraph mentions how difficult it is to avoid ethnocentrism in writing history, and how this is especially difficult when dealing with europe. The truth is, it’s almost impossible to escape. Why, for instance, is europe in the center of the map? If you consider trying to include non-european history in books revisionist, you are an idiot.
But to stay on point, are you denying the use of private commercial ships in the protection of trade routes?[/quote]
Ah the true sign of a weak mind…personal insults. When you have actually earned something let me know…boy. Mind your manners and rest easy that your manners would be much better if you were not on the internet.
You are attempting to refer to a privateer not a ship of the line and not a pirate which you attempted to incorporate into you argument earlier.
I actually read the intro. I laughed realizing that it is exactly the kind of psuedo intelectualism that passes for education at your university. How sad. Hopefully your not studying a science with that lack of intellectual curiosity.
Try learning a little more about the subject…come back when your ready
I felt this was worth returning to, and going trhough step-by-step.
[quote]hedo wrote:
British Naval Ships owned by private companies…good God son does Admiral Nelson ring a bell with students anymore? Any idea when the hero of Trafalgar passed? Whom he was fighting and what weapons were used?
[/quote]
Quite honestly, no, I don’t know anything about Admiral Nelson, other than much of what he did to rise to such a high rank involved fighting over trade routes. But then I am not british, and it would be retarded of you to assume I should know. If I mentioned a Cuban hero from the Cuban-Spanish war, would you know who he is? Would you know when he died? Would you care?
Also, note that I did not say that the british royal navy was privately owned, I said that advanced naval technology was held and used by private companies in warfare, as well as commerce, until “war ships” became too specialized to serve both purposes.
If you disagree with me, don’t you think it’s rather arrogant to assume I’m the close-minded one? Because every time someone says something contrary to what I have stated as fact, I start looking things up. If I find any suggestion I might be wrong, I back off until I can do more research. This isn’t always possible, though, unless someone wants to start paying me…
You know, traditionally, it was taught that non-europeans were savages. Traditionally, it was taught that world history and european history were the same thing. Traditionally, it was taught that the history of other civilizations was insignificant. There is a difference between being politically correct, and simply not being a dumbass.