[quote]pushharder wrote:
Nothing in recent memory here on PWI exposes a bozo better than the slavery issue.[/quote]
Funny, I was thinking the very same thing w/r/t right wing honky’s, who always circle the wagons and go super duper defensive whenever the issue comes up.
[/quote]
Honky’s? You mad?[/quote]
I would be mad to if discussing slavery or something related to it with people who are trying to justify it somehow with the typical " most cultures have had slaves".
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Nothing in recent memory here on PWI exposes a bozo better than the slavery issue.[/quote]
Funny, I was thinking the very same thing w/r/t right wing honky’s, who always circle the wagons and go super duper defensive whenever the issue comes up.
[/quote]
Honky’s? You mad?[/quote]
I would be mad to if discussing slavery or something related to it with people who are trying to justify it somehow with the typical " most cultures have had slaves".
Very exposing of “brown shirt” thinking indeed.
[/quote]
Justify it? To justify it would imply they’re arguing it’s legitimacy. Is that what you see? Seems to me some folks are putting the practice into proper historical perspective. Slavery, it was going to happen. All over the world. Much like war, theft, lying, and greed.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Nothing in recent memory here on PWI exposes a bozo better than the slavery issue.[/quote]
Funny, I was thinking the very same thing w/r/t right wing honky’s, who always circle the wagons and go super duper defensive whenever the issue comes up.
[/quote]
Honky’s? You mad?[/quote]
No, not at all. I just love that word, and use it whenever I get the opportunity. C’mom man, you don’t laugh whenever George Jefferson calls someone a honky? lol
[quote]bigflamer wrote:<<< Our super duper christian friend, Tirib, always seems to run short on time whenever he get’s put in the corner. You see this from him consistently on this forum…sad, really.
All I asked were some simple questions.
[/quote]Is that what I always do? I already know better than to ask for examples. You posted ginormous 3 foot copy n paste jobs from a hack n slash bible butchery site demanding point by point explanations for each passage. I refused and still do though I offered to address the one you felt most damaging. To that YOU refused. I told you where to get answers if you really wanted them. You don’t. If you had come back with something like. “Hey Trib, this Gill guy believed all the same crap you do and while he seems a sharp enough dude with some serious time in the bible, he’s fulla s**t too.”, I might have taken some time with you. But no. You do not want answers. You want to wrangle pointlessly which I do not have time for. if you don’t like that? That’s like tough. Call me whatever you want. I have one master who’s approval I seek.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Nothing in recent memory here on PWI exposes a bozo better than the slavery issue.[/quote]
Funny, I was thinking the very same thing w/r/t right wing honky’s, who always circle the wagons and go super duper defensive whenever the issue comes up.
[/quote]
Honky’s? You mad?[/quote]
I would be mad to if discussing slavery or something related to it with people who are trying to justify it somehow with the typical " most cultures have had slaves".
Very exposing of “brown shirt” thinking indeed.
[/quote]
Justify it? To justify it would imply they’re arguing it’s legitimacy. Is that what you see? Seems to me some folks are putting the practice into proper historical perspective. Slavery, it was going to happen. All over the world. Much like war, theft, lying, and greed.
[/quote]
Its a way of making it a smaller issue than it is. Its like saying to a slave back in the day something like this: Ah I know it sucks being you, but c`mon man thats just the way it is, like stealing, murder etc. Its almost apolgist behaviour. You Sloth are to good of a guy to defend apologists.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Nothing in recent memory here on PWI exposes a bozo better than the slavery issue.[/quote]
Funny, I was thinking the very same thing w/r/t right wing honky’s, who always circle the wagons and go super duper defensive whenever the issue comes up.
[/quote]
Honky’s? You mad?[/quote]
I would be mad to if discussing slavery or something related to it with people who are trying to justify it somehow with the typical " most cultures have had slaves".
Very exposing of “brown shirt” thinking indeed.
[/quote]
Justify it? To justify it would imply they’re arguing it’s legitimacy. Is that what you see? Seems to me some folks are putting the practice into proper historical perspective. Slavery, it was going to happen. All over the world. Much like war, theft, lying, and greed.
[/quote]
Its a way of making it a smaller issue than it is. Its like saying to a slave back in the day something like this: Ah I know it sucks being you, but c`mon man thats just the way it is, like stealing, murder etc. Its almost apolgist behaviour. You Sloth are to good of a guy to defend apologists.[/quote]
No one is apologizing for anything. None of us are guilty, and the guilty are dead. You say it makes the issue smaller, I say it makes it smaller to use slavery to condemn one people’s ancestors while ignoring the humanity-wide practice. Almost like a weapon.
But here’s a question, what outside imperial force subjugated the Christian ‘Honky’ West and made illegal the practice?
Yes, they were both slavery; but to imply that there was no difference between the two would indeed be intellectually dishonest.
[/quote]
I implied nothing of the sort. I asked if you considered it slavery. And one difference for example was that there was not an abolitionist movement amongst the Indians.
I don’t even know what we’re comparing or why. Indian slavery to the trans-Atlantic slave trade?
This leadership of the western world developed the idea of abolition and brought it to fruition. At not insignificant cost to many involved.
Whoa, wait a minute. I already told you it has had different usages at different times. We were talking about quotes from Teddy Roosevelt in the late 19th/early 20th century.
See anthropology section:
These ideas were not imbued with ideas of subjugating and exterminating ‘inferiors’ - that was a later Nazi idea. These were the same sorts of prejudices that all people have. Do you think if you went to the average African tribesman at the time and asked them what they thought of white people or Englishmen you’d get an answer that would be any less distateful?
Yes, they did gain some popularlity. As I said, they didn’t revolve around subjugating and exterminating people but ‘civilising’ them. Other popular ideas were abolitionism, ending colonialism etc
I don’t care what term is used. The point I was making is that these are vastly different people and cultures.
Absolutely I believe it wasn’t the dominant belief. There would’ve been no abolitionist movement it had have been the dominant belief for starters.
Anyway, my whole comment on the book was on the fallacy of its central premise regarding the Taft-Katsura Agreement and WWII. But clearly the book paints quite a distorted picture of Teddy. Another reviewer:
‘That America and its leaders at the time would generally be considered racist in America today is not disputed. However, Bradley seems to want to emphasize that fact. In doing so, he seems to ignore anything that might mitigate his point. For example, he ignores the fact that TR was considered liberal in his time, and was, in fact, noted for his equitable treatment of blacks. For instance, T. Roosevelt was the first US President to entertain a black at the White House (Booker T. Washington, October 16, 1901.)’
I would be mad to if discussing slavery or something related to it with people who are trying to justify it somehow with the typical " most cultures have had slaves".
Very exposing of “brown shirt” thinking indeed.
[/quote]
How is that ‘justifying it?’ If I say people from all cultures have committed murder and that it is not fair to attach the stimga of murder to only one people is that justifying murder? Use your head florelius.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Nothing in recent memory here on PWI exposes a bozo better than the slavery issue.[/quote]
Funny, I was thinking the very same thing w/r/t right wing honky’s, who always circle the wagons and go super duper defensive whenever the issue comes up.
[/quote]
Honky’s? You mad?[/quote]
I would be mad to if discussing slavery or something related to it with people who are trying to justify it somehow with the typical " most cultures have had slaves".
Very exposing of “brown shirt” thinking indeed.
[/quote]
Justify it? To justify it would imply they’re arguing it’s legitimacy. Is that what you see? Seems to me some folks are putting the practice into proper historical perspective. Slavery, it was going to happen. All over the world. Much like war, theft, lying, and greed.
[/quote]
Its a way of making it a smaller issue than it is. Its like saying to a slave back in the day something like this: Ah I know it sucks being you, but c`mon man thats just the way it is, like stealing, murder etc. Its almost apolgist behaviour. You Sloth are to good of a guy to defend apologists.[/quote]
No one is apologizing for anything. None of us are guilty, and the guilty are dead. You say it makes the issue smaller, I say it makes it smaller to use slavery to condemn one people’s ancestors while ignoring the humanity-wide practice. Almost like a weapon.
But here’s a question, what outside imperial force subjugated the Christian ‘Honky’ West and made illegal the practice?
[/quote]
I dont use it to condemn people who lives now, I am only reacting when someone bellitle the cruelty of slavery, and when people do its suspect behaviour in my eyes.
Well my knowledge of the abolishenment of slavery is a little rusty, but I will guess the anti-slavery sentiment was something that grew out of the enligtenment and I guess after the revolutionary ideas from the french and american revolution had been spread trough out
the western world that the unliberal nature of slavery where in direct opposition to the liberal ideas of equality before the law, ideas of democracy etc. And therefor the hypocracy of keeping slavery running, became more and more obvious for people. England abolished slavery before America and I think the reason for that is that they where less dependent on it than the americans and therefor it where simpler for them to abolish it, while the Americans, especially the south had an entire agrarian economy based on slavery and therefor it would be economical suicide to abolish it. The north on the other hand developed a industrial economy in the 1800`s and therefor they where as England not as dependent on slavery ergo they where able to abolish it earlyer than the south.
So to conclude I would say that the abolishment of slavery in the west where driven by the two most dynamic and progressive forces of that era. The industrial revolution and the democratic revolution who grew out of the ideas of the enligtenment and the class antogonism beetwen the burgeouis and the aristocrats.
Ps. I know that part of the abolishonist movement in the Northern states where christian, but one argue that their sentiment where a product of their time and place.
Thats my asnwer to your question and I hope I did not make to many spelling errors.
I would be mad to if discussing slavery or something related to it with people who are trying to justify it somehow with the typical " most cultures have had slaves".
Very exposing of “brown shirt” thinking indeed.
[/quote]
How is that ‘justifying it?’ If I say people from all cultures have committed murder and that it is not fair to attach the stimga of murder to only one people is that justifying murder? Use your head florelius.[/quote]
When the discussion is about slavery in america for example it is irrelevant for the discussion to bring up slavery in the caliphat for example. And for many people it smells
of apologist behaviour, why else bring it up. By the way no one is saying( except perhaps method man ) that white people are more barbaric than other people, but when discussing slavery in america or western racist ideas about white people and slavery( as bigflamer are doing ) then that is the subject and the racism and institutions of slavery in other cultures and times are irrelevant.
Ps. Regarding the sentiments in the west that Bigflamer are talking about, are a well established fact and I will admit that in the early 1900`s, the pseudo-science known as racism where all the rage in my country and in the west in general. Nothing new here.
When the discussion is about slavery in america
[/quote]
Well, the topic was actually Libertarianism. It’s devolved into slavery. And, who gets to say where an already meandering discussion gets to go? Someone wants to talk ‘slavery in america.’ Well, ok, but someone else thinks it’s best to talk slavery, period.
[quote]florelius wrote:
the pseudo-science known as racism where all the rage in my country and in the west in general. Nothing new here.
[/quote]
And that’s pretty much what it was, pseudo-SCIENCE. Observations that a race looks different. That it doesn’t have the same technology. Conclusion, sub-human. Something else to sell.
The White Christian west isn’t simply a story about slavery. It also happens to be a story about ending slavery on their own, by their own. No civilizing foreign imperial power. No great nation changing slave revolt. And, even helping to end it outside of the West, where yes, it had also been practiced.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:<<< Our super duper christian friend, Tirib, always seems to run short on time whenever he get’s put in the corner. You see this from him consistently on this forum…sad, really.
All I asked were some simple questions.
[/quote]Is that what I always do?[/quote]
Yea, pretty much.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I already know better than to ask for examples. You posted ginormous 3 foot copy n paste jobs from a hack n slash bible butchery site demanding point by point explanations for each passage. I refused and still do though I offered to address the one you felt most damaging. To that YOU refused.[/quote]
Do us all a favor and put your bullshit, whiny excuses back in your pocket. You asked for examples, and I buried you in them; pick yourself up out of the rubble, it’s not my job. Why don’t you just go ahead and address them one by one.
You keep addressing this site:>>http://www.evilbible.com/Evil%20Bible%20Quotes.htm << as “hack n slash”. If that was the case then you should be able to put all of it’s arguments to bed then with general ease then, correct?
You can’t.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I told you where to get answers if you really wanted them. You don’t. If you had come back with something like. “Hey Trib, this Gill guy believed all the same crap you do and while he seems a sharp enough dude with some serious time in the bible, he’s fulla s**t too.”, I might have taken some time with you. But no. You do not want answers. You want to wrangle pointlessly which I do not have time for. if you don’t like that? That’s like tough. Call me whatever you want. [/quote]
I absolutely want your answers to what I posted, Which is why I won’t let you slide on this, however I doubt that this forum will see you honestly address them. It’s ironic that YOU of all people are so quick to throw around the term “hack”.
LOL…"Hello, pot? This is kettle…
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I have one master who’s approval I seek.[/quote]
Whatever, just address my points or continue being the self righteous hack that you so comfortably are.
Yes, they were both slavery; but to imply that there was no difference between the two would indeed be intellectually dishonest.[/quote]
I implied nothing of the sort. I asked if you considered it slavery. And one difference for example was that there was not an abolitionist movement amongst the Indians.[/quote]
Sure you did.
And Show me how Native Americans bought and sold their war captives (their slaves) for the purposes of economics. They didn’t. The indian “slaves” weren’t used for large scale economic reasons; Native Americans were just fine doing their own work.
Were they considered racially inferior, as in how the white christian slave owners of America looked upon their slaves? Nope.
When Native Americans took their slaves after battles, they would (depending on the tribe) sometimes have the men take for wives the widows from that battle, and their children would be accepted as members of the tribe and not looked upon as any different. Now, sometimes their captured slaves were sacrificed as part of ritual, but hey, that’s more of a religious thing and as an anti-theist, my thoughts on THAT subject are currently being discussed with our “high on jeebus” friend, Tirib.
What was a game changer for the Native Americans, was the arrival of European colonialists. Until that point, the whole concept of the buying and selling of “slaves” wasn’t part of their culture. They did often exchange and barter with other tribes in peace gestures or in exchange for their own members, but NOTHING like what the Europeans practiced. Once the concept of selling off their captured slaves to the mostly southern European landowners was introduced, BOOM!, game changer.
It took a bunch of white European christians to really teach the Native Americans how to be proper slavers.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
I’m not speaking to the common man, but to the intellectual and political leadership in the western world at the time. The common peoples you speak of looked to this leadership and wouldn’t have been able to really question them, nor would they have had any real desire to do so.[/quote]
This leadership of the western world developed the idea of abolition and brought it to fruition. At not insignificant cost to many involved.[/quote]
I’m not denying the abolitionist movement, but the western world was dominated for quite a long time by racial theories that justified all sorts of ugliness, one of them being their particular version of slavery. But our discussion isn’t limited to only the idea of slavery, we’re talking about the concept of race theories, and the false idea that only the white christian of Teutonic blood was fit to rule.
I also made the point, which I borrowed from James Bradley, that even if the concept of slavery in America was going by the wayside, the false idea that the white christian was racially superior to the black man prospered for a long time after Lincoln freed the slaves. In our foreign policy of the day, we see this in how we shit on our “little brown brothers” in the Philippines. White mans burden and all…
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
“Aryan” refers to peoples originating from the Caucasus mountains,
[/quote]
Whoa, wait a minute. I already told you it has had different usages at different times. We were talking about quotes from Teddy Roosevelt in the late 19th/early 20th century.[/quote]
True, I was getting lost in the history of that particular term. I believe that “Teuton” was most often used in that day.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
currently in South Russia, just north of Iran. In fact, that region was a part of Iran, for its history, until the mid 1800’s. Also, this is where the term “Caucasian” comes from, unless I’m mistaken. (Bradley makes a point in his book that the term “Iran” derives from the the word “Aryan”)
This is all part of an unproven theory, more like a story I think, of an Aryan migration from this corner of the world to various other corners of the world, including (westward) to the forests of Germany. According to the story, these Aryans maintained the “purity of their blood” by killing the peoples they encountered instead of mating with and integrating with.
Supposedly, the Aryan gave way to the Teutons, who continued to migrate from the forests of Germany. Teutons had made their way to the British Isles continued to put a premium on their racial purity by killing and conquering the native peoples without integrating. These Teutons became known “Anglo-Saxons”. It’s believed by folks who put allot of stock in racially deterministic theories, that if they’d integrated, the great western flow of civilization would’ve been lost. [/quote]
See anthropology section:
These ideas were not imbued with ideas of subjugating and exterminating ‘inferiors’ - that was a later Nazi idea. [/quote]
Sure they were, I think I’ve already provided you with more than enough evidence to support the fact that race theory was well under way before Hitler gave it steroids. It was in fact an accepted idea in western academia that the white christian of Teutonic descent was racially superior to the other “inferior” races.
Like the book or not, James Bradley, more than backs up his findings. You may not agree with the conclusions he draws, but he more than illustrates the racial attitudes of the day.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Do you think if you went to the average African tribesman at the time and asked them what they thought of white people or Englishmen you’d get an answer that would be any less distasteful?[/quote]
Oh, I’m quite sure they had a distasteful attitude towards the white colonialists who were subjugating them against their will. LOL
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
The above isn’t just some wacky story that wandered through history, it was fully believed in by the intellectual elite in the western world, and actively taught by the universities. Racially deterministic theories, unfortunately, were apparently all the rage for quite a while in the history of the western world.
[/quote]
Yes, they did gain some popularlity. As I said, they didn’t revolve around subjugating and exterminating people but ‘civilising’ them. Other popular ideas were abolitionism, ending colonialism etc[/quote]
Riiigggghhhhht, we were just “civilizing” them, whether they wanted it or not. Oh and golly, while we’re helping you become more “civilized”, we’re just gonna go ahead and help ourselves to all of your natural resources. After all, it’s the “christian thing to do”. Herp derp…
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Do you really believe that the western world at that time wasn’t dominated by white christians with a full belief in their racial superiority? You can’t be that ignorant, right?
[/quote]
Absolutely I believe it wasn’t the dominant belief. There would’ve been no abolitionist movement it had have been the dominant belief for starters.[/quote]
Wrong. As I already stated, this discussion isn’t just about slavery, it’s about the false ideas of racial superiority, false ideas that at the time were the norm. The abolitionist movement bought freedom, not acceptance as equals.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Anyway, my whole comment on the book was on the fallacy of its central premise regarding the Taft-Katsura Agreement and WWII. But clearly the book paints quite a distorted picture of Teddy. Another reviewer:
‘That America and its leaders at the time would generally be considered racist in America today is not disputed. However, Bradley seems to want to emphasize that fact. In doing so, he seems to ignore anything that might mitigate his point. For example, he ignores the fact that TR was considered liberal in his time, and was, in fact, noted for his equitable treatment of blacks. For instance, T. Roosevelt was the first US President to entertain a black at the White House (Booker T. Washington, October 16, 1901.)’[/quote]
I still have to finish the book, as I inadvertently left it at my in-laws who still need to mail it back to me. When I referenced the book in this thread, it was specifically to highlight the racial attitudes of the day. Teddy R, while no longer holding the position as my favorite president, is certainly one of the most intriguing. Particularly interesting about Teddy’s life, was his fathers concern over and admonition of the “over civilized” man; that people coming from their family’s kind of money would become soft and ineffective in the real world.
I too will admit that while the book is a good read IMHO, it was surprising the emphasis put on the whole racial theory slant. Not that he is wrong about it, but the book itself is a bit misleading perhaps. Being that I am a non interventionist though, I’m only more convinced that Teddy was an imperialist president, which wasn’t a good thing.
C’mom man, you don’t laugh whenever George Jefferson calls someone a honky? lol
[/quote]
No, I’m an uptight honkey.
[/quote]
Fixed that for ya.
[/quote]
Broke it, you mean. Call me a racial epithet again, and I’ll slap you on ignore. If you don’t care, we’ll both have be better off. I don’t spend my time with vulgar people. Not one friend that I keep uses that kind of language with me. Not with any race, including my own. I don’t think it’s funny when a sitcom comedian does it, or when you do it. “Just a joke,” or not. Fix yourself, before worrying about me.
C’mom man, you don’t laugh whenever George Jefferson calls someone a honky? lol
[/quote]
No, I’m an uptight honkey.
[/quote]
Fixed that for ya.
[/quote]
Broke it, you mean. Call me a racial epithet again, and I’ll slap you on ignore. If you don’t care, we’ll both have be better off. I don’t spend my time with vulgar people. Not one friend that I keep uses that kind of language with me. Not with any race, including my own. I don’t think it’s funny when a sitcom comedian does it, or when you do it. “Just a joke,” or not. Fix yourself, before worrying about me. [/quote]