Imagine saying "my wife whom is huwhyte has serious issues with liberals (not all) "…
Also gotta the love the media’s pandering when talking on black / white issues and using “Black” and “white”… big B little w… imagine being that condescending to a people.
Once the surface is scratched on most of these alleged inequalities they fall apart completely and boil down to lack of personal accountability
Huh?
As you know, I am Jewish. How are we being abused? Yes, I’m asking seriously.
You’re insane or drunk. The 60s? You mean the time when the Civil Rights Act was passed? In the 60s was there an issue with mass incarceration, crack dealing and addiction, single motherhood, lack of marriage? In the 60s well over half of all black adults were married, that number has at least halved today.
How about the positive. Well, you should be aware of Loving vs Virginia, is that not progress? We have black mayors in major cities, there are black governors, there are two blacks justices, there was a black president and now a black VP. Were there any black astronauts in the 60s? There have been several since then.
Anyone who believes things haven’t changed or have gotten worse, is brain dead or pushing an agenda.
In the 60s black people couldn’t drink from the same water fountain as white people. Today, black people hold power in every single institution in the country from local city council to the Presidency. They’re billionaire entrepreneurs, judges, members of Congress, police chiefs, doctors, college Deans, etc…
I think your evaluation is a bit off.
Most of this thread has been with regard to the USA. The post I responded to ended with “liberal rejects and uninformed black people eat it up.” Which was a response to one about Liberals and Conservatives.
I said the “North” and most, not all. I made no mention of race or the abolitionists. You think there were over 2.5 million abolitionists willing to die for slaves? Especially, considering Blacks along with all other minorities were treated like shit by most of society for at least another 100 years. You think Native Americans, Latinos, and Asians were willing to die to free slaves or was it more likely because there were empty promises made? (Similar to Democrats today). Promises of land, and opportunity.
Ok but, many others literally died.
There were abolitionists movements in Mexico/Latin America but, I guess you consider them “White” because they were mixed? Though some were Afro/Indigenous.
There were many instances of slaves fighting and dying but, I guess you mean a concerted effort by those in power?
Sure, in part but, there were also economic, political, and social factors.
There was growing recognition that alternatives to slave labor were viable and profitable. As the enslaved workforce grew, so did the costs of providing for their basic needs like food, shelter, and medical care. Managing a large, enslaved population in harsh conditions also led to inefficiency and reduced productivity.
Technological innovations that did not require slaves.
New markets allowed for diversification of economic activities beyond agriculture.
Economists argued that free labor was more efficient, and that slavery distorted economic incentives.
Rise of the industrial working class
Of course, the abolitionist movement, which was supported by diverse groups, which led to boycotts.
Like in the U.S. those in power just allowed it and used it to their benefit.
How many Northerners owned slaves? How many Northern states outlawed slavery years before the Civil War? The 1619 project pushed and centers on a lie about history. The claim that is central to its thesis is that it was fear of Britain outlawing slavery that motivated the War for Independence. Of course the person who came up with the 1619 project has never provided any sources for this claim. Why would people in the Northern colonies care about slavery when they did not have many, if any, slaves and outlawed slavery early on in their existence? Trying to paint abolition as economically driven is historically inaccurate.
Can you provide sources for this, unlike the 1619 project?
Whatever the number, it’s higher than the number you would find in Africa or the Middle East. Which gets to Marine’s point.
And who made those promises? Whites.
Grew where? During the Enlightenment there was not a growing slave workforce in Europe. There was almost no slave workforce at all in many nations. Philosophers and the religious did not focus on the economics of slavery but the morality of slavery.
And were the Northerners going to stay there forever?
Northerners were concerned that the introduction of slave labor into the Western territories would create competition that could displace free labor. It posed a threat to the North’s freedom by staking claims to Western lands. Effecting economic opportunities and social mobility.
They wanted to preserve the United States as a single, unified nation.
Why they joined and fought? They were promised bounties, wages, veterans’ benefits, land grants, and job opportunities after the war.
So, then what is your proof for stating it was morally driven? At least I have facts and evidence that points to it being in large part economic and for personal gain. Not letters and pamphlets written by a few people.
My point was that they would not join for moral reasons. You admitted they were lied to by Whites? What was your point with that response?
It started in the 17th Century; the British Empire did not fully abolish slavery until 1833.
They still had to provide for those enslaved and they still had children.
You might want to read some books. What were the white people who were part of the Underground Railroad motivated by? We have the writings of Enlightenment philosophers.
You do know that those letters and pamphlets would be considered facts and evidence. And how would your evidence relate to the English actually using their navy to prevent the slave trade? What did England have to lose or gain regarding America’s West?
A lie that helped to end slavery. Is that a bad thing?
And when did the Dahomey end slavery (you know, the Woman King people)? When did Saudi Arabia? And British sailors died fighting slavery. The Dahomey died fighting for it.
Who is doing this? Can you name a single prominent conservative or a popular group of conservatives who deny this history or the fact that racists exist in society? When have prominent, leading Republicans ever been on the wrong side of race with regards to public policy? It was the Republicans who led the civil rights legislation of your childhood.
Democrats were literally founded on the principle of perpetuating slavery. Robert Byrd was still a member of the senate during Obama’s presidency, and the guy organized a friggin’ Klan chapter. I could write thousands of words giving examples of Democrat racism, right up to living memory and the present era.
Surely you have at least a few examples of the conservative racism you so vocally decry.
Can you give some examples of this? Name some names of who these racist people are, so we can denounce them together.
Would you care to share some of those issues?
I appreciate an attempt to answer my straight-forward question, but you really didn’t give much of an answer besides “stop denying the obvious.” I don’t see any of that denialism going on in the conservative circles I’m familiar with, which is why I asked you to provide examples of what you mean.
What I see from you is more narrative-repetition that conservatives are generally racists, without giving a single example of what informs this belief that you and your wife hold.
I’ll try another angle.
What are the specific problem behaviors you see from conservatives regarding race?
What is the most racist Republican policy you can name, at any level of government?
When you think of prominent conservative politicians or media figures who shape conservative thought, who are the racists that come to mind and what makes them racist?
Edit: BTW, I’d love to see video of a 61 year old guy front squatting 405 for reps. Give us guys in our 40’s some hope for our 60’s.
That’s true.
Italian Americans, for example. We all know they suffered discrimination in the USA.They came mostly from the south of Italy - Calabria, Naples, Sicily. Which means they were also discriminated in Italy, and seen as peasents by northerners.
At least that’s what Furio said.
Maybe a few thousand individuals involved out of 20 million in just the North.
Yes, writings. That does not mean the reason they joined to fight was because of them. However, if I offer someone land and money in exchange…
Did those fighting do so for free? Was there a little box they could check when enlisting that said “for moral reasons. I refuse personal gain”?
I never said no Northerns were against slavery. I never mentioned White people or that abolitionists were lying.
I said it was not the main reason for the NORTH
You already conceded. Your point is that it was more than anywhere else but, that was not what I argued.
For what? I have a copy of the Quran it does not mean I believe or follow any of it.
I first responded with regard to the North and the South and the “fight against slavery” here. I also gave my reasoning.
YOU mentioned England and the Enlightenment and I listed the reasons as to why it was economically, politically, and socially beneficial.
You then responded with,
Which is why I mentioned Western expansion again.
You also asked,
Which I also responded to with:
It started in the 17th Century; the British Empire did not fully abolish slavery until 1833.
They still had to provide for those enslaved and they still had children.
Again my point is that it was not for moral reasons and that not only White people died to “end slavery.”
You twisted this:
into this:
Ok but, many others literally died.
And again, I never argued this. I argued that it was not primarily for moral reasons.
Do you also believe all American soldiers that died in the Middle East did so because they were "bringing them democracy? Where all those drone strikes that 90% of the time killed civilians “freedom bombs”? They were following orders.
They were also lynched. The “liberal” New York Times put a lynched Italian on its front page with a caption that included the term Dago Joe. And among the participants in the largest mass lynching in US history, which was committed against Italians, were black Americans.
And how many of those 20 million were voicing their economic concerns regarding slavery?
This makes no sense, the North abolished slavery long before the reasons you gave would have been relevant. You are giving reasons for fighting the Civil War. These are two different arguments.
No, you responded to something Marine said about slavery in general and white people.
That’s irrelevant. The point is that abolitionist movements were morally driven from the start. In fact, the arguments could be said to have begun with Aristotle. There are also the abolitionist laws in France during the reign of Louis X. These had nothing to do with America, obviously, and were again, morality driven.
Since the most vocal critics of conservatives in these forums are having difficulty producing examples, I thought I’d highlight one of the few posts that provided concrete examples of racist behaviors and share my thoughts on what I can do as a white conservative male in America.
This is where you can and should expect conservatives to join you, in my opinion. At least at the local level. If murders are happening in my town and I don’t feel they are being investigated properly by the police, that’s an issue we should expect all good people to raise concerns about.
A similar prominent example that comes to my mind is the case of Ahmed Aubrey. His killers were not faced with charges until damning video footage was made public, many weeks after he was killed. The right thing for a guy like me to do in this case is to call attention to the shameful conduct of the prosecutor, and call attention to the criminal behavior of the McMichael’s. They chased Aubrey down in a pair of vehicles with guns drawn to confront him about perceived misbehavior, then shot him to death when he decided to fight for his life when confronted by a lynch mob with guns drawn. I’m not a lawyer, but the prosecutor’s explanation of why charges weren’t brought was ridiculous on it’s face.
I still stand by my take from when I first saw the video and learned about the event. If it were in my jurisdiction I’d share my opinion publicly on one of my area’s “Town of” common/public social media pages, along with never voting for that prosecutor ever again.
I haven’t googled this case in a while, and it seems as though the disgraceful lack of charges is being prosecuted as misconduct.
My life changing beating came at the hands of a black man. How much racism was in his heart, I cannot say. I can only say that I’m a different man than I was 20 years ago, and if it went down again he’d be assaulting a different kind of target. As a conservative man, I’d suggest your cousin look towards a similar inward solution, rather than expect assholes to stop being assholes.
The cops still haven’t found the guy who robbed me at gunpoint 26 years ago, btw. It’s not like they jumped on my case because I was a white kid, especially since there was no realistic way they could ever identify and catch the guy who did it. Sometimes criminals just win.
There are all kinds of fun scenarios you can play out in your mind for how you can confront assholes in public, but you’ve got children now and you don’t get to pick petty battles with assholes in public anymore.
Well, maybe once they’re in late high school you could do what I did and do a little dive bar security work. That’s a good way to scratch an itch you may have to publicly confront assholes of all races, colors and creeds.
There was no reason to. It was their way of life. Again, the North believed in a free labor ideology, emphasizing the potential for individuals to advance through their own labor. This meant advocated for preserving avenues to attain economic self-sufficiency. Like, ensuring again, accessibility to social progress and economic prospects. Slavery would impinge on those beliefs and benefit those with means.
Sounds American to me.
Regardless, I said I first responded with regard to the North and the South and the “fight against slavery” here and you responded to my take.
And again
There was no abolition of anything. They offered certain safeguards and protections to serfs and peasants within the feudal system.
It was a strategic move by Louis X. It was to keep social order, reinforce royal authority over the nobility, and address issues within the feudal system. It was meant to minimize issues that could lead to instability and challenges to the monarchy’s control.
It was not out of the goodness if his heart.
Blacks, really? I did not know that.
Were they active participants, or mere spectators?
You do realize, that’s a moral, not economic, argument.
You assume he was being literal. When arguments are based on faulty premises of race they invite generalities. If someone says white people ended slavery, are they talking about every white person? If you want to limit discussions to America then don’t say whites or white people, but white Americans. Which is still imprecise because anything attributed to white Americans couldn’t be attributed to all white Americans. But this kind of nuance and precision, which recognizes individuals is not what the woke want.
Hence, they say white people owned (black) slaves when the majority did not and in many “white” countries, there were no black people. And if they say well, white Americans owned (black) slaves then there is the fact that most white Americans did not own slaves. So you end up with a few white people with money and power who were able to control public policy. Sound familiar? But how can you push an agenda of white people bad if you allow the truth to be told? If you limit white people to America, you get to avoid talking about how England used its navy to fight the slave trade. You also get to avoid talking about the role of black Africans in slavery.
You also get to exercise revisionist history and make abolition seem like a self serving movement motivated by how slavery impacted whites economically. God forbid there were white people who objected to slavery on moral grounds, especially when at the same time there were black Africans arguing and fighting to preserve slavery.