We didn't hang that flag, say fraternity/Greenville, NC

[brobuzzz]

Lastly, as to your webpage - heck, just as you can find sites that will bolster your arguement - and good for you that you did, so can I.

My website was the National Park Service (with a .gov) site with the exact text of the Emacipation Proclimation. This isn't some crazy klan member site.

[PKPILZ003]

Originally Posted by brobuzzz

My website was the National Park Service (with a .gov) site with the exact text of the Emacipation Proclimation. This isn't some crazy klan member site.

No one suggested that it was a crazy Klan site - I was just mentioning that anyone can find supporting documents for their cause - not that they are wrong, just that there are always 2 sides to the story.

for example there is this site
http://www.uvm.edu/~jloewen/content....roduction.html

which is a book by a guy who goes to state historic and national historic sites and fights the myths and the history there - not saying that he's right - just saying that just because the NPS says it doesn't mean it's holy writ.

[brobuzzz]

No one suggested that it was a crazy Klan site - I was just mentioning that anyone can find supporting documents for their cause - not that they are wrong, just that there are always 2 sides to the story.

which is a book by a guy who goes to state historic and national historic sites and fights the myths and the history there - not saying that he's right - just saying that just because the NPS says it doesn't mean it's holy writ.

I'm sorry I just can't help but laugh at this.

You're comparing some guy's opinion (I only read the first sentence, but he doesn't seem to write it like a textbook) to the actual text of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation?

I would say though, that because the NPS says "this is the text of the original," it most likely is. Don't really have time to drive to the National Archives right now, I'm at work, maybe later today though.

[PKPILZ003]

Originally Posted by brobuzzz

I'm sorry I just can't help but laugh at this.

You're comparing some guy's opinion (I only read the first sentence, but he doesn't seem to write it like a textbook) to the actual text of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation?

I would say though, that because the NPS says "this is the text of the original," it most likely is. Don't really have time to drive to the National Archives right now, I'm at work, maybe later today though.

You win - I'm done - you can't see the forest for the trees. have a great day and snap those fingers - I'll tell Mr Westol you said hello.

[brobuzzz]

Please tell me you at least can tell the difference between some guy writing about the emancipation proclamation and the actual, un-modified text of the emancapation proclimation. That's what I was laughing at, not you.

If you do actually talk to Brother Dave, and aren't just dropping names, tell him I haven't yet found out why Carlton Bennett is a democrat.

[starang21]

brains are sexy.

[Elephant Walk]

Slavery was about capitalism and not racism.

I hope you didn't study economics in college, because it taught you nothing. Slavery is ANTI-CAPITALISM, by every sense of the word. Slavery destroyed capitalism and the economy of the south, because it lowered wages. It did well for the wealthy upper-class, but left most in the dirt. If you have a lot of people you aren't paying, it means that those who are free are being paid very little for their work, because someone could get a slave to do that job for free.

Furthermore, one realizes that the Africans put themselves in this spot because the tribes sold rival hostage tribes to slave traders. Earlier in this trade, the Arabs would take the slaves from Africa to Europe, but Europe abolished the trade.

I think it's important to understand (historical and) social context as everyone is talking past each other. As you were.

I believe you needed to understand the economical and historical aspects of the situation.

The North American racist ideologies arose to reinforce and legitimate the exploitation of cheap, slave labor.

This is difficult to prove. People don't all of a sudden say "oh, these aren't real people so we can enslave them." There must have been plenty of racial feelings waay before slavery began. It may have evolved further to accomodate the slave trade, but it didn't all of a sudden begin to reinforce slaves.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

Slavery is ANTI-CAPITALISM, by every sense of the word. Slavery destroyed capitalism and the economy of the south, because it lowered wages. It did well for the wealthy upper-class, but left most in the dirt. If you have a lot of people you aren't paying, it means that those who are free are being paid very little for their work, because someone could get a slave to do that job for free.

This part of your post supports why slavery was an economic threshold and how the exploitation of cheap, slave labor served to advance capitalist exploits by minimizing input and maximizing output. Even if you don't want to articulate it as "capitalism," the central point is that slavery was about economics and the exploitation of slave labor. [[Of course, it's more "fun" to think about it as racism and use it as an example of racism in North America but what came out of slavery is a better example of racism than the the initial stages of slavery, itself.]]

For instance, isn't capitalism reinforced through the new immigration's exploitation of cheap labor? The wages are kept low so the capitalists can be well-off while those who are forced to sell their labor are paid very little for it. That's just a contemporary spin (and you can arguably add visible race and gender effects to the mix now more than you could 200-300 years ago) but the story is all the same.

But I appreciate your furthering my argument.

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

Furthermore, one realizes that the Africans put themselves in this spot because the tribes sold rival hostage tribes to slave traders. Earlier in this trade, the Arabs would take the slaves from Africa to Europe, but Europe abolished the trade.

All of this means what in reference to the pursuit and exploitation of cheap labor? What's embedded in all of this?

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

I believe you needed to understand the economical and historical aspects of the situation.

Don't be so quick to get snippy. Your rebuttal isn't sound.

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

This is difficult to prove. People don't all of a sudden say "oh, these aren't real people so we can enslave them." There must have been plenty of racial feelings waay before slavery began. It may have evolved further to accomodate the slave trade, but it didn't all of a sudden begin to reinforce slaves.

It isn't really difficult to prove but either way you are definitely missing the crux of the argument and misinterpreting what I posted. Start with where I said "The North American racist ideologies" (this distinction is key) and go from there.

[DSTCHAOS]

Anyway....

I brought up the economic point to provide an additional angle to the "Old South/slavery/symbols of hatred" discussion. As Elephant Walk so eloquently explained, many Southerners (the noncapitalists) were paid very little for their labor if their labor was utilized at all. This is a standard resource/labor market competition threat argument. The "racial hatred" that we always talk about was (at least initially) very much rooted in anger over competiting with the cheap labor of slaves (and freed blacks before and after slavery was abolished). Similar to how many people express anger over low wage Mexican immigrant labor by making racially prejudiced remarks. Of course deliberate immigration isn't the same as being sold into slavery.

We all have to be aware of the differential impact that these symbols (like the Confederate flag) have on people. What one person sees as an expression of Southern heritage, even if it was very much a plantation economy, others view as almost inherently racist. But, it's all about one's standpoint so I'm not quick to shout "bigotry" or "racism" without understanding the other side of the debate.

[Rudey]

Take another Economics class.

-Rudey
--And then start making sense.

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

I hope you didn't study economics in college, because it taught you nothing. Slavery is ANTI-CAPITALISM, by every sense of the word. Slavery destroyed capitalism and the economy of the south, because it lowered wages. It did well for the wealthy upper-class, but left most in the dirt. If you have a lot of people you aren't paying, it means that those who are free are being paid very little for their work, because someone could get a slave to do that job for free.

Furthermore, one realizes that the Africans put themselves in this spot because the tribes sold rival hostage tribes to slave traders. Earlier in this trade, the Arabs would take the slaves from Africa to Europe, but Europe abolished the trade.


I believe you needed to understand the economical and historical aspects of the situation.


This is difficult to prove. People don't all of a sudden say "oh, these aren't real people so we can enslave them." There must have been plenty of racial feelings waay before slavery began. It may have evolved further to accomodate the slave trade, but it didn't all of a sudden begin to reinforce slaves.