Were Confederate soldiers terrorists?

[XODUS1914]

Originally Posted by girard

I am glad you brought that up, too. Slavery was practiced in Africa for centuries before it was practiced in America.

This is a common myth, though.

Slavery was practiced worldwide before the Americans did it. That didn't make everyone else right either. America gets the 'Bloodiest Hands" award because of the extremity, not because we did it.

American slavery was unique to modern times because of it totality, it's brutality, it's lenght and it's depth. No other race in modern times was killed and/or enslaved on sight, and subjugated to a systematical erasure of it's culture,history and religion. Not to mention the whole raping thing.

It has been well documented the differences between pre-colonial slavery and the Middle Passage. More than a few researchers have concluded that the Africans who sold other Africans into slavery simply could not fathom the level of brutuality that was to occur, simply becasue it hadn't happened since Biblical times.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by XODUS1914

This is a common myth, though.

You're new here. Girard is nothing more than the latest incarnation of a guy who's been banned so many times we've all lost count. If the past is any indication, a mod will ban him and delete all of his posts before midnight.

It's best not to feed him.

[XODUS1914]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

You're new here. Girard is nothing more than the latest incarnation of a guy who's been banned so many times we've all lost count. If the past is any indication, a mod will ban him and delete all of his posts before midnight.

It's best not to feed him.

Ahhh, duly noted..

Every board has one... ;-)

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by XODUS1914

This is a common myth, though.

Slavery was practiced worldwide before the Americans did it. That didn't make everyone else right either. America gets the 'Bloodiest Hands" award because of the extremity, not because we did it.

American slavery was far more humane than most forms of slavery (and I say most, because the only one I can think of that might have been more humane is the Russian slaves...which is the etymology of the word..Slavs/Slaves)

American slavery was unique to modern times because of it totality,

What does totality mean? Because there were alot of them? Not really. In the South, slaves consisted of perhaps 45% of the population...maybe a bit more, maybe a bit less depending on your source.

But that's not a high percentage of the population whatsoever especially according to Encylcopaedia Brittanica's "Guide to Black History"

Among some of the various Islamic Berber Tuareg peoples of the Sahara and Sahel, slavery persisted at least until 1975. The proportions of slaves ranged from around 15 percent among the Adrar to perhaps 75 percent among the Gurma. In Senegambia, between 1300 and 1900, about a third of the population consisted of slaves. In Sierra Leone in the 19th century close to half the population was enslaved. In the Vai Paramount chiefdoms in the 19th century as much as three-quarters of the population consisted of slaves. Among the Ashanti and Yoruba a third were enslaved. In the 19th century over half the population consisted of slaves among the Duala of the Cameroon, the Ibo and other peoples of the lower Niger, the Kongo, and the Kasanje kingdom and Chokwe of Angola.

http://www.britannica.com/blackhistory/article-24157

it's brutality,

Brutality? Nah, not really. It had it's bad spots, as slavery does but it's no where near as brutal as the Jews, during the Khmer Empire, or a few others. (Koreans in Japan)

it's lenght

I mentioned the Jews...the helots in Sparta I believe were enslaved much longer as well as about twenty other people's. The human race is cruel.

and it's depth.

I don't know what that means?

No other race in modern times was killed and/or enslaved on sight, and subjugated to a systematical erasure of it's culture,history and religion. Not to mention the whole raping thing.

Assuming that race is real (I don't know that I believe it) and thus ignoring that part of the argument, you are an absolute fool. I guess you have forgotten all of Central and South America. Perhaps, you should read Bartolome De Las Casas "Destruction of the Indies".

It has been well documented the differences between pre-colonial slavery and the Middle Passage. More than a few researchers have concluded that the Africans who sold other Africans into slavery simply could not fathom the level of brutuality that was to occur, simply becasue it hadn't happened since Biblical times.

Except it has. Repeatedly. Human nature can be cruel. I would argue that even more so, the African-to-America experience was far less brutal than the African-to-other parts of Africa. I mean, you do know what brought the majority of the slaves to the ports...right?

I would argue that America has bloodied hands for three reasons. It is politically viable for certain demogogues to "blood-up-the-hands", sort of the "bloody flag" theory. Secondly, it is more noticeable than most of the other slavery attempts in that the skin color is almost a signifier whereas in Russia with the serfs, Greece with the Helots, and Africa with the various slavery systems, the skin color is not a signifier of slavery (it's not really here, as we have African immigrants...but the majority are not recent African immigrants). Lastly, because rights weren't fully given and African-Americans had to work to gain them.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

American slavery was far more humane than most forms of slavery (and I say most, because the only one I can think of that might have been more humane is the Russian slaves...which is the etymology of the word..Slavs/Slaves)


Except it has. Repeatedly. Human nature can be cruel. I would argue that even more so, the African-to-America experience was far less brutal than the African-to-other parts of Africa. I mean, you do know what brought the majority of the slaves to the ports...right?

Im sorry...I just have to disagree with you.

How do you figure that the chattel system in the US was 'humane'? when the effects are still being felt TODAY?

As to the 2nd passage you do realize that the reason why there is no accurate number of how many were brought to these shores is due to the huge amounts of people thrown (or jumped) overboard ships.

Show me one example of this ' humane ' treatment you refer to.

[VandalSquirrel]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Im sorry...I just have to disagree with you.

How do you figure that the chattel system in the US was 'humane'? when the effects are still being felt TODAY?

As to the 2nd passage you do realize that the reason why there is no accurate number of how many were brought to these shores is due to the huge amounts of people thrown (or jumped) overboard ships.

Show me one example of this ' humane ' treatment you refer to.

Have you heard of Doug Wilson and his writings on how slavery was beneficial for the slaves, and they were better off? He lives in my town and hosted a conference about it. No lie, google him.

http://www.amazon.com/Southern-Slave.../dp/188576717X You can inter-library loan it or something.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Im sorry...I just have to disagree with you.

How do you figure that the chattel system in the US was 'humane'? when the effects are still being felt TODAY?

I didn't say that it was humane.

I said that it was "more humane." Large difference. At that point it can be very inhumane, but still more humane than others. And you can argue about whether or not the effects are being felt, I disagree (at least on the psyche of being a slave...not necessarily the greater socio-economic effects).

As to the 2nd passage you do realize that the reason why there is no accurate number of how many were brought to these shores is due to the huge amounts of people thrown (or jumped) overboard ships.

That doesn't debunk my statement.

Originally Posted by AZ1897

Dude are you kidding me? It's obvious you don't like black people, I get that. Some of the other shit you've posted makes that more than obvious. Just grow a set of balls and say it.

I'm not sure anything I wrote says anything to that effect. The poster had absolutely no idea what he was talking about in regards to the history of slavery. Would you care to debunk it?

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

I didn't say that it was humane.

I said that it was "more humane." Large difference. At that point it can be very inhumane, but still more humane than others. And you can argue about whether or not the effects are being felt, I disagree (at least on the psyche of being a slave...not necessarily the greater socio-economic effects).


That doesn't debunk my statement.

It's like you was saying water is 'more wet'.

Either way what you said just doesn't make sense. When people are systematically killed and their culture is wiped out after living on these shores, humane is the farthest word that comes to mind.

It's like saying a man is 'more humane' because he beats his dog a little less.

Chattel slavery in the US was far from 'humane'.

What exactly is compassionate about keeping slaves?

"I love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ: I therefore hate the corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of the land. Indeed, I can see no reason, but the most deceitful one, for calling the religion of this land Christianity. I look upon it as the climax of all misnomers, the boldest of all frauds, and the grossest of all libels. Never was there a clearer case of 'stealing the livery of the court of heaven to serve the devil in.' I am filled with unutterable loathing when I contemplate the religious pomp and show, together with the horrible inconsistencies, which every where surround me. We have men-stealers for ministers, women-whippers for missionaries, and cradle-plunderers for church members. The man who wields the blood-clotted cowskin during the week fills the pulpit on Sunday, and claims to be a minister of the meek and lowly Jesus. . . . The slave auctioneer’s bell and the church-going bell chime in with each other, and the bitter cries of the heart-broken slave are drowned in the religious shouts of his pious master. Revivals of religion and revivals in the slave-trade go hand in hand together. The slave prison and the church stand near each other. The clanking of fetters and the rattling of chains in the prison, and the pious psalm and solemn prayer in the church, may be heard at the same time. The dealers in the bodies and souls of men erect their stand in the presence of the pulpit, and they mutually help each other. The dealer gives his blood-stained gold to support the pulpit, and the pulpit, in return, covers his infernal business with the garb of Christianity. Here we have religion and robbery the allies of each other—devils dressed in angels’ robes, and hell presenting the semblance of paradise."

~Frederick Douglass

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

It's like you was saying water is 'more wet'.

*were

No it's like saying you're less fat. If you weighed nine hundred pounds and lost 20, you got less fat. You're still fat as hell, but you're less fat.

Either way what you said just doesn't make sense. When people are systematically killed and their culture is wiped out after living on these shores, humane is the farthest word that comes to mind.

At no point did I say it was humane.

It's like saying a man is 'more humane' because he beats his dog a little less.

He is, compared to the man who beats his dog to death.

What exactly is compassionate about keeping slaves?

I said nothing of compassion. Where do you come up with this stuff?

You based an entire post of things I didn't say.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

It didn't. But, you do dislike the difference between "it's" and "its."

Haha, now that's fact. I guess I don't pay attention to it, which is awful...but spell check always corrects me on it even if I didn't know I made a mistake.

As for what you said, I disagree with people's (usually white people's) need to quantify and compare everything. Slavery can stand alone without being compared to anything. It was a shitty practice regardless of the fact that slavery existed outside of North America and whether or not conditions were as horrendous as reported.

Absolutely and totally agreed. If you'll notice though, the argument was started by the poster saying that the slavery here was the most egregious of all slavery, as if it were some sort of "slavery-exceptionalism". Which, in turn, I responded that his assessment wasn't entirely correct.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

*were

No it's like saying you're less fat. If you weighed nine hundred pounds and lost 20, you got less fat. You're still fat as hell, but you're less fat.


At no point did I say it was humane.


He is, compared to the man who beats his dog to death.
correct.

No matter how you cut it, there is no way with numerous documentations and citation that US chattel slavery was 'more humane'. It's still a crime against humanity.

This is why some people still get pissed when symbols of the South are venerated because it is still a dark reminder to what could have been.

As some posters stated earlier ad nauseum, the Confederate flag is almost along the same lines as the Nazi swastika and in some ways even moreso.

Opponents of the Confederate flag see it as an overt symbol of racism

Others view the flag as a symbol of rebellion against the federal government of the United States

And what doesn't help is that hate groups in the US rally behind the flag.

It's funny when you think about it because the swastika was the same way as it is used as a religious Hindu symbol and was found in Pre Christian Europe. Thanks Germany.

...and where did I get "compassion" from? Well next time in your efforts to correct me, try looking up the definition of the word, "humane".

When you say that slavery was "more humane" you are saying that masters here showed "more compassion" for their 3/5th of a human they kept. I call it bullshit.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

Absolutely and totally agreed. If you'll notice though, the argument was started by the poster saying that the slavery here was the most egregious of all slavery, as if it were some sort of "slavery-exceptionalism". Which, in turn, I responded that his assessment wasn't entirely correct.

I completely ignored the OP and you didn't have to follow the white rabbit down the hole.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

I'm not sure anything I wrote says anything to that effect.

It didn't. But, you do dislike the difference between "it's" and "its."

As for what you said, I disagree with people's (usually white people's) need to quantify and compare everything. Slavery can stand alone without being compared to anything. It was a shitty practice regardless of the fact that slavery existed outside of North America and whether or not conditions were as horrendous as reported. It (both ideologically and economically) served as the foundation for the racist ideologies and practices that still have a hold on societies (N.America and others).

I liken this discussion to that of the Holocaust. Sure, there are people here and there who will claim that it wasn't all it was cracked up to be and that the conditions of the Jews paled in comparison to that of (insert bullshit comparison). Jews, in general, are quick to put a foot up your ass if you EVER try to lessen the horrendousness of this experience and act as though they, as a group, have no reason to be outraged.

With all of that said, still fuck Lincoln and the horse he rode in on--and I'm not offended by the Confederate Flag ITSELF.

ETA: Oh yeah, fuck Frederick Douglass with his posthumously inducted Alpha Phi Alpha ass.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by AZ1897

As far as I'm concerned, you don't know what you're talking about. Were you a slave? I've been on here before, and I've seen some of the dumb shit you've posted about black people. Just based on some of your posts alone, your opinion isn't credible at all.

Shut up.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by AZ1897

Haha how's it goin' sweet pea?

Better than you.

ETA: If this is my annoying cyber-boo Xanthus, I meant the "shut up" but you can add a to lighten the tone.

[XODUS1914]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

American slavery was far more humane than most forms of slavery (and I say most, because the only one I can think of that might have been more humane is the Russian slaves...which is the etymology of the word..Slavs/Slaves)...


Assuming that race is real (I don't know that I believe it) and thus ignoring that part of the argument, you are an absolute fool.

Let's see, you beleive American slavery was far more humane than most forms of slavery and you also deny the exsistence of race...
I suppose that is consistent, since part of the travesty of American slavery is the fact that a 'Race' or at the very least an indigenous group of people with a definable, distinct and unique phenotype were targeted. Your failure to acknowledge this let's you minimize thier suffering with a clean conscience. Race-based slavery started with the Africans, and is partly why it lasted so long and thoroughly. The inability of African slaves to escape and mingle with the enslaving population made it easier for the slavemasters to create a permanent 'subservient population' that had effects that are still felt today. The most noticeble contrast is to the Native Americans, who proved almost unenslaveable, as there was no way to tell the runaway Indian slaves from the free indignious population. Obviously, the American government came up with another soultion to that problem.. :-(

No where else, and I ask you to prove me wrong.

And perhaps you will be more careful on whom you call fool.