Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 79

Thread: Black people "should get over" slavery says legislator

  1. #46
    Elite Member darksithbunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    14,651

    Default

    ^^Agree. Same here. Let's move on.

  2. #47
    Elite Member SweetPea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Garden State
    Posts
    4,839

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lalaland View Post
    I am Choctaw American Indian. My great-great Grandfather was the Chief. I have ancestors who walked the Trial of Tears. I believe I have every right to tell black people to get over it - we Indians certainly have. How can you move on when you can't let go? The line between respecting your heritage and using it as a crutch has become very blurred.
    Wow, I have the utmost respect for the American Indians and you have every right.
    Into the sunrise. The sunset is sad to me….it only means the night is coming.

  3. #48
    Elite Member january's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    7,255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lalaland View Post
    I am Choctaw American Indian. My great-great Grandfather was the Chief. I have ancestors who walked the Trial of Tears. I believe I have every right to tell black people to get over it - we Indians certainly have. How can you move on when you can't let go? The line between respecting your heritage and using it as a crutch has become very blurred.
    Thats what I was just about to say. I have Cherokee in my blood and my ancestors were treated terribly. In a very real sense, the Native Americans are still suffering today. Where African Americans have progressed in leaps and bounds, many Native Americans are still relegated to reservations. To this day and age, they are still portrayed in film and art as ruthless uncivilized barbarians, instead of a people who tried to protect their lands and families from invaders who threatened their very existence. It chills my bones to think of how they were treated, but I don't think I deserve an apology! It didn't happen to ME. Plus, if we play the victim card, hell, half the people in the world had ancestors who were victims of xenophobia and racism, its happened all throughout human history. Does it make it okay? No. Were some groups treated worse than others? Yes. In no way am I condoning racism, slavery, etc. But if we start randomly issuing apologies, where does it end?

  4. #49
    Elite Member cynic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    6,435

    Default

    Hey, this is America. Where everyone has life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness through whining.....

  5. #50
    Gold Member IceQueen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    969

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimmlok View Post
    Celebrating Southern generals is like having a party for Hitler.
    Quite an extreme comparison isn't it?

  6. #51
    Elite Member NawdleZouss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In a space-dye vest
    Posts
    2,847

    Default

    I think it's a pretty spot-on analogy. Why honor someone who fought to maintain slavery?
    2 years...

  7. #52
    Gold Member IceQueen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    969

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NawdleZouss View Post
    I think it's a pretty spot-on analogy. Why honor someone who fought to maintain slavery?
    First tell my why they would want to maintain slavery? Was it because they were sadists? Did they want to exterminate the black man? Or did it have more to do with the economy?

    The typical answer to the reason for the Civil War is because it 'was about slavery' and then limit it a moral issue rather than a economical issue. Go read about the successions, then tell me why you think that someone who fought to maintain the southern way of life from being ruled by the Northerners (who also benefited greatly on slave labor from the South, and didn't give blacks any more rights). It should be quite obvious then that the Southerners felt that the North was making it so their voices couldn't be heard.

    So I guess I just don't see the parallels between a man who exterminated millions of people and the generals (or soldiers) who were fighting because they thought their lifestyle and homes were in danger.
    Last edited by IceQueen; January 27th, 2007 at 01:55 PM.

  8. #53
    Elite Member january's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    7,255

    Default

    I actually just want to add that most of the people in the south were fighting for states' rights, not for slavery. They resented a stronger federal government that would interfere with their right to govern as a lone state. Most southerners were too poor to even own slaves, only a small percentage of southerners (the wealthy plantation owners) indulged in owning slaves. While the war itself may have been caused by the institution of slavery, the reasons why people in the south fought were too complicated to answer simply (their perceived right to succeed from the union being suppressed, the continuation of their culture, their opposition to the enforced high tariffs and industrialization of the north, the need later to protect their lands and their families, etc.), but the vast majority of them were not fighting to keep their slaves. Alot of them felt more loyalty to their state than to their country. Even most northerners wanted the "slave trade" to continue, because they felt the cotton industry would suffer if slaves were freed. So although the war was started at the hands of politicians who were squabbling about slavery, that is not what the vast majority of the people fighting in the war cared about. Southerners were not horrible people, for the most part, no worse than the northerners. Its much more complex than "southern generals are Nazis." Thats completely untrue.

  9. #54
    Gold Member IceQueen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    969

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by january View Post
    I actually just want to add that most of the people in the south were fighting for states' rights, not for slavery. They resented a stronger federal government that would interfere with their right to govern as a lone state. Most southerners were too poor to even own slaves, only a small percentage of southerners (the wealthy plantation owners) indulged in owning slaves. While the war itself may have been caused by the institution of slavery, the reasons why people in the south fought were too complicated to answer simply (their perceived right to succeed from the union being suppressed, the continuation of their culture, their opposition to the enforced high tariffs and industrialization of the north, the need later to protect their lands and their families, etc.), but the vast majority of them were not fighting to keep their slaves. Alot of them felt more loyalty to their state than to their country. Even most northerners wanted the "slave trade" to continue, because they felt the cotton industry would suffer if slaves were freed. So although the war was started at the hands of politicians who were squabbling about slavery, that is not what the vast majority of the people fighting in the war cared about. Southerners were not horrible people, for the most part, no worse than the northerners. Its much more complex than "southern generals are Nazis." Thats completely untrue.
    Exactly! Also General Robert E. Lee was a very respected general and leader on both sides, and was asked to lead the Northern armies, but he felt that he should be loyal to his southern brothers.

  10. #55
    Elite Member JamieElizabeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    San Jose, California, United States
    Posts
    2,895

    Default

    ^Yeah, I find labor policies interesting. I know that I'm making a leap here. But, it only really makes sense then why that the US has sent most of our labor industry overseas then to China. We had a hard enough time just getting it straight on US lands without having more wars over exploitatation.

  11. #56
    Elite Member sputnik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    fellow traveller
    Posts
    52,224

    Default

    celebrating pretty much any american generals is pretty questionable. if they weren't fighting to maintain slavery (or their lifestyle or whatever you want to call it) they were killing natives.
    I'm open to everything. When you start to criticise the times you live in, your time is over. - Karl Lagerfeld

  12. #57
    Gold Member IceQueen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    969

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sputnik View Post
    celebrating pretty much any american generals is pretty questionable. if they weren't fighting to maintain slavery (or their lifestyle or whatever you want to call it) they were killing natives.
    Well then couldn't you extend that to celebrating anyone (American or not) who fights in wars as being questionable? It's always about killing someone.

  13. #58
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    Sorry, I should probably go ask the descendents of plantation slaves if they think flying the confederate flag, and that celebrating Generals who, for whatever reason be it economic or otherwise fought to retain their 'way of life' which (ultimately) required slaves to continue, was a good thing.

    Using economics as justification is even more revolting.

    *eyeroll*
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  14. #59
    Elite Member JamieElizabeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    San Jose, California, United States
    Posts
    2,895

    Default

    Maintaining the State's freedom is what the South was fighting for?
    I wonder if they had won... would things have worked out differently, then? Grimm, you complain that our Congress doesn't have much of a voice, right? And that it is all exective power?

  15. #60
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    What does executive power have to do with the discussion at hand? Bush tried to appropriate unitary executive power (thus sidelining or cutting congress out of decisions) but only got so far.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 7
    Last Post: December 26th, 2006, 04:12 AM
  2. Replies: 11
    Last Post: September 9th, 2006, 12:12 AM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 14th, 2006, 03:05 PM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: April 30th, 2006, 08:45 PM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: February 24th, 2006, 02:53 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •