What is a largely aboriginal northern community? I'm confused... I've never heard that term. What does it mean? That sounds pretty horrific.
It means a community where aboriginal people were the numerical majority ... I grew up in northern Saskatchewan, in Canada. You've never heard what term before? Did I stop using the English language? There's nothing to define, unless you don't know what the word aboriginal means.
What is a largely aboriginal northern community? I'm confused... I've never heard that term. What does it mean? That sounds pretty horrific.
It means a community where aboriginal people were the numerical majority ... I grew up in northern Saskatchewan, in Canada. You've never heard what term before? Did I stop using the English language? There's nothing to define, unless you don't know what the word aboriginal means.
forgive my ignorance but i did not know what you meant either. i am not familiar with northern saskatchewan. i would think most americans were clueless as well. no need to be standoffish. he was just asking the question i did not know how to ask.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
forgive my ignorance but i did not know what you meant either. i am not familiar with northern saskatchewan. i would think most americans were clueless as well. no need to be standoffish. he was just asking the question i did not know how to ask.
Fair enough ... I probably came off as a prick and I apologize. My experiences are probably fairly unique, I admit, but I still don't get the view that all white folks are super-priveledged, sheltered, ignorant of other cultures, and immune to discrimination ... These ideas come up a lot and they are bogus from my perspective, I suppose because these ideas are really pretty far from my own experiences. I dunno. I've been on this board forever and have a lot of respect for soulsinging after reading so many of his posts ... But do some people really think that certain cultural or racial groups don't have to deal with adversity? I am probably reading too much into what he said, granted. Oh well. Back to talking about Glenn Beck and his fake crying.
forgive my ignorance but i did not know what you meant either. i am not familiar with northern saskatchewan. i would think most americans were clueless as well. no need to be standoffish. he was just asking the question i did not know how to ask.
Fair enough ... I probably came off as a prick and I apologize. My experiences are probably fairly unique, I admit, but I still don't get the view that all white folks are super-priveledged, sheltered, ignorant of other cultures, and immune to discrimination ... These ideas come up a lot and they are bogus from my perspective, I suppose because these ideas are really pretty far from my own experiences. I dunno. I've been on this board forever and have a lot of respect for soulsinging after reading so many of his posts ... But do some people really think that certain cultural or racial groups don't have to deal with adversity? I am probably reading too much into what he said, granted. Oh well. Back to talking about Glenn Beck and his fake crying.
No. But I do think that in the USA, white europeans do not have to deal with anything remotely approaching what black americans do. I'm sorry for what you went through, but they have little to do with race relations in the US. and that is what i was discussing. i never meant to imply that no white/caucasian person has ever had it bad. i was speaking solely to white america vs black america. i'm sorry if i did not make that clear.
What is a largely aboriginal northern community? I'm confused... I've never heard that term. What does it mean? That sounds pretty horrific.
It means a community where aboriginal people were the numerical majority ... I grew up in northern Saskatchewan, in Canada. You've never heard what term before? Did I stop using the English language? There's nothing to define, unless you don't know what the word aboriginal means.
forgive my ignorance but i did not know what you meant either. i am not familiar with northern saskatchewan. i would think most americans were clueless as well. no need to be standoffish. he was just asking the question i did not know how to ask.
haha funnily enough i thought i was reading the postings of an indigenous australian living in the northern territory til i saw the word saskatchewan.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
It means a community where aboriginal people were the numerical majority ... I grew up in northern Saskatchewan, in Canada. You've never heard what term before? Did I stop using the English language? There's nothing to define, unless you don't know what the word aboriginal means.
forgive my ignorance but i did not know what you meant either. i am not familiar with northern saskatchewan. i would think most americans were clueless as well. no need to be standoffish. he was just asking the question i did not know how to ask.
haha funnily enough i thought i was reading the postings of an indigenous australian living in the northern territory til i saw the word saskatchewan.
yeah, there aren't many northern aboriginal communities in the usa so i was hopelessly confused. i was wondering if there was some rash of anti-white sentiment in the maine lumberjack community or alaskan eskimos or something.
A. That's because race doesn't exist biologically, it's all a figment of our social imagination. So basically what constitutes who is/was white has never been the same here in the US or elsewhere. In other words if we can't define what White is, then how can we have a White Culture?
B. The difference between all the white "indentured servants" and black "slaves" is that, partially through skin color, the former have been allowed access to upward social mobility, whereas the latter are still oppressed because of the color of their skin. More to the point, and agreeing with soulsinging, would any of you who are "white" ever want to switch the color of your skin, have your median average income drop from 45k to 30k (does this mean all whites are rich and all blacks poor - no, but you have a 30% chance of living in poverty if you are black vs. 10% if white according to the 2000 census), move to housing which reflects what you can now afford, and deal with the social stigmatism (like DWB, getting followed around stores while shopping, always having to prove you were a "safe" black, etc.) that comes with being a 'racial' minority in America. Of course you would get the benefit of BET, Miss Black America Beauty pageants, HBCUs, so I guess we'll call it even - so no complaining if you chose that option. If you wouldn't want to switch then that is the definition of unearned privilege from "White Culture".
damn...all these posts and I still can't find a definition of "white culture"....
Well, like I stated earlier, I am not so sure that its easy to come up with a concise verbal definition of ANY culture.
What's black culture? Hip-hop and saying "aks" instead of "ask"? No, because those are stereotypes that probably do not describe a majority of African American individuals. Just like NASCAR and trailer parks. soulsinging is right in that there is a shared culture history there that does not exist for Caucasian groups in North America, perhaps ... But there's more to having a culture than one pivotal event in a group's history. Seriously, define any given culture in an truly inclusive way without using racial/physical variables ... Its not easy to put into words.
I'm sure you are already aware I'm referring to section 2 in the Constitution, of course..
There are lots of letters showing their distaste for slavery and actually specifically refer to the three-fifths rule and it's purpose..For instance, Gouverneur Morris, who assisted James Madison throughout the entire process of drafting the Constitution, and was on the committee that decided on it's final draft, described slavery as a "nefarious institution...The curse of heaven on states where it prevails." He also argued that congressional representationshould be based on "one for every 40,000 free inhabitants." He was a vehement opponent of slavery and opposed the three-fifths compromise cos he felt it wuld still allow the southern states enough representation to keep slavery going indefinately.
Madison, himself, said in a speech that slavery was a great evil, but to show what I mean about why he wrote the second section the way he did, rather than include freedom for slaves right off the bat, it was because he knew the weight of keeping the union together and creating the United States- "Great as the evil is, a dismemberment of the union would be worse."
In 1786 George Washington wrote- "I can only say there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it."
In 1819, John Adam's wrote in a letter- Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States...I have, through my whole life, held the practice of slavery in abhorrence."
1789, Franklin wrote- "Slavery is such an atrocious debasement of human nature."
There are many more speeches and letters referring to it..
At the time Jefferson declared that all men were free and equal, about half a million were not.
He was attempting to protest the wrongs of slavery, right there in our Declaration of Independence. Adam's believed that the passages condemning slavery were the best parts of the Declaration. Yet the southern states strongly opposed Jefferson's position and would not vote for independence as long as those passages were included, so the position was stricken from the final draft.
Actually there was even a 20 year time limit put on the importation of slaves in the Constituton. Article 1, Section 9 was written to ban the slave trade in 1808. And the words 'slavery" and "slave" were deliberately left out of the document.
In the Federalist, Madison wrote- "It ought to be considered as a great point gained in favor of humanity, that a period of twenty years may terminate forever within these States, a traffic which has so long and so loudly upbraided the barbarism of modern policy"
I really never quite understood why there are some blacks that intentionally chose to not celebrate the 4th of July. Had we not declared independence, we would have continued to be a British territory and slavery would have continued here for far longer than it did. It should be a celebration of the first step toward ending slavery in the United States.
In any case, yes, they were very involved in it, did actively take a stand, and it was a very strong position against it that they held. The people who tell people otherwise should research and learn this country's history before speaking like a voice of authority on the subject because unfortunately, it has become popular belief that they were either a bunch of KKK types, or as you have been led to believe, just didn't care.
In re to the person saying that this is not a Christian nation..I'm not religious, nor am I pushing any Christian agenda, but the great majority of this country is some form of Christian. By great majority, I mean nearly 80%. so this actually is essentially a Christian nation.
Our founding fathers wanted to end slavery, but understood that to include amendments that could abolish slavery right from the get would end the attempt to found a new nation before it even began because at that time, the majority of the people with any power were against abolishing slavery..Namely the people in the south. so instead they included a section regarding a census for the purpose of representation that would limit the power the south could wield so that one day they could abolish slavery.
Where do you get this from? I'm asking because I'm curious, I've never heard or read anything like this. I didn't major in history in college, but I'm not totally ignorant on the subject and I've never in my life heard anyone claim the founding fathers were strongly anti-slavery and carefully plotted the constitutional drafting in order to one day combat slavery. My understanding was that they didn't really give a damn one way or the other, but they wanted to make sure the south couldn't pad their numbers and influence by using their slaves to get increased representation when everyone knew those slaves weren't going to get to vote. The northern aristocrats didn't want to have to share any more power with southern farmers than they had to.
I'm sure you are already aware I'm referring to section 2 in the Constitution, of course..
There are lots of letters showing their distaste for slavery and actually specifically refer to the three-fifths rule and it's purpose..For instance, Gouverneur Morris, who assisted James Madison throughout the entire process of drafting the Constitution, and was on the committee that decided on it's final draft, described slavery as a "nefarious institution...The curse of heaven on states where it prevails." He also argued that congressional representationshould be based on "one for every 40,000 free inhabitants." He was a vehement opponent of slavery and opposed the three-fifths compromise cos he felt it wuld still allow the southern states enough representation to keep slavery going indefinately.
Madison, himself, said in a speech that slavery was a great evil, but to show what I mean about why he wrote the second section the way he did, rather than include freedom for slaves right off the bat, it was because he knew the weight of keeping the union together and creating the United States- "Great as the evil is, a dismemberment of the union would be worse."
In 1786 George Washington wrote- "I can only say there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it."
In 1819, John Adam's wrote in a letter- Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States...I have, through my whole life, held the practice of slavery in abhorrence."
1789, Franklin wrote- "Slavery is such an atrocious debasement of human nature."
There are many more speeches and letters referring to it..
At the time Jefferson declared that all men were free and equal, about half a million were not.
He was attempting to protest the wrongs of slavery, right there in our Declaration of Independence. Adam's believed that the passages condemning slavery were the best parts of the Declaration. Yet the southern states strongly opposed Jefferson's position and would not vote for independence as long as those passages were included, so the position was stricken from the final draft.
Actually there was even a 20 year time limit put on the importation of slaves. Article 1, Section 9 was written to ban the slave trade in 1808. And the words 'slavery" and "slave" were deliberately left out of the document.
In the Federalist, Madison wrote- "It ought to be considered as a great point gained in favor of humanity, that a period of twenty years may terminate forever within these States, a traffic which has so long and so loudly upbraided the barbarism of modern policy"
I really never quite understood why there are some blacks that intentionally chose to not celebrate the 4th of July. Had we not declared independence, we would have continued to be a British territory and slavery would have continued here for far longer than it did. It should be a celebration of the first step toward ending slavery in the United States.
In any case, yes, they were very involved in it, did actively take a stand, and it was a very strong position against it that they held. The people who tell people otherwise should research and learn this country's history before speaking like a voice of authority on the subject because unfortunately, it has become popular belief that they were either a bunch of KKK types, or as you have been led to believe, just didn't care.
In re to the person saying that this is not a Christian nation..I'm not religious, nor am I pushing any Christian agenda, but the great majority of this country is some form of Christian. By great majority, I mean nearly 80%. so this actually is essentially a Christian nation.
and yet he had slaves.. im thinking that would make the man a hypocrite.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I'm sure you are already aware I'm referring to section 2 in the Constitution, of course..
There are lots of letters showing their distaste for slavery and actually specifically refer to the three-fifths rule and it's purpose..For instance, Gouverneur Morris, who assisted James Madison throughout the entire process of drafting the Constitution, and was on the committee that decided on it's final draft, described slavery as a "nefarious institution...The curse of heaven on states where it prevails." He also argued that congressional representationshould be based on "one for every 40,000 free inhabitants." He was a vehement opponent of slavery and opposed the three-fifths compromise cos he felt it wuld still allow the southern states enough representation to keep slavery going indefinately.
Madison, himself, said in a speech that slavery was a great evil, but to show what I mean about why he wrote the second section the way he did, rather than include freedom for slaves right off the bat, it was because he knew the weight of keeping the union together and creating the United States- "Great as the evil is, a dismemberment of the union would be worse."
In 1786 George Washington wrote- "I can only say there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it."
In 1819, John Adam's wrote in a letter- Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States...I have, through my whole life, held the practice of slavery in abhorrence."
1789, Franklin wrote- "Slavery is such an atrocious debasement of human nature."
There are many more speeches and letters referring to it..
At the time Jefferson declared that all men were free and equal, about half a million were not.
He was attempting to protest the wrongs of slavery, right there in our Declaration of Independence. Adam's believed that the passages condemning slavery were the best parts of the Declaration. Yet the southern states strongly opposed Jefferson's position and would not vote for independence as long as those passages were included, so the position was stricken from the final draft.
Actually there was even a 20 year time limit put on the importation of slaves in the Constituton. Article 1, Section 9 was written to ban the slave trade in 1808. And the words 'slavery" and "slave" were deliberately left out of the document.
In the Federalist, Madison wrote- "It ought to be considered as a great point gained in favor of humanity, that a period of twenty years may terminate forever within these States, a traffic which has so long and so loudly upbraided the barbarism of modern policy"
I really never quite understood why there are some blacks that intentionally chose to not celebrate the 4th of July. Had we not declared independence, we would have continued to be a British territory and slavery would have continued here for far longer than it did. It should be a celebration of the first step toward ending slavery in the United States.
In any case, yes, they were very involved in it, did actively take a stand, and it was a very strong position against it that they held. The people who tell people otherwise should research and learn this country's history before speaking like a voice of authority on the subject because unfortunately, it has become popular belief that they were either a bunch of KKK types, or as you have been led to believe, just didn't care.
In re to the person saying that this is not a Christian nation..I'm not religious, nor am I pushing any Christian agenda, but the great majority of this country is some form of Christian. By great majority, I mean nearly 80%. so this actually is essentially a Christian nation.
last i checked we do not have a national religion. there is a separation of church and state. i think your 80% figure is skewed way high. the way i interpret that is that 80% of the entire population is christian, which is completely false. you are leaving out a vast number that are atheist, agnostic, or simply spiritual that do not participate in any organized religion. even so, i doubt that 80% of all of those that participate in an organized religion would classify themselves as "christian".
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
and yet he had slaves.. im thinking that would make the man a hypocrite.
A couple of them had slaves. In fact, many abolitionists did for various reasons. In most cases, and in the cases involving founding father's, it has been shown that they were treated quite well, more like employees, instead of like animals as how many in the south treated slaves.
and yet he had slaves.. im thinking that would make the man a hypocrite.
A couple of them had slaves. In fact, many abolitionists did for various reasons. In most cases, and in the cases involving founding father's, it has been shown that they were treated quite well, more like employees, instead of like animals as how many in the south treated slaves.
a slave is a slave is a slave.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
and yet he had slaves.. im thinking that would make the man a hypocrite.
A couple of them had slaves. In fact, many abolitionists did for various reasons. In most cases, and in the cases involving founding father's, it has been shown that they were treated quite well, more like employees, instead of like animals as how many in the south treated slaves.
a slave is a slave is a slave.
absolutely true......unless they "chose to come here", as some like beck and o'reilly might contend......
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
0
g under p
Surfing The far side of THE Sombrero Galaxy Posts: 18,200
and yet he had slaves.. im thinking that would make the man a hypocrite.
A couple of them had slaves. In fact, many abolitionists did for various reasons. In most cases, and in the cases involving founding father's, it has been shown that they were treated quite well, more like employees, instead of like animals as how many in the south treated slaves.
I'm sure as you've stated those slaves were quite pleased to be treated very well like employees. Yeah right, I'm pretty sure then you wouldn't mind taking their places since you believe they were treated so well. :roll:
Peace
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
last i checked we do not have a national religion. there is a separation of church and state. i think your 80% figure is skewed way high. the way i interpret that is that 80% of the entire population is christian, which is completely false. you are leaving out a vast number that are atheist, agnostic, or simply spiritual that do not participate in any organized religion. even so, i doubt that 80% of all of those that participate in an organized religion would classify themselves as "christian".
Actually I included all groups and my number is not skewed.
51.3% Protestant
23.9% Roman Catholic
1.7% Mormon
1.6% other Christian
making for 78.5% of the population.
1.7% Jewish
0.7% Buddhist
0.6% Muslim
2.5% Other or unspecified
12.1% Unaffiliated
4% None
I never said anything about a national religion. I specifically said we are essentially a Christian nation. The Government cannot officially proclaim a national religion, but the people can simply by following their religion of choice. Meaning, if a nation of people follow Christianity, by choice, then that nation is obviously Christian..by choice. That's the key.
By the way, I just want to point out, cos you made me think of it, that the Constitution states that the Government cannot officially proclaim a national religion, nor prohibit the free exercise thereof. That term, seperation of church and state, is not in the Constitution. The sentence was in a letter written by Jefferson in 1802, fifteen years after the Consititution was written. The Danbury Baptists were a minority religious group that feared they had no inalienable right granted them by the state of Connecticut to worship as they chose. Instead they felt they were allowed to worship only as a favor granted to them by the state..so they wrote to President Jefferson seeking his guidance and comfort that they could continue to worship as they would. He responded with the exact words from the Constitution to calm their fears. Also in the letter he makes it clear that religions were protected from the state, not the other way around, and could express themselves and their faith freely, in public.
In other words, doing things like banning Christmas displays from Government buildings and airports, etc, as well as removing the cross from the Mojave Desert like the ACLU wants to do, would be unconstitutional.
One fella complained that he was insulted by the cross cos his father was Jewish, not Christian. Well the constitution doesn't protect him from feeling insulted. But if he wanted to erect a giant David's Star, he's more than welcome to, and the Constitution would certainly protect his right to do so.
last i checked we do not have a national religion. there is a separation of church and state. i think your 80% figure is skewed way high. the way i interpret that is that 80% of the entire population is christian, which is completely false. you are leaving out a vast number that are atheist, agnostic, or simply spiritual that do not participate in any organized religion. even so, i doubt that 80% of all of those that participate in an organized religion would classify themselves as "christian".
Actually I included all groups and my number is not skewed.
51.3% Protestant
23.9% Roman Catholic
1.7% Mormon
1.6% other Christian
making for 78.5% of the population.
1.7% Jewish
0.7% Buddhist
0.6% Muslim
2.5% Other or unspecified
12.1% Unaffiliated
4% None
I never said anything about a national religion. I specifically said we are essentially a Christian nation. The Government cannot officially proclaim a national religion, but the people can simply by following their religion of choice. Meaning, if a nation of people follow Christianity, by choice, then that nation is obviously Christian..by choice. That's the key.
By the way, I just want to point out, cos you made me think of it, that the Constitution states that the Government cannot officially proclaim a national religion, nor prohibit the free exercise thereof. That sentence was in a letter written by Jefferson in 1802, fifteen years after the Consititution was written. The Dambury Baptists were a minority religious group that feared they had no inalienable right granted them by the state of Connecticut to worship as they chose. Instead they felt they were allowed to worship only as a favor granted to them by the state..so they wrote to President Jefferson seeking his guidance and comfort that they could continue to worship as they would. He responded with the exact words from the Constitution to calm their fears. Also in the letter he makes it clear that religions were protected from the state, not the other way around, and could express themselves and their faith freely, in public.
In other words, dong things like banning Christmas displays from Government buildings and airports, etc, as well as removing the cross from the Mojave Desert like the ACLU wants to do, would be unconstitutional.
One fella complained that he was insulted by the cross cos his father was Jewish, not Christian. Well the constitution doesn't protect him from feeling insulted. But if he wanted to erect a giant David's Star, he's more than welcome to, and the Constitution would certainly protect his right to do so.
That sentence, 'seperation of church and state' does not exist in the document.
that is federal land, therefore it is an endoresement of christianity, therefore unprotected.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
I'm sure as you've stated those slaves were quite pleased to be treated very well like employees. Yeah right, I'm pretty sure then you wouldn't mind taking their places since you believe they were treated so well. :roll:
Peace
Actually it is incorrect to say a slave is a slave is a slave, as catefrancis did. If I were a slave during that era, yes, I absolutely would have wanted to be in their place, instead of in the hands of one of the southern slave owners. Keep it in perspective.
I'm sure as you've stated those slaves were quite pleased to be treated very well like employees. Yeah right, I'm pretty sure then you wouldn't mind taking their places since you believe they were treated so well. :roll:
Peace
Actually it is incorrect to say a slave is a slave is a slave, as catefrancis did. If I were a slave during that era, yes, I absolutely would have wanted to be in their place, instead of in the hands of one of the southern slave owners. Keep it in perspective.
...
Still... you could be sold to a Southern slave owner... like a used tractor. A tractor the owner rapes.
Or... you could be the convenient, in house booty call in the Jefferson household.
Being a slave... not good.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
that is federal land, therefore it is an endoresement of christianity, therefore unprotected.
It's not an endorsement. As stated, the religious' right to express their religious views is protected, even in public, which would include on public property. There is no one stopping a group from putting up a menorah, or even a statue of a fish with feet.
If one were to put up a sign saying Christianity is the way, that could be argued unconstitutional, but we are talking about a cross or nativity scene, not missionaries trying to scare people into finding Jesus with nightmare after-death scenarios for the non-believers..
Jefferson made it very clear that the right to express religion in that manner is fully protected.
Still... you could be sold to a Southern slave owner... like a used tractor. A tractor the owner rapes.
Or... you could be the convenient, in house booty call in the Jefferson household.
Being a slave... not good.
I never said it was good. I don't understand the point to the statement from you and the other guy..Why are you taking it in a direction that has zero bearing on the topic? It's just an excuse to argue..Absolutely ridiculous.
Still... you could be sold to a Southern slave owner... like a used tractor. A tractor the owner rapes.
Or... you could be the convenient, in house booty call in the Jefferson household.
Being a slave... not good.
I never said it was good. I don't understand the point to the statement from you and the other guy..Why are you taking it in a direction that has zero bearing on the topic? It's just an excuse to argue..Absolutely ridiculous.
excuse me, but the direction you are taking it has nothing to do with glenn beck and white culture.
so are you saying you would rather be a northern slave? that is no guarantee of a higher quality of life than being any other sort of slave.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
excuse me, but the direction you are taking it has nothing to do with glenn beck and white culture.
so are you saying you would rather be a northern slave? that is no guarantee of a higher quality of life than being any other sort of slave.
I'm not arguing with the original poster, am I? (no seriously..I didn't pay attention..) If I were I'd keep it on the topic they were arguing about.
I wouldn't want to be a slave. I never said I would. I never championed slavery. I simply stated that the Consitution has sections regarding the abolishment of slavery, and that the founding father's were abolishionists.
0
g under p
Surfing The far side of THE Sombrero Galaxy Posts: 18,200
Still... you could be sold to a Southern slave owner... like a used tractor. A tractor the owner rapes.
Or... you could be the convenient, in house booty call in the Jefferson household.
Being a slave... not good.
I never said it was good. I don't understand the point to the statement from you and the other guy..Why are you taking it in a direction that has zero bearing on the topic? It's just an excuse to argue..Absolutely ridiculous.
You made a statement that to me made no sense, I don't care to argue with you or anyone I just happen to disagree with you. You seem to think that if a person of color/slave had certain privileges or treated differently if you were owned by an abolitionist compared to a southern slave owner. I don't believe this to be true. Either way you're going to be treated as a commodity, an item, a thing, a possession for the owner to do as he or she pleases...master.
Peace
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
To add to what I was saying about religion...one has to understand where the founders were coming from. Under British rule they were forced to be Protestant by the government. Anything else had to be practiced in secrecy. One cannot ignore the fact that these were God fearing men of various beliefs (and one or two athiests..if I recall correctly..). They wanted to ensure a freedom to practice all their beliefs out in public without fear of persecution. That is why the Constitution is written the way it was. They did not want the government to have the power, under any circumstance, to tell them they cannot show their religious beliefs in any way. They made sure it would be unconstitutional for the government to stop, or say no to, any display of religion, private or public, even on government property.
You made a statement that to me made no sense, I don't care to argue with you or anyone I just happen to disagree with you. You seem to think that if a person of color/slave had certain privileges or treated differently if you were owned by an abolitionist compared to a southern slave owner. I don't believe this to be true. Either way you're going to be treated as a commodity, an item, a thing, a possession for the owner to do as he or she pleases...master.
Peace
Documents have shown that under many abolitionists, slaves had better treatment. It's not just an opinion.
Yes you will be treated as a commodity who must do what the owner tells you to do, but if you have a more lenient owner, those demands won't be as harsh, and the treatment while carrying out the tasks won't be as cruel..cruel, but not as cruel as it could have been under a totally racist owner.
0
g under p
Surfing The far side of THE Sombrero Galaxy Posts: 18,200
You made a statement that to me made no sense, I don't care to argue with you or anyone I just happen to disagree with you. You seem to think that if a person of color/slave had certain privileges or treated differently if you were owned by an abolitionist compared to a southern slave owner. I don't believe this to be true. Either way you're going to be treated as a commodity, an item, a thing, a possession for the owner to do as he or she pleases...master.
Peace
Documents have shown that under many abolitionists, slaves had better treatment. It's not just an opinion.
Yes you will be treated as a commodity who must do what the owner tells you to do, but if you have a more lenient owner, those demands won't be as harsh, and the treatment while carrying out the tasks won't be as cruel..cruel, but not as cruel as it could have been under a totally racist owner.
Geez you've got to be kidding right, well I gather then those particular slaves have been well documented to have slept quite comfortably and peacefully at night under those kinds of treatment. ....And you have a good night.
Peace
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
Still... you could be sold to a Southern slave owner... like a used tractor. A tractor the owner rapes.
Or... you could be the convenient, in house booty call in the Jefferson household.
Being a slave... not good.
I never said it was good. I don't understand the point to the statement from you and the other guy..Why are you taking it in a direction that has zero bearing on the topic? It's just an excuse to argue..Absolutely ridiculous.
...
Well... I know you aren't condoning slavery... but, the thing I find to be a bit ridiculous is the comment that there are levels of slavery, one being more tolerable than another... from the cotton field worker to the in house maid. Sure, one toils in the sun... but, it's no picnic for the house worker who is the sexual plaything of the master of the house. For a guy like me... I'd take the toiling in the field to the nightly ass raping.
And 'Cruelty is in the eyes of the one in charge'. The whip is certainly cruel... but, depending on where you stand... rape can also be viewed as 'love making'... as in, 'I treat my house maidens with caring and kindness... including keeping them satisfied with my magnificent male prowess".
Different physical aspects... same results. A slave IS a slave... as CateFrances originally stated.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
so you'd go on record as believing that every last slave owner raped their slaves?
There couldn't possibly be any female slave owners, right (actually the princess of Hawaii owned slaves, but she isn't a good example, cos she actually did have sex with a bunch of them...oh, and she was black too..talk about killing the stereotype of what a slave owner was..oy)?
There couldn't have been one single man so enamoured with his wife, or so against the horrendous practice, that they didn't rape their slaves?
There was one slave owner, in Brazil I think, I'd have to search...He had a friend over who was admiring the breasts of one of the slaves. The owner had her breasts cut off to give them to the friend. Yes, there are absolutely different levels of treatment from slave owners.
Comments
It means a community where aboriginal people were the numerical majority ... I grew up in northern Saskatchewan, in Canada. You've never heard what term before? Did I stop using the English language? There's nothing to define, unless you don't know what the word aboriginal means.
forgive my ignorance but i did not know what you meant either. i am not familiar with northern saskatchewan. i would think most americans were clueless as well. no need to be standoffish. he was just asking the question i did not know how to ask.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Fair enough ... I probably came off as a prick and I apologize. My experiences are probably fairly unique, I admit, but I still don't get the view that all white folks are super-priveledged, sheltered, ignorant of other cultures, and immune to discrimination ... These ideas come up a lot and they are bogus from my perspective, I suppose because these ideas are really pretty far from my own experiences. I dunno. I've been on this board forever and have a lot of respect for soulsinging after reading so many of his posts ... But do some people really think that certain cultural or racial groups don't have to deal with adversity? I am probably reading too much into what he said, granted. Oh well. Back to talking about Glenn Beck and his fake crying.
No. But I do think that in the USA, white europeans do not have to deal with anything remotely approaching what black americans do. I'm sorry for what you went through, but they have little to do with race relations in the US. and that is what i was discussing. i never meant to imply that no white/caucasian person has ever had it bad. i was speaking solely to white america vs black america. i'm sorry if i did not make that clear.
haha funnily enough i thought i was reading the postings of an indigenous australian living in the northern territory til i saw the word saskatchewan.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
yeah, there aren't many northern aboriginal communities in the usa so i was hopelessly confused. i was wondering if there was some rash of anti-white sentiment in the maine lumberjack community or alaskan eskimos or something.
B. The difference between all the white "indentured servants" and black "slaves" is that, partially through skin color, the former have been allowed access to upward social mobility, whereas the latter are still oppressed because of the color of their skin. More to the point, and agreeing with soulsinging, would any of you who are "white" ever want to switch the color of your skin, have your median average income drop from 45k to 30k (does this mean all whites are rich and all blacks poor - no, but you have a 30% chance of living in poverty if you are black vs. 10% if white according to the 2000 census), move to housing which reflects what you can now afford, and deal with the social stigmatism (like DWB, getting followed around stores while shopping, always having to prove you were a "safe" black, etc.) that comes with being a 'racial' minority in America. Of course you would get the benefit of BET, Miss Black America Beauty pageants, HBCUs, so I guess we'll call it even - so no complaining if you chose that option. If you wouldn't want to switch then that is the definition of unearned privilege from "White Culture".
Well, like I stated earlier, I am not so sure that its easy to come up with a concise verbal definition of ANY culture.
What's black culture? Hip-hop and saying "aks" instead of "ask"? No, because those are stereotypes that probably do not describe a majority of African American individuals. Just like NASCAR and trailer parks. soulsinging is right in that there is a shared culture history there that does not exist for Caucasian groups in North America, perhaps ... But there's more to having a culture than one pivotal event in a group's history. Seriously, define any given culture in an truly inclusive way without using racial/physical variables ... Its not easy to put into words.
There are lots of letters showing their distaste for slavery and actually specifically refer to the three-fifths rule and it's purpose..For instance, Gouverneur Morris, who assisted James Madison throughout the entire process of drafting the Constitution, and was on the committee that decided on it's final draft, described slavery as a "nefarious institution...The curse of heaven on states where it prevails." He also argued that congressional representationshould be based on "one for every 40,000 free inhabitants." He was a vehement opponent of slavery and opposed the three-fifths compromise cos he felt it wuld still allow the southern states enough representation to keep slavery going indefinately.
Madison, himself, said in a speech that slavery was a great evil, but to show what I mean about why he wrote the second section the way he did, rather than include freedom for slaves right off the bat, it was because he knew the weight of keeping the union together and creating the United States- "Great as the evil is, a dismemberment of the union would be worse."
In 1786 George Washington wrote- "I can only say there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it."
In 1819, John Adam's wrote in a letter- Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States...I have, through my whole life, held the practice of slavery in abhorrence."
1789, Franklin wrote- "Slavery is such an atrocious debasement of human nature."
There are many more speeches and letters referring to it..
At the time Jefferson declared that all men were free and equal, about half a million were not.
He was attempting to protest the wrongs of slavery, right there in our Declaration of Independence. Adam's believed that the passages condemning slavery were the best parts of the Declaration. Yet the southern states strongly opposed Jefferson's position and would not vote for independence as long as those passages were included, so the position was stricken from the final draft.
Actually there was even a 20 year time limit put on the importation of slaves in the Constituton. Article 1, Section 9 was written to ban the slave trade in 1808. And the words 'slavery" and "slave" were deliberately left out of the document.
In the Federalist, Madison wrote- "It ought to be considered as a great point gained in favor of humanity, that a period of twenty years may terminate forever within these States, a traffic which has so long and so loudly upbraided the barbarism of modern policy"
I really never quite understood why there are some blacks that intentionally chose to not celebrate the 4th of July. Had we not declared independence, we would have continued to be a British territory and slavery would have continued here for far longer than it did. It should be a celebration of the first step toward ending slavery in the United States.
In any case, yes, they were very involved in it, did actively take a stand, and it was a very strong position against it that they held. The people who tell people otherwise should research and learn this country's history before speaking like a voice of authority on the subject because unfortunately, it has become popular belief that they were either a bunch of KKK types, or as you have been led to believe, just didn't care.
In re to the person saying that this is not a Christian nation..I'm not religious, nor am I pushing any Christian agenda, but the great majority of this country is some form of Christian. By great majority, I mean nearly 80%. so this actually is essentially a Christian nation.
and yet he had slaves.. im thinking that would make the man a hypocrite.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
A couple of them had slaves. In fact, many abolitionists did for various reasons. In most cases, and in the cases involving founding father's, it has been shown that they were treated quite well, more like employees, instead of like animals as how many in the south treated slaves.
a slave is a slave is a slave.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I'm sure as you've stated those slaves were quite pleased to be treated very well like employees. Yeah right, I'm pretty sure then you wouldn't mind taking their places since you believe they were treated so well. :roll:
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
Actually I included all groups and my number is not skewed.
51.3% Protestant
23.9% Roman Catholic
1.7% Mormon
1.6% other Christian
making for 78.5% of the population.
1.7% Jewish
0.7% Buddhist
0.6% Muslim
2.5% Other or unspecified
12.1% Unaffiliated
4% None
I never said anything about a national religion. I specifically said we are essentially a Christian nation. The Government cannot officially proclaim a national religion, but the people can simply by following their religion of choice. Meaning, if a nation of people follow Christianity, by choice, then that nation is obviously Christian..by choice. That's the key.
By the way, I just want to point out, cos you made me think of it, that the Constitution states that the Government cannot officially proclaim a national religion, nor prohibit the free exercise thereof. That term, seperation of church and state, is not in the Constitution. The sentence was in a letter written by Jefferson in 1802, fifteen years after the Consititution was written. The Danbury Baptists were a minority religious group that feared they had no inalienable right granted them by the state of Connecticut to worship as they chose. Instead they felt they were allowed to worship only as a favor granted to them by the state..so they wrote to President Jefferson seeking his guidance and comfort that they could continue to worship as they would. He responded with the exact words from the Constitution to calm their fears. Also in the letter he makes it clear that religions were protected from the state, not the other way around, and could express themselves and their faith freely, in public.
In other words, doing things like banning Christmas displays from Government buildings and airports, etc, as well as removing the cross from the Mojave Desert like the ACLU wants to do, would be unconstitutional.
One fella complained that he was insulted by the cross cos his father was Jewish, not Christian. Well the constitution doesn't protect him from feeling insulted. But if he wanted to erect a giant David's Star, he's more than welcome to, and the Constitution would certainly protect his right to do so.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Actually it is incorrect to say a slave is a slave is a slave, as catefrancis did. If I were a slave during that era, yes, I absolutely would have wanted to be in their place, instead of in the hands of one of the southern slave owners. Keep it in perspective.
Still... you could be sold to a Southern slave owner... like a used tractor. A tractor the owner rapes.
Or... you could be the convenient, in house booty call in the Jefferson household.
Being a slave... not good.
Hail, Hail!!!
It's not an endorsement. As stated, the religious' right to express their religious views is protected, even in public, which would include on public property. There is no one stopping a group from putting up a menorah, or even a statue of a fish with feet.
If one were to put up a sign saying Christianity is the way, that could be argued unconstitutional, but we are talking about a cross or nativity scene, not missionaries trying to scare people into finding Jesus with nightmare after-death scenarios for the non-believers..
Jefferson made it very clear that the right to express religion in that manner is fully protected.
I never said it was good. I don't understand the point to the statement from you and the other guy..Why are you taking it in a direction that has zero bearing on the topic? It's just an excuse to argue..Absolutely ridiculous.
so are you saying you would rather be a northern slave? that is no guarantee of a higher quality of life than being any other sort of slave.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I'm not arguing with the original poster, am I? (no seriously..I didn't pay attention..) If I were I'd keep it on the topic they were arguing about.
I wouldn't want to be a slave. I never said I would. I never championed slavery. I simply stated that the Consitution has sections regarding the abolishment of slavery, and that the founding father's were abolishionists.
You made a statement that to me made no sense, I don't care to argue with you or anyone I just happen to disagree with you. You seem to think that if a person of color/slave had certain privileges or treated differently if you were owned by an abolitionist compared to a southern slave owner. I don't believe this to be true. Either way you're going to be treated as a commodity, an item, a thing, a possession for the owner to do as he or she pleases...master.
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
Documents have shown that under many abolitionists, slaves had better treatment. It's not just an opinion.
Yes you will be treated as a commodity who must do what the owner tells you to do, but if you have a more lenient owner, those demands won't be as harsh, and the treatment while carrying out the tasks won't be as cruel..cruel, but not as cruel as it could have been under a totally racist owner.
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
Well... I know you aren't condoning slavery... but, the thing I find to be a bit ridiculous is the comment that there are levels of slavery, one being more tolerable than another... from the cotton field worker to the in house maid. Sure, one toils in the sun... but, it's no picnic for the house worker who is the sexual plaything of the master of the house. For a guy like me... I'd take the toiling in the field to the nightly ass raping.
And 'Cruelty is in the eyes of the one in charge'. The whip is certainly cruel... but, depending on where you stand... rape can also be viewed as 'love making'... as in, 'I treat my house maidens with caring and kindness... including keeping them satisfied with my magnificent male prowess".
Different physical aspects... same results. A slave IS a slave... as CateFrances originally stated.
Hail, Hail!!!
There couldn't possibly be any female slave owners, right (actually the princess of Hawaii owned slaves, but she isn't a good example, cos she actually did have sex with a bunch of them...oh, and she was black too..talk about killing the stereotype of what a slave owner was..oy)?
There couldn't have been one single man so enamoured with his wife, or so against the horrendous practice, that they didn't rape their slaves?
There was one slave owner, in Brazil I think, I'd have to search...He had a friend over who was admiring the breasts of one of the slaves. The owner had her breasts cut off to give them to the friend. Yes, there are absolutely different levels of treatment from slave owners.