It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sanders: America Was Founded On ‘Racist Principles. That’s A Fact.

page: 21
25
<< 18  19  20   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
Slavery wasnt about supremacy it was about cheap labor in truth.


Now you spliting hairs.

Sure it was about cheap labour.

But it was justfied through the idea of white supremacy

To say otherwise is fake revisionist history!




posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: yuppa
Slavery wasnt about supremacy it was about cheap labor in truth.


Now you spliting hairs.

Sure it was about cheap labour.

But it was justfied through the idea of white supremacy

To say otherwise is fake revisionist history!


OK then explain the usage of slaves by other africans. Was that for white supremacy? But i get what youre saying.



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 03:02 PM
link   
This started off as a great discourse and ended up being a sad little game show where nobody wins. Half the posts are now bizarre Wheel of Fortune answers. People aren't even twisting each others words around. They just look at the used letter board and put together whatever words fit their version of the puzzle and call it a win.

No clever quips from Pat.

No figureless Vana tromping back and forth.

No consolation prize.



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: yuppa
Slavery wasnt about supremacy it was about cheap labor in truth.


Now you spliting hairs.

Sure it was about cheap labour.

But it was justfied through the idea of white supremacy

To say otherwise is fake revisionist history!



OK then explain the usage of slaves by other africans. Was that for white supremacy? But i get what youre saying.


Of course not.

Diffrent culture which i have no doubt used there own warped justification.

But for the Euro American part the jusftication for slavery was raceism.

They certainly didnt do because they thought blacks as equals.

Not sure why the idea of people in the past being racist is such a difficult and abstract concept to grasp.
edit on 16-9-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 03:19 PM
link   
You don't make someone viewed as equal your slave, unless you are intentionally punishing them.

So it was either that they didn't view them as equals, or they were punishing them. I think it was the former, not the later.



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Racism was the direct cause of Manifest Destiny, the 3/5 Compromise, the Indian Removal Act, the Chinese Exclusion Act, the California Genocide during the California Gold Rush, and many of the other policies which this nation was founded on. The "Fire Eaters" who provoked the States to secede & form the Confederacy were open racists, too.


No. you cannot use the term 'racism' or 'racist' in the same contemporary idiom of today when talking about two or three centuries earlier. It wasn't racism that brought Caribbean or African people to America as slaves, but the need for a labour force to work the plantations of tobacco and cotton that had started up. What I am saying here is that the mentality that brought the reason of slavery to America was for productive economic reasons, not for reasons of hate towards the genetic make up of another race. They were viewed as the spoils of conquest, and by the level of their culture deemed inferior, but not on a genetic level, but on an ideological and cultural level.

Ideology drives that which is termed racism, warped and twisted as it. Even today, in certain areas of Southern states of America, there are people who still consider the African-American in similar terms as that of their ancestors who may have been slaves. For them, so-called racism is a cultural idiomatic norm.

"All men are created equal...", so the great document states, but omitting the Caribbean and African people brought over to America, they were not seen as 'men' (people), but as chattel, and as being 'property' owned, and that is a different issue to racism. Their mistreatment wasn't out of racist hate, but because of the position in which they were held. Slaves were perceived like a domesticated farm animal, and could be dealt with in any way the owner saw fit to treat them The plantation owner didn't own slaves out of racist hate, but more for economic reasons. As far as he was concerned, he was owning spoils of conquest he had not participated in. His ideology wasn't racist, but economic.

There is no doubt in my mind that slave owners knew their slaves were people, which is why the type of language used about slaves was about property and ownership, race and genetics wasn't the issue, but requirements of a labour force and profit were, and a people defeated during the conquest of expansionism, were stolen from their lands (or subjugated within them) and made into slaves.

All of this could not have happened without the mindset to drive such an abhorrent act made by one race against another race. The rationale behind it rested on the most ridiculous claims to validate it, but they were not facts or truths.

So-called racism always and without exception resolves down to the differences in mindset and culture (especially today), and has absolutely nothing to do with genetics.



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: elysiumfire
No. you cannot use the term 'racism' or 'racist' in the same contemporary idiom of today when talking about two or three centuries earlier. It wasn't racism that brought Caribbean or African people to America as slaves, but the need for a labour force to work the plantations of tobacco and cotton that had started up.


Yes there was a need for labour, but that doesn't mean that slavery wasn't racist, even at the time - although certainly the standards of the time were different.

If you look at the justification used AT THE TIME for making Africans slaves but not Europeans (convict and indentured labour notwithstanding) it fits the definition of racist - they were considered inferior beings, there were religious/biblical justifications for them being slaves but not others, it was considered part of "god's plan" that some people were destined for slavery, etc eg see this BBC summation.

It is completely true that these were "normal" attitudes of the time all around the world, in one way or another, and certainly the African practice of taking other Africans as slaves wasn't racist (by definition!!) but that doesn't stop such attitudes being racist.



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 07:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: As everyone knows rich people are evil. They don't deserve any rights at all, and only exists to be exploited by politicians like Sanders


He's a racist and you are what? Just because someone has money dosent constitute them being evil. Do you even understand how crazy that sounds?



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Aloysius the Gaul:

Yes there was a need for labour, but that doesn't mean that slavery wasn't racist, even at the time - although certainly the standards of the time were different.

If you look at the justification used AT THE TIME for making Africans slaves but not Europeans (convict and indentured labour notwithstanding) it fits the definition of racist - they were considered inferior beings, there were religious/biblical justifications for them being slaves but not others, it was considered part of "god's plan" that some people were destined for slavery, etc eg see this BBC summation.

It is completely true that these were "normal" attitudes of the time all around the world, in one way or another, and certainly the African practice of taking other Africans as slaves wasn't racist (by definition!!) but that doesn't stop such attitudes being racist.


I have to disagree with your summation and conclusions drawn. Think about the question I am about to ask you. When Africans or Caribbeans were taken as slaves to other lands, were they taken because of their skin colour or other genetic traits, or were they taken as spoils of conquest, as a defeated people? If you think it was the former, and can prove it, your summation and conclusions would be correct, and half of my observations would be wrong, and I would concede the point to you; but if the latter is correct then you are wrong and I would be right.

Genetic traits have become wrongly correlated to the actual schism between races of people. The real conflict arises out of the difference between mindsets and cultures. I have tried to point this out by illustration between correspondences of examples in my posts, and was hoping that people would apply good logic and reasoning to see the value of what I am saying. The conflict is not between genetics, it is between mindset and culture. Racism itself is a mindset.

You ask a so-called racist why they are supposedly racist towards a particular race of people, and they will not talk about their genetics, but about how they live, how they express themselves through a culture, and how their values differ from the alleged racist's, and this is the point I am making, that these differences become the abrasive fault lines that keep us separate from one another. Some of the differences can be and are reconciled, but others will never be reconciled. Even many self-acclaimed racists do not realise that they are not actually racist, but are being something 'other'. They are simply incapable of articulating what it is that they hate about another race. It is simpler to just use genetics as a validation for their hate, but it doesn't make sense or stand up to analysis to do so. When they can articulate their hate, you will see that they are not talking about genetics.

edit on 17/9/15 by elysiumfire because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: elysiumfire

Arguing that the actual schism is not based on race breaks down when people use race as an indicator of mindsets and cultures.



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 06:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: elysiumfire
Aloysius the Gaul:

Yes there was a need for labour, but that doesn't mean that slavery wasn't racist, even at the time - although certainly the standards of the time were different.

If you look at the justification used AT THE TIME for making Africans slaves but not Europeans (convict and indentured labour notwithstanding) it fits the definition of racist - they were considered inferior beings, there were religious/biblical justifications for them being slaves but not others, it was considered part of "god's plan" that some people were destined for slavery, etc eg see this BBC summation.

It is completely true that these were "normal" attitudes of the time all around the world, in one way or another, and certainly the African practice of taking other Africans as slaves wasn't racist (by definition!!) but that doesn't stop such attitudes being racist.


I have to disagree with your summation and conclusions drawn. Think about the question I am about to ask you. When Africans or Caribbeans were taken as slaves to other lands, were they taken because of their skin colour or other genetic traits, or were they taken as spoils of conquest, as a defeated people?


I said it wasn't - please read my WHOLE post and see if you can find some relevant comment.



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Aloysius the Gaul:

...please read my WHOLE post and see if you can find some relevant comment.


I did read your whole post, which is why I provided clarification on the salient points I am making. What you are discussing bears out my thinking, you are still talking about ideas and mindset. God is an idea, science is all about ideas, and these samples you provided are ideas used as justification to treat people as slaves.

I hate to use this example, but take Hitler and his cohorts, and what they did to the people of the Jewish culture. They drove an idea into the German people that those of the Jewish culture (there is no actual Jewish race genetically) and those of other cultural or sexual differences were somehow to blame for Germany's problems. They used the idea of inferior genetics to gain a compliance and acquiescence to achieve their goals. It all looks from our contemporary platform as out and out racism, but all it was - with appalling and devastating actions - was an idea out of a particular mindset, or to use a German word...weltanschauung (world view). Elitists today, use the same examples, not out of actual racism, but out of agenda to achieve certain goals.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 08:54 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Right. I was trying to point out the flaw in Sanders' argument that this country was founded on racist principals. Any one who is well read in history would know that yes racism existed but the country was divided about this issue since its inception. Hence why Jefferson had to take out the reference to slavery in the Declaration.

Immigration is another issue that has existed since this country was founded. Many citizens hated immigrants from Europe in the late 19th century. People claimed they were dirty, diseased, and taking manufacturing jobs. These were Irish, Polish, Czech, and other eastern Europeans too!



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: elysiumfire

you can't have read it, because I noted that clearly Africans enslaving other Africans, Caribs enslaving other Caribs, NA's enslaving other NA's, etc, was not based on racism.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 18  19  20   >>

log in

join