I know, nobody is banning any flag......

a reply to: kaylaluv

lololol
forced here after purchase?
really?
what was with all those auctions?
you dont auction something already sold

mail order slaves.....who knew
you have a source for this?

a reply to: kaylaluv

Every state building needs to have statues showing oppression and cruelty of the slaves.

I actually have no problem with that. There's a town in Ohio that has a sign up: "Birthplace of General William Tecumseh Sherman." I almost wrecked when I saw it... a tribute to one of the most terrible war criminals in history!

But I have never said they should take it down... their town, their right.

Too bad they didn't mention the thousands of newly-freed slaves Sherman killed.

TheRedneck

a reply to: shooterbrody

You know how some people buy things at thrift stores and garage sales then re- sell them on eBay for a profit? Yeah it was like that. The American slave trade involved Americans purchasing the slaves in Africa and having them shipped here on American ships where they sold the slaves to plantation owners for a profit.

a reply to: kaylaluv

They were forced here after being purchased by Americans.

Ummm... no. They weren't.

The colonial-era slave trade was primarily driven by the developed countries of the time: England, France, Spain, etc. Americans had no slaving ships... heck, America couldn't afford slaves at first! As we became more prosperous, a few people could afford slaves, so the slave traders began to visit New England.

That's right... New England. Not the South, not Carolina, not Georgia... New England. Slavery spread to the South from New England as southern plantation owners became wealthy enough to afford them.

Most African slaves (slavery was not restricted to Africans... it just became more profitable to raid Africa) were forced into slavery in one of two ways. The preferable method was to purchase villagers from the village chiefs. The less preferable, but acceptable if needed, way was to take an entire village by force of arms. The slaves would then be shipped to whichever port the traders felt could offer the best price. Around 1800 that was usually the US.

This BS that tries to make slavery the sole responsibility of the South is exactly that...pure and absolute BS! Slaves were traded for centuries prior to the US being discovered, and are still traded in some countries today. Slavery was not solely about race, but was always about placing a monetary value on a human. The only reason the US had primarily black slaves was economics. At that time in history, black slaves were cheaper and easier to acquire and the US had the greatest demand.

This is the problem... people making sweeping statements to try and inflame others to their own pet cause. It was used very effectively against the South during the War of Northern Aggression, and it is still being used today... against everyone.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

My mistake - it was the Europeans who purchased (or captured) the slaves then brought them over to America for re-sell.

Doesn't negate American's part in all this. Note I didn't specify the South.

a reply to: introvert

I don't know and I don't care.

Obviously.

How about we rename you? You'd have fits...

meh, goes your logic-- whats in a name?

originally posted by: kaylaluv
I am all for not erasing history. Every state building needs to have statues showing oppression and cruelty of the slaves. People in chains. Men and women with lash marks on their backs. Children being ripped from their mother's arms to be sold off to another plantation. Every single state building in America. And we need to have street names like Slavery Row and Black Oppression Blvd and Slave Lynching Ave. So we don't ever forget our history.

and of course we shouldn't forget fully lifelike statues of Anthony Johnson in every state building as well. if you want to commemorate the evils of slavery, you certainly should include the man who made life bondage slavery possible legally (at least once the Europeans took over). the man who after refusing to release his indentured servant according to the law, and thus won the right for owning black slaves legally for life in British court. setting the stage for everyone to legally do so later on. just think if it was not for that man, it would not have happened at all. and for such an important and integral part of the history of slavery he should be not just a plain bronze or other material, but fully painted representation of the man who started it all. perhaps even paintings and murals of his winning the right to own slaves in court. and when children ask their parents who that man is, they can truthfully tell them, he was the man who started the evil institution of slavery under the Europeans in America.

it would also be good to have statues of the Native Americans giving the French slaves when the French first came to North America, before it fell under the rule of Europeans. we should also remember that along with representations of slaves in chains and families pulled apart to be sold off, flogging etc, that a fair representation of the evil slave owners be shown along with them. including Europeans, native Americans, and black Africans all of which were slave owners.

after all one can't properly learn from history if the true facts about it are concealed as they have been.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: introvert

I don't know and I don't care.

Obviously.

How about we rename you? You'd have fits...

meh, goes your logic-- whats in a name?

There is no logic in that. There is a difference between a sovereign individual and a street. That should be obvious.

Nevertheless, changing my name or the name of the street does not change my history, nor the history behind the person in which the street is named.

a reply to: introvert

Me thinks thou dost protest too much.

If its "no big deal", why change the street names?

a reply to: network dude

I may not be a fan of the Confederacy but I would like to keep as it is (And no I'm a non white American so calling me a white supremacist will not work).

As long as no one celebrates the bad parts of the South (Slavery, Racial Segregation, Miscegenation laws etc.) then let the Southerners do what they want.

a reply to: kaylaluv

No, it doesn't mitigate anything. Slavery is and was a barbaric practice. But America's role in it is not unique or special... to specify America without also mentioning Europe, Asia, the Middle East, and even Africa itself is disingenuous.

There are no slaves in the US today, at least outside of potential criminal elements. There is no one alive in the US today who has ever been a slave in the US. There is not anyone alive in the US today who ever met anyone who had ever been a slave in the US. It's been over 150 years. Are we ever going to be rid of a stigma that also plagued every other civilization that ever existed?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: network dude

ISIS destroys temples and anything that offends them also.


Just pointing out similarities.

Thats about rewriting the past, de educating populations about their history and heritage. Over there, ISIS is just following orders.

Over here we see it in acton too, disappearing the past so future generations won't ask, "Who was Stonewall Jackson"?

Oh, he was a part of a rebel alliance that resisted federal gubment interference in states autonomy.

would you say that if black masters owned white people as slaves for 400 years?....would you fight for generals engaged in a war to keep white people in slavery?.....I guess your answer would be a resounding YES!!

400 years... far as I know...... parts of America had slavery for 70 years...... not all of it but like 5 states. I guess ENgland gets a free pass for the 330 years that the king was profiting

"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past."
George Orwell, 1984

By their logic; we must destroy all records of the Pyramids because they were built with slave labour.

Slavery was but a small reason for the Civil War. The South was quickly becoming an economic powerhouse using textiles and manufacturing. Selling their wares to England and getting fat bank accounts from it. The North who's banks invested in Cotton Versus the Hemp that the south grew and turned into everything......( Betsy Ross Flag, hemp). Economics more so than slavery was a main cause of war. Just the one cause that got all the headlines was the slavery issue. We will erase history, we have done it time & again.

Hell my 5 year old granddaughter may not even be educated about the War between the states, as well as a ton of other unsightly American history facts.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: shooterbrody

You know how some people buy things at thrift stores and garage sales then re- sell them on eBay for a profit? Yeah it was like that. The American slave trade involved Americans purchasing the slaves in Africa and having them shipped here on American ships where they sold the slaves to plantation owners for a profit.

Are you familiar with triangular trade?

America (New England really) took in things like sugar from the Caribbean, made run, sent it to places like Africa where slaves were the product sent back to the Caribbean to keep the trade relationship going.

I wonder why no one hates New England for their part in keeping the slave trade fueled? Maybe it's because the north won the war and conveniently swept that under the rug.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: network dude

They are street names for god's sake. Doesn't matter what you name them, it's not erasing history.

It honestly does make me sad to see that someone I thought had a clue was this lost. Yesterday, it was a flag, then it was some statues, now it's some street names. Sure, they are all small instances, unrelated, and insignificant. At what point would you look at this and say "hey, I think they may really be trying to remove history"?

Rename the streets BLM Avenue and SJW Drive.

That should fix it.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: network dude

They are street names for god's sake. Doesn't matter what you name them, it's not erasing history.

It honestly does make me sad to see that someone I thought had a clue was this lost. Yesterday, it was a flag, then it was some statues, now it's some street names. Sure, they are all small instances, unrelated, and insignificant. At what point would you look at this and say "hey, I think they may really be trying to remove history"?

This shouldn't surprise you at all. Look at the crusade to remove anything that might remotely be a religious symbol from anything historical because it offends people now, today. Got to remove a cross on this or that city's seal. Can't let this or that historic monument stay because it's religious, etc.

This is the same idea only they switched the object of their offense and ire to anything that might be loosely linked to the South.