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.

 

Apologize for Slavery? Why?

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by jeasahtheseer
 


That's what's so puzzling about this apology. Out of all the blacks I know, none of them walk around with a chip on their shoulder about slavery. I have a feeling that you're in the majority and the senators only did this to put a jewel in their figurative crowns. Not because they really care. It's good PR in their minds.




posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Seems the congress got the apology bug from their Fuer 'Obama' since he has apologized all over the world for the existance of the US.

But...if they are going to apologize for slavery then do it right...let the Islamic pirates of Moroco apologize to the Irish for terrorizing their coastal villages in medieval times and creatings slaves. Let the Norse peoples of Scandanavia apologize to the Irish..the Brittans..Gauls...Saxons..and then the Saxons apologize to the Irish..and Brittons for slavery. Don't leave out the peoples on the Italian pennsula that enslaved the Greeks...Germans...Gauls...Brittons...Carthagenians...Celts...Saxons...then the oriental peoples Huns..then the blacks on the ivory coast that enslaved their own people and sold them to the Dutch and English and just to other tribes...should I go on. You get the picture. It is utterly ridiculous..but you know what this leads to...it leads to 'retribution'..that's right boys and girls more 'printed' money to undeserving parasites.

best regards,
seax125



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Eight
 



However you want to look at it, the ultimate result was freedom from slavery.



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Eight
 


To add to this, one has to understand that blacks were generally disliked and discriminated against in the North. While abolition was a popular topic gaining prominence in wealthy and intellectual circles, it really didn't mean much for the common man of the North. While the abolition/preservation of the institution of slavery was always a major powder keg behind the War, that wasn't the reason it was fought. Blacks were not allowed in the Union Army initially, and later Negro Corps were often composed of runaway slaves used (ironically) as slaves to do the manual labor of the military while the white men are the ones who actually fought and died. Many black enlisted men were never even allowed to fire a shot in the fight for their freedom initially. Worse, some used them as "raider" squads to loot, sack, and burn Southern communities and plantations.

Rather, the Civil War was fought for the North primarily to preserve the Union - and this is generally reflected in the letters home from the soldiers in the field.

One of the reasons why slavery was such an issue, and secession the only answer, is because the South felt as though they we incapable of receiving proper representation. Being largely agricultural, the South lacked the dense urbanization and population the Industrialized North had. Therefore, issues popularly supported in the North would almost always gain dominance over the South, rendering the South mute and subjugated in matters of government.

South Carolina was the first state to make good on their threat of secession, following the election of known abolitionist Abraham Lincoln.


The issue of slavery was not a focal point of the Civil War initially. It took a string of Union defeats to weaken international reluctance to support either side. England's navy and textile industry was highly dependent on Southern Cotton crops, but England was reluctant to throw their support behind the South due to the threat of French intervention - nor could they be morally seen to support an emerging nation which promoted the institution of Slavery they had already abolished. Some within the British parliament even advocated using the America's struggle and support for the South as way to slyly begin to reintroduce slavery in their own nation. With each Southern victory, the hammer of British intervention came closer. Lincoln combated this by helping to turn the Civil War into a moral obligation to free the Slaves, rather than just a political and civil dispute between American territories. However, his words would hold no real weight if the Union could not prove it was capable of winning the war. While the North took substantial losses at the battle of Antietam - they were successful at turning back the Confederacy and driving them out of Maryland. This first part in the storm Lincoln used to issue the Emancipation Proclamation - an ineffective proclamation that did not immediately free any slaves, but turned the war to a moral struggle for freedom.

With the uncertainty over possible French assistance to the Union threatening new conflicts with England, popular support at home for the abolition position of the North, and confidence shaken in the South's successful victory - the Emancipation Proclamation achieved it's intended impact. To keep England from backing the South.

So the real answer as to whether the Civil War was fought to end slavery or merely the preservation of the Union is.... it depends on who you ask.



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Lookingup
 


While it's true that some people use the Bible to teach that black people are cursed, that doesn't make it true that the Bible teaches it. As you've stated, some people use the curse upon Ham to prove that black people are cursed, but that's not what the text says.

The verses that are used really mention that Canaan was cursed, not all of Ham's descendants, Genesis 9.25:


he said, “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be to his brothers.


It's interesting that the other descendants of Ham [Mizraim, Put, Cush], are the ones that went down into Africa while the descendants of Canaan stayed in Palestine. Since only one of Ham's sons were cursed, not all black people could be cursed.

The the curse that was pronounced upon Canaan's descendents was fulfilled as well. It was fulfilled when Israel conquered Palestine and made the remaining settlers of Canaan their servants [1 Kings 9.20-21; Joshua 9.23].

In addition, when a curse is given, there are always limitations to it. We see in Exodus 20.5-6 that a curse only lasts for three or four generations. With that being the case, the curse on Canaan is hardly a permanent one. Those verses also seem to indicate that a curse could be broken before the final generation by turning to the Lord God and obeying him. So, if the curse on Canaan was a permanent one on all blacks, it seems that if they started to obey the Lord, the curse would be broken. This is something that many slaves had done. Many of the slaves were Christian converts.

In the end, anyone that uses the Bible to try and justify being racist and say slavery is a good thing, they obviously don't know the Bible and have forgotten that all of humanity shares the same roots and are all created in the image of the same God.



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by soldiermom
reply to post by Eight
 



However you want to look at it, the ultimate result was freedom from slavery.


No, it is not "however I want to look at it", It is the truth. Lies that were told and perpetuated in schools and in the black community as well as the white community is the root of most of problems here in America. Something that is incidental of an action does not become the main reason for that action.



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 10:47 PM
link   
What's the worst about this situation, is everyone stating, "I'm not a racist." Just because they have opinion that might not be "pro-black". So, if I oppose this ridiculous nonsense on the grounds that it's revisionist history and a total waste of time then I have to say, "Oh, I'm no racist!" and "I have friends of every race!"

White guilt.
If you don't like the legislation you should not have to make these absurd blanket catch all's in hopes not to offend!

"The content of his character, not the color of his skin."



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   
This may have been mentioned already, but I think that through some study of history, "african americans" would learn that it was their own tribesmen that sold them into slavery in the first place. I feel no need to apologize for anything. We are all slaves if you want to get technical.

[edit on 21-6-2009 by Greenize]



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Eight

Originally posted by soldiermom
reply to post by Eight
 



However you want to look at it, the ultimate result was freedom from slavery.


No, it is not "however I want to look at it", It is the truth. Lies that were told and perpetuated in schools and in the black community as well as the white community is the root of most of problems here in America. Something that is incidental of an action does not become the main reason for that action.


Let me clarify by first saying that I wasn't trying to diminish your post in any way. Second, I know what the war was fought for. It may be true that the war was fought to keep slavery from ending but it's not that far around the bend to say that many fought to end slavery.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 12:48 AM
link   
Then how come he didn't sign a resolution to apologize to the genicide of almost an entire race, the native americans? Shouldn't they get an apology, or is it not valid because it isn't obama's people that were almost killed off? That's a lot far more worse than just being made to work for no pay. At least they were fed and had houses, we took somebody else's land and nearly killed them all off... what about an outcry for them???


As for restitution, I beleive that's already been made to the slaves remaining relatives. They have college funds specifically for them(that we can't get), they have Affirmitive Action, and they've got the NAACP, what the heck more do they want? They want me to hand over my house, my boat, my car? Nope sorry, get bent!



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikerussellus


North Korea is going to nuke Hawaii, Iran is going to i mplode, we have a war in Iraq, a war in Afghanistan, unemployment is shooting through the roof, our economy is in the tank, the government is controlling everything, and. . . and the ONLY FRACKIN' THING TO COME OUT OF OUR REPRESENTATIVES IS AN APOLOGY FOR SLAVERY?

-sigh-

-I need a drink-

[edit on 20-6-2009 by mikerussellus]


Well said!

As I have said and many other ATS'rs have said on countless threads, there is no difference between the two parties in this country. We are controlled by elites that set these parties up to give us, the common folk, something to fight about, so that we don't see the man behind the curtain. Race is just another one of those artificial divides that the elites love to fuel, because people again fight over it and its history, etc.

So what this moves means to me is that they powers that be don't want us talking about the unjustified wars we are in (or the one we may be about to enter in) and the innocents that are dieing on our countries behalf, or the fact the rich are raping our economy, or the fact that the average person has no voice in the system anymore and is losing all of their rights

This makes some people who would otherwise be angry at the government happy for it doing something moral, and others, as shown on this thread, very angry about it. Either way, as long as people are talking about race, the elites get to keep on keepin on.

Don't fall for this crap! Rather or not an apology should be issued should not be the issue here, the issue is do you want the people that you supposedly elected trying to solve all of the afore problems i mentioned above, or about slavery. Demand more of your elected officials and hold them accountable.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 09:38 AM
link   
This has to go in this thread somewhere...

are you ready for it?

Reparations are BULL [snip]

Sorry offensive language abounds in this, please be advised...

Part1
Part2
part3




posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Someone mentioned the NAACP and I have a question for our African American friends on this board (or anyone with an opinion). This question is regarding the political correctness of how we refer to any particular race, in this case, African Americans. Please understand, I am in no way trying to be sarcastic or derogatory, this is an honest question.

Okay, here goes. The accepted term (for now) is African American. However, their own society for the advancement of their race is NAACP in which the 'C' stands for "Colored", but that is not an acceptable term to use.

Obviously, the "N" word is way off limits, yet almost every African American I've ever known used it to refer to each other. Certainly, it is in just about every rap song I've ever heard.

Even the term "Black" is no longer kosher to use. However, it is used very often by African Americans, especially comedians. Yet, the term "White" is fine to use when referring to, well, white people.

Anyway, I'm not trying to stir up a huge pot of hate. I've just never been able to get a straight answer on this subject. Why is it okay for a race to refer to themselves by certain terms but if someone else does, it basically war? Doesn't make sense, they are just words. If African Americans did not use these words themselves, I could understand it.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Instead of apologizing for slavery, they should remind everyone that their very existence is due to past events, even slavery. It's a common fallacy that if slavery didn't happen, the current descendants would be living halcyon days in Africa. If the past didn't happen exactly as it did, the sequences of events that brought people together would not have happened, and the random ancestry that arose from those meetings would never have happened.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Slavery of some race or religion or class has been around forever.
There were many involved in slavery back in the day, and I may be wrong and don't have the time to research, but didn't the Brits play a part in bringing the Africans to America?

What bothers me the most when I hear all of this isn't so much the fact that none of us were around when all this happened, but the fact that there were many people around who worked very hard, some even dying, in order to free these people. It was not the entire nation enslaving these people. If it were, things would probably have remained the same.

I just don't see people in terms of color, religion, etc. We all bleed red.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 


It's a statement that the government apologizes, right?



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Why can't people be graceful they are here today, learn from the mistakes our ancestors made and try to live a better life - instead of worrying about what happened in the past?

It is okay to reminiscence about the past, but to try to live in the past or bring it back is just for those who can not move on in life.

You say what can it hurt...I say what is the point. Our senators are getting paid to talk about something that will have no affect on anything, except for those few mad black guys who still blame the white man for the problems of the world.

Why don't these senators do something constructive, like trying to help fix the economy? Or help poverty stricken children get an education? I don't know, they are the ones getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars, yet they sit back and talk about *this*.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by FritosBBQTwist
 

Well again, if it was an apology from the government, ok that's fine to me. But if it is the 111th United States Congress apologizing, I'm offended because it's basically people apologizing for what their ancestors did, as if it reflects on them or something.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Killah29
Why should I appologize for something i didn't do? This appology is only going to make the White Senators happy.


(1) YOU are not the federal government. YOU are not apologizing..the Federal government is.

(2) The Federal Government is not an individual, nor does it have an mortal lifespan.

(3) The Federal Government as a governing body has existed continually since what? 1776?

Yes...In this context the "federal government" owes an official apology,

You as an individual do not....

But I am sure you get it at some level and are rather interested in the racial rhetoric by adopting the stance of "why should I apologize for something I didn't do!"

...again, you didn't...our government did.

[edit on 22-6-2009 by maybereal11]



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 




(3) The Federal Government as a governing body has existed continually since what? 1776?


1788.

As I understand it, the Declaration of Independence which was issued in 1776 merely stated the colonies intent to sever ties with England, and America did not exist as a nation in any official legal capacity until the structure of government was drafted and adopted with the ratification of the Constitution in 1788. Between 1776 and 1784, America was still a collection of British colonies - though they had gone rouge. Neither the Continental Congress or the Congress of the Confederation were officially recognized governments until the surrender of the British and the signing of the Treaty of Paris. In the interim time before the ratification of the Constitution, the American Government was defined by the Articles of Confederacy.

1776 is ingrained into the popular understanding as the "Birth" of the United States. However, the actual birth would be 1788.

[edit on 22-6-2009 by Lasheic]



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join