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.

 

The majority of Americans came to America in the last century and didn't kill Indians or enslave bl

page: 4
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chainmaker
The Civil War was all about slavery. That was the primary reason.

I've had this discussion with college professors, people who really love history, and they unequivocally say that slavery was not the driving force behind the Civil War.

The primary objective of the Civil War was "saving the Union" — i.e., demolishing Southern infrastructure, destroying all food crops, laying waste to the South for no other reason but to humble it and steal it back from the Confederacy.

It was money. Cold and simple.

Modern white-guilters and slavery apologists have tried to turn the Civil War into a noble crusade for the soul of Mankind.

But sorry, nope, it wasn't.

It was about money, pure and simple, same as all other wars.

— Doc Velocity




posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ausar
if you honestly believe america is the name for a person named amerigo; i can see why your post sounds the way it does.

Hand me that bottle of wine, son, and step away from the keyboard.

— Doc Velocity



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 05:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ausar
if you honestly believe america is the name for a person named amerigo; i can see why your post sounds the way it does.


If you honestly DON'T believe that America was named after a guy named Amerigo, then you need to google that # and shed a little bit of ignorance.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by Chainmaker
The Civil War was all about slavery. That was the primary reason.

I've had this discussion with college professors, people who really love history, and they unequivocally say that slavery was not the driving force behind the Civil War.

The primary objective of the Civil War was "saving the Union" — i.e., demolishing Southern infrastructure, destroying all food crops, laying waste to the South for no other reason but to humble it and steal it back from the Confederacy.

It was money. Cold and simple.

Modern white-guilters and slavery apologists have tried to turn the Civil War into a noble crusade for the soul of Mankind.

But sorry, nope, it wasn't.

It was about money, pure and simple, same as all other wars.

— Doc Velocity


College professors are people with opinions. I'm an amateur historian and have read enough from both sides of this argument to say that both sides are correct.

The white guilters are the ones who are more likely to refuse to admit any good intentions by white people in the Civil War.

Name me another war in history when a people fought against themselves and the outcome was the freeing of that people's own slaves.

Of course the elites were playing power and money games in that era, they always do, but the Civil War would not have been possible without the moral issue of slavery at the heart of it. No huge polarizing political division would have ever developed dividing the states into North and South without the slavery debate which was there from day one.

The real moral crusaders of the Revolution knew that slavery was absolute hypocritical to the universal human rights they had declared in the Declaration and the Constitution and Bill of Rights. That issue just festered until the Civil War.

We agree to disagree.

[edit on 21-12-2009 by Chainmaker]



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
No, slavery as an "institution" already existed in Africa, Europe and Asia long before the American colonies ever existed. Nothing about slavery was invented in America, except perhaps emancipation.


Ouch. You seriously need to learns you some histories.

Yes, slavery existed prior to its incarnation in the Americas. There's a big difference, though. Take the Romans. They would enslave people they beat in wars. Those slaves would usually be slaves for the rest of their owners' lives, unless said owner was a magnanimous kind of dude and let them go early. Their children, however, would be considered freepersons (albeit, freepersons on the very bottom of society and usually in debt to their parents' owners).

Contrast with the Americas - and i'm not singling out the US here, since the American-style slavery came with the Spanish and existed for three hundred years prior to any of those wigged goober-growers getting the idea of commandeering a continent.

In the Americas, slavery was an industry. Indians and Africans were hunted down and captured for the pure purposes of selling them in the Caribbean, in Brazil, and later, in the colonies. They were treated as being completely subhuman - at least the Romans afforded slaves a small helping of basic rights. But in the Americas, a slave could be expected to work himself to death.

In fact the term "sold down the river" means exactly what it sounds like - it comes from slaves being sold downriver, from the Piedmont area down into the deep south, where due to climate, abuse, and overwork, they had a life expectancy of about four to eight months.

Now, as if this weren't enough, in America slavery was generational. If your parents were slaves, so were you. And after the Dred Scott case, if any of your ancestors were a slave, so were you.

And to top it off, after the civil war, slavery didn't end. The social status of blacks did not improve. In some respects it even sank, as they were now considered "wild" by many. The practical system of slavery - now called sharecropping or prison industry - remained, while the few securities of the institution were gone.

Comparing American slavery to slavery in other parts and times of the world is like comparing World War 2 to the Falklands war.


That's probably the biggest example of historical revision taught in American schools today. The American Civil War, in fact, was not about slavery. The stated reason for the Civil War, ironically, was to "save the Union" — that according to Abraham Lincoln himself.

The political and economic climate of the pre-Civil-War era was a tense one between North and South. The South perceived the North as an industrial parasite living off of the vast agricultural and economic resources of the South. Like it or not, the North could not survive as a separate nation, while the South certainly could survive without the North.

Hence the Northern panic when the South announced that it was seceding from the Union. The North, then, started the war to take back (steal) the agricultural and economic resources of the South. This is why, in Confederate history, the Civil War was more properly termed "The War of Northern Aggression"...which it certainly was.

The North later used slavery as a political issue to justify the war; however, Abraham Lincoln himself admitted that slavery was an inconsequential issue compared to the real reason for the war: "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it..."

The prime objective was to save the union, which meant conquering and subordinating the Southern states to Northern dominance. Emanicipation of the slaves was just an afterthought, a bit of propaganda to give the North moral high ground.

Just a few points of clarification for those of you still struggling to cast off 12 years of brainwashing courtesy of our public education system.



— Doc Velocity


Funny thing. This is the version of history I learned in school. In Alabama. Where "whitewashing" doesn't just mean paint!

First off, you're right, the war wasn't about slavery. That didn't enter the picture until about 1863. However - and this is the important part - Slavery was the issue that caused the southern states to secede in the first place.

see, what educational systems in the southern states - and their apologists all over - try to obfuscate is that the slave states were slave states for a reason - their economies were entirely dependent on slavery. They couldn't get the fields worked, the lumber cut and processed, the rocks quarried, the mines dug, or the ships packed without millions of men and women forced into giving their labor for free. Were the slaves freed, the economy of the southern states would have collapsed.

So when ol' Ugly Stick, as a known and vocal abolitionist was elected, the southern states flipped the bird and ditched. Why? because they were afraid that he might actually bring in abolitionist policies that would, you know, result in having to pay for labor or something. Terrible, I know.

And the war started when the federal government refused to withdraw federal troops from federal land - Fort Sumter. South Carolina opens fire, and cue four years of the Confederacy getting cockslapped. Would have been quicker, but my cousins were causing some problems out in the western frontier, y'know, trying to keep both packs of unwashed paste-faces out of their turf.

'Course, maybe the south would have had a chance... except so many southern regiments had to be kept away from the front to maintain order internally. Amazing how many draft dodgers, recalcitrant communities (such as the Free State of Jones) and random groups of soldiers-turned-bandits the south had at this time. And of course, there was the pink elephant in the room - the millions of Africans in the south who might not be too happy that "their" country was fighting to keep them in bondage.

Emancipation was definitely an afterthought - But it wasn't much of a fig leaf, since Lincoln's popularity dropped like a rock because of it. You think Americans don't want our volunteer force to go help out Arabs? The Americans of the time were even less keen on a conscript force being used to help blacks.

And no, the south couldn't have survived as a separate nation. A cursory study of how those states interacted with each other is all you really need to see this plainly, but there was also the problem that most people in the south didn't want to secede. It was the rich bastards calling the shots who did. Class warfare - poor and slave against the elite - was going to be a very painful reality for the Confederacy. Even if it survived that, its economy would be in shambles - it had all the raw products, but none of the industry needed to make use of them. it would have become debt-bitch to the north, Europe, and Mexico. yes, Mexico.

The North, on the other hand, had a stable political union, plenty of natural resources - and was steadily conquering more to the west - and the industry to process it all. If the schism had persisted to the modern day, we would be looking at a modern, industrialized north... and the confederacy would look rather like Bolivia.

[edit on 21-12-2009 by TheWalkingFox]



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ausar
if you honestly believe america is the name for a person named amerigo; i can see why your post sounds the way it does.


He's wrong in a lot of spots all over, but he's actually right on this.

In the Latin conceits of Europeans naming crap, "America" means "Amerigo's land".

Sort of how like Cristof Columbo became Christopher Columbus. They just Latin'ed his name up.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
True, but the prosperity of North America is based on lands stolen from Natives, and upon the labour of Black slaves. Reparations may not be the answer, but there is a debt, whether you care to recognise it or not.



Just back the f up- do you think whites in the 19th century were sitting twiddling their thumbs- I think the "prosperity" of the European created entity that is the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is slightly more than the labour of "black slaves"- as for land stolen, how far back do you want to go, nation states are only a relatively modern creation, time to leave the victim seeking bs in the past



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 06:56 AM
link   
ALL you you that refer to Native Americans as 'Indians' are JUST AS IGNORANT as any person that would use the words ni&&er - spick - jap or chink.

EDUCATE YOURSELVES before you talk about us NATIVE AMERICANS! You dont even respect us enough to call us our proper names - instead some of you choose to stick 'Indian' on us and expect us not to give a damn.

STOP calling Native Americans THE VERY SAME derogatory NAME thats NOT ALLOWED WITH ANY OTHER RACE.

WELL IM DAMN SICK AND TIRED OF IT BEING OK HERE TO CALL A Native American AN INDIAN and that be ACCEPTABLE HERE!

Only with MY race is it ok to call US out of our names. Cant do that and get by with it though when we are throwing around the 'n-word' - spick - chink... SO WHY IS INDIAN ALLOWED? WHEN IT IS ABSOLUTELY JUST AS OFFENSIVE - IF NOT MORE SO!

WRONG!!!! Did I say this was wrong? ITS W R O N G!



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 07:00 AM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 



The blacks got reparations and rightfully so, since Americans DID enslave them.


Seriously?


Where was i when that happened?


Any time someone "Demands" reparations, they are bringing up the past (as another poster in this thread suggested does not happen)

Reparations should be for someone DIRECTLY affected by something bad.

You shouldn't get a dime if your great, great, great grandmother was a slave.

And you shouldn't get a dime if your great, great, grandfather was a Native American.


I have done nothing to you, your grandmother, or your grandfather. So why should i have to pay you?

I don't feel guilty, why should i?



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Little One
 



EDUCATE YOURSELVES before you talk about us NATIVE AMERICANS! You dont even respect us enough to call us our proper names - instead some of you choose to stick 'Indian' on us and expect us not to give a damn


Then, from now on, you must call me Welsh-American. And my friend is an Irish-American.


My other friend will, from this day forward, be referred to as a Mongolian-American, and his boss wishes to be called Alan, who is a Swedish-American.

People not from American should be referred to as notFrom-Americans.

Once you do that, without hindrance, and without falter, then i will call you "native American"

until then, i think you're just acting childish by shouting illegitimate claims from a mountain top.





[edit on 21-12-2009 by Snarf]



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Little One
ALL you you that refer to Native Americans as 'Indians' are JUST AS IGNORANT as any person that would use the words ni&&er - spick - jap or chink.


That may be the case for you, but it is my experience that different people view the issue in different ways. Some wish to be identified as Indian...some Aboriginal, some as First Nations, some as Native Americans...some none, some all and some just don't give a rat's arse.

So I just speak with respect, and no misunderstandings need occur.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
True, but the prosperity of North America is based on lands stolen from Natives, and upon the labour of Black slaves. Reparations may not be the answer, but there is a debt, whether you care to recognise it or not.



Just back the f up- do you think whites in the 19th century were sitting twiddling their thumbs- I think the "prosperity" of the European created entity that is the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is slightly more than the labour of "black slaves"- as for land stolen, how far back do you want to go, nation states are only a relatively modern creation, time to leave the victim seeking bs in the past


When you have a people that are thrown off or cheated out of of their ancestral lands for the benefit of others who get it cheap or for free, then you've forever changed the economics. The entire economic foundation of the continent is based upon Europeans screwing both Indians and Blacks...that should be pretty simple to absorb. It's also pretty easy to figure out the societal costs. You can't turn back the clock, so you need to try and fix it or nothing will ever change.

Near as I can figure out, that means a generation or two of good health, good education and good leadership.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by the_denv
 


Yeah you're right. Sorry about that.

I gave you a star as well because you didn't just link to wikipedia like a lot do.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
When you have a people that are thrown off or cheated out of of their ancestral lands for the benefit of others who get it cheap or for free


THEY ARE ALL DEAD, YOU HEARING ME, DEAD



, then you've forever changed the economics.


No you haven't



The entire economic foundation of the continent is based upon Europeans screwing both Indians and Blacks


how dare you label white children as enslavers of blacks, you sir should watch how you talk if you talk like that outside of an internet room- if I was AMerican and heard somebody saying my white child enslaved a black man Id certainly have to do something about it



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
When you have a people that are thrown off or cheated out of of their ancestral lands for the benefit of others who get it cheap or for free


THEY ARE ALL DEAD, YOU HEARING ME, DEAD



, then you've forever changed the economics.


No you haven't



The entire economic foundation of the continent is based upon Europeans screwing both Indians and Blacks


how dare you label white children as enslavers of blacks, you sir should watch how you talk if you talk like that outside of an internet room- if I was AMerican and heard somebody saying my white child enslaved a black man Id certainly have to do something about it



How dare you put words in my mouth? Learn to read! Then put on your big boy pants and learns some economics before shooting off your mouth.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

How dare you put words in my mouth? Learn to read! Then put on your big boy pants and learns some economics before shooting off your mouth.




You are the one atttributing status and guilt (and victimhood) according to the colour of their skin

- as those small minority who enslaved others are dead (never mind blacks enslaving blacks, arabs enslabing blacks, north africans enslaving Europeans) then you are attributing guilt to those of european descent alive now

ie, white kids as well


Was a sham, absoloute sham



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by gdeed
 


you are a bit thin skinned aren't you?

well coming from a real red skin let me say you and I were born into this word with no control over what happened in the past... If it makes you feel better it was germs not bullets that very nearly wiped us out....

What's truly sad is America has lost 80% of its forests, why it was once written a squirrel could travel from tree to tree from the Atlantic to the Mississippi and never touch the ground... Remember those stories of of wide open Prairie? gone mostly, plowed under for super farms to feed a hungry nation...

My people may be forced onto tiny reservations but your people are now trapped in mega cities that greed and lack of respect for their fellow man has turned into cesspools of violence and crumbling infrastructures...

Its way to late to point at each other and cast blame... the only thing left to us, red black white green and gray is to try and put that past behind us and try to correct the wrongs so our children and their children can have a better future...

Unless you like feeling guilty about things we have no real control over?



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


howdy,nice to meet you.

ok america's slavery WAS NOT WORSE than slavery at other timesin history that is ridiculous.
If rome took slaves in war they were pows and weren't given a pizza and a goblet of wine.they were beaten,raped and or mutilated or fed to lions.some would have been kept as slaves.

so picking cotton is worse than being eaten by lions?

we just think modern warfare is worse because now we see it on tv but death and destruction are death and destruction,observed or not.

great great grandpa's slavery must have been worse than sparticus' why?
Also,slavery hasn't gone away.It's alive and well in Africa.

As a white american male this must be my fault somehow,I'm just trying to figure out how.
that and trying to figure how to keep everyone else down fills my day.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by the_grand_pooh-bah


howdy,nice to meet you.

ok america's slavery WAS NOT WORSE than slavery at other timesin history that is ridiculous.
If rome took slaves in war they were pows and weren't given a pizza and a goblet of wine.they were beaten,raped and or mutilated or fed to lions.some would have been kept as slaves.

so picking cotton is worse than being eaten by lions?

we just think modern warfare is worse because now we see it on tv but death and destruction are death and destruction,observed or not.

great great grandpa's slavery must have been worse than sparticus' why?
Also,slavery hasn't gone away.It's alive and well in Africa.

As a white american male this must be my fault somehow,I'm just trying to figure out how.
that and trying to figure how to keep everyone else down fills my day.



well said, a realy post of clarity


[edit on 21-12-2009 by blueorder]



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Ouch. You seriously need to learns you some histories.

No, you needs to unlearns some histories, chum. You been snowed.
Go back to that junior college history course and ask for a refund.

— Doc Velocity



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join