The Fix For "Flash Mob" Robberies. (or) What is going on with black teens???

reply to post by Dilligaf28


Lemme supply something from the same reference you use:

Wiki: "Slavery in the United States was a form of unfree labor which existed as a legal institution in North America for more than a century before the founding of the United States in 1776, and continued mostly in the South until the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1865.[1] The first English colony in North America, Virginia, acquired its first Africans in 1619, after a ship arrived, unsolicited, carrying a cargo of about 20 Africans.[2][3] Thus, a practice established in the Spanish colonies as early as the 1560s was expanded into English North America.[4] Most slaves were black and were held by whites, although some Native Americans and free blacks also held slaves; there were a small number of white slaves as well.[5] Europeans also held some Native Americans as slaves, and African-Native Americans. Slavery spread to the areas where there was good-quality soil for large plantations of high-value cash crops, such as tobacco, cotton, sugar, and coffee. By the early decades of the 19th century, the majority of slaveholders and slaves were in the southern United States, where most slaves were engaged in a work-gang system of agriculture on large plantations, especially devoted to cotton and sugar cane. Such large groups of slaves were thought to work more efficiently if directed by a managerial class called overseers, usually white men.

Before the widespread establishment of chattel slavery (outright ownership of a human being, and of his/her descendants), much labor was organized under a system of bonded labor known as indentured servitude. This typically lasted for several years for white and black alike. People paid with their labor for the costs of transport to the colonies. They contracted for such arrangements because of poor economies in their home countries.[6] By the 18th century, colonial courts and legislatures had racialized slavery, essentially creating a caste system in which slavery applied nearly exclusively to Black Africans and people of African descent, and occasionally to Native Americans. Spain abolished slavery of Native Americans in its territories in 1769."


Pay close attention to the underlined and even CLOSER attention to the bolded.

In the reference you use, the black guy was an indentured servant to another black guy. So yeah he was a slave, but he wasn't chattel, he wasn't property and made to be 3/5 of a human.

reply to post by DZAG Wright


You did not read my source.

In 1654, John Casor, an African, became the first legally recognized slave in the present United States. In his freedom suit, he claimed that he was an indentured servant who had been held past his term. A court in Northampton County ruled against Casor, declaring him property for life, "owned" by his master, the black colonist Anthony Johnson. Since persons with African

The first slave in America was owned by an African American. You can try to twist that all you want by talking about indentured servants (which are entirely different from slaves) but you cannot take away the fact that the first actual slave in America was a black man owned by another Black man. He started as an indentured servant but when he went to court regarding his freedom they told him he was the property (owned by) his Master (another black man)

Trying to insinuate otherwise based upon indentured servitude is intellectually dishonest.

Originally posted by Dilligaf28
reply to post by DZAG Wright

 

n 1654, John Casor, an African, became the first legally recognized slave in the present United States. In his freedom suit, he claimed that he was an indentured servant who had been held past his term. A court in Northampton County ruled against Casor, declaring him property for life, "owned" by his master, the black colonist Anthony Johnson.

Source



Don't you just hate it when historical fact contradicts your opinion?

edit on 29-6-2011 by Dilligaf28 because: (no reason given)

Going back and reading your reference closer....LOL...the date is 1654, why did you skip the first part of YOUR Wiki reference where it says the first slaves were brought to Virginia some 50 years prior.

Further picking this reference apart, anyone with half a brain can see what happened to Mr. Casor. He came to America with his "master" in the form of an indentured servant. Mr Johnson proceeded to ignore that Mr. Cason had worked his debt off, and the issue went to court. The courts being full of b.s. and ready to implement chattel slavery (not or ignoring what slavery historically was) proceeded to ruling Mr. Casor was Mr. Johnson's property for life.

It would be interesting to know if Mr. Johnson himself were later assaulted, kidnapped and made a slave. I mean really, it takes only a few brain cells to conclude that NO WAY those racist Euro's were going to allow another black man who they saw as being 3/5's to own property and other slaves! They told him to get his black arse on someones plantation and start working himself....LMAO!

reply to post by DZAG Wright


Dzag I cannot possibly continue to attempt to engage in discourse with you. You are one of the most racist and intellectually dishonest people I have ever encountered. I see no reason to continue to debate someone of your mindset.

I truly hope one day you overcome your blatant racist attitudes and come to see that all men are created equal in the eyes of God.

On a closing note I noticed you never responded to my reply about your statement of Africans being the most oppressed race in history. I would love to see you spout that nonsense to any of my Jewish friends.

Originally posted by Dilligaf28
reply to post by DZAG Wright

 

You did not read my source.

In 1654, John Casor, an African, became the first legally recognized slave in the present United States. In his freedom suit, he claimed that he was an indentured servant who had been held past his term. A court in Northampton County ruled against Casor, declaring him property for life, "owned" by his master, the black colonist Anthony Johnson. Since persons with African

The first slave in America was owned by an African American. You can try to twist that all you want by talking about indentured servants (which are entirely different from slaves) but you cannot take away the fact that the first actual slave in America was a black man owned by another Black man. He started as an indentured servant but when he went to court regarding his freedom they told him he was the property (owned by) his Master (another black man)

Trying to insinuate otherwise based upon indentured servitude is intellectually dishonest.

edit on 29-6-2011 by Dilligaf28 because: (no reason given)

My man, I knew what you stated was wrong without looking it up because it doesn't make sense...common sense. Since you value this source you supplied let me AGAIN include what you purposely overlooked.

The first English colony in North America, Virginia, acquired its first Africans in 1619, after a ship arrived, unsolicited, carrying a cargo of about 20 Africans.[2][3] Thus, a practice established in the Spanish colonies as early as the 1560s was expanded into English North America.[4] Most slaves were black and were held by whites, although some Native Americans and free blacks also held slaves; there were a small number of white slaves as well.[

As you can see it states 1619! The date you supplied is 1654. So how is it the first slave was owned by another black in 1654, when the first slaves arrived in 1619?

Then proceed to read what else your reference says about slaves:

Before the widespread establishment of chattel slavery (outright ownership of a human being, and of his/her descendants), much labor was organized under a system of bonded labor known as indentured servitude. This typically lasted for several years for white and black alike.

There is a HUGE difference in chattel slavery and indentured servitude!

Wait going back to read what you typed....you just made my argument for me: He started as an indentured servant but when he went to court regarding his freedom they told him he was the property (owned by) his Master (another black man)

The crooked arse court in America corrupted what slavery had been for centuries, making the gentleman Mr. Casor less than a human.

Originally posted by Dilligaf28
reply to post by DZAG Wright

 

Dzag I cannot possibly continue to attempt to engage in discourse with you. You are one of the most racist and intellectually dishonest people I have ever encountered. I see no reason to continue to debate someone of your mindset.

I truly hope one day you overcome your blatant racist attitudes and come to see that all men are created equal in the eyes of God.

On a closing note I noticed you never responded to my reply about your statement of Africans being the most oppressed race in history. I would love to see you spout that nonsense to any of my Jewish friends.

edit on 29-6-2011 by Dilligaf28 because: (no reason given)

I need you to show me where I said anything racist (not in response to someone). And the issue is, is the information I provided (from your reference) correct or not?

And I will get to your statement about Jew's shortly...here's a hint: Would you rather be oppressed as a Jew who now own most of the worlds banks, or would you rather be a Afrikan American who at best is an entertainer and always suffering racism in America...

i]reply to post by DZAG Wright

As you can see it states 1619! The date you supplied is 1654. So how is it the first slave was owned by another black in 1654, when the first slaves arrived in 1619?

Because he's applying his blinders so he won't have to face the fact that he's wrong, and he purposely left that information out of his posts in order to prove his point. Fact manipulation at its finest. And he has the nerve to call you a racist.

Originally posted by DZAG Wright

Originally posted by Dilligaf28
reply to post by DZAG Wright

 

Dzag I cannot possibly continue to attempt to engage in discourse with you. You are one of the most racist and intellectually dishonest people I have ever encountered. I see no reason to continue to debate someone of your mindset.

I truly hope one day you overcome your blatant racist attitudes and come to see that all men are created equal in the eyes of God.

On a closing note I noticed you never responded to my reply about your statement of Africans being the most oppressed race in history. I would love to see you spout that nonsense to any of my Jewish friends.

edit on 29-6-2011 by Dilligaf28 because: (no reason given)

I need you to show me where I said anything racist (not in response to someone). And the issue is, is the information I provided (from your reference) correct or not?

And I will get to your statement about Jew's shortly...here's a hint: Would you rather be oppressed as a Jew who now own most of the worlds banks, or would you rather be a Afrikan American who at best is an entertainer and always suffering racism in America...

I don't have to search you made a racist statement in your reply (which was a reply to my statement you weren't using the racist remark because I used one as I have done no such thing in this thread). "...as a jew who now own most of the worlds banks" Thats a racist statement. I see no reason to further feed an obviously racist troll. Maya Angelou said "when someone shows you their true colors...believe them" Well you've showed your true colors (racist self) with the above quoted post. I see no reason to further offer food to the racist troll.

reply to post by kaiode1


The fact is the first LEGALLY recognized slave in this country was owned by a black man. That is a historical fact which is beyond reproach.

3/5 of a person has to do with voting. It was done to protect the Africans from the south having to much power in congress after the war. Stop watching Cnn and Msnbc who constantly say that crap.

reply to post by Dilligaf28

I don't have to search you made a racist statement in your reply. "...as a jew who now own most of the worlds banks" Thats a racist statement.

so they're a racist for stating a fact? DZAG didn't make a blanket statement about all Jews, they simply stated that fact that jews own the worlds banks. That is a historical fact beyond reproach. The only troll that I see here is you.

reply to post by kaiode1




If you cannot see the blatant racism in that statement then I genuinely feel pity for you.

Let me try to help:


Not Racist: Jews do not own all the worlds banks. Not every black person is involved in these Mobs.

Racist: Jews own the world banks. Every black person is involved in these mobs.




Lets use the logic though: If Jews don't count now because of their ownership of some banks then blacks don't count now either since O'Bama is president (ruler of the free world).

Originally posted by DZAG Wright


It would be interesting to know if Mr. Johnson himself were later assaulted, kidnapped and made a slave. I mean really, it takes only a few brain cells to conclude that NO WAY those racist Euro's were going to allow another black man who they saw as being 3/5's to own property and other slaves! They told him to get his black arse on someones plantation and start working himself....LMAO!

Umm. That has no argumentative weight whatsoever. Its pure unsupported opinion.

And "those racist Euros" kidnapped and enslaved whites as well. (The Irish in particular) The main reason they used blacks was because it was hard on a continent as big as wild as America to tell a runaway slave on sight. Too many white slaves could easily run away and blend in somewhere else with a false name.

The fact that blacks ended up the only slaves at the end had more to do with practicality than racism. Although I am not denying racism went hand in hand with it. But it also went hand in hand with white on white slavery, (The Irish were thought of as subhuman monkeys by some English, and political cartoons exist depicting them as brutish gorilla like beings) and it also played a part in Mediterranean slavery, middle eastern slavery, and black on black slavery in Africa.

When you are doing to another human being what you would not want done to you, its necessary to make them into something unlike and less than you. Its happened to women too, in many cultures. Its certainly not something exclusive to Europeans, nor is it something Europeans themselves have not experienced.

reply to post by Dilligaf28


You're absolutely right. There is NO justification for teens,black or white to engage in this type of behavior. NONE. It makes America look third world,barbaric at times.

reply to post by Dilligaf28

If you cannot see the blatant racism in that statement then I genuinely feel pity for you.

rac·ism /ˈrāˌsizəm/
Noun: The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

Pity me as much as you please, that doesn't negate the fact that the worlds largest banks are owned by people that are Jewish. You can scream "racism" to the hills and back, and it still wouldn't change the simple fact that the richest and most powerful banks on the planet are owned by jews. For example, if a board room is composed of 90% men, would it then be sexist for me to claim that the board is majority controlled by men? No, because anyone with a half a brain can see that is. Your assertions of "racism" are completely baseless here, my friend.

P.S. Barack Obama is half white.

reply to post by kaiode1


You are right. Even saying "All the worlds banks are owned by Jews" isnt a racist statement. Its just factually incorrect.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


you are correct, I definitely should have used a better choice of words!

reply to post by kaiode1


Whatever helps you sleep at night
2nd line

reply to post by Dilligaf28


wtf is that even supposed to mean?? I'll just take that to mean that you don't have anymore invalid points to make.

It's not my job to solve the socio-economic-cultural issues plaguing the behavior of black youth flash mobbing stores.

It's not my job to protect the private corporate interests of the stores & insurance companies being victimized by these crimes.

All I can do is stock up on supplies, arm myself to the teeth, coordinate contingencies with my friends and family, and wait for the hammer to fall.

Then it'll be my job to clean up the mess, and help rebuild this country in the aftermath.