If U.S. had been invaded in 1840, we'd still have slaves

Who freed the American slaves? Answer: Americans fought to free them.

Why did the U.S. stop treating women as second class citizens and gave them the right to vote?
Answer: Americans fought for this.

Now, imagine that the U.S. was invaded in 1840 (2 decades before Lincoln became president). The invading force tells Americans that it is wrong to enslave black people, and that we have to free them.

I propose that U.S. citizens at that time would not have taken kindly to another country telling them what to do. They would have claimed their god-given right to own slaves and would have fought with everything they had to kick the invading force out. They would have called it a great victory.

And, slavery would still be with us today.

It would have turned out the same if that invading force had told us to treat our women better.

Point being, humans just don't like being told what to do. They need time to figure out the rightness and wrongness of things for themselves.

This is why I fully believe we need to get out of the Middle East. We're trying to force our morals on them, and it's just not working. The people of the Middle East are not acting according to what's right and wrong, but are RE-acting to OUR intrusion into their way of life. They need to accept for themselves that religion in government just doesn't work. They need to wake themselves up to the realization that they just can't go around shooting girls for going to school, throwing acid in children's faces, cutting off their wife's nose. Honor killings. Intolerance of religion that leads to fear and war and social strife.

Plus, the day the U.S. stops interfering over there is the day we stop fearing terrorism over here.

Thoughts?

We should tell some of these countries that they MUST build nuclear weapons then

I dunno if slavery would still be around. I'd like to hope that the people that were like 'hey this isn't cool' would eventually still say 'hey this isn't cool.' But there are still a lot of places lacking in human rights...

I do agree we should stop forcing ourselves on people. I watched this movie the other night that made it seem like if the US started withdrawing that the countries would instantly go crazy and start killing and raping and torturing everyone. While I guess that could happen, it's not like we couldn't be anywhere in the world we needed to be relatively quickly if we were needed.

Originally posted by jiggerj
And, slavery would still be with us today.

Slavery in America is alive and well.

Medieval serfs had to give the lord of the manor one-third of their output and they were considered slaves. Most working class Americans pay at least 35% of their income in taxes. Property tax, state taxes, federal taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, occupational taxes, corporate taxes, estate taxes, capital gains taxes, payroll taxes and on and on...

Not to mention that all Americans, including our progeny, are debt slaves to $135,000,000,000,000 TRILLION in fedres notes. A debt that cannot and will not ever be repaid.

How overt does slavery need to be to be considered such?

Originally posted by METACOMET

Originally posted by jiggerj
And, slavery would still be with us today.

Slavery in America is alive and well.

Medieval serfs had to give the lord of the manor one-third of their output and they were considered slaves. Most working class Americans pay at least 35% of their income in taxes. Property tax, state taxes, federal taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, occupational taxes, corporate taxes, estate taxes, capital gains taxes, payroll taxes and on and on...

Actually that is more like the fact that as a worker you have to produce more than you are paid for in order for the capitalist to make money. Far more money is stolen from the worker by capitalist private owners, profit on your labour and profit from your consumerism, than is taken in taxes by your government.

At least your taxes get used for stuff that actually benefits you. Profits simply go into private bank accounts, protected by incorporating.

reply to post by ANOK


The difference being spending capital voluntarily as opposed to involuntarily. Big difference if you ask me.

But of course, the government takes my money for my own good, so I should be happy to capitulate to them.

Originally posted by jiggerj

Plus, the day the U.S. stops interfering over there is the day we stop fearing terrorism over here.

T

edit on 10/13/2012 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)

the day the usa stops interfering there, or anywhere for that matter is the day they stop having the means or resources to even think about policing the world.

america's foreign policy isn't about helping anything or anyone but instead securing america's interests.


and OP if you are american this whole thread is very unamerican, you deserve to be sent off to guantanamo.
because that's not what obama, romney and the media want you to think, believe or speak.

reply to post by jiggerj

We're trying to force our morals on them, and it's just not working.

I do not think that you are forcing your morals (first you should think hard what morals the US defends, not the propaganda but a close look on its actions and society). What you are and always have been forcing on everyone starting with your own neighbors Mexico and Canada is a different set of rules that aren't even applied at home.

This is not unique to the US. France, Spain and then the UK all have done it before. We could even go further down history to pre-Roman times.

What differentiates a society, even a civilization is culture. As soon as someone gets strong enough it will tend to impose, not particularly its morals, but a mindset and infrastructures that permits it to expand influence and gather benefits to the detriment of all others ,especially those whose culture or strength can give opposition...

Originally posted by jiggerj
I propose that U.S. citizens at that time would not have taken kindly to another country telling them what to do. They would have claimed their god-given right to own slaves and would have fought with everything they had to kick the invading force out. They would have called it a great victory.

And, slavery would still be with us today.

I appreciate the sentiment, I really do but....



Even way back in 1840 before Lincoln the States at the time were already divided between free and slave States. Your analogy fails on this point alone. Some States would have theoretically joined forces with those who were against slavery. Southern slave States would have fought for their rights as sovereign territory whether against the US Federal Government [Which they considered as a foreign entity forcing them to end their way of life anyway] or any other outside Country just the same.

Like the premise of this thread, hypothetically speaking of course

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Even way back in 1840 before Lincoln the States at the time were already divided between free and slave States. Your analogy fails on this point alone. Some States would have theoretically joined forces with those who were against slavery. Southern slave States would have fought for their rights as sovereign territory whether against the US Federal Government [Which they considered as a foreign entity forcing them to end their way of life anyway] or any other outside Country just the same.

Do you think the free states would've allowed a foreign intervention to occur in the south and just stand by while that half of the country was devastated by war? I really don't think so.

reply to post by jiggerj


It's all speculation.

You've gone on the assumption that all the States would rally for the cause yet ignore the very real fact that the States were already divided over this very issue. Which would lend itself to the related argument of your threads premise and could very well demonstrate that some States would support the invading force just like we find in the real world over in the middle East.

Some States there support interventions while others do not.

That's the Real world not a hypothetical scenario.

Originally posted by scorpiosin
We should tell some of these countries that they MUST build nuclear weapons then

I dunno if slavery would still be around. I'd like to hope that the people that were like 'hey this isn't cool' would eventually still say 'hey this isn't cool.' But there are still a lot of places lacking in human rights...

I do agree we should stop forcing ourselves on people. I watched this movie the other night that made it seem like if the US started withdrawing that the countries would instantly go crazy and start killing and raping and torturing everyone. While I guess that could happen, it's not like we couldn't be anywhere in the world we needed to be relatively quickly if we were needed.

I believe that without outside interference, we would've come to the conclusion that slavery isn't cool (as we did). But, if another country tried to enforce it, we would be reacting to the intruders and not thinking about if slavery is right or wrong.

The countries you speak of already ARE going crazy and killing and raping and torturing. We didn't change that. We may have slowed it down a bit, but instead of allowing them to come to the conclusion that this brutality is wrong, we have made these actions defensible because the nature of humans within a society is to say, "Hey, you can't come into our country and tell us what we can or can't do!"

Originally posted by jiggerj
I believe that without outside interference, we would've come to the conclusion that slavery isn't cool (as we did). But, if another country tried to enforce it, we would be reacting to the intruders and not thinking about if slavery is right or wrong.

You believe?

That's opinion, not a fact.

The countries you speak of already ARE going crazy and killing and raping and torturing. We didn't change that.

Bad form.

You're implying that because I disagree with your scenario that I'm somehow in support of such actions?

We may have slowed it down a bit, but instead of allowing them to come to the conclusion that this brutality is wrong, we have made these actions defensible because the nature of humans within a society is to say, "Hey, you can't come into our country and tell us what we can or can't do!"

True to an extent but there again. Those countries are responsible for their own actions. Also, are you including countries like Iran and Syria where there is plenty of persecutions going on which the US/West do not support? Are you going to hold Russia and China to the same holier than thou standards as well because we all know they support those regimes which are just as guilty?

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by jiggerj

 

It's all speculation.


That's the Real world not a hypothetical scenario.

Sure, it's speculation, but based on human nature. How would you feel if your neighbor told you how to raise your kids? "Hey! You need to discipline your kids more!" I know exactly where I'd tell this neighbor to go, because they are MY kids and I'll discipline them the way *** I *** see fit.

Every time you invite friends over for a steak cookout, this vegetarian neighbor stands at the fence and bangs pans together. First thing you're going to do is get in his face and:

EAT MORE MEAT! lol

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by jiggerj
I believe that without outside interference, we would've come to the conclusion that slavery isn't cool (as we did). But, if another country tried to enforce it, we would be reacting to the intruders and not thinking about if slavery is right or wrong.

You believe?

That's opinion, not a fact.

LOL No, that is a fact. We did free the slaves because we came to the conclusion that slavery was wrong.

Originally posted by jiggerj
Who freed the American slaves?

Emm... have you seen the societies of today? I wasnt aware the slaves were freed.

Today we have debt slavery. Its the same as slavery before, basically, just without the need to have guards because people percieve themselves to be free.

Originally posted by jiggerj
LOL No, that is a fact. We did free the slaves because we came to the conclusion that slavery was wrong.

I should have been more specific.

" But, if another country tried to enforce it, we would be reacting to the intruders and not thinking about if slavery is right or wrong "

Opinion not fact.

Good day