Thomas Jefferson statue toppled by protesters

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: alldaylong

Jefferson owned slaves. Fair game.

so i suppose that your fine with having all statues, painting's, or busts of all the slavers, people that enabled it, people that profited from it, and owners in the UK.
people like, francis drake,john hawkins,elizabeth I,robert rich,charles I, charles II, samuel pepys, james I,james II
thomas guy, henry phillpotts, philip yroke, humphry morice, oliver cromwell and many more.

these people's images need to be erased from history the way you say it.

Why not ?

If these historical figures are causing civil unrest TODAY why keep artifacts of people that are long dead and buried.

It's THE NOW that we are living in.

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: SolAquarius

Jefferson owned slaves.

Fair game.

Every culture and ethnicity in the history of the planet either owned slaves or were enslaved at some point in their history. Do you want to erase that reality?

Eradicate the issue and the problem goes away.

Until the next issue arises. Which there will be.

Yep, people just look for reasons to be mad as a right of passage, bunch of mental midgets.

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: SolAquarius

Jefferson owned slaves.

Fair game.

Purchased from England

Fair game

And bought by Americans.

If there was no market for slaves there wouldn't be a slave industry.

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: SolAquarius

Jefferson owned slaves.

Fair game.

Purchased from England

Fair game

And bought by Americans.

If there was no market for slaves there wouldn't be a slave industry.

Thousands of those American buyesr were, themselves ,black Americans.

Again... it's all a class issue at its core. If you got the money you can play the game. If you dont have enough money, you better keep your head down when around those playing the game, and if you've got no money, you're gonna get played.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

I'll be honest here, the USA wouldn't be what it is (and I mean the good things, global superpower, largest economy, shining city on a hill) without slavery. Given that, I think slavery was OK for 1789... just being honest about how I view things. My ancestors were abused same as many ethnic groups were abused in the new world, we dealt with it and succeeded in the wake of those abuses.

Yessssss!

In the same way as women were treated at that time, The ownership of women,

The casting couch syndrom, FGM, # Me too, Women Barristers, PM's, Doctors,

and so on ........

Its what's called PROGRESS........ Time and Education there aren't that many still

alive who can remember segregrated schools, transport etc. Not long before there

will be none.


Education and time NOT Riots and destruction

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: SolAquarius

Jefferson owned slaves.

Fair game.

Purchased from England

Fair game

And bought by Americans.

If there was no market for slaves there wouldn't be a slave industry.

Who developed the market ?
The US were not the only buyers.
No market.
No customers.
Denied.
Try again.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

There's a difference between saying a thing is acceptable and understanding that during a specific time in history things were different.

I get that you love to paint all your ideological opposition as racist, etc., using words games but it gets old.

But yes, because child marriages were common at the time of Mohammad, it isn't exactly fair to call him a pedophile or child rapist. It is absolutely correct to condemn those today who use him as an excuse to do the same in modern times though.

You're not telling the truth. Point blank.

I have never accused you or anyone else here of being racist. What you call word games is pointing out logical fallacies, which your posts are riddled with. Further, you're fully intelligent enough to know that you're using these fallacies, so that's your posting style ... fallacious. You don't like to be called on those fallacies, and when I do, you say I'm playing word games.

For example, you're arguing that we can't judge the past through the lens of the present, and when I point out that the values I'm talking about were known and understood at that point in the past, you persist in the claim.

When I point out an equally obnoxious quality to slavery in the past, child marriage, you then try to imply that Muhammed was the only person that ever performed this act. It was common in the past, and it was as disgusting in the past as it is now.

So don't lecture me when you're posting hypocritically and dishonestly.

originally posted by: Thenail
a reply to: Gryphon66

This was 250 years ago and it was legal . You get off your liberal slavery supporting ass and do something about the present day slavery , kidnapping, human trafficking, and murdering going on today . There are humans that own corporations that are guilty of it all . You can do something about it . Get off your ass and have these people arrested. Why are you here talking about stuff almost 300 years ago .
What’s next , the Renaissance? The dark ages ? Maybe the romans ? Your posts are very silly 😜

Well, I am doing something about it, as I've just told you. As the rest of your screed, physician heal thyself.

You don't have any idea what I do, what I've done, or anything about me. All you know is that you, like many here, seek to justify your inaction to solve problems today that have their roots SOLIDLY planted in AMERICAN POLICIES of less than a CENTURY AGO all the way back to that 300 400 1000 years that you want to push AMERICAN SLAVERY back to.

And please, save your "tough talk" for someone else. All it did was make me giggle.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I'd love to see evidence that thousands of Black Americans bought slaves.

Could you provide that?

Speaking to the ridiculous arguments being deployed here ... It also doesn't decrease the evils of slavery, segregation, or CONTINUING racial injustice in America even if I had never done anything about modern human traficking and slavery.

That's a very subtle and useful fallacy in argumentation ... and it's absolute BS. It's a very finely structured appeal to emotion.

We can all do more to fight injustice. If we aren't, or more accurately in this case, if someone is desperately trying to imply we aren't, that still does not remove or reduce the fact that slavery in the United States of America which was codified in our Constitution, directly led to our Civil War, which led to Jim Crowe and segregation, which led to continuing civil rights violations TODAY.

We can direct our attention and our efforts to more than one issue at a time. Further, we don't have to resort to the disgusting assertion that taking issue with a Black American being EXECUTED in American streets by cops in 2020 is somehow diminsined or irrelevant because slavery was a legally accepted evil at the beginning of the United States.

a reply to: Gothmog

Who developed the market ?

You do realise there where American Slave Traders ? Here's a list.

en.wikipedia.org...:American_slave_traders

The US were not the only buyers

The topic under discussion on this thread is civil unrest in America, one of the issues being Americas past slavery history.

Nice try at a deflection, try again.

Slavery = bad.

Book-burning assholes = bad.

Book-burning = Statue toppling.

Statue toppling = assholes. Whom are bad.





It's simple maths people!

a reply to: alldaylong

And bought by Americans. If there was no market for slaves there wouldn't be a slave industry.

they were bought first by british plantation owners for at least a hundred years in the caribbean and north america before there even was a United States.

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: alldaylong

And bought by Americans. If there was no market for slaves there wouldn't be a slave industry.

they were bought first by british plantation owners for at least a hundred years in the caribbean and north america before there Even was United States.

And bought by America after 1776 for nearly a hundred years until your civil war.

So what's your point ?

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: alldaylong

Jefferson owned slaves. Fair game.

so i suppose that your fine with having all statues, painting's, or busts of all the slavers, people that enabled it, people that profited from it, and owners in the UK.
people like, francis drake,john hawkins,elizabeth I,robert rich,charles I, charles II, samuel pepys, james I,james II
thomas guy, henry phillpotts, philip yroke, humphry morice, oliver cromwell and many more.

these people's images need to be erased from history the way you say it.

Why not ?

If these historical figures are causing civil unrest TODAY why keep artifacts of people that are long dead and buried.

It's THE NOW that we are living in.

No one cared about these people until the idiots of today were told they should care and then told they had to be very angry by seeing a statue that most people had mainly not even really thought about who it was a statue of.

It was just random equestrian statue A.

These people are so far gone, they went after the statue of an abolitionist. They don't really know or care anything at this point. They simply see an old statue and make an assumption. They're out to erase history because they've been taught that the entire history of the country is racist and evil. They hate America.

a reply to: alldaylong

And bought by America after 1776 for nearly a hundred years until your civil war. So what's your point ?

my point was it was the british that bought,sold and brought more slaves to north america,than the U.S and that is a fact. the U.S didn't import any where near what the british did into north america or caribbean nor sell as many to other countries as the british. the british were second only portuguese in the slave trade, and i firmly believe that if they had started at the same time they would have surpassed they portuguese, seeing how many people they sold into slavery in the time frame they were involed in it.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

Most of why you state is correct.

However on this you are wrong.

the U.S didn't import any where near what the british did into north america

After 1776 The U.S. imported nearly double the amount of slaves than prior to independence. Graph with totals here.

www.theguardian.com...

Before independence America imported around 180,000 slaves. After independence the number rose to around 300,000. Rough calculations from the graph.

a reply to: Gryphon66

It was disgusting for us in the present, is disgusting for us in the present, but if it was disgusting for people in the past, it would not have been a widespread and common cultural practice.

Do you know why? Because life expectancies were extremely low. People in many places were lucky to live into their 40s or 50s. So, yeah, as gross as it seems to us today, they married young, really, really young, as soon as girls might possibly be expected to maybe get pregnant young and started them having as many babies as possible so that a few might live to adulthood.

And guess what? It still happens that way in many tribal, third world cultures today.

The massive birth rates of second world countries are a by product of that mindset. It takes time for culture to catch up to medical technology and in the meantime, you have massive families that live in abject poverty because they suddenly have way too many mouths to feed.

Then you have first world reality where most of the Western World, and some of Asia is at now where populations are going backward because people are not having children at a replacement level.

Not only that, but if we can't understand the lived experiences of others who aren't like us, then why do you spend all this time judging the people of the past when you didn't live their lives or experiences and they certainly aren't around to defend themselves? History and the past are what they are. Getting upset over it does nothing.

a reply to: [post=25246573]alldaylong[/post

that is still no where what the British sold or imported into slavery, and chances are most of those that came after 1776 to 1807 came from british slavers.

here is a link you, it comes from your own government. warning it opens a PDF.

The development of the trade
Portugal and Britain were the two most ‘successful’ slave-trading countries accounting for about 70% of all Africans transported to the Americas. Britain was the most dominant between 1640 and 1807 when the British slave trade was abolished. It is estimated that Britain transported 3.1 million Africans (of whom 2.7 million arrived) to the British colonies in the Caribbean, North and South America and to other countries
www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

a reply to: ketsuko

People in the past, who have left us their thoughts via the written word, disagree with your assessment. And that past goes all the way back. Arguing that an action is good if it's legal is an authoritarian argument.

They understood their lifespans the same way we understand ours. Old for them was 50, old for us is 80.

But, I accept that you are arguing that child marriage was okay 150 years ago by the same token you argue that slavery was.

Here's what I'm saying: we are living in the here-and-now. Whatever our arguments are about the past (and I'm only slighly amazed that your argument is based on cultural relativism, you lefty) we are all living in 2020. What is wrong in 2020 even if it occured 200 years ago ... is still wrong. Slavery is and was wrong. So was Child Marriage.

That said ... I'll go back to the topic. I have my own reasons to look at Thomas Jeffferson and be troubled, but, oddly, I do not BECAUSE while he did own slaves, he also spoke about abolishing slavery, worked to that end, among his other contributions to our civilization.

And the bottom line in this topic is ... destruction of public property is a crime. Pulling down statues is a crime. There are other ways to legally deal with legitimate or illegitimate concerns.