USA Today: Democrats wearing slave trader cloth is okay because of cultural significance

originally posted by: sapien82
but it was the europeans who came out with race theory through gross european exceptionalism

The Europeans may have written it down, but are you saying that the different nations, cultures and skin-shades did not have their own version of racial, religious or cultural exceptionalism? You know they did. The Europeans did not invent exceptionalism, it existed and continues to persist in non-European cultures, and between European cultures.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: sapien82
but it was the europeans who came out with race theory through gross european exceptionalism

The Europeans may have written it down, but are you saying that the different nations, cultures and skin-shades did not have their own version of racial, religious or cultural exceptionalism? You know they did. The Europeans did not invent exceptionalism, it existed and continues to persist in non-European cultures, and between European cultures.

Basically he was saying that Europeans were more evil for owning slaves than Africans were.

Imagine actually thinking that and deciding "Yes, that's intelligent, let me type that."

a reply to: face23785

No that isnt what I said , I said Europeans at the time were more evil for using science to spawn a theory based on race which is of course a fallacy as a biological marker and used that to justify their ways and continue slavery .

Just like those who use religion as tool to divide or kill its evil as well.

a reply to: paraphi

yeh maybe the case that historians have said other kingdoms have used it such as imperial japan , Rome , the Ottomann empire , ancient India

but still it was Europeans who tried to justify it via the abuse of science , that is artfully cruel

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: face23785

One of my favorites is how the UK pretends they're better than us

The British don't go around spouting off that " We are the greatest country in the world ", which appears to be an American trait.

cos it's true. Without US, the Europe would now be 50+ years under a NAZI rule. Japan would have crushed everything on it's path too. You would be now living in a ghetto at best.

So take a knee and thank your cousins.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Without US, the Europe would now be 50+ years under a NAZI rule

You must really stop learning your history from Hollywood. It's only fiction you know. Anyway i am sure The Soviet Union would have pissed themselves laughing if The U.S. alone saved Europe.

Anyway my stock answer to your comment would be " Without Britain there would be no U.S." So take a knee and thank your parents for creating your country.

Japan would have crushed everything on it's path too

So after The U.S. was attacked by Japan at Pearl Harbour, are you saying The U.S. would not have retaliated ?

Too funny.

originally posted by: sapien82
but still it was Europeans who tried to justify it via the abuse of science , that is artfully cruel

Science a few hundred years ago was guess work. The Spanish did not justify their slavery with “science” – they were quite consistent that it was about repression of people so they could be maximally exploited. People were just a God-given resource to be used and abused as they saw fit.

You are trying to justify a reason why European-led slavery was worse than other nations and cultures. I am sorry, but that does not wash. Slavery is slavery, irrespective of who enslaves and who exploits.

The reasons for slavery are many, but all boil down to power. The powerful enslave the weak, and that has been going on since the Dawn of Time. It has happened in all societies and cultures, and no shade of skin colour is innocent.

The difference is that the Europeans, or specifically the British, went out of their way to first ban the trade in slaves and then slavery. The Bristish then activity forced other countries to stop slavery. The British did not use science, they used morality and a growing unease of the unjustifiability of exploiting people. This was backed by a religious conviction. Once that moral argument was accepted, the British used cash and force to stop the trade both across the Empire, on the High Seas and in Africa itself.

There’s a really good biography on Wilberforce which I would recommend, if you have the time… Should be compulsory reading at school, eh?

a reply to: paraphi

Im not trying to justify that one slavery was worse than any others slavery Im saying , it was the grounds for justification of the slavery , it wasnt just about power over enemies or labour anymore it was about humans being made subhuman in order to justify the slavery through the use of false science

wasnt it Adam smiths wealth of nations which stated that a free man is more valuable to the economy it wasnt on a moral ground they stopped it , it was because they can make more money from free men as they will work more for themselves than their slave owners.

the empire wasnt like , awww poor africans , they get it tight , lets go easy on them and end slavery
they were like , ahhhhhh right Adam says we can make more money from the labour pool of humanity if we let them all be free but still under rule of law. The working class are essentially the greatest resource on earth accept the earth itself.

Despite many at the time crying out for equality for africans and others under slave rule.
The winning argument was on economical grounds and not ethical grounds. It was money that won over slave owners not the plea from the heart

Ive been reading about Joseph Knight and the trial in Perth , Knight vs wedderburn

I will check out your reading !
thanks

a reply to: alldaylong

soviets would not defend anyone but themselves. They pushed Germans back from Russia, but you really think they would go liberating Brits or France ? They were after the spoils of war. They even signed a non aggression pact with Germany.

So after The U.S. was attacked by Japan at Pearl Harbour, are you saying The U.S. would not have retaliated ?

your point being ?

Here you go encyclopedia.ushmm.org...

How was the war going until US got in ?

a reply to: paraphi

You know what is interesting , there have been calls for the removal of Lord Dundas statues in edinburgh or at least to update his plaque that he was a slaver etc

Dundas state update



but I noticed in reading about the Knight Vs Wedderburn trial

that Lord Dundas actually stood as Knights counsel against wedderburn and gave a speech in his favour.

Dundas concluded his remarks by stating: “‪Human nature, my Lords, spurns at the thought of slavery among any part of our species.”‬

Dundas descendant defends ancestor

Guilty conscience or a man who was actually not racist ?

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: alldaylong

soviets would not defend anyone but themselves. They pushed Germans back from Russia, but you really think they would go liberating Brits or France ? They were after the spoils of war. They even signed a non aggression pact with Germany.

So after The U.S. was attacked by Japan at Pearl Harbour, are you saying The U.S. would not have retaliated ?

your point being ?

Here you go encyclopedia.ushmm.org...

How was the war going until US got in ?

You need history lessons it would seem.

Ever heard of " Operation Bagration" which was launched by The Soviet Union a couple of weeks after D Day ?

It made D Day look look like a " Picnic ". It was the largest operation carried out by The Allies in the whole of WW II

Operation Bagration (/bʌɡrʌtiˈɒn/; Russian: Операция Багратио́н, Operatsiya Bagration) was the codename for the Soviet 1944 Belorussian Strategic Offensive Operation,[a military campaign fought between 23 June and 19 August 1944 in Soviet Byelorussia in the Eastern Front of World War II.[15] The Soviet Union inflicted the biggest defeat in German military history by destroying 28 out of 34 divisions of Army Group Centre and completely shattered the German front line.[16] It was the fifth deadliest campaign on the European war scene, killing around 450,000 soldiers

en.wikipedia.org...

It more or less wiped out Germany's " Army Group Centre "

Geographically, it dwarfed the campaign for Normandy. In four weeks, it inflicted greater losses on the German army than the Wehrmacht had suffered in five months at Stalingrad. With more than 2.3 million men, six times the artillery and twice the number of tanks that launched the Battle of the Bulge, it was the largest Allied operation of World War II. It demolished three Axis armies and tore open the Eastern Front. Operation Bagration, the Red Army’s spring 1944 blitzkrieg, was designed to support Allied operations in France, liberate Russian territory and break the back of the Wehrmacht once and for all.

www.historynet.com...

Go back to Hollywood Films to learn your History of WW II because it's crap.

a reply to: alldaylong

all righty then. You would be then living in a USSR if Soviets werent kept in check by US. They were certainly taking a bite in Europe. Take your pick man. Perhaps that's exactly what you would prefer.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

You would be then living in a USSR if Soviets werent kept in check by US.

As your previous posts show, you haven't got a clue about the events and history of WW II.

Therefore any comment you make regarding the outcome of WW II can be treated as utter bollocks, which it is.

Time you went back to Hollywood films to feed your fantasy.

a reply to: alldaylong

ok man. You and your Russian bretheren have saved yourselves. The US had nothing to do with it.

BLM !!!!!!

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: alldaylong

ok man. You and your Russian bretheren have saved yourselves. The US had nothing to do with it.

BLM !!!!!!

The U.S. was PART of Allied Forces. Not the whole thing.

Do you understand that ?

a reply to: alldaylong

LOL...Allied Forces. France that surrendered, Brits were hiding in bunkers, and China which was run over by Japan.

The only serious partners for Europe were Soviets and US who entered at a later stage when the Europe was down for the count.

So again...you choose which ones saved your ass, because without them...you would be a NAZI colony today. Was it Soviets who were itching for EU territory or was it US that supplied "allies" with weapons, finances,resources and manpower once joining the war.

Oh and about the Soviets:

The Soviet Union signed a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany on 23 August 1939. In addition to stipulations of non-aggression, the treaty included a secret protocol that divided territories of Romania, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Finland into German and Soviet Union "spheres of influence", anticipating potential "territorial and political rearrangements" of these countries.[2] In October and November 1940, German-Soviet talks about the potential of joining the Axis took place in Berlin, nothing came from the talks since Hitler's Ideological goal was Lebensraum in the East.

Germany invaded Poland on 1 September 1939 starting World War II, Stalin waited until September 17 before launching his own invasion of Poland.[3] Part of the Karelia and Salla regions of Finland were annexed by the Soviet Union after the Winter War. This was followed by Soviet annexations of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and parts of Romania (Bessarabia, northern Bukovina and the Hertza region). It was known at the Nuremberg trials the existence of the secret protocol of the German–Soviet pact regarding the planned divisions of these territories.

Nice fellas.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: alldaylong

LOL...Allied Forces. France that surrendered, Brits were hiding in bunkers, and China which was run over by Japan.

The only serious partners for Europe were Soviets and US who entered at a later stage when the Europe was down for the count.

So again...you choose which ones saved your ass, because without them...you would be a NAZI colony today. Was it Soviets who were itching for EU territory or was it US that supplied "allies" with weapons, finances,resources and manpower once joining the war.

Oh and about the Soviets:

The Soviet Union signed a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany on 23 August 1939. In addition to stipulations of non-aggression, the treaty included a secret protocol that divided territories of Romania, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Finland into German and Soviet Union "spheres of influence", anticipating potential "territorial and political rearrangements" of these countries.[2] In October and November 1940, German-Soviet talks about the potential of joining the Axis took place in Berlin, nothing came from the talks since Hitler's Ideological goal was Lebensraum in the East.

Germany invaded Poland on 1 September 1939 starting World War II, Stalin waited until September 17 before launching his own invasion of Poland.[3] Part of the Karelia and Salla regions of Finland were annexed by the Soviet Union after the Winter War. This was followed by Soviet annexations of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and parts of Romania (Bessarabia, northern Bukovina and the Hertza region). It was known at the Nuremberg trials the existence of the secret protocol of the German–Soviet pact regarding the planned divisions of these territories.

Nice fellas.

You must stop showing your total ignorance, you are making yourself look a complete fool.

Britain and it's Empire ( Australia, India, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand etc etc ) had MORE combined Forces than The U.S. during WW II. The Royal Navy was still the LARGEST navy in the world.

During The D Day Landing British and Canada Troops made up 2 thirds of those that landed. Britain supplied 80% of all Ships and Aircraft during D Day.

The D Day Landing ( known as Operation Overlord ) was devised by Field Marshall Bernard Montgomery.

Soviet Military Production equaled that produced by Germany and it's allies.

When looking at military production of the Soviet Union and the Axis countries in Europe it is clear that whilst there exists a gap in GDP and resources extracted, there is an almost equal amount of military weapons being produced

en.wikipedia.org...

France that surrendered,

Free French Army totaled 1.3 million.

military.wikia.org...

Brits were hiding in bunkers

The Germans bombed Britain Britain bombed Germany. Tit-For-Tat really.

British Royal Marine Commandos where also carrying out raids in German occupied countries.

During World War II, there were many ingenious and courageous raids, but only one would come to be known as "The Greatest Raid of All" – the British raid on St. Nazaire

www.wearethemighty.com...

And then off course there was British and Empire Forces who drove the Nazi's out of North Africa.


Rudolph Hess Hitlers number two parachuted into Britain to broker a peace deal to stop the war with Britain. We told him to piss off and locked him up. That was before The U.S. even joined the war ( late as usual )

Go and learn some REAL history of WW II.