Uncle Tim? I suppose this is OK since he's not on the left.

www.foxnews.com...

"I am deeply and sincerely sorry for my inappropriate and hurtful use of racist term I used to describe Sen. Tim Scott on my personal Facebook page," O’Connor said in a statement to the Washington Examiner. "It was insensitive, and I have embarrassed myself and my party by its use."

"As a result, I feel compelled to offer my resignation as chair of the Lamar County Democratic Party for consideration by the County Executive Committee

Well now
It appears it is wrong.......
Who knew???

a reply to: Sookiechacha

YES THEY DID!
It's a fact that slaves were counted, by the federal government, as 3/5th of a person when counting populations, i.e. people.

That is literally what I said! Almost word for word! The 3/5 compromise was only for the Census (that means counting people).

The alternative was to not count the slaves at all. Slaves were not allowed to vote, period. Only citizens get to vote.

Since most slaves were black, that racist compromise disproportionately affected Black people, and that was fine and dandy with the Founding Father.

Actually, on that part you're correct (I guess even a stopped clock is right twice a day). Because the slaves, who could not vote, were counted at all, that gave the states with the most slaves an advantage in representation. For example, a state with 100,000 freemen and no slaves would be counted as 100,000 people, while a state with 40,000 freemen and 100,000 slaves would also be counted as 100,000 people. In the former, each person would have the equivalent of 1 vote each, while in the latter, each vote would be the equivalent of 2.5 votes (100,000/40,000). So yes, it created an incentive for those who could afford slaves to buy more, as many as possible, to give people in their state more representation.

The roots of systemic racism in the USA is embedded in our Constitution.

As well as every other country at the time. Slavery has existed since the first caveman stood upright and conked someone from another tribe over the noggin. It was popular all over the world. The original slavers in America were not American, did you know that? A great many were English; they spoke the language of the the 13 Colonies and English ships were of course welcomed in an English settlement. It wasn't evil Americans sailing to Africa for slaves to sell... it was privateers, seagoing merchants, pretty much anyone who had a ship and crew. Most Americans didn't have a ship and crew capable of making that journey, at least not at first. They were too busy trying to not starve.

Did you know that there are still slaves today? China has no laws against slavery and it is still practiced. Same with India. Same with North Korea. All in all, 167 countries still allow a person to own another person. But do you care about that? Noooo... because it doesn't help you spread your racism. Those slaves who still exist today aren't all black. As a matter of fact, black folk have no corner on the slave market at all... every race has at some time been emslaved by others. Every. Single. One.

The only reason slavery in the USA was primarily black (notice I said "primarily," not "completely"; we had plenty of white slaves as well) was that Africa was barely explored at the time and the indigenous tribes would often sell their own people to the slaver ships. It was lucrative to the extreme... spend a little on some shiny baubles or some fire-water, sail to some unsophisticated part of Africa, trade the goods for slaves, sail to Massachusetts or Virginia, and sell the slaves for 100 times what the baubles and firewater cost. Over time, people who didn't know better came to associate American slavery with black slavery.

So yeah, it was enshrined on our Constitution.... only because the Constitution was part of the freakin' world! Slavery was enshrined everywhere.

The problem is, it is no longer "enshrined" in our Constitution. We amended the Constitution to get rid of that 3/5 compromise. Good riddance. But now here comes Sookiechacha and those who think (or at least think they're thinking) like her, completely ignorant of history, completely ignorant of slavery's roots, completely ignorant of anything that wasn't shoved into their skulls from an early age by other ignorant people, to claim that the only way to get rid of the horror of history is to lie and claim we're something we're not.

YOU and those like you are the white supremacists. Yeah, white supremacy exists, because YOU still exist. Trying to sooth your own troubled conscience by wanting everyone to be like you isn't going to work.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

In the context of being the Black Republican in the Senate, the GOP choosing him to give the rebuttal, that included his denial that America is not racist, fits the definition. Kamala Harris does not.

What color is the sky where you are?

The GOP did not "pick" Tim Scott to be a GOP Senator in the first place. The people of Tim Scott's state picked Tim Scott to be be a Senator, and Tim Scott chose to be a Republican. Joe Biden picked, hand-picked Kamala Harris to be the Vice President... one man, by himself, chose her (at least officially), on the single reasoning that he needed a black woman. He stated that, along with others, constantly! That is a "token," whether you want it to be or not.

As for her qualifications... listen, they make blow-up dolls that have the same if not better "qualifications" as Kamala Harris. 50% of the people on the planet have the ability to do what she did to make her name. Most just have better taste.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Used toilet paper isn't a legitimate source to your claim.

My God! have you ever seen a history book?

Slaves were considered "livestock." A slave had no rights and no free will. They were treated just like one would treat cattle. They were so valuable because they were smarter than other "livestock" (actually just as smart as anyone else). That is literally the definition of slavery: ownership of one person by another.

Now, let me ask you this: if I own a cow and it gives birth, who does the calf belong to?

It's the same thing with slavery. The child became the property, at birth, of whoever owned the mother. If the mother was free, so was the child, because it had no owner.

Citation: EVERY BOOK THAT HAS EVER BEEN WRITTEN ON THE SUBJECT!

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

You shouldn't forget that they did ponder removing that part of the COTUS, but left it on purpose AS A REMINDER to not forget the wrongs of the past.

It's that old thing about learning from history lest we repeat it and that's it.

a reply to: ketsuko

I've heard that, but I'm not sure how something that is written in a contract (and that is what the Constitution is: a contract between the states and the Federal government to allow the Federal government to exist) can simply be erased away. It can be superseded, but the original wording was ratified by the states, and is a part of history.

A contract, once signed, cannot be erased. It can be superseded, it can be declared null and void, but the wording still exists if only as a record of what was originally signed.

TheRedneck

a reply to: shooterbrody

Would you please show me the law, procedure, ect that stated they "HAD" to be white?

It was about winning. If they wanted to win, they HAD to be white. Just like with Joe Biden, if he wanted to win, he HAD to pick a woman of color to satisfy his constituents.

Trump picked Mike Pence as his VP running mate, because his campaign managers determined he likely would not win if he didn't have a white male eve evangelical to represent the Republican religious right's party factions.

It's racist to assume that Biden settled for a woman of color over qualifications. There is no shortage of qualified women of color, and Kamala Harris is plenty qualified.

a reply to: TheRedneck

The alternative was to not count the slaves at all. Slaves were not allowed to vote, period. Only citizens get to vote.

Women couldn't vote, and they were still counted. The census also counted non-citizens as whole people. the fact is, slaves were counted as 3/5th of a person, while other non-citizens were counted, even though they couldn't vote either. The census still, to this day count illegal/undocumented people as whole people, and they can't vote either.

Regardless of your excuses and whataboutisms, the 3/5th of a person was a racist compromise.

a reply to: TheRedneck

The GOP did not "pick" Tim Scott to be a GOP Senator in the first place.

The GOP picked Scott to give the rebuttal because he was black. That much is obvious.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Please cite the law that said slave status was determined by the status of the mother, and the color of a person's skin.

The child became the property, at birth, of whoever owned the mother. If the mother was free, so was the child, because it had no owner.

Being born into slavery wasn't the only predicate on which slavery was determined. Skin color, regardless of the mother's status did have everything to do with it.

Not all slaves were born on plantations. Many of them were imported. A Black immigrant couldn't migrate to a slave state and enjoy the same benefits of a white freeman who immigrated. I guarantee you that plenty of the slaves that arrived on slave ships has "free" mothers.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Women couldn't vote, and they were still counted.

Women were still citizens. Slaves were not.

Doubling up here... next post.

The GOP picked Scott to give the rebuttal because he was black. That much is obvious.

You're back to mind-reading again?

To me it appears "obvious" that you picked Scott to attack because you don't like what he said, and that argument is the best you could come up with. See how that mind-reading thing works? I can accuse and convict Sookiechacha because I know what she's thinking!

You do not know why anything happened. It's all conjecture on your part.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Got yourself into a real endless loop pickle this time didn't ya 😸

Better switch to Lorna Doones 😸

a reply to: TheRedneck

Women were still citizens. Slaves were not.

The ability to vote was not the determining factor in the decision to count slaves as 3/5th of a person.

The US Census counted non-citizens as whole people.

You seem to think that only male slave owners were having sex with slaves. But white women were also finding sexual satisfaction in their male slaves. If a female white slave owner gave birth to a "colored" child, there was nothing stopping that family from selling that "colored" child.

To me it appears "obvious" that you picked Scott to attack because you don't like what he said,

It's obvious Scott was chosen because of his blackness, because the politics required a rebuttal to the Democrat's attacks on the GOP's aggressive moves to make it harder for Black people to vote, because Black people cinched Biden's win.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Please cite the law...

I suppose I could find the old statute... but I'm not going to. You can look for yourself if you want legal writing about something that is common knowledge.

You see, here's the thing: almost everything you have said about slavery and racism is demonstrably untrue (including the fact that it was you who made the claim that skin color determined ownership, not me). That means you don't have the slightest idea of what you are talking about, any more than you "know" what every GOP Senator is thinking at any given moment.

You were given 12 years (or more depending on your age) of free schooling. Absolutely free... all you had to do was show up with enough supplies to learn. Your parents, my parents, and everyone else paid for you to have that opportunity. But instead of learning, you obviously frittered away that opportunity. OK, fine... you're not the first and you won't be the last. But that also means that if you want someone to teach you now, you have to pay for it.

I get paid for teaching people. My normal rate is $20 per hour, one hour minimum per session. For customers who cannot or don't want to come to me, I am available through Discord and Skype. All sessions are by appointment and I require a 50% ($20 minimum) deposit when the appointment is made, payable by bank transfer or personal check. I do this for academia, not for money, but there is a principle involved: if one does not advantage themselves of a free service when offered, they should pay for it later.

In compliance with ATS policy on PII, I cannot and will not post contact info in a thread. You may contact me if interested by PM and we will take this to email.

Otherwise, do your own damn research. I'm not your Daddy.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

It's obvious Scott was chosen because of his blackness

To you.

From where I sit, it is obvious that had anyone white given the rebuttal, the lead news story for the next three years would be "White Supremacist GOP refuses to let minorities speak out."

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

You see, here's the thing: almost everything you have said about slavery and racism is demonstrably untrue (including the fact that it was you who made the claim that skin color determined ownership, not me).

That's not what I said. There was a rule "not one drop of colored blood". You should know that!

I get paid for teaching people. My normal rate is $20 per hour, one hour minimum per session.

LOL. You get paid $20 an hour to teach people about the history of slavery? LOL I don't believe you.

Stick to trolling, because Black history isn't your wheelhouse!

a reply to: TheRedneck

If a white GOPer had given the same rebuttal, they would have been laughed at, just like Tim Scott was. Their choice to use a Black man to declare "no racism here!" backfired spectacularly on them.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You get paid $20 an hour to teach people about the history of slavery?

Actually, my forte is mathematics, engineering, physics, and general science. However, you are requesting information that I would have to research to find, to "prove" something to you that should be patently obvious, and that takes time. Teaching is teaching, whether it is my forte or not; I do have a lot of knowledge about Southern culture and how that relates to the issues of slavery and racism, since it is my culture. So if you want me to do that kind of research and teach you about what you should already know, you will have to pay for it.

Otherwise, do your own damn research. I'm not a charity.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

If a white GOPer had given the same rebuttal, they would have been laughed at

My point exactly. It ddn't matter who gave the rebuttal, because no one except a Democrat would be taken seriously (or even listened to) by you and your ilk. Since by definition the rebuttal had to be by someone in the GOP, what could have possibly been the reason for basing that choice on skin color?

Your real issue with the rebuttal is not skin color; it is political party. I can understand that; I think you're wrong, but that's just my opinion. Where I have a problem is that you insinuate that Tim Scott giving a rebuttal is even worse than a white guy giving a rebuttal because he's black... and that is KKK-style racism.

Racism is not defined by what specific words one chooses. The words only tend to mirror the thoughts. Racism is the statement or insinuation that those of another race are inferior because of their race. When you someday, hopefully, realize that, you will finally see yourself for what you are.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

The GOP did not "pick" Tim Scott to be a GOP Senator in the first place. The people of Tim Scott's state picked Tim Scott to be be a Senator

Proud (redneck) South Carolinian here, who is proud of Tim. He is an awesome man, who happens to be black.