• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: tryptakid | Foreigner

Statues of traitors proudly displayed in the US Capital Building.

zephyr said:
USA can not rewrite their own history any more than North Korea or Japan can (and they have actually tried to do this!).

America has a pretty rich history and its not all rainbows and unicorns. Just accept it. You were not around at the time of the civil wars. So learn from your history.
Click to expand...

exactly. What's with these idiots who want to revise history of entire countries?
 
Scrofula said:
The north had to pay the workers in their factories. It's probably a bit harder to handle slaves when they have industrial machinery and steam pipes handy.

The south didn't have to pay anybody but the whip makers, and couldn't turn a profit otherwise.

There was a huge, enormous, vast chunk of land opening up to the West ("opening up" being a euphemism for genocide).

Which economic system would control it?

Of course that started a war.
Click to expand...


When slavery was legal in the United States the majority of whites living in the south did not own slaves, but the revisionist history that's way too PC likes to claim that pretty much every white man living in the south even farmers who were poor who had only one small acre of land owned slaves when that was not true.

FYI, there were free black slaves who eventually owned land and owned slaves, and there were native Americans who owned black slaves. When slavery was legal in the Northern states, a lot of white people there owned slaves.

You seem to forget, or are ignorant to how the majority of slaves were brought not to the United States or North America but to Brasil in south America, and to various Carribean countries. In certain costal areas of central and south American countries like Mexico, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Colombia, and others the Spanish also imported African slaves in large numbers.

The Spanish have a term for all the mixing of races, which is celebrated during dia de la raza or day of the race.
 
See, David, you start doing alright, and then you put shit like
"The recent woman's march was financed by middle eastern checkbooks, its a common strategy of war for an opposing force, to take over a cause and mold it to their will."
Click to expand...


I walked in a woman's march, like millions of others. I didn't get a dime from anyone. It doesn't even fit with hollering about Sharia if Muslims are paying us to give women MORE rights. This is not a cohesive worldview.

@Alpha_Trolltauri "When slavery was legal in the United States the majority of whites living in the south did not own slaves, but the revisionist history that's way too PC likes to claim that pretty much every white man living in the south even farmers who were poor who had only one small acre of land owned slaves when that was not true."
Click to expand...
You didn't read any of my other posts. Not that I blame you, but don't quote me on one then.

And in any case, you can't defend slavery by saying lots of people did it.
 
David Wooderson said:
Kinda, I dunno I do not have a firm opinion on that.
I do not believe Trump & Co are of the stock, imo they hijacked and Frankenstein'd the party.
The civil war has been over for quite some time, there are some remnants but it's been over and there has never been a time in America where a black person has more opportunity.
Are you saying those politicians were somehow "asking for it" simply by being southern republicans?

Whom are the party of modern terrorists then?
Click to expand...

Sessions used to call black ppl "boy"...many allegations of racism against him he was turned down for judgeship due to it.

Bannon...no explanation needed there.
 
Scrofula said:
See, David, you start doing alright, and then you put shit like

I walked in a woman's march, like millions of others. I didn't get a dime from anyone. It doesn't even fit with hollering about Sharia if Muslims are paying us to give women MORE rights. This is not a cohesive worldview.
[/COLOR]

You didn't read any of my other posts. Not that I blame you, but don't quote me on one then.

And in any case, you can't defend slavery by saying lots of people did it.
Click to expand...


Who said I'm defending slavery? I'm not. I am however telling you about history which you are completely ignorant to. But keep on being an ignorant troll. 8)

The main organizer of the Women's march in the United States Linda Sarsour is for legalising Sharia law, which is hypocritical and odd since Sharia law and Islam oppress women, gays, girls, and boys.
 
alpha_centauri said:
Study history more. The Civil war was NOT about freeing the slaves, getting rid of slavery, or the rights of slaves, etc. or whatever nonsense revisionist history they are teaching in schools and universities now. It is called the war between the states or the war of northern aggression for a reason.
Click to expand...

One can reasonably argue that the North's concern was preserving the union, and not about slavery.

But the secessionists reason was slavery, pure and simple. They say so in their own words. I've already posted Mississippi's declaration of causes, which is totally blatant about keeping slavery and white supremacy.

Here's what the CSA VP had to say:

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
Click to expand...

I can go on and on with primary sources.

Want to try another? Lets take the reasons why South Carolina seceded. They had a statement as well. Okay, starts out looking okay, a bit of history, and they start talking about states rights and a federal government that won't protect them. Almost looks like the states rights people are correct. But wait a minute - what right are they talking about? Oh, they explain:

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.
Click to expand...

Want to try again? Primary sources are pro-slavery and racist AF.
 
Here's Texas, btw:

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon the unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of the equality of all men, irrespective of race or color--a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of the Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and the negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.

[...]

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.
Click to expand...
 
alpha_centauri said:
On the contrary. Leftists/Antifas-especially the ones who are arguing for Sharia law, and the whole 'resistance' movement act foolish, so therefore they are idiots and fools.
Click to expand...
oh please. 8)

care to reference which "leftists" are "arguing for Sharia law"?

antifascists are literally fighting against ISIS in Syria:

CUlqNLKWUAQj89n.png


Anti-ISIS fighters in Rojava hold antifa flag while stepping on capture ISIS flag.
Click to expand...


don't let the truth get in the sway of your confected outrage though - or calling people fools whilst hurling false accusations.
 
Last edited:
I'm not defending the flying of the Confederate battle flag. When I see it here (still all too often) my stomach does turn a bit. People have rallied behind it as a symbol of racism. The KKK were the fore-bearers of making the battle flag the 'Flag of the Confederacy' over the past 150 years. I'm just saying that people really focus too heavily on slavery when they talk about the war. It's all they talk about. Yeah, slavery was wrong, sure fear of blacks drove states into the conflict, but you really can't just paint it black and white like that without glossing over a shit ton of the grey.
 
alpha_centauri said:
Which way didn't Obama divide people? If you believe he brought people together you've had your head in the sand and have not been paying attention at all.
Click to expand...
maybe i've been paying attention but simply have a different opinion to you?

it's comments like these which divide people. i'm paraphrasing obviously but when you accuse people who simply disagree with you as being idiots, or not paying attention, you're the one doing the dividing.

so let me guess? lefties need to get on board with rightie ideas otherwise they're just stupid and ignorant and divisive and and and. but no problem with righties not getting on board with leftie ideas, right? in that case, they're providing noble opposition and doing the right thing and and and...

alpha_centauri said:
in the past few days a leftist/antifas Bernie bro attempted to murder several United States politicians
Click to expand...
just as well he doesn't represent most bernie supporters, eh?

alpha_centauri said:
I am glad I am not living in the United States.
Click to expand...
me too :)

alasdair
 
@alasdair, are you on the Nevada or California side of Tahoe?

I remember when Gabbie Giffords got shot and it was 24hr of wharblegarble about which political side made more shooters.

Then we saw the shooter's mug shot, and realized, oh yeah, he's just more than a bit mentally ill.

Either that or George Soros secretly paid him to be a false flag!
 
Right behind you.

Plus another good 200 miles to the south. Town starts with F and ends with NO.

Was trying to think of a "CA or NV is not US joke", failed, realized you meant you were glad someone ELSE doesn't live in the US, should probably, like, go outside and do things.
 
Cream Gravy? said:
I'm not defending the flying of the Confederate battle flag. When I see it here (still all too often) my stomach does turn a bit. People have rallied behind it as a symbol of racism. The KKK were the fore-bearers of making the battle flag the 'Flag of the Confederacy' over the past 150 years. I'm just saying that people really focus too heavily on slavery when they talk about the war. It's all they talk about. Yeah, slavery was wrong, sure fear of blacks drove states into the conflict, but you really can't just paint it black and white like that without glossing over a shit ton of the grey.
Click to expand...

What do you feel is being overlooked?
 
OT: Having grown up in and fled the deep South, I have mixed feelings about the Confederate flag.

The positive aspect is that it's a good warning of what that person believes (like a swastika tattoo). Or if it's over a restaurant or something, I keep driving. So it's useful.

However, to the victor goes the spoils, so I definitely think Confederate items should be few- perhaps in museums? and not at all glorified (and clearly labeled/plaqued).

Also, history is written by the victors, which is why the only thing the Civil War was about was slavery, and WWII was fought because of those wretched anti-Semitic Germans (and Pearl Harbor in the case of the US).

Such is the way of the world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top