- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Missouri doesn't belong in the SEC
Posted on 10/6/11 at 10:21 pm to RummelTiger
Posted on 10/6/11 at 10:21 pm to RummelTiger
I asked the question because there's been a lot of sabre-rattling here at TD.com lately from people claiming that Missouri was "on the good side" and West Virginia was "on the bad side".
I realize some of that is tongue-in-cheek, but it's obviously being said by whites sitting behind their computer screens. A black guy is not going to say that, and for good reason.
Do you guys really want the SEC and/or the South to be equated to continued racism and bigotry? It's a beautiful place like none other, but some of the people need to evolve just a little.
I realize that's the proverbial pot calling the kettle "black" (cough), given the way some WVU fans acted during the recent LSU game. But I certainly don't advocate that or laugh about it.
Missouri vs. WVU for the SEC's #14 should have lots of merits to discuss besides who fought on the side of slavery (your "good guys") and who did not. This type of speech is hateful and ignorant.
I realize some of that is tongue-in-cheek, but it's obviously being said by whites sitting behind their computer screens. A black guy is not going to say that, and for good reason.
Do you guys really want the SEC and/or the South to be equated to continued racism and bigotry? It's a beautiful place like none other, but some of the people need to evolve just a little.
I realize that's the proverbial pot calling the kettle "black" (cough), given the way some WVU fans acted during the recent LSU game. But I certainly don't advocate that or laugh about it.
Missouri vs. WVU for the SEC's #14 should have lots of merits to discuss besides who fought on the side of slavery (your "good guys") and who did not. This type of speech is hateful and ignorant.
3
Posted on 10/6/11 at 10:30 pm to jturn17
quote:
Although I'll make one contention.. many slaves did try to revolt and break away and fight for their lives. Nat Turner is a perfect example of this.
Well, yes. But a few does not equal a nation. Well, I guess it could be a very small nation...
quote:
Problem is in the execution (pun not intended). The threat of being killed was a huge deterrent, especially for black men with families.
The white guys heading off to war faced the same issues.
quote:
This is why Marriage and families were emphasized by Slave owners to their slaves. A black man with a wife and kids wasn't a threat, but a black man with nothing to live for was a huge threat. Many slaves weren't allowed to read or write in part to make it more difficult for them revolt/run away, and make them more dependent on slavery for survival.
And to breed...
quote:
Most societies the US associated with had already abolished slavery between 1800-1820.. So while you could say it was the time, the abolitionist movement had taken hold around the world, and the US was behind by several decades. But I don't take too much issue with your phrasing.
Well, thanks.
Posted on 10/6/11 at 10:30 pm to jturn17
quote:
Louisiana, LSU grad ;)
Oh, LAWD!
quote:
But I live in Chicago now
You Yankee...
Posted on 10/6/11 at 10:34 pm to BamaScoop
Oh, yay. Let's re-fight the fricking Civil War for the fifteenth time in the last three days. 
Posted on 10/6/11 at 10:35 pm to fiercey
quote:
fiercey
You 'failed' three times because:
A) You took 'good guys' to mean the North.
B) The South did not lose resoundingly.
C) The Confederacy was not the racist, slavist group your painting them to be with that wide, sweeping brush.
Posted on 10/6/11 at 10:38 pm to fiercey
quote:
Do you guys really want the SEC and/or the South to be equated to continued racism and bigotry? It's a beautiful place like none other, but some of the people need to evolve just a little.
Are you saying its not? Most northerners think the south is full of racists.
quote:
Missouri vs. WVU for the SEC's #14 should have lots of merits to discuss besides who fought on the side of slavery (your "good guys") and who did not. This type of speech is hateful and ignorant.
Hateful? No. Ignorant... when some people talk about it yes.
Posted on 10/6/11 at 10:39 pm to cyde
I just like seeing other peoples perspective on this subject. Everyone seems to have their own usually. ETA: Except me and Rummel apparently..
This post was edited on 10/6/11 at 10:43 pm
Posted on 10/6/11 at 10:41 pm to fiercey
quote:
Do you guys really want the SEC and/or the South to be equated to continued racism and bigotry? It's a beautiful place like none other, but some of the people need to evolve just a little.
Um, hate to burst your bubble, but racism exists everywhere. So if you're going to single the South out for it, then you're just ignorant.
quote:
This type of speech is hateful and ignorant.
Hateful? No. Ignorant? Likely.
But, I laugh at that considering:
quote:
I realize that's the proverbial pot calling the kettle "black" (cough)
Posted on 10/6/11 at 10:44 pm to 870Hog
quote:
I just like seeing other peoples perspective on this subject. Everyone seems to have their own usually.
Oh, sure it's entertaining for the first thread or two, but every time some dumbass pops the top on a beer, he feels the need to pipe up (usually on the wrong board) and give his two-bit opinion on why x doesn't belong.
shite gets tired after a while. The money people are going to handle it the way it's going to get handled, and in the end our opinion won't be considered when the decision is made. All it amounts to is a bunch of blubbering and complaining.
This post was edited on 10/6/11 at 10:46 pm
Posted on 10/6/11 at 10:45 pm to RummelTiger
quote:
quote:
Although I'll make one contention.. many slaves did try to revolt and break away and fight for their lives. Nat Turner is a perfect example of this.
Well, yes. But a few does not equal a nation. Well, I guess it could be a very small nation...
quote:
Problem is in the execution (pun not intended). The threat of being killed was a huge deterrent, especially for black men with families.
The white guys heading off to war faced the same issues.
It's just not that simple. I don't know why you're trying to make it that way. Why doesn't any nation that's under an oppressive regime revolt? What were they going to fight them with? Axes v guns? There are a lot of reasons why the slaves couldn't form a successful revolution.
Whites heading off to war is different because the whites that were heading off to war had a belief they could actually win. They didn't view their fight as a suicide mission. They actually had guns and cannons, and generals, and everything you'd need to win a war (just not enough to sustain a long war). It's not a fair comparison.
quote:
And to breed...
Well sure, but we all know the Slave owners were doing their fair share of slave breeding.
To back up my point even further, religion was always emphasized by Slave owners to slaves because it was thought that a man with religion was also less likely to start a revolt. Slaves who could read and write were sometimes killed bc Slave owners didn't want them putting thoughts into other slaves heads and leading revolutions.
Anyway, like I said, there's lots of reasons that slaves didn't/weren't able to successfully lead a revolution.
Also, I'm not sure I even remember how we got to this point.
Posted on 10/6/11 at 10:46 pm to 870Hog
Posted on 10/6/11 at 10:46 pm to cyde
Good thing I'm still new 2 the forum and I'm not allowed to drink until the weekends when I turn my work phone off
Posted on 10/6/11 at 10:51 pm to 870Hog
Posted on 10/6/11 at 10:54 pm to RummelTiger
quote:
Um, hate to burst your bubble, but racism exists everywhere. So if you're going to single the South out for it, then you're just ignorant.
I lived in Massachusetts for a year.. Racists definitely exist every where. I don't care how liberal a state is. One of my best friends from there flat out told me she wouldn't vote for Obama because he was black.
I've kind of come to a conclusion that Northern racists are more open with their racism, whereas Southern racists hide it with coded words and beliefs bc they've gotten more shite about being racist through their lives.
Posted on 10/6/11 at 10:55 pm to jturn17
quote:
Why doesn't any nation that's under an oppressive regime revolt? What were they going to fight them with? Axes v guns? There are a lot of reasons why the slaves couldn't form a successful revolution.
Some have.
quote:
Whites heading off to war is different because the whites that were heading off to war had a belief they could actually win.
That's not true. There have been numerous letters from those guys heading off expressing their fears and concerns regarding the war.
quote:
They actually had guns and cannons, and generals, and everything you'd need to win a war (just not enough to sustain a long war). It's not a fair comparison.
And?
Like Hog said, there was a VERY small number of people who actually owned slaves, so those were the only people that the slaves would've had to go up against. No way old farmer Joe was going to get hacked to death because the plantation owner wanted his slaves.
quote:
Well sure, but we all know the Slave owners were doing their fair share of slave breeding.
True...
quote:
To back up my point even further, religion was always emphasized by Slave owners to slaves because it was thought that a man with religion was also less likely to start a revolt.
I disagree. I chalk that up to the slave owners and their ironic views on religion. "Hey, slave, you have to be a good Christian, but right after you and your kids plow my back 40. k, thnkx, bye."
Now, religion was HUGE with the slaves because it gave them a way to draw inner strength for what they were going through.
quote:
Anyway, like I said, there's lots of reasons that slaves didn't/weren't able to successfully lead a revolution.
I'm not saying that they didn't have reasons. Everyone has a reason for why they don't do something.
Posted on 10/6/11 at 10:58 pm to jturn17
Eh, IMO older southern blacks are the most racist. Then again they did have to go threw some shite.
Posted on 10/6/11 at 10:58 pm to RummelTiger
quote:
quote:
But I live in Chicago now
You Yankee...
Hey, Chicago has a lot of deep Southern roots. The Great Migration and all that. I meet a lot of people with family from SE Texas and LA. It actually surprised me when I first moved here..
Posted on 10/6/11 at 11:01 pm to 870Hog
This is venturing into a topic I really don't want to get into but yea. I generally agree with your statement. I tend to give them leeway though because I think I'd feel the same if I were put in that situation.
Hopefully time heals all wounds though.
Hopefully time heals all wounds though.
Posted on 10/6/11 at 11:01 pm to jturn17
I actually love Chicago.
Spent about a week there a few years back and had a fine time. Unfortunately, was not able to make it to Wrigley. So I gotta do that here soon.
Spent about a week there a few years back and had a fine time. Unfortunately, was not able to make it to Wrigley. So I gotta do that here soon.
Posted on 10/6/11 at 11:09 pm to RummelTiger
quote:
I disagree. I chalk that up to the slave owners and their ironic views on religion. "Hey, slave, you have to be a good Christian, but right after you and your kids plow my back 40. k, thnkx, bye."
Now, religion was HUGE with the slaves because it gave them a way to draw inner strength for what they were going through.
I'm more cynical than you apparently. I've read books/articles and seen documentaries that make me believe my view is more accurate.
quote:
And?
Like Hog said, there was a VERY small number of people who actually owned slaves, so those were the only people that the slaves would've had to go up against. No way old farmer Joe was going to get hacked to death because the plantation owner wanted his slaves.
I've already discussed the fact that other non-plantation owning whites supported slavery, and wanted to keep the institution intact. But we've also completely ignored racism, and the impact it had on slavery. I mean there's a reason Jim Crow was enacted shortly after the Civil War, but I feel like we're venturing down a path that's way, way, way off topic.
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News