- 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: Two black guys show up to civil war reenactment as slaves trying to be a part of it lol
Posted on 10/22/22 at 11:26 am to Byrdybyrd05
Posted on 10/22/22 at 11:26 am to Byrdybyrd05
They could have just showed up to any Democrat giving a speech if they really wanted to "reenact" slavery.
0
Posted on 10/22/22 at 11:26 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
They did exist, and they differed in meaningful ways from European chattel slavery.
African slavery was exactly the same as European slavery. They were tied at the hip. Without African slavery, Europeans wouldn't have owned African slaves.
The main difference being that the descendants of Africans sold into slavery in the US and Europe ended up far better off than the descendants of the people who stayed in Africa, including the people who sold them.
quote:
Again, if I take the 1st-person source documentation at its word, this is wrong, completely and utterly, with respect to European chattel slavery. If we are talking about slavery as a broad concept, sure, but that doesn't change the fact that the self-justification apparatus that developed in Europe used specifically racial qualifications.
Nope. Maybe some intellectuals tried to explain it away this way, but people owned slaves out of need. No one was going out of their way to feed and clothe and house labor simply because they were black.
Posted on 10/22/22 at 11:27 am to SOSFAN
quote:
Slavery was a necessity, though a horrible one, based off of business than one based primarily on racism.
Here’s an exercise for you. Why don’t you read those quotes I posted and tell me what you’d say to Calhoun and Stephens and their thoughts on race and slavery.
quote:
Why would blacks and Indians own slaves if it were mainly about racism and not a business need called labor.
First, you should stop grouping these two together. You’re implying that only whites could be racist against blacks because Indians couldn’t possibly think themselves superior to blacks as well.
Second, put all the black slave owners together and they owned less than 1% of all slaves in the US by 1860. You’re using a ridiculously small sample size to make an argument that race wasn’t the factor in who and who was not enslaved. Which goes directly against what the majority of slave owners and Southern leaders explicitly stated.
ETA: Maybe we can pick this up some other time my man. I’m about to bury my head into some college football for the day.
This post was edited on 10/22/22 at 11:36 am
Posted on 10/22/22 at 11:29 am to MikeyFL
quote:
Why would blacks and Indians own slaves if it were mainly about racism and not a business need called labor.
How many white people were enslaved? I seem to have
So you cannot answer the question so you try and turn it back on whites...now that is racist.
Posted on 10/22/22 at 11:29 am to theGarnetWay
quote:
Second, put all the black slave owners together and they owned less than 1% of all slaves in the US by 1860. You’re using a ridiculously small sample size to make an argument that race wasn’t the factor in who and who was not enslaved. Which goes directly against what the majority of slave owners and Southern leaders explicitly stated.
It isn't noteworthy or unusual for a smaller percentage of people to own a smaller percentage of something, whatever that something (or someone, in this case) might be.
Posted on 10/22/22 at 11:31 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
The main difference being that the descendants of Africans sold into slavery in the US and Europe ended up far better off than the descendants of the people who stayed in Africa, including the people who sold them.
Little known fact: The Confederate socialists provided slaves in the US with pension plans and free medical care.
quote:
Nope. Maybe some intellectuals tried to explain it away this way, but people owned slaves out of need. No one was going out of their way to feed and clothe and house labor simply because they were black.
Why not enslave 80% of the white population then? Was it just a 4 million person coincidence?
Posted on 10/22/22 at 11:32 am to MikeyFL
claiming the american arm of the african slave trade wasnt racially motivated is an old but goodie TD thread
just waiting on the women shouldnt have the right to vote thread that will inevitably pop up behind it
just waiting on the women shouldnt have the right to vote thread that will inevitably pop up behind it
This post was edited on 10/22/22 at 11:33 am
Posted on 10/22/22 at 11:33 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
It isn't noteworthy or unusual for a smaller percentage of people to own a smaller percentage of something, whatever that something (or someone, in this case) might be.
Exactly my point. Also this:
quote:
In addition, the figure is almost certainly inflated by a legal quirk in most antebellum southern states.
It includes "many ‘owned’ family members whom they had purchased to become free," said Eric Foner, a Columbia University historian and the author of such books as The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery. "You could not free a slave in most southern states without sending them out of the state."
Gates, writing in the Root, noted that the late historian Thomas J. Pressly used Woodson's statistics for 1830 to determine that about 42 percent of these black slaveholders owned just one slave. To Gates, this suggests that many -- though hardly all -- black "slaveholders" legally needed to "own" a family member such as a wife or child.
As Woodson wrote in his 1924 book Free Negro Owners of Slaves in the United States in 1830, "In many instances the husband purchased the wife or vice versa. … Slaves of Negroes were in some cases the children of a free father who had purchased his wife. If he did not thereafter emancipate the mother, as so many such husbands failed to do, his own children were born his slaves and were thus reported to the numerators."
In other cases, Woodson wrote, "Benevolent Negroes often purchased slaves to make their lot easier by granting them their freedom for a nominal sum, or by permitting them to work it out on liberal terms."
This post was edited on 10/22/22 at 11:35 am
Posted on 10/22/22 at 11:33 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
African slavery was exactly the same as European slavery.
It was absolutely not. The main condition was that slavery in African tribal structures was not hereditary. But you definitely didn't know that.
quote:
Nope. Maybe some intellectuals tried to explain it away this way, but people owned slaves out of need. No one was going out of their way to feed and clothe and house labor simply because they were black.
Lol. 'Maybe some intellectuals.' The justification of the merchants who participated in the trade itself was that they were saving African slaves from a worse fate without European laws and Christianity. Also you make it seem like the slaveowners weren't reaping massive benefits from the free, unpaid labor provided by the slaves, or that feeding and giving clothing to a person is an okay justification for slavery. There is a reason that the entire political economy of the south was oriented around plantations, and a reason why the landowning class was particularly interested in keeping the status quo. I'm willing to bet you are one of those people who believe slavery would have ended of its own volition too.
Posted on 10/22/22 at 11:35 am to theGarnetWay
quote:
First, you should stop grouping these two together. You’re implying that only whites could be racist against blacks because Indians couldn’t possibly think themselves superior to blacks as well.
You don't want them grouped together because it defeats your racist premise but sperating facts lead to incorrect conclusions . Again having all colors of free men being slave owners points more to slavery being a necessity of life and not due to racism.
Posted on 10/22/22 at 11:35 am to Byrdybyrd05
Lost it when they went into a rendition of Wade in the Water.
Posted on 10/22/22 at 11:37 am to SOSFAN
quote:
Again having all colors of free men being slave owners points more to slavery being a necessity of life and not due to racism.
By that logic, the Chinese can't be racist because there are a handful of Han Chinese in the Xinjiang concentration camps along with millions of Uyghurs.
Posted on 10/22/22 at 11:37 am to SOSFAN
quote:
You don't want them grouped together because it defeats your racist premise but sperating facts lead to incorrect conclusions
No it doesn’t. It means that both whites and Indians thought lesser of black people.
Pretty simple really.
Posted on 10/22/22 at 11:39 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
Who the frick cares about it being far-fetched? You can either back-up the claim or you can't. There is no imagination needed when we have plenty of source documentation. You understand that right?
Settle down, Francis. You're the one who asked the question, don't get pissy because you were given an answer.
One of the claims comes from former slave John Parker, who was able to flee to the North after the first battle of Bull Run. He stated that there were "one whole regiment of free colored persons, and two regiments slaves among the white regiments, one company to each."
quote:
It isn't hidden knowledge. What are you talking about?
That there were black plantation owners in the Confederacy is pretty uncommon knowledge among many, especially the farther north you go, because it purposely isn't taught. Purposely not teaching something which is germane to a topic is to hide that knowledge.
Posted on 10/22/22 at 11:40 am to crazy4lsu
quote:Plenty of times, after 'proof links' are given, the linked material gets whacked after a few weeks.
Give me the actual source documentation and I'll look it up. I mean, do
People's own research to prove their points gets used by those who wish to cancel wrong-thought to remove said material.
How do you not know there were blacks on both sides of the war? Purposeful ignorance and demands of others to prove what is well known is the ploy of the socialists.
Posted on 10/22/22 at 11:41 am to Bard
quote:
That there were black plantation owners in the Confederacy is pretty uncommon knowledge among many, especially the farther north you go, because it purposely isn't taught. Purposely not teaching something which is germane to a topic is to hide that knowledge.
Actually, it's because no one with a basic understanding of logic gives a shite.
Posted on 10/22/22 at 11:42 am to Bard
quote:
Settle down, Francis. You're the one who asked the question, don't get pissy because you were given an answer.
Nah, it's just hilarious to think that an extension of the claim that there were black slaveowners must mean there might be a black combat solider.
quote:
One of the claims comes from former slave John Parker, who was able to flee to the North after the first battle of Bull Run. He stated that there were "one whole regiment of free colored persons, and two regiments slaves among the white regiments, one company to each."
You understand how you would go about proving this, right?
quote:
That there were black plantation owners in the Confederacy is pretty uncommon knowledge among many, especially the farther north you go, because it purposely isn't taught. Purposely not teaching something which is germane to a topic is to hide that knowledge.
There are several books written about this exact topic. What are you talking about?
Posted on 10/22/22 at 11:42 am to theGarnetWay
quote:
it doesn’t. It means that both whites and Indians thought lesser of black people.
Again you're leaving out the fact that thousands of blacks owned slaves. How is that racist and not a necessity? Doesn't matter the percentage but it was thousands not just a couple. Switching to football and watching Clempson and Syracuses sorry defenses
Posted on 10/22/22 at 11:43 am to MasterDigger
quote:
Plenty of times, after 'proof links' are given, the linked material gets whacked after a few weeks.
Nah
quote:
People's own research to prove their points gets used by those who wish to cancel wrong-thought to remove said material.
Nah
quote:
How do you not know there were blacks on both sides of the war? Purposeful ignorance and demands of others to prove what is well known is the ploy of the socialists.
You should be able to find it then. Go do the work and post it. I don't suspect you would understand how though.
Posted on 10/22/22 at 11:44 am to SOSFAN
quote:
Again you're leaving out the fact that thousands of blacks owned slaves. How is that racist and not a necessity? Doesn't matter the percentage but it was thousands not just a couple
I’ve already answered this as well.
quote:
Switching to football and watching Clempson and Syracuses sorry defenses
I have a tough time watching any Clemson game because of all their winning the last few years.
Page 6 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News