What does any of that have to do with the topic of slavery? Because black people have a higher chance of being conviced (Not committing, because let's be honest, in the U.S being a POC is a crime in itself in some places. Look at Missouri) with a violent crime...this somehow justifies slavery...or? Like what exactly is your point aside from chiming in with a statistic?
If you want to discuss the criminal and socio-economic effects of slavery on the black population, that is fine but that is a separate discussion and your post is rather accusatory. Almost like "blacks" = bad. Nor does it account for the fact that a POC is far more likely to be unjustly harassed by the police, have harsher penalties, more unlikely to find a secure job, and come for lower economic areas. There other more in depth statistics that try to adjust for this and shows that it's hardly as clear cut.
As late as the 1970's POC had a travel guide for the states circulating that told them where it was safe to eat, sleep, travel to etc. My mother was in elementary school at the time. That's insanely recent. The effects of that type of mentality will be felt for at least another century. And rightfully so. It's as if you think once Lincoln emancipated the slaves, everything became better or something...
This is a local government blatantly trying to prevent people from exercising their fundamental right to vote. Your ass would fail that, anyone would. That was their definition of Grade 5 level comprehension. Shit was rough, I can go on for days, forget the public/private sector. I'd be here for weeks for every decade. We've had the Television for longer than people openly treated POC like they were less than a white person.
Last edited by Rage.Of.Olympus on Oct 1st, 2017 at 11:06 PM
Who said it justifies slavery? Stop being silly. The actual point was people who didn't suffer from being enslaved should stop whining about shit that happened over a century ago and focus more on current issues facing the community(and hint: the biggest issue isn't police brutality)
It doesn't shock me that a group that commits more murder than any other group would die at the hands of cops more or be harassed by cops more.
Just like it doesn't shock me more of them are in jail for drug crimes even though whites use drugs at comparable rates: high crime neighborhoods get policed more.
And nobody said shit wasn't rough in the past. The rampant crime rate isn't excused by that though.
__________________ But we all got a Chicken-Duck-Woman thing waiting for us.
Last edited by Surtur on Oct 2nd, 2017 at 12:37 PM
Excuse me? So because they weren't enslaved themselves, that means they cannot recognize the negative impacts the institutions established at a time when POC = animals can negatively impact them? You don't have much understanding of culture or how living conditions affect people into further generations eh? I hope you don't think reading and education is liberal nonsense: head down to your local community college and take a few anthropology and sociology courses.
It doesn't shock you that a group far more likely to be persecuted, policed, not be treated fairly and framed are more likely to be part of police statistics?
Here's a snapshot of what a little bit of job insecurity cause in the 1920s?
They make BLM riots look like peace keepers. Now imagine two centuries of such instability and insecurity imposed on a culture.
My points are:
Black = Slaves because they were less than human
Slavery = benefited mostly white Scandanivians and the scary truth is that many of them did not want that benefit to eat
Slavery and racism = is still having huge negative repercussions on POC
Take a look at the Native Americans on reservations in the United States and Canada. Terrible conditions, some worse than third world countries with huge amounts of violence, crime and drug abuse. It's not rocket science, you can't decimate a people, tell them they're inferior and are less than human for a few hundred years and then expect recovery in less than 100 years because of somehalf-assed reperations were signed.
But lest we forget, there were black slave owners and that somehow changes something.
Last edited by Rage.Of.Olympus on Oct 3rd, 2017 at 06:46 PM
You do realize the north was primarily republicans and the south was southern democrats?
"The national union party was used as a temporary name for the Republican Party. Many Northern Democrats who opposed slavery joined a new party, the Republican Party which was forming around the cause for abolition.
Southern Democrats, however, supported slavery and threatened to leave the Union.
Although the Confederate States did not establish political parties, the Congress was still dominated by former Democrats politicians."
Democrats have always been the party of slavery and the KKK, and no amount of revisionist history, Al Shaprton, Jesse Jackson or Barack Obama will change it.
__________________ Book of the Year: What Happened. Runner up; Shattered: Inside the Doomed Campaign of Hillary Clinton
What the hell does the political history of the democrats and the republicans have to do with this thread or my post?
Are you posting in regards to my comment about liberals and education? Seriously, that's what you chose to focus on from my post? I was clearly referencing the new modern commentary about liberals/education.
The two major political parties of the United States have changed significantly from 100 years ago with the pendulum swinging back and forth: Abraham Lincoln was the first republican President of the United States. No one has ever said that all Republicans going back to the beginning of the country are bad and terrible racist slave owners or whatever strawman I foresee you defending.
Ftr: I haven't fact checked anything Sable said for those reading so don't assume me not contradicting anything is me agreeing with his points or considering them to be factual.