Constitutional Convention

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

In 239 years the constitution has been amended 27 times… That’s an average of almost 9 years between amendments.

[/quote]

No, that’s not what I am saying. I am saying that the time span that the average amendment takes to complete ratification is several years or less, not a simple mathematical average of 239 / 27, i.e., of the 27 amendments, the vast number of them took a few years or less to complete ratification (from start to finish) in reference to the time span for each of those specific amendments (proposal → pass Congress → pass the states → officially amended the COTUS). That information for each amendment is also available at that link you posted.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I’ve mentioned before the omission of the fact that the majority of slaves brought to the New World in the first century of the transatlantic slave trade were white. That would demolish the White guilt narrative the teachers’ espouse.
[/quote]

No, it wouldn’t.

First, you’re putting arbitrary and nonsensical strictures on a historical question that spans many hundreds of years (“in the first century of the transatlantic slave trade”), for no reason other than that it benefits the nonsense you want to push.

Second, the “first century of the transatlantic slave trade” was numerically insignificant vis-a-vis the trade at its height, from the 18th century to the mid-19th.

Third, are you bending the respective definitions of “slave” and “indentured servant.” Or are you referring specifically and exclusively to whites owned, for their lifetimes, as chattel? If you aren’t, then your point sinks under the weight of its own shoddiness, because there is utterly no comparison to be made.

Fourth, and most importantly, see everything we’ve written thus far in this thread about American slavery’s historical development and the inarguable fact that it became simply inseparable from issues of race. Denial of this is mere ignorance of American history.[/quote]

I’ve been through this before. I’m not talking about bloody indentured servants. Im talking about slaves, shipped in space hulks and sold as slaves and even bred as slaves. Even children. For example, on one occasion alone Oliver Cromwell had 30,000 Irish children kidnapped from their families and shipped to Jamaica to be sold as slaves. We’re not talking about numerically insignificant numbers or facts here. And you’re dtawing a bullshit conflation of slavery with indentured servitude; a seperate but similar institution to serfdom and slavery. And cut the shit with the pretending distorted anti-White historical revisionism isn’t taught in schools. Surely you know better. TB too. Grow some balls and face facts.
[/quote]

You’re confused - or in actuality, blinded by ideology. Some schools preach “white guilt”. Even if they do, that is not the same as teaching the history of race-based slavery. That part is historical fact. The fact that other raves may have owned slaves doesn’t change the nature of American slavery as being race-based.

Whether modern white people need to feel guilty about it, or whether modern white people should “pay” for it is a separate debate. The fact that it occurred and was underpinned by racism isn’t subject to revisionism.

And keep your crackpot white supremacist websites to yourself - anyone who knows me around here knows I have no interest in entertaining such drivel.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Third, are you bending the respective definitions of “slave” and “indentured servant.” Or are you referring specifically and exclusively to whites owned, for their lifetimes, as chattel? If you aren’t, then your point sinks under the weight of its own shoddiness, because there is utterly no comparison to be made…

[/quote]

Careful, careful, smh. You’d better not go down the road that tries to argue that the indentured servanthood of the Irish was distinctly different than the the slavery of Africans. It wasn’t. It was for all practical purposes the same thing.
[/quote]

No, it wasn’t – by the sole fact that it lasted nowhere near as long and had nowhere near the numerical or social impact here in the United States. But take my post. For each of these “white slaves” to which SM is referring:

  1. Were they owned as chattel?

  2. Were they so owned, legally, for the duration of their lives?

  3. Did the status of chattelship devolve upon their children?

Unless the answer is “yes” across the board and as a rule, the comparison is intellectually dishonest and fundamentally illegitimate.[/quote]

Yes, yes and yes. Indentured servitude is entirely different to the White slave trade of which I speak and of which you clearly know nothing. [/quote]

Again, I know a great deal about it, and you’re about to find that out.

Note, first, that my point about the stupid arbitrariness of your stricture – the first (and numerically lightest) century of the slave trade – is illegitimate drivel designed only to try to help you push bullshit.

Second, you say that the answers are yes, yes, and yes, without exception, for the ________ thousand white slaves brought to the Americas in the first century of the Atlantic slave trade. You say that this was lifetime chattel slavery and that it devolved through the generations upon progeny. Let’s see some evidence. Excuse me – reputable evidence, not some citation-less article from a white supremacist website.[/quote]

Like I said, you’re a product of this leftist, anti-White system. My answers to you were yes, yes and yes. I know what I’m talking about. You clearly don’t

Anyway I’ve had enough for tonight. A little disappointed I must say. So long.

[quote]JR249 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

In 239 years the constitution has been amended 27 times… That’s an average of almost 9 years between amendments.

[/quote]

No, that’s not what I am saying. I am saying that the time span that the average amendment takes to complete ratification is several years or less, not a simple mathematical average of 239 / 27, i.e., of the 27 amendments, the vast number of them took a few years or less to complete ratification (from start to finish) in reference to the time span for each of those specific amendments (proposal → pass Congress → pass the states → officially amended the COTUS). That information for each amendment is also available at that link you posted.[/quote]

I understood what you were saying. I was just pointing out it isn’t just the amount of time it takes to pass an amendment (start to finish), but also the frequency at which amendments are passed. Point being, it has always been rare and I have no reason to think that will change. Even in the “big government” era this has remained the same. It’s been 22 years since the 27th was ratified and 44 years since the 26th was ratified.

So, in short, the idea that the constitution will be amended to allow for a dictatorship is some Buggy Bunny level tin hat territory.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Like I said, you’re a product of this leftist, anti-White system. My answers to you were yes, yes and yes. I know what I’m talking about. You clearly don’t

[/quote]

Yep, like I said, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

I have read Jordan and Walsh. Have you? Do you know what their argument is? Or are you linking to it because you came across a bullshit article (written, you may not know, by a Canadian crackpot conspiracy-theorist) on Google?

Let’s try it this way. Cite Jordan and Walsh in evidence of this:

[quote]

  1. Were they owned as chattel?

  2. Were they so owned, legally, for the duration of their lives?

  3. Did the status of chattelship devolve upon their children?

…you say that the answers are yes, yes, and yes, without exception, for the ________ thousand white slaves brought to the Americas in the first century of the Atlantic slave trade (this number representing, remember, the majority of slaves brought to the NW in the time period arbitrarily specified, according to you). You say that this was lifetime chattel slavery and that it devolved through the generations upon progeny.[/quote]

I’ll wait.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I’ve mentioned before the omission of the fact that the majority of slaves brought to the New World in the first century of the transatlantic slave trade were white. That would demolish the White guilt narrative the teachers’ espouse.
[/quote]

No, it wouldn’t.

First, you’re putting arbitrary and nonsensical strictures on a historical question that spans many hundreds of years (“in the first century of the transatlantic slave trade”), for no reason other than that it benefits the nonsense you want to push.

Second, the “first century of the transatlantic slave trade” was numerically insignificant vis-a-vis the trade at its height, from the 18th century to the mid-19th.

Third, are you bending the respective definitions of “slave” and “indentured servant.” Or are you referring specifically and exclusively to whites owned, for their lifetimes, as chattel? If you aren’t, then your point sinks under the weight of its own shoddiness, because there is utterly no comparison to be made.

Fourth, and most importantly, see everything we’ve written thus far in this thread about American slavery’s historical development and the inarguable fact that it became simply inseparable from issues of race. Denial of this is mere ignorance of American history.[/quote]

I’ve been through this before. I’m not talking about bloody indentured servants. Im talking about slaves, shipped in space hulks and sold as slaves and even bred as slaves. Even children. For example, on one occasion alone Oliver Cromwell had 30,000 Irish children kidnapped from their families and shipped to Jamaica to be sold as slaves. We’re not talking about numerically insignificant numbers or facts here. And you’re dtawing a bullshit conflation of slavery with indentured servitude; a seperate but similar institution to serfdom and slavery. And cut the shit with the pretending distorted anti-White historical revisionism isn’t taught in schools. Surely you know better. TB too. Grow some balls and face facts.
[/quote]

You’re confused - or in actuality, blinded by ideology. Some schools preach “white guilt”. Even if they do, that is not the same as teaching the history of race-based slavery. That part is historical fact. The fact that other raves may have owned slaves doesn’t change the nature of American slavery as being race-based.

Whether modern white people need to feel guilty about it, or whether modern white people should “pay” for it is a separate debate. The fact that it occurred and was underpinned by racism isn’t subject to revisionism.

And keep your crackpot white supremacist websites to yourself - anyone who knows me around here knows I have no interest in entertaining such drivel.
[/quote]

White supramacist? Don’t be a fool. It’s infantile really.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

I’ve been through this before. I’m not talking about bloody indentured servants. Im talking about slaves, shipped in space hulks and sold as slaves and even bred as slaves. Even children. For example, on one occasion alone Oliver Cromwell had 30,000 Irish children kidnapped from their families and shipped to Jamaica to be sold as slaves. We’re not talking about numerically insignificant numbers or facts here. And you’re dtawing a bullshit conflation of slavery with indentured servitude; a seperate but similar institution to serfdom and slavery. And cut the shit with the pretending distorted anti-White historical revisionism isn’t taught in schools. Surely you know better. TB too. Grow some balls and face facts.
[/quote]

I agree.

What I think we’re seeing from TB and smh – I can draw no other conclusion based on the evidence – is that they flat out don’t know their history in this regard. Or they’re purposely ignoring what they do know because they’ve found themselves in a box canyon and are trying to fight their way out.
[/quote]

Nice try, but no. It’s interesting, it just doesn’t add much to the broader narrative of understanding American slavery and its impact. It just doesn’t. Doesn’t mean it’s not important to someone - it just means that in a class painting in broad strokes, it isn’t going to make the cut based on relevance.

But again, you tell me - why is it so important to the bigger picture? Amd more specifically, why are teachers intentionally leaving it out?

And in advance, please skip the classic Push poltroonery where you shift and dodge and refuse to answer questions. Let’s get down to understanding what really is at issue here.

But remember Sexmachine, you need to evidence your claims and not some sad lesser set of claims not remotely adding up to what you’re trying to push here. We’re talking lifetime chattel slavery devolving upon progeny. Not “many people voluntarily became indentured servants and then died before their time was up.” Not “sometimes indentured servants didn’t have legal recourse if their masters reneged on their contracts.” We’re talking about __________ thousand white people under plain lifetime chattel slavery devolving through the generations upon progeny. Again, I’ll wait for the specific numbers and evidence from Jordan and Walsh.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Like I said, you’re a product of this leftist, anti-White system. My answers to you were yes, yes and yes. I know what I’m talking about. You clearly don’t

[/quote]

Yep, like I said, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

I have read Jordan and Walsh. Have you? Do you know what their argument is? Or are you linking to it because you came across a bullshit article (written, you may not know, by a Canadian crackpot conspiracy-theorist) on Google?

Let’s try it this way. Cite Jordan and Walsh in evidence of this:

[quote]

  1. Were they owned as chattel?

  2. Were they so owned, legally, for the duration of their lives?

  3. Did the status of chattelship devolve upon their children?

…you say that the answers are yes, yes, and yes, without exception, for the ________ thousand white slaves brought to the Americas in the first century of the Atlantic slave trade (this number representing, remember, the majority of slaves brought to the NW in the time period arbitrarily specified, according to you). You say that this was lifetime chattel slavery and that it devolved through the generations upon progeny.[/quote]

I’ll wait.[/quote]

I’m sick of your pathetic little superiority games. You’re a joke. Don’t you know this? I thought you considered yourself educated? I cited that book which argues indentured servitude was the same as slavery. That’s a point I made earlier. And my initial point, the one you don’t know because of your subpar education on these matters, is that “slaves” - not indentured servants; but “slaves” - chattel shipped in hulks and sold in auction; bred in slave breeding enterprises; their children born into slavery. I don’t have any more “links” for you. Try reading a history book.

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/27/1265498/-The-slaves-that-time-forgot

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

I’m sick of your pathetic little superiority games. You’re a joke. Don’t you know this? I thought you considered yourself educated?[/quote]

Coming as it does from a guy who is defending an open white supremacist and his white supremacist propaganda operation, I take this to be a thorough compliment.

[quote]
I cited that book which argues indentured servitude was the same as slavery. That’s a point I made earlier. [/quote]

I know what it argues because I’ve read it. I suspect you haven’t. It doesn’t remotely argue the ahistorical nonsense you’re trying to push. Try and prove me wrong: cite the pages that evidence your claims. I’ll wait.

[quote]
And my initial point, the one you don’t know because of your subpar education on these matters, is that “slaves” - not indentured servants; but “slaves” - chattel shipped in hulks and sold in auction; bred in slave breeding enterprises; their children born into slavery. I don’t have any more “links” for you. Try reading a history book.

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/27/1265498/-The-slaves-that-time-forgot[/quote]

I didn’t ask for “links,” I asked for evidence. Reputable evidence, not a link to Daily Fucking Kos. Or is this your new thing – to egregiously misunderstand history and then run off when you’re told to cite your ahistorical claims.

I’ll go ahead and wait.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Edited to fix quotes

Bullshit of course they do. Progressives have pushed anti-White historical revisionism for decades. In Australia they pretend there were massacres of aboriginals so most the young people here believe it. And Amren has meticulously documented the same such practices in schools and universities across North America today.[/quote]

Yes, it’s funny that we(American public school-educated folks) were often taught nothing(or nearly nothing) about white slaves, black slave owners, and black and arabs selling blacks to whites, but we spent plenty of time learning about whitey lynching blacks in the late 19th-mid 20th centuries.[/quote]

That’s because the latter is important, and the former really isn’t…

[/quote]

A very foolish statement. I’m genuinely surprised this five-gallon bucket of crap came out of your computer.[/quote]

The former isn’t that imporant, for the reasons I have been discussing. No one has explained why it is important. You certainly haven’t. You say “it’s important because it’s important.”

The latter is important because it informs why we had a Civil Rights movement and how Jim Crow was addressed. Lynchings weren’t isolated crimes - there were a shadow vigilante system designed to continent subjugate blacks. That’s important because of its impact on why the laws changed as well as the relationship between the federal government and state governments.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

So, in short, the idea that the constitution will be amended to allow for a dictatorship is some Buggy Bunny level tin hat territory. [/quote]

I wanna believe you but the specter of nuclear war via a rogue state or terrorist organization causes me to speculate it could occur more easily than you or I may think.

Chaos can produce great wonders.[/quote]

My not so educated guess would be that a nuclear war would equal no more America as we know it; therefore, no more constitution.

If one person seizes power in the America we know, I doubt it will be through an amendment.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

I’m sick of your pathetic little superiority games. You’re a joke. Don’t you know this? I thought you considered yourself educated?[/quote]

Coming as it does from a guy who is defending an open white supremacist and his white supremacist propaganda operation, I take this to be a thorough compliment.

[quote]
I cited that book which argues indentured servitude was the same as slavery. That’s a point I made earlier. [/quote]

I know what it argues because I’ve read it. I suspect you haven’t. It doesn’t remotely argue the ahistorical nonsense you’re trying to push. Try and prove me wrong: cite the pages that evidence your claims. I’ll wait.

[quote]
And my initial point, the one you don’t know because of your subpar education on these matters, is that “slaves” - not indentured servants; but “slaves” - chattel shipped in hulks and sold in auction; bred in slave breeding enterprises; their children born into slavery. I don’t have any more “links” for you. Try reading a history book.

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/27/1265498/-The-slaves-that-time-forgot[/quote]

I didn’t ask for “links,” I asked for evidence. Reputable evidence, not a link to Daily Fucking Kos. Or is this your new thing – to egregiously misunderstand history and then run off when you’re told to cite your ahistorical claims.

I’ll go ahead and wait.[/quote]

I don’t think there’s any reason for me to continue hanging around here. Nice talking to you.

Push, enough. I explained why I don’t think it is relevant. And it’s not - not to the larger story. No need to repeat myself.

But you haven’t said why it is important to cover aspects of non-whites owning slaves. Why is it? It’s relevant if you are truly trying to cover all aspects of slavery, in the event you wanted to write a dissertation or book on it. But in a high school American history class? Why should it be covered in the depth you claim it needs to be?

And as far as the trash talking - give it up. You’ve been schooled on these threads to the point you should owe tuition. Just answer the questions and advance the ball. No dodges and sidestepping

Sidenote: I feel like Irish people would make really shitty slaves in the tropics… I’ve seen how Irish people “tan”.

Wait, now I am getting it. After a quick Google search, I am learning that the “white/Irish slavery” movement - not acknowledgment of its existence, which is an historical fact, but the crusade to push it as an important topic which has unjustly been covered up - is a popular new (ish) theme among the supremacist, anti-government, separatist types. I am going to keep reading.

Which is not to say everyone in support of learning more about it is a Stormfronter, but this is helpful in terms of learning why some are so into it.

So, the “why does it matter?” question seems to have at least one - very disgusting - answer.