Okay, if we do have another constitutional convention, we must determine the root causes of slavery and make sure we write some sort of amendment as to how to teach it in schools.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
This was the relevant [/quote]
Lost your email. If you still have mine, would love for you to reach out. Quick question, I promise.
[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]
Cromwell did no such thing.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
This was the relevant [/quote]
Lost your email. If you still have mine, would love for you to reach out. Quick question, I promise. [/quote]
Happy to talk man, anytime. I believe I lost access to that old account though lol, so just shoot me an email at smh.23.public at Gmail (sadly, this is an account I set up in order to correspond with Doc S last summer). Lookin forward to it.
[quote] pushharder wrote:
You simply can’t win this argument, TB. Lick your wounds and try again on some other subject.
That’s it. Period. The end.[/quote]
Sorry, Push - I don’t buy that, and no one else reason does either. Just worthless bluster.
We can go back and forth on the academics on what should be included (or not) in a history class, but we’ve been through it and your justification - finally provided after trying to avoid an explanation for some time - doesn’t meant up. It doesn’t matter how much you huff and puff about “victory”, you just didn’t make your case. Not in my view. Others can speak for themselves, of course.
But that is really beside the point, since the point - from your perspective - isn’t about the proper scope of the academic scope of a class. No, this is all driven by your perceived injustice done to whites and the need to inject tangential information into a class to correct this injustice. You’ve just tried to cloak it in a feigned objective argument about what a disinterested history of American slavery should be.
You didn’t want to say as much, which is why you tried to avoid the explanation. But it was a matter of time, and you fessed up.
Honestly, for pages I really wondered why is this issue so important to those espousing it. It didn’t add up. If a history teacher who never taught about unconventional slave relationships told me tomorrow she was going to start adding it to the curriculum, I would think that was fine and wouldn’t be moved one way or the other. Realizing full well nobody is that fired up over the exclusion of some tangential historical information into a history class, something didn’t make sense.
Now we all know where this crusade comes from. And it’s embarrassing.
[quote][quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
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]
-What makes the latter important and the former not?
-What nasty something are you getting a whiff of in my posts?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote] pushharder wrote:
You simply can’t win this argument, TB. Lick your wounds and try again on some other subject.
That’s it. Period. The end.[/quote]
Sorry, Push - I don’t buy that, and no one else reason does either. Just worthless bluster.
We can go back and forth on the academics on what should be included (or not) in a history class, but we’ve been through it and your justification - finally provided after trying to avoid an explanation for some time - doesn’t meant up. It doesn’t matter how much you huff and puff about “victory”, you just didn’t make your case. Not in my view. Others can speak for themselves, of course.
But that is really beside the point, since the point - from your perspective - isn’t about the proper scope of the academic scope of a class. No, this is all driven by your perceived injustice done to whites and the need to inject tangential information into a class to correct this injustice. You’ve just tried to cloak it in a feigned objective argument about what a disinterested history of American slavery should be.
You didn’t want to say as much, which is why you tried to avoid the explanation. But it was a matter of time, and you fessed up.
Honestly, for pages I really wondered why is this issue so important to those espousing it. It didn’t add up. If a history teacher who never taught about unconventional slave relationships told me tomorrow she was going to start adding it to the curriculum, I would think that was fine and wouldn’t be moved one way or the other. Realizing full well nobody is that fired up over the exclusion of some tangential historical information into a history class, something didn’t make sense.
Now we all know where this crusade comes from. And it’s embarrassing.
[/quote]
I don’t normally jump in for such reasons, but I concur. I’ve been observing this thread from afar for a bit now, and you’re absolutely right that Push has not satisfactorily advanced his argument or made any sort of case rooted in logic. Quite frankly, the severity with which you have eviscerated Push’s stance is shocking.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
-What nasty something are you getting a whiff of in my posts?[/quote]
Ooooh that smell.
Can’t you smell that smell?
Ooooh that smell…
The smell of RAAAAAACISSSSSSMMMMMM surrounds you!!!
Case closed.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’m not sure that TB’s all that comforted that T-Nation’s class clown and resident hard drug addict, Pink Tutu Bert, is on his side. That, if anything, may give him pause and make him reconsider his position.
With that in mind, thanks for chiming in, Bert.[/quote]
King of the ad hominem attack. Not inherently fallacious, but in your hands, it always is.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
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]
Wait no more.
“Dr William Petty, Physician-General to Cromwell’s Army, estimated that as many as 100,000 Irish men, women and children were transported to the colonies in the West Indies and in North America as slaves.”
http://www.ewtn.com/library/HUMANITY/SLAVES.TXT
http://www.yale.edu/glc/tangledroots/Barbadosed.htm
I don’t believe any of these sources could even be remotely labeled as “white supremacist.”
[/quote]
But they find a way to miss their mark in a number of other ways. First, many of them aren’t credible. I don’t know who most of those people are (or, for that matter, what they do), but those certainly aren’t reputable and proper histories. Most are poorly sourced or not sourced at all. One appears to be a post on a forum by a guy who was interested in genealogy. Another comes from the newsletter of “The American Ireland Education Foundation,” which appears to have been a pro-Irish, pre-Belfast-Agreement propaganda organization. Most of what they’re saying comes from a couple of books – books I’ve read – that, unfortunately for them, never amounted to the arguments they’re making.
Take the Yale page, which, because of the name, we will assume is at least not operated by an insurance salesman with an amateur interest in history – or, worse, an Irish propagandist.
– First, we see that record-keeping is tough, and it is difficult for a trained historian to come up with a good estimate: “The number of Barbadosed Irish in not known and estimates vary widely, from a high of 60,000 to a low of 12,000.” Many of your other sources would have undoubtedly blared out 60,000 as if it were the word of Almighty God Himself. In reality, even the accounts of contemporaries tend to be wildly off, either because of incompetence or exaggeration.
– Most importantly, we see that “those who were barbadosed were sold as slaves or indentured servants.” Huh? How many were sold as the former, and how many as the latter? Or are we meant to assume that they were all sold as something in between slaves and indentured servants? The next point will go a long way toward clarifying for us.
– “They lived in slave conditions and had no control over the number of years they had to serve.” Ah. They lived in “slave conditions” – i.e. the same kind of miserable life lived by a slave…but not necessarily actual, heritable, lifetime chattel slavery. This is clear when we are told that they “had no control over the number of years they had to serve.” This is important. It gets at the difference between what we’re discussing here and the kind of slavery that Hollywood throws awards at. Sometimes, for these “white slaves,” it was a few years. Sometimes it was many more: the common punishment for a servant was an extension of his/her duration of servitude, and we all know that punishment for trivial or even invented errors is a fantastic tool for the oppressor. There were masters who trampled on contracts and were then protected by authorities. And there were servants who died before even getting the chance to find out whether their “employer” would honor his contract.
This is why I pressed SM for reputable evidence of lifetime heritable white chattel slavery at the size and scope he proposed – because he was trying to compare white and black “slaves,” and without those conditions having been met, there is no possible comparison. What is really happening here is this collection of linked strangers is, for the most part, fudging and blurring lines – arguing that because a loose and vague collection of white people in various states of misery had lives that were alternatively kinda like/a lot like/actually identical to the lives of black slaves, we can simply say that all of them were “slaves,” and then, as SM pretended, we can go ahead and say that all of them were chattel slaves and that all of their chattel slaveries were lifetime conditions which devolved upon progeny, down through the generations. And then we can choose an arbitrary period of time – “the first century” (light, relatively insignificant vis-a-vis the numerical onslaught that was coming) of the Atlantic trade, for some ridiculous reason – and voila, we have a revisionist history that makes white people feel better!
Problems arise, though, when someone – maybe someone who knows these things – begins to ask detailed questions. The whole thing comes crumbling down.
Edited.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
…It doesn’t matter how much you huff and puff about “victory”
[/quote]
The only reason I alluded to this is because it’s apparent that’s all you had in mind with your inane “Ignorance is Bliss” poppycock about how curricula in the US educational system need not cover any of what I mentioned.
You can only be trying to save face by digging in like you have. And your digging in must have everything to do with some kind of “victory” you wish to achieve.[/quote]
No, there is nothing on which to “save face”. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again - I am not emotionally invested in the exclusion of unconventional slave relationships in the basic American history course. I just think there is a logical, practical explanation as to why that is and had to spend the rest of my time explaining why it isn’t a big conspiracy against white people.
When asked why it was important, you finally responded:
So, you are within the camp that believes an injustice is occurring because white men are being singled out in the discussion of slavery. Duly noted.
I have no idea if you’ve never visited one of these crackpot sites - and I’ll take your word for it that you haven’t - but your posts and them look like a cut-and-paste of what they have to say about the same “injustice”. Even if unintentionally, these are your fellow travelers.
You’ve already conceded that unconventional slave relationships didn’t drive or inform the important events in American history - and they obviously did not - so there is no great injustice to providing little or non content on this aspect of history in a general survey class. If they include it, fine. If they don’t include it, that’s fine, too. That is the point.
No one is vehement that information about unconventional slave relationships be left out. We just are explaining why there is no grand conspiracy afoot to rob someone of a “true” education by doing so.
In short, your hollow buffaloing about “victory” and your tantrums aren’t doing what you hoped they would. Far from impressing, they are discrediting.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
If they include it, fine. If they don’t include it, that’s fine, too. That is the point.
[/quote]
The thing is, and maybe it’s where I live, or the fact it was decades (or so) after Push went through school, they do teach it. I remember distinctly the total, collective shock of the class when we were told there were black slave owners, and we spent a lot of time on the plights of the Irish, Asians, Italians and every other ethnic group that got shit on in this country’s history.
I mean the general theme was: “every group of immigrants, whether they came here through force or their own volition, put up with massive amounts of “you’re different, we hate you”. However, one group, Black people, faced an adversity unparalleled and this is what it was and did to that group of people…” so on and so forth.
Yes we spent more time on the later, as it’s implications and effects are much more residual today than the issues faced by say the Irish or Asians.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
If they include it, fine. If they don’t include it, that’s fine, too. That is the point.
[/quote]
The thing is, and maybe it’s where I live, or the fact it was decades (or so) after Push went through school, they do teach it. I remember distinctly the total, collective shock of the class when we were told there were black slave owners, and we spent a lot of time on the plights of the Irish, Asians, Italians and every other ethnic group that got shit on in this country’s history.
I mean the general theme was: “every group of immigrants, whether they came here through force or their own volition, put up with massive amounts of “you’re different, we hate you”. However, one group, Black people, faced an adversity unparalleled and this is what it was and did to that group of people…” so on and so forth.
Yes we spent more time on the later, as it’s implications and effects are much more residual today than the issues faced by say the Irish or Asians. [/quote]
Yes, and great point. This whole debate is based on taking NickViar’s claim - that it isn’t taught - at face value. I don’t even know if that is true, and the people who know best are people who most recently went to such a school.
Well, to be more precise, those who went to such a school and actually paid attention. 