Louisiana Lawmaker Forced to Clarify There Was No ‘Good’ in Slavery

[JasperL]

Pamak said:

I said:

I was referring mostly to the postbellum situation.

LOL, and in another post you say, "I think that in some ways I might be able to state, with truth on my side, that Southern slave-culture...." You also referenced a book that talks about the lives of blacks in the north through 1860. If you don't want to defend your claim, fine, but being dishonest about the argument you made is really sad.

Besides, if you're referring to the postbellum situation of blacks in the south versus much of the rest of the country, the claim is even harder to defend.

 

[pamak]

LOL, and in another post you say, "I think that in some ways I might be able to state, with truth on my side, that Southern slave-culture...." You also referenced a book that talks about the lives of blacks in the north through 1860. If you don't want to defend your claim, fine, but being dishonest about the argument you made is really sad.

Besides, if you're referring to the postbellum situation of blacks in the south versus much of the rest of the country, the claim is even harder to defend.

Pamak said:

I said:

I was referring mostly to the postbellum situation.

Indeed, she cannot defend the postbellum situation either. She never explained how the existence of FORMAL Southern institutions which OPENLY validated the category of second class citizens is worse than the existence of PRIVATE citizens in the North who were white supremacists.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

so I don't know why you're telling me that some others might have made some argument when it's not one I have made.

Because, my blessèd friend, my platform of concern and interest has nothing to do with you. I am speaking about larger things.

In relation to a great deal written in this thread I direct my commentary. Hardly at all to you.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

LOL, and in another post you say, "I think that in some ways I might be able to state, with truth on my side, that Southern slave-culture...." You also referenced a book that talks about the lives of blacks in the north through 1860. If you don't want to defend your claim, fine, but being dishonest about the argument you made is really sad.

Then you need to include the *sad* emotions. Like I said to Fight The Power (who ::: ¡waves! ::: is taking a short break) when referencing really sad things:



I also meant Southern slave culture to include the postbellum period. The culture generally.

I don’t want to defend my claim any more than I have. You are free to keep going on about it though.

And you are free to characterize my argument as dishonest if you wish. But it doesn’t make it so.

It is true the book cuts off at 1860. But the attitudes did not cut off.

 

[Ouroboros]

Nope, I’m talking about the Confederate flag waving Conservatives who sob about BLM.

Same basic question: who are the people slaughtered in your metaphor? Still “all black men,” right?

And even when the Wolf doesn’t kill anyone, he’s still not a phony threat if he’s damaged private property. I forget what imbecile claimed that insurance would take care of everything, but she was doing what you’re doing here: trying to minimize criminal behavior because it supposedly serves some vague liberal cause.

 

[Ouroboros]

Of course there were white supremacists there and everywhere else. This does not mean thought that they are in the same level with the white supremacists in the South who were to maintain slavery.

But did the North oppose slavery because it was immoral, or because impeding slavery was a useful method for reducing the Congressional power of the South?

If slavery had been an institution of immense profitability in the North, would Northerners have been in such a rush to abolish that institution?

 

[Ouroboros]

And what makes Cannon a BLM member instead of an opportunist who came out to get some profit for the unrest?


Your side was doing the same thing when some members of the Black Panthers were convicted of crime. You were just using it as an excuse to discredit the civil rights movement, includin MLK. And because you forgot, about half of the Americans at the time did not have a favorite opinion of MLK

Huey P. Newton Trial: 1968 | Encyclopedia.com

Huey P. Newton Trial: 1968 Defendant: Huey P. NewtonCrimes Charged: First-degree murder, felonious assault, and kidnappingChief Defense Lawyer: Charles R. Source for information on Huey P. Newton Trial: 1968: Great American Trials dictionary.

www.encyclopedia.com

Just before dawn on October 28, 1967, Oakland police Officer John Frey radioed that he was about to stop a "known Black Panther vehicle," a van occupied by two men. A second officer, Herbert Heanes arrived on the scene. Minutes later, officers responding to a distress call found Frey bleeding to death and Heanes slumped in his car, seriously wounded. Police found Huey Newton at a nearby hospital with a bullet wound in his abdomen.

Newton was charged with murdering Frey, assaulting Heanes, and kidnapping a man whose car was commandeered for the dash to the hospital.

Verdict: Guilty of voluntary manslaughter; not guilty of felonious assault; kidnapping charge dismissed
Sentences: 2-15 years

Martin Luther King Jr.: Revered More After Death Than Before

Martin Luther King Jr. was among the most admired people of the 20th century when Americans looked back over the 100 years between 1900 and 1999, but was much less revered in the years before his assassination in April 1968. King had a more negative than positive rating in 1966, and did not...

news.gallup.com

In 1963, King had a 41% positive and a 37% negative rating; in 1964, it was 43% positive and 39% negative; in 1965, his rating was 45% positive and 45% negative; and in 1966 -- the last Gallup measure of King using this scalometer procedure -- it was 32% positive and 63% negative.

Conservative cucks pretended way after MLK's deaths that they were supporting MLK all along during his fight

I don’t know how many dozens of conservatives you think swore belated fealty to the memory of MLK, but it doesn’t prove in the least that modern conservative reactions to BLM are comparable. Sixties conservatives were interested in maintaining their conservative status quo. Modern conservatives are opposing a liberal status quo which, in contrast to the example of MLK, has become tainted with reverse racism, a racism that, for example, instantly reads all blacks totally innocent in altercations with the police, no matter what the black person may have done.

 

[Tigerace117]

Same basic question: who are the people slaughtered in your metaphor? Still “all black men,” right?

And even when the Wolf doesn’t kill anyone, he’s still not a phony threat if he’s damaged private property. I forget what imbecile claimed that insurance would take care of everything, but she was doing what you’re doing here: trying to minimize criminal behavior because it supposedly serves some vague liberal cause.

The African American communities who have suffered from numerous terrorist attack at the hands of Confederate flag waving Conservatives.

I’ll let you in a little secret bud— sobbing over “property damage” while ignoring or justifying murders committed by thugs in unform is pathetic. Nobody cares about “property damage” when other Derek Chauvins are running around out there.

Conservatives wet their pants over MLK’s “criminal behavior” as well. It just proves my point— there is NO form of protest BLM could do that would be acceptable to Trump supporters, so there’s no reason to worry about appeasing you lot.

 

[Ouroboros]

@Ouroboros

And a photo for those who forgot about the damage and looting that were present even in the civil rights era

1964: Civil Rights Battles

www.theatlantic.com

This view looking west from 15th Street on Columbia Ave. shows Main Street was involved in rioting in the predominantly black area of North Philadelphia during the previous night and continuing into August 29, 1964. At left, firemen clear smoldering rubble from wrecked store. Demonstrators, bystanders and police line street in background. Looting was widespread and damage heavy. At least 50 persons were injured including 27 policemen.

Encyclopedia of Greater Philadelphia | Columbia Avenue Riot

On Friday, August 28, 1964, a scuffle with police at the busy intersection of Twenty-Second Street and Columbia Avenue sparked a three-day riot involving hundreds of North Philadelphians hurling bottles and bricks at police and looting stores. With the Columbia Avenue Riot, Philadelphia joined six other cities, including Jersey City, Paterson, and Elizabeth, New Jersey, that erupted in African American protest during July and August 1964. Similar actions in hundreds of other cities followed by 1968.

Every mass movement has moments when some radicals or opportunists take advantage of the situation. Conservatives who are not capable of understanding the above are the types of conservatives who would use the same logic to oppose the civil rights movement and MLK's effort to orgganize protests which sometimes went out of control.

The essential difference that you paper over is that MLK led protests against demonstrable civil injustices, the least being keeping blacks out of restaurants. He had a rational plan for correcting those injustices. BLM has no plan beyond idiocy like defunding the police, and they care only about the appearance of injustice, as we clearly saw in Ferguson.

 

[Ouroboros]

The African American communities who have suffered from numerous terrorist attack at the hands of Confederate flag waving Conservatives.

I’ll let you in a little secret bud— sobbing over “property damage” while ignoring or justifying murders committed by thugs in unform is pathetic. Nobody cares about “property damage” when other Derek Chauvins are running around out there.

Conservatives wet their pants over MLK’s “criminal behavior” as well. It just proves my point— there is NO form of protest BLM could do that would be acceptable to Trump supporters, so there’s no reason to worry about appeasing you lot.

Right, you don’t care about property damage because it’s not your property. Typical liberal; one who can never accept the proposition that if you don’t stop rioters from attacking property, they have no reason to withhold attacks on people if the mood strikes them. The police make bad calls at times, but they’re a necessary evil needed to reign the far greater evil of generalized human aggression.

But I can see you will defend BLM’s racism no matter what, because you presumably think it puts marginalized people in the catbird seat. Tell me, do you also explain away the assaults on Jews by pro Palestinian liberals? Or do the Jews only matter when they’re attacked by white supremacists?

 

[JasperL]

Because, my blessèd friend, my platform of concern and interest has nothing to do with you. I am speaking about larger things.

In relation to a great deal written in this thread I direct my commentary. Hardly at all to you.

It's fascinating how many excuses you have come up with to not respond to challenges to your views. It's an art form. Here you took what was a throwaway part of my comment, and ignored the rest, because you don't have the intellectual honesty or ability to respond to challenges. It's always this way with the 'alt-right' or 'racially aware' or whatever you call yourself crowd. It's a stupid ideology and it runs skin deep. That's why these debates are actually pretty entertaining. Like shooting fish in a barrel. Just let you guys talk long enough and the intellectual rot in the belief system becomes apparent to everyone.

FWIW, here's the main part of my comment, that you ignored entirely of course to tell my why you won't or can't respond.

"I challenge white supremacy/nationalism/etc. because I love this area and many of the people and those defending slavery and Jim Crow are doing this area and its people no favors. We have in this area largely REJECTED those beliefs. That's a good thing. I don't need or want you or anyone else making stupid excuses for the evils done in the name of a malevolent ideology that dominated the south for far too long. I don't want monuments to that ideology, and confederate monuments were erected for that purpose. Those beliefs celebrated by those monuments are not my beliefs or those of the large majority in my state or this region.

And I addressed this claim that there is a war on whiteness, which you ignored, of course. If you'd like to address my earlier point, do it. I won't repeat what I've already said and you ignored as per usual. I've pointed out the practical reasons most of us oppose white supremacy or whatever benign term, such as racial awareness, you want to assign to that general belief system. Also ignored."

 

[Tigerace117]

Right, you don’t care about property damage because it’s not your property. Typical liberal; one who can never accept the proposition that if you don’t stop rioters from attacking property, they have no reason to withhold attacks on people if the mood strikes them. The police make bad calls at times, but they’re a necessary evil needed to reign the far greater evil of generalized human aggression.

But I can see you will defend BLM’s racism no matter what, because you presumably think it puts marginalized people in the catbird seat. Tell me, do you also explain away the assaults on Jews by pro Palestinian liberals? Or do the Jews only matter when they’re attacked by white supremacists?

I don’t care about property damage because it’s FAR less important than human life.....something you lot can’t seem to wrap your heads around. Typical conservative, so busy hysterically sobbing about imaginary communists that you can’t figure out what’s actually going on.

Then they should stop throwing tantrums over being held accountable.....but they won’t, because policing in America is broken at a fundamental level.

Conservatives will just keep on waving their Confederate flags and shrieking about how awful holding cops accountable is.....and keep on wondering why minorities largely won’t vote for them.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

which you ignored, of course

You'll get nowhere with me with your belligerant, demanding attitude. I really do not like it. If you correct this we may be able to progress. You do not grasp that one of the main reasons I do not respond to you, when you wish and in the manner your wish, is because I see your approach as lacking integrity.

It's fascinating how many excuses you have come up with to not respond to challenges to your views.

If you are fascinated and enjoy your fascination that is a good thing, no?

I choose to write about those things that concern me and interest me. I already wrote out my views in various posts. I do not feel a need to reiterate what I already said! If you disagree, fine. But your manner of harping on it makes no sense.

I stand behind everything I have said so far. I have stated and restated what I think and why.

Write you own free-standing independent essays on what you think and why.

I read everything that is written.

 

[Tigerace117]

You'll get nowhere with me with your belligerant, demanding attitude. I really do not like it. If you correct this we may be able to progress. You do not grasp that one of the main reasons I do not respond to you, when you wish and in the manner your wish, is because I see your approach as lacking integrity.

In other words, you realize you can’t actually defend your argument....hence the constant word salad and frantically dancing around in a desperate attempt to avoid ever even coming close to anything recognizable as a point.

 

[Ouroboros]

I've read some of both, and what you and they call an "attack on whiteness" is an attack on white supremacy/nationalism. Just for example, people now distancing themselves from Confederate monuments and the Confederate flag aren't attacking "whiteness" but white supremacist traitors who fought a civil war to protect slavery. The confederate flag simply was the banner of white supremacists in the south protesting attacks on Jim Crow well into my lifetime. "We" are not defined by them. as white people or a country. The attacks are simply saying just that, that we do not respect the values those monuments and the flag were intended to celebrate, and so they shouldn't be celebrated in the public square in 2021, just as they were rejected by large swaths of the country in those men's era, and much of the 'white' world at that time.

Of course those guys basically agree with the white supremacists, and might argue that 'state' mandated segregation is unwise, but that certainly it's fine if an individual restaurant owner or anyone else put a "whites only" sign on the door, and used the state to protect his rights to keep blacks out. So they agree with the sentiment, if not the execution. The 'attack on whiteness' is just an attack on their 'racialist' ideas, their 'race awareness' and what it means in real life. They don't like their ideas challenged, and so try to broaden attacks on them and THEIR ideas, rejected by most whites, to something it's not, which is an attack on being 'white.'

If fanatics were only attacking Confederate statues, one might credence that they were objecting to white supremacy rather than whiteness.

Those that attack statues of such figures as Matthias Baldwin and various Union soldiers, as well as the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, disprove that theory conclusively.

 

[Ouroboros]

I don’t care about property damage because it’s FAR less important than human life.....something you lot can’t seem to wrap your heads around. Typical conservative, so busy hysterically sobbing about imaginary communists that you can’t figure out what’s actually going on.

Then they should stop throwing tantrums over being held accountable.....but they won’t, because policing in America is broken at a fundamental level.

Conservatives will just keep on waving their Confederate flags and shrieking about how awful holding cops accountable is.....and keep on wondering why minorities largely won’t vote for them.

Thanks for admitting that you not only don’t care about property damage, but any and all collateral damage.

 

[Tigerace117]

Thanks for admitting that you not only don’t care about property damage, but any and all collateral damage.

You can keep wetting your pants over broken windows while everyone else focuses on the important stuff bud.

 

[JasperL]

I also meant Southern slave culture to include the postbellum period. The culture generally.

I don’t want to defend my claim any more than I have. You are free to keep going on about it though.

And you are free to characterize my argument as dishonest if you wish. But it doesn’t make it so.

It is true the book cuts off at 1860. But the attitudes did not cut off.

That's just total nonsense and pretty darn funny. If you meant the postbellum period in both the north and south, through when? 1870? 1880? 1900? 1940? 1960? Through today? And how does a book written about the lives of blacks through 1860 support your claims about how the north treated blacks decades post Civil War, presumably? It doesn't of course, and much changed everywhere with the passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments, so your original claim about the extent of segregation in the north, if you meant postbellum, is just complete nonsense on stilts, indefensible. Also indefensible is any claim that blacks were in any 'ways' treated worse in the north post civil war than the Jim Crow south.

 

[JasperL]

You'll get nowhere with me with your belligerant, demanding attitude. I really do not like it. If you correct this we may be able to progress. You do not grasp that one of the main reasons I do not respond to you, when you wish and in the manner your wish, is because I see your approach as lacking integrity.

That's funny. It's a new insult, which is good I guess! Creative!! But how is it a lack of 'integrity' to ask you to defend your claims, then pointing out when you AGAIN, for the 100th time in the thread, failed to do so? Repeatedly, while snipping comments out of all context and responding to irrelevant parts of it to ignore the clear point of the post?

If you are fascinated and enjoy your fascination that is a good thing, no?

I choose to write about those things that concern me and interest me. I already wrote out my views in various posts. I do not feel a need to reiterate what I already said! If you disagree, fine. But your manner of harping on it makes no sense.

I stand behind everything I have said so far. I have stated and restated what I think and why.

Restating your assertions is a long, long way from defending or explaining them. I agree, you're excellent as asserting all kinds of nonsense, and incapable of a coherent defense of many of them.

Write you own free-standing independent essays on what you think and why.

I read everything that is written.

I'm not here to lecture anyone. No one cares to be lectured to. We're here for discussion and debate. It's there in the title. If you want to lecture, try out for AmRen or something. They'll be more receptive I imagine to claims about 'war on whiteness' and the moral superiority of the southern slavers.

 

[JasperL]

If fanatics were only attacking Confederate statues, one might credence that they were objecting to white supremacy rather than whiteness.

Those that attack statues of such figures as Matthias Baldwin and various Union soldiers, as well as the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, disprove that theory conclusively.

And if fanatics were only whining about the attacks on those others, they wouldn't be defending white supremacy. Those that defend any effort to remove statues of dead traitors and white supremacists prove conclusively they are defending those values of white supremacy and those that fought for slavery.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

through when?

You are launching into time-wasting efforts. If this serves you keep on with it. My comments were reasonable and everything I wished to say about them I said. I simply do not want to keep going over this with you. Can I make that any clearer? You are free (of course) to characterize what I write in any way you wish.

In the comment I made to Pamak I had in mind the period of time immediately after the ending of hostilities. And what I said, as you know, is that *in some ways* life would have been more difficult for a given Black in the North than in the South.

And how does a book written about the lives of blacks through 1860 support your claims about how the North treated blacks decades post Civil War, presumably?

It follows logically that if the treatment outlined in Litvak's book was common that it would not simply end all on the sudden. So, I drew the conclusion that it likely continued.

Can I go now?

I'm not here to lecture anyone. No one cares to be lectured to. We're here for discussion and debate. It's there in the title. If you want to lecture, try out for AmRen or something. They'll be more receptive I imagine to claims about 'war on whiteness' and the moral superiority of the southern slavers.

Here is what I think on this topic. I notice so much unproductive bickering and sham-conversation on nearly every thread of this forum. I personally have concluded that when one is called to *debate* it more often than not is just an invitation to get down into that sort of mud in threads that go on & on & on in the same vein. Similar to what you are doing here. Your reasons are your own of course, I cannot divine them, but I gather, I intuit, that they are psychological. This means that you have psychological reasons for *debating* and *arguing* in non-productive ways.

I reject this absolutely.

So what I choose to do instead is to engage with the exchange of views, perspectives, and personal opinions through the *essay form*. I write out what I think, what I perceive, what I believe to be true (or possible) in the essay form. You can read what I think if you want. You can also say (as some do!) tl;dr and speak of *walls of text* and *word-salads*. You are free to do this!

I would rather that you avoid the psychological mire though and that you choose to write out your own ideas -- in direct response or only in relation to -- so that I can read and understand your perspectives. For my part I choose to avoid "locking horns" with people who for their own reasons seem to seek and perhaps need that level of interaction.

It does nothing for me.

Now dear Fight the Power is a bit different. He is totally *hooked* into his psychological resentment and yet he has provided me with days and days and weeks and weeks of material that inspired my response.

You and TigerAce, I regret to say, do not provide much material that I wish to respond to. I respect your-singular ideas though and hope that you will continue to express your views. But I also hope in *free-standing and independent* essays. In this sense I am here to be lectured. I seek that sort of discourse. I value it. And when I encounter people and ideas that seem truthful, it really helps me. That is of course why I read as widely as possible.

Can I make this any more clear?

 

[Ouroboros]

You can keep wetting your pants over broken windows while everyone else focuses on the important stuff bud.

A burned court house in Portland might register as more than a broken window to any citizen actually concerned with justice.

 

[Ouroboros]

And if fanatics were only whining about the attacks on those others, they wouldn't be defending white supremacy. Those that defend any effort to remove statues of dead traitors and white supremacists prove conclusively they are defending those values of white supremacy and those that fought for slavery.

More tedious whataboutism, showing your inability to confront the realities of Mad Lib reverse racism, or even to defend your own argument using the terms you specified.

 

[JasperL]

You are launching into time-wasting efforts. If this serves you keep on with it. My comments were reasonable and everything I wished to say about them I said. I simply do not want to keep going over this with you. Can I make that any clearer? You are free (of course) to characterize what I write in any way you wish.

In the comment I made to Pamak I had in mind the period of time immediately after the ending of hostilities. And what I said, as you know, is that *in some ways* life would have been more difficult for a given Black in the North than in the South.

But we weren't talking about how in some ways life would have been more difficult for a black person, but the ethical or moral treatment of blacks by whites. Those are different. If you're as smart as you claim this is obvious to you.

Life is in 'some ways' harder for a working person than a prisoner, who no longer has to work and pay bills and worry about food. So is this a benefit of prisons and lifetime sentences, that also require their kids to serve life sentences, and their kids? It is by your reckoning. Good argument. Can you develop this theory a bit further for the slow among us?

It follows logically that if the treatment outlined in Litvak's book was common that it would not simply end all on the sudden. So, I drew the conclusion that it likely continued.

Can I go now?

Do what you want, but no one cites a book ending in 1860 to support assertions 'mainly' about how blacks were treated a decade later, or refers to 'slave culture' to mainly talk about the period after there were no longer any slaves, because the south lost the war and had the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments shoved down their throats as a cost of losing.

Here is what I think on this topic.

I don't much care, if you're not willing to engage in a discussion. That's just another several thousand characters explaining why you can't or won't defend your ideas, and blaming your inability to do so on the rest of us, your inferiors, who aren't worth the effort, because we just cannot grasp the brilliance in those ideas. We've seen this movie 100 times in the thread. There's always an excuse.

 

[Ouroboros]

You are launching into time-wasting efforts. If this serves you keep on with it. My comments were reasonable and everything I wished to say about them I said. I simply do not want to keep going over this with you. Can I make that any clearer? You are free (of course) to characterize what I write in any way you wish.

In the comment I made to Pamak I had in mind the period of time immediately after the ending of hostilities. And what I said, as you know, is that *in some ways* life would have been more difficult for a given Black in the North than in the South.

It follows logically that if the treatment outlined in Litvak's book was common that it would not simply end all on the sudden. So, I drew the conclusion that it likely continued.

Can I go now?

Here is what I think on this topic. I notice so much unproductive bickering and sham-conversation on nearly every thread of this forum. I personally have concluded that when one is called to *debate* it more often than not is just an invitation to get down into that sort of mud in threads that go on & on & on in the same vein. Similar to what you are doing here. Your reasons are your own of course, I cannot divine them, but I gather, I intuit, that they are psychological. This means that you have psychological reasons for *debating* and *arguing* in non-productive ways.

I reject this absolutely.

So what I choose to do instead is to engage with the exchange of views, perspectives, and personal opinions through the *essay form*. I write out what I think, what I perceive, what I believe to be true (or possible) in the essay form. You can read what I think if you want. You can also say (as some do!) tl;dr and speak of *walls of text* and *word-salads*. You are free to do this!

I would rather that you avoid the psychological mire though and that you choose to write out your own ideas -- in direct response or only in relation to -- so that I can read and understand your perspectives. For my part I choose to avoid "locking horns" with people who for their own reasons seem to seek and perhaps need that level of interaction.

It does nothing for me.

Now dear Fight the Power is a bit different. He is totally *hooked* into his psychological resentment and yet he has provided me with days and days and weeks and weeks of material that inspired my response.

You and TigerAce, I regret to say, do not provide much material that I wish to respond to. I respect your-singular ideas though and hope that you will continue to express your views. But I also hope in *free-standing and independent* essays. In this sense I am here to be lectured. I seek that sort of discourse. I value it. And when I encounter people and ideas that seem truthful, it really helps me. That is of course why I read as widely as possible.

Can I make this any more clear?

As someone also given to long essays, though not so much on this forum, I can sympathize with your orientation. That said, the posts between you and the Debator were so long that I tended to skip them and go after the little fish.

So when I pose this question, you may feel you’ve already answered it, and I will respect that.

Given that in every subculture there are troublemakers who sow division on the base of subcultural preferences, what if any strategies might be pursued by citizens who want to stress “the ties that bind” the whole culture?