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

[CaughtInThe]

Another dumb question, but because it’s loosely predicated on something I posted, I will answer that the answer is no

there you go guys. now you know who this person is.

 

[Master Debator]

there you go guys. now you know who this person is.

I'm pretty sure everyone knew already. They aren't exactly subtle.

 

[Ouroboros]

White wingers only seem to make the case that there isn't any racial component to shitty behavior when the discussion turns to slavery. Do you expect people to take you seriously with take? The people most likely to argue that certain groups of people are more prone to shitty behavior are the white wingers themselves.



I'm not a Christian and I couldn't give a shit about the Bibles inconsistencies but, driving the money lenders from the temple isn't something that leads me to believe that Jesus gave white Europeans a divine right to rape and pillage and enslave black people like @Alizia Tyler does.

I can’t respond to the confused last sentence of the first paragraph, so I’ll file it under “more self righteous twaddle.” You’re predictably wrong about saying conservatives don’t admit to racial elements to slavery; we just don’t fall for the dimwit rhetoric of claiming that’s all there was. Mad Libs warm their cold hearts by imagining that all Southern slaveholders were incarnations of The Red Skull; evil for the sake of evil. That means Libs don’t have to deal with complicated matters like economic considerations, or the irony that their rhetoric is identical to that of the anti Leftist Commie bashers of the fifties.

You criticized Christian civilization for supposedly not adhering to a code of ethics that you extrapolated from a partial reading of Christ’s teachings, and I noted that you didn’t know what you were talking about.

 

[Ouroboros]

Cause it’s our history that the two go together.

Why don’t you believe Mister Body competent to defend his own statement?

 

[Master Debator]

I can’t respond to the confused last sentence of the first paragraph, so I’ll file it under “more self righteous twaddle.” You’re predictably wrong about saying conservatives don’t admit to racial elements to slavery; we just don’t fall for the dimwit rhetoric of claiming that’s all there was. Mad Libs warm their cold hearts by imagining that all Southern slaveholders were incarnations of The Red Skull; evil for the sake of evil. That means Libs don’t have to deal with complicated matters like economic considerations, or the irony that their rhetoric is identical to that of the anti Leftist Commie bashers of the fifties.

You criticized Christian civilization for supposedly not adhering to a code of ethics that you extrapolated from a partial reading of Christ’s teachings, and I noted that you didn’t know what you were talking about.

Why do you think exploiting people for your own economic benefit makes you any better than if you were a mustache twirling bad guy? I don't understand the math you're trying to do there.

I didn't extrapolate anything other than I don't remember Jesus saying it was Christian to rape and pillage. Maybe you can find that gospel for me.

 

[Ouroboros]

You're an admitted Confederate idolater, in what way is your assessment removed from personal bias. You gave up that game already and you weren't very good at it to begin with. You accuse others of emotionalism but it's very obvious white supremacy is topic very near and dear to you.

Relevant and irrelevant aren't the same thing as civilized or uncivilized. The question is how are you defining the term? Are raping, murdering and slaving civilized behavior? That's a simple enough question and a pretty basic one devoid of any of specificity directed at any particular group of people like @Ouroboros was crying about earlier. The fact that you two are too scared to answer that question reveals the truth. White European societies might have been better organized and have better technology but they used that advantage to brutalize every other human society they came into contact with.

And you think the best way to do that is with an emotionally charged rant full of pejoratives and personal attacks?

In otherwords you're still trying to gather support for this white supremacist loser ideology. In more words you're still trying to build an army while we're kicking your teeth in, metaphorically of course. How's the recruitment effort going in white supremacist land?

Like a spoiled rich kid you think this country is your inheritance except daddy never left it to you in the will and because you're so spoiled and never actually had to work for anything you don't know what to do to get it back. Why would you think a majority of this country would give up universal suffrage for the sake of your entitled ass?

Because Americans decided to prioritize things other than the insecure feelings of white supremacists. Boo hoo.

YOU, complaining about pejoratives??

Like I’ve always said, Mad Libs talk tough until someone pricks their little egos, wherein “Boo hoo, you’re mean to me” is the first resort.

 

[Master Debator]

YOU, complaining about pejoratives??

Like I’ve always said, Mad Libs talk tough until someone pricks their little egos, wherein “Boo hoo, you’re mean to me” is the first resort.

I don't care about the pejoratives so much as I recognize that's all you got.

 

[Ouroboros]

If ending slavery didn't change anything, in what way did the North achieve their political aims?

By temporarily breaking the Southern power in Congress, the North had everything their own way for a time. For instance, because the Southern states seceded, it was easy for a North dominated Congress to pass the 1861 Morrill Tariff and thus institute a new level of protectionism for their constituents, the Northern industries.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Why don’t you believe Mister Body competent to defend his own statement?

I don’t depend on others’ competencies to form words. How you doin?

 

[Ouroboros]

I'm sure you think so but your arguments are filled with pejoratives and devoid of objective and reasoned replies. You could respond instead with counter arguments but once we move past your bold assertions it becomes evident that not much else exists and so you resort to name calling and vilification and the questioning of other posters intelligence but no actual objective counter points.

In everything I write? Sure, I have emotions, I'm only human after all. The difference between me and you is that my arguments don't rest on them. I have objective reasons for wanting to defeat your culture and it fills my heart to see us doing just that. Those are two things and you choose to only focus on the emotional.

No it can't because people have feelings and emotions and they are the basis for our beliefs in right and wrong and good and bad. Pretending as you don't have them doesn't make you seem more objective, it makes you seem weird. And before you make too much hay about my referencing morality to be clear I never said I didn't have morals, that would be akin to saying I have no emotions, what I've always maintained are that my emotions and my morality are subjective to me rather than objective to the universe.

I don't deny that there is vilification but I do deny there is vilification without cause. People don't vilify the South to vilify the South. They see the South as villains because they see slavery as vile and the South and their culture as villainous because they fought to preserve it. So which thing do you have a problem with? Do you have a problem with people seeing slavery as vile? Or do you have a problem with them associating the South with the villainy of slavery?

I do. And while I'm full of myself in many ways I'm just not narcissistic enough to think my beliefs are objectively right. Just subjectively right for me.

How do plan on academically explaining to people why their distaste for slavery and slavers is misplaced?

This is clearly all framing. You don't follow up with with facts. You are right and everyone is wrong and that is that. Except that isn't the case. No one here is obligated to take your word for it.

If you want to start making sense you could start by pointing out the distortions you claim I made. Are you prepared to an objective conversation about them?

I can’t tell if you actually believe your opening paragraph or not, but suffice to say it’s a lie either way. AT has been calm and objective from the first and you’ve been borderline abusive, stopping just short of breaking forum rules. I don’t mind if you want to argue without the gloves on, but it’s hilarious to see you call other posters white supremacists and then claim they’re “distorting” what you wrote.

 

[Ouroboros]

I don’t depend on others’ competencies to form words. How you doin?

You might try modeling your words on someone else so that you might succeed in saying something, unlikely as that is.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

You might try modeling your words on someone else so that you might succeed in saying something, unlikely as that is.

I did just say something, you responded to it as a matter of fact.

Your English is trash.

 

[Master Debator]

I can’t tell if you actually believe your opening paragraph or not, but suffice to say it’s a lie either way. AT has been calm and objective from the first and you’ve been borderline abusive, stopping just short of breaking forum rules. I don’t mind if you want to argue without the gloves on, but it’s hilarious to see you call other posters white supremacists and then claim they’re “distorting” what you wrote.

Like I said, I don't mind pejoratives but I'm am going to clown on you if that's all you got. AT has certainly calmly explained that slavery in the South was begnin and anyone who doesn't understand that simply isn't smart enough to grasp the truth in her statement, but calmly reciting ridiculous claims and then asserting that they are true doesn't make you objective.

 

[Ouroboros]

Uh......a metric ****ton of racist violence occurred across the South precisely because the North was far too lenient. Much less, in fact, than would have happened if we simply executed thugs like Forrest.

And if the DOJ had jailed the BLM leaders as the terrorist thugs they are, a lot fewer contemporary people would have escaped injuries and fatalities during the Summer if Hate.

But those assaults are OK with you, right, because they weren’t “white supremacists”

 

[Ouroboros]

I did just say something, you responded to it as a matter of fact.

Your English is trash.

Nope, you made a stupid comment with no basis in fact, so I pointed out that you had no business responding to someone else’s post just to jabber nonsense.

Not that I expected that to stop you.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Nope, you made a stupid comment with no basis in fact, so I pointed out that you had no business responding to someone else’s post just to jabber nonsense.

Not that I expected that to stop you.

See? You’re *still* responding.

And you think this country has no history of white supremacy being the foundation for populism. This is why we need CRT.

 

[j brown's body]

By temporarily breaking the Southern power in Congress, the North had everything their own way for a time. For instance, because the Southern states seceded, it was easy for a North dominated Congress to pass the 1861 Morrill Tariff and thus institute a new level of protectionism for their constituents, the Northern industries.

This is what you said earlier:

"...But the North didn't destroy slavery. They just let it get transformed into Jim Crow, which was far worse, being directed against legal citizens. And the North didn't do it out of any tender mercies toward the South. They practiced neglect because they didn't care about Black people once their political aims were accomplished."

The 1861 tratiff was well before Jim Crow. It was passed due to the absence of Southern votes because they walked out. The North didn't do anything. But the southerners were back in Congress through the Jim Crow era. Thus, your post is confusing.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Like I said, I don't mind pejoratives but I'm am going to clown on you if that's all you got. AT has certainly calmly explained that slavery in the South was benign and anyone who doesn't understand that simply isn't smart enough to grasp the truth in her statement, but calmly reciting ridiculous claims and then asserting that they are true doesn't make you objective.

". . . had benign elements". I wonder what force intervenes when you rephrase what I say and transform it into what you wish that I had said!

It is because I have done my research reading primary sources that I came to understand that some masters (that is the term used then) had genuine care and concern for the slaves they owned. That is very clear reading Jefferson's accounts. There are a hundred examples I could quote that would support what I say about *benign aspects*.

Is it being smart, as you imply, that keeps you from reading the primary sources? And if someone chose, deliberately, to remain in self-willed ignorance can that be ascribed to stupidity?

Many people who write on this forum -- you included -- seem to have largely sound minds and to be intelligent. So whenever I may have implied *stupidity* I really can't assert that that is the factor that determines willed not-seeing.

Pejoratives are quite fun actually. If it carried out artfully and with panache.

but calmly reciting ridiculous claims and then asserting that they are true doesn't make you objective.

What ridiculous claim in respect to my recent exposition about the real conditions of the South would you refer to?

What other ridiculous claim might you recall to my attention?

 

[Irredentist]

By temporarily breaking the Southern power in Congress, the North had everything their own way for a time. For instance, because the Southern states seceded, it was easy for a North dominated Congress to pass the 1861 Morrill Tariff and thus institute a new level of protectionism for their constituents, the Northern industries.

This conveniently ignores the fact that the primary political question under consideration in Congress prior to the civil war was the expansion of slavery.

 

[Master Debator]

". . . had benign elements". I wonder what force intervenes when you rephrase what I say and transform it into what you wish that I had said!

It is because I have done my research reading primary sources that I came to understand that some masters (that is the term used then) had genuine care and concern for the slaves they owned. That is very clear reading Jefferson's accounts. There are a hundred examples I could quote that would support what I say about *benign aspects*.

Is it being smart, as you imply, that keeps you from reading the primary sources? And if someone chose, deliberately, to remain in self-willed ignorance can that be ascribed to stupidity?

No, I think describing a institution you have to implement by force as begnin is stupid because I know the definition of the word begnin.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Of course I knew what you meant. White historians very rarely take any serious interest in African civilizations, because if they did, it would force them to reconsider their deep seated notions of inherent white cultural superiority.

But those white historians tend to notice many world-civilizations that were not *white* civilizations that were advanced and significant. While it is true that there is a certain chauvinism and self-centricity among pre-21st century anthropologists and sociologists, it is also true that there is a good deal of *idealistic inflation* that also has elements of *politically correct historiography* which becomes necessary so to countermand the observation of African primitiveness.

This humbled me in that regard . . .

 

[Alizia Tyler]

No, I think describing a institution you have to implement by force as begnin is stupid because I know the definition of the word begnin.

I believe you. The next step is spelling it correctly!

[Benign: from Old French benigne, from Latin benignus, from bene well + gignere to produce]

 

[Master Debator]

". . . had benign elements". I wonder what force intervenes when you rephrase what I say and transform it into what you wish that I had said!

It is because I have done my research reading primary sources that I came to understand that some masters (that is the term used then) had genuine care and concern for the slaves they owned. That is very clear reading Jefferson's accounts. There are a hundred examples I could quote that would support what I say about *benign aspects*.

Let's just cut to the chase Alizia. You and I have different values. We are never going to see eye to eye or agree on this. You're the type of person who thinks there's some sort of begnin aspect to slavery and rape because the rapers and slavers enjoyed the raping and slaving. That isn't a convincing argument for me and it never will be.

 

[Irredentist]

But those white historians tend to notice many world-civilizations that were not *white* civilizations that were advanced and significant. While it is true that there is a certain chauvinism and self-centricity among pre-21st century anthropologists and sociologists, it is also true that there is a good deal of *idealistic inflation* that also has elements of *politically correct historiography* which becomes necessary so to countermand the observation of African primitiveness.

This humbled me in that regard . . .

I would argue that most of the Ancient, Classic, and Medieval African civilizations, such as the Mali, Askum, Kush, Songhai, Ethiopians, etc., were not especially primitive compared to their contemporary counterparts in Europe and the Middle East.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Let's just cut to the chase Alizia. You and I have different values. We are never going to see eye to eye or agree on this. You're the type of person who thinks there's some sort of begnin aspect to slavery and rape because the rapers and slavers enjoyed the raping and slaving. That isn't a convincing argument for me and it never will be.

I can understand why you must say that. But I never said what you say I said.

This is an example of rephrasing. This is what you wish for me to say, or possibly what you imagine that I am saying, but in fact it is your own rewriting and refashioning. This is such a human, all to human thing. Just see it.

There were numerous benign aspects to the institution of slavery in the South. That kind of statement usually involves a comparison. And that is how I established it originally, way back when.