TRUMP SLAMS SMITHSONIAN FOR HARPING ON HOW ‘HOW BAD SLAVERY WAS’

[Along Came Jones]

My dudes... don't try to justify or downplay slavery... it was bad news bears, no matter who did it.

If you're referring to my recommendation for Reséndez's book, it certainly does not try to justify or downplay slavery. Indeed, he would agree, "it was bad news bears, no matter who did it."

At the Smithsonian's Musuem of the American Indian website Reséndez contributed an 8-page précis of the book. (PDF) What the book does is expand our conventional understanding of slavery and involuntary servitude in its various forms.

As for a First People legacy issue, one example is found at NPR's Descendants Of Native American Slaves In New Mexico Emerge From Obscurity (12/29/2016). Before reading Reséndez's book the genizaro were the enslaved/involuntary serving indigenous people I was most familiar with.

 

[coyote505]

Are you talking about Native Americans? I'm not being facetious. They're...not Indians. They never were. I did a doubletake when I saw the book title you linked. I was truly shocked for a second until I realized this person must mean Native Americans and not actual Indians.

I am already turned off, LOL. No thanks. If this guy doesn't even know Native Americans aren't Indian then his book is almost certainly a pile of shit.

Regardless of anthropology, most Native Americans, in everyday speech, refer to themselves as Indians. Many of the organizations and agencies dealing with their issues use the term Indian.

I'll worry about this anthropological issue when the NAACP changes its name to NAAAA.

In the mean time, I will continue referring to myself as a "Gringo", not a "Germano, Anglo, Celtic American".

 

[ModerationNow!]

You pointed out how your own link limited its calculation to the crops slaves picked directly and didnt account for the value of the slaves themselves or how the crops they produced fueled textile factories in the North? Where?

So you're admitting the evaluation of the value of slaves was incomplete and missing the value of the slaves themselves? Ok. Great. Love to see it.

I don't know that any has been done which is sort of a problem with your calculation, isn't it? I can't make White people and their institutions account for the cost of slavery, I can only point out the unwillingness to.

The hidden links between slavery and Wall St.

It's irrelevant to you and people like you who want to try to minimize how much slavery fueled the American economy.

Where did I say I didnt want museums or schools to teach people about how deplorable southern white democrats Confederates were or about their deplorable white trash culture? I said the opposite. This is just more frail pretending from another culture of soft whites.

It wasn't just southern Democrats. FDR was a racist. If it was just southern Democrats, then black civil rights would've passed in the 1800s! The Republicans tried to grant civil rights immediately after the Civil War, but Democrats opposed it for another century! The Dems referred to reps as "the radical Republicans" for wanting to grant civil rights. There were Dems who actually filibustered anti-lynching legislation in the 1960s!

Even when it was finally ratified in the 1960s, it only passed because more Republicans than democrats voted yes, despite the fact that there were actually more democrat legislators at that time! If the far left were consistent, they'd cancel the Democratic party for all that historical evil.

 

[ModerationNow!]

Regardless of anthropology, most Native Americans, in everyday speech, refer to themselves as Indians. Many of the organizations and agencies dealing with their issues use the term Indian.

I'll worry about this anthropological issue when the NAACP changes its name to NAAAA.

In the mean time, I will continue referring to myself as a "Gringo", not a "Germano, Anglo, Celtic American".

On sort of a different note, people in the 1700s & 1800s referred to lots of people and land as "Indian" or "Indies". I'm just shocked that they didn't refer to Chinese people as Indians, and South America as "The Great Southern Indies", and Antarctica as "Frozen Indies".

 

[Metric Mouse]

So why isn’t Haiti booming? That was basically ALL slaves until it became the world’s first black republic in 1804. It is what it is, which is a political and economic basket case. Let me guess: it’s the U.S.’ fault.

Geography.

Don't blame race; it's Geography

 

[ModerationNow!]

Then you should more than understand why there should be no place of honor for those who took up arms to defend Chattel Slavery.

I never said I support those who took up arms to defend slavery, so I don't know where that's coming from. I supported the Union army, despite being born in NC. Its overall leader was a Republican after all. But what I don't do is incessantly act as if slavery from 160+ years ago completely negates the legitimacy of the US as a country, as many activists on the left claim. When your country takes part in terrible things to other people, the best thing you can do to remedy it is to STOP doing those things, and grant the victims full rights. That's what we did.

If we refused to ever forgive a country(or political party) for doing terrible things in the distant past(when people were still 60-70 years away from owning cars), almost every country(as well as the Democratic party) would have to be dismantled.

 

[ModerationNow!]

Geography.

Don't blame race; it's Geography

Or perpetually corrupt leadership.

 

[Jezcoe]

I never said I support those who took up arms to defend slavery, so I don't know where that's coming from. I supported the Union army, despite being born in NC. Its overall leader was a Republican after all. But what I don't do is incessantly act as if slavery from 160+ years ago completely negates the legitimacy of the US as a country, as many activists on the left claim. When your country takes part in terrible things to other people, the best thing you can do to remedy it is to STOP doing those things, and grant the victims full rights. That's what we did.

If we refused to ever forgive a country(or political party) for doing terrible things in the distant past(when people were still 60-70 years away from owning cars), almost every country(as well as the Democratic party) would have to be dismantled.

You are reading waaaaay too much into my comments then.

 

[AZRWinger]

You pointed out how your own link limited its calculation to the crops slaves picked directly and didnt account for the value of the slaves themselves or how the crops they produced fueled textile factories in the North? Where?

So you're admitting the evaluation of the value of slaves was incomplete and missing the value of the slaves themselves? Ok. Great. Love to see it.

The topic is the contribution of slavery produced products to GNP. This calculation doesn't include double counting raw materials in finished goods, nor should it. The same is true of the value of any asset used to produce GNP, it's irrelevant to the calculation.

I don't know that any has been done which is sort of a problem with your calculation, isn't it? I can't make White people and their institutions account for the cost of slavery, I can only point out the unwillingness to.

The hidden links between slavery and Wall St.

It's irrelevant to you and people like you who want to try to minimize how much slavery fueled the American economy.

Pointing out the fallacy of inflating GNP isn't minimizing the economic contribution of slavery. Neither is it in any way a justification for slavery.

Where did I say I didnt want museums or schools to teach people about how deplorable southern white democrats Confederates were or about their deplorable white trash culture? I said the opposite. This is just more frail pretending from another culture of soft whites.

It's ironic that you condemn slavery while insisting the value of slaves be included as an economic contribution. Setting a dollar value on human life is classic Confederate Democrat rhetoric.

The soft frailty is with Democrats who insist their party's role in supporting slavery be ignored.

 

[Jagged]

It wasn't just southern Democrats. FDR was a racist. If it was just southern Democrats, then black civil rights would've passed in the 1800s! The Republicans tried to grant civil rights immediately after the Civil War, but Democrats opposed it for another century! The Dems referred to reps as "the radical Republicans" for wanting to grant civil rights. There were Dems who actually filibustered anti-lynching legislation in the 1960s!

Even when it was finally ratified in the 1960s, it only passed because more Republicans than democrats voted yes, despite the fact that there were actually more democrat legislators at that time! If the far left were consistent, they'd cancel the Democratic party for all that historical evil.

False.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act passed because enough members of both parties voted for it. And more Democrats voted for it than Republicans.

House:
Democrats: 152
Republicans: 137

Senate:
Democrats: 46
Republicans 27

There were a lot of Democrats who voted against it, but nearly everyone of them was in the south. And every Republican (12) in the south also voted against it.

It wasn't Democrats who voted against it, it was both parties in the south voting against it, but there were way more Democrats than Republicans. The south, who largely supported slavery, seceded from the nation to preserve slavery, tried codifying slavery into their Constitution, was still firmly racist for that vote in 1964. Whereas in the north, Republicans AND Democrats strongly supported the Civil Rights Act.

 

[Ahlevah]

Geography.

Don't blame race; it's Geography

I don’t think that’s it. Haiti shares an island with the Dominican Republic, yet the DR by almost any measure trounces Haiti (except for crime). The DR’s per capita GDP is about $10,000 versus Haiti’s $1,500. Haiti went from being the wealthiest colony in the America’s to being what Trump calls a “shithole country,” mostly due to inept government. You know you suck when your citizens leave by the hundreds of thousands the land of their birth governed for more than 200 years by other blacks to risk death in leaky, overcrowded boats on the open ocean in order to live in a country founded and run by racist white people.

 

[Jezcoe]

It's ironic that you condemn slavery while insisting the value of slaves be included as an economic contribution. Setting a dollar value on human life is classic Confederate Democrat rhetoric.

That makes no sense. The knowledge that the national economy was built on slavery is the only way to understand the full impact of it.

The soft frailty is with Democrats who insist their party's role in supporting slavery be ignored.

I tend to not vote for Democrats from the 1800’s.

They were pretty terrible.

 

[Master Debator]

It wasn't just southern Democrats. FDR was a racist. If it was just southern Democrats, then black civil rights would've passed in the 1800s! The Republicans tried to grant civil rights immediately after the Civil War, but Democrats opposed it for another century! The Dems referred to reps as "the radical Republicans" for wanting to grant civil rights. There were Dems who actually filibustered anti-lynching legislation in the 1960s!

No shit. There were also Republicans who opposed the passage of the civil rights and voting rights acts. I'm not here to absolve white American culture of any political stripe.

Even when it was finally ratified in the 1960s, it only passed because more Republicans than democrats voted yes, despite the fact that there were actually more democrat legislators at that time! If the far left were consistent, they'd cancel the Democratic party for all that historical evil.

Again, its Republican politicians today who want to continue to honor those deplorable pieces of white trash from a white trash culture and thats because Black people cuckolded segregationists democrats and took the party from them.

 

[Ahlevah]

That makes no sense. The knowledge that the national economy was built on slavery is the only way to understand the full impact of it.

No, that’s false. The South’s economy was built on slavery and “king cotton,” then destroyed by the North during the Civil War. What the North didn’t get emancipation, boll weevils, and yellow fever did. What built the U.S. economy to what it is today was an adherence to the rule of law, a respect for private property and the profit motive, an innovative entrepreneurial class, and hard-working people, only a fraction of whom were unskilled slaves.

 

[Master Debator]

The topic is the contribution of slavery produced products to GNP. This calculation doesn't include double counting raw materials in finished goods, nor should it. The same is true of the value of any asset used to produce GNP, it's irrelevant to the calculation.

Why shouldn't the Gross National Product include things produced by crops cultivated by slaves exactly?

Pointing out the fallacy of inflating GNP isn't minimizing the economic contribution of slavery. Neither is it in any way a justification for slavery.

It's less a fallacy and more your hilarious opinion.

It's ironic that you condemn slavery while insisting the value of slaves be included as an economic contribution. Setting a dollar value on human life is classic Confederate Democrat rhetoric.

What's exactly is ironic in condemning slavery and wanting to hold those responsible to account? Wouldn't that require understanding the scope of the injustice? This is just another pretend argument from a frail culture of soft whites.

The soft frailty is with Democrats who insist their party's role in supporting slavery be ignored.

Who are these people you frail pretender? Quote them.

 

[Jezcoe]

No, that’s false. The South’s economy was built on slavery and “king cotton,” then destroyed by the North during the Civil War. What the North didn’t get boll weevils and yellow fever did. What built the U.S. economy to what it is today was an adherence to the rule of law, a respect for private property and the profit motive, an innovative entrepreneurial class, and hard-working people, only a fraction of whom were unskilled slaves.

The North’s financial industry was built on all of the debt incurred buying slaves.

The shipping of Cotton in and out of New York was also a backbone of industry there.

There wasn’t much of the economy of the 1800’s that did not intersect with slavery in one way or another.

 

[PopTart]

So why isn’t Haiti booming? That was basically ALL slaves until it became the world’s first black republic in 1804. It is what it is, which is a political and economic basket case. Let me guess: it’s the U.S.’ fault.

Why would you ask me a question how Haiti was the richest and most productive European colony in the world going into the 1800s. Then you presume to know the answer. What happen is well documented.

​

 

[Ahlevah]

The North’s financial industry was built on all of the debt incurred buying slaves.

The shipping of Cotton in and out of New York was also a backbone of industry there.

There wasn’t much of the economy of the 1800’s that did not intersect with slavery in one way or another.

At the end of the Civil War, the U.S.’ GDP was about 1% of what it is today. To say that growth was thanks to slavery is nonsense. The U.S. grew because it had a stable political system and economy that placed a premium on respect for private property, the profit motive, and the rule of law. We can thank our slave-holding founding fathers for that.

 

[Master Debator]

I don’t think that’s it. Haiti shares an island with the Dominican Republic, yet the DR by almost any measure trounces Haiti (except for crime). The DR’s per capita GDP is about $10,000 versus Haiti’s $1,500. Haiti went from being the wealthiest colony in the America’s to being what Trump calls a “shithole country,” mostly due to inept government. You know you suck when your citizens leave by the hundreds of thousands the land of their birth governed for more than 200 years by other blacks to risk death in leaky, overcrowded boats on the open ocean in order to live in a country founded and run by racist white people.

More pretend arguments from racists who want to speak on behalf of Haitians. Immigrants come here despite the existence of racist whites because this where the wealth of our nations have ended up due to American imperialism. Your presence isn't going to deter us from coming for what's ours. Especially considering how your own laws allow immigrants to come here and replace you simply by having children.

 

[ModerationNow!]

No, that’s false. The South’s economy was built on slavery and “king cotton,” then destroyed by the North during the Civil War. What the North didn’t get emancipation, boll weevils, and yellow fever did. What built the U.S. economy to what it is today was an adherence to the rule of law, a respect for private property and the profit motive, an innovative entrepreneurial class, and hard-working people, only a fraction of whom were unskilled slaves.

Yeah, and it turned out that slavery was a terrible, inefficient business model compared with just hiring employees! They were shooting themselves in the foot all along, until slavery ended and they were forced to actually pay employees to work for them. Delicious irony, huh?

 

[Master Debator]

So why isn’t Haiti booming? That was basically ALL slaves until it became the world’s first black republic in 1804. It is what it is, which is a political and economic basket case. Let me guess: it’s the U.S.’ fault.

I love how uneducated whites miss the point. When you're not building your economy on the back of a slave force or exploitation of other countries, yeah, its a bit harder to be successful. Its a lot easier when the success of a few is coming at the expense of the many.

 

[Master Debator]

Yeah, and it turned out that slavery was a terrible, inefficient business model compared with just hiring employees! They were shooting themselves in the foot all along, until slavery ended and they were forced to actually pay employees to work for them. Delicious irony, huh?

Yeah, the Southern slave plantations only resulted in more millionaires per capita than anywhere else in the country but a bad business model...

Such is the education you get when you're trailer homeschooled in the South.

 

[Jezcoe]

At the end of the Civil War, the U.S.’ GDP was about 1% of what it is today

I have my doubts about that figure.

To say that growth was thanks to slavery is nonsense.

Why? The largest export was based on slave labor. The financial industry was heavily invested in making a profit off of slave labor. There isn’t much that one can point to in the first half of the 1800’s that didn’t touch on slavery in some way.

The U.S. grew because it had a stable political system and economy that placed a premium on respect for private property, the profit motive, and the rule of law. We can thank our slave-holding founding fathers for that.

Slaves were part of that private property thing.

 

[Jezcoe]

Yeah, and it turned out that slavery was a terrible, inefficient business model compared with just hiring employees! They were shooting themselves in the foot all along, until slavery ended and they were forced to actually pay employees to work for them. Delicious irony, huh?

Well…. They did institute slavery by another name.

Sharecropping and Jim Crow.

 

[Jezcoe]

Yeah, the Southern slave plantations only resulted in more millionaires per capita than anywhere else in the country but a bad business model...

I don’t think that modern people understand how much of an oligarchical nightmare State that the Confederacy was.