Jump to content

72 Percent Believe Students Should Be Taught American Exceptionalism AND ‘Truth About Slavery’


RETIREDFAN1
 Share

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, KirtFalcon said:

How so? ...

I think that's progressive 🐂 :poop: ....

 

This doesn't happen in the U.S.? For the record, wasn't even trying to get to deep with this but this mindset that certain things don't happen in this country is a problem.

https://www.state.gov/what-is-modern-slavery/

Child Sex Trafficking

When a child (under 18 years of age) is recruited, enticed, harbored, transported, provided, obtained, patronized, solicited, or maintained to perform a commercial sex act, proving force, fraud, or coercion is not necessary for the offense to be prosecuted as human trafficking. There are no exceptions to this rule: no cultural or socioeconomic rationalizations alter the fact that children who are exploited in prostitution are trafficking victims. The use of children in commercial sex is prohibited under U.S. law and by statute in most countries around the world. Sex trafficking has devastating consequences for children, including long-lasting physical and psychological trauma, disease (including HIV/AIDS), drug addiction, unwanted pregnancy, malnutrition, social ostracism, and even death.

also.....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ctown81 said:

here's some more. For the record, the conversation was about legal slavery but...

 

By dimnut definition, getting paid millions in the NFL is slavery :rofl:.  Can't make this stuff up.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ObiOne said:

By dimnut definition, getting paid millions in the NFL is slavery :rofl:.  Can't make this stuff up.

So that's really the reply you give to the video that was posted? Now THIS you can't make up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ctown81 said:

So that's really the reply you give to the video that was posted? Now THIS you can't make up.

I didn't watch it.  I have watched the other one above it before when yo posted it.  Sad, interesting, and very anecdotal.  There are crazy people that do bad things now and throughout history.  I know there was a foreign couple in DFW a few years ago that kept a girl as a slave.  They brought her with them from their country of origin.  Very sad deal.  But to act like there is or has been widespread slavery of Americans in the last 70 years is disingenuous.  From what I've seen most of it is done by foreigners to foreigners.  Sex trafficking from Europe/Russia and Asia, etc....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, ctown81 said:

 

This doesn't happen in the U.S.? For the record, wasn't even trying to get to deep with this but this mindset that certain things don't happen in this country is a problem.

https://www.state.gov/what-is-modern-slavery/

Child Sex Trafficking

When a child (under 18 years of age) is recruited, enticed, harbored, transported, provided, obtained, patronized, solicited, or maintained to perform a commercial sex act, proving force, fraud, or coercion is not necessary for the offense to be prosecuted as human trafficking. There are no exceptions to this rule: no cultural or socioeconomic rationalizations alter the fact that children who are exploited in prostitution are trafficking victims. The use of children in commercial sex is prohibited under U.S. law and by statute in most countries around the world. Sex trafficking has devastating consequences for children, including long-lasting physical and psychological trauma, disease (including HIV/AIDS), drug addiction, unwanted pregnancy, malnutrition, social ostracism, and even death.

also.....

 

Ok, not traditional slavery based on race ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, ctown81 said:

here's some more. For the record, the conversation was about legal slavery but...

 

Obscure case, you could probably find rare cases where white people were taken as slaves by black people too ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KirtFalcon said:

Obscure case, you could probably find rare cases where white people were taken as slaves by black people too ....

This case is not very obscure. Once slavery ended, their former owners made them pay back the "debt" they owed for food and board. If they tried to escape the land, the police would catch them, they would be brought back and beaten. You may know this as sharecropping.  Poor whites eventually got involved by CHOICE. In the 1930s poor blacks and whites banded together to end this unfair practice, but that's when the rich elites convinced poor whites that they were better than poor blacks, although their struggle was the same and now 50 something years later we're on Smoaky butting heads over a carefully orchestrated plan by rich elites to keep us fighting one another. GOD BLESS AMERICA.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, DannyZuco said:

Ya'll wanna blame someone for the spread of slavery in the United States, I have a name for you--Eli Whitney. At the time of his invention, slavery was in the process of declining. But his machine made the "inland" cotton easier to get the seeds out and larger plantations formed, and those that had money at the time were able to purchase more slaves because of the Cotton Gin. Otherwise, Slavery would have died out probably before 1820, because it would NOT have been profitable. But it didn't, so in the end, over a million Americans died in a war to save slavery and states rights. 

https://www.history.com/topics/inventions/cotton-gin-and-eli-whitney

One inadvertent result of the cotton gin’s success, however, was that it helped strengthen slavery in the South. Although the cotton gin made cotton processing less labor-intensive, it helped planters earn greater profits, prompting them to grow larger crops, which in turn required more people. Because slavery was the cheapest form of labor, cotton farmers simply acquired more slaves. 

I don't buy the Cotton Gin argument. The invention may have increased the demand for slave labor but the industry was still very profitable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ctown81 said:

I don't buy the Cotton Gin argument. The invention may have increased the demand for slave labor but the industry was still very profitable. 

Only profitable to those who lived within 50 miles of the coast, because they could grow "coastal" cotton, which could be seeded easier. And if you don't understand economics, then of course you would NOT buy the cotton gin argument. Without the cotton gin, inland plantations would have NOT increase as fast as they did, they would NOT need slaves, because "inland" cotton took almost a full day to get a pound of, picking by hand. 

It's basic supply and demand. 

Eli Whitney supplied the mechanism to make "inland" cotton profitable-this demanded MORE slave labor for large plantations to be formed. Simple Supply and Demand economics. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DannyZuco said:

Only profitable to those who lived within 50 miles of the coast, because they could grow "coastal" cotton, which could be seeded easier. And if you don't understand economics, then of course you would NOT buy the cotton gin argument. Without the cotton gin, inland plantations would have NOT increase as fast as they did, they would NOT need slaves, because "inland" cotton took almost a full day to get a pound of, picking by hand. 

It's basic supply and demand. 

Eli Whitney supplied the mechanism to make "inland" cotton profitable-this demanded MORE slave labor for large plantations to be formed. Simple Supply and Demand economics. 

You have to love the self absorbed know it all who thinks he's the smartest in a room. Didn't i say the same thing you said? Did you see where I said demand for slaves increased due to the invention of the Cotton Gin or was your nose to high in the air to read that? Let's talk about simple supply and demand. Didn't you say "Slavery would have died out probably before 1820, because it would NOT have been profitable."  no it wouldn't have died out because there was high DEMAND all over Europe for cotton. Exactly what was going to make cotton less profitable? Higher wages for the workers? Oh great economic genius, can you please explain in more detail to us simple folk. Don't forget to type slow for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ctown81 said:

You have to love the self absorbed know it all who thinks he's the smartest in a room. Didn't i say the same thing you said? Did you see where I said demand for slaves increased due to the invention of the Cotton Gin or was your nose to high in the air to read that? Let's talk about simple supply and demand. Didn't you say "Slavery would have died out probably before 1820, because it would NOT have been profitable."  no it wouldn't have died out because there was high DEMAND all over Europe for cotton. Exactly what was going to make cotton less profitable? Higher wages for the workers? Oh great economic genius, can you please explain in more detail to us simple folk. Don't forget to type slow for me.

Cotton would still be profitable--but there would be a lot less of it, had it not been for the cotton gin, and you statement below says "I don't buy the Cotton Gin Arguement". 

But--slavery would have died out, based on economic reports and writings of the day--it was in decline, because of the expenses of keeping slaves was NOT profitable, except to the very few wealthy of the time. The cotton gin allowed for the 10 acre farmer to clear another 90 acres to raise cotton on. Which allowed him to purchase a slave or more slaves. So instead of clearing 1-2 acres a year for farming and cotton, they were clearing up 10 times the amount. Plus, with the expansion of the United States in the southern regions, places like Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana-"inland" cotton would not have been profitable enough to own slaves without the Cotton Gin.

3 hours ago, ctown81 said:

I don't buy the Cotton Gin argument. The invention may have increased the demand for slave labor but the industry was still very profitable. 

3 hours ago, DannyZuco said:

Only profitable to those who lived within 50 miles of the coast, because they could grow "coastal" cotton, which could be seeded easier. And if you don't understand economics, then of course you would NOT buy the cotton gin argument. Without the cotton gin, inland plantations would have NOT increase as fast as they did, they would NOT need slaves, because "inland" cotton took almost a full day to get a pound of, picking by hand. 

It's basic supply and demand. 

Eli Whitney supplied the mechanism to make "inland" cotton profitable-this demanded MORE slave labor for large plantations to be formed. Simple Supply and Demand economics. 

Cotton was in high demand, I believe it still is, and is profitable even today--or the farmers around here would NOT be growing it. But economics was a little different as was machinery at the time. 

The reason I say slavery would have died out--https://eh.net/encyclopedia/slavery-in-the-united-states/ Look at Tables 3 & 4

1. slaves cost people money to keep healthy and work.

2. Slavery in most colonies & states would drop from 1750-1790

3. Only in Delaware, Georgia, & Maryland did slavery increase from 1750-1790, and 2 of those states were more about tobacco than cotton. 

I believe wholeheartedly that had the cotton gin NOT been invented when it was. Slavery would have been very unprofitable to 90-95% of the population. And based on demographic data of the time, it would have died out, without the war. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, ctown81 said:

I don't buy the man of his times argument since he was actually imprisoned for the treatment of the natives. I honestly don't see any reason for him to be celebrated. Plus he didn't discover the New World. Also, what do natives fighting one another have to do with what Columbus did? There are proven misconceptions about Columbus that needs to be cleared up.

If you read of what many of the Conquistadors did he was similar in his actions.  I never have celebrated it.  To me it was more of an Italian holiday, and I don't have hardly any Italian blood in my veins.  I've seen many people protest to give the land back to the natives, well they were fighting for territory as well.  One of the reasons Columbus fought with one tribe was because they were attacking the tribe that he had made friends with in the Bahama's.  Many historians attempted to prove his diary writing as being wrong.  Science is beginning to prove otherwise.  Even if the Caribs had not been in the area the tribe that he had made friends may have been seeking his help in their attacks on them thus his journal entry.  Columbus' Claims of Cannibal Raids May Have Been True After All | Live Science

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, KirtFalcon said:

How so? ...

I think that's progressive 🐂 :poop: ....

We do fit it, especially in the sex trade industry, housekeeping, nannies, and our farming system.  I see we have another romaine crisis, because these large farms won't provide their workers with port o potties or latrines.  They are paying them below minimum wage as well.  To me that's a form of slavery just as the company store that kept white workers in slave conditions at various mines.  I'm sure you remember the song "16 tons" "Tennesee" Ernie Ford.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, DannyZuco said:

Only profitable to those who lived within 50 miles of the coast, because they could grow "coastal" cotton, which could be seeded easier. And if you don't understand economics, then of course you would NOT buy the cotton gin argument. Without the cotton gin, inland plantations would have NOT increase as fast as they did, they would NOT need slaves, because "inland" cotton took almost a full day to get a pound of, picking by hand. 

It's basic supply and demand. 

Eli Whitney supplied the mechanism to make "inland" cotton profitable-this demanded MORE slave labor for large plantations to be formed. Simple Supply and Demand economics. 

That argument would be over with the McCormick reaper.  Cotton could be one of the crops that are harvested that way.  Most vegetables can not, because it would damage the flesh.  I would say the same for fruit trees, but now they have mechanical pickers that will shake them out of the tree.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DannyZuco said:

Cotton would still be profitable--but there would be a lot less of it, had it not been for the cotton gin, and you statement below says "I don't buy the Cotton Gin Arguement". 

But--slavery would have died out, based on economic reports and writings of the day--it was in decline, because of the expenses of keeping slaves was NOT profitable, except to the very few wealthy of the time. The cotton gin allowed for the 10 acre farmer to clear another 90 acres to raise cotton on. Which allowed him to purchase a slave or more slaves. So instead of clearing 1-2 acres a year for farming and cotton, they were clearing up 10 times the amount. Plus, with the expansion of the United States in the southern regions, places like Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana-"inland" cotton would not have been profitable enough to own slaves without the Cotton Gin.

Cotton was in high demand, I believe it still is, and is profitable even today--or the farmers around here would NOT be growing it. But economics was a little different as was machinery at the time. 

The reason I say slavery would have died out--https://eh.net/encyclopedia/slavery-in-the-united-states/ Look at Tables 3 & 4

1. slaves cost people money to keep healthy and work.

2. Slavery in most colonies & states would drop from 1750-1790

3. Only in Delaware, Georgia, & Maryland did slavery increase from 1750-1790, and 2 of those states were more about tobacco than cotton. 

I believe wholeheartedly that had the cotton gin NOT been invented when it was. Slavery would have been very unprofitable to 90-95% of the population. And based on demographic data of the time, it would have died out, without the war. 

If you've read any of the extensive writings of the leaders of the CSA even they believed that slavery would be over in the CSA within 10 years or less of the war.  I know the books were once in the Longview Library, because that's where I checked them out in the late 80's.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, DaveTV1 said:

If you've read any of the extensive writings of the leaders of the CSA even they believed that slavery would be over in the CSA within 10 years or less of the war.  I know the books were once in the Longview Library, because that's where I checked them out in the late 80's.  

Let me know when you remember the name of one of the books. I don't believe slavery was going to end for economic reason but I do knkw they had an Emancipation plan in play, just offering freedom to slaves if they fought for the confederacy out of desperation when they saw imminent defeat. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/7/2022 at 7:38 PM, DaveTV1 said:

I think they should be too, but in regards to slavery it should be taught about every country in the world that has practiced it not just America.  In my opinion CRT wants to teach that slavery only happened in America when we inherited the horrible practice from the British.  

I got to thinking about this statement and it made something else come to mind. There may be good reason why you weren't taught about slavery all  over the world. If they taught you about slavery in other developed European countries, they would also have to tell you about how they treated blacks after slavery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, ctown81 said:

I got to thinking about this statement and it made something else come to mind. There may be good reason why you weren't taught about slavery all  over the world. If they taught you about slavery in other developed European countries, they would also have to tell you about how they treated blacks after slavery.

I'm not following?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ObiOne said:

I'm not following?

while far from perfect, blacks were treated a lot better in European countries  and former slaves of those countries were not subject to Jim Crow after slavery.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ctown81 said:

while far from perfect, blacks were treated a lot better in European countries  and former slaves of those countries were not subject to Jim Crow after slavery.  

They didn't have democrats in Europe.  Good point.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ctown81 said:

Hmmmm.... you know the ideologies switched right?

Really?  Then why is your democratic president calling The Exalted Cyclops in the KKK a friend, mentor, guide?  They have you believing they switched lol.  Must have been in last 10 years.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...