Scottish independence?

BigNBushy said:

it is hard to see how you can say they were harmed for having to order take out from behind the diner, instead of being able to plop down on a bar stool.

Click to expand...

really? are you trying to imply that was the extent of denial of service that blacks faced?

BigNBushy said:

Prior to the civil war race relations were better than at any point following until very recent times.

Click to expand...

you're trying to claim that race relations were good when blacks were owned as property, not allowed to testify against white people, and so much more?

you have a very odd take on race relations.

BigNBushy said:

I'm right with you... but once it starts it can't stop.

I have participated in the derail, not jumping in until the train was well off the track.

But we had a good three pages.

Click to expand...

Shit happens lol
Still, could be time for a touch of collective restraints

killemsoftly said:

Shit happens lol
Still, could be time for a touch of collective restraints

Click to expand...

you can still talk about scottish independence, the quote function isn't broken.

You're being coy UB lol

UncleBuck said:

really? are you trying to imply that was the extent of denial of service that blacks faced?



you're trying to claim that race relations were good when blacks were owned as property, not allowed to testify against white people, and so much more?

you have a very odd take on race relations.

Click to expand...

I think the greatest harm of the era was the fact that local law enforcement agencies often failed, despite evidence, to protect whites for crimes against blacks. In effect it was state sanctioned violence.

No need for civil rights legislation to remedy this. Simply make all ignoring such crimes a federal offense and start sending sheriffs, cops, and prosecutors to federal prison.


Although blacks were owned as property, many of them were owned by blacks.

Free blacks, and there were many, could own property and engage in almost any social level he wished.

As I said, race relations were better at that time than any since the end of the civil war until very recently.

Free black men, before the civil war had more rights than white women of their time.

Many owned successful businesses, and they used slave labor. They could obtain the respect of their white fellow citizens.

BigNBushy said:

IAs I said, race relations were better at that time than any since the end of the civil war until very recently.

Click to expand...

as long as you ignore the tremendous institutional racism, such as blacks being owned as property, having no legal rights, no voting rights, and the like, sure. things were just peachy.

i'm sure you wouldn't complain one peep if you were treated the same. you'd be sitting in prison for life for your thievery and dope addiction instead of being bailed out by your family and given a job at subway making sandwiches as a 30 year old.

you wouldn't mind at all, right?

UncleBuck said:

as long as you ignore the tremendous institutional racism, such as blacks being owned as property, having no legal rights, no voting rights, and the like, sure. things were just peachy.

i'm sure you wouldn't complain one peep if you were treated the same. you'd be sitting in prison for life for your thievery and dope addiction instead of being bailed out by your family and given a job at subway making sandwiches as a 30 year old.

you wouldn't mind at all, right?

Click to expand...

First of all, this has nothing to do with Scottish independence.

Secondly, you and your token may not be willing to observe it, but there is a distinction to be made. One does not have to ignore slavery.

why?

You say blacks, but not all blacks were slaves!

Admittedly it was a minority, but there was a sizable number of free blacks. They had famalies, lives and careers.

Your failure to acknowledge their existence is a knock on their unique set of challenges as they experienced life in pre civil war America.

The fact is the way white society interacted with them, even and especially in the south was more advantages to them than any point in the next hundred or more years.

Who do you think they installed as mayor, governor, and congressmen during reconstruction? It was the free blacks in that society, not some farm hand who just got his walking papers.

These free blacks were the highest achievers of African Americans until well into the twentieth century. You would rather ignore their accomplishments to further your line that whites, particularly southerners, are evil and always subjugated blacks for the lulz.

BigNBushy said:

These free blacks were the highest achievers of African Americans until well into the twentieth century. You would rather ignore their accomplishments to further your line that whites, particularly southerners, are evil and always subjugated blacks for the lulz.

Click to expand...

i'm not ignoring that there were free blacks, i'm pointing out that they had no voting rights, legal rights, or other basic rights and highlighting that you think this is a good example of race relations in your twisted little mind.

UncleBuck said:

i'm not ignoring that there were free blacks, i'm pointing out that they had no voting rights, legal rights, or other basic rights and highlighting that you think this is a good example of race relations in your twisted little mind.

Click to expand...

I didn't say good, I said better than they were after the war, or would be for a hundred years.

If I said "good" and nothing more, I wasn't far off. Obviously anything other than full equality is leaving something to be desired.

Having said that, the forced emancipation of slaves generated a hatred that did not exist prior to it.

It created spite. People do things for no reason when spite is put into the picture.

People don't like being told what to do. And when you tell them, they react negative.

BigNBushy said:

I didn't say good, I said better than they were after the war, or would be for a hundred years.

Click to expand...

so they were better off without voting and legal rights?

Way to turn a good thread into yet another worthless You're racist! thread. Round of applause.

why on earth am i acting surprised though. It wouldn't be the politics section if buck wasn't here derailing every thread he could with race baiting. Pretty pathetic. He must have some pretty serious underlying issues.

Wo

UncleBuck said:

"anchor babies", "urban welfare rats", and "overrun with muslims".

but i bet you're totally not racist.

Click to expand...

You must have missed the part where I wrote "FROM WHAT I HEAR.....".....are you really that stupid Buck? BTW, still waiting on your list of the "groups I belong to".....

greenlikemoney said:

Wo



You must have missed the part where I wrote "FROM WHAT I HEAR.....".....are you really that stupid Buck? BTW, still waiting on your list of the "groups I belong to".....

Click to expand...

I read a book from a few years ago "can the west survive" and the topic was can Europe survive the massive immigration of Muslims, their high birth rates after immigration, and the native European low birthrate.

The Dutch are doing it right. After Van Gough was murdered, they burned a few mosques.

I think the European natives will eventually get their balls back.

UncleBuck said:

so they were better off without voting and legal rights?

Click to expand...

Free blacks were better off in 1840 than 1940.

let it be noted that greenlikemoney 'likes' the idea of burning mosques down.

but he's totally not a bigot or a racist or anything.

endpro said:

None of your idealisms are a sound basis for any countries independence. But, instead a recipe for being taken over. This isn't la la land. People rape, murder and steal for fun. People rage wars and genocide for crap that comes from the ground, territory, and rights. 5 million women and children in rawanda are dead because there is no effective goverment. So I say to you, those are the realities we deal with. No tyrants.

Where as a goverment body, whom over see's its own land and resources can then be the best stewards and protectors of it's people .
Its great you know that witches and magic are not real. And that limited belief systems are detrmental.
Now go study political science and get back to us.

Click to expand...

La la land? A countries "independence" is oxymoronic. The individual people within a given area must be independent or there is no independence. A country is only the defined area one gang controls. You are mixing words and thinking that to be governed coercively can also mean independence. Logical fallacy.

Governments are the creators of war. Individual people are capable of war only when the mechanisms of coercive government inflate their numbers. Obviously some individuals will be violent in any type of society, government doesn't prevent that behavior. It does however provide a legal vehicle for violent types to expand their evil.

Governments are not the best stewards of land and resources. Isn't Nevada the site of many government nuclear explosions? Which entities have caused the most pollution? Stolen the most land from peaceful people?

Political science is a misnomer and relies upon the fiction that governments are "real" and not just a bunch of psychopaths using coercion to control others. A government that is not made up of voluntary participants IS made up of involuntary participants isn't it?

You argue for slavery and don't even realize it. Us? Who is us? Aren't you an individual or are you a member of a herd?

UncleBuck said:

so again, i will ask you a simple, straightforward question that ALL historians agree on the answer to.

did the racist practices of racist business owners in the south cause harm to blacks?

it's a simple yes or no question, and every single historian ever agrees on the answer.

Click to expand...

Maybe. Every historian? Bullshit.


If a person is staying on their own property, they are likely being indifferent. Not serving a person with your own time, labor or resources, is a neutral action.

If a person leaves their property and commits an act against somebody, they are likely causing an actionable harm.

Being made to serve somebody, even if you agree to leave them alone or be "indifferent" is an act of aggression against the property owner. No way around that one is there?

You lump apples and oranges together. That might be why you're not very good at figuring things out and differentiating between an actionable harm and an act of indifference.

Your idea of "fairness" is to place the right of one person above another. You believe that some people must be made to use their property to serve others. Or can be prevented from using their property in ways that they chose which do not cause an actionable harm to others. You are using the same playbook as prohibitionists and don't even care or realize it.

The only thing people owe another is to let them make choices about their own body and their property as long as those choices do not prevent another from doing the same. You argue against that don't you?

Race is not the issue here. All people have a right to control their own property, but not the property of others....Yes or no? Your turn to answer the question now....

Merica has been a terrible place for black people for most of its history and it is only recently improving. Racial inequality continues to this day.

abandonconflict said:

Merica has been a terrible place for black people for most of its history and it is only recently improving. Racial inequality continues to this day.

Click to expand...

Hello. Haven't seen you around these parts much lately.


The institutions that rely upon coercion will always have inequality as they cannot operate without it. The low man on the totem pole will shift, sometimes they will be a particular race, religion, terrorist, domestic terrorist, or some other distinguishing status, etc.

Equality for all can only exist if systems that thrive on inequality are eradicated. Hence, when no coercive government reigns there will be equality. Asking a coercive system to solve inequality will only shift who the oppressed is. Rinse, lather, repeat. Sometimes the color of the hair dye changes that's all.

visiting Scotland is like going back in time
i even saw a white person working in a newsagent
nice place to drive through

apparently some of the more prosperous scots are concerned
and have threatened to move to England should Scotland become independent

if we accept the Scottish can we give some of the polish back .. seems like a fair trade?