Colin Kaepernick, The National Anthem Is a Celebration of Slavery

?

And this supports the argument that the democrats purged themselves of racists how?

The constant refrain has been that conservative democrats opposed civil rights and liberal republicans supported them. The underlying premise of this refrain has been that it was racism or a lack of racism that drove that opposition and support. Clearly Goldwater's opposition was not race motivated, and the Pre civil rights Democrat's didn't just abandon their political ideology in order to become racist Republicans. The supposed flip of ideology between Democrats and Republicans is a myth. It's a lie that Democrats tell themselves to project blame for Democrat racism on to other people.

Democrats to this day will praise all the wonderful things that the raging racists Wilson & FDR instituted as part of Democrat political policy. In that way, you can't separate the racist from the Democrat by simply claiming that they all decided to become Republicans. No way would Wilson have become a Republican just so he could keep hating people on the basis of race.

 

Thanks for playing.
You have nothing to counter my argument. Might makes right. If one can't defend their life and another wants to take it, the life ends.
And I did state, more than 1X, life is a natural right but you have to defend it.
There are no other natural rights. My point all along. You agree but can't put your brain around it. And can't counter it either.

So you cuss at other posters, call names and then throw a mild tantrum to validate your point.
Do you even have a point?

Now go your merry way and sit in the corner.

 

We have veered away from that topic somewhat.

If opposing the CRA was not racist, then why do you keep bringing it up as proof that the Democrats are the party of racists?

Then what caused Democratic strongholds to turn into Republican strongholds?

 

Certainly true.

There is more than one motive or reason to oppose legislation. Again, I think I've been pretty clear here. The claim that Democrats who opposed civil rights weren't really Democrats and Republicans who supported civil rights weren't really Republicans is provably and factually false. Republicans today support the same principles that drove the civil rights movement, and Democrats today support the same principles that opposed it. This claim of a flip that happened at some point in history in which all the racist Democrats flocked to the Republican party because the Republicans abandoned the platforms that originally fought against slavery is provably false.

Economics. Voters switched because they were casting votes that lined up with their own economic self interest. Racism as a philosophy was abandoned by thinking people from both parties. The dimwits that still held on to racial belief systems didn't abandon all their other political aspirations as a means to maintain their racial dogma. The Dixiecrats, for example, with few notable exceptions, all went right back to the Democrat party after their party fell apart. Thurmond is typically tossed out there as evidence that they all turned, but the reality was that he was an outlier, and not the standard. Thus, those racists that still voted for Democrats didn't stop being racist in their support for Democrats, and those that voted for Republicans didn't necessarily do so because they thought the Republicans were going to support their racist views.

 

You'd think starving 7,000,000+ Germans to death (if they weren't useful) would get more attention than it did.

 

Your personal, vague recollections of history are pretty much meaningless here.

 

It's possible that some of his ancestors came from Ireland, England, Poland, Germany, France, Spain, or some other European country. Why can't he go there?

 

Is that why they have opposed the LGBT rights movement at every turn?

The Dixiecrats had no platform beyond opposition to civil rights, yet they won 4 states, came in second in 1 other, and broke 10% of the vote in 4 others. How do you explain that?

In 1960, slates of unpledged electors won Mississippi, got 21% of the vote in Louisiana, and split the Electoral Votes with Kennedy in Alabama. How do you explain that?

 

Your arguments are so funny. Young argue that something can be taken away and claim that means it does not exist. The student union debate club is strong with you.

 

There is nothing vague about it. It's a fact. Only Vermont and Massachusetts abolished slavery freeing their slaves, all others followed the Pennsylvania gradual model where trade of slaves was barred as was being born into slavery past 1 generation. Eventually all slaves died of old age and were not replaced, they were never freed. You ignorance is not really my concern.

 

The North was actually more of a hell for black people than the South was. At least the Southern racists wanted black people and fought to get even more. The Northern racists simply wanted to exterminate them. Talk about being in the fire or in the frying pan.

"Like colonization, exclusion ordinances often were advanced by self-professed friends of the black race who saw only tragedy in attempts of the races to share the same land. Robert Dale Owen, speaking in Indiana in 1850, asked if any decent person desired "the continuance among us of a race to whom we are not willing to accord the most common protection against outrage and death." The rhetoric hardly is an exaggeration: during the constitutional debate in the state that year, one speaker had frankly acknowledged, "It would be better to kill them off at once, if there is no other way to get rid of them. ... We know how the Puritans did with the Indians, who were infinitely more magninimous and less impudent than the colored race.""
http://slavenorth.com/northwest.htm

It seems that Kap has a point.

 

If slavery is so celebrated in today's USA how come I can't get me some slaves?

That's it. I'd get me a plantation, buys me some slaves, and watch them picks cotton.

Maybe they'd even sing Ol' Man River.

Don't want none of dem rappin' slaves though.

 

Not according to the unusually good Jimmy Stewart movie :
- Shenandoah - {1965} - Where Stewart as a Virginia farmer
with a very large family { all grown up boys } is vehemently opposed to the
Civil War. His youngest son { 16 } found a Confederate { Johnny reb } cap
floating in a brook { stream } while he was fishing.He started wearing it.
There were Government men who had come to his Farm looking to take his
horses.They proclaimed they had the right to confiscate for the war effort by
Government decree. Stewart and his big strapping boys { all grown men except
the youngest boy } saw things differently.A fight broke out and the Government men
looked silly.Later in the movie ... Stewarts youngest son who was wearing the
Confederate Johnny cap he found while Fishing with his buddy { a Young black slave
his own age }. This young black was a slave from a neighboring farm. Some
leftover Yankee soldiers { about 6 } who had been abandoned from their company and were
w/o any ammo,managed to sneak up on the 2 young boys.They took Stewarts son
and told the young black slave ... Ok ... You're free. Go on now ... You are free.
Later the Black slave went back to his buddy's Farm to tell his family the Yankees had
taken his son prisoner.But that he was informed he's now Free. He had no idea what that
meant.That he is now Free. The woman of the Farm who was the only one around,the
Boys and Stewart were busy elsewhere on the large farm,explained.
She explained what being set free meant.The boy looked down the road and decided
to leave. Later in the movie ... he was seen as a Yankee soldier.He had joined the
Yankee cause as a soldier.That sounds about right.
Slaves were set free.By Proclamation from a Republican president { Abe Lincoln }.

 

To keep Urban Myth alive and growing. ?
Like how Obama was Born in the U.S.A.
How come Governor Abercrombie could never find that pesky
Birth Certificate he swore while running for Governor in Hawaii he'd locate
and end the charade.In fact,it was to be one of his first acts as new Governor.

 

Lincoln "freed" the Southern slaves as a part of military strategy. He didn't free them because he loved them. If he had survived the war he most likely would have had all of them deported. So in the end it was the action of John Wilkes Booth that was responsible for keeping black people in America.

 

It could when there are only so many houses. Think about bum(*)(*)(*)(*) Mississippi, consider how many people don't live there. Now divide that by about 20.

It wasn't uncommon for a dozen people to live in the same house. In fact, the household size then is more than twice as many as it is now.

So not only do you have a tiny fraction of the population of today, but there were half as many residences.

And then there were black slave owners. Over 3,000 blacks in New Orleans alone owned slaves.

Your doubts are a result of your inability to do math. Or use logic.

 

Awesome movie...arent ALL Jimmy Stewart's movie great though? Just saw Who Shot Liberty Valance this summer. Another great one with John Wayne.

 

The fact that people back then had much larger families than we do now was at least partially responsible for that.

I'd be willing to bet that those people either bought relatives out of slavery or were adopted by their fathers/masters and then inherited their slaves.

 

OK, are you still in Jr high?
You claim there are natural rights. You have never given what they are, except right to life, which I already said is a natural right. But that can be taken away in a bullet second.

So give us these natural rights that are afforded every human on earth. Leave out the right to life. We both agree that is a natural right. And we both agree that it can be taken away and must be defended.
What else do you have? You claim we have natural rights. I claim the only rights we have, when push comes to shove is, might makes right. Or gov't or some other external force recognizes them and people abide by them.

You have given nothing. But whining, name calling, and cussing.
Put up or shut up.
I know you can't do either.

 

Another has-been complaining about something he never experienced.

I hope everyone sacks the crap out of this fool.

 

Don't worry Trump's going to lose.

 

No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

No sir that is far from the major them of the Star Spangled Banner. If it were it would be the first part of it. What this is referring to is those people hired by the British to help them fight our country and the slaves that the British captured and offered their freedom if they fight with the British against America. It's basically saying it makes no difference what the British do or who they hire, America will hunt them down and win.

 

So a black man should celebrate a song that boasts about slavers terrorizing and killing his ancestors?

 

The anthem makes no reference to "blacks" and it no more celebrates killing blacks than it celebrates killing whites. Your (*)(*)(*)(*) stained glasses lead you to see racism everywhere.

 

Wasn't too bright for all those southern blacks to flee and then migrate to the north.