Sen. Tim Kaine: "The United States didn't inherit slavery from anybody. We created it."

Strom Thurmond died a Republican. Jesse Helms died a Republican.
Trent Lott retired a Republican.

 

How many Southern Republicans voted for the VRA or CRA?

 

Super you have questions awaiting why do you never respond?

 

TWO is EVERY? Lott was never a segregationist Democrat. Why did Thurmond and Helms switch?

 

Ahhhh they did not go to Africa and invent slavery and slavery was not invented in the United States. Japan and China enslaved each other, African Tribes enslaved each other Muslims enslaved every one I don't know why you are trying so focused of White Europeans buying their slaves from Africans as if that excuses African slavery or Native American slavery.

What is your point? And I assure you no one here is looking for your pity, not worth bytes it took to post it.

 

Yes I know you don't like facts. Most of Northern Africa, the successful part, is Caucasian as opposed to black Sub-Saharan.

 

my point is that White Jewish Europeans and White Christian Europeans invented the race based chattel system

 

yes because egypt was caucasianized when the romans and greeks invaded, grate piece of totally irrelevant factoids bro. heres another factoid. egypt was great before it was caucaisianized thank you lol.

 

Yup...

 

Many of our earlier laws actually do come from England, along with other countries and systems. Our Founders did exactly what I propose we do with our school system. Take what is considered the best parts of various systems and implement them. But the Founders were not perfect. Yeah, they had a choice to embed such laws or not. But they were as much a slave to Societal Pressure as anyone else is today. Some things they could change, others they had to keep or there would have been no Union. There were Founders who didn't like slavery. Wanted it abolished. Yet still owned slaves because having slaves was considered having a higher station than those without. Much like how trophy's of today is a status symbol. And they knew that without that status symbol they would not be heard as seriously. Who are people going to listen to more? Samuel L. Jackson? Or me? Hint: It sure as hell isn't going to be me.

But here's the thing, we no longer have laws that target any specific group of people based on some immutable character. There isn't a single law that singles out any specific group like Jim Crow or miscegenation. That ended when the Supreme Court banned laws that didn't allow same sex marriage. They were the last group which suffered under laws that were against them. Now all we have is individual racism.

Yeah yeah, I've heard all about systemic racism where those in the majority use their majority status to hinder X race because of their skin color via laws. But that is a lie. There are no laws which target specific races. There can be an unequal application of current laws by racists. But the laws themselves are neutral. As such we need to start focusing on the individuals rather than the system. At least as far as race goes. There is still improvements needed in the system. Such as making sure that less innocent people go to jail/prison. And getting rid of plea deals. But when it comes to race, that is entirely on an individual basis now.

 

So your argument is what? Guilt by association or perhaps 6 degrees of separation? Without a doubt the European slave trade depended on the banking and financial systems of the time. Borrowing funds for investment and banking profits from the sale of slaves. ALL business did - regardless of the sector of the economy they are involved in how ethical/moral that sector may be.

But none of what you wrote addresses my main point - that the industrial revolution drove the demand for raw materials produced by slavery not the other way round. If the western slave industry had for whatever reason never existed the industrial revolution would still have powered on regardless. Slavery was an effect not a cause. And the fact that early financial institutions lent or received money from slavers doesn't change that fact. Sans slavery the banks would still have prospered. Again the slavers needed the banks, the banks did not need the slavers. Cause and effect.

The second problem with your argument is guilt by association. You can argue that every citizen of the West who purchased a cotton garment, smoked a pipe or had sugar in their tea at the height of the slave trade complicit in supporting it. But here's the thing - every single member of all slave owning cultures around the world that have ever existed are equally guilty if that's where you take this argument. And so again nothing about that situation makes the Western slave trade and any worse (or better) than all the the others than began before it or operated concurrently with it.

And if you don't believe this to be is true then you are left in the position (were it possible) of standing face to face with slave from another era or culture and telling them that their suffering at the hands of their owners was or is somehow less serious, less wrong than the suffering inflicted upon the slaves in the America's. In other words that the life of that slave, wherever they came from has less value or meaning than that of a slave in America. Do you really want to go down that path?

.

 

Yes but the problem is in forums like this especially when dealing with complex issues or lengthy threads you really need to state the obvious. People talking face to face can lose track of meaning or misunderstand one another often enough as it is without having to deal with types responses. So IMO points need to be obvious.

 

its not guilt by association since the banks that did not invest in slavery directly (if there were any at all) actively merged with banks that were directly involved. im pretty sure EVERY bank was directly involved. it would be up to you to find one that wasnt tbf.

banks were key to industrial revolution and as we can see, slavery was the most lucrative business. many of the richest men of the time were slavers. Royal Bank of Scotland’s headquarters, Dundas House, was the original home of Lawrence Dundas, cousin to Henry Dundas. He owned plantations in Grenada and Dominica.

 

you are fighting a losing argument since it cannot be proven that the industrial revolution would have happened without slavery, particularly since it played such a key role in the accumulation of financial wealth and land.

all that you can attempt to do is mitigate its importance in the societies the colonial/europeans controlled. perhaps only germany is the only exception yet this is where all the big bankers were so they were likely behind alot of funding for the slavers activities, ive not researched much into that yet..

 

Sentences begin with a capital letter. English as as proper noun should always have a capital E not a lower case.

I when speaking about yourself is also capitalized.
Also your habit of typing "idont" is beyond strange did Yakub teach you that?

 

What question didn't I respond to?

 

Therein lies the problem.

 

It is guilt by association. If a bank that never directly invested in the slave trade merged with a bank that did generations after slavery abolished they are still (based on your argument) guilty. And I say direct investment because that requires implicit knowledge of who/what they are investing in. Anyone can start an account in a bank and deposit illicit funds without the bank immediately being aware of the source.

No I'm not. You repeatedly assert that the IR was completely dependent upon the existence of slavery to commence/progress - without once offering any evidence that supports that contention. Sayings its true doesn't make it so. I on the other hand identified the key drivers of the IR (iron,coal, increasing populations in Europe and the matching urbanization of labor. rapidly evolving banking and financial systems for the allocation of capital and the rise of the stock markets where investments in new companies could be made. ALL of these factors were euro-centric and not dependent on slavery too exist.

I even identified the key inputs (Products ) produced by slaves in the America's and then pointed out that while all of them were hugely valuable and in high demand they were not essential for the IR. No cotton plantations ? use wool, hemp, linen, jute, flax etc (there's a whole list of substitutes). No sugar cane plantations ? Sugar beets and fruit. No tobacco, ? There's a list of other plants world wide that were also smoked.

No-one powered steam engines with bails of cotton or tobacco and no-one pored uncounted tonnes of sugar cane into foundries to make steel. Take all the the key slave produced products out of the IR, all of them and as I noted it would still have (steam) powered onward. At a tangent to its historical direction yes but onward never the less. None of which BTW for a minute diminishes the suffering or the injustices imposed on slaves who were enslaved in the first place because of the huge profits to be made from selling valuable but substitutable raw materials to the worlds factories. The fact those slave produced products weren't essential in some ways makes the slave industry even more futile.

And you still haven't addressed the point I made about what you would tell a slave from another culture about how much worse you think the American slave trade was the one they were victims of.

 

yet once they are made aware it becomes money laundering. they are now aware

are you really trying to tell me that religion based slavery is just as bad as race based slavery?

 

And what were they supposed to do after the fact? I don't see your point. Secondly how did we get to religion?

 

compensate the parties that were tortured.

you wanted to know how the trans atlantic slave so called was was the worst holocaust ever seen so im using religion based slavery as an example, what type of slavery do you want me to use?

 

Robert Byrd died a Democrat. Lyndon Johnson died a Democrat.

 

Are you saying "religion based slaves" were treated better then "race based slaves"?

What is your basis for this?

 

Egypt was great when it had slaves?

 

a bible believer, good. what era do you mean?