Sun Devil
Death and Taxes
Excellent question maineman!
Conservatives Outraged!
- Thread starter Cancel 2016.11
- Start date
Excellent question maineman!
maineman
Banned
why am I not surprised that you completely avoided answering the questions posed?
Taft2016
Verified User
No. I already said, the average slave in the south wasn't stolen from a freed status within the USA and forced into a slavery status. So it wasn't an accurate portrayal of life as a slave in the south.
As for the portrayal of this individual story, I don't know. I haven't delved into the history of it.
History vs. Hollywood History is interesting. You should try it sometime.
I recall carefully reading through the voluminous memoirs of General PGT Beauregard. Buried deep inside it, about 3 or 4 sentences mention an engagement between his troops and a colored regiment at James Island, who broke ranks and ran when the battle got underway. And that's all there was about that.
What was that? That was the first engagement of the Massachusetts 54th, so exalted in the film "Glory." The film actually shows the 54th driving off the Confederates and winning the engagement. So Hollywood History isn't above changing the winner/loser count to further a political agenda.
Was that really necessary to do? It was common on both sides throughout the war for brand new regiments to break ranks and flee in their first engagements. It was no great disgrace, and the troops usually redeemed themselves in later battles.
Which the 54th did. They redeemed themselves valiantly at Battery Wagner.
The moral is, if you rely on Hollywood and politicians for your history... you're not getting history. You're getting entertainment and spin.
Last edited:
Sun Devil
Death and Taxes
I don't know. I was never born in that time, as I was born in 1982. If you have proof that whites were forbidden by blacks to use "colored only" restrooms by all means please display your proof.
I told you what the film was about. it's leftist propaganda made to instill guilt and to activate the loons. now do you have that check ready?
What did I miss, comrade? God forbid you should limp away disappointed.
Taft2016
Verified User
Well, it doesn't bother me that you misunderstand my point.
That's not what I was saying at all.
Most people, indeed everyone on this thread, see the argument as (forgive the pun) black-or-white.
The bigger picture is more nuanced, and people get uncomfortable when their common perceptions are challenged.
Taft2016
Verified User
Sun Devil
Death and Taxes
Well your argument is not really strong that is why it bothers me. Your comparison, given the historical veracity of slavery, is very poor. You see, poverty effects both black and white or any other person who falls within that socioeconomic status, but when you add systemic racism that follows a group's generation then it would be hard to argue a socioeconomic condition versus another groups socioeconomic condition in addition to the racism they experience.
Taft2016
Verified User
But your premise of what my argument is.... is mistaken.
And what is affirmative action other than systemic racism?
Those men pulled out of the factories in the 1860s, and off the boats just arriving from Ireland and Germany, and forced to fight in the south and free the slaves.... were rewarded how? What was their thanks? What army stepped up and fought to improve their lot in life?
Their descendants were denied opportunities given to descendants of those they fought to free. Their descendants were given the bill for slavery. Hell, white people who didn't have a single relative in this country until long after slavery was over, are stuck with the bill too. And black people who didn't have a relative in the country until long after was slavery was over also benefit.
It's crazy.
"Yeah, but there's still racism."
Yeah, but not every white person is to blame and should be shouldering the burden. Anyone who thinks that is .... wait for it..... RACIST!
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
well, I do recall MM saying that the Democrats owned the black vote......
lol
Do you believe your own bullshit?
Taft doesn't answer direct questions. He is so good at not answering anything that he probably is a politician.
Sun Devil
Death and Taxes
What is the purpose of Affirmative Action? Let's see in the following:
"The fundamental purpose of affirmative action is to further equal opportunity and counter or prevent current discrimination. Importantly, affirmative action programs have a positive impact not only on women and people of color, but all members of our society."
"During the Eisenhower Administration, the President’s Committee on Government Contracts, headed by Vice President Richard M. Nixon, concluded: “the indifference of employers to establishing a positive policy of nondiscrimination hinders qualified applicants and employees from being hired and promoted on the basis of equality.”
"President John F. Kennedy incorporated the concept of “affirmative action” into Executive Order 10925, which he issued in 1961."
"In 1965, President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed Executive Order 11246, which gave the Secretary of Labor responsibility for administration and enforcement of the Order mandating that contractors not discriminate against any employees or qualified applicants because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin."
"In 1967, President Johnson amended Executive Order 11246 to include gender."
"In 1973, President Gerald Ford signed the Rehabilitation Act, of which Section 503 requires affirmative action for individuals with disabilities. In 1974, Ford signed the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act that requires affirmative action for Vietnam Era and special disabled veterans."
"Under the Bush (I) Administration, Secretary of Labor Elizabeth Hanford Dole initiated the Glass Ceiling Initiative to address barriers to equal opportunity in the “executive suite.”
See Reference:http://homepages.se.edu/affirmative-action/4/
Yes Affirmative Action was really bad......I guess a program to fight against discrimination based on race, gender, religion, and disability was really bad for whites right?
Oh wait who benefits more from Affirmative Action pray tell?
"But study after study shows that affirmative action helps white women as much or even more than it helps men and women of color. While people of color, individually and as groups, have been helped by affirmative action in the subsequent years, data and studies suggest women — white women in particular — have benefited disproportionately. According to one study, in 1995, 6 million women, the majority of whom were white, had jobs they wouldn’t have otherwise held but for affirmative action."
Source:http://ideas.time.com/2013/06/17/affirmative-action-has-helped-white-women-more-than-anyone/
So not only does Affirmative Action benefit whites, in particular it has benefited white women more than anyone! I know it's easy to play the poor white man routine especially in this thread but if you are going to share sob stories make sure you have sources to back up those claims.
Rune is right you love dodging questions by deflection and using ambiguous language to confuse the hell out of me and everyone else. As for those Irishmen you've referred to that fought for slaves I'm not sure about that particular history perhaps you'd like to show some proof that their sacrifice was in vain due to not being rewarded. I mean, I would like to think that the fact you alone pay homage to their sacrifice is rewarding enough but I'm sure you're alluding that since they made a personal choice to fight, they should get "hand outs like the blacks they helped to fight for" is that right? am I close?
As far as shouldering the burden, I don't think African-American society is asking every single white person to shoulder the burden of slavery rather, recognize the sufferings of African-Americans and to empathize the continuing struggle of black Americans both successful and unsuccessful, rich and poor. This is what I call social consciousness.
Last edited:
In defence of white people, we are not all idiots and racists. Bravo certainly is though.
Wait, do you mean the 1800s or the 18th century? I am not sure.
Billy, still don't think we need a test?
Look all I'm saying is you have to look at both sides of a story. Like the other poster pointed out, okay yeah blacks couldn't use whites only bathrooms, but the other side of that? Whites couldn't use blacks only bathrooms.
Another good example would be, we've all heard about blacks having to sit in the back of the bus. But do we hear anything about whites being forced to sit in the front of the bus?
Only one side of the story is ever told. That's why I want a white history month. Maybe there was a white lady who sat in the back of the bus and refused to get up. Where is the white Rosa Parks? How come that lady is ignored?