jonnyboy2112

you think she took a wrong turn and thought she was in the Deep South

65 posts in this topic

I was going to say that I'd be worried about herpes, but all this talk about history has made me change my mind.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mustang87 said:

So are we calling this girl ugly because we don't like the politics that we have read into her post, or do we think the picutes actually show an ugly girl? 

   yes...both

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Chrissy said:

Is it me or is there a person behind her in the 7th photo? If that's a yes & that's a girl head then she may have a comrad posting as well?

I think it's a  ghost 👻 ! Looks like a man behind her 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JoDoe27 said:

I know there were multiple reasons for the south succeeding but I've never understood why slavery is considered almost an afterthought. If money were a driving force what exactly do you think would happen if their entire work force, their literal property were taken away?

Those that just say "It was slavery and that's it!" are simply so incomplete as to just be wrong.  There are thousands of books covering the many reasons for the civil war.  This goes back hundreds of years, issues like Jeffersonians, economic destruction in northern factories vs southern plantations, all sorts of issues.  Jo you're right, there were multiple reasons.  And why it's treated as an afterthought is simple reactionary politics.  If you ask a thoughtful person the causes of the Civil War, he might say something like 50% slavery, 25% this, 20% that, 5% something else.  Then as that person gets attacked by people saying "No it's 100% slavery", simple human nature is going to make them emphasize the other parts more and more until slavery angle is minimized.

1/4 my family fought for the north, 1/4 for the south.  One of my ancestors was in a northern POW camp and barely survived.  None of the southern part of the family had slaves, they were way too poor.  

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Yorick said:

Bella is correct.  She knows her history.

We call it the "Civil War" but a civil war is a war between two factions for the control of the government.

A better name for this struggle would be "The war for Southern Independence."

Slavery was dying as a successful economic model.  Highly unlikely it would have made it to 20th century in an independant South.  

And for the record....the emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in the southern rebelling states.  Slaves held in Northern states remained the property of their owners until freed by constitutional amendment after the war. Also, Lincoln believed the solution to the slave problem was to ship them back to Africa.  The North is hardly the angel you paint them to be.

Slavery is wrong....whether practiced by tribe conquering tribe, the english, nottherners or southerners, or those who are STILL practicing it today.

 

Between thinking it was racists who made the 'stars and bars' a hate symbol and thinking the North started the war, I'd say she doesn't know her history, and your knowledge seems suspect at this point as well. Slavery is wrong. Know what else is wrong? Waving around the flag of people who killed Americans in support of slavery. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, FuriousWeasel said:

Those that just say "It was slavery and that's it!" are simply so incomplete as to just be wrong.  There are thousands of books covering the many reasons for the civil war.  This goes back hundreds of years, issues like Jeffersonians, economic destruction in northern factories vs southern plantations, all sorts of issues.  Jo you're right, there were multiple reasons.  And why it's treated as an afterthought is simple reactionary politics.  If you ask a thoughtful person the causes of the Civil War, he might say something like 50% slavery, 25% this, 20% that, 5% something else.  Then as that person gets attacked by people saying "No it's 100% slavery", simple human nature is going to make them emphasize the other parts more and more until slavery angle is minimized.

1/4 my family fought for the north, 1/4 for the south.  One of my ancestors was in a northern POW camp and barely survived.  None of the southern part of the family had slaves, they were way too poor.  

I posted it early. It's written into the first paragraph of each rebel state's declaration of independence. Saying it was about 'so much more' is rooted in the revisionist history that became popular around 1890. The rebel states literally spelled it out for us. It always amazes me that people are so dedicated to preconceived beliefs they will refuse to see the truth placed plainly in front of them. 

Those 25 this 20 that, they all relate back to the use of slaves. That's why it's 100% slaves. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, slavery in the US ended after the War Between the State's.  To be replaced by the serfdom of tenant farming until the advent of mechanical cotton pickers in the mid-1940s. 

  • A good hand picker can harvest about 70#/day. 
  • A modern picker can harvest >100,000#/day.

Where did all those field hands go?

Also, why is it that when talking about slavery no one mentions the indentured servants who helped settle the North? Or that it was other Africans which sold their enemy's into slavery?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bit Banger said:

Yes, slavery in the US ended after the War Between the State's.  To be replaced by the serfdom of tenant farming until the advent of mechanical cotton pickers in the mid-1940s. 

  • A good hand picker can harvest about 70#/day. 
  • A modern picker can harvest >100,000#/day.

Where did all those field hands go?

Also, why is it that when talking about slavery no one mentions the indentured servants who helped settle the North? Or that it was other Africans which sold their enemy's into slavery?

In your continuing misguided quest to play devils advocate, you've sadly gone off the rails again.

No one mentions indentured servitude or the fact some Africans sold others into slavery because it's not relevant.

OTOH, I hear there's gonna be another White Nationalist rally here soon, maybe you could clear your schedule to attend.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, MrReindeer-9515 said:

In your continuing misguided quest to play devils advocate, you've sadly gone off the rails again.

No one mentions indentured servitude or the fact some Africans sold others into slavery because it's not relevant.

OTOH, I hear there's gonna be another White Nationalist rally here soon, maybe you could clear your schedule to attend.

Explain to me why indentured servitude is not relevant to the conversation about slavery in the US. Or that Africans sold their countrymen into slavery. Or how about that a large portion of African slaves were bought & transported by Yankee skippers?  If we're going to discuss slavery in America, let's look at the whole picture.

Your continued attempts to besmirch have missed the mark, again. Where in my post did I espouse the White Nationalist mantra?  Where did I even hint that I approved of their position?  (For the record - I don't!) Perhaps you should return to the frozen north where things are black & white. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Bit Banger said:

Also, why is it that when talking about slavery no one mentions the indentured servants who helped settle the North? Or that it was other Africans which sold their enemy's into slavery?

I will apply a tactic that most will often employ; not all Africans! Yes, some did sell their countrymen into slavery for firearms and munition. Some, not all. And by that token a few were responsible. Just as you would say not all whites owned slaves, were for slavery, or whatever else I will say not all of the massive continent of Africa sold imdividuals into slavery. 

It should also be noted that slave raids by the Portuguese happened before uneasy partnerships to establish slave trading. 

I think for me one of the saddest parts of these conversations, and likely the most angering, is how often the impact and atrocities committed in our own country gets turned into a "well, they did it first!" or grossly compared to incomparible comparisons. I also think it's shameful that the generals leading the charge in the south are celebrated as heros. 

And if anyone asks or says "what's the big deal about the statues? It doesn't even matter they're there" I'll ask, "what's the big deal about taking them down?"

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Bit Banger said:

Explain to me why indentured servitude is not relevant to the conversation about slavery in the US. Or that Africans sold their countrymen into slavery. Or how about that a large portion of African slaves were bought & transported by Yankee skippers?  If we're going to discuss slavery in America, let's look at the whole picture.

Your continued attempts to besmirch have missed the mark, again. Where in my post did I espouse the White Nationalist mantra?  Where did I even hint that I approved of their position?  (For the record - I don't!) Perhaps you should return to the frozen north where things are black & white. 

I don't know how the fact that Africans sold other Africans factors into the equation.  OK, they did that.  It was wrong and horrible.  And 'we' (the rest of the world) BOUGHT them, equally wrong and horrible.  How is what the Africans did relevant to what we did once the world bought the slaves?

It's sort of like bringing up "blacks kill other blacks every day in Chicago" when talking about unrelated crime, black on white, or cops killing a black person.  Yes, it's bad - and not really relevant.  

I don't think you're espousing any particular philosophy, but I'm not sure how Africa really matters relative to what the US did once slaves were brought here (and regardless of whose ships did the journey).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, JoDoe27 said:

I will apply a tactic that most will often employ; not all Africans! Yes, some did sell their countrymen into slavery for firearms and munition. Some, not all. And by that token a few were responsible. Just as you would say not all whites owned slaves, were for slavery, or whatever else I will say not all of the massive continent of Africa sold imdividuals into slavery. 

...

Agreed!

12 minutes ago, JoDoe27 said:

...

And if anyone asks or says "what's the big deal about the statues? It doesn't even matter they're there" I'll ask, "what's the big deal about taking them down?"

For me the big deal is, "Where does it stop?"

After the Confederate statues are gone, who's to say that Sheridan & Jackson won't be next for their treatment of Native Americans? How many CO maps will need to be redrawn when these names are changed by the current public sentiment?  Or FDR for his allowing the internment of American citizens of Japanese decent?  Or Pres. Ford for having the audacity to pardon Pres. Nixon? With today's crop of snowflakes (I can think of no better term for those so easily offended.), the possible list of outrage is boundless. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MrReindeer-9515 said:

In your continuing misguided quest to play devils advocate, you've sadly gone off the rails again.

No one mentions indentured servitude or the fact some Africans sold others into slavery because it's not relevant.

OTOH, I hear there's gonna be another White Nationalist rally here soon, maybe you could clear your schedule to attend.

Reindeer, indentured servants(mostly the Irish people sold by England)were also part of the slavery in the south. They would breed them and black slaves together to make Mulattos which were higher priced and highly sought after for their looks, breeding, and other attributes. Why do I know this? Because my many great grandfather on my grandfather's side was a male mulatto slave that when freed married one of the plantation's daughters, and many years later here I am. It is one of those things that people tend to "look over" when talking about slavery because hey, it was all about one color right? Everyone that had anything to do with the Civil War paid a heavy price one way or another.

The US government wanted more power, and that meant more land and control over the people...the south wanted to be free of it, and it cost them just like the Mexicans in Texas and California that had settled there and fought to keep it and lost, and the Native Americans that lost their land and people too. It always comes down to love, power, or money. To make excuses, they blamed it on something else that everyone can bicker over because hey, the people can overlook what is really going on if they are all fired up over something to keep their mind off of it. Typical politics, and as usual, people fall for it!

xoxo,

Samantha Sheppard

Edited by SultryKitten
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bit Banger said:

Agreed!

For me the big deal is, "Where does it stop?"

After the Confederate statues are gone, who's to say that Sheridan & Jackson won't be next for their treatment of Native Americans? How many CO maps will need to be redrawn when these names are changed by the current public sentiment?  Or FDR for his allowing the internment of American citizens of Japanese decent?  Or Pres. Ford for having the audacity to pardon Pres. Nixon? With today's crop of snowflakes (I can think of no better term for those so easily offended.), the possible list of outrage is boundless. 

Wouldn't the "snowflake" label cut both ways though in this case? 

I do see your point. I will give you that. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Phil-anderer said:

...
I don't think you're espousing any particular philosophy, but I'm not sure how Africa really matters relative to what the US did once slaves were brought here (and regardless of whose ships did the journey).

Who's ships matters because The South is being chastised when the whole country had a part to play in the travesty. 

We must also remember that slavery was an accepted practice for millennia, yet the tide shifted in but 50 years. Is it any wonder that we're still feeling aftershocks a mere 150 years later?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, JoDoe27 said:

Wouldn't the "snowflake" label cut both ways though in this case? 

I do see your point. I will give you that. 

I once heard that the best response to a snowflake is, "I'm offended that you're offended by my viewpoint."  😙

Edited by Bit Banger
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bit Banger said:

Who's ships matters because The South is being chastised when the whole country had a part to play in the travesty. 

We must also remember that slavery was an accepted practice for millennia, yet the tide shifted in but 50 years. Is it any wonder that we're still feeling aftershocks a mere 150 years later?

To me the south gets chastised because it's warranted. We can say it was encroaching government control, but it actively succeeded to preserve a way of life, started a war, and then they lost. The take away would or should be to fight for what you believe, but it doesn't mean your belief is right. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an aside, I find it interesting that a thread about an ad by a Southern "lady" has morphed into a discussion about the Civil War and slavery. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, JoDoe27 said:

To me the south gets chastised because it's warranted. We can say it was encroaching government control, but it actively succeeded to preserve a way of life, started a war, and then they lost. The take away would or should be to fight for what you believe, but it doesn't mean your belief is right. 

Sorry I missed an edit window. I meant "... the travesty of slavery."  It's historical fact that the South fired the first shot.  Or did they, considering the actions of John Brown in the 1850s?

As for preserving a way of life?  The Northern economy was built on industry - factories in a temperate climate comfortable for Europeans. The Southern economy was built on agriculture in a tropical climate hostile to Europeans, but tolerated by Africans. (Evolution over millennia of ice fields and savannas.).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bit Banger said:

Sorry I missed an edit window. I meant "... the travesty of slavery."  It's historical fact that the South fired the first shot.  Or did they, considering the actions of John Brown in the 1850s?

As for preserving a way of life?  The Northern economy was built on industry - factories in a temperate climate comfortable for Europeans. The Southern economy was built on agriculture in a tropical climate hostile to Europeans, but tolerated by Africans. (Evolution over millennia of ice fields and savannas.).

Yeah malaria was a bitch for whites vs the Africans.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JoDoe27 said:

Yeah malaria was a bitch for whites vs the Africans.  

No, malaria IS a bitch for everyone! (Sorry, touchy subject.  I still remember cradling one of my RTOs in my arms through the night to get him on the medivac chopper the next morning.😡)

I was referring to the heat, and one's ability for physical labor in it. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bit Banger said:

No, malaria IS a bitch for everyone! (Sorry, touchy subject.  I still remember cradling one of my RTOs in my arms through the night to get him on the medivac chopper the next morning.😡)

I was referring to the heat, and one's ability for physical labor in it. 

The heat was an issue but also malaria. With malaria, from my understanding, being a major issue for whites more than the Africans. 

Anyway I digress. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, JoDoe27 said:

The heat was an issue but also malaria. With malaria, from my understanding, being a major issue for whites more than the Africans. 

Anyway I digress. 

Hmmm. You seem to be correct.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_resistance_to_malaria

It's hypothesized that the adaptation is also the cause of Sickle-cell. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bit Banger said:

Sorry I missed an edit window. I meant "... the travesty of slavery."  It's historical fact that the South fired the first shot.  Or did they, considering the actions of John Brown in the 1850s?

As for preserving a way of life?  The Northern economy was built on industry - factories in a temperate climate comfortable for Europeans. The Southern economy was built on agriculture in a tropical climate hostile to Europeans, but tolerated by Africans. (Evolution over millennia of ice fields and savannas.).

I agree with you, the politics involved with the start of the Civil War are broad and sweeping it wouldn't be possible to point to a single start of the war that would satisfy everyone.

You could argue that the North was striping the South of its representation in congress (3/5 person was put into the constitution)  and wealth through the policy that was being pushed after having just won freedom from a far reaching and tyrannical government only to see it start again and that started the war.

As for the flag talk, I've served I love my country but the only flags without blood on them are in Hollywood.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, speed67 said:

I agree with you, the politics involved with the start of the Civil War are broad and sweeping it wouldn't be possible to point to a single start of the war that would satisfy everyone.

You could argue that the North was striping the South of its representation in congress (3/5 person was put into the constitution)  and wealth through the policy that was being pushed after having just won freedom from a far reaching and tyrannical government only to see it start again and that started the war.

As for the flag talk, I've served I love my country but the only flags without blood on them are in Hollywood.

Just so I'm clear. You're talking about the 3/5 Compromise that regarded slaves as not even a whole person? 

The rest of your argument and others similar is why o get angry about this conversation. It's like it's almost impossible for some people to say that slavery and the abolition was a major contributing factor. Yes, other things happened, and sure, slavery was dying off but the southern states that succeeded wrote in their constitutions. They were about to see a huge chunk of money and property get taken away. Why can't people say, yes, this was fucking major? I still not look at any, and I mean absolutely none of the confederate army as heroes that should ever be celebrated. Period. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, JoDoe27 said:

.....I still not look at any, and I mean absolutely none of the confederate army as heroes that should ever be celebrated. Period. 

Well. don't choke on this, but by act of Congress (1957 or 58 I believe) all soldiers who fought for the Confederacy had full Military Veteran status established for them....with all the rights and priviledges thereunto appertaining.

Robert E. Lee? US Military Veteran. Nathan Bedford Forrest? US Military Veteran.

They have been recognized as heroes by the US government.....who in a moment of wisdom realized all were Americans, all were fighting for what they believed, and that the frigging war is over and it is time to move on.

Those who continue to bash the South have one goal....and one goal only:  Increase racial strife.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Yorick said:

Well. don't choke on this, but by act of Congress (1957 or 58 I believe) all soldiers who fought for the Confederacy had full Military Veteran status established for them....with all the rights and priviledges thereunto appertaining.

Robert E. Lee? US Military Veteran. Nathan Bedford Forrest? US Military Veteran.

They have been recognized as heroes by the US government.....who in a moment of wisdom realized all were Americans, all were fighting for what they believed, and that the frigging war is over and it is time to move on.

Those who continue to bash the South have one goal....and one goal only:  Increase racial strife.

Don't chock on this but I don't view every decision my government makes as a sound decision and have every right to say and believe so. As I said earlier, fight for what you believe in. And I'll say it again, they are no American heroes to me. And will never be celebrated by me. I can respect those gentlemen for fighting in their belief but I will never honor them despite what my government says. 

As for those bashing the south keeping racial strife alive I'd like to know exactly how me saying we should move on and stop romanticizing a fucked up history and call it for what is for once is keeping strife alive, but individuals vehemently defending the south aren't doing the exact same thing. For me personally it's all shit. And growing up there I assure you that the southern pride and talk of the south rising again and the open denegration of any nonwhite individual sure as hell made it their mission to keep racial strife alive and kicking.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will say I don't condone the violence and destruction currently happening. There are peaceful ways to handle things, but the destruction of property, even that I don't care for is still wrong. 

And with that I'm done with this conversation.  

Edited by JoDoe27
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Bit Banger said:

Who's ships matters because The South is being chastised when the whole country had a part to play in the travesty. 

We must also remember that slavery was an accepted practice for millennia, yet the tide shifted in but 50 years. Is it any wonder that we're still feeling aftershocks a mere 150 years later?

Ah, ok, I see what you're saying about the ships - and that's an excellent point.

The North was definitely not pure, and there were plenty who still wanted slavery, and many were complicit.  There was blame 'on both sides' (sorry, couldn't help myself).  That said, it was the South who started the war - no disputing that.  And it was definitely about slavery (also economic issues).  

As far as aftershocks?  Nope, no surprise.  I think these are more than aftershocks, though - this is about a continued institutional racism that has persisted since 1863 (or pick a date).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Bit Banger said:

Hmmm. You seem to be correct.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_resistance_to_malaria

It's hypothesized that the adaptation is also the cause of Sickle-cell. 

That's correct.  People with sickle trait (single allele) is protective against malaria (not 100%).  The evolutionary theory is that this developed for just that reason (and not just in Africans).  Sickle disease (both alleles/homozygous) is unfortunately potentially a really bad thing to have. :( 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now