African migration to U.S., now more than slavery...

[Golden Crane]

As long as we are remembering, remember that at the time slavery was completely legal, and widely practiced throughout the world. It is despicable to our standards now, but most labour practices which helped builded North America(slavery, indentured servants, child labour) were the norm at the time, not only in North America, but in the European countries where most of our immigrants and settlers came from. If you think horrible working conditions were limited to those of African descent, take a look at the plight of the Irish or Scottish. Many a country was built on the backs of slaves and serfs, none of whom had the "right" to decide their own fate.

Just want to point out that Irish and Scottish were not bought here in chains. Just sayin'...

 

[elder999]

Just want to point out that Irish and Scottish were not bought here in chains. Just sayin'...

Actually, Scottish and Irish convicts, as well as conscripted civilians, were sent to the colonies like Jamaica and Barbados, by England, as early as 1627-some put it as early as 1617, and they were sent in chains....in many cases, the first language that imported African slaves learned wasn't English-it was Gaelic or Scottish-it's to these languages that Jamaicans and other "English speaking" Carribbean islands owe their distinctive patois....

 

[frank raud]

Actually, Scottish and Irish convicts, as well as conscripted civilians, were sent to the colonies like Jamaica and Barbados, by England, as early as 1627-some put it as early as 1617, and they were sent in chains....in many cases, the first language that imported African slaves learned wasn't English-it was Gaelic or Scottish-it's to these languages that Jamaicans and other "English speaking" Carribbean islands owe their distinctive patois....

My dear Elder, you are not making it easy to maintain the level of "white guilt" some folks think we should be displaying. Of course, we could also mention how Australia was used as a convict colony, which most certainly means a large percentage of its original English/Irish/Scottish settlers arrived in chains.

 

[elder999]

My dear Elder, you are not making it easy to maintain the level of "white guilt" some folks think we should be displaying. Of course, we could also mention how Australia was used as a convict colony, which most certainly means a large percentage of its original English/Irish/Scottish settlers arrived in chains.

Or the state of Georgia.

I don't care one way or the other about "white guilt." It mostly doesn't exist, really-billi's posts are often ample "proof" of that.

What I do care about is the truth: historic, factual, statistical, and logical accuracy-all of which seem to be in short supply in certain "copypasta" posts of a demagogic nature......:lol:

 

[billc]

Hmmm...

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/trade_unions_nazi_germany.htm

Therefore, trade unions were banned in Nazi Germany and the state took over the role of looking after the working class.

For added emphasis...

state took over the role of looking after the working class.

Hitler announced that the German Labour Force, headed by Robert Ley, would replace all trade unions and would look after the working class. The title was chosen carefully. The new organisation was deliberately cloaked in patriotism, as it was now a German entity as was seen in its title. The working class was now a ‘labour force’. The Nazi Party did all that it could to ensure the workers felt that they were better off under the guidance of the Nazi Party via the German Labour Front.


They had to be brought onto the side of the Nazis as Hitler had major plans for the workers. There were simply too many of them to brutalise into submission, so the workers were offered the ‘Strength Through Joy’ movement (Kraft durch Freude&#8217 which offered them subsidised holidays, cheap theatre trips etc.


Hitler offered the working class an improved leisure life in one hand and took away their traditional rights in the other.

Sounds like capitalism to me....

Elder, the nazis were socialists. No massaging of the facts will change that. The state was in control of the means of production...they were socialists...

 

[billc]

How about those unions in communist russia...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_unions_in_the_Soviet_Union

Unlike labor unions in the West, Soviet trade unions were, in fact, actually governmental organizations whose chief aim was not to represent workers but to further the goals of management, government, and the CPSU. As such, they were partners of management in attempting to promote labor discipline, worker morale, and productivity. Unions organized "socialist competitions" and awarded prizes for fulfilling quotas. They also distributed welfare benefits, operated cultural and sports facilities, issued passes to health and vacation centers, oversaw factory and local housing construction, provided catering services, and awarded bonuses and prepaid vacations.
Although unions in the Soviet Union primarily promoted production interests, they had some input regarding production plans, capital improvements in factories, local housing construction, and remuneration agreements with management. Unions also were empowered to protect workers against bureaucratic and managerial arbitrariness, to ensure that management adhered to collective agreements, and to protest unsafe working conditions. However, strikes were illegal.

Switch out Nazi and communist and you have the same dynamic. The nazis were socialists.

 

[elder999]

Elder, the nazis were socialists. No massaging of the facts will change that. The state was in control of the means of production...they were socialists...

Yeah, you're just as right about that as you are about African immigration disproving American racism. What was I thinking? I bow before your superior logic and grasp of historical fact.

Never argue with an idiot, because they will only bring you down to their level and beat you by experience-John Guerrero
Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference-Mark Twain
If you argue with an idiot, there are two idiots” – Robert Kiyosaki

So, billi, this is me.....not arguing with you.:lfao:

 

[billc]

As to the socialist nature of the nazis, this guy might know a little something about that...

Friedrich August Hayek CH (German pronunciation: [ˈfʁiːdʁɪç ˈaʊ̯ɡʊst ˈhaɪ̯ɛk]; 8 May 1899 – 23 March 1992), born in Austria-Hungary as Friedrich August von Hayek, was an economist and philosopherbest known for his defense of classical liberalism. In 1974, Hayek shared the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences (with his political rival, Gunnar Myrdal) for his "pioneering work in the theory of money and economic fluctuations and... penetrating analysis of the interdependence of economic, social and institutional phenomena." He considered the efficient allocation of capital to be the most important factor leading to sustainable and optimal GDP growth, and warned of harms from monetary authority manipulation of interest rates. Interest rates should be set naturally by equilibrium between consumption of goods or capital stock.[SUP][1][/SUP]
Hayek is considered to be a major economist and political philosopher of the twentieth century.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP]Along with his mentor Ludwig von Mises, he was an important contributor to the Austrian school of economic thought. Hayek's account of how changing prices communicate information which enable individuals to coordinate their plans is widely regarded as an important achievement in economics.[SUP][4][/SUP]He also contributed to the fields of systems thinking, jurisprudence, neuroscience and the history of ideas.

http://carrefoursagesse.wordpress.com/2009/10/21/friedrich-von-hayek-nazism-is-socialism/

Hayek on the socialism of the nazis...

[h=1]Friedrich von Hayek: Nazism is Socialism[/h]

One of the main reasons why the socialist character of National Socialism has been quite generally unrecognized, is, no doubt, its alliance with the nationalist groups which represent the great industries and the great landowners. But this merely proves that these groups too, as they have since learnt to their bitter disappointment, have, at least partly, been mistaken as to the nature of the movement. But only partly because, and this is the most characteristic feature of modern Germany, many capitalists are themselves strongly influenced by socialistic ideas, and have not sufficient belief in capitalism to defend it with a clear conscience.
But, in spite of this, the German entrepreneur class have manifested almost incredible short-sightedness in allying themselves with a movement of whose strong anti-capitalistic tendencies there should never have been any doubt. A careful observer must always have been aware that the opposition of the Nazis to the established socialist parties, which gained them the sympathy of the entrepreneur, was only to a very small extent directed against their economic policy.

 

[billc]

It's about time you did elder. It's okay to be wrong, don't be too hard on yourself.

 

[billc]

More Hayek on the socialism of the nazis...

The persecution of the Marxists, and of democrats in general, tends to obscure the fundamental fact that National “Socialism” is a genuine socialist movement, whose leading ideas are the final fruit of the anti-liberal tendencies which have been steadily gaining ground in Germany since the later part of the Bismarckian era, and which led the majority of the German intelligentsia first to “socialism of the chair” and later to Marxism in its social-democratic or communist form.

The racism and eugenics of the nazis had a long history on the socialist left as well...

 

[elder999]

 

[WC_lun]

Racism isn't as bad as it used to be in the US, but by no means has it disapeared. Just the fact that having a black president was such a big deal is a testimate to that. The first black "slaves" were actually endentured servants who gained thier freedom after seven years. Over time, laws were passed making slavery of those not white legal. The south ran with that as an easy source for agriculture labor. Though obviously not the same, today's comparison would be cheap labor of migrant farm workers.

Even whites have suffered racism in this country. Ask anyone who is up to date on Irish and Italian-American history. Seems in our history we have spread the hate around. Though admittedly, whites suffered far less than non-whites when it comes to racism.

While slavery exsisted throughout the world, when we started it many other countries were ending its' legality. We were the last major country to do so and it took a civil war in which a significant amount of the US male population died. We were also one of the last first world countries to end codified racism in our laws. So to say everyone else was doing it just isn't quite accurate.

 

[Wo Fat]

[h=2]African migration to U.S., now more than slavery...[/h]

A pampas statement of White benevolence or a shivering, tail-tucking, bed-wetting indication of White fear? That it actually needed to be mentioned at all, clearly illustrates the latter.

 

[Sukerkin]

Now, now. You want some salt to go with that chip on your shoulder? :lol:

Joking aside, the 'problem' will never go away unless people either stop bearing generational grudges for something done to their ancestors (or imagined happened) or stop feeling unnecessary guilt for something done by those who are nothing to do with themselves. Both feelings give rise to anger in the end and nothing useful comes of that.

After all, my ancestry probably has within it more slaves than many African-American's who bear the enslavement of their forebears as some blazing cross that gives them immunity from the consequences of their actions or words. You have to let it go - I've forgiven the Romans' after all ... not the Norman's tho' . If you don't let it go then it defines you and perpetuates the enslavement.

 

[Tez3]

If by definition the first black slaves were indentured servents then the very first slaves were taken across with the Pilgrim Fathers as they took indentured servants with them, I suspect they may had little choice about being one of the first 'settler's, for various reasons. http://www.ushistory.org/us/5b.asp

 

[Wo Fat]

Now, now Sukerkin. May I offer you a tax exemption for all of that paternalism?

 

[Golden Crane]

Racism isn't as bad as it used to be in the US...

And the "not a bad as it used to be" part totally depends on who you ask and where you live. Just because it's not all lynch mob-ish and "Die N*gger!" doesn't mean we're all holding hands and singing Kumba-ya. All racists don't wear white hoods. Some wear business suits and ties.

Just the fact that having a black president was such a big deal is a testimate to that.

Not really. My parents - products of a segregated south - never thought they'd live to see an African-American president (and sadly, they didn't); The "big deal" is that electing a Black person it took so bloody long. The legacy of African slavery and the diaspora it created is long-reaching, I'm hear to tell ya.

The first black "slaves" were actually endentured servants who gained thier freedom after seven years.

Actually the first SLAVES here were endentured servants, reportedly. Around 1680 or so, fewer Europeans were crossing that big ol' pond and those in need of cheap labor began to...umm..."import" more Africans to take up the slack. About 20 years later, it became illegal to be (gasp!) white and enslaved (gasp again!) - that wonderful distinction being reserved most exclusively for folks of African and Native American descent and those born to slave mothers. But let's go back: from the 16th to 19th centuries, it has been estimated that 12 million Africans were shipped as slaves to the Americas (meaning that all of them didn't end up in the USA but elsewhere as well). I just read that according to the 1860 census, the slave population in the good ol' USA was four million.

A reminder: we are barely a generation removed from the segregated "separate but equal" laws that people had to march, sit-in and protest against to have stricken from the books. Please don't be naive and think that Preident Obama's election makes racism and racist tendencies a thing of the past. It doesn't quite work like that.

 

[Golden Crane]

And then there's this:

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/09/how-racist-are-we-ask-google/

 

[Sukerkin]

:nods: Of course you may, Wo. I could always use some more cash . Not sure it's fair to call history, or at least my view of it, paternalism mind you but it's not an argument I want to have tonight (too long for the time I have available sadly).

 

[Wo Fat]

A reminder: we are barely a generation removed from the segregated "separate but equal" laws that people had to march, sit-in and protest against to have stricken from the books. Please don't be naive and think that Preident Obama's election makes racism and racist tendencies a thing of the past. It doesn't quite work like that.

Ironically if you go back and study the history of "perceptions", America's "majority" in the 1850s through the late 1960s did not believe that there were problems with either inequality--racial or otherwise.

The USS Denial is proving a pretty big ship to turn around.