(10-04-2017 12:49 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 11:37 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 11:27 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 11:24 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 11:12 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  In places like Alabama for centuries. Millions of Africans were killed in the process of slave transport, through murder by slaveholders, etc.

Just a question. Were Jews that were locked up in concentration camps and forced to work, but survived 'holocaust victims'? If they were, then were the blacks forced to work on slave camps in the American south 'holocaust victims'?

Regardless of the merit of the particular protest at Cornell, the use of the word Holocaust to describe the impact of slavery on Africans is appropriate.

You going to need a link for that. Killing slaves is bad for plantation business.
Population of Alabama
1800 1,250 —
1810 9,046 +623.7%
1820 127,901 +1313.9%
1830 309,527 +142.0%
1840 590,756 +90.9%
1850 771,623 +30.6%
1860 964,201 +25.0%
1870 996,992 +3.4%
1880 1,262,505 +26.6%
1890 1,513,401 +19.9%
1900 1,828,697 +20.8%
1910 2,138,093 +16.9%
1920 2,348,174 +9.8%
1930 2,646,248 +12.7%
1940 2,832,961 +7.1%
1950 3,061,743 +8.1%
1960 3,266,740 +6.7%
1970 3,444,165 +5.4%
1980 3,893,888 +13.1%
1990 4,040,587 +3.8%
2000 4,447,100 +10.1%
2010 4,779,736 +7.5%
2016 4,863,300 +1.7%
Sources: 1910–2010[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Alabama

Again, in places like Alabama, it occurred. Of course if thousands of slaves were being killed in the course of transport, abuse, overwork, etc, they'd not be in those census figures.

Also, what about those blacks unable to work as slaves....what happened to them?

You said millions. Slave masters whipped, beat and sometimes would kill a slave, but mass killing = no plantation business. Slaves were always counted in the population, 2/3 = 1, for congressional seats. It was not a holocaust in the USA which is why 500K = 45 Million today.

Uh, have you seen the mortality rates on slave ships? And what about those slaves unable to work due to infirmity or disability?

I thought we were talking about slave masters killing their slaves? The death rates on those ships could be significant. And the death rates for the crew were the same as the slaves and sometimes higher. It was not genocide, it was dangerous business.

(10-04-2017 12:57 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 12:55 PM)shere khan Wrote:  So correct me if i've misread this but the basic idea here from our democrat friends is that AA had it tougher than black people from Africa and the Caribbean. If this is indeed the argument then we've reached a new level of absurdity here.

I'm not discussing that. A poster made the risible argument that slavery, as practiced in the USA, didn't constitute a holocaust. I'm arguing that it most certainly can be called a holocaust.

Again, were the Jews who died in transport to Nazi workcamps victims of the Holocaust? How about the Africans who died in transport to Southern workcamps?

What about the holocaust on the white crews?

About 15 percent of all Africans who made the voyage died, most from the accumulation of brutal treatment and inadequate care from the time of their enslavement in the interior of Africa. Others suffocated in the tightly packed holds, while some committed suicide, refused to eat, or revolted. Crew members, meanwhile, died at even higher rates, also mostly from disease
https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Sla...le_Passage

(10-04-2017 01:47 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 12:49 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 11:37 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 11:27 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 11:24 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  You going to need a link for that. Killing slaves is bad for plantation business.
Population of Alabama
1800 1,250 —
1810 9,046 +623.7%
1820 127,901 +1313.9%
1830 309,527 +142.0%
1840 590,756 +90.9%
1850 771,623 +30.6%
1860 964,201 +25.0%
1870 996,992 +3.4%
1880 1,262,505 +26.6%
1890 1,513,401 +19.9%
1900 1,828,697 +20.8%
1910 2,138,093 +16.9%
1920 2,348,174 +9.8%
1930 2,646,248 +12.7%
1940 2,832,961 +7.1%
1950 3,061,743 +8.1%
1960 3,266,740 +6.7%
1970 3,444,165 +5.4%
1980 3,893,888 +13.1%
1990 4,040,587 +3.8%
2000 4,447,100 +10.1%
2010 4,779,736 +7.5%
2016 4,863,300 +1.7%
Sources: 1910–2010[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Alabama

Again, in places like Alabama, it occurred. Of course if thousands of slaves were being killed in the course of transport, abuse, overwork, etc, they'd not be in those census figures.

Also, what about those blacks unable to work as slaves....what happened to them?

You said millions. Slave masters whipped, beat and sometimes would kill a slave, but mass killing = no plantation business. Slaves were always counted in the population, 2/3 = 1, for congressional seats. It was not a holocaust in the USA which is why 500K = 45 Million today.

Uh, have you seen the mortality rates on slave ships? And what about those slaves unable to work due to infirmity or disability?

I thought we were talking about slave masters killing their slaves? The death rates on those ships could be significant. And the death rates for the crew were the same as the slaves and sometimes higher. It was not genocide, it was dangerous business.

I think that a slave ship with higher mortality rates among the crew versus those chained on the inside in pools of their own feces and urine for a month would be quite rare.

And most crew on these ships had a choice as to whether to go on the boat (unless they were slaves as well). The slaves didn't have a choice.

(10-04-2017 01:51 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 01:47 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 12:49 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 11:37 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 11:27 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Again, in places like Alabama, it occurred. Of course if thousands of slaves were being killed in the course of transport, abuse, overwork, etc, they'd not be in those census figures.

Also, what about those blacks unable to work as slaves....what happened to them?

You said millions. Slave masters whipped, beat and sometimes would kill a slave, but mass killing = no plantation business. Slaves were always counted in the population, 2/3 = 1, for congressional seats. It was not a holocaust in the USA which is why 500K = 45 Million today.

Uh, have you seen the mortality rates on slave ships? And what about those slaves unable to work due to infirmity or disability?

I thought we were talking about slave masters killing their slaves? The death rates on those ships could be significant. And the death rates for the crew were the same as the slaves and sometimes higher. It was not genocide, it was dangerous business.

I think that a slave ship with higher mortality rates among the crew versus those chained on the inside in pools of their own feces and urine for a month would be quite rare.

And most crew on these ships had a choice as to whether to go on the boat (unless they were slaves as well). The slaves didn't have a choice.

Either way it was not a holocaust. The Trading companies make more money delivering slaves that are alive as opposed to dead.

(10-04-2017 01:56 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 01:51 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 01:47 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 12:49 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 11:37 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  You said millions. Slave masters whipped, beat and sometimes would kill a slave, but mass killing = no plantation business. Slaves were always counted in the population, 2/3 = 1, for congressional seats. It was not a holocaust in the USA which is why 500K = 45 Million today.

Uh, have you seen the mortality rates on slave ships? And what about those slaves unable to work due to infirmity or disability?

I thought we were talking about slave masters killing their slaves? The death rates on those ships could be significant. And the death rates for the crew were the same as the slaves and sometimes higher. It was not genocide, it was dangerous business.

I think that a slave ship with higher mortality rates among the crew versus those chained on the inside in pools of their own feces and urine for a month would be quite rare.

And most crew on these ships had a choice as to whether to go on the boat (unless they were slaves as well). The slaves didn't have a choice.

Either way it was not a holocaust. The Trading companies make more money delivering slaves that are alive as opposed to dead.

And some Nazi war profiteers had an economic interest in keeping their slaves alive too.

I suspect some of y'all don't like the fact that black people are taking up any description that you don't like to describe slavery.

Slavery was a vile, disgusting, and sometimes genocidal practice. Period. But for some reason, there are people who want to make it seem less evil than it was.

(10-04-2017 01:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 01:56 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 01:51 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 01:47 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 12:49 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Uh, have you seen the mortality rates on slave ships? And what about those slaves unable to work due to infirmity or disability?

I thought we were talking about slave masters killing their slaves? The death rates on those ships could be significant. And the death rates for the crew were the same as the slaves and sometimes higher. It was not genocide, it was dangerous business.

I think that a slave ship with higher mortality rates among the crew versus those chained on the inside in pools of their own feces and urine for a month would be quite rare.

And most crew on these ships had a choice as to whether to go on the boat (unless they were slaves as well). The slaves didn't have a choice.

Either way it was not a holocaust. The Trading companies make more money delivering slaves that are alive as opposed to dead.

And some Nazi war profiteers had an economic interest in keeping their slaves alive too.

I suspect some of y'all don't like the fact that black people are taking up any description that you don't like to describe slavery.

Slavery was a vile, disgusting, and sometimes genocidal practice. Period. But for some reason, there are people who want to make it seem less evil than it was.

Mass killing of slaves or anyone can be genocidal. Slavery, which has been around forever all over the planet is not genocide. Slavery still exists primarily in Black and Brown countries.

This is genocide,
From April to July 1994, members of the Hutu ethnic majority in the east-central African nation of Rwanda murdered as many as 800,000 people, mostly of the Tutsi minority.
http://www.history.com/topics/rwandan-genocide

(10-04-2017 02:20 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 01:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 01:56 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 01:51 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 01:47 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  I thought we were talking about slave masters killing their slaves? The death rates on those ships could be significant. And the death rates for the crew were the same as the slaves and sometimes higher. It was not genocide, it was dangerous business.

I think that a slave ship with higher mortality rates among the crew versus those chained on the inside in pools of their own feces and urine for a month would be quite rare.

And most crew on these ships had a choice as to whether to go on the boat (unless they were slaves as well). The slaves didn't have a choice.

Either way it was not a holocaust. The Trading companies make more money delivering slaves that are alive as opposed to dead.

And some Nazi war profiteers had an economic interest in keeping their slaves alive too.

I suspect some of y'all don't like the fact that black people are taking up any description that you don't like to describe slavery.

Slavery was a vile, disgusting, and sometimes genocidal practice. Period. But for some reason, there are people who want to make it seem less evil than it was.

Mass killing of slaves or anyone can be genocidal. Slavery, which has been around forever all over the planet is not genocide. Slavery still exists primarily in Black and Brown countries.

This is genocide,
From April to July 1994, members of the Hutu ethnic majority in the east-central African nation of Rwanda murdered as many as 800,000 people, mostly of the Tutsi minority.
http://www.history.com/topics/rwandan-genocide

Ah, so slavery of largely West Africans is somehow excused by a civil war between tribes 2,000 miles away? Is that really your argument?

So somehow if say, France had a civil war, then that would excuse slavery by say, Turkey?

And what's your definition of genocide? And what's your opinion of slavery, as practiced in the USA?

(10-04-2017 02:24 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 02:20 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 01:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 01:56 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 01:51 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I think that a slave ship with higher mortality rates among the crew versus those chained on the inside in pools of their own feces and urine for a month would be quite rare.

And most crew on these ships had a choice as to whether to go on the boat (unless they were slaves as well). The slaves didn't have a choice.

Either way it was not a holocaust. The Trading companies make more money delivering slaves that are alive as opposed to dead.

And some Nazi war profiteers had an economic interest in keeping their slaves alive too.

I suspect some of y'all don't like the fact that black people are taking up any description that you don't like to describe slavery.

Slavery was a vile, disgusting, and sometimes genocidal practice. Period. But for some reason, there are people who want to make it seem less evil than it was.

Mass killing of slaves or anyone can be genocidal. Slavery, which has been around forever all over the planet is not genocide. Slavery still exists primarily in Black and Brown countries.

This is genocide,
From April to July 1994, members of the Hutu ethnic majority in the east-central African nation of Rwanda murdered as many as 800,000 people, mostly of the Tutsi minority.
http://www.history.com/topics/rwandan-genocide

Ah, so slavery of largely West Africans is somehow excused by a civil war between tribes 2,000 miles away? Is that really your argument?

So somehow if say, France had a civil war, then that would excuse slavery by say, Turkey?

And what's your definition of genocide? And what's your opinion of slavery, as practiced in the USA?

You are making stuff up and attributing it my thought and words.
FWIW holocaust specifically refers to Nazi Germany. Genocide is used in all other places. I just posted an example of genocide.

(10-04-2017 02:33 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 02:24 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 02:20 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 01:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 01:56 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Either way it was not a holocaust. The Trading companies make more money delivering slaves that are alive as opposed to dead.

And some Nazi war profiteers had an economic interest in keeping their slaves alive too.

I suspect some of y'all don't like the fact that black people are taking up any description that you don't like to describe slavery.

Slavery was a vile, disgusting, and sometimes genocidal practice. Period. But for some reason, there are people who want to make it seem less evil than it was.

Mass killing of slaves or anyone can be genocidal. Slavery, which has been around forever all over the planet is not genocide. Slavery still exists primarily in Black and Brown countries.

This is genocide,
From April to July 1994, members of the Hutu ethnic majority in the east-central African nation of Rwanda murdered as many as 800,000 people, mostly of the Tutsi minority.
http://www.history.com/topics/rwandan-genocide

Ah, so slavery of largely West Africans is somehow excused by a civil war between tribes 2,000 miles away? Is that really your argument?

So somehow if say, France had a civil war, then that would excuse slavery by say, Turkey?

And what's your definition of genocide? And what's your opinion of slavery, as practiced in the USA?

You are making stuff up and attributing it my thought and words.
FWIW holocaust specifically refers to Nazi Germany. Genocide is used in all other places. I just posted an example of genocide.

So what strong words would you use to condemn the South and slavery as practiced in the USA? Or would you condemn that vile and sometimes genocidal practice in the South at all?
And why so upset because black people have decided to use the word holocaust to describe the inhumanity that Southerners foisted on them during slavery?

Tom in Lazy took is an expert on slavery, Holocausts...an all around victimization...

Let's all cheer for Tom. Hip hip hurray!

(10-04-2017 03:00 PM)No Bull Wrote:  Tom in Lazy took is an expert on slavery, Holocausts...an all around victimization...

Let's all cheer for Tom. Hip hip hurray!

Again, I'm not getting any responses to my request for characterizations of the institution of slavery as practices in the South.

Why does it matter what Black people use to call slavery anyway? Its not like some of y'all think they even have the right to not stand for the flag.

Is it only for white folk to decide the language used to describe crimes committed against blacks?

I suspect that some of y'all are upset that any Black person is challenging their treatment. And that some of y'all want to ignore the cruelty and legacy of slavery in our country. Or the impact that racism has in our society even today.

My guess is that, for many of you, the mere fact that Black people are protesting anything is what some of y'all have a problem with.

Slavery was a vile and sometimes genocidal practice. If they want to use the word holocaust, what's it to you?

(10-04-2017 02:39 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 02:33 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 02:24 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 02:20 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 01:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  And some Nazi war profiteers had an economic interest in keeping their slaves alive too.

I suspect some of y'all don't like the fact that black people are taking up any description that you don't like to describe slavery.

Slavery was a vile, disgusting, and sometimes genocidal practice. Period. But for some reason, there are people who want to make it seem less evil than it was.

Mass killing of slaves or anyone can be genocidal. Slavery, which has been around forever all over the planet is not genocide. Slavery still exists primarily in Black and Brown countries.

This is genocide,
From April to July 1994, members of the Hutu ethnic majority in the east-central African nation of Rwanda murdered as many as 800,000 people, mostly of the Tutsi minority.
http://www.history.com/topics/rwandan-genocide

Ah, so slavery of largely West Africans is somehow excused by a civil war between tribes 2,000 miles away? Is that really your argument?

So somehow if say, France had a civil war, then that would excuse slavery by say, Turkey?

And what's your definition of genocide? And what's your opinion of slavery, as practiced in the USA?

You are making stuff up and attributing it my thought and words.
FWIW holocaust specifically refers to Nazi Germany. Genocide is used in all other places. I just posted an example of genocide.

So what strong words would you use to condemn the South and slavery as practiced in the USA? Or would you condemn that vile and sometimes genocidal practice in the South at all?
And why so upset because black people have decided to use the word holocaust to describe the inhumanity that Southerners foisted on them during slavery?

DEMOCRATS! ALL OF THEM DEMOCRATS.
And in the North they had they had plenty of friendly pro slave Democrats. You think Slavery would not have existed in the North if the climate was conducive to plantations? It would have certainly existed because of Democrats!

Not upset by the young black girl at Cornell using holocaust. She happens to be wrong.

For the 1,000,000,000 time Slavery is not genocide. BTW the Native Americans practiced Slavery all over the Americas. Slavery exists today. Are you going to condemn that?

(10-04-2017 03:07 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 03:00 PM)No Bull Wrote:  Tom in Lazy took is an expert on slavery, Holocausts...an all around victimization...

Let's all cheer for Tom. Hip hip hurray!

Again, I'm not getting any responses to my request for characterizations of the institution of slavery as practices in the South.

Why does it matter what Black people use to call slavery anyway? Its not like some of y'all think they even have the right to not stand for the flag.

Is it only for white folk to decide the language used to describe crimes committed against blacks?

I suspect that some of y'all are upset that any Black person is challenging their treatment. And that some of y'all want to ignore the cruelty and legacy of slavery in our country. Or the impact that racism has in our society even today.

My guess is that, for many of you, the mere fact that Black people are protesting anything is what some of y'all have a problem with.

Slavery was a vile and sometimes genocidal practice. If they want to use the word holocaust, what's it to you?

slavery was a long time ago. No one alive in this country ever owned a slave. As a southerner with lots of black friends... I can tell you blacks love the south.

This country has made amends to black folks... let's move along now. It is 2017... hell we just had a horrible black man as president for 8 years... this is over and the country (sans progressives and antifa...)has moved on... I invite you to do the same.

(10-04-2017 03:12 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 02:39 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 02:33 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 02:24 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 02:20 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Mass killing of slaves or anyone can be genocidal. Slavery, which has been around forever all over the planet is not genocide. Slavery still exists primarily in Black and Brown countries.

This is genocide,
From April to July 1994, members of the Hutu ethnic majority in the east-central African nation of Rwanda murdered as many as 800,000 people, mostly of the Tutsi minority.
http://www.history.com/topics/rwandan-genocide

Ah, so slavery of largely West Africans is somehow excused by a civil war between tribes 2,000 miles away? Is that really your argument?

So somehow if say, France had a civil war, then that would excuse slavery by say, Turkey?

And what's your definition of genocide? And what's your opinion of slavery, as practiced in the USA?

You are making stuff up and attributing it my thought and words.
FWIW holocaust specifically refers to Nazi Germany. Genocide is used in all other places. I just posted an example of genocide.

So what strong words would you use to condemn the South and slavery as practiced in the USA? Or would you condemn that vile and sometimes genocidal practice in the South at all?
And why so upset because black people have decided to use the word holocaust to describe the inhumanity that Southerners foisted on them during slavery?

DEMOCRATS! ALL OF THEM DEMOCRATS.
And in the North they had they had plenty of friendly pro slave Democrats. You think Slavery would not have existed in the North if the climate was conducive to plantations? It would have certainly existed because of Democrats!

Not upset by the young black girl at Cornell using holocaust. She happens to be wrong.

For the 1,000,000,000 time Slavery is not genocide. BTW the Native Americans practiced Slavery all over the Americas. Slavery exists today. Are you going to condemn that?

White Nationalists! All of them white nationalists. Racists then, racists today. Its not terribly relevant if the label is now a R rather than a D.

So, just as I suspected, you cannot bring yourself to condemn slavery or characterize it in any negative way, but rather attempt to excuse it by (of course) blaming other minorities.

Now I understand fully why some Blacks use the term Holocaust. Because calling it slavery doesn't appear to be even a negative thing in some of y'all's mind.

White people were almost exclusively responsible for American slavery. Period. They overwhelmingly were the profiteers from it.

(10-04-2017 03:16 PM)No Bull Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 03:07 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 03:00 PM)No Bull Wrote:  Tom in Lazy took is an expert on slavery, Holocausts...an all around victimization...

Let's all cheer for Tom. Hip hip hurray!

Again, I'm not getting any responses to my request for characterizations of the institution of slavery as practices in the South.

Why does it matter what Black people use to call slavery anyway? Its not like some of y'all think they even have the right to not stand for the flag.

Is it only for white folk to decide the language used to describe crimes committed against blacks?

I suspect that some of y'all are upset that any Black person is challenging their treatment. And that some of y'all want to ignore the cruelty and legacy of slavery in our country. Or the impact that racism has in our society even today.

My guess is that, for many of you, the mere fact that Black people are protesting anything is what some of y'all have a problem with.

Slavery was a vile and sometimes genocidal practice. If they want to use the word holocaust, what's it to you?

slavery was a long time ago. No one alive in this country ever owned a slave. As a southerner with lots of black friends... I can tell you blacks love the south.

This country has made amends to black folks... let's move along now. It is 2017... hell we just had a horrible black man as president for 8 years... this is over and the country (sans progressives and antifa...)has moved on... I invite you to do the same.

They are moving back to the South. From Texas over to the Atlantic. They have left Cali is amazing numbers. Black population is about 1/2 of what it was at it's peak.

(10-04-2017 03:18 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 03:12 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 02:39 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 02:33 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 02:24 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Ah, so slavery of largely West Africans is somehow excused by a civil war between tribes 2,000 miles away? Is that really your argument?

So somehow if say, France had a civil war, then that would excuse slavery by say, Turkey?

And what's your definition of genocide? And what's your opinion of slavery, as practiced in the USA?

You are making stuff up and attributing it my thought and words.
FWIW holocaust specifically refers to Nazi Germany. Genocide is used in all other places. I just posted an example of genocide.

So what strong words would you use to condemn the South and slavery as practiced in the USA? Or would you condemn that vile and sometimes genocidal practice in the South at all?
And why so upset because black people have decided to use the word holocaust to describe the inhumanity that Southerners foisted on them during slavery?

DEMOCRATS! ALL OF THEM DEMOCRATS.
And in the North they had they had plenty of friendly pro slave Democrats. You think Slavery would not have existed in the North if the climate was conducive to plantations? It would have certainly existed because of Democrats!

Not upset by the young black girl at Cornell using holocaust. She happens to be wrong.

For the 1,000,000,000 time Slavery is not genocide. BTW the Native Americans practiced Slavery all over the Americas. Slavery exists today. Are you going to condemn that?

White Nationalists! All of them white nationalists. Racists then, racists today. Its not terribly relevant if the label is now a R rather than a D.

So, just as I suspected, you cannot bring yourself to condemn slavery or characterize it in any negative way, but rather attempt to excuse it by (of course) blaming other minorities.

Now I understand fully why some Blacks use the term Holocaust. Because calling it slavery doesn't appear to be even a negative thing in some of y'all's mind.

White people were almost exclusively responsible for American slavery. Period. They overwhelmingly were the profiteers from it.

And to think you will not condemn slavery that exists right now. Amazing.

(10-04-2017 03:29 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 03:18 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 03:12 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 02:39 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 02:33 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  You are making stuff up and attributing it my thought and words.
FWIW holocaust specifically refers to Nazi Germany. Genocide is used in all other places. I just posted an example of genocide.

So what strong words would you use to condemn the South and slavery as practiced in the USA? Or would you condemn that vile and sometimes genocidal practice in the South at all?
And why so upset because black people have decided to use the word holocaust to describe the inhumanity that Southerners foisted on them during slavery?

DEMOCRATS! ALL OF THEM DEMOCRATS.
And in the North they had they had plenty of friendly pro slave Democrats. You think Slavery would not have existed in the North if the climate was conducive to plantations? It would have certainly existed because of Democrats!

Not upset by the young black girl at Cornell using holocaust. She happens to be wrong.

For the 1,000,000,000 time Slavery is not genocide. BTW the Native Americans practiced Slavery all over the Americas. Slavery exists today. Are you going to condemn that?

White Nationalists! All of them white nationalists. Racists then, racists today. Its not terribly relevant if the label is now a R rather than a D.

So, just as I suspected, you cannot bring yourself to condemn slavery or characterize it in any negative way, but rather attempt to excuse it by (of course) blaming other minorities.

Now I understand fully why some Blacks use the term Holocaust. Because calling it slavery doesn't appear to be even a negative thing in some of y'all's mind.

White people were almost exclusively responsible for American slavery. Period. They overwhelmingly were the profiteers from it.

And to think you will not condemn slavery that exists right now. Amazing.

Where is there slavery? Its a vile practice whether it was white people in the South profiting from it or Donald Trump perhaps using it to build his properties in the Middle East today.

(10-04-2017 03:33 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 03:29 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 03:18 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 03:12 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 02:39 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  So what strong words would you use to condemn the South and slavery as practiced in the USA? Or would you condemn that vile and sometimes genocidal practice in the South at all?
And why so upset because black people have decided to use the word holocaust to describe the inhumanity that Southerners foisted on them during slavery?

DEMOCRATS! ALL OF THEM DEMOCRATS.
And in the North they had they had plenty of friendly pro slave Democrats. You think Slavery would not have existed in the North if the climate was conducive to plantations? It would have certainly existed because of Democrats!

Not upset by the young black girl at Cornell using holocaust. She happens to be wrong.

For the 1,000,000,000 time Slavery is not genocide. BTW the Native Americans practiced Slavery all over the Americas. Slavery exists today. Are you going to condemn that?

White Nationalists! All of them white nationalists. Racists then, racists today. Its not terribly relevant if the label is now a R rather than a D.

So, just as I suspected, you cannot bring yourself to condemn slavery or characterize it in any negative way, but rather attempt to excuse it by (of course) blaming other minorities.

Now I understand fully why some Blacks use the term Holocaust. Because calling it slavery doesn't appear to be even a negative thing in some of y'all's mind.

White people were almost exclusively responsible for American slavery. Period. They overwhelmingly were the profiteers from it.

And to think you will not condemn slavery that exists right now. Amazing.

Where is there slavery? Its a vile practice whether it was white people in the South profiting from it or Donald Trump perhaps using it to build his properties in the Middle East today.

West African migrants are being bought and sold openly in modern-day slave markets in Libya, survivors have told a UN agency helping them return home.

Trafficked people passing through Libya have previously reported violence, extortion and slave labour. But the new testimony from the International Organization for Migration suggests that the trade in human beings has become so normalised that people are being traded in public.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/a...-migration

INDIA TOPS GLOBAL SLAVERY INDEX WITH OVER 14 MILLION PEOPLE ENSLAVED
http://www.newsweek.com/india-tops-globa...ved-284950

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_slavery

(10-04-2017 03:07 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 03:00 PM)No Bull Wrote:  Tom in Lazy took is an expert on slavery, Holocausts...an all around victimization...

Let's all cheer for Tom. Hip hip hurray!

Again, I'm not getting any responses to my request for characterizations of the institution of slavery as practices in the South.

Why does it matter what Black people use to call slavery anyway? Its not like some of y'all think they even have the right to not stand for the flag.

Is it only for white folk to decide the language used to describe crimes committed against blacks?

I suspect that some of y'all are upset that any Black person is challenging their treatment. And that some of y'all want to ignore the cruelty and legacy of slavery in our country. Or the impact that racism has in our society even today.

My guess is that, for many of you, the mere fact that Black people are protesting anything is what some of y'all have a problem with.

Slavery was a vile and sometimes genocidal practice. If they want to use the word holocaust, what's it to you?

So you can denigrate the Jews by using their term to describe something that wasn't anything close?

I forgot. Its politically correct to be anti-Semitic these days.

(10-04-2017 03:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 03:07 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 03:00 PM)No Bull Wrote:  Tom in Lazy took is an expert on slavery, Holocausts...an all around victimization...

Let's all cheer for Tom. Hip hip hurray!

Again, I'm not getting any responses to my request for characterizations of the institution of slavery as practices in the South.

Why does it matter what Black people use to call slavery anyway? Its not like some of y'all think they even have the right to not stand for the flag.

Is it only for white folk to decide the language used to describe crimes committed against blacks?

I suspect that some of y'all are upset that any Black person is challenging their treatment. And that some of y'all want to ignore the cruelty and legacy of slavery in our country. Or the impact that racism has in our society even today.

My guess is that, for many of you, the mere fact that Black people are protesting anything is what some of y'all have a problem with.

Slavery was a vile and sometimes genocidal practice. If they want to use the word holocaust, what's it to you?

So you can denigrate the Jews by using their term to describe something that wasn't anything close?

I forgot. Its politically correct to be anti-Semitic these days.

LOL. Do you hear the ADL complaining? Nope.