1st slaves in the new world were traded by tribes like the Chippewa, Ottawa, et. al. long before any whites ever set a foot on these shores.

(06-19-2020 10:20 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-19-2020 10:17 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(06-19-2020 04:46 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-18-2020 08:03 PM)Crazier Wrote:  

(06-18-2020 06:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  Sounds like you are ignorant about parents and human nature

Sounds like you are ignorant about the history of slavery in this country. Go to your local library and read some books.

Here is some book learning for you:
Slavery in the upper South was on the wane in the 1840's, where large slave holdings were uncommon. In North Carolina, for instance, there were only two (2) persons that ever reached "planter" status (ownership of over 100 slaves).
Even though the slave population continued to rise in the upper south, it was due to family growth, not additional purchases.
Many slave holders had started to grant freedom to slaves in the upper south and by the 1860 census there were over 35,000 freed slaves (approx. 12%-14% of the total African-American population) living in North Carolina (some owned land and had the right to vote). The numbers of freed slaves and the percentage of population was even higher in Virginia.

They were free Blacks in the colonial period, lots.

If the family is the building block of society, it is also the keystone of historical understanding. Nowhere is this more evident than in the study of black people who were free in the slave societies of the Americas. Often the product of relationships between slaves and free people of various admixtures of African, Native American, and European descent, the free blacks' familial origins and subsequent domestic connections determined their legal status and shaped, in large measure, their social standing. No one has made this point more forcefully than Paul Heinegg, who, during the last twenty years, has meticulously constructed and reconstructed the genealogies of free people of color in Virginia, North Carolina, Maryland and Delaware. Now, with this expansion of his earlier book on North Carolina and Virginia, Heinegg has extended his work to South Carolina. Taken together, Heinegg provides the fullest discussion of the familial origins of free people of color in the Anglophone colonial South.

Heinegg's studies of free black families bear with particular force on the period when the South was a society-with-slaves. During those years--prior to the advent of the staple producing plantation, tobacco in the Chesapeake and rice in the Carolinas-- the line between freedom and slavery was extraordinarily permeable. Various peoples of European, African, and Native American descent crossed it freely and often. In such socially ill-defined circumstances, white men and women held black and Indian slaves and white servants, and black men and women did like. Peoples of European, African and Native American descent--both free and unfree--worked, played, and even married openly in a manner that would later be condemned by custom and prohibited by law.
http://freeafricanamericans.com/foreword.htm

http://freeafricanamericans.com/

And whites in the form of indentured (a limited slavery of working off debt) servants were the first slaves of whites in the New World. The first slaves in the New World were Native Americans captured and used for labor by other Native American tribes.

1/2-2/3 of all Euro immigrants were indentured for the first 150 or so years of immigration. This was voluntary. If W. Africa did not exist, European slaves would have been used in some of these places. There is a reason some of those countries are called Slavic. Brits would have tried to snatch as many Irish as possible.

For Euro traders W. Africa was an amazing find, willing trading partners with great expertise catching slaves, and you totally avoid the N. Africans and Ottomans.

I understand the responses, but don't think focusing on the idea of 'we didn't start it' is going to be productive....

That said, most of the beautiful ironwork in New Orleans was done by African Americans, many slaves. I certainly hope they don't 'do away' with that.... which means somewhere, someone is deciding what goes and what stays.... and some terrible mistakes will be made.

(06-19-2020 11:25 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I understand the responses, but don't think focusing on the idea of 'we didn't start it' is going to be productive....

That said, most of the beautiful ironwork in New Orleans was done by African Americans, many slaves. I certainly hope they don't 'do away' with that.... which means somewhere, someone is deciding what goes and what stays.... and some terrible mistakes will be made.

Hambone if you surrender logic you lose this fight. It is based in ignorance and illogic. There is no other way to fight it without weapons. In all hostile situations there are two ways out and two ways only. You come to an agreement which requires reason which is based upon logic and an informed weighing of potential risk versus potential reward. The second is you fight.

The "logic won't work" statement is that of the weak minded who will sacrifice reality and truth for a moment's peace and that is about how long it lasts before another demand is made.

And for the record this is why they are attacking the credibility of the police. They want citizen's councils to take the place of police because they aren't prepared to stand up to the mayhem and they will rule with those they fear that homeowners and businessmen and women can't use weapons to defend their homes and livelihoods. The attack on police is to eliminate those who know how the criminals work and understand the necessity of force to contain it. The police not only stand between the people and the thugs they stand between the people and the corruption in government. Remove the police and the rioters team up with weak politicians and victimize the innocent. Most Police use judgment on the spot and will not follow unlawful orders.

(06-19-2020 11:38 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-19-2020 11:25 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I understand the responses, but don't think focusing on the idea of 'we didn't start it' is going to be productive....

Hambone if you surrender logic you lose this fight. It is based in ignorance and illogic.

I don't see how my comments surrender logic. Just because something isn't productive doesn't mean it's not correct.

That said, you're almost making my point...

Arguing logic with someone engaging in 'illogic' is (imo) not likely to be productive. If they honestly believe it and lack logical skills, then it's like telling someone who suffers from anxiety to simply 'get over it'. If the illogic is by choice... because they are aware that they are being illogical, and they simply don't care. I don't think many people don't know that slavery didn't start in the US (ignorance)... even, and especially those that make claims that sound like it did. They're making the comment to get a reaction, and they're getting it. A few, yes... but not many. It's going to come across as a deflection, and that will be used against you to continue to push the illogical arguments.

If you want to engage in logic that might work, how about this?

IMO, the biggest reason UF is doing this is because they want to continue to attract African American Football players so that they can continue to exploit them. Such an overt action (which really changes nothing as almost nobody engaging in the chant thought of that context... many black people did it openly and with pride and vigor) signals some sort of racial 'virtue' by the school... which others... Alabama in particular comes to mind... Maybe Florida State (minorities, but not African Americans) will struggle to keep up with.

If it gets them a few extra recruits away from those programs, they potentially get millions.

That's the reality.... and it's logical... and it represents what the same people advocating for minorities already believed/claimed.

As Chappy pointed out, the term does have racist meanings. I'm not familiar w/ how the Gators use it (can't stand the Power 5). Does Average Joe connect it w/ the racist meaning? Is the way it's still used intended to be racist?

(06-19-2020 12:12 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  IMO, the biggest reason UF is doing this is because they want to continue to attract African American Football players so that they can continue to exploit them. Such an overt action (which really changes nothing as almost nobody engaging in the chant thought of that context... many black people did it openly and with pride and vigor) signals some sort of racial 'virtue' by the school... which others... Alabama in particular comes to mind... Maybe Florida State (minorities, but not African Americans) will struggle to keep up with.

If it gets them a few extra recruits away from those programs, they potentially get millions.

That's the reality.... and it's logical... and it represents what the same people advocating for minorities already believed/claimed.

It's not exploitation if one chooses to go for the compensation offered.

(06-19-2020 12:12 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-19-2020 11:38 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-19-2020 11:25 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I understand the responses, but don't think focusing on the idea of 'we didn't start it' is going to be productive....

Hambone if you surrender logic you lose this fight. It is based in ignorance and illogic.

I don't see how my comments surrender logic. Just because something isn't productive doesn't mean it's not correct.

That said, you're almost making my point...

Arguing logic with someone engaging in 'illogic' is (imo) not likely to be productive. If they honestly believe it and lack logical skills, then it's like telling someone who suffers from anxiety to simply 'get over it'. If the illogic is by choice... because they are aware that they are being illogical, and they simply don't care. I don't think many people don't know that slavery didn't start in the US (ignorance)... even, and especially those that make claims that sound like it did. They're making the comment to get a reaction, and they're getting it. A few, yes... but not many. It's going to come across as a deflection, and that will be used against you to continue to push the illogical arguments.

If you want to engage in logic that might work, how about this?

IMO, the biggest reason UF is doing this is because they want to continue to attract African American Football players so that they can continue to exploit them. Such an overt action (which really changes nothing as almost nobody engaging in the chant thought of that context... many black people did it openly and with pride and vigor) signals some sort of racial 'virtue' by the school... which others... Alabama in particular comes to mind... Maybe Florida State (minorities, but not African Americans) will struggle to keep up with.

If it gets them a few extra recruits away from those programs, they potentially get millions.

That's the reality.... and it's logical... and it represents what the same people advocating for minorities already believed/claimed.

If you abandon logic those not using reason have no chance of learning and you have no chance of winning. Two illogical positions are twice as bad.

Now UF may surrender in order to attract black athletes. That does not seem unreasonable prima facia, but if it is wholly unreasonable to the fans that pay the bills how damned logical was it then? And I resent your term exploit. Getting a free education with the ability to market one's own image, is now far from exploitation. Let's deal with what is real rather than illogical and irrational arguments and a tweaked illustration in which you call those who have benefitted massively by their representation of universities to be exploitive? Especially now that they will have advertising endorsements as amateurs?

The bottom line is that is not rational or logical to blame people 160 years later for sins of antiquity when the legal realm was wholly different and many find themselves just as compromised by the rise of Corporate Multi-nationals and their agenda and power as those 160 years ago did by the institution of slavery.

The uber wealthy are doing what they have always done, pitting the impoverished against the middle class in order that they, a limited minority, may control as much as possible. This isn't about racism or slavery, it is a mindless attack by the impoverished on the middle class because of distortions and lies carefully taught by the corporate elite. It is more akin to the Hunger Games than it is to institutional Racism which is a crock.

And the more people we have like you who sell out to avoid confrontation the more likely we all are to fall victim to these tactics.

It is, and always has been, to resist the unreasonable because once you show no will to fight the bully instinct takes over your opposition and they will demand everything you have. If you don't realize this you have truly been sheltered and are probably totally reliant upon the Corporate teat already.

Utter insanity

(06-19-2020 12:12 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-19-2020 11:38 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-19-2020 11:25 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I understand the responses, but don't think focusing on the idea of 'we didn't start it' is going to be productive....

Hambone if you surrender logic you lose this fight. It is based in ignorance and illogic.

I don't see how my comments surrender logic. Just because something isn't productive doesn't mean it's not correct.

That said, you're almost making my point...

Arguing logic with someone engaging in 'illogic' is (imo) not likely to be productive. If they honestly believe it and lack logical skills, then it's like telling someone who suffers from anxiety to simply 'get over it'. If the illogic is by choice... because they are aware that they are being illogical, and they simply don't care. I don't think many people don't know that slavery didn't start in the US (ignorance)... even, and especially those that make claims that sound like it did. They're making the comment to get a reaction, and they're getting it. A few, yes... but not many. It's going to come across as a deflection, and that will be used against you to continue to push the illogical arguments.

If you want to engage in logic that might work, how about this?

IMO, the biggest reason UF is doing this is because they want to continue to attract African American Football players so that they can continue to exploit them. Such an overt action (which really changes nothing as almost nobody engaging in the chant thought of that context... many black people did it openly and with pride and vigor) signals some sort of racial 'virtue' by the school... which others... Alabama in particular comes to mind... Maybe Florida State (minorities, but not African Americans) will struggle to keep up with.

If it gets them a few extra recruits away from those programs, they potentially get millions.

That's the reality.... and it's logical... and it represents what the same people advocating for minorities already believed/claimed.

You will surrender for literally anything.

JR,

I'd appreciate it if you'd stop putting words and beliefs into my mouth. All I said is that I didn't believe conversations about whether or not we 'started slavery' would be productive... If you think it's productive, that's fine... but your criticism needs to stop at what I said and not continue to what you incorrectly inferred. SOME evidence that it's not productive is the fact that you've now shifted the discussion to 'blame'; which is entirely different from what I was speaking about. Let me ask you this... speaking of your blaming people today for things that happened 160 years agocomment. Would your position on that change if we HAD been the first to engage in slavery? Do you think those that wish to blame people today for things that happened 160 years ago really care if we invented the practice? If not (and I would think 'not' on either front)... then what difference does that argument (whether or not we started slavery) make to either side?

I too would argue that it is vastly more important to argue about 'blame' than it is to argue about 'whether we (as Americans) started it'... because WE (meaning anyone alive today) certainly didn't start it. That's not an unwillingness to engage in conflict...or selling out... It's an unwillingness to engage in an argument that makes no difference. Yes, anyone who says 'we started it' is wrong and you can say that... but arguing about it makes no difference to 'whom to blame' today. Two entirely different conversations that you have commingled.

To the rest of your comments/my comments about what UF is doing, which is somewhat different... You don't believe that college athletes were being exploited. I generally agree with you... the schools took the risk, we got educations... so why did the NCAA change the rule to address something that 'logical people' don't think exists? They didn't do it just to be nice.... and they sure didn't seek my (or your) input before making that decision.

The 'exploitation' term that offends you is not mine. It's the word used by those who sued the NCAA and brought about that change. Why you would be offended by a word not directed at you is another argument not worth having.

We don't have a say in what the NCAA does. Only the p5 (your wealthy) really do. Yes, if UF fans don't accept the decision (and they may not, I don't know as I'm not one of them) then it will be a very costly decision. The University surely considered this... and if not... ok, they're stupid... but I'm betting they did... and I'm also betting that they considered what I suggested... that this might improve their position with minority athletes relative to their peers... see what's happening at Texas. If you disagree with this, that's fine as well... but please try and say so without resorting to straw men to support you. If you think this will be a costly decision for UF, okay. You might be right. We can argue about it, or we can wait and see what happens since our determination has nothing to do with what actually happens. If I were a coach at UF (who may or may not have been consulted at all) I'd certainly be trying to find SOME way to 'sell' it as a positive... and I'd damn sure be going after Alabama.

Here's a line from the Villanova players lawsuit that came after the decision above...
“The NCAA’s recent move to permit student athletes to benefit from their name, image and likeness illustrates that the untenable amateurism model is simply a smokescreen used to protect the pockets of the NCAA and its member schools,” said Michael Willemin, a partner at Wigdor Law, the firm that is representing Johnson. “By refusing to pay athletes the minimum wage, the NCAA is essentially saying that it is okay for athletes to be paid, as long as someone else is cutting the check.”

This is precisely why I think the NCAA did what they did. It allows them to protect their highly profitable business model as 'what they are allowing' doesn't come from their pockets... and it helps keep developmental leagues like the XFL from gaining traction should they decide to follow the NBA and MLB models and allow high schoolers to avoid college altogether.

(06-19-2020 02:54 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  JR,

I'd appreciate it if you'd stop putting words and beliefs into my mouth. All I said is that I didn't believe conversations about whether or not we 'started slavery' would be productive... If you think it's productive, that's fine... but your criticism needs to stop at what I said and not continue to what you incorrectly inferred. SOME evidence that it's not productive is the fact that you've now shifted the discussion to 'blame'; which is entirely different from what I was speaking about. Let me ask you this... speaking of your blaming people today for things that happened 160 years agocomment. Would your position on that change if we HAD been the first to engage in slavery? Do you think those that wish to blame people today for things that happened 160 years ago really care if we invented the practice? If not (and I would think 'not' on either front)... then what difference does that argument (whether or not we started slavery) make to either side?

I too would argue that it is vastly more important to argue about 'blame' than it is to argue about 'whether we (as Americans) started it'... because WE (meaning anyone alive today) certainly didn't start it. That's not an unwillingness to engage in conflict...or selling out... It's an unwillingness to engage in an argument that makes no difference. Yes, anyone who says 'we started it' is wrong and you can say that... but arguing about it makes no difference to 'whom to blame' today. Two entirely different conversations that you have commingled.

To the rest of your comments/my comments about what UF is doing, which is somewhat different... You don't believe that college athletes were being exploited. I generally agree with you... the schools took the risk, we got educations... so why did the NCAA change the rule to address something that 'logical people' don't think exists? They didn't do it just to be nice.... and they sure didn't seek my (or your) input before making that decision.

The 'exploitation' term that offends you is not mine. It's the word used by those who sued the NCAA and brought about that change. Why you would be offended by a word not directed at you is another argument not worth having.

We don't have a say in what the NCAA does. Only the p5 (your wealthy) really do. Yes, if UF fans don't accept the decision (and they may not, I don't know as I'm not one of them) then it will be a very costly decision. The University surely considered this... and if not... ok, they're stupid... but I'm betting they did... and I'm also betting that they considered what I suggested... that this might improve their position with minority athletes relative to their peers... see what's happening at Texas. If you disagree with this, that's fine as well... but please try and say so without resorting to straw men to support you. If you think this will be a costly decision for UF, okay. You might be right. We can argue about it, or we can wait and see what happens since our determination has nothing to do with what actually happens. If I were a coach at UF (who may or may not have been consulted at all) I'd certainly be trying to find SOME way to 'sell' it as a positive... and I'd damn sure be going after Alabama.

Here's a line from the Villanova players lawsuit that came after the decision above...
“The NCAA’s recent move to permit student athletes to benefit from their name, image and likeness illustrates that the untenable amateurism model is simply a smokescreen used to protect the pockets of the NCAA and its member schools,” said Michael Willemin, a partner at Wigdor Law, the firm that is representing Johnson. “By refusing to pay athletes the minimum wage, the NCAA is essentially saying that it is okay for athletes to be paid, as long as someone else is cutting the check.”

This is precisely why I think the NCAA did what they did. It allows them to protect their highly profitable business model as 'what they are allowing' doesn't come from their pockets... and it helps keep developmental leagues like the XFL from gaining traction should they decide to follow the NBA and MLB models and allow high schoolers to avoid college altogether.

Sorry sport but you are the only one shifting the damned argument! There is no straw man except the one you are trying to create. The athlete argument is yours. Mine is pretty damned simple. Give in to terroristic demands and that is what demands are from a mob and the demands will get bigger and never cease. This is about power to create change, not about past injustice which is merely the guilt lever they are using.

Your solution and argument is to cave. It's just that damned simple and you are the one trying to shift my very simple and direct argument to wiggle out of looking conciliatory in what you think is reasonable.

Reasoning with the unreasonable is not reasonable at all. It's cowardly concession.

That's the whole damned point! Nothing hard about it except in your squirrely mind.

And the exploitation part is simple to. I say that receiving fours years of training at the college level prepared them for the NFL. The NFL has never taken college football players straight out of high school because they aren't ready. The coaching and experience is of value to them as is the education if they availed themselves of it. In that sense they have never been exploited. You obviously think they have. The image and licensing makes that even less true than ever. If they get paid they are professionals. I hope they pay taxes. It at least would be an honest arrangement with the government. But exploited they are not. It is their choice to play football. It is their choice to play football at college. It is their choice to accept a scholarship. As long as it is their choice it by definition is not exploitation.

The demands are unreasonable. Caving is wrong. It will create more because it isn't about getting rid of "gator bait" or "renaming buildings at Texas". It's about the power to make 200 year old institutions do it. You feed that hunger for power and it only grows. Military people and law enforcement know this. Chickenshit college administrators who have sucked up to PC policy and corporate lackeys who have to live buy it or be crucified will never stand up to it. That's why the Police are under attack picking on the sins of the few to condemn the many and why colleges and politicians and corporations are being called on to cave. They know the latter will cave and the former knows them for what the hell they are and won't.

Your position in this only enables further disruptions of our society and will lead to more deaths of the innocent than saying no firmly and stopping it now would lead to. That's why I am opposed and you wish to be conciliatory and I find you to be part of the problem rather than what is the necessary solution. But I suppose if I worked for a large corporation and was scared about losing my job I would have to at least consider virtue signaling on social media. It is a sorry state of affairs. And you were wrong about the origins of the virus and you are wrong about this. But you may be in the majority even if that doesn't make you right and that's the scary part.

(06-19-2020 03:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-19-2020 02:54 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  JR,

I'd appreciate it if you'd stop putting words and beliefs into my mouth. All I said is that I didn't believe conversations about whether or not we 'started slavery' would be productive... If you think it's productive, that's fine... but your criticism needs to stop at what I said and not continue to what you incorrectly inferred. SOME evidence that it's not productive is the fact that you've now shifted the discussion to 'blame'; which is entirely different from what I was speaking about. Let me ask you this... speaking of your blaming people today for things that happened 160 years agocomment. Would your position on that change if we HAD been the first to engage in slavery? Do you think those that wish to blame people today for things that happened 160 years ago really care if we invented the practice? If not (and I would think 'not' on either front)... then what difference does that argument (whether or not we started slavery) make to either side?

I too would argue that it is vastly more important to argue about 'blame' than it is to argue about 'whether we (as Americans) started it'... because WE (meaning anyone alive today) certainly didn't start it. That's not an unwillingness to engage in conflict...or selling out... It's an unwillingness to engage in an argument that makes no difference. Yes, anyone who says 'we started it' is wrong and you can say that... but arguing about it makes no difference to 'whom to blame' today. Two entirely different conversations that you have commingled.

To the rest of your comments/my comments about what UF is doing, which is somewhat different... You don't believe that college athletes were being exploited. I generally agree with you... the schools took the risk, we got educations... so why did the NCAA change the rule to address something that 'logical people' don't think exists? They didn't do it just to be nice.... and they sure didn't seek my (or your) input before making that decision.

The 'exploitation' term that offends you is not mine. It's the word used by those who sued the NCAA and brought about that change. Why you would be offended by a word not directed at you is another argument not worth having.

We don't have a say in what the NCAA does. Only the p5 (your wealthy) really do. Yes, if UF fans don't accept the decision (and they may not, I don't know as I'm not one of them) then it will be a very costly decision. The University surely considered this... and if not... ok, they're stupid... but I'm betting they did... and I'm also betting that they considered what I suggested... that this might improve their position with minority athletes relative to their peers... see what's happening at Texas. If you disagree with this, that's fine as well... but please try and say so without resorting to straw men to support you. If you think this will be a costly decision for UF, okay. You might be right. We can argue about it, or we can wait and see what happens since our determination has nothing to do with what actually happens. If I were a coach at UF (who may or may not have been consulted at all) I'd certainly be trying to find SOME way to 'sell' it as a positive... and I'd damn sure be going after Alabama.

Here's a line from the Villanova players lawsuit that came after the decision above...
“The NCAA’s recent move to permit student athletes to benefit from their name, image and likeness illustrates that the untenable amateurism model is simply a smokescreen used to protect the pockets of the NCAA and its member schools,” said Michael Willemin, a partner at Wigdor Law, the firm that is representing Johnson. “By refusing to pay athletes the minimum wage, the NCAA is essentially saying that it is okay for athletes to be paid, as long as someone else is cutting the check.”

This is precisely why I think the NCAA did what they did. It allows them to protect their highly profitable business model as 'what they are allowing' doesn't come from their pockets... and it helps keep developmental leagues like the XFL from gaining traction should they decide to follow the NBA and MLB models and allow high schoolers to avoid college altogether.

Sorry sport but you are the only one shifting the damned argument! There is no straw man except the one you are trying to create. The athlete argument is yours. Mine is pretty damned simple. Give in to terroristic demands and that is what demands are from a mob and the demands will get bigger and never cease. This is about power to create change, not about past injustice which is merely the guilt lever they are using.

Your solution and argument is to cave. It's just that damned simple and you are the one trying to shift my very simple and direct argument to wiggle out of looking conciliatory in what you think is reasonable.

Reasoning with the unreasonable is not reasonable at all. It's cowardly concession.

That's the whole damned point! Nothing hard about it except in your squirrely mind.

I guess they will come for War Eagle next. The Chinese Bandits are on the clock too.

(06-19-2020 01:03 PM)shere khan Wrote:  You will surrender for literally anything.

That was low effort even for you. That post was practically soy powered it was so limp.

(06-19-2020 08:25 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(06-19-2020 01:03 PM)shere khan Wrote:  You will surrender for literally anything.

That was low effort even for you. That post was practically soy powered it was so limp.

I don't kick puppies.

Well..Gators are clearly racists.