Are black on white attacks justified?

[Catholic Crusader]

Methinks your question answers itself. Its too bad that a president has never given a speech taking the Macro view of slavery throughout human history. In fact, all nations of all colors and races have had slaves since the beginning (although it came in different forms), but it was America that came and set the mechanism into place to end it. People should remember that.

Actually, the British Empire abolished slavery throughout its realm in 1833.........

No doubt as a reaction to America, just as the French copied American style governance.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Honest, I have not read ANY of these posts except the one I quoted, and I am going to guess that Town Heretic is finding some sort of justification for black on white violence. Am I right? Somebody tell me.

 

[Town Heretic]

No doubt as a reaction to America

So you're suggesting they did what, used a time machine? Because America was decades behind that British action. lain:

, just as the French copied American style governance.

You haven't read much history, have you. . . oly: Look up the Enlightenment and prepare yourself for an interesting discovery. There was a lot of back and forth involved. It's a very interesting period in the world to study.

Honest, I have not read ANY of these posts except the one I quoted, and I am going to guess that Town Heretic is finding some sort of justification for black on white violence. Am I right? Somebody tell me.

As usual, you are not. oly:

 

[Catholic Crusader]

.....You haven't read much history, have you.....

I used to bite on your snotty comments but not any more.

The American revolution is also know as the Transatlantic revolution. It was the revolt against British Royal rule. It was a war of liberation. The most profound result of it was American developed an ideology of rights that had major consequences across the globe. That's a fact. The French stormed the Bastille only after George Washington was inaugurated as the first president of the United States.

 

[Town Heretic]

I used to bite on your snotty comments but not any more.

You used to bite snotty whats? :shocked:

It wasn't snotty. It was incredulous. There you were, giving America credit for accomplishing what the Brits managed without a Civil War and much earlier and the next thing I read is you crediting us with giving the French their ideas. lain:

The American revolution is also know as the Transatlantic revolution. It was the revolt against British Royal rule. It was a war of liberation. The most profound result of it was American developed an ideology of rights that had major consequences across the globe. That's a fact. The French stormed the Bastille only after George Washington was inaugurated as the first president of the United States.

None of that touches upon my suggestion that you bone up on the Enlightenment, the ideas flowing from all sorts of people. Locke is credited with establishing the notion of Natural Rights, which figured importantly in Jefferson's thinking and writing and our government, as was the social contract developed by both Locke and Rousseau. Locke influenced us most of all, right down to his notion that revolution is justified when natural rights are denied by the government.

Seriously, if you want to appreciate our revolution and be taken seriously when you speak to things integral to its process you really should invest time in studying the impact of the Enlightenment. No snot involved.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

I see a lot of words, but all they say is blah, blah, blah......

 

[Town Heretic]

I see a lot of words, but all they say is blah, blah, blah......

Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it badly....which is entertaining, but probably not what you had in mind.

You got just about every point wrong. What you do about that is up to you.

:e4e:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Honest, I have not read ANY of these posts except the one I quoted, and I am going to guess that Town Heretic is finding some sort of justification for black on white violence. Am I right? Somebody tell me.

Why you would think that TH would be seeking to justify any such violence is your problem to begin with, well one of them at any rate.

He assuredly did no such thing, along with schooling you on actual history in the process, not that you really care anyway.

Go Trump!

lain:

 

[Arthur Brain]

I see a lot of words, but all they say is blah, blah, blah......

Even your few words don't amount to that...

:yawn:

 

[Town Heretic]

Even your few words don't amount to that...

:yawn:

She's a wee bit cranky. Her History for People Who Don't Read Good let her down. oly:

Go Trump!

lain:

Good idea. :think: Where?

 

[ok doser]

Actually, the British Empire abolished slavery throughout its realm in 1833.

well, no

Whitehall in Britain announced in 1833 that slaves in its territories would be totally freed by 1840. In the meantime, the government told slaves they had to remain on their plantations and would have the status of "apprentices" for the next six years. On 1 August 1834, an unarmed group of mainly elderly Negroes being addressed by the Governor at Government House about the new laws, began chanting: "Pas de six ans. Point de six ans" ("Not six years. No six years"), drowning out the voice of the Governor. Peaceful protests continued until a resolution to abolish apprenticeship was passed and de facto freedom was achieved. Full emancipation for all was legally granted ahead of schedule on 1 August 1838, making Trinidad the first British colony with slaves to completely abolish slavery.[4]

We had to have a Civil War to manage it a few decades later.

don't include new york in your "we"

After the American Revolution, the New York Manumission Society was founded in 1785 to work for the abolition of slavery and for aid to free blacks. The state passed a 1799 law for gradual abolition; after that date, children born to slave mothers were free but required to work for the mother's master for an extended period as indentured servants into their late twenties. Existing slaves kept their status. All remaining slaves were finally freed on July 4, 1827.

 

[ok doser]

... giving America credit for accomplishing what the Brits managed without a Civil War ...

when we broke from our mother country and warred against her (the very definition of a civil war), we took most of the slaves with us

when they abolished slavery in the thirties, they had almost none in britain - just a few plantation slaves in the Caribbean

 

[DilatedMind]

well, no

Whitehall in Britain...

True enough.

Weirdly, though, our much (ish) maligned lack of a written constitution may well have saved us in the UK from the mess you have over there.

Your 13th Amendment has that, "...except as punishment for a crime" bit.

Which, let's face it, has been manipulated like an overly compliant piece of clay.

Either way, the idea that a black child born in the US (as a direct result of slavery) is somehow worse off than a black child born in Nigeria on the same day in 2016 (had there been no slavery) is crazy. Which simplistically neuters the question?

 

[Town Heretic]

well, no

Actually, yes. The Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 was the act that ended slavery. You're speaking to the process that followed.

don't include new york in your "we"

The "we" refers to our nation. Your contextual clue was the Civil War "we" had to endure to end slavery.

Or did New York have its own and no one noticed?

when we broke from our mother country and warred against her (the very definition of a civil war), we took most of the slaves with us when they abolished slavery in the thirties, they had almost none in britain - just a few plantation slaves in the Caribbean

Doesn't alter a thing I wrote, but it's worth noting...like the draft riots in New York and the horrors attending.

 

[ok doser]

Actually, yes. The Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 was the act that ended slavery.

and yet slavery didn't end in 1833 in Great Britain


i see - you're confused about the meaning of "abolish"


i'll let merriam webster help you out :thumb:

abolish play verb abol·ish \ə-ˈbä-lish\ Popularity: Top 40% of words Simple Definition of abolish : to officially end or stop (something, such as a law) : to completely do away with (something)

 

[Arthur Brain]

and yet slavery didn't end in 1833 in Great Britain


i see - you're confused about the meaning of "abolish"


i'll let merriam webster help you out :thumb:

abolish play verb abol·ish \ə-ˈbä-lish\ Popularity: Top 40% of words Simple Definition of abolish : to officially end or stop (something, such as a law) : to completely do away with (something)

The Brexit vote means that Britain will leave the EU. Realistically not for the next couple of years but it's a done deal. You're clutching at straws, most likely just to have another desperate swipe at TH...

 

[ok doser]

The Brexit vote means that Britain will leave the EU. Realistically not for the next couple of years but it's a done deal.

and if someone said you goofy fags left the eu in 2016, i'd remind them that you goofy fags voted to leave in 2016


as far as slavery goes, New York ended slavery before you goofy fags voted to end slavery

 

[Arthur Brain]

and if someone said you goofy fags left the eu in 2016, i'd remind them that you goofy fags voted to leave in 2016

Well, only an idiot or a troll would use the term 'goofy fags' to start with so...you're pretty much batting two for two on that score come to think on it. The vote itself is what cemented the thing. Any law takes time to pass, for those who aren't inept in the understanding of it at any rate...

 

[Town Heretic]

The Brexit vote means that Britain will leave the EU. Realistically not for the next couple of years but it's a done deal. You're clutching at straws, most likely just to have another desperate swipe at TH...

Exactly. He's just an angry little guy casting about... I only rebutted for the sake of clarity. And I see he's already struggling with whatever shred of impulse control is left in that noggin, rolling out the "goofy fags" bit, which really underlines the lack of importance of the issue itself to him and the real root of his raising anything on the point.

:cheers:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Exactly. He's just an angry little guy casting about... I only rebutted for the sake of clarity. And I see he's already struggling with whatever shred of impulse control is left in that noggin, rolling out the "goofy fags" bit, which really underlines the lack of importance of the issue itself and the real root of his raising anything on the point.

:cheers:

He's probably missing his bridge...he's certainly missing something...

lain:

:cheers: