George Brown College Under Fire for Requiring a “Land Acknowledgment Statement” for Access to Zoom Event

We have been discussing controversies over “land acknowledgement” statements at universities, including recently at the University of Washington. A new such controversy has arisen at George Brown College in Toronto where, in order to join a Zoom call, both faculty and students were required to agree to a statement that included an acknowledgement that they benefited from colonization.

Social media and conservative sites lit up after the meeting in which participants were required to check a box stating “I agree” to the following statement:

“It has been the site of human activity since time immemorial. This land is the territory of the Huron-Wendat, Mississaugas, Anishinaabe and the Haudenosaunee.

The territory is the subject of the Dish With One Spoon Wampum Belt Covenant, an agreement between the Haudenosaunee Confederacy and the Confederacy of the Anishinabek and Allied Nations to peaceably care for and share the resources around the Great Lakes.

We also acknowledge all Treaty peoples – including those who came here as settlers – as migrants either in this generation or in generations past – and those of us who came here involuntarily, particularly forcibly displanted Africans, brough here as a result of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade and Slavery.

As settlers or the displanted, we benefit from the colonization and genocide of the Indigenous peoples of this land. In order to engage in resistance and solidarity against the past and present injustices inflicted on the Indigenous peoples of this land, it is imperative we constantly engage in acts of awareness and decolonization.

**By selecting ‘I agree,’ you are indicating your acknowledgment of this statement. Our intent is not to impose agreeance, but to inform through acknowledgment. This acknowledgment is to generate awareness and offer opportunities for personal reflection.**”

George Brown recently announced a new and extensive “Anti-Racism Action Plan.

The school states that at each and every event at the school there must be a land acknowledgement statement:

The Indigenous land acknowledgment is a statement made at the beginning of George Brown College events to recognize the traditional territory upon which we are situated. The current wording for our territorial acknowledgment is:

George Brown College is located on the traditional territory of the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation and other Indigenous peoples who have lived here over time. We are grateful to share this land as treaty people who learn, work and live in the community with each other.  

The first speaker at an event delivers the land acknowledgment, before longer welcoming or introductory remarks. Most Indigenous groups prefer the land acknowledgment precede the singing of or the playing of O Canada to recognize the historical order.

That would appear to make it mandatory for any groups to recite these words in order to hold an event on campus even if they or some participants oppose either the substance of the statement or the element of compelled speech.

The University of Colorado (Denver) recently encouraged students and faculty to “read the following together with your students from your syllabus”:

“Acknowledging that we reside in the homelands of Indigenous Peoples is an important step in recognizing the history and the original stewards of these lands. Land acknowledgements must extend far beyond words. The United States has worked hard to erase the narratives of Indigenous Peoples over time. Land acknowledgement statements can help to remind us of the history, the contributions and the sacrifices Native peoples have made.

“We honor and acknowledge that we are on the traditional territories and ancestral homelands of the Cheyenne, Arapaho, and Ute nations. This area, specifically the confluence of the Platte and Cherry Creek Rivers was the epicenter for trade, information sharing, planning for the future, community, family and ally building, as well as conducting healing ceremonies for over 45 Indigenous Nations, including the Lakota, Kiowa, Comanche, Apache, Shoshone, Paiute, Zuni, Hopi among others.

“We must recognize Indigenous peoples as the original inhabitants, stewards and relatives of this land. As these words of acknowledgment are spoken and heard, remember the ties these nations still have to their traditional homelands. Let us acknowledge the painful history of genocide and forced removal from this territory and pay our respect to the diverse Indigenous peoples still connected to this land. Let us also give thanks to all Tribal Nations and the ancestors of this place.”

These acknowledgements are usually voluntary, though we saw at the University of Washington that the decision to supply your own such statement can result in a negative response from the Administration.

It is not clear how an untenured faculty member would fare if the professor declined such invitations or suggestions. It is certainly precarious for an untenured person to openly disagree with such policies. Even if you prevail, you may find yourself unemployed when your contract is not renewed. We recently discussed that concern where a St. John’s professor prevailed in a fight over his questioning reparations, but was later denied the renewal of his contract. The termination sent a chilling message to all faculty members.

We previously discussed how an acting Northwestern Law Dean declared publicly “I am James Speta and I am a racist.” He was followed by Emily Mullin, executive director of major gifts, who announced, “I am a racist and a gatekeeper of white supremacy. I will work to be better.”  I have no problem with a dean making such statements based on his own convictions and would defend his right to do so under free speech and academic freedom principles. However, there is also a concern that such decanal statements create pressure on others (particularly untenured members) to begin remarks with such confessional statements.

There are various reasons why faculty or students may disagree with the statement supplied by George Brown College, including a resistance to pressure to conform to public expressions or recitations. The question is whether the college’s push to “demystify” and “decolonize” the campus will tolerate such dissent or bar access to programs or opportunities for dissenters.

512 thoughts on “George Brown College Under Fire for Requiring a “Land Acknowledgment Statement” for Access to Zoom Event”

  1. The native peoples lost the college’s land through military conquest. The truth is that until very recently every culture accepted that conquest was a legitimate way to acquire territory. It is only the West that finally concluded that wars of aggression are wrong, just as it is only the West that concluded that slavery is wrong. This is psychological warfare intended to make us reject our cultural heritage by distorting historical facts.

  2. I think that prior to all university activities there should be a forced recitation of the schools endowment and the amount the school spends on political donations and the voidance of taxes.

  3. In North America, the only problem with statements like these is that modern “Native Americans aren’t really native to America and in coming over the land bridge from Siberia, may have actually displaced earlier cultures themselves such as the Clovis Culture. Indeed, the history of Native Americans is rife with inter-tribal wars over land, food, and even slaves. All conveniently ignored by progressive intellectuals.

    1. This is, in fact, true. It seems to be a shell game of who was here the longest, which is idiocy. We will never really know. That we are fat and have full bellies and the time for such pontification should tell us all we need to know, but miraculously does not.

      Growing up in relative peace and prosperity appears to have made certain generations feel they ‘missed out’. Their propensity is geared toward manufacturing crises because they don’t actually have any problems. Their ignorance and boredom turned violent are absolutely destroying our societies, and it’s time for it to stop.

    2. No human life evolved in this hemisphere. Everyone come from somewhere else at some point and every single group here, aside from the very 1st that arrived, kicked some earlier arrival out of the way.

    3. Brian Wilson, Clovis Culture was a phase or interval in the settlement of North and Meso America by the so-called Native Americans, descendants of the peoples of Beringia.

      1. DNA studies of Native and Latin American Indians show that they indeed originated from Eurasia but that doesn’t invalidate my point that inevitably, many Native American tribes displaced earlier settlers as they moved into North America.

  4. Rather than forcing everyone to conform to their words and thoughts, why doesn’t the college simply erect a memorial plaque with that wording and place it at the entrance to the school. It’s their guilt, their atonement, and their problem.

  5. It’s all typical virtue signaling with no logic or knowledge behind it. In fact they simply have not the intelligence to take it to it’s logical conclusion of chaos and collapse. If they weren’t so serious, it would be hysterical. Obviously they do not know history or even paleontology and archeology. Virtually every piece of land on this planet was previously owned or inhabited by someone else. I mean how far back do you want to take this. Before there was civilization Man was migratory and wondered out of east Africa and colonized the world and then subsequent bursts of migration had even more groups leave Africa and wherever they went they found the previous migrants already there and then eventually merged or displaced (destroyed or annihilated) them.
    And that was only modern man. Do we bring the the Neanderthals into this, or the Denisovans, or do we not stop there and meander further back to Lucy and Australopithecus. Should Rome apologize to the Etruscans, The Franks apologize to the Celts. The Arabs and Muslims, and Turks beg forgiveness of the Byzantines, The Israelites to the Philistines who in turn should bring back the Hittites. Who did the Egyptians displace, or the civilizations of the Indus Valley, or The Chinese civilization. If you really want a mess then go to Mesopotamia with Assyrians, Medes, Persians, and uncounted other civilizations that rose and fell internally or to invasions (insert mongols here and others). It’s enough to give a Title Company a heart attack.
    Let’s go back to Hammurabi, Cyrus the Great, Sargon the Great or even Gilgamesh. Forget what they did because they were not polite to the previous inhabitants.
    I think that’s why we look forward because so much behind us is a mess. Also you can’t undo it. Civilizations rise, prosper, stagnate and fall. It’s very simple, you compete successfully or you fall and disappear. Not my rules, but everybody has to play by them. If you don’t then you disappear because others know those rules as well.
    The indigenous peoples of the America’s were doomed when the crossed the land bridge from Asia into what became Alaska. They were then immunologically and culturally cut off from the rest of the mass of humanity and the intense cultural competition in Europe, Africa and Asia. Their immunological naïveté destroyed them even more completely than firearms or advanced nation states.
    Deal with it and move on.

    1. I mean how far back do you want to take this.

      That is the question, isn’t it?

      This idiocy would end immediately if the moment they complied with statements like this, they lost everything that they had that resulted from European migration to the Americas. That would include all the bad as well as the good.

  6. I assume that George Brown College is happily going to transfer all it’s land and other assets to whatever indigenous tribe it’s campus inhabits. No? Then I guess that they assume that this stupid diatribe is sufficient to assuage their supposed collective guilt. Or maybe every Canadian progeny of European and Non-European descent born after 1604 can just vacate the country and return it to it’s indigenous population. No? Then I guess this is all just an exercise to make them feel better about themselves, grab headlines, and announce to the world that they are “good folk”.

    1. Truth or falsity is not the issue, it is compulsion and intellectual conformity in an academic setting. The following statement of mine is also true. Should the university community be compelled to read it before every meeting? What other ‘true’ statements should we read? Here’s my statement.

      Supply and Demand is referred to as a ‘law’ for a reason. The imposition of minimum wage distorts the functioning of the labor market and deprives labor market participants of their right to freely associate and freely contract. Further, some workers are not yet productive enough to merit the mandated minimum wage. Those worker are therefore rendered unemployable and are deprived of the experience that might, eventually, earn them a wage many times that. The minimum wage is always zero.

      Further, the history and tradition of minimum wage laws in the US are explicitly racist. The minimum wage was a contrivance of labor unions to keep black workers from competing for jobs.

      Now what?!!!

      1. Truth and facts are the basis of academics. If you see the acknowledgment of facts to be “compulsion and intellectual conformity” then you have zero business being in academics.

    2. Sammy, do you or do you not feel comfortable with a FORCED recitation? Come in lib, come out of the fascist closet and tell us you are fine with this insanity. This FORCED insanity.

        1. What is different, important, or special about this from any of the other countless conquests in human history that it requires special acknowledgement?

    3. I sign no statement I didn’t prepare myself, so here it goes:

      Not a single member of my family came here before the 1920’s. They were from Poland and Italy and spent much of their lives on the very bottom of the social and employment ladder. I survived the collapse of steel in Pittsburgh when my parents were left with nothing. I benefitted from no one and nothing I didn’t create through my own efforts. I owe nothing to anyone, nor do I expect a single thing I don’t earn or create for myself.

      To any who feel the world has given you the short end of the stick, I’ll remind you no one ever said life was fair. It isn’t and there are plenty of people who take glee in knocking you down. If extra obstacles are thrown in your way, all that means is you have to work harder than some others, but you will come out all that much stronger in the end.

      It doesn’t matter where you came from, what you look like, how you were raised, or what happened to your ancestors. None of that is an excuse for you to not excel. The only thing standing in your way is yourself.

      1. Current, we all have had our ups and downs. Obama’s beliefs, demonstrated in part by “you didn’t build”, was an attitude that leads to despair and poverty. Thank you for your comment.

    4. “Acknowledging basic facts” = signing a loyalty oath

      Somewhere in hell, Stalin is smiling.

      1. Sam, Excellent.

        Today we are in a fluid situation where the direction is uncertain. The leadership is a despotic oligarchy, not the Constitutional Republic we know. I know where the Democrats stand, so I focus on the Republicans who act as passive Democrats herded like sheep. If they don’t act up soon, I think our Constitutional Republic will become so severely abridged that we will have to refer to it by another name.

  7. None of you are saying the statements to be read aren’t true, you just don’t want to have to acknowledge it. If American colleges and universities has to acknowledge where their land came from it would be a long list. I’m not talking about those on land that happened to have been formerly occupied by Native Americans but those that actively benefited by the taking of those lands like the land grant colleges. I don’t know that forcing these statements to be read before every event is an answer, but neither is banning books, firing teachers and administrators, and replacing school board members that allow actual history to be taught. If you want more information about how American colleges took Native lands, read on:

    https://williamspivey.medium.com/the-biggest-land-grab-in-history-c309edaa4b39?sk=d7b4988c9d145154e8a557dbd4496fde

    1. enigma: “If you want more information about how American colleges took Native lands, read on:”

      Says the man who planted his fanny on Seminole land.
      Did you ask first?…………. Enigma, ever the hypocrite.

        1. EIB,

          Try this statement; “I acknowledge that I and my fellow citizens of all races and creeds benefit greatly from the wisdom and the sacrifice of the white Christian men who founded this great nation.”

    2. I could care less how any land on this continent was taken. Conquest has been going on since time immortal. Even in Europe one group one faction was fighting another for 2000 years. Wake the hell up and get over it.

      1. The entire history of the human race is bathed in the blood of warfare and conquest. Even before the arrival of Europeans North America is no different or specially immune. The myth of the Noble Savage is just that, a contrived European myth.

    3. The only thing worse than being intellectually disingenuous is making proclamations out of base ignorance. Your ‘whiteness’ is showing, Enigma. We all live together and it is far past time for this nonsense. Grow up.

        1. Seriously. It’s because you, personally, regardless of your melanin ratio, are stupid. Literally, truly stupid. As in not smart. You would get a lot farther in life with basic kindness than trying to prove your intellectual acuity. Be a nice person and see how your life changes. I don’t know if you are even really black, because we can lie and misrepresent all we want online, and I don’t care. Your blood is red just like mine. Get over yourself. You are privileged to the point that you can comment here and have the time to find and share your Marxist nonsense, and that that eludes you kinda says it all. You are not impressing anyone, Enigma. Your actions pretty much contradict your statements. Pfft. That’s about it. Could give a poo what your ‘color’ is. You are an idiot. And you prove it again, and again, and again here.

          1. When you can’t dispute the facts, attack the person. Now I’m not even Black, good luck in proving that. If not, I established my fake identity decades ago and have multiple social media and Internet presences, many with pictures. What are you hoping to gain by disputing my color? I am nice to anyone that hasn’t personally attacked or trolled me first.

            1. “What are you hoping to gain by disputing my color? “

              He doesn’t care about your color. He cares about your character.

              I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

              I have a dream today.

              I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

              I have a dream today.

              1. Trust me, I’m disgusted by your character, or lack thereof, not your skin color. I see you’ve upgraded to a mond-reading troll. I hope you get points for that.

                1. I understand, Enigma. You don’t know my color and it seems you do not understand the concept of character over color. If you did and accepted character over color you would get a lot farther in life. Be a nice person. When we bleed we all bleed red. When we cry we all have the same tears. You are privileged and don’t even recognize it.

    4. You’ll get no argument from me about teaching history in a full and unabridged manner although its teaching is not an opportunity to assign blame. Where I take issue are with forced statements of self recrimination. It smacks of the loyalty oaths of the mid 20th century or self criticism meetings of the Cultural Revolution.

      Year Zero is not an ideal to be emulated.

    5. “None of you are saying the statements to be read aren’t true”

      It is somewhat true, but you have chosen a point in time to suit your grievances. Why not be honest and acknowledge that those aboriginal people should also be recognizing those that came before. Perhaps there should be a “land acknowledging statement” to the “Peoples of Beringia” who preceded this group making demands. Doing so, means we also have to acknowledge that the Peoples of Beringia were Siberians.

      Has the Western Hemisphere stolen land from the Russians? :-). Enigma, you have to give up on this craziness. We live today, not yesterday.

      1. David Benson, I just realized that if you look at the early history of the Bering Straights you will see part of what John referred to. Many millennia ago the earth was cold and their were mountains of ice and snow. Sea level was drastically lowered all over the world because the water was on the land in in its solid forms. If one were there, I believe one could actually see the sea floor of todays Bering Straits.

        1. S. Meyer, that is essentially correct. The first waves of peoples to the Americas came from Asia via Beringia, the lands now on either side of the Bering Strait plus what is now sea floor. The peoples lived there for a long time before pushing on southwards.

          1. The history of humans, the history of homo sapiens, and particularly the history of man in the new world is in the process of being rewritten.

            I beleive You and SM are refering to the Younger Dryas, which was a brief reversion tot he ice age in the midst of exiting the previous ice age.

            Many things about humans that we thought were true are proving to be less likely. It is increasingly likely that Homo Sapiens is now atleast 300,000 years old rather than 150,000.
            There is now evidence that other homo species used tools and were more advanced than we thought .

            The great sphinx may be 12,000 years old rather than 4,000

            It is likely the first men arrived in the western hemisphere 30,000 years ago rather than 9,000.

            Regardless Greenland was warmer for most of the holocene then it is at present – and yet the ice is still there.

              1. DB – The sphinx information is reported various places including wikipedia.

                I have not claimed it is correct, only that our understanding of the world is changing.

                I separately linked to Denmarks web page on Greenland – if you want accurate information, try the country that owns greenland

                They are reporting changes on a daily basis – to the snow line to albedo, to precipitation. to mass gains and losses, as well as comparisons to prior means.

            1. I addressed this already.

              Regardless for this particular claim to be correct – the actual losses – not NET losses would have to be almost an order of magnitude larger than WARMISTS have claimed to observe at the coasts.

              Or precipitation in Greenland and Antarctica would have had to have stopped.

              Neither of these are likely.

              When you have a large collection of facts and inconsistentcy between them – the most probable answer is the one that does not involve rejecting the most reliable information. The most probable answer is the one that only requires rejecting a single unlikely bit of evidence.

              The most likely correct evidence we have for antartica and Greenland – is precipitation. That can be measured directly, and it need not be measured in real time.

              Here is from DMI – note that it includes the Grace Satellite Data. It also includes and explains gains from precipitation
              http://polarportal.dk/en/news/news/end-of-the-smb-season-summary-2017/
              While this shows NET losses for Most recent years – the totals are much lower.

              And you still do not comprehend the enormous amount of ice on Greenland and Antartica.

      2. I responded to what Turley said with an article I wrote two years ago and never brought up here before. I didn’t bring up the topic, I responded to Turley based on actual research I’d done (you wouldn’t know about research, all you do is troll with your various anonymous names). If my responses bother you, ignore me. If you think something isn’t true, document it with research or remain silent.

        1. What is wrong Enigma? I pointed out that there were earlier people than those under discussion. Why isn’t there recognition of the “People of Beringia”? Then I pointed out that they came from Siberia. Weren’t they as deserving as the people that displaced them? Since you say you performed ” actual research “, you must already know that what I am saying is true.

    6. Enigman,

      You’re Grrrrrreat!!!

      You don’t need that crutch, right?

      May we level the playing field now so that MERIT MATTERS, and so that y’all go out into to that great big world and pursue and create your own happiness and make your own success in freedom without supplication and begging alms for the poor?

      Oh, please, may we, Americans, enjoy the full spectrum of our constitutional rights, freedoms, privileges and immunities which preclude and prohibit social engineering and redistribution of wealth, and allow us to think freely, speak freely, choose freely, accept and reject freely, exist free of all but the most minimal of governmental regulation, and possess and dispose of our private property as we please?

      May we end unconstitutional matriculation affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, HHS, HUD, FED, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc., now?

      May we be paid back “reparations” for $30 trillion in unconstitutional taxation since 1965 for the welfare state of affirmative action and outright theft of Americans’ money?

      May Americans be free again?

      May we?

      You don’t need that crutch, right?

      1. George, you seem to be denying the social crutch that white America has lived on since it invented whiteness. Now admittedly, there are some white Americans who have failed to benefit from their privilege. But don’t blame everyone you don’t feel is a “real American.” Blame the upper class who wasn’t satisfied with most everything, they had to have it all. No Black, brown, yellow, or red American has stolen anything from you. It is you and others of your ilk that have taken from them, and resent any attempt to level the playing field.

        1. They are immutable facts that the Naturalization Act of 1802 was in full force and effect in 1863, and the immediate compassionate repatriation of the long-suffering freed slaves, who, incidentally, must have held that as their greatest desire, must have been conducted with extreme prejudice, for the benefit of said long-suffering freed slaves.

          Which abductees don’t want first and foremost to quite simply go home?

          More to the point, why and by what means are we even engaging in this utterly moot conversation?

          You do agree it is of utmost importance, in a society of laws, to obey the law, correct?

        2. From the law below, one may safely conclude that actual genuine Americans are Caucasian, more specifically the European variety, or as non-white encroaching entities reference, “white.”

          Alternatively, one would be compelled to accept amendment by illicit, brute, military, kinetic force which is not deemed to be part of the amendment process by the Constitution.

          And, apropos of nothing necessarily, it was Karl Marx who broached the subject of “…the RECONSTRUCTION of a social world…” which narrowly preceded those irrefutably unconstitutional “Reconstruction Amendments,” which unconstitutionally attempted to abrogate contemporary immigration law, and which, similarly, narrowly preceded the incremental implementation of the principles of communism in America, leading to the present communist American welfare state. You don’t suppose Lincoln was an anti-American, anti-Constitutional communist, do you? Some would call that treason. Perhaps you know, is the 1864 letter from Karl Marx to Abraham Lincoln prominently displayed at that glorious Lincoln Memorial?

          https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm
          _____________________________________________________________

          Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798 and 1802 (four iterations)

          United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790

          Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof…

          1. I give you credit for one thing, George. You know and aren’t ashamed to say that America was a racist country and that’s what the Founders intended. We disagree on whether America is capable of change, and you’ve found a refuge where many people silently agree with you. Good for you!

            1. In 1794, just nine years after the first Congress, America passed its first anti-slavery act, The Atlantic Slave Trade Act. It was rapidly followed up in 1800 by the Slave Trade Act of 1800, and in 1807, by the Act Prohibiting the Importation of Slaves in 1807. The truth is sir, that from its very beginnings, America moved toward eliminating slavery.

              1. Mr Wilson, I call bull**** on your interpretation of history. You have to go back a little further to the Constitution itself; Article One, Section Nine, Clause One which guaranteed the International Slave Trade would not be eliminated for at least twenty years. That clause is what got South Carolina and a few other states to join the Union, they were wary of the North’s ability to eliminate slavery which is also the rationale for the Electoral College and the way representation is determined for the House of Representatives.

                The Atlantic Slave Trade Act, the Slave Trade Act of 1807 and the ultimate end of the International Slave Trade in 1807 (the first day eligible under the Constitution) were not attempts to gradually end slavery. They were protectionist measures to maintain high prices for domestic slaves.
                Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware in particular had more slaves than they needed due to ruining the soil growing tobacco and other crops without rotating and using other methods already known and in use in Europe. Slavery replaced tobacco in Virginia as the leading export. They didn’t have enough slaves to support the need in states further south but somehow the “production” of slaves grew dramatically which some historians like to call “natural increase.” What actually happened was that slaves were forced to breed at an unnatural pace in addition to being raped by their masters and white friends and family. Slave production was always the plan as Thomas Jefferson explained in a letter to George Washington.
                “I consider a woman who brings a child every two years as more profitable than the best man of the farm, what she produces is an addition to the capital, while his labors disappear in mere consumption.” Thomas Jefferson
                Virginia led the charge well before that to change laws so the bloodline of slave children followed the mother and not the father which was the previous custom. It also made rape legal and absolved the fathers of any responsibility. Thatb was Partus Sequitur Ventrem.
                https://medium.com/discourse/partus-sequitur-ventrem-the-rule-that-perpetrated-slavery-and-legalized-rape-e3c423692bc2?sk=aac8e7cf60cd8758aa2f81dbcf1b588e

                I understand your desire to believe America was a better place and even that you were probably taught that the same. I[‘m sure it was an honest mistake on your part. The question is, what will you do now that you know better?

                1. “Mr Wilson, I call bull**** on your interpretation of history.”

                  You can call it anything you want but that still doesn’t deny THE FACT that before the 20 years were up,…..

                  (Article One, Section 9: “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight,”)…..

                  ……Congress had passed anti-slavery laws. Again, from its founding the trajectory was to eventually eliminate slavery in America and Congress moved to do that well before 1808.

                  Its unrealistic to believe that in negotiating with widely varied interests, that you will get everything you want. You have to accept some conditions you rather not entertain or that may be repugnant to you – that’s the very definition of “compromise”. The northern Founding Fathers compromised in order to form the union. That didn’t change their goals for this country to fulfill the Declaration’s promise that “all men are created equal.”

                  It is quite possible that if the Founding Fathers had NOT compromised, we would have been split into two countries and blacks in the South would have remained slaves into the 1900s.

                  So you can “claim” anything you want to but the fact remains that the Founding Fathers did compromised to save the union, then quickly “violated” that agreement to enact anti-slavery laws before the end of the agreed moratorium period. Why would they do that if they felt slavery was the economic bedrock of their new country and deserved to be perpetuated? If they did, how does passing the Atlantic Slave Trade Act in 1794 serve their personal and political interests?

                  Sir it is you who are the one revising history.

                  1. I admire your firm belief in the intentions of the Founders despite their actions. You keep pointing to Acts that did nothing to reduce slavery in America but instead kept the prices up of domestic slaves. In answer to your question as to how the Atlantic Slave Trade Act in 1794 served interests. It kept Virginians and others from dumping their excess slaves in other countries when there was a need in Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, et.al. They were propping up a domestic market and removing foreign competition. The law didn’t stop any slaves from coming to America, it only made sure they didn’t leave. I answered your question, you never answered mine, how did preventing slaves from being exported from America do anything to reduce slavery.

                    BTW, thanks for the inspiration for an article, I get many from this site which justifies me staying, despite the trolling.

                    https://medium.com/black-history-month-365/dont-let-white-people-tell-you-revisionist-american-history-2f964a12118f?sk=b4ad7b5378d65f6045bd10f49610fe53

                    1. Aparently you are unfamiliar with the law of supply and demand.

                      If prices of slaves rose – that means demand was greater than supply.

                      Therefore the laws you claim did nothing – obviously did something.

                    2. “I’m an Economics major, I’m good with my understanding.”

                      Proof of the failure of higher education.

                      Your understanding may be “good” to you.
                      But it is self evidently poor.
                      You botched the law of supply and demand

                    3. “ It kept Virginians and others from dumping their excess slaves in other countries when there was a need in Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, et.al. They were propping up a domestic market and removing foreign competition.”

                      Wow! So you were there?

                    4. “Wow! So you were there?”
                      So when you tell me what they meant despite being the opposite of what they did, you are somehow right? Tell me the impact the first two laws you mentioned had on the importing of slaves to America? None!

                    5. “ The law didn’t stop any slaves from coming to America, it only made sure they didn’t leave. I answered your question, you never answered mine, how did preventing slaves from being exported from America do anything to reduce slavery.”

                      I didn’t say it did. You are putting words in my mouth. I only pointed out the FACT that even before the Constitution was ratified, the Founding Fathers moved to eventually eliminate slavery. AND that if slavery was the foundation of this country as you claim, that moving so early to eliminate slavery would have been against their economics interests which is directly inconsistent with your claim that America was founded on slavery. I also asked you to explain why politicians, with almost total power in their hands, would act against their own economic self interests and didn’t get an answer.

                    6. You said it was a step on some imagined path towards eliminating slavery. It neither did nor intended any such thing. I get it’s what you learned and believe.
                      “AND that if slavery was the foundation of this country as you claim, that moving so early to eliminate slavery would have been against their economics interests which is directly inconsistent with your claim that America was founded on slavery. I”
                      How does preventing slaves from leaving eliminate slavery. You said the founding fathers moved to eliminate slavery when all of them were dead when that time came. I’ll give you a Thomas Adams who felt bad about slavery as he looked the other way. John Jay freed many of his slaves during his lifetime and ended some slavery in New York. The politicians acted in their personal interest by increasing the demand for the children they ordered produced (forced breeding) or personally produced (by rape). Jefferson was good for a half-dozen himself (try convincing me Sally Hemings consented). The politicians personally profited in the same way General Motors and zford would have profited if they banned Toyota and Volkswagon.

                    7. “ The politicians acted in their personal interest by increasing the demand for the children they ordered produced ….”

                      You know George I really try hard not to lower myself to sarcasm but you just keep hanging the bait in front of my face.

                      Northwest Ordinance of 1787: Prohibited slavery in the northwest territory.

                      Modern day analogy: I am a politician who got rich importing and selling Hondas but I just voted to prevent myself from selling Hondas north of the Ohio river – because according to you, that is in my best personal economic interest.

                      Atlantic Slave Trade Act of 1794 forbid American ships from engaging in the slave trade.

                      Modern day analogy. I and my generous constituents also own a shipping company that brings over Hondas to sell in the US. But I in my best economic interest, (according to you) just voted for a law to outlaw my and my constituents’ shipping companies from importing the product I got rich off of.

                      Slave Trade Act of 1800: “ That it shall be unlawful for any citizen of the United States, or other person residing within the United States, directly or indirectly to hold or have any right or property in any vessel employed or made use of in the transportation or carrying of slaves from one foreign country or place to another, and any right or property, belonging as aforesaid, shall be forfeited, ”

                      “Furthermore, That it shall be unlawful for any citizen of the United States or other person residing therein, to serve on board any vessel of the United States employed or made use of in the transportation or carrying of slaves from one foreign country or place to another: and any such citizen or other person,”

                      Modern day analogy: As a politician who got rich selling imported Hondas, I just voted to make it unlawful to have ANY financial interest in the Honda trade (including myself). Furthermore, I voted to male it illegal for any of my constituents to receive any compensation for working on or servicing a foreign ship carrying Hondas anywhere in the world. Additionally if any of my constituents are caught in such an act they can be imprisoned or heavily fined. This, according to you serves my personal economic interest as a Honda trafficker.

                      Slave Trade Act of 1807: Prohibited the importation of slaves.

                      Modern day analogy: Me, a politician who got rich off of importing and selling Hondas, voted to prohibit Honda sales over millions of acres of land, made it unlawful for me and my constituents who financially support my campaigns to use our shipping and trucking and rail companies to import and ship Hondas. Additionally we made it unlawful to work for any company that makes Hondas or Honda parts, ships or transports Honda parts, AND made it illegal to have any financial interest in such companies such as personal stock. Finally, this politician, who got rich off of selling Hondas, voted to make it illegal to buy and import Hondas period. All this is, according to you, accomplished over two decades against the wishes of my so-called slave owning constituents and myself, was in my best personal economic interest in my pursuit to maintain a lively Honda trade.

                      Faceplam!

                    8. Here is the first draft of the Declaration of independence. This should obliterate the nonsense that the country was founded on slavery.

                      The congressional fight over the condemnation of slavery in the declaration of independence is not some secret. Anywone with a half decent education knows that Thomas Jefferson – himself a slave owner sought to blame Slavery on King George and to end it in the new nation.

                      That did not come to pass. Slavery is the original sin of the united states. It is the evil that the country reluctantly and temporarily accepted to acheive the permanent good of self government.

                      I would note Jefferson was correct – Slavery was present in ALL British colonies. But NOT in England.
                      The british inflicted Slavery on the colonies.

                      Slavery has existed for all of human existance and even through to today.
                      It was ended FIRST in the West, The US was not the first western country to end slavery – but no nation in the word paid so high a price to end Slavery. Further after the civil War the US, UK and to a lessor extent France lead the effort to end the slave trade throughout the world.

                      https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/jefferson%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Coriginal-rough-draught%E2%80%9D-declaration-independence

                    9. I’m cerytainly aware of the first draft of the Declaration of Independence and all the times early in his career when he opined about ending slavery. Then he remained silent, perhaps dedicated to building monuments to himself at Monticello (lovely place you should go) and Charlottesville. Your statement should read that no nation paid such a price to preserve slavery? How many slaves died in transit during the middle passage to make American life easier? No concern for the price they paid.

                    10. The survival rate for the crew of slave ships was no different from that of slaves.
                      The survivial rate for african slaces headed to the mideast – slave trade that continued until well into the 20th century was less than 1/3.

                      The survival rate for those coming to plymouth or jamestown was abysmal. The survival rate for immigrant pioneers headed west was abysmal.

                      Life for most of human history was “harsh brutish and short”.
                      Even today the average age of people in africa is 23. That would have been unusually long in the 18th century.

                      The life expectance of a white in London in the 16th century was less than 30. Of those who came to the new world as indenured servants (or not) most did not survive another 7 years.

                      The Middle passage was brutal – having your balls cut off and marched accross the desert into the mideast was worse.
                      Go learn about Sparticus and roman slaves and he brutal treatment of roman slaves.

                      Slavery has existed for all of human existance. It has always been brutal and remains so today.

                      It has also always been a piss poor economic model.

                      The north defeated the south BECAUSE slavery was a poor economic model. Most in the south – white or black lived in poverty.

                      My concern for the condictions of the middle passage ? Purely academic – both the slaves, the crew, and their eventual masters are long dead.

                      I have more interest in the horrible conditions that my adopted chinese daugther experienced in a chinese orphanage 20 years ago, and those throughout the world in similar conditions.

                      We need not go back 3 hundred years to find examples of inhumanity, nor are blacks the worlds primary victims.

                      Life in the world is twice as good today for even the poorest than it was 50 years ago. That is the direct consequence of the export to the world of western capitalism – the economic system of the US and UK and later the rest of the West.

                      It is self evident to all but the most moronic – that whatever the sins of the west its GIFTS to the rest of the world far exceed its sins.

                      The west did not invent slavery. It did create the scottish enlightenment system of political economy that has benefited the entire world like nothing else EVER. From Ogg the cave man forward until the present for 99.999% of human existance, most of us did not survive to become adults, only a tiny portion of those who did, did better than our parents.

                      It is that system that ENDED slavery – both in the west and in the world.

                      There is no people or race in the world that can stand in judgement of the west. The balcks that died ont he middle passage were not enslaved and sold by whites – they were enslaved and sold by blacks. Not so long ago Hutu’s in Rwanda massacred 800,000 Tutsi in 3 months – mostly with machettes. Genocide goes back to the earilest cave men. Today no homo species exists excpet Homo-sapiens.
                      There was minimal inbreeding with neanderthals and other human species. Mostly we wiped them out – completely.

                      Do we owe reparations to the neanderthals ? to the Denovians ?

                      Whites have a brutal history – EVERYONE DOES.

                    11. “The survival rate for the crew of slave ships was no different from that of slaves.””
                      I really don’t believe you for believing something so stupid as the mortality rate being the same. This is an example of history being told by the so called victors. The crew mortality rate is estimated by some sources as being as high as 20%. Slave deaths have been said to be as low as 12-14%, as long as you don’t count those thrown overboard due to sickness or the ship not having enough food or water, or as a disciplinary measure. Read the information brought out during the Amistad trial. Can you imagine any reason other than the occasional uprising that would affect the crew as much or more than the slave cargo? Did you not even question that alleged fact?

                      This is so absurd as

                    12. It didn’t pay for owners of slaves to kill them or let them die after paying money to obtain them. The earlier white slaves have been said to have had a higher death rate because they came free.

                      The above comes under the idea of “supply and demand.”

                    13. I do not make statements of fact that are not verifiable.

                      The records exist – crossings were dangerous – when a ship went down all died.
                      While there were causes of death unique to the slaves, there were also causes unique to the crew – sailing has never been a safe occupation.

                      The fundimental difference is that thge crew of a slave ship stood to be well paid at the end of the journey.

                      That you presume something is false because it does not fit your preconceptions, just demonstrates you inability to engage in critical thought.

                      Contra the left – crews were generally NOT prone to easily toss slaves overboard. Drowned slaves are not profitable.
                      The crew makes more for each slave that arrives ALIVE.

                      Sailing at the time was highly dangerous so lots died. But not because the crews wanted to kill off slaves, or themselves.

                      I can imagine an infinite number of reasons for high crew mortality.
                      Slaves had little to do on a slave ship. The crew had to sail the ship – a dangerous job even today. But especially true in the age of sail.

                    14. “The records exist – crossings were dangerous – when a ship went down all died.”
                      The records only reflect what was reported by those in charge. Believe what you will, live in ignorance, #sad.

                    15. You copied what John wrote: “The records exist – crossings were dangerous – when a ship went down all died.”

                      What are you telling us about that specific comment?

                    16. More idiocy.
                      Why would you doubt that slave ships did not keep meticulous records of slaves ?
                      The slaves being transported were considered valuable property.

                      You keep trying to pretend that people in prior eras were motivated by what YOU 100 years later would think of them.

                      If a slave ship did not cross with as many slaves as possible – the captain and crew would be answerable to the owners.
                      If the slave ship did not arrive with as many slaves as possible – the capitan and crew would be answerable to the owners.
                      In most instance pay was determined by the number of slaves safely transported.

                      You do not seem to grasp that slaves were treated as valuable property. If they were not – slavery would not exist.

                    17. “The slaves being transported were considered valuable property.”

                      Enigma lacks a knowledge of history, so he can’t put his points together in a meaningful way even when they are true. Slaves were cargo and cargo was frequently insured with exacting records of what and how much cargo there was. When an insured ship went down those records were used to pay the shippers. For anyone to think no records were kept on valuable items is foolish.

                    18. “Why would you doubt that slave ships did not keep meticulous records of slaves ?
                      The slaves being transported were considered valuable property.”

                      https://www.blackpast.org/global-african-history/zong-massacre-1781/

                      One captain tried filing an insurance claim based on his meticulous records and it didn’t work out too well. How meticulous of a record would you keep of murder. At this moment mass graves are being dug up in the Greenwood District of Tulsa after the Black Wall Street Massacre where the white leaders claimed around thirty Black people were killed when the true number was up to 500. In Ocoee, FL after the mass murder there after two Black men tried to vote, another claim of thirty-something dead when the real number was several hundred. There are multiple incidents in America where hundreds of Black or Native Americans were killed and people lied about the number. Ship Captains lied for the same reason as anybody, to cover their butt.

                    19. Enigma, you deflected to another subject. No one said that horrible things weren’t done, they were. 6 Million Jews were enslaved and murdered. Catholics, gypsies, and others were murdered as well. The Holodomor occurred as well along with massive killings in Rwanda and elsewhere in the world. That is not the point.

                      We need to deal with facts and historically we know ships frequently carried insurance.

                      “How meticulous of a record would you keep of murder. “

                      Though, as usual, your statement is incomplete, I guess that you believe the captain loaded a ship with black slaves already paid for, and then killed them. You are going to have to provide a bit more than your fantasies.

                    20. Enigma, what is your point? That anyone can write garbage without doing research? That research of insurance claims doesn’t help explain the question at hand?

                      When you are unable to logically respond to valid information, you resort to links without demonstrating how those links answer the questions. That demonstrates a lack of knowledge on the subject being discussed.It would be better for you to stop pretending you know things where your evidence is thin or non-existent.

                    21. My point is that you can deny anything despite hearing it from the actual people involved. John Say criticized be for using “modern historians,” you dispute the people were there. Admit it, there is no source you will accept as proof of something you don’t want to believe. The whole premise that slaves and crew died at the same rate doesn’t pass the smell test. This conversation has inspired another article I’ll write, “When Black People Die, Whit People Lie.” I’ll provide multiple examples throughout American history of mass murders wherethe official count was far less than the actual. You do serve an actual purpose other than troll. I’d call you a muse but that would give muses a bad name.

                    22. “Admit it, there is no source you will accept as proof of something you don’t want to believe.”

                      Enigma, that is your position. I provide insurance evidence and you provide a link. I follow logic and evidence. You conflate things to reach your conclusions. You are upset because you don’t know history, yet those you arguing with agree with you that both slavery and racism should not exist.

                      You claim preferential status but don’t think about the Jews, Catholics, and gypsies killed by the Germans. The Chinese killed in Indonesia. The Rwandan’s that died. The hundred million killed in the last century to keep the left in power. All you care about is what affects you and that affects your policies.

                      I am looking for universal policies such as character over race, but you disdain that idea in many of your responses. I look for individual freedom while you complain of slavery that ended (in this country) in 1865. I look to educate black children in NYC with charter schools and you look at ideology forgetting that black children have a right to be educated.

                      You are in the past. I am in the present. My family faced more death, slavery, and destruction in the last hundred years than you have ever seen. You complain. I don’t. You look at the past and do nothing about the present or the future. I look at the present and act for the future. You will get nowhere.

                    23. “You claim preferential status but don’t think about the Jews, Catholics, and gypsies killed by the Germans. The Chinese killed in Indonesia. The Rwandan’s that died. ”

                      Admit it, you have no idea what I think about any of these things. You say whatever you imagine and accept yourself as fact. Go away troll!

                    24. “Admit it, you have no idea what I think about any of these things.

                      Enigma, I only know what you say on the blog or elsewhere on the net where I might have peeked. Don’t blame me for what you say. Blame yourself if it doesn’t come out the way you want.

                    25. You telling me what I think on subjects I’ve never discussed. Typical Allan, S.Meyer, Anonymous, Someone, or whatever other fake identities you use. Keep of trolling!

                    26. Enigma, you are spewing garbage. provide examples. We know you based on what you say here including the way you act when your evidence gets rightfully trashed.

                    27. I have given him that Slave Crews absolutely WOULD have used sharks to terrorize and controls slaves – if they could do so without increasing the danger to themselves.

                      This is an incredibly common problem with the left.

                      Absolutely Bad people will do bad things. But it is far less likely that bad people will do stupid things that are not in their interests.
                      Though I do have to admit – left wing nuts act against their own interests all the time.

                    28. You are the one that has the problem accepting facts.

                      Absolutely I am going to dispute the claims of modern historians regarding the motivations of people 200 years ago based on one or two sources and their own highly illogical analysis.

                      ONCE AGAIN – no one debates that slave ship crews would and did use terror to control slaves.
                      If they did not they were dead.
                      Whether you think slave ship crews were evil or not – they were going to work towards their own survival.

                      The ISSUE is this obviously stupid claim that slave ships used sharks as a tool to terrorize the slaves on the ship.

                      To be true that would require the crew to make choices that would endanger their lives.

                      The POINT which you are incapable of grasping is that your modern historians are obviously full of Horse Schiff.

                      The FACTS always win – especially over bad guesses as to the motives of people dead for over 200 years.

                    29. Appeals to authority – especially really bad authority are not going to convince me and should not convince anyone.

                      You are constantly seeling the oppinions of YOUR experts as facts – when the smallest amount of critical thinking exposes them as nonsense.

                      Putin did not want Trump, he wanted Clinton,
                      Biden’s laptop was not russian disinformation it was real.
                      and on and on.

                      You want to to be beleived on other issues – but your track record is being constantly duped by your “authorities”.

                      Trust and respect are earned. You want them – try making solid fact based arguments and better still – actually being right.

                    30. “The whole premise that slaves and crew died at the same rate doesn’t pass the smell test. ”

                      Of course it does,

                      While Slaves had to deal with poor below decks conditions. The crew had the very dangerous job of sailing the ship, and the risk of being murdered by the slaves. Or getting the diseases that were killing the slaves. And of course if the ship sank, everyone died – you know, those sharks,
                      Not to mention the thousand mile swim.

                      You keep trying to look at the past from the framework of today.

                      Slave traders did not put the slaves into a cargo container and load them onto a 400′ freighter.

                      They put the slaves below deck on small wooden sailing ships, in an era were sailing was very very dangerous.
                      In fact LIFE was dangerous.

                    31. Actually you provided a few examples where you claimed the counts were different.
                      MAYBE you are right, but you did not provide evidence.

                      Further even your claim does not really get you where you want.

                      Mass killing even genocide has been commonplace throughout human existence.

                      You are trying to draw conclusions that do not autmatically follow from your assertions, that in turn you do not support with facts.

                      Official counts lying about the number of dead in some violent confrontations with blacks proves what ?

                      Even your book title is backwarks from your assertions – it should be when “black people die, white people lie”,

                      Your arguments are SLOPPY, even if by some miracle you should be right about something – it would be accidental, not because you made a valid argument.

                    32. How is it that your link refutes anything I have said ?

                      Did you read what I wrote ?

                      “You keep trying to pretend that people in prior eras were motivated by what YOU 100 years later would think of them.”
                      You fail to grasp that at this time this was not murder – it was destruction of property – hence the insurance claim.

                      If your argument is that Slavery is bad – we all agree on that. Move on.

                      But you keep trying to make idiotic claims based entirely on emotion.

                      Let me be clear – if it actually made any sense, the crew of slaveships would absolutely use sharks to terrify slaves into staying in line.

                      But that claim does not fit he facts. Slaves were kept below decks nearly all the time – it was very dangerous to have slave even in irons above deck.

                      YOU cited he Amistaad – Are you the slightest familiar with your own links ?

                      Slave revolted and took control of a slave ship, killing the capitain and the cook and said the ship to long island.

                    33. Your jumping topics.

                      So 19 people in a single grave in Tulsa are being dug up and reburied ?

                      So far the EVIDENCE I am aware of indicates – 39 dead – 13 of whom were white.
                      Regardless, the evnt occured over 100 years ago and it is irrelevant whether 26 or 2600 blacks were killed today.

                      We are not going to dig up the killers and sentence them to life in prison.

                      No one disputes that very bad things happened in this country – often driven by race.

                      After the Civil War there were large groups of Irish who had fought for the Union who regularly held marches with as many as 10,000 and were viewed by much of WASP america as irish terrorists at the time.

                    34. In 1325 there was an indian massacre in North america – that is 200 years BEFORE the first white settlers.

                      One group of indians murdered 486 of another group – we have an actual mass grave.

                      in 1622 the Powhattans massacreed 847 english at Jamestown – almost 1/3 of all settlers.

                      in 1644 they killed anouther 400 settlers.

                      Skipping to 1857 indians massacred 140 settlers.

                      in 1861 Apache massacred hundreds of white and mexican settlers.

                      in 1862 the Dakota massacred 450-800 settlers.
                      in 1865 65 settlers were massacred.

                      You ca find lots of violence in the american past.

                      Obviously the Indians lost in the long run.

                    35. The accuracy of pretty much everything gets muddled as we go back into the past.

                      What is new.

                      You seem to think that all errors flow one way an always for one purpose.

                      That is just ludicrously stupid.

                      It is also to a large extent – irrelevant.

                      One group of people killed another hundreds of years ago claiming to be justified on some basis that is not well accepted today.

                      I guess we should go backward to Cain and abel and correct all post injustices.

                      What is true – though you are not prepared to accept it is low levels of violence are reletively new – if you go into the past it was FAR more violent than the present.

                      Whites were violent, blacks were violent indians were violent.

                      The further back you go the more violent people are. ‘

                      And you wish to stitch together some theme that has meaning today ?

                      Mongol hordes invaded europe in the mid 13th century in the largest genocide in human existance. Perhaps as much as 12% of the population fo earth at the time was killed.

                      Should the Euopeans receive reparations for that ?

                    36. “That you presume something is false because it does not fit your preconceptions, just demonstrates you inability to engage in critical thought.”

                      That you believe something is true because it fits your preconceived notions is kind of sad. Let me guess, Trump won the election and Antifa stormed the Capital on January 6th?
                      You can find documentation besides what I provided of sharks trailing the slave ships. They weren’t waiting on the crew.

                    37. I do not beleive these things to be true – they are true because they are documented facts.

                      Your lack of familiarity does not change anything.

                    38. I don’t know what particular facts you refuse to believe. How have you checked the things you question. Do you even question anything you don’t like?

                    39. “I don’t know what particular facts you refuse to believe.”

                      Weird sentence, I do not beleive or disbelieve things that are facts – they just are.

                      A fact is something that is true regardless of beleif.

                      If you must beleive something – it is not a fact or you are not well informed.

                      “How have you checked the things you question.”
                      Always, I check you constantly, I check the left always, I check the right constantly.

                      And you fall short constantly. And the left just lies nearly always.

                      You are still trying to seel this massive danger from white supremecist domestic terrorists – yet you provide no evidence.
                      Just appeals to authorities with a long repurtation for lying.

                      ” Do you even question anything you don’t like?”

                      I question everything.

                      And that is where we end up in conflict.

                      You make constant claims that do not hold up when scrutinized do not hold up.

                      The claim that slave traders used sharks to terrorize slaves made no sense from the start.

                      Not that traders would not do everything possible to instill fear in slaves.

                      Btu because it would require the crew to bring numbers of slaves on deck which was just not happening.

                      The entire history of western slavery is repleat with the justified fear of whites that slaves would revolt.

                    40. I question most everything.

                      I particularly check claims that are being used to justify the infringement of the liberties of others.

                      I fact check you constantly – and you are not always wrong.

                      But you are wrong far more than sufficiently to destroy the arguments you are trying to make.

                      Though beyond factual errors,, you worst mistake is trying to view the past through the lense of today.

                      The further back in the past you go the more violence is normal.

                      As Hobbes said – “Life was nasty, brutish and short”.

                      People who often thought they were doing good, did significant evil – that was the way of the world then.,

                      You rant because some slave trader overcrowed his ship and people died of disease.

                      Antibiotics were not discovered until the 20th century.

                      During the 18th and 19th centuries it is not likely that a ships captain could have though ahead to disease spreading though has “cargo” – there was little understanding of disease.

                      Further- though sea travel was very dangerous MOSTLY disease was uncommon at sea. Crews were isolated from the general population for long periods of time.
                      If they did not bring something with them, they did not catch it.

                      But again – your thought is shallow and stuck int he 21st century,

                      MAYBE you can judge people in the 18th and 19th century by 21st century moral views – you can not judge them based on 21st century science and medicine

                      Yet, you do constantly.

                      But even the morality argument is ludicrous.

                      You and modern historians strive to dig up the secrets of past racial violence – as if the people of the time were ashamed and hid it.

                      Lynchings were like picnics – everyone came out for them. To a large extent the recorded history of the time can be trusted to be reasonably accurate – because the actions you are condemning were not done in the dark, but out in the open in public.

                      If slave ship captains lied about their crossings – it was to get money from insurance companies or to avoid the wrath of the owner.

                      They were not hiding their conduct from history.
                      .

                    41. I did not say sharks did not trail the ships.

                      I said that your claim that sharks were used to terrorize slaves was rfactually impossible.

                      I have no doubt slavers would use sharks to terrorize slaves into submission if that were possible.
                      But that would require allowing large numbers of slaves on deck at one time – and that did not happen.

                      Absolutely slavers were deeply concerned about loosing control of their ships. Crew sizes were small and the number of slaves an order of magnitude larger. Even in chains large numbers of slaves could take over a ship – and that meant near certain death for the crew.

                    42. Whether it be crew or slaves, taking over a ship, in general, wasn’t wise. The Captain’s protection from mutiny was that he and a very few others on the ship knew where the rudders were. Without the rudders or an experienced captain, a boat in the middle of the ocean would likely never be able to return home.

                      Enigma, your scattered facts, many of which are untrue, require a knowledge of history to be understandable. You don’t seem able to put history and facts together. That was the problem with the 1619 project and many other histories written by leftist ideologues.

                    43. It is not just rudders, Navigation particularly in the past without GPS was a skill that few people possess.

                      On most ocean going vessels only the officers were capable of navigation.

                    44. True, but the location of the rudders was held secret even from many officers who understood navigation. Knowledge is how one controls others. The Egyptian Pharaoh or his closest advisors knew the calendar and the season for planting. That was kept secret so that weather and crop advisories would be provided by the Pharaoh.

                    45. You – and your sources keep trying to extrapolate from known facts to intentions that do not survive even light scrutiny.

                    46. “You – and your sources keep trying to extrapolate from known facts to intentions that do not survive even light scrutiny.”

                      Maybe it’s your “known facts” that could stand a little scrutiny. George Washington never told a lie, Thomas Jefferson was a benevolent slaveowner that never slept with his Black slave (until proven otherwise), slave crews died at the same rate as slaves, there is no such thing as voter suppression. My only question is whether you absolutely believe that nonsense or just can’t acknowledge it.

                    47. Have I said GW never told a lie ?
                      Unlike you I know the difference between a nursey story and reality.

                      It was well known that Jefferson had slept with slaves at the time.

                      Slave crews did die at the same rates as slaves – you still have not gotten past this.

                      Oviously there are unique exceptions – but when a vessel sinks in the mid atlantic – everyone dies.

                      On occasions disease might wipe out more slaves than crew.

                      Or a slave revlot such as Amistaad might wipe out the whole crew,

                      It was dangerous to be a slave in a slave ship.
                      It was dangeorus to be a sailor.

                      The difference is the slave goes to a plantation at the end of he trip,
                      While the sailor gets paid.

                      The sailor choose the dangerous transit.

                      While other blacks in Africa chose for the slave.

                    48. I will be happy to listen to evidence of voter supression.

                      Though I would like a defintion from you first.

                      I have no problem at all with laws that make Voting harder.

                      I would require all voting in person and if it were possible have a gale throughout the country on election day so only the most determined voted.

                      I would work hard to prevent couch potatoes from voting.

                      I am upset when I hear republicans note that recent elections have had the highest turnout ever – especially by minorities.

                      High Voter turn out is a tell tale sign of an unstable democracy.

                      To the greatest extent possible we want LOW voter turnout.

                      We want a constitution that so limits the power of government that we have little to fear regardless of who is elected.

                      So if you are going to try and argue that Republicans have made voting a bit harder – I fully support that.

                      Absolutely require Voter ID, elminate early voting, get rid of early all absentee voting.

                      I would bring back basic competence tests for voters – but I would require them for ALL voters.

                      If you want a discussion of “voter supression” – and you want me to care – you need to be talking about trying to skew the vote – something that was openly done in 2020.

                      Read the Time article by the left Crowing about the biased ways they successfully skewed the vote.

                      Though to be clear – I have ZERO problems with Democrats outside of govenrment thrying to skew the vote – legally, just as Republicans may.

                      It is only when government is sucked in acting lawlessly or where private parties Buy govenrment vote skewing there is a problem.

                      So what is it that you consider Voter ID that I shoudl care about ?

                      I expect come the 2022 elections – that those states still allowing mailing elections we will see private parties monitoring ballot drop boxing – intimidating ballot harvestors – I want that – just as I want neighborhood crime watches in high crime areas.

                      What I do not want ANYWHERE is someone leaning over the shoulder of a voter as they vote, telling them how to vote.

                      And we can not prevent that in mailin elections.

                      I have no idea what you consider voter supression.

                      I suspect it is another term like “white supremicists terrorist” – that has no basis in fact.
                      What I am worried about is voter inducement and voter coercion,. Things that happened massively in the past before secret ballot elections.,
                      And that happened with near certainty in 2020.

                    49. Why should I “beleive” in voter supression.

                      If such a thing was a fact – you would have evidence, beleif would not be needed.

                      And you would be able to define it.

                      I am certainly not going to rush out and oppose something that no one has provided a meaning for.

                    50. You still have not defined “it”.

                      And federal courts find all kinds of things that do not exist and are blind to things that do.

                      Still and appeal to authority.

                    51. Know I do not know what you mean by “voter supression”.

                      Only you know what you mean.

                      This is a common problem with those on the left.

                      The meaning of words is maleable.

                      If you are going to try to define “it” by court decisions – then the supreme court is th final authority and they have not found “voter supression” in decades.

                      On any issue we can always find many courts – right or left that come to erroneous conclusions. That is why we have appeals courts – all the way to the supreme court. And even that frequently gets things wrong.

                      So no , I am not able to define “voter supression” by the decisions of courts, that you have not identified.
                      Nor am I interested in identifying it by guessing as to what you think “it” is.

                      I am pretty sure you are not expecting me to “ignore the issue” – I am pretty sure we BOTH expect that I will point out that what you call voter suppression ISN’T.

                      But maybe you will surprise me.

                      In the meantime, if you can not define it – then your comments are meaningless.

                    52. You seem to think it is some kind of choice between everything is perfect and everything is horrible.

                      Life 50 years ago was mostly worse than today – whether you were black or white.

                      Life 300 years ago was much worse than today – whether you were black or white.

                      Being a slave sucked It was certainly worse than being the crew of a slave ship.

                      But both had a significant risk of dying.

                      If the slave survived the crossing – they went on to a life of servitude without freedom that was likely misserable.
                      If the crew survived they were well paid for the trip by the standards of the day.

                      Obviously things were not the same.

                      Conditions for slaves on the ship and on a plantation were typically bad.
                      But conditions for nearly everyone were not that great.

                      I addressed the Irish before. The life of most Iriash – particularly in Ireland was pretty miserable – and had been for hundreds of years.
                      The Irish were not slaves – but they were damn close. They had little freedom, they lived hand to mouth and were in far greater danger of starving than slaves. They were worse off than share croppers,

                      One of the problems with the nonsense being peddled is the lack of understanding of how bad life was for most everyone in the past.

                      While the irish did horribly compared to their english peers of the time – and frankly compared to slaves in the colonies.
                      a century or two earlier – nearly everyone was no better than the irish.

                      Progress through 99.99% of human existance was not even 1% a century.

                      You do not have to go very far back and even kings lived worse than the poor today.

                    53. John, Enigma continuously weaponizes guilt even after the guilty parties have died and those alive recognize such guilt. What was the guilt? Slavery? It was common throughout the world and historically a way of existence.

                      Enigma has no historical perspective, so instead of dealing with today’s issues, and creating youth that can live a happy and virtuous existence, he acts as if the world exists only in his historical terms. That is wrong and dangerous for those he claims he wishes to help. He advocates exactly the opposite of what is needed.

                    54. People died traveling across the sea. There was no refrigeration so the dead were thrown overboard no matter the color. I think most people recognize that.

                    55. You posted a link as a response. Are you trying to say there was refrigeration for the white people who died on ship in the 17through early 20th century? I talked about refrigeration.

                    56. I have no idea whether your article is correct – and honestly I doubt that your author does either.

                      But ultimately it does not matter.

                      Lets start with some very simple things.

                      The crossing was dangerous – for everyone. Sailing is still dangerous today, and was much more dangerous then.

                      Slave ships did not cram large numbers of slaves on ships in the hopes of killing off many slaves. They did so in the hope that most would live – Live slaves were profitable. Dead slaves were not.

                      Your author claims that sharks were used to terrorize slaves. I have no idea how true that claim is. I have no doubt the slave ship crew would do everything in their power to keep the “cargo” under control.

                      I would futher note that terror was pretty normal for sailing ships. The captian of a ship was the law at sea. A sailor that did not do their job could suffer a wide variety of punishments – many likely to lead to death. The captain of a sailing ship could pretty much kill members of the crew at his whim.

                      So yes terror was part of sailing – for the crew, and likely for “the cargo”.

                      But the shark story has a bunch of problems. Slaves spent very little time above deck and never in numbers.
                      The crews were not even close to sufficient to control the slaves if they had even the smallest freedom. On deck in chains in even small numbers they were very dangerous.

                      So how is it that sharks terrorized the slaves ? Even if sharks followed the ships – which is likely, and even if they shredded those thrown overboard – the slaves below deck would know little more than one of them did not come back. It is unlikely that they would even hear what went on.

                      These were brutish times for everyone. I am sure the crossing was terifying. Just as I ma sure being captured by anoth tribe and hauled away probably from your family, or watching your family die was terifying to.

                      You keep trying to place slavery into the context of 21st century america.
                      But that is not where it existed. It existed in a time when life was very hard for nearly everyone.
                      Dying was commonplace. There was pretty much nothing in the way of healthcare, most food sucked, we did not even understand the importance of cleanliness regarding injury. In the south there were slaves at the bottom, poor whites not much better off next, a small merchant class that was moderately well off by the standards of the times – though horrible by those of today, and a very small group of wealthy plantation owners.

                    57. There is not just a single article documenting the shark activity nor the way they were used. A curious man might look for himself if he doubted. You choose to deny because it doesn’t fit the narrative.

                    58. Sharks exist in the oceans, They tend to follow ships – particularly ships were things they can eat are tossed overboard. That has been true forever.

                      The claim that Sharks were being used to “terrorize” slaves is at odds with the facts.

                      I will be happy to agree that the crew would have used sharks to terrorize the slaves – if they could.
                      The crew needed the slaves to be controlled. The number of slaves dwarfed the crew.
                      One of the reasons slaves rarely got on deck was because it would be so easy for he crew to lose control of the ship.

                      Absolutely the crew sought to terrorize salves – just not via sharks as that had too much risk.

                    59. Enigma, are you saying sharks don’t exist in the ocean? They don’t follow ships? Does that apply to seagulls as well?

                    60. This is what you get from injecting yourself into other peoples conversations. You had either poor home training or you are a bad seed which I’m leaning toward.

                      I disagreed with John Say that the ships crew died at the same rate as slaves, further that there were many unrecorded slave deaths where the slaves were either thrown into the ocean or in a small percentage committed suicide. There were dozens or reasons for slaves to die at a higher rate, a couple you could imagine for the crew but nowhere in comparison.
                      I’ve provided testimony from people there at the time. John has provided his opinion, and you just make stuff up as you go, You have no interest in facts, only trolling which because you do it so much must provide some inner satisfaction.

                    61. Enigma, I followed your discussion. I can’t help it if you cannot write clearly.

                      John said: “Sharks exist in the oceans, They tend to follow ships”

                      John was correct. You said many things about sharks and pointed to some things that I agree with and some things that are not proven or downright illogical. John pointed out the lack of logic in killing slaves since they were cash when ship arrived at its destination. I didn’t mention anything about death rates. That involves a more detailed discussion. I’m sure when the impoverished Irish came over in such ships, they may have had some similar treatment to the black slaves especially those in the early times brought over as white slaves.

                      Though you accuse me of making things up, I made nothing up. Maybe you did, but not I. That is why you are very non-specific. You are unable to prove your claims. John is essentially correct. By the way, I do have interest in facts and sometimes I even provide the names of authors and books where one can get more information on the subject. I’m going to provide a name now, Thomas Sowell. You need to read him. He wrote many books on numerous subjects. Economics, banking, racism, culture over the world, growing up in poverty, the debate on charter schools, Marxism. If you wish I will send you one at my cost. Maybe you would like his autobiography.

                    62. Defending a troll is applause for one. If I followed and commented on every comment someone else made, even and especially when talking to other people. You’d rightfully acknowledge me as a troll. That he’s an idiot he’s already made clear.

                    63. “further that there were many unrecorded slave deaths”
                      You would have to document that somehow. I am sure there were rare errors, given the number of slaves transported.
                      But crews were dealing with a valuable cargo – just like other cargo – they kept records and rarely lost count.

                      “where the slaves were either thrown into the ocean”
                      And why would you presume those were not counted ?

                      Besides – if you pick up 219 slaves and you deliver 198 – precisely how 21 were lost is not critical – they are still dead.

                      “in a small percentage committed suicide.”
                      Again they would still be counted.

                      ” There were dozens or reasons for slaves to die at a higher rate, a couple you could imagine for the crew but nowhere in comparison.”

                      There are SOME reason the slaves would be likely to die that are lessor or non existant for the crew as well as the converse.

                      If the ship sinks – 100% of the crew dies, 100% of the slaves die.

                      0% of slaves die sailing the ship.

                      “I’ve provided testimony from people there at the time.”
                      No, you provided some modern historians writing about what two of likely 10’s of thousands of capitans purportedly wrote.

                      “John has provided his opinion and you just make stuff up as you go, You have no interest in facts, only trolling which because you do it so much must provide some inner satisfaction.”

                      You really have trouble with the meaning of words. You have provided no facts at all – just appeals to authority and weak oppinions and arguments.

                    64. Here i an NBER paper that reports that crews had death rates 3 times that of the slaves.

                      The driving reason that they have no immunity to diseases like malaria that the slaves brought with them.

                      https://www.nber.org/papers/w1540

                    65. The “report” also gives the primary cause of death of slaves as gastrointestinal diseases. Historians also claimed the abnormally high birth rate of slaves in America was due to “natural increase” instead of being the product of forced breeding and rape. People lie to make themselves look and feel better.

                    66. So ?

                      I doubt that Slaves in the US had an unusually high birth rate. Birth rates in the past were high for all races.

                      Further Birth rates – atleast initially ALWAYS correspond to mortaility rates – the lower life expectancy the higher the birth rate.

                      This was true in the past, It is true in the present.

                      Generally when life expectancy suddenly increases it takes several generations for birth rates to drop.
                      Further “immigrants” – including slaves, initially follow the pattern of their nation of origen – atleast for a few generations.

                      Even today the mortality rate in africa is much higher than nearly anywhere else in the world.
                      That was certainly true in the 16th-19th centuries.
                      It would be normal for african slaves to reproduce rapidly in the US for a couple of generations.

                      If you have data that the BIRTH RATE for slaves was higher than the BIRTH RATE in africa at the time – I would be happy to see that.

                      The extent to which slave owners and possible other plantation whites took sexual advantage of slaves is nearly certain independent of Birth Rate.
                      Though it is certainly a major factor in the racial mix of US blacks.

                      It is probably possible with existing DNA studies to determine the overall frequency with which white reproduced with slaves during the slave era.

                    67. “I doubt that Slaves in the US had an unusually high birth rate. Birth rates in the past were high for all races.”

                      Your just choose to be ignorant don’t you? I’m going to stop providing data that you won’t read. You claim to be knowledgeable about American history but you are limited to those things you want to know.

                    68. The only one of us who appears to have limited knowledge is you.

                      You are the one trying to bend facts to match wishes.

                      IF all you are going to provide is opinion peices – NOT facts – then yes please don’t.

                      I am sure if you wish you can find the actual birth rates. It also should be trivial to confirm that birth rates throughout the world and accross time are directly tied (with a lag) to life expectancy. Longer lives result in lower birth rates.

                      Africa STILL has abnormally high birth rates – because life expectancy is lower than the rest of the world.

                      We get this nonsense from you all the time.

                      You ahve a narrative you are trying to sell – and you thoughtlessly force fit the facts into it. Without any regard for whether you are flat out wrong or there is a much better explanation.

                    69. I do not know either of these people, and I have no interest in the personal attacks of some opinion journalist on a professor.

                      I have asked you for EVIDENCE. FACTS. We discussed actual facts regarding the claim that the mortality rate of the sailors transportion slaves was as high or higher than that of slaves.

                      You were given FACTS – Records – not anecdotes.

                      I do not know what the opinions of this professor being attacked are, or this opinion writer you are citing are.

                      But neither constitutes a FACT.

                      Make your claims with FACTS – not this editorial BS.

                      Not only is my time limited – but that of most of us in the real world.
                      We do not have time to read everything you wish us to read and only what you wish.

                      If I an going to spend time reading things that are not FACTS – then I will read people like Faust or Voltaire or John Stuart Mill

                      Whose works have stood the test of time.
                      Not this Spivey guy who you have made no case knows anything about anything.

                      If you want me to read him PROVE he has something valueable and accurate to say.

                    70. You do know you’re communicating with this “spivey guy,” My name is one of those readily available facts you never check, Google {“natural increase, slavery” and you’ll find a lot of information, research further and you’ll stumble upon the truth of forced breeding and rape. Or you could choose to believe only what you find comfortable, and deny the rest.

                    71. No, I did not know that.
                      It changes nothing.

                      It is also unbeleivably arrogant – citing yourself as a public source.

                      Correct, I never checked your name.
                      I have no interest in “doxing” you.
                      You post under a psuedonym – I presume that you have some reason for wanting some privacy – and I respect that.

                      Regardless, I do not care who you are. I have directly debated far more famous and knowledgeable people than you,
                      I do not care who they are either – only the quality of their arguments.

                      I judge you based on what you post.
                      If the articles you linked are your own writing – they start off with illogical nonsense and massive bad mind reading.
                      There is no reason to read further.

                      Regardless, you do not get to decide what I must learn.
                      I honestly do not care all that much about the things that clearly mean everything to you.

                      You have been repeatedly wrong about most of the issues I have bothered to check – why should I check the next pet peeve of yours ?

                      Slavery has existed since the beginning of man.
                      Slavery ended in the US – it did so long before it did in much of the world. Ending it cost a great deal of the blood of the people you are constantly maligning.

                      Ending slavery was one of the defining features of the western thought that you piss all over. The end of slavery did not start in asia, or africa, it started in the west.

                      It started with the first society to accept that each individual has intrinsic value and rights.
                      It started with the western embrace of the concept of free will – because without free will slavery is moral.

                      Yet, you waste your time trying to tear down the very principles and thought that ended slavery in the us – and ultimately much of the world.

                      Is it possible that after the law banning the importation of slaves – rapes and forced breeding increased – sure it is possible.
                      So What ? You seem to be under the impression that you can destroy western principles by pointing out that it took time from the emergence of those principles until those principles were adopted strongly enough to end slavery – first in the west and then everywhere.

                      Further, EVERY philosophy, ideology that does not have individual liberty, free will as a core principle – has slavery of one form or another. It is little if any improvement to have the state as your master than some white guy.

                      If you wish me to be outraged – look to the evil that we do and the suffering we inflict to each other today, not your fixation on the mistreatment of people who died generations before either of us were born. Do we need to go all the way back to cain and able ?

                      However great the evil of slavery – something as old as mankind, it is still dwarfed by the principles that ended it.
                      And you do not get that.

                      You focus on the plight of a tiny portion of the world two centuries ago, a small portion of this country – as if it is all there is.

                      If no one ever exported a slave from Africa, this country today would have only small differences from what it is today.

                      “Each of us is more than the worst thing we’ve ever done.”
                      Bryan Stevenson

                      The same is true of nations.

                      Something you clearly do not grasp.

                    72. ‘You post under a psuedonym – I presume that you have some reason for wanting some privacy – and I respect that.”

                      I have a brand, not privacy. Click on my picture and all my information comes up. I am not hiding like a certain troll posting under multiple identities.

                    73. Posting under Psuedonyms is not trolling. François-Marie Arouet is not a troll. He is better know as Voltaire.

                      I would be embarrassed by the “brand” you are building – but that is your business.

                      Unlike others both left and right, I have no interest in rants about whether others post under pseudonyms or anonymously.
                      I have merely pointed out that posting anonymously comes at the cost of credibility.

                      Regardless, my criticism of the articles you linked stands – whether you wrote them or not.
                      The articles start abysmally – regardless of who authored them.

                      They rely on time travel mind reading – which is complete idiocy.
                      They presume grand conspiracies of all people in some time period to lie to each other, themselves, and to history.

                      If you can not understand how laughably bad logic that is, you should not be writing anything for anyone.

                      That is little different from my claiming that african blacks actually wanted to be enslaved, drug to the new world, raped, lynched etc.
                      So that generations later they could demand reparations.

                      Logic like that is Self Refuting.

                    74. The troll I speak of wasn’t you, it’s someone who posts under multiple names including Anonymous, and Someone, that others here also post under. I don’t mind a unique anonymous name when you always know you’re talking to the same person.

                      You’ve already said you don’t read my articles through, presumably also not following the links to other sources and the quotes from the people themselves in some instances. You indicate you believe in what historical figures say, I watch what they did. Patrick Henry said, “Give me liberty or give me death.” It obviously didn’t apply to others as he was one of Virginia’s largest slaveowners. He admitted his shame but it didn’t change his behavior. I’ll look up the quote for you as you will deny it if you don’t know it already.
                      “Would any one believe that I am master of slaves by my own purchase? I am drawn along by the general inconvenience of living without them. I will not — I cannot justify it, however culpable my conduct. Patrick Henry”
                      Should you wonder if I’ve taken him out of context, this article includes much more from Henry including his thoughts on the allegedly high moral Christians. This story was written by me which I don’t present as proof I’m right (which I am) but because I don’t have to recreate the wheel having already done the work. Most of the words are his own, feel free to use your warped logic to refute them.
                      https://medium.com/black-history-month-365/give-me-liberty-or-give-me-death-b25a736dd903?sk=d2935acce2326c10c8004b5ba99ac668

                    75. “The troll I speak of wasn’t you, it’s someone who posts under multiple names including Anonymous, and Someone, that others here also post under.”

                      Clarity and accuracy are not things you seem to value.

                    76. How does posting under multiple names along with others using the same names promote clarity and accuracy? You don’t want people to know who you are, I might feel the same if I were you but clarity and accuracy is not the end result.

                    77. I have mostly posted to you using my alias, S. Meyer. When the comments become to silly I will revert to anonymous because I do not wish to waste other people’s time reading such trite. On occasion you got confused with an anonymous response and I helped you out by telling you it came from me and even responded as anonymous but with the SM initials on the bottom. I don’t know why I am so nice to you when you insult me when replying to others.

                      I am not the only anonymous poster, but generally you can differentiate me by my tone and what I say. I think at least two different anonymous posters respond to you, maybe more. That is understandable because your comments are insulting to many. You thought some were from me, and I could have answered your question to Allan if you had been nicer to me, but why should I help you out when you are so nasty.

                      In any event I am answering you now and signing my alias. A thank you would be nice..

                    78. I do not care who you think is a troll.

                      Certainly there are trolls here – but the decision as to who is a troll and who is not is made ideologically by most.

                      I suspect many on the right here would call you a troll – and from their perspective with good reason.

                      I am not personally interested in sorting out who is and who is not a troll.

                      I am interested in who or what ideas do I wish to respond to.

                      You make some pretty bad arguments – but atleast you mostly make arguments.

                      I can work with arguments.

                    79. I do not care if people post anonymously.

                      There are good reasons for doing so, as well as under psuedonyms.

                      But how you post does effect your credibility.

                      I confront posters who post anonymously – rather than under a psuedonym – when they demand the rest of us try to keep track of who they are.

                      You may not make choices for yourself and based on them impose burdens on others.

                      If you post as anonymous – each post stands along – you have no history and therefore no credibility.

                    80. “You’ve already said you don’t read my articles through,”
                      I nearly always start reading the links of nearly everyone who replies to me – except when they provide links to disreputable sources.

                      But I am not going to way links to opinions heavily with respect to posts to Facts.

                      Once upon a time Journalism paid lip service to separating opinion from reporting. Unfortunately not today.

                      But Any source that goes completely off the rails into idiotic and facially false claims early on – no I am not going to waste time further.
                      Maybe there is some merit somewhere deep in the body of your articles – but if you start with obvious fallacy’s or self contradictory BS – you should not expect that anyone is going to go hunting for the value in the midst of the dross.

                      Your first major problem which you are barely conscious of is that you are literally attacking western values from a position that inherently relies on western values.
                      You can criticize western values for hypocrisy – there is certainly plenty of that.

                      But if you try to destroy western values from an assumption that slavery is immoral – you are literally attacking yourself.
                      The core of western values is individual free will. Without that slavery is not immoral.

                    81. AGAIN – if you are arguing western hypocrisy – You win. That is trivial.

                      But an attack on hypocrisy is not an attack on western values, it is an attack on individuals living up to those values.
                      Absolutely our “hero’s” should have done better at living up to their core values.
                      Though I would note in their defense that this is pretty much the first moment in human history where men attempted to govern themselves according to hose values. We have a hundred thousand years of experience with slavery, with authoritarianism.
                      The concept of free people governing themselves had very little in the way of historical antecedents and those were all failures.

                      It would have been incredible it our founders had not merely brought about the self government of free individuals – something they arrived at from that core foundation of individual free will but grasped and implemented the fact that it applied to more than white men at the same instant.
                      Most were surprisingly able to grasp that, but they were not able to implement it right away. Even though they were aware of their own hypocrisy.

                      The core/foundational central principle western value is individual free will. When you shift from attacking western values – rather than the hypocrisy of our founders you are rejecting individual free will, and when you do that – your rants about slavery and racism are all nonsense.
                      Slavery is not immoral without individual free will. Slavery existed in all of the world and for all of human existence, and it did NOT exist as a necessary evil, but as something that was accepted as perfectly moral. Because without individual free will – slavery is moral.

                      So this is simple – though you are often wrong on lots of details – we can agree that our founders were hypocritical. That is not unusual when major new ideas take root and sprout.

                      But If you wish to challenge western values using slavery and racism as your thesis – YOU FAIL. Because without free will slavery is moral.

                    82. Again – why should I read what you have written ?

                      A long diatribe attackin Patrick Henry as a hypocrite – proves what ? Patrick Henry is a hypocrite ? That is a given.

                      Another major problem with your attack on the west is that you confuse hypocrisy with not actually having the principles you are violating.

                      As with the rest of your arguments – that is self evidently false. Inarguably the west lead the destruction of slavery.

                      Without the rise of western values – we would have slavery still all over the world.

                      You do not wish to repeat what is in your medium article – fine. But you have not made the case that anyone should read it.

                      AGAIN, if your argument is that Patrick Henry was a hypocrite – I do not think there is anyone who would disagree.

                      Hypocrisy is commonplace – Martin Luther King was a hypocrite too. Should we cancel him ?

                      If your argument is that slavery proves that western values are flawed – you obviously lose – before you begin.
                      But for western values slavery is moral.

                      So does your PH article make some other argument ?

                    83. Logic has rigid rules – if I have bent them – you can pretty trivially demonstrate that.

                    84. I choose to be informed.
                      I choose to think.
                      To use logic,
                      to use critical thinking.

                      Self -evidently you do not.

                    85. You do not seem to know what a FACT is.

                      Your article is more mind reading to reach the conclusions you want.

                      The article is self evidently full of schiff from the start.
                      From before the revolution many states worked aggressively to limit and end slavery.
                      That was a constant political battle in the early country that ultimately was resolved by the civil war.

                      Yet despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary – including the support of leading black abolitionists,
                      You and your article try to pretend that it was all some plot. That ending the importation of slaves from Africa was really just a premeditated new way to exploit blacks.

                      Based on what evidence ? The claim that the law banning the importation of slaves had arguably horrendous unintended consequences.

                      Do the rest of us get to claim that YOU really had nefarious intentions because all YOUR favored laws have blown up with unintended consequences ?

                      The lesson that you are blind to is NOT that early abolitionists were really secretly in league with slave owners – which is the logical conclusion that you are selling. But that all laws tend to have unintended consequences and often these are worse than the evils the law seeks to thwart.

                      I have skeptical of some of the specific claims that you and your articile make – as no evidence is provided to support them.

                      But We KNOW that many things did change for the worse as a result of the law barring the importation of slaves.
                      Breaking up slave families was rare prior to this law and commonplace afterwards.

                      Regardless, I will be happy to agree that this law – like ALL laws had unintended consequences – and in this instance some where particularly heinous.

                      But if you are going to tar and feather people – do so for laws where the racist consequences were Intended. Such as minimum wage laws and union set asides.

                    86. You are telling me what you need to believe, that the law had unintended consequences. Most of the things that happened were intended. The law brought great damage to port cities that imported slaves like Charleston. Damage they thought they would avoid by insisting in the Constitution that such a thing couldn’t happen for at least twenty years. Now who was going to benefit? Plantation owners in Virginia (like Thomas Jefferson who implemented the scheme), Maryland, and Deleware. There slaves and those they produced afterward through forced breeding and rape became more valuable because demand was high and supply reduced through their actions. I think you are still incorrectly denying the disproportionate number of slaves born in America though it’s easily checked. You refuse to believe anything I say or check for yourself, that’s willful ignorance. You somehow suggest slave families weren’t being broken up prior to this law, you just made that up? You can tell me. I’ve done the research and you have your opinions, #Sad

                    87. “You are telling me what you need to believe”
                      Look in the mirror

                      Regardless, that is an incredibly stupid statement – How many times do you have to be told – your not a betazoid ?
                      You do not know what I or anyone else think.
                      You can only know what they say and what they do.

                      “that the law had unintended consequences.”
                      All laws do – that is a given.

                      “Most of the things that happened were intended.”
                      So YOU and the few other Betazoids like yourself KNOW that the people 200+ years ago were publicly LYING,
                      Norther whites were lying. Abolitionsists were LYING. Free Blacks were LYING. Southern Slave owners were LYING ?
                      There was a massive conspiracy – that was reflected – not just in history books, but in all contemporary sources and records, th congressional record, books, newspaper articles – the writings of people who opposed the law ?

                      Everyone conspired together to do this evil thing and hid it successfully – until YOU and your fellow time traveling mind readers fereted it out.

                      I can not possibly make you look more absurd than you make yourself.

                      “The law brought great damage to port cities that imported slaves like Charleston.”
                      Which according to you they did to themselves INTENTIONALLY.

                      “Damage they thought they would avoid by insisting in the Constitution that such a thing couldn’t happen for at least twenty years.”
                      What does this even mean ? This is not an argument. It is some mind reading version of an alternate history.

                      “Now who was going to benefit? Plantation owners in Virginia (like Thomas Jefferson who implemented the scheme), Maryland, and Deleware.”
                      Actually the state that benefited incredibly was Alabama. I would suggest that you might want to visit sometime.

                      “There slaves and those they produced afterward through forced breeding and rape became more valuable because demand was high and supply reduced through their actions.”
                      You do not seem to understand the laws of supply and demand. Absolutely reduced supply increases value. But if you then increase the supply – the value declines. If as a slaveowner you really wanted to profit from this law – you would also constrain the production of new slaves through breeding and rape.

                      “I think you are still incorrectly denying the disproportionate number of slaves born in America though it’s easily checked.”
                      You can think whatever you want – though Please stop the mind reading – it just makes you look stupid.
                      As to “easily checked” – Check it. Your thesis requires that there is a sudden sustained jump in the birth rate of slaves starting about 9 months after the law was enacted.

                      You may be correct about that – but you have not proved it. and as noted above it actually works AGAINST your thesis.

                      “You refuse to believe anything I say, or check for yourself, ”
                      Correct – you have established a reputation for spouting nonsense that you never bothered to check.
                      At this point it is reasonable to assume that you do not know what you are talking about.
                      That is how credibility works. You are not entitled to it. you have to earn it, and when you make repeated false claims your credibility becomes negative – it is no longer worthwhile checking out what you say.

                      “that’s willful ignorance.”
                      No. it is an unwillingness to waste time on someone who has proven to lack credibility.

                      “You somehow suggest slave families weren’t being broken up prior to this law, you just made that up?”
                      That is not what I said – now in addition to reading minds, you are making up my words ?

                      The law resulted in a significant increase in families being broken up.

                      “You can tell me. I’ve done the research and you have your opinions, #Sad”
                      And yet it is obvious that you have not.
                      You can not distinguish between opinions that appeal to you and facts that do not.

                      You blew it with your claims regarding mortality on slave ships. Which just proves your utter ignorance of how dangerous EVERTHING was in the past, as well as your grasp of how dangerous sailing was. The world 200 years ago was NOT the world of today.
                      There were no iphones, no gps. sailing the ocean was incredibly dangerous, even in a time when life itself was dangerous.

                      And do I need to re-address this ludicrously stupid claim that the entire country plotted together to pass a law banning the import of slaves for the secret but univerally shared purpose of letting a few people profit by breeding slaves ?

                      Do you ever consider whether any of the things you say make the slightest sense ?

                      If the articles you linked are your work – Please, for your own sake Fix them, they make you look foolish.

                    88. “You do not seem to understand the laws of supply and demand. Absolutely reduced supply increases value. But if you then increase the supply – the value declines. If as a slaveowner you really wanted to profit from this law – you would also constrain the production of new slaves through breeding and rape.”

                      See – COTTON GIN. The demand was still much higher than supply. Another thing you likely don’t know is that cotton production continued to rise after the war because the newly freed slaves were in large part forced back to work through the Black Codes passed by every Southern State. That created mass incarceration and a forced return to the plantations.

                    89. EB – please do not presume I do not know things.
                      While the Cotton Gin was invented in the late 18th century – the explosive growth of Cotton in the US did not occur for another 3 decades – long after the federal law barring the importation of slaves.

                      Absolutely the cotton Gin, kept slavery on life support for decades.

                      But Your claim regarding the importation ban and the broad adoption of the cotton gin do not historically align.

                      As with most of your arguments – you do not seem to think there is a need to fit the narrative of your argument – the cause and effect you presume to the actual facts and history of the time.

                      I have not argued that the Cotton Gin did not prevent the gradually collapse of slavery – it near certainly did.

                      But that is NOT your argument. Your cotton Gin rebuttal OBVIOUSLY did not apply to your argument regarding the slave importation ban.

                      As noted REPEATEDLY before – that law – like nearly all laws had massively bad unintended effects.

                      But YOUR argument is those effects were INTENDED. That requires early americans to be able to see into the future and grasp that in 30 years the Cotton gin would result in an exponential increase int eh demand for slaves.

                      With respect to your post Civil War arguments – conditions in the south after the war were horrible for blacks – and for the overwhelming majority of whites.

                      YOU are now arguing that blacks post Civil War lived in virtual slavery in the south.

                      Congradulations – you have just discovered the conditions of virtual slavery that existed in Ireland for nearly a millennia.

                      Even today – we see hundreds of thousands of people fleeing a miserable shithole life in south and central america for conditions in the US that are little better than those of blacks a century ago. You are complaining about the abysmal conditions that have been the norm in much of the world throughout much of history.

                      Further once again you are trying to argue that some bad factor that you have focused on is responsible for far more than it is capable of.
                      Peak incarceration of blacks in Georgia was 679 in 1921. That corresponded with peak white incarceration of 273 at the same time.
                      Atlanta alone had a population of 275K in 1921.

                      Absolutely incarcertation rates int he south aafter the civil war rose dramatically, and they did so more for blacks than whites.

                      But they never reached the numbers that would be necescary to support your claims.
                      Even today there are 84,000 people incarcerated in GA – the highest ever, 42K of those are black.
                      That is STILL not enough to support your narative – even if that was the number in 1890 rather than today.

                      I would further note that the growth of blacks in prison after the Civil war has many explanations.
                      Prior to the civil war there were few free blacks in the south. “Justice” for slaves was a plantation matter – not a law enforcement matter.
                      One of the consequences of freedom was greater interaction with the criminal justice system.

                      Even today the crime rate varies by Race – Asians commit half the violent crimes that whites do – not only in the US but throughout the world.
                      Hispanics have about 50% higher a crime rate than whites – throughout the world and blacks have double the crime rate of whites – throughout the world. In much of the post civil war south free blacks made up the majority of the population. And then like today they had double the rates of violent crime as whites.

                      The correlation between crime rates and races is solid throughout the US, throughout modern history and throughout the world.

                      You can fairly accurately predict the crime rate of most countries in the world just knowing their demographics.

                      Further as crime rates rise overall – they rise proportionately withing races. As they decline overall – they decline proportionately within races.

                      I am not going to speculate as to the cause of racially different crime rates, but it is still a FACT.

                      To be clear I am not rejecting your claim that the criminal justice system was used in the south post civil war to oppress blacks.
                      Only that the magnitude of that was far less than you claim.

                      That should actually be obvious. in the past, Today, We do not have law enforcement of the scale necescary for the effects you wish to claim.

                      There are less than 1M police int he US today – that is 0.3% of the population. They are not capable of the systemic oppression you claim – even if they were all the white racists that you claim.

                      Racism exists – and it exists inside law enforcement, and it is something we should do something about. But it is not – and NEVER has been but a tiny fraction of the scale that you claim.

                    90. And quit trying to sell a historical opinions as facts.

                      When you claim to know what someone was thinking, and it is different from what they SAY, you are ALWAYS dealing with oppinions and nearly always WRONG.

                    91. “I consider a woman who brings a child every two years as more profitable than the best man of the farm, what she produces is an addition to the capital, while his labors disappear in mere consumption.” Thomas Jefferson
                      Jefferson didn’t say this, you never hear of Jefferson’s great speeches because he stuttered so much. He did write it to George Washington though. I believe what he said and what he did.

                    92. So ?

                      You seem to think that an obvious fact of nature that is at best tangentially related to your claims proves them.

                      Do you know what the mortality rate for children – regardless of race was at the time ?
                      And you are still trying to claim that the entire country north and south conspired together to benefit a few slave owners.

                      “In Boston and Philadelphia in 1750 the mortality rate of blacks was 1/3 to 1/2 higher than whites.
                      From 1767-1775 less than 100 black children born in philadelphia survived infancy.

                      Things were worse in the deep south where at the Time Malaria was prevalent.

                      One study surmised that three out of every ten [slave] babies died before age one.
                      One South Carolina plantation was found to have one of the highest death rates for slave infants at 338 per 1,000 during a child’s first year. A study of Mississippi slavery suggested as many as half the slave infants perished during their first year and the survivors continued to die at rapid rates until the age of five or six
                      In a second study focusing on the years of 1850 to 1860, it found that mortality rates of slave children were approximately double those of the free population in the entire country”

                      Presumably you understand that a higher mortality rate requires a higher birth rate to maintain the population.

                      Of further note is that the life expectancy (and birth rate) of African slaves was much lower than native born slaves.
                      African slaves were of poor health and less resistant to north american diseases and conditions.

                      According to an NIH paper I found the Birth rate for slaves was estimated at 22/1000 in the early 17th C, rose to almost 30 by the late 17th. Rose to 50 by the late 18th, where it remained right through the civil war.

                      According to that data there was no sudden increase in the birth rate of slaves after the ban on importation.

                    93. You say the slave rate should have jumped only after the laws changed, another law had more to do with that, Partus Sequitur Ventrem which allowed men to rape their slaves without consequence and made children of female slaves, slaves themselves. That was 1662, just as the economic model was starting to shift from indentured servitude to enslavement. Easier to make more slaves than keep paying people you have to let go every seven years. Your assumption keeps you from learning.

                    94. So now you are trying to claim that changes more than 100 years before are the cause of something you claim happened a century later ?

                      BTW NOTHING suddenly allowed masters to abuse slaves. There has NEVER been slavery where masters could not do as they wished to slaves.

                      In fact it was not until the modern era that land owners could no do as they pleased to the 99% of the population that was serfs.

                      YOU pointed out how even without legal slavery blacks were kept in near slavery conditions in the south post War.

                      Just like 99% of the people in Ireland for the prior 1000 years. Just like similar circumstances throughout the world – some even through to today.

                      You keep trying to protend there was something Unique in the US. The only thing Unique about the US or the west more generally is that this ENDED sooner there than elsewhere.

                    95. And yet northerners continued to import essentially indentured servants – from ireland and later elsewhere well into the 20th century.

                      Even on Plantations like Jefferson’s in the south it is documented that indentured servants were treated more poorly than slaves
                      They got the shittier and more dangerous jobs. They did not get medical care, while slaves shared the same doctors as their masters.

                      Why ? Because slaves were property.

                      There is a modern adage that applies – no one washes a rental car.

                      You are continuously making up facts, or taking accurate facts and elaborating on them in ways that neither history nor human nature support.

                      The cost of a slave in the 19th century was greater than the cost of a house. Even you attach great importance to that.

                      Do people burn their own houses down willy nilly ?

                    96. Your lack of knowledge is showing. Indentured servitude was almost gone by the time Thomas Jefferson had a plantation, it started dying out immediately after Bacon’s Rebellion when white and Black indentureded servants along with slaves burned Jamestown. Jefferson had a total of TWO indentured servants total

                      https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/indentured-servants

                      Your supposition that they treated property better is misguided and shows your lack of knowledge of how slavery worked. Control was based on fear, fear of punishment or death. In many cases the plantation owners were greatly outnumbered by slaves. Jefferson wanted to be known as a benevolent slave owner and many historians treated him that way. When historian Edwin Betts discovered evidence that Jefferson had teen slave boys beaten in his nailery at Monticello. He buried it lest Jefferson’s image be tarnished. Jefferson used to have Betts, now he has you. So since you said it exists, provide documentation on how much better slaves were treated than indentured servants and particularly about Jefferson who you named.

                    97. More a historical nonsense. The practice of paying peoples cost to immigrate to the US in return for some commitment usually to work to repay that cost continues even through today.

                      The Irish immigration to the US late into the 19th century were frequently some form of indentured servant.

                      Absolutely the nature of indentured servitude changed over time. But it is error to pretend that it suddenly vanished.

                      Separately I am highly dubious of modern scholarship in myriads of fields.

                      The 21st century has lead to the exposure of massive errors in the scholarship of the late 20th century – not that 21st century scholarship is so hot.

                      Psychology texts are being rewritten – because a substantial portion of the past 70 years of psychology has been found to be fraud.

                      The physics of crystals was sacred for almost 50 years – until further advances in semiconductors REQUIRED challenging accepted physics – and suddenly a little known physicist from Israel won a Nobel prize for being right 50 years ago, but completely burried because he challenged the orthodoxy.

                      A project in the past decade to replicate major scientific work found that 1/3 of all published papers did not replicate PERIOD – they were just plain wrong. !/3 replicated – but without statistical significance – these too are WRONG – meaning the conclusions were not supported by the strength of the actual studies.

                      The history of both homo and home-sapiens is in complete turmoil and has been for a decade. The death of major anthropologists has resulted in the floodgates opening to successful challenges to their orthodoxy. Very little that is published about the antropology of humans that most of us have been taught is correct.

                      The soft sciences – the humanities, history are the most vulnerable to error. And the biggest problem with science is politics – sometimes that is right left politics, sometimes it is academic politics – challenging the established orthodoxy.

                      This is one of the reasons I keep demanding Raw DATA from you. Because though I am more likely to trust decades old history as less likely tainted by politics – even that is not inherently trustworthy, but modern history is crap. Particularly as it intersects charged political issues such as race.

                      You made claims regarding the mortality of slave ship crews – YOU WERE WRONG.
                      You made claims regarding the the breeding of slaves – the birth rate and mortality rate data falsifies any broad claim you are making.
                      An then you make claims that require all sides of issues 200 years old to be deliberately conspiring to delude themselves and history.

                      Were our founders hypocrites ? Absolutely they literally and repeatedly admitted as much. I am inclined to trust people who are aware of their own flaws at being mostly honest if not moral.

                      But all of what you claim is ahistorical – not because it runs afoul of two centuries of written history, but because the data we have does not support it.

                      You concoct ideologically driven flights of fancy – and then explain their errors by claiming that absolutely everything that is verifiable is somehow wrong because it disagrees.

                    98. “More a historical nonsense. The practice of paying peoples cost to immigrate to the US in return for some commitment usually to work to repay that cost continues even through today.”
                      Still cheaper to force people to procreate and rape them. Then keep them forever along with their children and children’s children as opposed to letting them go after seven years and giving them land. Your logic can do that math right?
                      You telling me I’m wrong because you can’t accept something doesn’t bother me much. AT some point though, you can stop making these long responses to things I say. Your lack of historical knowledge is evident.

                      BTW, in my research I ran across the history of the Irish in Cincinnati and their attacks on Black people in what they call riots in 1829, 1836, and 1841, I guess those moral values hadn’t kicked in yet.

                    99. “Still cheaper to force people to procreate”

                      Do you realize how expensive and time consuming it is to bring up a child to the age where he can pay for his food and loging? Add to that the number of infants that died before they were of value, the number that were sick or women who are not as strong…

                    100. “You are now denying over half of American history. Worst part is that you only were concerned about the expense.”

                      Enigma, *HALF* of American history? Such an exaggeration tells the reader not to read forward and that what he reads will lack perspective.

                      Your prior perspective was that breeding of slaves was similar to portions of the industrial revolution. I don’t know how profitable slavery was, but breeding was not the profit center you make it out to be for the nation. The whole system was costly financially and morally. Yes, I consider the cost when considering your claims of such great profit that slave breeding led everything else, which is basically what you were trying to say.

                    101. Yes, half of Asmerican history, from 1565 to 1865, 1492-2022 = 530 yrs. 1565-1865 = 300 yrs. It’s actually more than half at almost 57% of American History.

                    102. Enigma, using your logic, you deny all of American history by neglecting the process of sucking in air. You have done that to an excessive degree and have filled yourself with a lot of hot air.

                      You are being fatuous.

                    103. You tell me I am wrong.

                      Then you use the proof that I am right to make a different completely stupid argument.

                      We have been through this – the birth rate data dies not support your claim.

                      You do not get to make up history just because a non-factual version appeals to you.

                      One of the reasons that we try NOT to rely on annecdotes or individual accounts to determine broad historical claims is because there are always exceptions to every broad pattern.

                      It is likely that some slave owners force bread slaves. Even that a few more did so after the import ban.

                      But the data does not show a trend – in otherwords the annecdotes are just that, they are not a historical theme or trend.

                    104. We have already been through the “forced breeding” claim.

                      I have not looked at your source – but I do not doubt that lots of bad things happened at one place or another.
                      But the birth rate data does not support your claim that the 1807 law triggered forced breeding.

                      I do not actually care much if it had. It was a law that was obviously going to have unintended consequences.

                      But the facts are this specific claim is not supported by historical data.

                      You do not do yourself or your credibility any favors by taking anecdotes and pretending they tell us what happened everywhere.
                      There is nearly always an annecdote to support most any claim.

                      Annecdotal data is rarely if ever proof of a trend. It MIGHT provide a basis for inquiry.
                      However it can sometimes refute an overbroad generalization.

                      Use historical sources the way that is logically valid and you will get less criticism from me.

                      There are lots of FACTS we agree one – though your timelines are usually screwed up.

                      But you jump from facts to conclusions the facts will not bear the weight of.
                      Usually obviously so.

                    105. W have been through this already.

                      In some form or another indentured servitude continues to exist.

                      As to “disparate treatment” – “misguided” is an emotional rather than factual response.

                      It is FACTUAL – and OBVIOUS that we treat what we own better than what we rent.
                      And the FACTS of the time in question support that.

                      Rather than insult my arguments – make better arguments of your own using facts, logic, reason.

                    106. “It is FACTUAL – and OBVIOUS that we treat what we own better than what we rent.”

                      That must seem so clear in your own mind. The reason brutality and murder of “property” existed because they were setting an example for the rest. The ones that were rented might end up being their land-owning neighbor, some became family. I’ve done the research, you have convoluted logic.

                      Find me a law allowing white people to kill indentured servants and we can have a discussion. Excuse me, I have to go write about the Casual Killing Act of 1669.

                      https://calendar.eji.org/racial-injustice/oct/20

                    107. law do not enable you to do something they prevent you from doing something.

                      Since when have landowners killed slaves and servants at their pleasure ?
                      For all of recorded history.

                      Did slaveowners kill some blacks exactly as you say to make examples of them – absolutely.

                      You continue to ignore the fact that the average slave cost more than a house.

                      People rarely burn their houses down gratuitously.

                      Regardless, you keep trying to pretend that there was something unique about the treatment of southern slaves.

                      The English knowingly starved millions of irish in the past.
                      Cromwell murdered nearly 40% of ireland at much the same time that Jamestown was being colonized.

                      Serfdom in various forms and various times throughout the world varied from indistinguishable from american slavery to the equivalent of sharecropping.

                      The extent to which landlords – or more accurately their overseers could get away with violence depended on the time and the place.
                      Into the 20th century russians serfs were slaves and could be murdered at whim.

                      It was near universal that fines and beatings could be imposed entirely on the authority of landlords of overseers. They were quite litterally the law enforcement. More serious punishments such as incarceration or capital punishment varied – depending on the time and place. SOMETIMES these required higher “courts” than the landlord or overseers.

                    108. There is massive amounts of modern ahistorical nonsense trying to pretend there were consequential differences between slavery and serfdom or indentured servitude.

                      Nearly all of these rest on false assumptions regarding the worst forms of slavery as compared to nearly the best forms of indentured servitude.

                      Under the worst of circumstances serfs – including irish serfs had no means to ever obtain freedom, they were property and belonged to the land owner. Justice was whatever the landowner said it was – as the landowner was the law. Generally in the new world indentured servants would eventually gain their freedom, and often had SOME legal rights. Though like with slaves and serfs elsewhere – the first layer of law enforcement was the master or overseers and though appeals were often possible they were rarely successful. Just like slaves papers of the times were filled with adds seeking to sell indentured servants or rewards for the return of escaped indentured servants. Further, indentured servants arrived in many ways – sometimes these people voluntarily agreed to indenture, but often they were “criminals” – which often meant little more than people who pissed off the landowner, or serfs who failed to pay all of their taxes and were sold into indenture.

                      Indentured servants had SOME rights – with poor enforcement. But they also had lower Value – generally indentured servants got the shittiest and most dangerous jobs as they were more expendable. Further slave owners were fully responsible for slaves well being. Obviously some were careless. But most received medical care from the same doctors as the plantation owner. While Indentured servants were provided a few specific things from whoever owned the indenture and nothing more.

                      Especially early on must indentured servants did not live to the end of their indenture. But the mortality rate for slaves from Africa was also quite high – mostly due to not being accustomed to the harsh climate.

                      You are constantly representing the worst of slavery as the norm. It was not. Many slaves earned their freedom – just as indentured servants. It was not universally true that the children of slaves were slaves – especially not early on. Myriads of “masters” were otherwise decent people who treated slaves well. Exactly the same could be said of indentured servants.

                      Put simply the experience varied considerable – and did not have alot to do with whether you were a slave or an indentured servant.

                    109. Read the narrative behind the film, Twelve Years a Slave which was based on a true story. How easy was it even to be free in a country where slaves had “no rights a white man was bound to honor.” Those were the words of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Roger Taney.
                      The mortality rate for enslaved people was due to a lot of things including malnourishment, exhaustion, malaria, and being beaten or burned to death. The weather in Southern states especially isn’t that much worse than the extremes in various parts of Africa.
                      Who are your examples of these good masters that treated their slaves well? George Washington’s dentures weren’t made of wood but from the pulled teeth of live slaves (not indentured servants. Some try to say he paid the slaves for their teeth but there are only receipts of him paying the dentist. No reason to believe the slaves had a choice or received any pay? I think we can take him off the list of good masters. Thomas Jefferson had his slavesthat worked in the nailery at Monticello, beaten to improve their productivity, plus he kept raping that young girl Sally. I’m willing to believe John Jay might have treated his slaves relatively well but there is no proof? Where is your evidence of these benevolent masters who felt it fit to enslave other human beings in the unique form of American chattel slavery?

                    110. You keep wanting to argue what someone said rather than facts.

                      The mortality rate of African slaves was Radically higher than native blacks.
                      That alone falsifies your argument.

                      Yes there are many reasons for mortality – but statistics tell us the actual mortality rate – even if they are less clear about the reasons.

                      Finding 10 new reasons for a higher mortality rate – does not change the actual statistical mortality rate.

                      You keep making these fairly simple logical errors constantly.

                      We start with FACTS – not conjecture, and whatever analysis we perform must remain consistent with the facts.

                      Anecdotes are useful sources for inquiry – but it takes massive numbers of anecdotes to claim a trend.
                      And that trend claim ALWAYS fails if it is not consistent with statistics – facts.

                    111. I do not need examples of good masters – I have FACTS. Statistics. Data that demonstrates your claims are not consistent with those facts.

                      I have actually seen GW’s dentures – several times.

                      I have also been to Montecello several times. Your nailery story is about 180 incorrect.

                      Jefferson actually allowed slaves on their own time to earn money producing additional nails. This worked so well that Jeffersons neighbors demanded that he stop – because the opportunities Jefforson afforded his slaves were causing neighbor slaves to become unsettled.

                      As of the Last Jefferson DNA tests what has been established is that some male in Jeffersons line was the father of some of the children of slaves.

                      As of fairly recently there is no DNA from Thomas Jefferson himself. Everything is from known descendants of the Jefferson family and therefore would match any male Jefferson living at the approximate time.

                      I do not presume that Jefferson did not father children to slaves. Only that claim has not been proven.

                      Again you make claims the know facts are not strong enough to support.

                      Based on what we know – you are free to imply or infer – but you do not know.

                      And you make arguments that are only supported by inferences and require every single inference to go in your favor – as well as many things we do not even have inferences to support.

                      The odds of that are near zero.

                    112. When you say “there is no reason to beleive” that is false, and more important it is an admission that you do not know.

                    113. There is plenty of evidence that Washington bought teeth on multiple occasions from slaves.
                      There is even evidence that doing so was not uncommon.

                      Washington had 4 sets of dentures in his lifetime – these were made of many different materials – gold, hypopotamus, …

                      There is no actual evidence that Washinton had dentures made from slaves teeth.
                      He did buy teeth from slaves. But we do not know for certain for whom.
                      Purportedly the teeth were purchased for transplantation – not dentures.

                    114. There is no unique form of american chattel slavery. Chattel Slavery has existed for most of human existance.
                      African chattel slavery was not only not unique to the US is was not even most common in the US.

                      By far the largest destination for african slaves was south america. Further it is probable that there were almost as many or possibly more african slaves castrated and sent to the mideast as there were sent accross the atlantic and over a much longer period.

                      And Finally – you continue to argue that defacto slavery existed after the civil war and was as bad as that prior.
                      That pillages your argument that what occured with indentured servants or the irish was not as bad.
                      Conditions for the irish for nearly 1000 years were pretty much identical or WORSE than for post civil war slaves.

                      You do not seem to make any effort to make sure your arguments are consistent.

                      “Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.”

                    115. Partus Sequitur Ventrem was a uniquely American concept .

                      You think my arguments are contradictions because you have no context. You also have a set of things you refuse to believe no matter the evidence. Your fault not mine.

                    116. “Partus Sequitur Ventrem was a uniquely American concept .”

                      Nope Roman,

                      “You think my arguments are contradictions ”
                      I do not think they are – they are.

                      A contradication is a logical impossibility in a valid system.
                      Therefore your arguments are no valid, atleast one of your premises is incorrect.

                      “because you have no context.”
                      Context does not correct contradiction.

                      “You also have a set of things you refuse to believe no matter the evidence.”
                      Yes, claims that are not actually supported by the evidence.

                      There are many arguments you make that I could accept if they were true – but they are not.
                      Most of the points we have argued over and you have failed carry little in the way of political value.

                      It does not matter to me if GW used slave teeth for dentures.
                      It does matter that if you are going to draw conclusions from that you get the facts right.

                      It does not matter to me whether the mortality rate of crews or slaves was higher on a slave ship.
                      But there is an actually correct answer given the best evidence we have.

                      You CONSTANTLY draw conclusions based on one or two annecdotal bits of information,
                      That are not supported by actual demographic data.

                      You also warp timelines all over – all the bad things that you fixagte on all happened at once and then continuously after in your mind.

                      I do not care if TJ fathered children to black women, It is possibly true, But it is false to assert that as a proven fact. The DNA that we have does not allow us to conclude that.

                      On issue after issue you jump to conclusions that your own facts will not bear the weight of.

                      And your most fundimental claim – can not be supported by the evidence. Blacks are about 14% of the US, they never were more than 20%.

                      They have never been as economically significant as even their numbers would warrant, much less as you claim that the expoloitation of blacks was the foundation of the economy.

                      If so – why both before and after the civil war didn;t the south completely outstrip the north.

                      You note correctly that the Civil war changed very little for blacks.
                      Proving there is little difference between American slavery and sharecropping or tenant farming in Ireland. Which afflicted far more people and lasted far longer and was NOT racial.

                      I am using the Irish – but we could shift to the Russians – and things get even worse. Russian Serfs were bought and sold.

                    117. Any reasonably intelligent person would not assume that a latin term is uniquely american. It is possible, but highly unlikely.

                      Regardless, this dates back to ROMAN slaves.

                    118. No! Not plenty of stats – lots of anecdotes.

                      Aparently you are clueless as tot he difference.

                      Wow Yale inherited a slave plantation. I suspect they also received money from wealthy south africans and Nazi’s too.

                      You evidence is not strong enough to support the claims you are making.
                      You do not see to grasp that.

                      The past if chock full of all kinds of bad acts. You are trying to claim that EVERYTHING about the past is irredeemably corrupt.

                    119. Reach into your wallet and pull out a $1bill – or any other bill.

                      It is near certain that bill has traces of cocaine of other drugs on it. Drugs are so pervasive that everything in the US intersects with them.
                      Every person is holding drug money. Every bank has lots of drug money, even the US Treasury and the Federal reserve are full of Drug money.

                      The US economy is about $22T yet the illegal drug market is only 150B – not even 1% of the entire US economy.

                      So while illegal drugs touch on everything they amount to no more than 1/5 of Walmarts total sales per year.

                      The same is true of Slavery – the Southern economy was about 10% of the TOTAL us economy in 1830. That is the entire southern economy – not just that associated with slavery. If we assume he entire southern economy all rested directly on slavery – and in reality is it likely less than 10% o the southern economy as there are myriads of things that had little or nothing directly to do with slavery – but even if we assume that 100% of the southern economy was inextricably linked to slavery – that STILL leaves 90% of the US economy in 1830 that was not.

                      And no you do not get to play these nonsense games that because every single US dollars has drug residue on it, the entire US economy is about drugs.

                      Southern plantaion owners depositied their money in banks – mostly southern banks. But some northern banks.

                      Does the entire US economy rest on slavery when some southern plantation owner deposits 10,000 into the 2nd Bank of the US ?

                      Does Yale or Harvard become totally about exploitin slavery – because some of its endowment can from slave owners ?

                      Does the US army become completely dependent on slavery – when some 1800’s “defense contractor” uses slaves to help build a fort.

                      Absolutely slavery shows up nearly everywhere in the 250 years before the end of the civil war.

                      But the fact that Slavery touched nearly everything, does not mean that everything was entirely dependent on slavery.

                      You could go back in US history – completely remove every trace of African slaves and the slave trade, convert everything to indentured servants, and have almost no consequential change in outcome – except there would be no civil war.

                      Just like Drugs slavery touches the entirety of the US economy.
                      Just like Drugs – the US economy was never dependent on slavery.

                      I would further note that at the time the South was 10% of the US economy – it was about 40% of the us population and 50% slave.

                      It should not be very hard to understand that the slave economy of the south was incredibly inefficient and non-productive.

                      Slavery did not build this country it DRUG IT DOWN.

                      Its impact in EVERY WAY was NEGATIVE – not positive.

                      That is self evident from a very small number of extremely important statistcs – like total population, population of slaves and contribution to GDP.

                      All the anecdotes in the world can not change that.

                      Just like Drugs – slavery touched everything. You do not need to bombard anyone with 50 more annecdotes to get us to accept that.
                      I already do.

                      Except the occusional fact that you get completely WRONG, I mostly do not disagree with you about the facts that you offer.

                      I disagree with the importance you try to make of them, which is self evidently wrong.

                    120. Many americans in 1942 were of german descent, even more were atleast somewhat sympathetic to what they knew of Nazi”s prior to the war.

                      Does that make the US a fascist country in 1942 ?

                      You do not have the ability to reason. You jump from “there exists” to All – that is a massive error in formal logic.

                      Slaves were never more than 20% of the country and never more than 10% of the economy. That difference alone should tell you tht economically slavery was failure.

                    121. You have argued that the Civil war changed little, that within a decade after the end of the civil war that Blacks were no better off than as slaves.

                      I mostly agree. And that obliterates pretty much ALL of your arguments.

                      If what was essentially a sharecropper system that left blacks in the south with MORE rights than the irish who were at best tenants in heir own country – then your claim that Chattel slavery was dramatically worse than what was occuring in ireland or than indentured servitude FAILS by your won admission.

                      Blacks in the south after the war were in better circumstances than the irish and pretty much the same circumstances as indentured servants at the end of their indenture.

                      I would further note that as YOU claim – nothing changed in the south – and in fact almost nothing changed for 100 years.

                      The rest of the country moved forward. European immigrant farmers in the midwest turned the country into a massive bread basket – were are STILL the worlds largest exporter of food. The economy of the south until very recently never amounted to much – not under slavery, not after.

                      Not only was slavery a failure – but the south generally was a failure before and after the civil war.

                      All of the above is supported by MEANINGFUL statistitics.

                      If you are incapable of grasping that “there exists” is not the same as “all” – you should return whatever degree you hold.

                    122. So your response to falsifying a claim that slavery from birth was uniquely american is to note that Yale received a plantation as a donation ?

                    123. AOC recently said that gender is fluid and language is fluid.

                      This is the core problem with the left and with your arguments.

                      Everything is not fluid, and fluidity is NOT inherently good.

                      Specifically regarding language – words are not merely how we communicate, they are also how nearly all of us think.
                      If your language is muddled, if your arguments depend on fluid language, you have not only muddled your communications, you have likely muddled your own thought.

                      You cite many bad things that have happened in US history – sometimes even accurately, but then you bleed them over into everything – as if they are the whole of american history – all of what america is about.

                      We have had a holy war in the US over immigration for our entire history – right up to this moment. We have a love hate relationship with it. We have treated immigrants abysmally. We have in your terms “exploited” them – or often much worse. Yet it is self evident to nearly all that the US is a nation of immigrants, and that it is immigration that has made america great.
                      It would be trivial to argue as you have regarding blacks that US immigration is a dark chapter in our history.
                      Yet it is not – we celebrate our immigrant heritage. Further as badly as we have treated immigrants – they still came and they still continue to come. They do so because as badly as we treat immigrants – this is a better place to be than where they came from.

                      The point is the story of immigration in the US is not just about the evil done to immigrants. You must look at the whole, not fixate on one part.

                      And as badly as the US has treated immigrants – the rest of the world does far worse. Most nations allow very little real immigration at all.
                      And still when immigrants are given a choice – most come to america.

                      As you rant about how evil the US is, the proof of how wrong you are is that even today about 1/8 or the world would come to the US if it was able to.

                      Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
                      With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
                      Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
                      A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
                      Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
                      Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
                      Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
                      The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
                      “Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
                      With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
                      Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
                      The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
                      Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
                      I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

                    124. Just to be clear the US economic model never shifted to slavery.
                      Slavery was never consequential in the north, and I beleive by 1830 Slavery was illegal in the majority of the country.

                      And Finally – what you constantly fail to grasp is that the North won the civil war. they did not do so as a result of supperior military prowess,
                      They did so through massively disparate economic might.

                      Slavery was an OBVIOUS economic failure in the US. Absolutely it made a few people wealthy, but it was not capable of creating the wealth to compete with the Free North.

                      All these things you call my Assumptions – are historical FACTs that are obvious on inspection.
                      They do not require the convoluted reasoning that you keep engaging it.
                      They do not require mind reading, or pretending to know the intentions of people dead for 200 years.

                      The free North succeeded far more than the slave South – Why that was so is an independent question. THAT it was so is a FACT.
                      I would note that this was also true AFTER the civil war – the North continued to thrive far more than the South.

                      The rise in economic might in the south is a modern event, correlating most strongly to that purported Republican southern strategy that you fixate on.
                      Northerners started to come to the south, recognize its economic potential and brought with them the economic models of the north and they succeeded, transforming a south that had been stagnant for centuries into the growing economic force it is today.

                      And AFTER that success started – we had a reverse migration of norther blacks Back to the South.

                    125. The northern economy was dependent on slavery as well, they financed it and profited from it. The reason for the Emancipation Proc;lamation was to disrupt the southern economy by encouraging slaves to leave southern plantations and escape to free states or territories. Lincoln didn’t free anyone except in the states that seceded. The other reason for the Emancipation Proclamation was to keep the South from aligning with Britain and France who had a greater need for southern products than those of the north.
                      You have a few facts, many misguided thoughts, and no context. You don’t know how things relate to each other, especially chronologically. Your assumption of good intentions and moral values is totally wrong. #SAD

                    126. A historical nonsense. The economies of the north and south had little connection.

                      Again the north won the Civil war because it was a far larger and stronger economy that was independent of the south.

                      You keep making stupid arguments – that not only are not supported by the FACTS,
                      But are OBVIOUSLY not supported by the facts.

                      We are in the midst of essentially blockading the Russian economy right now – yet the devastating impact is on the US and the West.

                      It is OBVIOUS that the US and Russian economies are interdependent, and that the WEST is far more dependent on Russian that the reverse.

                      Yet the North Blockaded the South during the Civil war – and the Northern economy GREW. The negative impact was almost entirely to the south

                      Further Post Civil war the Economy of the North – in fact the US economy EVERYWHERE but the south grew.

                      The abolition of slavery was not a fundamental problem outside of what is typically called the “old south”.
                      Many “Slave” states did perfectly well after the Civil war.

                      The Emancipation proclamation had many purposes – you are absolutely correct that one of those was disrupting the south.

                      And absolutely during the Civil War the south was more dependent on slaves than Ever.

                      The confederate army included about 1M men. These were people NOT engaged in economic activity. Further slaves were used by the CSA to perform many logistical functions – building forts, transporting goods. Slaves were more important than ever during the war.

                      Any disruption to slavery during the war would be beneficial to the north. The more CSA forces had to be deployed keeping slaves from running north, or revolting the weaker the CSA was.

                      The emancipation proclimation was also politically important – as it made it even harder for nations like England to support the Confederacy – so again it was disruptive of the south’s economy and war effort.

                      Absolutely England in particular needed southern products – but it ALSO needed northern ones. The US and particularly the north was second only to england as a global trading country. The Industrial revolution started in England but it spread quickly to the US north, and did not significantly spread tot he res of the world until after the US Civil War. The Civil war was an incredible demonstration of the power of an industrial economy. By the End of the Civil War the US was a global superpower and has been every since.
                      To the extent that had anything to do with slavery it was that the destruction of slavery put the US Industrial Revoloution into overdrive.

                      And Finally it added moral authority to the north.

                      Yes, the emancipation proclamation was not universal – there are many reasons for that – including that the president does not have that authority. The Emancipation proclimation was arguably constitutional only because the South was in rebellion.

                    127. “A historical nonsense. The economies of the north and south had little connection.”
                      You have no knowledge of economics. The North financed the purchase of slaves and the ships that initially brought them. They allowed slaves to be used to back mortgages. It is laughable to think the North didn’t both support and profit from the practice.

                      “But the American financial and shipping industries were also dependent on slave-produced cotton. So was the British textile industry. Cotton was not shipped directly to Europe from the South. Rather, it was shipped to New York and then transshipped to England and other centers of cotton manufacturing in the United States and Europe.

                      As the cotton plantation economy expanded throughout the southern region, banks and financial houses in New York supplied the loan capital and/or investment capital to purchase land and slaves.”

                      https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/how-slavery-helped-build-a-world-economy#:~:text=As%20the%20cotton%20plantation%20economy%20expanded%20throughout%20the,and%2For%20investment%20capital%20to%20purchase%20land%20and%20slaves.

                    128. Enigma writing to John: “You have no knowledge of economics.”

                      Enigma, data is what provides the foundation for an argument.

                      During the Civil War the economy of the north grew and the economy of the south collapsed. The north was deprived of the south, yet it grew.

                      What were the leading industries? Do you know? You know about cotton, but that is it. Cotton was the highest valued industry closely followed by lumber, and boots and shoes.

                      Value added by industry based on millions in 1914 dollars

                      Cotton 59
                      Lumber54
                      Boots and shoes53
                      Flour and meal43
                      Men’s clothing39
                      machinery31
                      Woolen goods27
                      Leather goods24
                      Cast iron 23
                      Printing20

                      In 1880 Cotton was #3 at 97 Machinery was #1 111
                      Without slaves the economy had rapid growth.

                      There has to be a lot wrong with what you are saying. Yet you insult. You are provided data, yet you insult You provide opinion and disregard the facts. You provide links that have opinion but mostly disregard facts and generally aren’t on target.

                      Please, let us stop the insults and deal in data.

                    129. Given that you have been wrong about most everything – why would anyone presume that you are more knowledgeable about economics ?

                      You have made innumerable errors in fundimentals of economics – such as missunderstanding the distinctions between the value of rented and owned property and basics of the law of supply and demand.

                      “The major Atlantic slave-trading nations, ordered by trade volume, were the Portuguese, the British, the Spanish, the French, the Dutch, and the Danish. ”

                      The US did not rank. Further the US did not rank as a destination. According to Wikipedia of the 12M slaves exported from Africa Less than 10% went to north america, and less than 400K to what would eventually be the US. The largest majority went to South america – particularly Brazil, with Mexico and the Caribbean next.

                      In the US slaves were bought at slave markets/auctions in the ports.

                      I can not find consequential evidence of northern banks loaning money for the purchase of slaves – I am sure it occured, but almost certainly of little consequence. Southern banks would accept slaves as collateral. But that still does not make your argument that the north was heavily involved.

                      As to economics – Britian and her Caribbean colonies were by far the most profitable venue for slaves – yet there are few historians who think revenues from the entire slave trade ever exceeded 5% of British GDP and were more likely about 1%.

                      Britian though far more heavily involved in slavery than the US abandoned slavery entirely before the US – because it was not profitable.
                      The same would almost certainly have happened in the US but for the cotton gin. But even with the cotton gin slavery is just not economically viable.

                      Economics is fundimentally the science of human behavior in the context of markets and exchange.

                      There is no amount of beatings that will motivate slaves to be as productive as free men.

                    130. And reading your own artical pretty much refutes your own claims.

                      After lots of attempts the links in the article are tenuous, weak or to London.

                      It was pretty easy to tell the article was crap when it started with “the worlds largest slave market in new york”.

                      With certainty either false or at best true for a short period when the slave trade was small.

                      Your own article lists SOUTHERN banks. The article also specifically identifies AIG – which was started in 1919 in Shanghai.
                      It also identifies the SOUTHERN subsidiaries of northern banks that were not owned by Norther banks until modern times.
                      JP Morgan owns Citizens Bank of Lousiana NOW – not in 1860.

                      Regardless, you are STILL trying to make anecdotes bear the weight of claims they can not support.

                      The article notes that NY insurers insured the cargo of slave ships. Almost certainly did, but that STILL does not create the large scale dependence of the northern economy on that of the south.

                      In 1860 the south had only 10% of the capital that the north did.

                      You keep trying to make the whole economy dependent on slavery when only a tiny portion ever was.

                    131. Citing people with the same historical ignorance and problems as you does not advance your argument.

                      AGAIN DATA.

                      Do not say something or link to some other reporter saying something – SUPPORT what you say.

                      The dutch were involved in the slave trade, and certainly some aspects of that involved New York.

                      But you are trying to claim that everything was about slavery.

                      It was NOT. As I have noted before – then or even now, the black population of the US could vanish and the overall impact would be small.

                      I noted before that AIG did not exist prior to 1919 – but certainly some of the financial institutions that it bought did.

                      I started a new business a few years ago. Is that an american business – because I started it here and now, or is it Irish because about 50% of my ancestors came from Ireland ?

                      You keep trying to make the past bigger and more unique than it ever was.

                      Banks today have depositiors money that was made in the drug trade – are those banks criminal ?

                      If I loan you $1000 and you use it to purchase a rifle to assassinate justice Alito – did I commit a crime. ?

                      Slavery existed throughout human existence. It is not new or unique to the US. The US was not even a large part of the atlantic slave trade.
                      What is true is that the End of slavery throughout the world started as a consequence of the West and uniquely western values.

                      Trying to rewrite history to make what is obviously false true, leads to all kinds of problems.
                      The constant errors and contradictions that you are entangled in.

                      History – particularly modern western history is the story of man’s rise, of our improvement. Obviously that meas the past was worse than the present.

                      In 50 years people will be writing about how barbaric people are today.

                    132. “People lie to make themselves look and feel better.”

                      Maybe they do – but that is irrelevant.

                      The vast majority of whites in this country today have ZERO or near ZERO links to slavery and plantation owners.

                      My heritage is primarily Irish with a bit of jew, and german. None of my ancestors had anything to do with slavery.
                      This is true for MOST whites in this country.

                      But even of those whose ancestors 8 generations ago owned slaves – so what ?

                      My great Grandmother got pregnant out of wedlock to a married man – do you think that what my ancestors more than a century did makes me feel bad ?

                      If your father is a murderer or a rapist – that is not a reason for YOU to feel bad about yourself – white or black.

                      Your trying to argue that whites are trying to avoid guilt for the actions of people long dead.

                      They do not need to avoid it.
                      You are not responsible for the conduct or your ancestors.
                      Nor am I.

                      Cain killed Able – I did not.

                      Each of us is responsible for our OWN actions not those of others.
                      Not of our parents, not of others of our race.

                      I am Celtic, I am not responsible for what the Vikings may have done to others.

                    133. “Crew members were often the direct recipients of the cruelty. Frequently forced into shipboard service because of debts or run-ins with the law, sailors performed the backbreaking and often violent work of the slave ship, which included building the “house” and barricado, cooking and dispensing food, scrubbing the decks and the often feces-covered hold where the slaves were kept, and policing the captive Africans. They also were the victims of their officers’ whips and suffered from the same diseases that ravaged the Africans, so that the mortality rate among sailors, according to one survey taken between 1784 and 1790, reached higher than 21 percent. In fact, according to Rediker, “Half of all Europeans who journeyed to West Africa in the eighteenth century, most of the seamen, died within a year.””

                    134. N/ope just pointing out that life in the past was harsh.

                      Being a slave was hell.
                      Not being a slave was better – but not good.

                    135. The ridiculous and unsupported claim is still YOURS.

                      Factually challenged appeals to bad authority are defending a rediculous claim.

                      Further, I am not defending – I am attacking.

                      You made the implausible assertion (actually many of them).

                    136. It is absolute stupidity to claim Slavery had any consequential economic benefit.
                      There was almost no Slavery in northern states EVER.
                      Yet the greatest prosperity by far in early US was in the NORTH, The defeat of the South in the Civil was was accomplished because of the far greater economic might of the north.
                      If slavery had been economically viable – the south would have won the civil war.

                      With respect to th specifics of your other claims – Wow, our hero’s had feet of Clay. Who would have guessed ?
                      Martin Luther King was a womanizer, as was JFK and RFK.
                      FDR who is cellebrated by the left – put american citizens of japanese descent into concentration camps.
                      Wilson who was once an idyl of the left had the KKK in the whitehouse.
                      Many great men – american and others have also done bad things.
                      That is not new.
                      I would note that Slavery was not particularly profitable – Jefferson died nearly peniless.

                      A well managed souther slave plantaion was capable of creating a comfortable genteel life for one family.
                      It was not a foundation for an economy.

                      John Adams was the equivalent of a self made Billionaire for his time, and never owned slaves.
                      Washington was also self made wealthy – pretty much entirely from land speculation.

                    137. The 1807 Act prohibiting the importation of slave was not the first effort by the US to bring about the end of slavery – in 1794 the US made the use of US ships to trade in slave illegal. By the time of the 1807 Act – lobbied heavily for by Jefferson, most states had already banned importation of slaves.

                      Like many many lwas this had horible unintended consequences – but the intended consequence was to end slavery incrementally.

                      That it failed badly does not condemn he good intentions of those who passed it.

                      But it should be a lesson to those on the left – Good intentions do not automatically result in good law or good government.

                      A lesson that has been repeated over and over through US history without learning – right through to the current administration.

                    138. Enigma, did not Sally Hemings accompany Thomas Jefferson to France and then threaten to stay there unless some conditions were met?

                    139. Yes she did, she was blackmailed into returning based on the promise to free her children, a promise he partially kept if true. He did treat her family (brothers and children) better than he treated most of his 600+ slaves. He allowed one brother to purchase his freedom for $200 freed a few of his children upon his death (while almost all his other slaves were sold off to pay his substantial debt). Sally herself was never freed though family members count it as her being freed because they didn’t chase her when she finally left.
                      BTW, the word ‘accompany” suggests choice where I submit she had none.

                    140. 1807 – Britain passes Abolition of the Slave Trade Act, outlawing British Atlantic slave trade.
                      – United States passes legislation banning the slave trade, effective from start of 1808.
                      1811 – Spain abolishes slavery, including in its colonies, though Cuba rejects ban and continues to deal in slaves.
                      1813 – Sweden bans slave trading
                      1814 – Netherlands bans slave trading
                      —-
                      Slavery was always horrid even in ancient times. but what I wonder is why did Black Africans enslave their own brothers and sisters and sell them to other slave traders?

                      Why do blacks in Africa still practice slavery?

                    141. Ah, the troll arrives, defending America with the actions of other nations and passing off one event from America that meant the opposite of what he wishes he does. If he isn’t going to follow the conversation, he has no business joining in.

                    142. What you describe is unclear. You like to bash, and you even like to spin, but you cannot respond to a good question by one who you called a troll. I will repeat the question because I would like to hear your answer.

                      “Slavery was always horrid even in ancient times. but what I wonder is why did Black Africans enslave their own brothers and sisters and sell them to other slave traders?

                      Why do blacks in Africa still practice slavery?”

                      You are concerned about slavery and so are most of us, but most of the black slavery originated in Africa, not in the United States. Therefore it is fair to discuss the problem from the start to the present, since it hasn’t ended in Africa. Why don’t you answer the questions raised? You can’t. You wish to blame everyone starting with the ancients where slavery was the norm. You want to forget it was the white English speaking people and then the white Europeans that ended slavery though in black Africa black Africans are still enslaving their own.

                    143. “. . . kept the prices up of domestic slaves.”

                      Next you’ll be rewriting the Civil War to further rationalize a desire to tear America down, and as an excuse for victimhood.

                      History is not a playground for those with a twisted psychology.

                    144. Just a place marker:

                      I have read that in Roman times there were senators who had Greek slaves who, in turn, possessed slaves, presumably further Greeks.

                    145. Slavery existed all over the world to different degrees. American chattel slavery was one of the worst types, lasted into perpetuity as opposed to ending after a period of time or not being passed on to the children. In some countries, especially Africa, slaves could be considered almost family and often married their owners. Early on the economic model relied mostly on intdentured servants with white and Black indentured servants working alongside each other under contract. Because fewer of them understood the language, Black indentured servants more often were cheated into serving longer terms but they were more or less of equal status. It took Bacon’s Rebellion when white indentured servants, Black indentured servants, and Black slaves joined forces and burned down Jamestown. That’s all the upper class needed to see, the entire lower classes joining forces. Indentured servitude was eliminated with enslavement being the base model for cheap labor. The white indentured servants were elevated in status and as long as they believed they were superior to someone else, they had no further need to rebel. Some of that same philosophy exists today, with poor whites serving the needs of rich men as if their interests were the same? The elite are pointing to others they can be better than, Blacks, Muslims, immigrants, and darker Latinos, which seems to be keeping the poor whites in check. The powers that be don’t seem to mind a little right-wing violence here in there, in another article Turley posted, he seems to be against the Justice Department going after right-wing terrorists. I never saw him rebuking Black-identity extremists when the Justice Dept was singling them out.

                2. America sacrificed 350,000 healthy, white males and fought against its own citizens spending millions of dollars to free black slaves in the South. That’s sacrifice enough for any country for eternity. Anything else is just noise.

                  1. Mespo, America has always been willing to sacrifice its youth for the benefit of a few. The goal wasn’t to free the slaves, made evident barely a decade after the war (1877) when the same people removed the federal troops and looked the other way when for all practical purposes slavery was reinstated. Beleive what you must because the truth is unacceptable.

                    1. So the South did not seceed because they beleived Lincoln would end slavery ?
                      So almost 500K americans did not die over slavery ?

                      Wow, 12 years after the war, the north found that occupying the south with troops was prohibitively expensive so in your world that means that after sacrificing almost half a million that the north changed its mind about blacks and slavery ?

                      No one questions that Slavery was the original sin of America, But you seem to beleive that EVERYTHING is about slavery, and worse that EVERYTHING must be about slavery.

                      You seem to beleive that the 95% of whites the country that never owned a slave was obligated in perpituity to provide everything for the small percent of the country that was slaves.

                      Myriads of minorities have come to this country voluntarily – often to be treated as badly as former slaves. Nearly all were STILL doing better than the coutries they came from – and that remains true even today.

                      “Give me your tired, your poor,
                      Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
                      The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
                      Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
                      I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

                      Chinese, Japanese, Jews, Italians, Irish, poles – they all came.
                      My ancestors were irish. Conditions in ireland made those of freed slaves in the south look opulent.
                      On multiple occasions the british allowed mass starvations in Ireland.

                      The Irish and myriads of others came here – were many did not welcome them

                      They took shit jobs and they still did better than in Ireland, and better still THEIR standard of living doubled every 15 years.

                      The US has always treated minorities and immigrants shitty. Nearly all the rest of the well does not allow immigrants and has vitrually no minorities – even today.

                      There is not a country in the world of any race that hace a good track record with any significant portion of immigrants.

                      Today and throughout its history the US has been the most diverse and inclusive country in the world.

                      If you are here – white black, yellow, red, brown – you are in the top 1% of the world. If you are poor in the US you are rich compared to wherever you came from – unless you are white.

                      Regardless, no one owes you anything except your liberty. They do not owe you respect, a job, an education. sustanance.
                      Everything beyond liberty you must EARN. Regardless of the color of your skin.

                      Nor are we all equal. You and I are not equally healthy, equally physical, equally smart, equally handsome, equally talented, equally ambitious – we do not even have actual equality of oportunity.

                      White men did not make you unequal to others – God or nature did. Get over it. Make the most of whatever you have got.

                      We are equal before the law – MAYBE and that is all.

                      A man said to the Universe: “Sir, I exist!”

                      “However,” replied the Universe, “the fact has not created in me a
                      sense of obligation.”
                      — Stephen Crane


                    2. Wow, 12 years after the war, the north found that occupying the south with troops was prohibitively expensive so in your world that means that after sacrificing almost half a million that the north changed its mind about blacks and slavery ?

                      You guys need to get together to have an organized response. One man says slavery did nothing to enhance the economy of the South, another says the North benefitted equally, another points to a totally different form of slavery in Africa as an excuse. If any of you stopped to correct the most ignorant responses I wouldn’t mind, but your only interest is contradicting me.

                      To your quote, the North didn’t pull the federal troops simply because of the cost. Republicans pulled them to gain the Presidency in a contested election they likely lost. You could make a case that they made what they thought was a sound decision but once they knew the result (Jim Crow for almost a century and thousands of lynchings) they had no excuse. Oh, I forgot, Republicans also passed the Posse Comitatus bill to ensure the troops would never return.

                      “No one questions that Slavery was the original sin of America, But you seem to beleive that EVERYTHING is about slavery, and worse that EVERYTHING must be about slavery.”
                      Not true at all, if the playing field were ever leveled, there would be less need to talk about the past. You look away from voter suppression, mass incarceration, education and employment inequities and are against any method of obtaining equality. You talk about “free stuff” while continuing to withhold opportunities. When I say “you” I’m speaking generically and not to you personally.

                      “Today and throughout its history the US has been the most diverse and inclusive country in the world.”

                      That’s something you tell yourself to feel good. America invented whiteness. It started discriminating less and making white more inclusive as they saw their numbers shrinking. The Irish didn’t used to be white, nor Jewish people, nor several other groups that are now sometimes considered white based on the circumstance. By 2045 when white people are expected to be a minority, it’s likely more Hispanic groups will be considered white. Watch and see.

                      “White men did not make you unequal to others – God or nature did. Get over it. Make the most of whatever you have got.”

                      I’m only against the existing laws and policies that treat people differently and recognition of the impact of past laws and policy. The only one here that recognizes what America intended itself to be is George, which is a shame.

                    3. Enigma needs to read Thomas Sowell’s books (3) on culture in the world. His discussions there involve how cultures react to other cultures.

                    4. Out of curiousity, am I being trolled by the same troll using different identities in the same thread, or two different trolls. Inquiring minds want to know.

                    5. EB – I am only responsible for my own arguments.

                      Ther eis no “you guys”.
                      If others have attacked the errors in your posts – they are responsible for their own argumnts.
                      Nor am I responsible for correcting everyone else’s errors – I get to choose whose mistakes I consider more dangerous or important.

                      That said many of what you claim to be different claims are not mutually exclusive.

                      Nor is this about “excuses”.

                      You can judge the US harshly for slavery if you wish. But if you pretend that US slavery was somehow historically unique or the US is morally inferior to the rest of the world at some time – that would be blatantly wrong.

                      However you judge the US – you must judge the world at the time.

                      Black slavery outside of affrica would be non-existant – but for africans selling black slaves.
                      There was no time in history where mideasterners, or whites ventured into africa to capture slaves in any significant numbers.
                      Whites did not last very long inside the continent of Africa, they were killed or died of disease.

                      You are correct – my interest is in pointing out that your view of the world is not historically correct.

                      Far more slaves left africa for the mideast over a far longer time. Nearly all were castrated first – and only about 1/3 of them lived. Further they did not reproduce therefore there are not millions of their decendents accross the mideast today.

                      That is your idea of more moral slavery ? Who gets compensation for the slaves in the mideast ?

                      Next, you not only wish to pretend that black slavery in the US was somehow unique, but that slavery itself was an anomaly of the modern west – when nothing could be further from the truth.

                      No one is pretending that slavery was not evil, nor that american slavery was not especially hypocritical given our unique commitment to individual liberty. No one is trying to argue our founders were not great hypocrites – and it is self evident that they KNEW that.

                      “Throughout his entire life, Thomas Jefferson was publicly a consistent opponent of slavery. Calling it a “moral depravity” and a “hideous blot,” he believed that slavery presented the greatest threat to the survival of the new American nation. Jefferson also thought that slavery was contrary to the laws of nature, which decreed that everyone had a right to personal liberty.”

                      And yet he owned slaves.

                      Nor is he unique among either our founders or our heros more generally. Often they have clay feet.

                    6. The election was a factor, and Republicans likely lost – just as Democrats likely lost in 2020.

                      But the cost was a major issue, and removal of the troops was inevitable.

                      For northerners the war had ended. they did not want to pay for troops in the south. They also did not want to send large numbers of men south away from families and productive jobs.

                      The cost of occupying the south was exhorbitant.

                      The fact that democrats were willing to trade away the presidency to get troops out of the south did not mean that was not an easy deal – as the north did not want the troops there anyway.

                      Regardless, you are trying to impose a moral duty on northerners where slavery was NEVER common, and who sacrified to end it, to end it elsewhere also.

                      Must we invade China to end the genocide of the Uighurs ?

                      When you start lobbing moral hand grenades you should be very careful.

                      Imposing positive moral duties by force will always result in disaster.

                      There is no limit to the positive moral duties that can be concocted.

                    7. The proportion of Whites in the US population shrank as compared to other countries because though not without conflict we CHOOSE to allow that.

                      Outside of England no european nation has not been less than 99% white until very recently when declining birt rates required them to bring in mideastern labor. Even today 96% of Europeans are White.

                      You are thoroughly ignorant of both history and reality.
                      In scandanavian countries that the left loves to fawn over – not only has the population been pasty white until very recently,
                      But it is nearly entirely from the same tribe and religion. Scandanavians are not just all white, They are all scandanavian and all members of the same church.

                      Further few places in the world have birth right citizenship – like the US.
                      An immigrant child born in the US is a US citizen and can not be deported.
                      An immigrant child born in most of the world is NOT a citizen.

                      Europe has an increasingly resentful body of mid-esterners who can never become citizens – nor can their children.

                      The US did not invent “whiteness”.

                      It practically invented the concept of cultural diversity – the UK was diverse earlier.
                      Though I would note that in 1800 England had less than 5000 blacks.

                    8. The Irish did not used to be white ?

                      This is a bat$hit crazy argument. I guess in a few decades we will be saying people of african descent did not used to be white.

                      All you are pointing out – Correctly, is that discrimination is as old as man, and it need not be based on skin color.

                      A significant factor in the diversity and tolerance of the US was our origins in the religious descrimination of Europe.

                      The colonies were created as an escape from the religious oppression of Europe.

                      People were killed all over Europe wars were fought over small religious difference.

                      Regardless, do we owe those of Irish descent for their past discrimination and near slavery in this country, and worse than slavery in Ireland ?

                    9. Many many hispanics identify as white. Nor is hispanic some clear racial block. Most hispanics are spanish speaking descendants of other native american ethnicities. But a few hispanics are descendants of the spanish – who are CAUCASIAN – White.

                    10. US law is required to treat everyone equally under the law. That BTW REQUIRES that law be very limited.

                      Because we are NOT equal. There can be no legal equality if govenrment expands into a board domain.

                      We are not as an example medically equal. We do not have the same genetics, the same diseases require the same healthcare.

                      If you make healthcare part of the government domain – you can not maintain equality under the law.

                      But there is – or atleast is not supposed to be a difference between a black man murdering someone and a white man murdering someone.

                      Identify real areas of legal inequaltity and I will join you in fixing them. But honestly those are very few.

                      We have all recognized the problems of the past.
                      But whether you like it or not we live in the present.

                      Our education MUST focus first on what people need to survive and thrive today.
                      Lamenting past greivances serves no purpose if you can not get a job.
                      After than we learn about the past to avoid repeating its mistakes – not as some form of self flagelation.

                      Today it is self evident that young adults fell far short on the critical understanding of the bloody nature of socialism
                      Racism did not kill hundreds of millions of people in a single century. Socialism did.

                      We have a generation of young adults that find the worst system of political economy appealing.
                      We do not have a generation begging to revive the KKK and Jim Crow.

                      History is about avoiding important past mistakes, Not mascochistic self flagelletaion of the descendents of white people who for the most part were more likely to be treated like slaves than to own slaves.

                    11. You saying what is and isn’t true about present day America is just wishful thinking. There is a generation of young adults preparing for and trying to start a race war. You just can’t acknowledge it, I guess you just don’t want to believe. Dylann Roof said that was exactly what he was trying to do. So did Charles Manson, Dennis Mahon, and Charles Wilson, and many others. There are hundreds on Neo-Nazi, skinhead, and white supremacist organizations active in America, the kind Turley wrote today the government has no business targeting. You have the luxury of living in your America where self-applied blindfolds keep you safe. Read the comments on this blog and if you’re willing to look, everything the KKK wished for is represented here.

                    12. If there is any consequential effort to start a race war – that is on the left.

                      In the 70’s the KKK used to have cross burnings within a few miles of my home in the north east where 9,000 people gathered.

                      I doubt you can find 900 active KKK members in the country today. This of course begs the question of whether the KKK and Neo-Nazi’s are on the right or left. The KKK was a democratic progressive organization, Until recently one of the more revered US progressive presidents Woodrow Wilson invited the KKK into the whitehouse.

                      Regardless of where you attempt to place the KKK and neo nazi’s on the political spectrum – they are inconsequential.

                      Was Dylan Roof even slightly successful ?

                      Regardless, Dylan Roof is pretty typical of “mass killers” – lone previously usually white though more and more are black and hispanic, males with significant mental health issues. These people say all kinds of stupid things. The Unibomber was a warped echo nut who killed people on streets with tree names. His manifesto is extremely left wing – should we blame the left for creating him ?
                      Holmes was fixated on Grammar – does bad grammer motivate terorism ? The El Passo shooter published a weird manifesto that was all over the place. The Washington Bus killer was instantly tied to Trump – until he turned out to be a Bernie Bro with mental health problems off his meds.

                      All these mass killers are Broken people – ideology has nothing to do with it. Frankly calling them terrorists is stupid too.

                      We are having a spike in mass killings right now for the same reason that violence overall is going up.

                      We have been building anxiety and depression in young people for a bit more than a decade. This is incredibly dangerous.
                      It is partly the consequence of social media, but it is also partly the destruction of core values. Kids going to public schools today graduate with no underpinning system of values at all. You can not have a functioning society without a shared set of core principles of negative morality. It is just not possible. That does nto have to come from religion but it typically does. We have pretty much destroyed or radically weakened the institutions that would provide us with those shared moral values.
                      Just look at the left – purportedly tolerance is the core to the moral values of the left – but the left is off the charts on intolerance.
                      Teens and young adults can not help but end up anxious depressed and unmored when purportedly core values are paid less than lip service.
                      Regardless, you can read some of the work by Prof. Haidt that was written several years ago on the dangerous things happening with young adults.

                      On top of this we have the severe negative impacts of Covid public policies, and the deliberate reputation destruction of the institution of law enforcement. Whatever you personally beleive about police, undermining law enforcement in the way that was done is disasterously stupid and we are paying for that now.

                      All these are driving increased violence. I would note that all are also tied directly and indirectly to the left.

                      Separately if you are concerned about ACTUAL political violence from the right – keep up the lawlessness.
                      Society as a whole – not just the right will become increasingly violent the more lawless government is.

                      Regardless the remedy is not to go out and hunt down groups that might respond to lawless government with violence.
                      That is littlerally pour gasoline on a fire. It is near certain that MacAulfie would have narrowly won VA but for DOJ denouncing parents upset over their kids curriculum as terrorists.

                      If you use the power of government to target people for political reasons rather than actual criminal reasons you radically increase the probability of violence.

                      The government SHOULD be asking itself what needs to be done to avoid another J6 – but the focus should not be on how do we harden the capiton or use the awesome power of government to terrorize the right into submission, it should be what did we do wrong that caused mostly middle aged americans to bust dow the doors of the US capital.

                      At the top of the list is LAWLESSNESS.

                      No governmnt successfully supresses disent by force for long – doing so requires massive resources and creates more disent – driven underground whee it is more prone to irrational action.

                    13. From NCIS crime data

                      give or take there were about 33 crimes last year where white guys committed violent acts against blacks where there was a racial motive.

                      Of all the “hate crimes” committed in the US the most frequent race of the perpetrator is black
                      Whites commit less than half the number blacks do.

                      Of violent crimes generally more than half are committed by Blacks.
                      Less than half that number are committed by whites

                      Of Violent crimes where the race of the victim and the race of the perpetrator are known there is twice as much black on white crime as white on black crime.

                      It is self evident that the sources that you, the left,the DOJ use for so called white supremacy are disconnected from reality.

                      I am not especially interested in some NGO or even the DOJ/FBI themselves claiming a massive threat by some group when there is no statistical support for that claim.

                      The reality is you are more likely to get struck by lighting than to be the victim of a white supremecist (or white mass shooter)

                      In the first 14 days from the start of George Floyd protests 19 people died.

                      It is trivial to call anyone or any organization “white supremecits” – Those like you do that all the time.

                      The proud boys may not be a group I would want my son to join, But they are not domestic terrorists, or white supremecists, in fact they are not even particularly white.

                      You seem to think that calling people names Makes them whatever you called them.

                      I would note that the same people terrified of white supremecy are also those who told use that The Russians colluded with the Trump campaign in 2016.

                      Or any other number of claims that have proven not merely lies but HOAXES.

                      Rational people do not beleive these nonsense claims anymore.

                    14. Why would I acknowledge something that is not true ?

                      This country is NOT going to have a race war.

                      If you were going to have one – it would have occured during the BLM riots in the summer of 2020.

                      We saw relatively low key efforts by various right leaning groups to provide assistance to police during those riots – but with few exceptions those groups did not themselves actively engage in confrontation.

                      You can rant this nonsense that the right is deeply racist, sexist homeophobic transphobic hateful, hating haters.
                      But it is just nonsense.

                    15. “It’s the things that are true you refuse to acknowledge that amaze me.”

                      If something you believe is true actually is – belief would not be necessary – you would be able to prove it.

                      So far your proof of some significant white supremacist threat is that others share your fear.

                      Fear is not evidence,
                      It is not fact.

                    16. Have you even the slightest familiarity with Charles Mason ?

                      Charles Wilson ? The congressmen ?

                      There are more antifa in Portland than violent right wing nuts in the country.

                      Look arround you

                      Firebombin police cars, arson, pouring gasoline on police, burning police stations and attempting to burn federal courthouses.
                      Using lasers to blind police.

                      These are all a SMALL part of the political violence on the left in 2020.

                      And what do you have on the right ? J6 ? Really ? Some broken glass in doors that should not have been locked, and two murders of protestors by police ?

                      That is your idea of parity ?

                      You should be very concerned about “right wing violence” – the CONSEQUENCE of your lawlessness.
                      And violence in response to lawless government is justified.

                      I would note that J6 was NOT neo-nazi’s and skin heads, and these racist groups that you are so terrified by.

                      It was people righteously angryu that YOU are undermining the rule of law.


                    17. There are more antifa in Portland than violent right wing nuts in the country.”

                      The “violent right wing” represent the biggest threat to the nation, said the FBI when Trump was President. Now I can see that is the opposite of what you believe, a curious man might look for himself but you don’t want to know. Ignorance is apparently bliss.

                    18. The FBI has told us all kinds of things that are false.

                      Again I am looking for FACTS, For Evidence.

                      I have provided you all kinds of informaton from the national crime information system that shows no evidene of this white spremecist threat you are concerned about.

                      Your appeals to authority – the FBI, even President Biden absent the FACTS to support them are merely evidence of a shared delusion. Much like the Collusion delusion.

                      If you want your claims to be accepted – provide actual evidence – not others who echo your fears.

                      We have listened for years as you claimed that trump supporters were being deludec by Trump and his minions into beliving things that were false.

                      Yet it was Trump supporters whose positions were confirmed by the FACTS, and YOURs that proved false – on issue after issue.

                      What is increasingly evident is that the people you malign are capable of assessing the available information and reaching reasonable judgements that are highly probably true – and you are not.

                      Currently we are fighing over the extent of Fraud in the 2020 election.

                      The very same people who told us Russia and Trump colluded, as well as all those who beleived that Hoax, Fraud, lie are the same ones who told us that the 2020 election was the most secure ever – just about the stupidest statement I have ever heard. Even if you beleive Trump lost – if you also beeive that 2020 was a lawfully conducted highly secure election – you are an idiot.

                      If you beleive these things – and you are highly educated – you are still an idiot.

                      Coversely if you did not graduate from HS and you greasped fromt he start that the Collusion delusion was likely false. You are self evidently capable of critical thinking.

                      If you are going to appeal to authorities -the least you should be able to do is find some with a track record that is not massive error and delusion.

                    19. Ignorance – uninformed, lack of awareness of facts.

                      That fits you not me.

                      I have been right on issue after issue.

                      the Collusion delusion.
                      Multiple lies were were sold about Covid.
                      The FBI’s long history of incompetence, and error.

                      I am inarguably correct that the 2020 election was conducted outside of our election laws and constitution.

                      It is very close to establihsed fact at this time that there was MASSIVE fraud in the 2020 elction.

                      The phrase “ignorance is bliss” best fits you not me.

                      Time and again I have been correct, and you have been wrong.

                      You continue to sell appeals to authority – which is not a valid argument.
                      Worse you sell appeals to authorities that have been wrong about most everything consequentially for years, often much longer.

                      I provided you with FACTS from the NCIS that refute the claim by you and the authorities you keep citing that there is some consequential body of violent white supremecists.

                      Whether we focus on peple who are easily identified as motivated by race or we focus on overall racial differences in crime – there is no statistical evidence from some dangerous and growing group of white supremecist domestic terrorists.

                      If you wish to be afraid of monsters under the bed – that is your perogative.

                      If you wish me to fear them – you must provide evidence they exist and are actualy dangerous.

                      Fear mongering is not evidence.

                    20. I have read the comments on this blog. There are some angry and sometimes less well written complaints by those on the right.
                      There may be a few arguments made that I disagree with on the right. But overall the posters on the right are less extreme than those on the right, and less dangerous. I will not defend evrything every poster ont he right posts here. But the problems with those on the right are small, the problems with those on the left are large.

                      Some on the right make small errors about the world.
                      Those on the left live in a fantasy world. That is fine – until you choose to impose it on the rest of us by force.

                    21. “. I will not defend evrything every poster ont he right posts here. But the problems with those on the right are small, the problems with those on the left are large.”

                      You have no problem criticizing me when you think I’m wrong, but not defending right wing madness and never saying they’re wrong is the same as acceptance. Some fool out there is going to believe them, pass it along, and possibly act on it. It’s how we got someone showing up to a pizza joint in New Jersey because they believed Hillary was running a child porn ring from there.

                    22. Correct – I have no problem criticizing you – or all those on the left.

                      The most consequential threat today is posed by the left – not the right.

                      The right is not trying to cancel people, it is not censoring people. No poster here or republican politiician tried to bring about a “ministry of truth” recently.
                      No one on the right is sending more troops into Somlia or other parts of the midest.

                      When republicans controlled government – most everything improved.

                      Further I actually spoke out against those things Republicans and praticularly Trump have ACTUALLY done wrong.

                      I am not concerned about those on the right posting here- if by some miracle they or someone like them ascended to power – the net impact on the country would be positive.

                      Biden has not been president a full two years and just about everything has gone to schiff.

                      I have actually supported him on the FEW things he has gotten right – but they are so incredibly few.

                      YOU are dangerous – those you demand I challenge are NOT.

                      When Republicans actually act in a way that is consequentially dangerous – I will stand up to oppose them as I have in the past.

                    23. If the left does not wish to be accused of pedophilia or child pornography – then maybe YOU should speak out against those of your own that engage in it or that protect those who do, or that pretend it does not exist.

                      There is no evidence that actual trans people are more likely to engage in pedophilia than normal people.

                      There is enormous evidence that pedophiles will take advantage of pretending to be Trans to gain access to and perve children.

                      Yet those of you on the left are so hyped up over Trans that you are incapable of grasping that if you allow people to option to change their gender casually – Bad people as well as good will take advantage of that.

                      I doubt that Hillary was running a Child Porn ring out of a Pizza place in Jersey – though Hillary has been at the core of every political scandal in my lifetime.

                      I would like to beleive Jeffrey epstein was not murdered – but if he was – top of the list of suspects would be the Clinton’s – particularly Hillary.

                      Hillary Clinton has already shown that there is no trick to dirty for her.

                      Those of you on the left hold beleifs that defy logic, and that obviously can not work in the real world.

                      Right now – you are claiming that those under 21 and not capable of responsibly making decisions about the purchase and use of guns.
                      While at the same time claiming that 4 year olds should be allowed to choose their sex and that teenagers should be free to choose life altering surgery or to take drugs with drastic consequences.

                      Nothing from the left ever makes actual sense.

                      None of it is ever thought through.

                    24. You want me to fight against racism – I am.

                      I am fighting against YOUR racist fear mongering that we should all be terrified of invisible hordes of white supremacists domestic terrorists.

                      You are literally doing what the Nazi’s did – and generating fear and hatred of a race without evidence.

                      Are there dangerous white supremacists in this country – a tiny number, But not even close to numbers sufficient to devote a single FBI agent to pursuing.

                      We have far more consequential problems. Problems caused by the idiotic policies of those on the left.

                    25. Lets address reality.

                      Today is you compare by class and then race – you find that there is no consequential differences in the US.

                      If you are poor and black your future is as bright or dim if you are poor and white.
                      You odds of getting arrested, jailed are about the same.
                      Nor is this limited to blacks and whites – but it is true across all groups.

                      It is absolutely true that there are proportionately more poor minorities than poor whites – and that is an artifcat of past discrimination.
                      It is also true that that is changing – until recently quite fast.

                      Until very recently – contra the lefts claims we were rapidly moving to a post racial world – maybe not a perfect one – we will not acheive that. But the standard of living of the poorest americans doubled over the past 40 years. Working class americans – regardles sof race are better off than the middle class in europe, and better off than nearly everyone in the less developed world.

                      But lets ask YOU some hard questions.

                      There is or was racial disparity in our drug laws. That was driven by the congressional black caucus that saw Crack as having the potential to obliterate decades of black gains.

                      Do we change that ? I am OK with whatever you choose.

                      Next we have seen rates of violence decline steadily since the early 80’s until very recently – now we are seeing very rapid increases.

                      If you have a choice between agressive policing – possibly even racist policing that reduces violence back to prior levels but results in say 100 inocent blacks being killed by policemen – and lets assume without consequence.
                      OR the current status quo where there are 100 more innocent blacks being killed each year – in Chicago alone.

                      Which do you choose ?

                      Absolutely we should try to get perfect policing, but the world is not perfect, and it is not ever going to be.
                      Further – another thing the left fails to realize is that you have to make a country, with the people you have.

                      If as an example we pay police more and get much better police – we have taken them from somewhere – doctors, nurses, engineers, plumbers, We saw this with Obama’s ARRA – it rapidly consumed nearly all the civil engineers int he country. We got better roads.
                      But commerical construction – which had NOT gone into recession with the housing crisis has a recession of its own resulting in job losses and lost growth.

                      Many things in economics are not zero sum. But the labor force is very close to zero sum.

                      We are bringing in about 3M illegal aliens a year – that is actually GOOD for the economy. But it is BAD for the poor and working classes.
                      Unskilled native labor competes with unskilled immigrant labor – the cheapest and most abundant will get the jobs.

                      There is no magic want to get better policing without negative consequences elsewhere.

                      So what do you choose – agressive possibly somewhat racist policing ? Or higher crime which effects the poor most of all.

                      The real world involves real world choices – not hypotheticals.

                      half the country has IQ’s less than 100. Any job that requires an IQ of more than 100 can not be performed by most of the country.
                      If you pull more people with IQ’s of 110 and above into policing – you have less capable engineers, doctors, lawyers.

                      So you figure it out – how do YOU choose – real choices, not magical ones.

                      There are lots of reforms that you and I can probably agree on.

                      Outside of sociopaths which make up about 1/3 of our prisons. most people in prison will stop committing violent crimes by the time they reach 35. Incredibly long sentences for most offenders do not make sense and do not reduce violent crime. At the same time a 15 yr old murderer is not safer on the streets until they are atleast 35.

                      We also know that militarizing police – which both parties fall over themselves to do is BAD policy.
                      We do not need SWAT teams in every burg. Frankly it is incredibly rare that we need swat teams at all.

                      There have been no successful school mass killings at schools that had an armed officer in the school at the time of the attempt.
                      Uvalde is unusual in that there was an officer – and he was offsite at the time the incident started.

                      The rights meme about “the good guy with the gun” is statistically accurate. Constantly crimes and mass shootings are stopped when a shooter faces an armed citizen. It does not matter how well armed the perpitrator is. Mass killers and even ordinary criminals task is vastly more complicated when they have to fear a potential attacker from any angle.

                      Regardless – I will be happy to discuss with you how to solve the actual problems we have.

                      I would further note that the vast majority of those – do not involve the federal govenrment, and may not involve govenrment at all.

                      But I am not interested in feel good solutions. You can not use force to impose your will on others unless you at the bare minimum are doing something that will WORK.

                      I will be happy to discuss with you how to make things better – for the black community, for the country.

                      To some extent I will even defer to you as to how to solve the problem in your communities as opposed to mine.

                      If you and the majority of poor minorities do not think my idea of how to improve minority communities will work – Fine, within YOUR community you do as you please.

                      I asked you a hypothetical about minority community policing. But ultimately that is not a hypothetical.
                      Your communities should figure out how to police themselves – just as I have control of how my communities police me.

                      Spend your own money, elect your own leaders, hire the police force YOU want. Defund them or fund them more. YOUR choice.
                      But do not come running to the rest of us if you fail.

                      There is no single factor more important at getting people to make good decisions than “having skin in the game”
                      Being incredibly smart is less important to good decision making than being personally subject to the consequences of your choices

                    26. “Today is you compare by class and then race – you find that there is no consequential differences in the US.”

                      You’re on the right track, if only you realized that class is maintained by keeping people separated by race. It started after Bacon’s Rebellion and continues to this day.


                      If you are poor and black your future is as bright or dim if you are poor and white.

                      You odds of getting arrested, jailed are about the same.
                      Nor is this limited to blacks and whites – but it is true across all groups.”

                      The things you’ve convinced yourself of are amazing. The odds of getting arrested are not the same, even for the same offenses. Drug use is relatively the same among races, but drug arrests are vastly different. Name one white neighborhood where Stop & Frisk existed? Minority neighborhoods are overpoliced and minorities who find themselves in white neighborhoods are routinely stopped or reported. Ask Sen. Tim Scott home many times he’s been stopped on the roads and in the halls of the Senate? Mass incarceration was never a concern for white people, you neither know the history or the present.
                      “Spend your own money, elect your own leaders, hire the police force YOU want.”
                      The ability of Black people to elect their own ;leaders is rapidly diminishing. Redistricting is taking away safe Congressional Districts in Florida, Texas, and several other states, all ignored by the Courts, much like SCOTUS gutted the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the day after they did so in 2013, multiple states went to work suppressing votes, gerrymandering, and redistricting. Police forces are often subserviant to police unions where the leadership and policies are reflective of the slave patrols they evolved from.

                      I’d be happy to discuss solutions but we aren’t working with the same set of facts so there’s nowhere to go. When you are willing to accept there are current disparities and are willing to look at those, we’ll have a starting point. When you see racism (like in this forum) and point it out, you’ll have my respect. If you ignore it while arguing with me, you’ve become their ally.

                    27. Nonsense. I am irish, the irish came to this country dirt poor, they are no longer poor.

                      With respoect to your claims about race and class – real data does not support that.
                      Especially in the modern era.

                      As I noted before there is as great an upward mobility in the black lower class as the white lower class.

                      Of the top 10 factors that determine your future as a teen – race is not one of those.

                      Stay in school, graduate from high school. Do not get someone pregnant or become pregnant until you are prepared to care for a family.
                      Get a job, Keep the job, Avoid crime.

                      Factors like these determine your future regardless of your race.

                      I would further note that poor blacks screw those up alot. So do poor whites.

                    28. The Irish (generally) arrived in this country dirt poor. They (generally) were given a role in police forces to manage the other immigrants. Police forces were a hotbed of nepotism and gave the Irish a leg up on employment and advancement in police forces. Many of them later served in the military. Like most other Americans, they became eligible for VA loans and FHA loans and became (generally) part of the middle-class. Good for them.
                      Black people started as indentured servants (generally) and often worked alongside the Irish. After Bacon’s Rebellion, indentured servitude was eliminated as a model and slaves becme the exclusive low rung on the ladder. When slavery ended, states implemented the Black Codes which in many ways duplicated enslavement. The Black Codes were replaced by Jim Crow. Black people (eventually) were allowed to serve in the military but denied VA loans, they were denied FHA loans and unable to achieve middle-class in the same way as many of the Irish. They weren’t initially allowed to join labor unions which was another route to economic improvement. This by the way is the systemic racism you (generally) don’t want taught in schools because it might make white kids feel bad.

                      Initially, almost all Black people couldn’t vote. Almost all women couldn’t vote either so I suppose there’s that. Passage of the 13-15th Amendments gave Black men the right to vote which was often denied. Not by two New Black Panthers standing outside a 95% Black precinct but by men with guns, often police officers (not necessarily Irish) and were sometimes killed for registering voters or attempting to vote. During Reconstruction, enough Black people (Republicans) overcame obstacles and elected several men to Congress and a few to statewide office. Some were assassinated while in office, all had their lives threatened. Then the Federal troops were removed from the South and almost all of them didn’t see another term due to voter suppression or murder. Voter suppression was a major factor for decades, then the 19th Amendment passed giving women the right to vote. They couldn’t very well start killing their wives and daughters so voter suppression tactics and violence stepped up in 1920. The tactics other than violence included redistricting and gerrymandering with the goal of creating “safe seats” for white people which you think is a bad idea.
                      Redistricting and gerrymandering are doing the exact thing today as they did then. Poll watchers are intended to scare people just as before, The voter suppression you believe doesn’t exist barely differs from what I think you recognize used to happen but I can’t say for sure if you recognize it ever occurred.
                      Mass incarceration was a tactic of the Black Codes and Jim Crow. Cotton production expanded after the Civil War and they still had to procure the workforce. Prisoners were sent to work on plantations, sometimes the same ones they were allegedly freed from.
                      We won’t get into disparity in education and job opportunities though you should know that I can. I don’t claim the Irish are responsible for systemic racism, but they have benefited, like most white people (generally) from access to programs, policies, and not being targeted in the same way by laws meant to suppress them. This is the history you can’t acknowledge because to admit it might suggest some responsibility to enact change.

                    29. Wow, the sterotypes. And the historical ignorance.

                      The irish arrived in this country dirt poor.

                      They did NOT get a role in the police, Not to control immigrants or any other such nonsense.

                      Like nearly every other immigrant group they STARTED with a disproportionate number of criminals.
                      The tradition of irish police was generations later.
                      Consequential US Policing – almost exclusively in large cities started in the late 19th century.

                      The Irish moved into policing as a political patronage job in early 20th century as large numbers of Irish in the cities gave them political power.

                      We see the same pattern with blacks in cities today.

                      VA loans and FHA loans ? Are you historically NUTS

                      FHA loans started int he 1930’s

                      VA loans started in 1944.

                      300,000 Irish fought int he Civil War – i can assure you not a one got a VA or FHA loan.

                      Absolutely blacks were precluded from unions – democrat minimum wage laws were explicitly intended to keep blacks unemployed.
                      As were government laws requiring union workers for federal jobs.

                      I would note that there was a rising Black Middle class in the 50’s driven by post war changes that was dramatically negatively impacted by LBJ and the great society programs that broke up families.

                      More recently programs like Section 8 and particuly efforts to move subsidized housing out of the poor city areas have been incredibly destructive of the black middle class.

                      Little has been more damaging to black middle class families that escaped the cities than to have the same criminals that they moved out of cities to avoid moved into their own neighborhoods.
                      Ofte middle class black children were sucked back into crime by gangs that federal housing laws moved from the cities into their neighborhoods.

                      I would further note that there was great early success in the Supreme court fighting housing descrimination using the contracts clause of the constitution

                      That basically barred state and local laws that tried to confine people into regions by race – why – Because government was barred from interfering with the free right to contract.

                      You speak of Black Codes and Jim Crow – these were all LAWS – Govenrment attempts to force private people to discriminate – because they would not do so sufficiently on their own.

                      Store owners for the most part did not want to discriminate against anyone, They did not want separate restrooms or railroad cars or sales floors by race.

                      Over and over it is the GOVERNMENT that you seem to think is your savior that has been making your life miserable.

                    30. Again you think that proof that government is racist and corrupt makes you case ?

                      I am STILL libertarian – I was well aware of the horrible things government does and has done probably before you were born.

                      Beyond that you are now jumping around between centuries without any indication that you are doing so.
                      And not consistent with your writing.

                    31. I’m jumping aropund centuries because I’m responding to questions (from a few people and one idiot troll) in the order they come. You laid oud that the Irish came a long way from their dirt poor beginnings and I responded with a narrative of the continued tactics used to suppress Black people, long after the Irish had been accepted as white which they initially were not.

                    32. “I’m jumping aropund centuries because I’m responding to questions (from a few people and one idiot troll) in the order they come.

                      Enigma, you are jumping around centuries because that is always what you do. You live in the 19th century and earlier. You also jump around facts inserting nonsense where the facts belong. Additionally, you are insulting. You insult white people, Trump supporters, etc. Do you think you should be immune from a similar response because of your race? Do you want reparations in the form of privilege that you can say what you wish about others? That is not going to happen.

                    33. I respond to the lies or misconceptions told here without regard to the time period. I respond far too much to an idiot troll who believes his own made-up tales. I never look for his comments to responf=d to. I would never see him (you) except for direct responses to me on almost everything I say.

                    34. I respond to the lies or misconceptions told here without regard to the time period.

                      Enigma, you respond to your fantasies. Time periods are important. Those at the Constitutional Convention didn’t take a bus to get there. Two different time periods, but you conflate things in that fashion, and though you never made this statement you have made others just as crazy. You accuse me of telling tales, but if I am so clearly wrong so frequently, you should have no problem proving it at least some of the times.

                    35. How do you prove a negative? You repeatedly say I said things I never did. You have said a dozen times I accused Trump of being a racist because of something his father did before he was born. I’ve said Trump was racist but purely on his own merit. I’ll give you incentive to back up your claim. Prove I said what you repeatedly said I did and I’ll give you $1,000. I could repost the article I wrote about Freds arrest with Klan members with whom he shared a lawyer if you like but you won’t find the claim you’re making. Put up or shut up, Anonymous, S. Meyer, Someone, Allan, and all your other fake troll names.

                    36. This argument has popped up more than once. It is in black and white on the archives of this blog. We keep going through the same thing repeatedly so there is no more need to prove it once again, though maybe I will. It is enough that those on the blog at the time who read the argument and those on the blog when it popped up again know the argument occurred. Live with it, but stop calling others liars or say they are telling tales unless you are ready to prove it.

                    37. You can’t find it because it doesn’t exist. Nobody but you has made that claim against me though many may remember you making it. I’ve made it worth your while. If I made such a claim I’ll leave this site forever. Now can you prove it? Troll!

                    38. “You can’t find it because it doesn’t exist.”

                      Enigma, you made your claims about Donald Trump and his father long ago. You made them while you were ranting about many things that were false. You kept pushing the idea that the arrest of Fred Trump at a KKK march about 20 years before Donald Trump was born meant that Fred and Donald were racists. You cited the news media as proof.

                      I followed through with your claim. I think a Snopes article showed a Fred Trump and others arrested at the march. Fred was let go without any charges, but not the others. Their names and their bail amounts are in the article.

                      Was the person named arrested Fred Trump? That is unknown.

                      If we assume Fred Trump, Donald’s father, was there, that doesn’t mean he is a racist. He could have been protesting against the KKK, shopping, going for a walk, etc., or not even been DJT’s father. Yet you name DJT’s father, as a racist, based on almost no information. That wasn’t bad enough. There was only one reason to bring this arrest up, to show the father was a racist and the acorn doesn’t fall far from the tree. That is the only rational reason, and that was what you were saying about that time 20 years before Donald’s birth.

                      Now you wish me to look 5 years back to prove something that is obvious. Are you denying the news article or the claim that Fred Trump attended a KKK march? No. Are you denying calling Fred and Donald racists for the incident? You want me to waste my time, and then if I can find it, you will blame me for leaving the blog.

                      ” I’ve made it worth your while. If I made such a claim I’ll leave this site forever. “

                      That is your excuse for packing up and leaving. Then you can say some white guy (white nationalist) forced you off a blog, but you don’t even know if I am white. You assume that like you assume everything else.

                      I don’t want to carry such blame. You can stay or leave. It is your decision, but the truth exists. Even in the explanation above, that I assume you don’t deny, your claims about Fred Trump show what you said then. I think most can see that or derive it from the context of the discussion.

                      You called Fred Trump a racist and used that as proof that his son was born a racist 20 years later.

                      You can sort all that out and while you are doing so, let me remind you that intermittently we had such discussions a number times.

                      Those discussions didn’t just include you and me. If memory serves me right, Paul Shultes had this discussion with you also. I remember this because later I returned to that discussion and found it along with an op-ed of yours provided to Paul. The date of the comments were in 2017, but the op-ed date was mid year 2018.

                      For some reason you found it necessary to alter what you previously referred Paul to and possibly referred me, as well. The after the fact alteration is what makes me remember the incident and Paul’s name.

                      I don’t think I need to spend time looking things up to prove you wrong. I think your explanation of What you said about Fred Trump will likely be good enough.

                      You once again have your opportunity to clear things up, item by item. You didn’t do that then. Now, once again, you have your opportunity to point by point explain what you think took place.

                      I await your response.

                    39. You are always demanding I do things for you. You are the one with the claim to prove. I’ve offered you money and my departure if you can do so. A couple of posts ago you said it was in black and white, now it’s too much trouble for you to find. Go away lying troll!

                    40. Enigma, your reply is non-responsive. I detailed the entire incident. You can tell me which of the many facts are wrong, for there was not just one response but more than one. There were also more than two people involved, and Paul Schulte was one of them. Now is your chance to set the record straight.

                      You won’t because you know everything is in black and white, so you don’t wish to look like a fool.

                      If I prove a few points, you will say I was wrong about a different one. You will do that forever. You already altered one of your op-eds linked to in one of your responses. You are a chronic abuser of the truth, so let us set up the points of contention so that when I search, I have some direction telling me where you disagree. If you cannot do that, then you are telling everyone that you fully accept my narrative of the incident that occurred in 2017.

                    41. I don’t owe you any resposne. Who the F*** are you but an intrusive troll. You made a claim you can’t prove. Made another claim I altered an article, another lie. Just stop. BTW, Paul Shulte and I get along just fine though we disagree on many issues. Produce him saying the same thing if you can. Otherwise, stay silent and don’t keep proving yourself a fool.

                    42. “I don’t owe you any resposne. Who the F*** are you “

                      Enigma, you are the one objecting to a narrative that involved you calling Fred and Donald Trump racists. Your information was poor and the relationships you created were laughable. I provided a narrative of the facts that you can dispute, but you don’t. You are only able to use four-letter words and throw insults. That is fine with me for that is proof enough.

                      “Made another claim I altered an article, another lie. “

                      Is it a lie? This is what you linked everyone to in 2017.

                      https://enigmainblack.wordpress.com/2016/05/03/the-sins-of-the-fathers/

                      That op-ed was written in 2016, our discussion was in 2017 (? 2016) and that was linked by you in 2017 but when I looked it took us to May of 2018. Something changed. The more you speak the more your honesty comes into question.

                      Of course, I checked again and now it is back to 2016, but I copied the link yesterday before letting you know, and this is what it said on top. Take note of the 2018 date.

                      https://enigmainblack.wordpress.com/2016/05/03/the-sins-of-the-fathers/

                      The Sins of the Fathers

                      View all posts by enigmainblackcomMay 6, 2018

                      Whether you agree or not with Paul is not the question. You sent him that link that seems to change for reasons that cannot involve me. Today your prior link provides the above.

                      The Sins of the Fathers
                      View all posts by enigmainblackcomJuly 21, 2016

                      —-
                      Take note: The original date on the HTTP was 2016/05/03.

                      I don’t think I have to proceed further. You have proven what you are, a liar.

                      I will keep this response handy for incidents like this that recur.

                    43. Like Turley, I republish some of my articles. I sometimes correct a spelling error or two. Tell me what the difference is in the content? Lying troll.

                    44. “Like Turley, I republish some of my articles.”

                      Enigma, when you say, “Here’s proof of what I said” and then say, “Prove different!”, one would like to take your word. However, in your case, your word isn’t good. The article you quote was written years after your statement was made and objected to. Add to that a switch in dates of a link you provided on the blog, less than 24 hours after I mentioned its existence, demonstrates that likely you wished to be intentionally deceptive when the date was changed.

                      When doing, what is commonly known as cheating, one should at least be carefull in how they handle the manipulation of data and get the dates right.

                      It doesn’t take the FBI much time to figure out that manipulation takes place when an amateur like you is doing it. When the first date is 2016, and that becomes 2018, that is understandable if a rewrite happened. But, if the date of the next rewrite is earlier, one strongly suspects cheating. Under what circumstances would the date move backward in less than 24 hours if it were a rewrite? Even the FBI would figure out the person doing that is lying.

                    45. The difference in content is what you write after the fact. That is fine as it shows you are learning.

                      But, insulting someone for telling the truth isn’t good form. I’ll repeat my narrative of what happened and you can tell me what parts you no longer believe or what parts are wrong.

                      Enigma, you made your claims about Donald Trump and his father long ago. You made them while you were ranting about many things that were false. You kept pushing the idea that the arrest of Fred Trump at a KKK march about 20 years before Donald Trump was born meant that Fred and Donald were racists. You cited the news media as proof.

                      I followed through with your claim. I think a Snopes article showed a Fred Trump and others arrested at the march. Fred was let go without any charges, but not the others. Their names and their bail amounts are in the article.

                      Was the person named arrested Fred Trump? That is unknown.

                      If we assume Fred Trump, Donald’s father, was there, that doesn’t mean he is a racist. He could have been protesting against the KKK, shopping, going for a walk, etc., or not even been DJT’s father. Yet you name DJT’s father, as a racist, based on almost no information. That wasn’t bad enough. There was only one reason to bring this arrest up, to show the father was a racist and the acorn doesn’t fall far from the tree. That is the only rational reason, and that was what you were saying about that time 20 years before Donald’s birth.

                      Now you wish me to look 5 years back to prove something that is obvious. Are you denying the news article or the claim that Fred Trump attended a KKK march? No. Are you denying calling Fred and Donald racists for the incident? You want me to waste my time, and then if I can find it, you will blame me for leaving the blog.

                      ” I’ve made it worth your while. If I made such a claim I’ll leave this site forever. “

                      That is your excuse for packing up and leaving. Then you can say some white guy (white nationalist) forced you off a blog, but you don’t even know if I am white. You assume that like you assume everything else.

                      I don’t want to carry such blame. You can stay or leave. It is your decision, but the truth exists. Even in the explanation above, that I assume you don’t deny, your claims about Fred Trump show what you said then. I think most can see that or derive it from the context of the discussion.

                      You called Fred Trump a racist and used that as proof that his son was born a racist 20 years later.

                      You can sort all that out and while you are doing so, let me remind you that intermittently we had such discussions a number times.

                      Those discussions didn’t just include you and me. If memory serves me right, Paul Shultes had this discussion with you also. I remember this because later I returned to that discussion and found it along with an op-ed of yours provided to Paul. The date of the comments were in 2017, but the op-ed date was mid year 2018.

                      For some reason you found it necessary to alter what you previously referred Paul to and possibly referred me, as well. The after the fact alteration is what makes me remember the incident and Paul’s name.

                      I don’t think I need to spend time looking things up to prove you wrong. I think your explanation of What you said about Fred Trump will likely be good enough.

                      You once again have your opportunity to clear things up, item by item. You didn’t do that then. Now, once again, you have your opportunity to point by point explain what you think took place.

                      I await your response.

                    46. Enigma, here is a copy of a later email written. Take note of the date, 2016. You have done rewrites, convenient or not, which are in sequence until I notify you of the post and then it is changed back to an earlier date. Rewrite dates are in sequence later. Cheaters suddenly insert dates that are earlier.

                      in response to Paul Schulte:

                      enigma – you made a flurry of charges, back them all up.

                      Because I’d already written this, I’ll start out with the “claim” about Fred Trump’s arrest. https://enigmainblack.wordpress.com/2016/05/03/the-sins-of-the-fathers/

                    47. “Here’s proof of what I said. https://democracyguardian.com/the-sins-of-the-fathers-e98e31364902?sk=f7dee3a7a81d6f9ff18dc3b56be2da2c Prove different!”

                      Liar. Do you intentionally want to prove that you are not credible?

                      That is not proof. That is a 2020 article. The discussion occurred in 2017, so all it can be is proof of what you wish to forget.

                      You are becoming obnoxious. You need to get a grip and see how you can salvage a portion of your reputation.

                    48. How are the Irish related to tactics used to suppress black people ?

                      And assuming they are – why aren’t reparations owed to the Irish – they were essentially enslaved for nearly a milenia.
                      Powerless for nearly all of that ?

                      Next you talk about tactics – claiming the continue through the present – but refuse to actually define anything less than a century old.
                      Or anything unique to blacks.

                      You rant about redlining – jobs, housing, even entering specific places of business was denied to the irish – at much the same times as Jim Crow laws in the south.

                      The Chinese were not allowed to live outside narrow parts of this country until the 1960’s.

                      Whatever it is that you think is voter supression – your trying to claim it continues through today. Yet, in the places you think it occurs – black voter turnout is higher than whites. If whites are engaged in voter supression – it is not working.

                      It is also taking hispanics far less time to be accepted than blacks, and it is taking less time for indians, and for blacks from africa.

                    49. The Irish growth track is different than that of Black people because of the tactics used against Black people like being unable to get FHA and VA loans, mass incarceration, voter suppression, and more. Why is that hard to understand?

                      Where Black turnout is higher than whites it’s because of a concentrated effort to fight thru the things stacked against them.
                      The time to be accepted has mostly to do with the degree of racism of those doing the accepting.

                    50. EB
                      It is not just the Irish.
                      It is every other minority including Black African immigrants that had a different Track in America.

                      Next, you keep this FHA/VA nonsense up. The FHA was in 1930’s the VA was in the late 40’s.

                      Even if you were correct about racism in those benefits You are decades off from your cause and effect claim.

                      Frankly, you have a bigger problem still. Government programs do not create prosperity.
                      FHA did not end the depression – in fact the New Deal made the Depression worse.

                      The Depression did not end until after WWII when soldiers returned home having defeated the Nazi’s and japanese and knew there was nothing they could not do.

                      Even during the war – though production rose and attitudes improved – standard of living did NOT.

                      You beleive too much in government. I noted before that government housing programs are inexorably linked to the DESTRUCTION of the black middle class. The Great Society programs are one of the worst things that ever happened to blacks in the US.

                      In addition minimum wage laws were openly racist, and remain bars to jobs for low skill minorities.
                      Various union laws and set asides were also openly racist and for decades precluded blacks from getting lots of skilled work.

                      Robert Barro – the 4th IDEAS REspec ranked economist in the world has the most extensive database on government spending from accross the world. Government spending is inherently NET negative in economic impact. We are seeing that today with the massive Covid spending which is the primary driver of Inflation and the likely worsening economic problems we face. I would note though Biden and democrats deserve the blame for the worst of the economic misery being inflicted on us at the moment – This was still – atleast initially a bi-partisan effort.

                      Barro found that All government spending was net negative – that Government NEVER got $1 in value from $1 in spending.
                      The peacetime average was that for every $1 spent $0.25-0.35 in value was created. This is compared to the private economy where $1 in spending nearly always produces atleast $1 in value and usually MORE.

                      Government does more harm than good when it tries to help people.

                      I would note that even private charity is ineffective at improving peoples lives.

                      Mother Theressa was an incredbly person – but if you look at everything she did, if you look at everything that has ever been done by good samaritans it is dwarfed by orders of magnitude by the benefits of free markets.

                      In the past 50 years alone the standard of living for the entire world has doubled – at the same time as the population has doubled.

                      There has been no equivalent transformation ever in the entirety of human history.
                      There is nothing which has benefited people more than real freedom – the freedom that is required for free markets.


                    51. Next, you keep this FHA/VA nonsense up. The FHA was in 1930’s the VA was in the late 40’s.”

                      I don’t know what point you think you’re making. Those programs and policies stayed in place until 1968. The government invented redlining and allowed steering and different interest rates. If you are saying those programs didn’t come into effect until the 1930s and 40s, before that there were the Blacl Codes and Jim Crow. Note I didn’t say the Irish Codes or any other ethnicity though they faced discrimination as well.
                      If you are saying that housing discrimination didn’t last long enough to have an effect? That’s a different wrong argument.

                    52. These programs and polices are STILL in place.

                      My point is that your claims regarding the VA and FHA do not fit the timeline you argue.

                      The Irish as an example rose from poverty to the working and middle class in the US long before FHA and VA loans

                      I would separately ask you for your evidence that FHA and VA loans discrimated. Maybe they did. maybe they didn’t.

                      But you do not get to just claim something and expect others to accept it as true.

                      Make your arguments with FACTS.

                      Take care that when you allege cause and effect that you are dealing with one thing following another – not preceding it by decades.

                      Many of your claims are historically impossible.

                    53. Within the article I wrote are several links documenting the discriminatory policies. While the Irish were rising from poverty and before the racist policies of FHA and VA loans, there were the Black Codes and the early Jim Crow which still existed when FHA and VA loans came about. I can appreciate you not knowing these policies existed, they aren’t taught in schools and never will be if some have their way.

                      https://medium.com/black-history-month-365/how-the-federal-government-created-disparity-in-the-middle-class-1ba0ac113717?sk=555377f5910fc0282d507ce96f755574

                    54. The article you linked to starts off in its first paragraph with massive fallacies and misrepresentation.

                      The middle class, the working class as opposed to the poor and the reach are a creation of the western enlightenment that is 200 years older than the new deal.

                      In much of this country prior to the late 19th century migration to the cities outside of possibly the south nearly everyone owned their own home and land as well.

                      The rich int he 19th century were poor by modern terms – but in the terms of their times- the country had already broken the strict rich/poor dicotomy of millenia of human history.

                      If you can not get basic facts right – why should anyone read the rest of your nonsense.

                      I would further note that wealth distributes like myriads of other things according to Pareto’s law.

                      That distribution becomes even more pronounced the greater freedom there is.

                      Today the US pretty much no longer has an oppressed poor class.
                      We have people who are homeless by choice.
                      We have people who are homeless by reason of mental defect.

                      Outside of that everyone in this country has the ability and the near certainty to be better off than the rich in most any century before the 19th.

                      You seem to think you are entitled to control over the way wealth is distributed – you are NOT.

                      All you are entitled to is to keep the value you produce – or to trade it for things you value more.
                      That is it.
                      Some of us are good at trading value for value.
                      Some of use are good at producing things others value.
                      The rich tend to be good at both.

                    55. Why are you selling this socialist BS.

                      EB it is self evident that I have been taught more about race int he US in school 50 years ago, then you were whenever you had the misfortune to be educated.

                      I read little of the article you linked – there is no reason to read something that goes so far off th rails in the first paragraph.

                      Left wing nuts have been looking for evidence that government programs are actually beneficial since the French Revolution.
                      They have not found that evidence.

                      The New Deal was an economic disaster. FDR litterally caused the US to have a recession in the midst of a depression. No other country experienced that. Further the US had the longest and deepest great depression of any country in the world.

                      Both in the past and the present – government spending leads to economic decline.

                      More than a decade ago Roggoff found that government debt beyond 80% of GDP put an almost irrecoverable burden on the country.

                      Others have found that for every 10% of GDP government spends the rate of increase of standard of living declines 1%

                      I would have hoped that the pandemic would have taught you some economic lessons.

                      The power of government to act as a positive force is very very limited.

                      As Adam Smith noted – peace, easy taxes and a tolerable administration of justice.
                      That is the role of government.

                      Provide that and prosperity comes for all – though not equally.
                      We are not equal and we have no right to be proseperous at all – much less equally.

                    56. It is not possible to read everything.

                      It is actually fairly easy to rule out things that are irrevelvant, or that cover ground you are already familiar with, or that i obviously just oppinions masquerading as facts

                      We have already established that you really do not know very much about the things that are the most important to you.

                      That anyone with a HS education from 50 years ago probably has more accurate information about US past racism.

                      We also know for certain that you conflate a smally but dark part of US history with the entirety of it – and that you do so badly.

                      You are unaware of differences between the north and south prior to the civil war – such as that northern blacks could vote.

                      Or that the economic might of the US prior to the Civil war (and after) was primarily in the NORTH – which is why the north won the civil war, and why the claims that this country is built on slavery is pure idiocy.

                      Slavery like socialism is a poor economic system – like SOME socialism it can work – meaning it does not inherently have to be net negative.
                      Though it often is. But it can not economically(or morally) compete with free markets or freedom.

                      I would note that slavery and socialism are inherently related. Both systems require people to work for the interests of others, not themselves, and to depend on masters of some form for their needs. Both depend on significantly greater force – either that of slave owners or government to function at all.

                      The fundimental difference between slavery and socialism is WHO the master is.

                      “From each according to his ability to each according to his need” sure sounds alot like Slavery

                    57. Nope, I live in the real world.

                      Your the one who seems to beleive that everyone should read all of what you read and nothing else.

                    58. Everything you don’t already know isn’t true. You will never check easily available public information because you might be proven wrong. If you don’t know it, it’s a lie.

                    59. “Everything you don’t already know isn’t true.”
                      Correct – there is far more that we do not know – that we will never know than what we know – what is your point ?

                      It is also true that I do not know all of what humans know – what is your point ?

                      It is also true that none of us have the time to know everything there is to know – about even a narrow subject.

                      Finally, each of us must triage what we choose to learn – because we do not have infinite time.
                      I have read a great deal more than most people in my lifetime, but there are hundreds of books in my own library that I have not read that I want to.

                      If you wish for me to read something you consider to be important – the lest you need to do is start with sources that do not go off the rails in the first 3 sentences.
                      I am not going to waste time on sources that make idiotic claims – in the hope that they might also have valid claims.
                      You should not either.

                      “You will never check easily available public information”
                      I do exactly that all the time – read my posts, they are based on publicly available FACTS, logic, and reason.

                      “because you might be proven wrong.”
                      I have no fear of being proven wrong. That is how you learn.
                      At the same time I have little expectation of being proven wrong – that happens more rarely as I learn more.
                      The facts, knowledge, logic, reasoning. that I offer has been challenged repeatedly – it has been tested in the crucible and only rarely found wanting – that is how knowledge is obtained.

                      “If you don’t know it, it’s a lie.”

                      No, a lie is something very specific – it is a knowingly false statement. Most of your sources beleive what they write. That does nto make them liars, it makes them wrong. Claims that are self contradictory are always wrong.
                      Claims that contradict much of what is known – are usually wrong.

                    60. “The fundimental difference between slavery and socialism is WHO the master is.“

                      Nicely said.

                    61. Honestly, I am having significant trouble even understanding some of your claims.

                      Did government create redlining ? I can beleive that, but you need more than a naked assertion to treat it as a fact.

                      As best as I can tell you do not seem to know WHEN historically anything happened. Jim Crow started shortly after federal troops left the south – not in the 1950’s.

                      As to steering – so what ? Most people automatically self select their churches, their colleges, their communities.

                      We already know that blinding admissions to measures of ability like the SAT’s results in the underperformance and often the failure of minority students.

                      I do not care where you go to college or what neighborhood you live in, but I would imagine YOU do, and I would guess that you want to succeed and be happy. Private businesses try to cater for peoples different wants and needs – including “steering” people to what they think will make them happy.
                      If they are wrong – they fail as a business.

                      Interest rates on loans are set by creditworthiness. Whether you like it or not it is ABSOLUTELY true that the richer one is the less likely they are to default on a loan.

                      People offer to lend me massive amounts of money at low interest several times a day. Specifically BECAUSE I do not borrow money unless I need it and I always pay it back.

                      Why would you expect that someone with no income and no assets and no record of repaying debts would get a low interest rate ?

                      In fact it is economically critical that interest rates accurately reflect actual risk – and you are an idiot if you think that everyone’s risk is the same.

                    62. All this information is readilly available to you if you have any interest in knowing. Rather than refuse to accept everything I say until I prove it to your satisfaction.. You could say, “I.m not sure I believe that,” and check for yourself. You’ve said you don’t like any sources I provide but they aren’t the only ones.

                      https://www.thoughtco.com/redlining-definition-4157858

                      “Why would you expect that someone with no income and no assets and no record of repaying debts would get a low interest rate ?”
                      I don’t expect that, just the same interest and insurance rates as you.

                    63. I have a good income an excellent track record of paying my debts, and assets to secure my debt,

                      Unless you too have a good income, an excellent track record of paying my debts and assets to secure my debt – you are not going to get nor are you entitled to the same interest rates as I.

                      Interest is the price of risk.

                      Higher risk means higher interest.

                    64. I too have a good income, a little less since semi-retirement but my record of paying debts and assets are in good shape as well. Let’s say I decide to sell my home, in order to have it appraise for the same value as yours, I would have to remove all evidence that Black people live here to have it appraise at the same value. This is well documented, no doubt you’ll stop reading once you disagree but it will be true none the same.
                      BTW, despite the claims here of someone whose name I didn’t bother to remember that I live in a crime-ridden ghetto in Orlando. I live in what would be deemed a mostly white neighborhood in Palm Coast (there aren’t any other kind if you’re wondering why I live in a white neighborhood. My next door neighbor wears a Trump 2020 hat from time to time. He’s a snowbird from New Jersey and is only here less than half the time. We have never discussed politics which is just as well.

                      https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/25/business/black-homeowners-have-their-houses-appraised-for-less.html

                    65. What you claim is well documented is not documented at all.

                      I have been on both sides of home appraisals many times. Never once has their been any inquiry into the race of the former or current occupant of the home. You seem to know nothing about appraisals – or the process of “due Dilligence” – which is ONE of the fields I actually work in

                      I do not do home appraisals, but I do commercial property inspections.
                      We THOROUGHLY check all sorts of things about buildings that are ebing bought and sold.
                      We check how well they are maintained, whether they now or ever had underground tanks, whether there are wetlands on the property, whether the pipes are copper of Polybutyl, and on and on and on.
                      I produce a 40+ page report for the bank on every property I inspect – as does an independent apraiser, ESA, and often several others.

                      Not once in hundreds of pages of documentation – “Due Dilligence” for a purchase or refinance does anyone consider the race – or any other personal attributes of the buyer or seller.

                      The actual historical FACTS – which you are clearly unaware of is that though to small extent racism did factor into private transactions in the past – the impact was small and there were always plenty of buyers and sellors who did not care or better still took advantage of the racism of others. <ilton Friedman has an excellent video on this on Youtube. Private racism creates economic advantages for people who are not racist. It is a self punishing act – we need not regulate private discrimination of any kind.

                      What is actually damaging is govenrment forced racism. Zoning laws, Racial exclusions zones. Jim Crow laws, Minimum wage laws, Govenrment Union set asides.

                      Some of the earliest "civil rights" victories of blacks were against zoning laws. During the so called Lochner era – when the constitutions contracts clause had meaning.

                      The Supreme court found that zoning laws generally – including those that discriminated against blacks, were unconstitutional infringements in the right of private individuals to conduct business as they please, with whoever they please.

                    66. Deny, deny, deny. You could have taken the time you took denying what I say to check for yourself if it was true, since you didn’t accept the information I provided.

                    67. When your authors – opinion journalists of no repute, start off with absolute nonsense that is OBVIOUSLY wrong and rests on bat$hit crazy attempts at time travel mind reading that presumes that nearly the entire population fo the country at the time – black and white was publicly lying – then NO, I am not going to read further.

                      Make your own arguments.
                      Make them with verifiable facts.
                      If you link to sources – try not to use ones that are self evidently idiots.

                      With respect to your/their thesis.

                      No, the federal law barring the importation of slaves was not some con job intended to make slavery even worse.
                      The law was supported by free blacks, abolitionists. it was opposed by slave owners and slave states.
                      This was not some elaborate con.

                      Like nearly all laws – this law had horrible unintended consequences. It is POSSBLE that it was a positive step towards ending slavery.
                      Regardless, it made slavery that still existed worse.

                      The lesson of unintended consequences is one you should pound into your skull – all laws have unintended consequences. They are pretty much always bad, they are frequently worse than the good of the intended consequences.

                      As to the rest of their/your thesis – given they started off with crap – why should anyone rely on anything they say ?

                      Provide credible evidence and I will consider it. No one doubts this well intentioned law had horrendously bad consequences.
                      But you do not just get to claim them – you must prove them.

                    68. EB

                      I have made no assumptions about you beyond what you have written about yourself.

                      I do not care where you live.

                      I buy and sell property, services, … all the time.
                      I do so with people from all races and cultures and politics.

                      The major factors are those I have already described – what is the actual past history of people living up to agreements.

                      Many of the people I deal with have poor past histories. Most are literally poor. They are of all races. This does not prevent me from doing business with them. It means my risk is higher and that is priced into any deals I make.

                      With respect to your claims of past history of private discrimination – not to any consequential extent.
                      Government forced discrimination – such as MW laws and jim crow exist because private discrimination fails to server the wished of racists.

                    69. The government you condemn so much is but a reflection of the people (albeit usually rich people). There is no type of government discrimination that isn’t more rampant in the private sector.

                    70. Private sector baseless discrimination is a self punishing – and therefore self correcting act.

                      Discrimination by government is discrimination by FORCE – because all government is force.
                      There is no parity. There is no moral equivalence.

                      As to the frequency of discrimination – Jim Crow – GOVERNMENT FORCED racial discrimination was the worst discrimination in this countries history. Absolutely it resulted in private discrimination – FORCED discrimination.

                      Jim Crow came about because those with political power could not get the private discrimination they wanted without the use of government force.

                    71. Jim Crow came about because those with political power walked away and a whole new set of people took power and did what they wanted. The (white) private sector wasn’t acting differently, they were already lynching, still raping, discriminating, but there was a force that kept them somewhat in check. Jim Crow put the government and (white) private sector on one accord. Jim Crow wasn’t just in the south either.

                    72. Of course people behaved differently prior to Jim Crow laws.
                      If they did not, Laws would not have been necessary.
                      Yes, there have been discriminatory laws throughout the country.
                      democrat Wilson drove Blacks out of the Civil Service.

                      Yes there were lynchings. I have been to the Lynching Museum in Montgomery.

                      When private actors use force against others – such as lynchings and rape – that is a crime, and the purpose of government is to punish that crime.
                      That does not always happen, nor does it happen equally.
                      That is a major problem. I will be happy to join you in Requiring Law enforcement to enforce the laws that exist.
                      And to do so uniformly and BLINDLY.

                      Blind to race, Blind to religion, Blind to politics.

                      Either The Kavanaugh protestors, the pro-choice protestors in front of supreme court homes, The Colbert Producers, the democratic staffers who are destroying republican representatives space and property all need arrested and placed in solitary for months or the J6 protestors need released.

                      You are working to make the new N word Maga supporter.

                      One would think that those opposed to the disparate treatment of blacks and other minorities would not so quickly become the oppressors given the least political power. While there is not YET strict equivalence between the mistreatment of Blacks a century or more ago and that of many republicans – YOU are heading in the wrong direction.

                      If you expect sympathy for the historical abuses that blacks have suffered – you will not get that by making yourself into the abuser today.

                      While I reject your claim that racial discrimination is foundational to this country – as I noted before had no slaves from Africa ever arrived in north america – little would be different today. The political, economic, and moral foundations that ended slavery in most of the world today, arrose from the very same people you wish to damn.

                      The immorality of slavery rests on the Western concept of individual free will. It is not an accident that Slavery ended in the West first.

                      Slavery has not been an essential institution to any society anywhere in the worlds success. It was an egregious mistake – in ancient egypt, in rome, in the US, and everywhere else in the world. But the Moral values that ended Slavery came from the very western world you blame for everything.

                    73. “Of course people behaved differently prior to Jim Crow laws.

                      If they did not, Laws would not have been necessary.”

                      Laws changed to keep things the same. After the end of slavery, Southern states implemented the Black Codes which did their best to replicate slavery. When the Black Codes were gradually outlawed, there was a brief period of Reconstruction which only lasted until the federal troops left. Immediately afterward came Jim Crow which did all they legally could to replicate the Black Codes which replicated slavery. The “lost cause” and Southern heritage is an attempt to replicate white supremacy which has never gone away.

                    74. “replicate white supremacy”

                      White supremacy exists in the minds of some people. Does not black supremacy also exist in the minds of some people?

                      What John keeps trying to tell you is that replication of white supremacy was done by government. If the people tried to replicate it they would be faced with economic damage. Using the government to replicate it permitted such action to exist without the noticeable economic damages. If the people didn’t recognize the economic damage the government wouldn’t have had to be involved.

                    75. I would further note that racial supremacy is the NORM throughout human existance.

                      EB keeps trying to attack western values, without grasping that the foundation of his attack IS western values.

                      Slavery is moral – without free will.

                      The concept of racial equality is also inherently extremely modern.

                      EB keeps attacking our founders for hypocracy over slavery – but he fails to grasp that not only didn’t they accept racial equality at the time – but the world did not accept racial equality.

                      It was not “self evident” in 1776 – that “all men” included black men and yellow men, and brown men.

                      Out founders were having massive enough problems working out the foundations of self government that arise from the proposition that individuals have free will. They were just barely starting to grasp that negros were humans.

                      Even Lincoln wrote that he did not see a place for freed slaves in america – they may have been fully human, but they were not really fully equal.

                      Nor is the concept of white supremecy on its face logically invalid – the pinnacle of human civilization moved across the world over the centuries – but at the time and through to today it resided firmly in the west. It is quite reasonable to beleive that the concept of individual free will and self govenrment came from the west – because westerners were superior.

                      The Hypocracy of our founders that EB generally correctly attacks – is reflected in their own understanding that negro slavery was immoral because it violated free will. But NOT because blacks were equal to whites. That was NOT the prevalent view of the time – nor for a long time after. Even leading abolitionists did not genereally accept that blacks were equal, just that enslaving them was wrong.

                    76. Enigma is heavily invested in Grievance. To highlight his grievance he has to make it worse than everything else in the nation or the world. Without that he would have no platform to stand on.

                      The worst thing to happen to him is people learning to accept those that are different. That means he has to get off the speaker’s platform.

                      Our founders were human and subject to human frailties. But they created something unbelievable at the time. The French tried to duplicate it but failed with death and destruction. It is hard to believe that such geniuses were able to get together and envision all men are created equal.

                    77. He is also stupid – his arguments (typical of post moderns) DRIVE racism.

                      This country did not send all former slaves back to Africa in 1865 – as Lincoln and many other abolitionist argued. The 14th amendment actually gave them citizenship.

                      Freeing slaves and giving them citizenship rights need not go together.

                      If you are black – you are entitled to the same rights as anyone else. You are not entitled to special priviledges or recompense for the abuses of the past. We are not going to re-adjudicate everything back to Cain and Able.

                      If you are dirt poor black in the US – you live in the most affluent large country in the world. YOU are the 1% of the world.

                      Johnny Cash was raised in house without water or toilets. or electricity, He picked cotton as a child.

                      EB should read HillBilly Elegy – JD Vance came from incredibly shitty conditions in Apalachia – that make even the conditions in Baltimore or Detroit look great.

                      White or black, rich or poor, there are about 10 things that you must do or not do as you move from teen to adult that determine whether you will dramatically improve your lot in life. None of these has anything to do with race.

                      I would note that I do not care much about EB’s Greivance nonsense.
                      The problem is when it is translated to entitlement.

                      Past or even present nongovernmental racial discrimination entitles you to NOTHING.

                      Free choices you do not like are not violence, words are not violence, actual violence is violence.

                    78. Still a historical.

                      First – you make a big deal elsewhere about the betrayal of northerners when they withdrew troops from the south a decade after the war.
                      Though I am not sure what your justification is that requires the north to occupy the south forever.

                      Regardless, we did not have this direct jump from slavery to Jim Crow that you postulate.

                      Further you do not seem to grasp that Jim Crow was not about blacks. It was about FORCING Whites to discriminate.
                      Further Jim Crow was not abruptly imposed on the South with the departure of northern troops – it was a gradual process over decades.

                      Regardless, you are describing the gradual transformation of the post war south into …… Ireland.

                    79. “Regardless, we did not have this direct jump from slavery to Jim Crow that you postulate.”

                      This is how I know you aren’t paying attention and have no knowledge of history. Immediately after the Civil War came the Black Codes, the Republican Congress tried to actually fight back and had various Acts to make some of them illegal and the 14th and 15th Amendments were passed which fueled Reconstructiomn. After the Compromise of 1877, then we got Jim Crow which basically undid everything Congress had accomplished. Congress and Rutherford B Hayes started looking the other way and passed Posse Comitatus which ensured the federal troops would never come back to protect the freedmen.

                      Also, you somehow imagine Jim Crow was forced on the private sector by the government. It was the other way around which you will probably never grasp. Government is not some independent agency with its own will, it’s a reflection of at least some of the people,

                    80. “This is how I know you aren’t paying attention and have no knowledge of history.”
                      Look in the mirror.

                      During union occupation the only thing of consequence was the poor wages that Union forces occupying the south paid black workers.

                      As you have not yet figured it out – I am LIBERTARIAN – what two parties negotiate freely is their own business. For the most part I would prefer the participation of govenrment in the economy to be as limited as possible. but so long as the north occupied the south it was going to need labor – and I expect it would negotiate the lowest price possible – northern soldiers occupying the south were also paid notoriously badly.

                      Conditions in the south after the war were abysmal – it is likely that possibly a million or more blacks and even many many whites died of starvation in the immediate aftermath of the war. Fundimentally the war ended with the southern economy entirely destroyed. Further the capital asset value of slaves was completely wiped out – that is a massive destruction of capital in the south.

                      There were suddenly millions of black freed slaves and no many to pay them.

                      If you do not understand that is going to lead to bare subsistance incomes for a long time you are an idiot.

                      Blacks were majority of near majority office holders in several southern states with large black population post civil war through to the departure of union troops a decade later.

                      Absolutely it was pretty bad to be living in the south after the Civil war – whether you were black or white.

                      Frankly – though it got worse for Blacks after union troops left – the south has been a pretty bad place to live for atleast a century after the civil war – regardless of race.

                    81. I don’t want to misinterpret your answer because I can’t see exactly what you’re responding thru and don’t want to sift thru 438 comments to find out. For the record, this isn’t your response to my reply about the North financing slavery is it?
                      Your cliff notes version of the Southern Economy has a little merit. During Reconstruction Blacks who voted were able to secure some Congressional seats, held state offices, and even statewide office in Mississippi. It didn’t happen immediately after the Civil War, all Southern states passed Black Codes and there wasn’t yet the 14th Amendment allowing them to vote. When they could vote and got some people elected, the only reason they were able to do so was the existence of federal troops and the reactionary passing by Congress of various Ku Klux Klan Acts beginning in 1871. The Klan began in 1865 and quickly grew after slavery ended.
                      In 1877, to resolve the disputed 1876 Presidential election, Republicans and Democrats in a back room came up with the Compromise of 1877 which called for the removal of the troops and the following year we got Posse Comitatus which ensured they wouldn’t return. We also got Jim Crow across America not just in the South.
                      If you want to say the Northern economy came out of the war much better than the South I’ll agree with you. To pretend the economies weren’t tied together before (and during) the war is a farce.

                      I grew up in the North and have lived in the South for 45 years. I’m happier to be in Florida than I think I would be in Mississippi but in my county they are banning Toni Morrison and the biggest grocery chain is full on MAGA.
                      FYI, for the most part, those slaves after being freed ended right back on some of the same plantations and not by choice. It just had another name. When Maj. General Granger announced the slaves in Texas were free, his next words were to send them back to their plantations to work, this time for wages with no buy in from plantation owners that they would pay them. That would be Field Order #3 if you wish to look it up.
                      I can give you a more complete history if you like, just ask,

                    82. The Bluest Eye and Beloved were sold everywhere. But, I understand how you feel Enigma. They had none of Trump’s books in the school libraries. That is infuriating.

                    83. I don’t get your point. School libraries decide what books will be on the shelves. Trump’s books aren’t there. That is terrible. Do you know what else? Amazon is selling a set for $99 and they expect people to afford that when they pay $50-$99 to fill up their cars. Outrageous. Amazon should be told to lower their price just like Joe told the gas station owners.

                    84. If you review our respective posts – you and I agree on about 90% of the FACTS.

                      When we disagree on FACTS – you pull them out of thin air or from historians who rely on anecdotes rather than data.

                      Almost every evil of slavery that you claim occurred in some place at some time. That is why you have anecdotal data.
                      I am not aware of anyone denying that.

                      Your major errors are converting anecdotes to broad claims of fact where there is data that directly conflicts – such as you did with trans Atlantic mortality, and with claims of breeding slaves post 1807. It is true that the population of US/colonial slaves relatively quickly became majority native born rather than from Africa – the US was a very small part of the cross Atlantic slave trade.
                      But there is very little evidence that the 1807 import ban resulted in a meaningful change to slave native births.
                      It did however increase the cruelty of slavery with more families being broken up.

                      The 2nd major error you make is trying to make slavery far more important than it ever was.

                      I noted before that the difference between private slavery and socialism is who the owner is.
                      And both suffer the same economic flaws.

                      As Adam Smith noted 250 years ago

                      “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages”

                      Socialism fails because individuals do not see how they benefit and do not work very hard. Slavery fails for the same reasons.

                      Now you and to fight over financing slave purchases and northern banks. I can not find any consequential evidence to support your claim. And my guess is you will offer me more anecdotal evidence.

                      Again nearly everything you can claim about slavery happened somewhere at sometime.
                      That is not the same as everywhere all the time.

                      You make the same error comparing slavery to indentured servitude. Yes there are differences – but depending on the time the differences are small to non-existant and often favor slavery.

                      With respect to your banking claims – everything I have found is the widespread practice of southern banks using slaves as collateral for loans.
                      This is STILL almost the opposite of what you are claiming – slaves are being used as collateral to buy other things (possibly more slaves).
                      And it is southern not northern banks.

                      Did a small number of white southerners and a few others get rich off slavery – with certainty.

                      Was slavery a driving economic force in the US ? Nope.

                      Peak US black population was in 1770 at 20% – today it is 14% up from a low of 9.7% in 1930.

                      The story of blacks in the US is a small part of the story of the US – in every single way.
                      Obviously it is something we should not forget – both the bad and the good.
                      But it is not the story. For the most part it is a a reflection of the fact that even our heros have feet of clay, and that we do not live up perfectly to our own ideals.

                      What is new ?

                    85. The breeding of slaves started long before 1807, almost as soon as the Spanish brought them ashore in St Augustine (well before 1619). The phenomenon of the births is well documented, some historians called it NAtural increase which was bull. It’s not pretty and people don’t want to hear about it so they refuse to believe. The last article I sent you said this:

                      “By some estimates, New York received 40% of US cotton revenue through money its financial firms, shipping businesses and insurance companies earned.”

                      The same applied to rice, sugar, indigo and other crops. In Virginia, slaves became the leading export surpassing tobacco. Not just a few southerners got rich off of slavery but the whole nation prospered because their model meant paying much less for labor. There were other factors like natural resources but slavery, then slavery again under other names, sharecropping, migrant labor, and child labor is what made (makes) America rich.

                    86. “The breeding of slaves started long before 1807″
                      That may be true – but it is NOT the argument you made.

                      Yes, the Spanish and portuguese brought slaves to the new world long before the english.

                      And Again you keep trying to make big claims from small evidence.

                      “By some estimates, New York received 40% of US cotton revenue through money its financial firms, shipping businesses and insurance companies earned.”

                      And by most very little.
                      Again big claims from small evidence – in this cause by unspecified estimates made by unknown people at an unknown time with an unknown basis.

                      This is not even an anjnecdote. It is also almost certainly false. I do not think there is any business ever that was involved in a real commodity that had a financial services load of 40%.

                      Again your understanding of business and economics is juevenile.

                      ” but the whole nation prospered”
                      Not to any consequential extent.
                      I noted previously that in 1860 the entire south had 10% of the capital of the north.
                      That alone should be a HUGE BS detector for all this nonsense of yours.

                      Do you think Telsa pays 40% of its revenue in financial services ?

                      But lets presume that the north did make 40% on all southern revenue.
                      Revenue is usually a fraction of total capital. Lets be generous and assume revenue is 10% of capital.
                      So that means southern revenue is about 1% of US capital. And financial services are 40% of that – so financial services are 0.4% of total us capital in 1860.

                      And remember all these estimates are way HIGH.

                      “because their model meant paying much less for labor.”
                      For cotton and similar goods produced in the south – though I would not that even that statement is NOT inherently True.

                      A slave is a capital investment. A slave owner has to put up the equivalent of the cost of a house – just to start and that does not include feeding, and housing and other costs of slaves. Nor does it count the fact that slave labor is not as productive as free labor.

                      Slave owners paid a large upfront cost, in return for lower productivity and somewhat reduced labor costs.

                      That is NOT “paying much less for labor”.

                      As noted before Slavery ended in the Caribbean because it was not profitable.

                      “There were other factors like natural resources but slavery, then slavery again under other names, sharecropping, migrant labor, and child labor is what made (makes) America rich.”

                      And again – if you want to pretend that slavery was a unique evil – you can not keep comparing it to things that you claim were NOT the same such as sharecropping.

                      Child labor is commonplace throughout the world since the first humans walked upright.
                      It ENDS when a people become sufficiently affluent. People do not get rich from child labor they are poor and their for their children must labor. When they figure out how to get rich – their children no longer labor.

                      And if you beleive Migrant labor makes the US rich – let Trump build the wall. Wont that make the country poor quickly ? And you can blame Trump and republicans.

                      But you constantly do not think about the inconsistancies and contradictions in your claims.


                    87. Slave owners paid a large upfront cost, in return for lower productivity and somewhat reduced labor costs.”

                      Your willful lack of understanding. Slaveowners in Maryland, Virginia, Delaware and others stopped importing slaves at a “high cost” and grew their own via forced breeding and rape. They sold the excess slaves at a profit further South where the need was greater due to cotton, sugar, rice, and other labor intensive crops. Slaves became the leading export in Virginia in particular, far surpassing tobacco.

                    88. You keep jumping arguments.

                      Are you atleast going to conceded since you are now arguing against it that if you have to buy slaves that slavery does not make economic sense ?

                      By your argument why doesn’t everyone build their own homes – it would according to you cost them less.

                      Slaves continued to be bought and sold after 1807 – apparently everyone could not breed what they needed.

                      Breeding is not cost free – pregnant slaves are less productive and slave children are an additional cost and damned if lots of them do not die just wasting money.

                      If slavery were economically viable it would still exist large scale.

                    89. “Slaves continued to be bought and sold after 1807 – apparently everyone could not breed what they needed.”

                      After 1807, It was mostly a matter of geography, the more Northern tobacco growing states had excess slaves, they had ruined their fields by not rotating crops and had more slaves than they needed, as opposed to more Southern states that needed labor desperately.
                      You think I’m jumping all over the place because I’m answering questions from across the spectrum, not just from yourself. You have no context so all you see is contradiction.

                    90. Your response is atleast partly ahistorical, and irrelevant.

                      Slaves continued to be bought and sold – that means they had an established price – whether “bred” or imported.
                      That price was equivalent or higher than the price of a house at the time.
                      And that price was too high to make slavery economically feasible.

                      You digress into crop rotation – are you arguing that if Virginia plantation owners were better farmers Slavery would have worked ?

                      Further you do not go very deep in your examination.

                      If VA had “excess” slaves as you claim – based on YOUR argument of productivity failure from lack of crop rotation – then selling VA slaves was a stopgap measure delaying economic failure.

                      BTW VA tobacco production rose steadily throughtout the colonial period – several hundred years.

                    91. Please provide primary sources for your claims.

                      Not BBC articles, not links to yourself.

                      Actual raw statistical data.

                      Anyone can make a claim out of thin air.

                      I expect facts and statistics to support your claims

                      JP Mogan BTW started banking in 1857 – in london.

                    92. Do you read what you write ?

                      Your own claims regarding blacks in politics in the south and black codes are self contradictory.

                      Many of these details are not relevant. But even so you can not get them right.

                      A major part of this is trying to force history to fit your themes, rather than allowing actual themes to arise out of history.

                      The most important FACT regarding the south after the civil war was that it was an economic basket case – for over 100 years.
                      If as you claim slavery was wildly profitable – then the south should have remained wildly economically successful after the war – especially given YOUR (correct) claim that most blacks ended up in little better than slavery.

                      The FACT is the economy of the south Barely functioned with slave labor and the use of force to compel it and was only profitable for a small portion of people. It was unable to do any better under what you call barely better conditions after the civil war.

                      It should not take much intelligence to understand that the southern economy whether slave or sharecropper was NEVER very strong.

                    93. Yes the northern economy prior to the war was tied to that of the south must as the US economy today is tied to that of Chile – almost not at all.

                      And you actually claim the economies were tied during the war ? The north blockaded the south. It did not trade with the south in any consequential way.

                    94. The North became a world leader in producing cotton textiles before the war. Question – Where do you think the cotton came from?
                      Here’s an interesting article describing both slave breeding and rape and the cotton ,market worldwide. some of the highlights include:
                      “Some slaveholders sought to increase the number of slave children by placing male slaves with fertile female slaves, and slave masters routinely raped their female slaves. The resulting births played an important role in slavery’s expansion in the first half of the nineteenth century, as many slave children were born as a result of rape. One account written by a slave named William J. Anderson captures the horror of sexual exploitation in the antebellum South. Anderson wrote about how a Mississippi slaveholder

                      divested a poor female slave of all wearing apparel, tied her down to stakes, and whipped her with a handsaw until he broke it over her naked body. In process of time he ravished [raped] her person, and became the father of a child by her. Besides, he always kept a colored Miss in the house with him. This is another curse of Slavery—concubinage and illegitimate connections—which is carried on to an alarming extent in the far South. A poor slave man who lives close by his wife, is permitted to visit her but very seldom, and other men, both white and colored, cohabit with her. It is undoubtedly the worst place of incest and bigamy in the world. A white man thinks nothing of putting a colored man out to carry the fore row [front row in field work], and carry on the same sport with the colored man’s wife at the same time.”

                      “Slaveholders used both psychological coercion and physical violence to prevent slaves from disobeying their wishes. Often, the most efficient way to discipline slaves was to threaten to sell them. The lash, while the most common form of punishment, was effective but not efficient; whippings sometimes left slaves incapacitated or even dead. Slave masters also used punishment gear like neck braces, balls and chains, leg irons, and paddles with holes to produce blood blisters. Slaves lived in constant terror of both physical violence and separation from family and friends ([link]).”
                      pressbooks-dev.oer.hawaii.edu/ushistory/chapter/african-americans-in-the-antebellum-united-states/

                    95. I’m not sure the link to this material is going to work so I’ll cut and paste some of the highlights:

                      “The power of cotton on the world market may have brought wealth to the South, but it also increased its economic dependence on other countries and other parts of the United States. Much of the corn and pork that slaves consumed came from farms in the West. Some of the inexpensive clothing, called “slops,” and shoes worn by slaves were manufactured in the North. The North also supplied the furnishings found in the homes of both wealthy planters and members of the middle class. Many of the trappings of domestic life, such as carpets, lamps, dinnerware, upholstered furniture, books, and musical instruments—all the accoutrements of comfortable living for southern whites—were made in either the North or Europe. Southern planters also borrowed money from banks in northern cities, and in the southern summers, took advantage of the developments in transportation to travel to resorts at Saratoga, New York; Litchfield, Connecticut; and Newport, Rhode Island.”

                      “The South’s dependence on cotton was matched by its dependence on slaves to harvest the cotton. Despite the rhetoric of the Revolution that “all men are created equal,” slavery not only endured in the American republic but formed the very foundation of the country’s economic success. Cotton and slavery occupied a central—and intertwined—place in the nineteenth-century economy.

                      In 1807, the U.S. Congress abolished the foreign slave trade, a ban that went into effect on January 1, 1808. After this date, importing slaves from Africa became illegal in the United States. While smuggling continued to occur, the end of the international slave trade meant that domestic slaves were in very high demand. Fortunately for Americans whose wealth depended upon the exploitation of slave labor, a fall in the price of tobacco had caused landowners in the Upper South to reduce their production of this crop and use more of their land to grow wheat, which was far more profitable. While tobacco was a labor-intensive crop that required many people to cultivate it, wheat was not. Former tobacco farmers in the older states of Virginia and Maryland found themselves with “surplus” slaves whom they were obligated to feed, clothe, and shelter. Some slaveholders responded to this situation by freeing slaves; far more decided to sell their excess bondsmen. Virginia and Maryland therefore took the lead in the domestic slave trade, the trading of slaves within the borders of the United States.”

                      “As discussed above, after centuries of slave trade with West Africa, Congress banned the further importation of slaves beginning in 1808. The domestic slave trade then expanded rapidly. As the cotton trade grew in size and importance, so did the domestic slave trade; the cultivation of cotton gave new life and importance to slavery, increasing the value of slaves. To meet the South’s fierce demand for labor, American smugglers illegally transferred slaves through Florida and later through Texas. Many more slaves arrived illegally from Cuba; indeed, Cubans relied on the smuggling of slaves to prop up their finances. The largest number of slaves after 1808, however, came from the massive, legal internal slave market in which slave states in the Upper South sold enslaved men, women, and children to states in the Lower South. For slaves, the domestic trade presented the full horrors of slavery as children were ripped from their mothers and fathers and families destroyed, creating heartbreak and alienation.”

                      pressbooks-dev.oer.hawaii.edu/ushistory/chapter/african-americans-in-the-antebellum-united-states/
                      pressbooks-dev.oer.hawaii.edu/ushistory/chapter/the-economics-of-cotton/

                      If nothing else, you should see that I’m not making up what I’m saying.

                    96. “The South’s dependence on cotton was matched by its dependence on slaves to harvest the cotton.”

                      That is a problem when it comes to the various claims you make about the economics of cotton and slavery. I’m going to repeat the numbers because the South was reliant on cotton (and slaves) having a lousy economy while the North was strong providing most of the things below cotton. The economy of the country grew rapidly after the Civil War despite the South being very deficient economically.

                      Value added by industry based on millions in 1914 dollars

                      Cotton 59
                      Lumber54
                      Boots and shoes53
                      Flour and meal43
                      Men’s clothing39
                      machinery31
                      Woolen goods27
                      Leather goods24
                      Cast iron 23
                      Printing20

                      In 1880 Cotton was #3 at 97 Machinery was #1 111
                      Without slaves the economy had rapid growth.

                    97. You imagine all the growth after the Civil War had no relationship to what happened before the Civil War. America’s economy today is way more dependent on the people you think you don’t want crossing the border than you’d like to believe. Agriculture, construction, and the lodging industries would come to a halt without migrant and illegal workers.

                    98. Enigma, I understand the relationship, but you overdue things to such an extent that what you say doesn’t make sense. You focus entirely on the economic benefits of cotton and the slave trade.

                      To decide, I look at data, including numbers. Cotton was important, but if you look at the data I posted, cotton wasn’t critical, though it was crucial to the south. That is not satisfactory for an economic system. It is never good to be so dependent on one thing. Data is how I make decisions and is where my thinking processes begin. I don’t look at the desired conclusion and then data mine the pieces to prove it. It doesn’t successfully work.

                      On the topic of immigration, I am not against legal immigration. Immigration should base itself on America’s needs, not the needs of others. If you wish to say immigrants are the most productive, the US is destroying other nations because their most productive citizens are moving here. I believe we caused harm to Mexico because for many years we acted like a pressure cooker, relieving some of the steam that would have led to change or revolution.

                      You think I am missing too many things that you see, but that is not true. You have been factually incorrect about much of what you say or used minor facts to over-generalize. That is what happens when one data mines to meet the desired result.

                    99. You are undermining your won arguments.

                      You tell us all that serfdom, indentured servitude etc were all better than slavery.

                      Then you claim that post civil war sharecroppers were no better off than slaves.

                      Which is it ?

                      Regardless

                      A man said to the universe:
                      “Sir, I exist!”
                      “However,” replied the universe,
                      “The fact has not created in me
                      A sense of obligation.”

                      Blacks were Owed their freedom – The Western core value of free will requires that.

                      They were not owed – after the civil war or today anything more.

                      Go back to work on the plantation – don’t, your choice.

                      If you have a job you hate today – leave, or stay, your choice.

                      I can buy Toni Morrison on Amazon, I can find her work at any bookstore.
                      No one has banned her.

                      If you do not like the grocery store you visit – go to another – your choice.

                    100. “Go back to work on the plantation – don’t, your choice.”

                      The freed slaves didn’t always have that choice. Some starved, if they were unemployed which most of them were, they were arrested under the Black Codes and sent back to work on plantations. I didn’t directly compare indentured servitude to shaercropping but I can. Under one system you end a typically seven year contract and walk away with a little money and a piece of land. The other system requires you to work someone else’s land, contractually obligated to get tools and supplies from them and each year get deeper and deeper in debt. Yes, indentured servitude was better than slavery or sharecropping.

                    101. You seem to think that because people do not have the choices you wish they have no choices.

                      AGAIN
                      A man said to the universe:
                      “Sir, I exist!”
                      “However,” replied the universe,
                      “The fact has not created in me
                      A sense of obligation.”

                      No one owes you anything.

                      Even slaves have choices – though the cost of some may be very high.

                      Free poor starving unemployed people have choices.

                      The people who offered former slaves work – no matter how shitty that work was – were still making an offer freely – not using force.
                      The absence of choices you like is not slavery. Nor is giving you choices you like the obligation of others.

                      Almost the entire south was dirt poor after the war.

                      Even YOU are arguing that nothing changed from before to after the war – except that blacks were no longer slaves.

                      That alone burns just about all your arguments to the ground.

                      If slavery was so profitable before the war, then the south should have done well with piss poor paid sharecroppers nearly as bad off as slaves.

                      And yet the south has been dirt poor for more than a century after the war.

                    102. I do not care what you compare to what – you still undermine your own claims.

                      YOU say that sharecropping is indistinguishable for slavery – well that is exactly what the Irish lived with for hundreds of years.

                      But you have told me that the Irish can not be compared to slavery. When you compare slavery and sharecropping and find them near identical that is EXACTLY what you are doing.

                      With respect to indentured servants – the reward at the end of the indenture is only meaningful if you live that long.

                      Some informatin on indentured servants

                      http://decolonizingourhistory.com/histories-2/indentured-servitude/indentured-servitude-really-in-depth/

                    103. Posse Comitas is good law. It is merely an expansive of the provisions of the bill of rights.

                      The Union army occupying the south after the Civil war was a BAD thing not a good one – despite being beneficial to blacks.

                      You do not understand that every single Bad act of Government benefits SOMEONE. Bad does not magically become good just because blacks benefit.

                      I would note that even today there are very few nations in the entire world that have significantly diverse populations.

                      Minority populations throughout the world ALWAYS do poorly economically. And they are ALWAYS targeted by discriminatory laws.
                      The Uighurs in China are slaves or worse TODAY.

                      Or look in Europe today – where the significant minority is mid-easterners who are generally treated as badly as blacks in the south – they are not even allowed citizenship – even if they are born in the country. The work for low wages doing shitty jobs.

                      While there are a few specific aspects of the Post War south that are quasi uniquely reprhensible – it is actually quite few.
                      For the most part southern freed blacks were treated like minority populations throughout the world – even today – BADLY.

                      The west – and specifically the US and primarily in the modern era is the only place in the world in which minority populations do not experience poor treatment – but have substantially diminished LEGAL rights.

                      “Jus soli was part of the English common law, in contrast to jus sanguinis, which derives from the Roman law that influenced the civil-law systems of mainland Europe.

                      Jus soli is the predominant rule in the Americas;”

                      Again a radical difference between the west – and in this case specifically the anglosphere and the rest of the world.

                    104. You continue to undermine your own arguments.

                      So the post civil war transformation of southern plantations to systems pretty much identical to those of the irish or serfs was still the same as slavery ?

                      Either there is a difference, or there isn’t – make up your mind.

                      As for Jim Crow, Black Codes red lining …
                      Given that you keep screwing up core facts – clearly I was better educated than you.

                      Regardless, grow up. Stop the whining, take charge of your own life, quit trying to blame others for your problems.

                      You can live in whatever state you want.
                      But you can not force that state to adapt to you.

                      You can go to whatever grocery store you want.
                      But whatever books you want.

                      You can run your schools and your communities who you want.

                    105. There is a difference between your feelings and my remarks.

                      If you feel insulted by logically valid and/or factually correct analysis of your arguments – that is your problem, and it is not fallacy or ad hominem.

                      If you do not want to feel insulted as I point out the flaws in your arguments – make batter arguments.

                    106. Jim Crow was LAW.

                      By defintion LAW is imposed by FORCE.

                      You are making a FACIALLY FALSE argument.

                      If private discrimination was sufficient – there would have been no Jim Crow laws – they would have been unnecessary.

                      I would further note that though democrats have flipped their relationship with minorities over the past 2 centuries, they have NOT changed in that far more so than republicans democrats impose their will on the rest of us by FORCE – LAW.

                      Whether it is Jim Crow or the still existant Racist minimum wage laws, or more modern efforts to FORCE people to behave as democrats desire – such as silly gun laws, idiotic healthcare laws. trying to force people to vaccinate, mask, destroying the economy,

                      It is far more often democrats that have imposed their will on others by FORCE.

                      Absolutely republicans do it to – but FAR less frequently than democrats.

                      You wish to claim that the progressive democrats of today are different from the racist democrats of a century ago – the differences are SMALL.

                    107. I can easily make the case that over time the Democratic Party has done more damage and has a higher body count than Republicans. Republican used to capture a higher percentage of minority votes than the Democratic Party does today.
                      That said, today, Republicans by far the clear and present danger and only because of their own policies, starting with voter suppression, are they unable to get more Black votes.
                      The Democratic party is built on many constituencies and they try to please them all, ultimately failing at times to please anyone. Many of their elected officials are more concerned about reelection than their alleged common values. I don’t love the Democratic Party, they just happen to be the best available option.
                      Republicans have based campaigns on the denigration of Black people. They absorbed racist Dixiecrats that were disgruntled with the Democratic Party after they did too much (with Republican help) during the civil rights era but starting as early as the integration of the military. They adopted the Southern Strategy during the Nixon years and have used some form of it ever since. They gave us Willie Horton, welfare queens, and Free-stuff. You suggest Republicans don’t force things on people while disallowing gun laws and forcing victims of rape and incest to have babies.

                    108. And yet republican share of black and minority votes is increasing.

                      Regardless, the history of black political affiliation is a long littany of failure.

                      YOU note the failure of blacks to secure and maintain political power in states they were a majority of very nearly so in the south post CW.

                      You claim Republicans F you over – how ? The “voter suppression” nonsense you rant is things like voter ID supported by 80% of blacks.
                      Black voter participation has CONSISTENTLY risen across the country in the places that implemented “voter suppression” – otherwise know as fraud prevention.
                      I do not beleive blacks engage in more voter fraud than any other group – but apparently you do. Otherwise how do you explain your nonsense about voter supression ?

                      You are the perfect example of guilibility being sold a bill of goods by democrats and the left.

                      Blacks are concentrated in this country in political enclaves where they are a majority often a supermajority.

                      Why should you have broader political power – if you can not run your own communities ?

                      No one owes you anything.

                      You are angry with republicans because they do not treat you as special, different, victims, inferiors.

                      Democrats have been treating you like shit for 250 years. Republicans just treat you like ordinary people.

                      Though I would note – I am libertarian – not republican. I have issues with both parties, just more with modern democrats.

                      If you think the democratic party is the best available option – your choice. They will be happy treating you as a victim incapable of succeeding on your own, incapable of getting a drivers license. In capable of anything without “white savior” government stepping in from Washington to save you.

                    109. “YOU note the failure of blacks to secure and maintain political power in states they were a majority of very nearly so in the south post CW.”

                      They failed to maintain political power because when the federal troops left they were lynched at a higher rate, politicians in office were murdered, voter suppression in those day used gerrymandering, literacy tests, redistricting and killing leaders. The whole town of Ocoee, FL had their Black population either murdered or burned out after two men tried to vote.

                      The Republican Party treats Black people the same way they treat the Log Cabin Republicans. Texas just banned them from their state convention and defined them in their party platform as an “abnormal lifestyle choice.”

                      https://news.yahoo.com/chair-texas-log-cabin-republicans-114349304.html?fr=yhssrp_catchall

                    110. As I recall according to the Equal justice institute under 5000 blacks were lynched in the century after the Civil war.
                      Far to many for sure, but only slightly more than the deaths at the world trade center. Only a tiny fraction of the deaths in the civil war.

                      Once again you try to make a claim support weight it can not bear.
                      Lynching was bad.
                      It is not an explanation for the failure of southern blacks.

                      I would note that possibly as many as 1M people in the south – mostly black died of starvation after the war.

                      And again you are saying that states with black majorities in government were gerry mandered and voter supressed out of power.

                      Do you ever think about the arguments you make ?

                      The Ocoee massacre was in 1920 – 55 years after the civil war.

                      You have a real problem with timelines.

                      The first KKK was immediately after the civil war – it engaged in the tactics you claim and it resulted in a federal backlash that enhanced the power of southern black republicans and it faded.

                      The 2nd KKK was not until 1915 again you have problem with timelines. The first KKK was inconsequential the 2nd had atleast 3M members. But it faded in the 40’s.

                      The 3rd KKK started in the 50’s was successfully fought by the FBI never was very large and even left wing nut groups think there are less KKK members int he US today than Antifa in portland.

                    111. More proving my point – 1925 – not 1960, or 1870. The First and 3rd Klan where not significant. The 2nd was enormous.
                      It was also inextricably linked to progressive democrats – like Woodrow Wilson – of Princeton, not Montgomery.

                    112. One might say, and I am, that we’re now experiencing the Fourth Wave of the Klan. Klan membership is on the increase, the number of chapters have doubled in recent years. There is an article from 2017 that counted the number of Chapters at 40+ with half of them being new. They are currently at 110.
                      But generally speaking, the Klan is no longer the worst white supremacist group. Add in all the other groups that are better organized and funded than the Klan ever was and their unity of purpose. You saw them in Charlottesville and Wshington DC.

                      https://www.mic.com/articles/87585/the-complete-list-of-american-cities-where-the-kkk-is-known-to-operate

                      https://medium.com/black-history-month-365/the-fourth-wave-of-the-ku-klux-klan-2078bd66ef8?sk=84c9d4c462b4e1359f07b688e71c09b7

                    113. According to the ADF and SPL you are incorrect. Klan membership is low and dropping.

                      If the wing nuts that see klansman behind every tree will not support you – who will ?

                      How many public Klan marches do you see each year ?

                      The “Alt Right” groups at Charlotteville managed 500-600 people coming from all over the place.

                      There were Klan rallies in my NORTHERN state with 10,000 people every year when I was a teen.

                      According to NCIS data blacks are almost 50% more likely to commit “hate crimes” than whites.

                      Your knowledge of facts and reality is abysmal.

                      Regardless, the entire concept of “hate crimes” has always been unconstitutional idiocy.

                      Equal justice requires that we punish ACTS for their severity – not their motives and not the status of the victims.

                      But this is an error you constantly make.

                      Real justice requires that poor peritrators are treated as rich ones. that Crimes against the poor are treated the same as those against the rich. That the muder of an affluent white person is as serious as that of a black drug addicted prostitute.

                      We fall short of acheiving that blind justice – but the 14th amendment REQUIRES that we strive for it.

                      And yet the notion of a “hate crime” turns that on its head. It is a blatant claim that the status of a specific type of crime victim makes a crime more heinous. That is the anti-thesis of equal justice.

                    114. Again you cite claims not statistics. What does “known to operate” even mean ?

                      Pretty much everytime someone puts on a Klan hood or hauls out a Confederate flag – it makes the national news on the left
                      And that happens incredibly RARELY.

                      Why Am I to beleive your article that the KKK is “Known” to operate in Harrison AK ?
                      Maybe they do, maybe they don’t – but what is the basis for the claim ?

                      Is this coming from NCIS data ?
                      Is it from data on KKK parade permits ?
                      Is it from the media collecting photos of KKK public appearances ?

                      Or is it just made up ?

                      Data and its nature matters.

                      There are absolutely far more “militias” today than back in the 80’s.
                      They are also radically different than in the 80’s.
                      Today they are made of former and current law enforcement and military.
                      They are made of men, women, whites, blacks.
                      Today they have a positive and offten supportive relationship with law enforcement.
                      During the Antifa-BLM riots of 2020, Militias were used massively by law enforcement in low intensity crowd control operations that were unlikely to become violent – while the police were deployed to high intensity locations that were likely or already violent.

                      Yet, SPL calls most of these groups “white supremecist”

                    115. First I do not care whether PB is white supremecist or homophobic – NEITHER are illegal.

                      But I do care that wingnuts like you constantly get things like this WRONG.

                      The leader of PB is a black hispanc, many of its members are.

                      That groups like SPL think they are white supremecists means that they like you are incapable of even the simplest critical thinking.

                      AGAIN when you misuse words you muddle your own thought and communications.

                      Your own posts make you the poster boy example of this inability to engage in rational thinking,.

                      You are indistibnguishable from the right wing nuts who think shoplifting should be subject to capital punishment,

                      You exagerate – and you beleive your own exagerations and therefore you make small issues into giant ones.

                      I have no idea if PB is homophobic – I do not care much.
                      I only care whether they are white supremecist – because the FACT that you and so many others are WRONG about that reflects on YOUR poor reasoning.

                      If PB was homophobic and white supremecists – I would still be defending the right to speak, protest, etc.

                      But I have grown tired of those on the left like you calling everyone and everything that you disagree with racist, white supremecist, homophobic, ….