Page 10 of 28 [ 448 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ... 28  Next

Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 59
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,454
Location: Aux Arcs

28 Sep 2012, 10:35 pm

The point I was making is that you are in error saying that Northerner did not own slaves,some did.Not as many as the South since the northern economy was not agriculturally based.The fact that only 1/3 of the South owned slaves.The planters in the mostly coastal and lower south,the mountainous regions did not have a significant number.You have two different cultures within one larger culture.The planters,mostly of English and French descent and the mountain people,mostly German and Scotch- Irish (my people are of the latter and I'm proud to call myself a Hillbilly) .The sites that I submitted validate my statements.And the difference of perspective,to the Scotch-Irish slavery wasn't a issue,the fact that you just told me what I could do or not do is the big issue.I'm talking about the people who started the Whiskey Rebellion,so to the mountain people the conflict was "you have no right to tell me what to do" not "I want to enslave people."
Source on the Scotch- Irish:The Scotch-Irish a Social History by James Leyburn
Professor of Sociology ,Washington and Lee University


But I'm still waiting on an answer on why you think it's o.k. to insult me by calling people
ignorant rednecks?I'm not trying to tell you what to believe and I also have nice enough manners to not insult you,all I'm saying is that the Rebel flag means different things to different people.So answer the question,if I find the term redneck offensive ,than is it politically correct to call people that ? You are dodging the question,own up.



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

28 Sep 2012, 11:00 pm

Misslizard wrote:
The point I was making is that you are in error saying that Northerner did not own slaves,some did.


I made no such statement.

Misslizard wrote:
Not as many as the South since the northern economy was not agriculturally based.


The Northern economy was agriculturally based.

Misslizard wrote:
The fact that only 1/3 of the South owned slaves.


What do you mean by "only?" That is still quite a lot. If you figure that about one-half of the people in the South were slaves: one-third of the people own one-half of the people. That leaves only 1/6 of the people who neither owned someone else nor were owned by someone else. A very small proportion of the people were not involved in slavery.

Misslizard wrote:
,to the Scotch-Irish slavery wasn't a issue,the fact that you just told me what I could do or not do is the big issue

What was it that they wanted to do, but that Lincoln told them not to do?

Misslizard wrote:
,
But I'm still waiting on an answer on why you think it's o.k. to insult me by calling people
ignorant rednecks?


How would calling people (other than you) "ignorant rednecks" be an insult to you?

Misslizard wrote:
,all I'm saying is that the Rebel flag means different things to different people.,


It doesn't mean anything nice. It simply hearkens back to a sordid, long bit of history.

Misslizard wrote:
,if I find the term redneck offensive ,than is it politically correct to call people that ? You are dodging the question,own up.


I am no expert on what constitutes "political correctness." If the term "redneck" ever had any sting, then Jeff Foxworthy certainly blunted it.



Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 59
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,454
Location: Aux Arcs

29 Sep 2012, 12:37 pm

Yes you did post that the north owned no slaves,scroll back up and look at your own post.
Jeff Foxworthy 's use of the term redneck is similar to gangster raps use of the n word,The northern economy was mostly industrial,history books back this up.a some Scotch- Irish believed in succession,some didn't.They also believed in the right to self independence,so they would not have cared what President Lincoln told them to do.It was irrelevant to their lifestyle.
PREJUDICE. as defined in Webster's dictionary
1. a judgement or opinion formed before the facts are known;preconceived idea,favorable or more likely unfavorable2.a judgement held on disregard of facts that contradict it;unreasonable bias,3.suspicion ,intolerance,or irrational hatred of other races,creeds,REGIONS,occupations,etc..
Again,I'll ask you the question,what is the difference in calling someone a ignorant redneck and the n word?there is no difference,both are statements that are designed to belittle a person and make them feel inferior,both are derogatory.
I don't intend to post on this subject again because no one else is posting on the subject and we could go back and forth like this forever.I agree to disagree on the subject. I think you are most likely quite younger than me,and having the last word on a subject is no longer as important to me as it is most likely for you.You are welcome to it.
Y



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

29 Sep 2012, 3:37 pm

Misslizard wrote:
Yes you did post that the north owned no slaves,scroll back up and look at your own post.


If you look at the Census report that I cited above: slavery ended in the northern states by 1840.

Misslizard wrote:
The northern economy was mostly industrial,history books back this up.


Nope. Most people still lived by farming.

Misslizard wrote:
some Scotch- Irish believed in succession,some didn't.


Do you mean "secession?"

Misslizard wrote:
They also believed in the right to self independence,so they would not have cared what President Lincoln told them to do.It was irrelevant to their lifestyle.


So, why bother getting involved in the war?

Misslizard wrote:
Again,I'll ask you the question,what is the difference in calling someone a ignorant redneck and the n word?there is no difference,both are statements that are designed to belittle a person and make them feel inferior,both are derogatory.


Louie Golmert is a laughably ignorant redneck.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxaxr00PyQE[/youtube]

Your "n" word offends because it is used to denigrate an entire race of people whom white people f****d over for centuries. In particular,

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federa ... /case.html

Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, Dred Scott Decision wrote:
In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument.

It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in relation to that unfortunate race which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted. But the public history of every European nation displays it in a manner too plain to be mistaken.

They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic whenever a profit could be made by it. This opinion was at that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race. It was regarded as an axiom in morals as well as in politics which no one thought of disputing or supposed to be open to dispute, and men in every grade and position in society daily and habitually acted upon it in their private pursuits, as well as in matters of public concern, without doubting for a moment the correctness of this opinion.

And in no nation was this opinion more firmly fixed or more uniformly acted upon than by the English Government and English people. They not only seized them on the coast of Africa and sold them or held them in slavery for their own use, but they took them as ordinary articles of merchandise to every country where they could make a profit on them, and were far more extensively engaged in this commerce than any other nation in the world.

The opinion thus entertained and acted upon in England was naturally impressed upon the colonies they founded on this side of the Atlantic. And, accordingly, a negro of the African race was regarded by them as an article of property, and held, and bought and sold as such, in every one of the thirteen colonies which united in the Declaration of Independence and afterwards formed the Constitution of the United States. The slaves were more or less numerous in the different colonies as slave labor was found more or less profitable. But no one seems to have doubted the correctness of the prevailing opinion of the time.


Roger Taney was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, but also an ignorant redneck.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

15 Oct 2012, 1:00 am

ArrantPariah wrote:
Misslizard wrote:
Yes you did post that the north owned no slaves,scroll back up and look at your own post.


If you look at the Census report that I cited above: slavery ended in the northern states by 1840.

Misslizard wrote:
The northern economy was mostly industrial,history books back this up.


Nope. Most people still lived by farming.

Misslizard wrote:
some Scotch- Irish believed in succession,some didn't.


Do you mean "secession?"

Misslizard wrote:
They also believed in the right to self independence,so they would not have cared what President Lincoln told them to do.It was irrelevant to their lifestyle.


So, why bother getting involved in the war?

Misslizard wrote:
Again,I'll ask you the question,what is the difference in calling someone a ignorant redneck and the n word?there is no difference,both are statements that are designed to belittle a person and make them feel inferior,both are derogatory.


Louie Golmert is a laughably ignorant redneck.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxaxr00PyQE[/youtube]

Your "n" word offends because it is used to denigrate an entire race of people whom white people f**** over for centuries. In particular,

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federa ... /case.html

Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, Dred Scott Decision wrote:
In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument.

It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in relation to that unfortunate race which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted. But the public history of every European nation displays it in a manner too plain to be mistaken.

They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic whenever a profit could be made by it. This opinion was at that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race. It was regarded as an axiom in morals as well as in politics which no one thought of disputing or supposed to be open to dispute, and men in every grade and position in society daily and habitually acted upon it in their private pursuits, as well as in matters of public concern, without doubting for a moment the correctness of this opinion.

And in no nation was this opinion more firmly fixed or more uniformly acted upon than by the English Government and English people. They not only seized them on the coast of Africa and sold them or held them in slavery for their own use, but they took them as ordinary articles of merchandise to every country where they could make a profit on them, and were far more extensively engaged in this commerce than any other nation in the world.

The opinion thus entertained and acted upon in England was naturally impressed upon the colonies they founded on this side of the Atlantic. And, accordingly, a negro of the African race was regarded by them as an article of property, and held, and bought and sold as such, in every one of the thirteen colonies which united in the Declaration of Independence and afterwards formed the Constitution of the United States. The slaves were more or less numerous in the different colonies as slave labor was found more or less profitable. But no one seems to have doubted the correctness of the prevailing opinion of the time.


Roger Taney was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, but also an ignorant redneck.


No argument from me about Taney, or Gomert. But for such persons, I prefer the term cracker.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,051
Location: San Jose

15 Oct 2012, 1:55 am

The rebel flag merely represents the confederacy and the south it itself is not racist it is just the majority of the south and confederacy that supported slavery that is racist.


_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList


MagicToenail
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 401

15 Oct 2012, 2:00 am

I'm actually Southern on my mother's side and we disagree about the flag being racist.
She think's it's (usually) just "tradition."
I think glorifying the Civil War is like trying to glorify The Children's Crusade. Horrible motives on the organizer's part with horrible results. (Most of the kiddies died or were sold into slavery)
the lesson from the Civil War shouldn't be "Oh how Brave and Gallant everyone was." It should be "we won't be fooled again."



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

15 Oct 2012, 9:23 am

Is it just possible that a unitary government, the Union with a Central Government of nearly absolute power can NOT usefully govern a nation with the social and economic diversity we possess? Perhaps and disunited states jointed in a quasi stable confederation would be better. Perhaps. We should consider the possibility. In which case what the Confederacy pushed for (aside from unlimited slavery) was just such an uncentralized confederation. Which, in and of itself, is not necessarily racist.

ruveyn



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

15 Oct 2012, 9:56 am

AspieOtaku wrote:
The rebel flag merely represents the confederacy and the south it itself is not racist it is just the majority of the south and confederacy that supported slavery that is racist.


In some states, the majority of the people were slaves. It wasn't that the majority of the people supported slavery: only the majority of people with any power.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

15 Oct 2012, 10:16 am

ArrantPariah wrote:
AspieOtaku wrote:
The rebel flag merely represents the confederacy and the south it itself is not racist it is just the majority of the south and confederacy that supported slavery that is racist.


In some states, the majority of the people were slaves. It wasn't that the majority of the people supported slavery: only the majority of people with any power.


At the time of the Civil War the white populations of BOTH North and South were generally racist in their thinking. However SLAVERY was rejected to a large extent in the North.

ruveyn



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

15 Oct 2012, 10:23 am

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ezPXX1W2mk[/youtube]

About four minutes into this starts an interview with a girl who likes rebel flags.



Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 59
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,454
Location: Aux Arcs

17 Oct 2012, 9:51 pm

Just for the fun of it,those asses wearing suits are not rednecks,real rednecks don't wear suits,not even to church.They may wear one to be buried in but that's about it.I was told not to call people that because it is a class insult.When I was little it meant you were poor,uneducated working class so it was impolite to call someone that as you would be making fun of their poverty and lack of education.



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

19 Oct 2012, 4:56 pm

Misslizard wrote:
Just for the fun of it,those asses wearing suits are not rednecks,real rednecks don't wear suits,not even to church.They may wear one to be buried in but that's about it.I was told not to call people that because it is a class insult.When I was little it meant you were poor,uneducated working class so it was impolite to call someone that as you would be making fun of their poverty and lack of education.


I wouldn't consider someone an "ignorant redneck" merely for enjoying a relaxed, low-cost lifestyle.

But, when they start watching "Fox News", then, yes, "ignorant redneck" applies.



Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 59
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,454
Location: Aux Arcs

19 Oct 2012, 5:33 pm

How can they watch it without a t.v.? :lol: It is funny to think that I know a couple that most people would consider "rednecks" that got "married" 25 years ago and they are both males,(bears of course)amd another man that is married to a lovely black girl.And believe it or not I've known a few black " rednecks". But your not a " redneck" for watching Fox news,the word moron would be better.Saw on a T-shirt,"Hearing crazy voices?Stop listening to Glenn Beck".



ComradeKael
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 21 Aug 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 223

19 Oct 2012, 5:57 pm

Eh. My opinion is this. Quit the "Southern Pride" fetishism. This whole, "North versus South" business that exist now is kind of silly. And just divides people needlessly. I live in the South and I have heard the argument of "The flag isn't racist." from my Mom's Ex-Husband who was a huge redneck (His own words. Not mine, though he was) It's associated with slavery, so when one hoist that flag you come across as... well... a racist. The South lost the war. Get over it.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

19 Oct 2012, 6:25 pm

Misslizard wrote:
How can they watch it without a t.v.? :lol: It is funny to think that I know a couple that most people would consider "rednecks" that got "married" 25 years ago and they are both males,(bears of course)amd another man that is married to a lovely black girl.And believe it or not I've known a few black " rednecks". But your not a " redneck" for watching Fox news,the word moron would be better.Saw on a T-shirt,"Hearing crazy voices?Stop listening to Glenn Beck".


Seriously, where can I get that t-shirt?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer