Page 4 of 5 [ 65 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Is identity politics a bad thing?
Yes... 55%  55%  [ 16 ]
No... 17%  17%  [ 5 ]
Bananas are people too... 28%  28%  [ 8 ]
Total votes : 29

Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 32,018
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

05 Dec 2018, 6:13 pm

Pepe wrote:
Another reason why emphasising the divergent weltanschauung of autistics is relevant, is to inform...

One of the indignities those on the spectrum need to endure from NTs is the phenomenon of "projection"...
Quote:
Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which the human ego defends itself against unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.[1] For example, a person who is habitually rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude. It incorporates blame shifting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection


How many times are we accused of something which is incorrectly perceived in us and is a reflection of the NT mindset?...
Perversely, some autistics accept the denial of "the reality of his own existence to the deluded consciousness of others."

Incidentally, it has become clear that this phenomenon is largely a result of both a dissociated state of mind and a lack of self confidence as a direct result of interpersonal confusion through neurological divergence...

Personally I find it unfortunate that so many autistics adopt an attitude that they must contort themselves into the neurotypical mould and suppress their inherent autistic legitimate diversity...
An attitude of integrity would involve realising/validating autistic/NT neurological differences, "to thine own self be true", and understanding the "deluded consciousness of others" should be factored into "inter-species" interaction...

Which brings me to another pet hate of mind in regards to NT social protocols:
The need to adopt a false social persona to cater to the needs of NT sensitivities...

Some may by necessity kowtow to the demands of NT social belligerence as in a work situation, but to adopt a subservient or "slave" mentality, as Nietzsche would say, is denying the development of self actualisation of our "higher human" attributes, as Nietzsche would also have expressed...

A rather self-evident empowering attitude is to simply recognise our differences, accept the inherent injustice of a reality corrupting social order, but segregate our philosophical position from "the deluded consciousness of others"...

The NT mindset of venerating emotional satiation to the point of corrupting truth/reality is not only an insult to intellectual integrity, it is profoundly disrespectful to the dignity of every individual who succumbs to this NT social indoctrination/intimidation...

It is staggering that so many worship the lesser evolved aspect of our evolutionary development... :roll:
Nuff said... 8)

I thank you...<bow>
<exit stage right>... :mrgreen:


I admit that was pretty hard to follow...but it kind of seems that you are encouraging an us vs. them mentality between aspies and NTs. If that is correct than I don't agree with that attitude.


_________________
Fascism is a disease.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 32,018
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

05 Dec 2018, 6:18 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
His speeches show he was a white supremacist. He probably was aware that slavery had been ended elsewhere and wasn't good for the US's image.


Lincoln was a politician; he told voters what he knew they wanted to hear in order to stay in office. Only by staying in office was he able to end slavery. Very much the same thing LBJ did in regard to civil rights.


LOL right, he just pretended to be a white supremacist so he could end slavery :lol: When the evidence goes against your narrative you just make something silly up.


No, that's the common perception of Lincoln by most legitimate historians. This was at a time when abolitionists were regarded the same way communists were in 1950's McCarthyist America. It would have been political suicide for Lincoln to have expressed his actual feelings about race and slavery, till he could move northern public opinion toward emancipation.
Why is it that you place more value on Lincoln's words rather than his actions?


Historians aren't above pushing conspiracy theories. I'm just going with the non fairy tale version. His treatment of the Natives doesn't go along with the fairy tales.


What you're pushing is a fractured fairy tale. No, Lincoln wasn't perfect. His treatment of Native Americans was bad. But he saved America from breaking to pieces, and he put an end to slavery, a reprehensible evil which was at the root of that potential end of American unity. That alone makes him America's greatest President.


I would not bother to continue this dialouge with John Powell. This isn't the first thread he's posted very simplified or even false trolling comments just to inflame the thread and get people to argue with him. So probably not worth the effort...he's just going to keep repeating that Lincoln was a white supremacist and dismissing any facts you present. But if its entertaining to you, than by all means.


_________________
Fascism is a disease.


AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

05 Dec 2018, 6:38 pm

JohnPowell wrote:

Historians aren't above pushing conspiracy theories. I'm just going with the non fairy tale version. His treatment of the Natives doesn't go along with the fairy tales.

Lincoln was a saint compared to Andrew Jackson, a portrait of whom hangs in the oval office.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 42,317
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

05 Dec 2018, 6:57 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
His speeches show he was a white supremacist. He probably was aware that slavery had been ended elsewhere and wasn't good for the US's image.


Lincoln was a politician; he told voters what he knew they wanted to hear in order to stay in office. Only by staying in office was he able to end slavery. Very much the same thing LBJ did in regard to civil rights.


LOL right, he just pretended to be a white supremacist so he could end slavery :lol: When the evidence goes against your narrative you just make something silly up.


No, that's the common perception of Lincoln by most legitimate historians. This was at a time when abolitionists were regarded the same way communists were in 1950's McCarthyist America. It would have been political suicide for Lincoln to have expressed his actual feelings about race and slavery, till he could move northern public opinion toward emancipation.
Why is it that you place more value on Lincoln's words rather than his actions?


Historians aren't above pushing conspiracy theories. I'm just going with the non fairy tale version. His treatment of the Natives doesn't go along with the fairy tales.


What you're pushing is a fractured fairy tale. No, Lincoln wasn't perfect. His treatment of Native Americans was bad. But he saved America from breaking to pieces, and he put an end to slavery, a reprehensible evil which was at the root of that potential end of American unity. That alone makes him America's greatest President.


I would not bother to continue this dialouge with John Powell. This isn't the first thread he's posted very simplified or even false trolling comments just to inflame the thread and get people to argue with him. So probably not worth the effort...he's just going to keep repeating that Lincoln was a white supremacist and dismissing any facts you present. But if its entertaining to you, than by all means.


I'm just afraid if I don't answer, it will be regarded as an act of submission. :lol:


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 42,317
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

05 Dec 2018, 6:58 pm

AspE wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:

Historians aren't above pushing conspiracy theories. I'm just going with the non fairy tale version. His treatment of the Natives doesn't go along with the fairy tales.

Lincoln was a saint compared to Andrew Jackson, a portrait of whom hangs in the oval office.


Not to mention comparing Lincoln to his Confederate counterpart, Jefferson Davis, who was hardly Lincoln's moral or intellectual equal.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,713
Location: Australia

05 Dec 2018, 9:57 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:

I admit that was pretty hard to follow...but it kind of seems that you are encouraging an us vs. them mentality between aspies and NTs. If that is correct than I don't agree with that attitude.


Yes, I am a complex thinker... 8)

I am not saying: Hate non-autistics...

Here is the distinction I am making:
-Don't be browbeaten into subservience by neurotypicals who lack enlightenment of autism...
(Many think "autism" is a metal illness rather than a syndrome, as an example...)
-Understand that as autistics, we are entitled to self-actualisation like anyone else...
-Understand that generally adopting NT social protocols is just that...
It is not a community system which is inherently sympathetic to those on the spectrum...
Colloquially/to-use-an-idiom: "Take NT social protocols/expectations with a grain of salt..."
-Don't be seduced by the adage: You "must eat shite...a million flies can't be wrong..."
Group-think is a collective delusional state of mind which suppresses individuality and involves/induces a dissociated/hypnotic-state-of-mind and a slave mentality...
If you, an autistic individual, think there is something not right about a generally accepted NT social attitude/opinion, it would be unwise to automatically accept their premise...
Autistic individuals will never and can never inherently think the same as NTs...
Autistics simply have inherently different social/moral/life priorities not by choice, but through a genetic predisposition...
"Read my lips": We are different, not wrong...

As an aside, I marvelled at how the philosophy of Nietzsche ignored the psychological differences of those who were not neurotypical...
While many of his ideas are very relevant in a neurotypical context, there are significant segments which are irrelevant to autistics and other non-NTs...<shrug>

In conclusion:

While wombats and neurotypicals have many similarities, they are axiomatically different and it would be a nonsense to expect a wombat to wear a suit and tie and commute to Wall St...
While I am not equating autistics with wombats, I hope my point is made/taken... :mrgreen:

I am not advocating a closed mind, black and white mentality...
I am simply stating the bleeding obvious and refuse to sacrifice the reality of my own existence to the deluded consciousness of others.

My advocacy is to acknowledge and accept our differences but not allow NT ignorance, intimidation, thuggery and buggery to corrupt our inherent nature, values and potential self-actualisation...

Clear as mud? :wink:


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. "Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions." I didn't say that. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,


"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet." Humour is not meant to be taken seriously, yet many on the left pervert its intent.
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)


THERE WILL BE NO COUP IN AMERICA!


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,713
Location: Australia

05 Dec 2018, 10:07 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
I would not bother to continue this dialouge with John Powell. This isn't the first thread he's posted very simplified or even false trolling comments just to inflame the thread and get people to argue with him. So probably not worth the effort...he's just going to keep repeating that Lincoln was a white supremacist and dismissing any facts you present. But if its entertaining to you, than by all means.


I appreciate your comment...
The OP might be feeling a little annoyed that his/her thread is being hijacked when his/her intention was to nut out some important aspect of his/her life... :mrgreen:


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. "Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions." I didn't say that. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,


"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet." Humour is not meant to be taken seriously, yet many on the left pervert its intent.
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)


THERE WILL BE NO COUP IN AMERICA!


JohnPowell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2016
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,806
Location: Palestine

06 Dec 2018, 5:15 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
His speeches show he was a white supremacist. He probably was aware that slavery had been ended elsewhere and wasn't good for the US's image.


Lincoln was a politician; he told voters what he knew they wanted to hear in order to stay in office. Only by staying in office was he able to end slavery. Very much the same thing LBJ did in regard to civil rights.


LOL right, he just pretended to be a white supremacist so he could end slavery :lol: When the evidence goes against your narrative you just make something silly up.


No, that's the common perception of Lincoln by most legitimate historians. This was at a time when abolitionists were regarded the same way communists were in 1950's McCarthyist America. It would have been political suicide for Lincoln to have expressed his actual feelings about race and slavery, till he could move northern public opinion toward emancipation.
Why is it that you place more value on Lincoln's words rather than his actions?


Historians aren't above pushing conspiracy theories. I'm just going with the non fairy tale version. His treatment of the Natives doesn't go along with the fairy tales.


What you're pushing is a fractured fairy tale. No, Lincoln wasn't perfect. His treatment of Native Americans was bad. But he saved America from breaking to pieces, and he put an end to slavery, a reprehensible evil which was at the root of that potential end of American unity. That alone makes him America's greatest President.


Well No, it's just not been made into a Hollywood fairy tale by a known liar. Bad? Genocide is just bad? Negotiations could have been made with states rather than starting a trade war with them. Lol. Yeah genocide didn't seem to matter though when it came to 'unity'. And then the US just had the Chinese as basic slaves anyway. Slavery of Africans could have been abolished without war.


_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 42,317
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

06 Dec 2018, 6:05 pm

JohnPowell wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
His speeches show he was a white supremacist. He probably was aware that slavery had been ended elsewhere and wasn't good for the US's image.


Lincoln was a politician; he told voters what he knew they wanted to hear in order to stay in office. Only by staying in office was he able to end slavery. Very much the same thing LBJ did in regard to civil rights.


LOL right, he just pretended to be a white supremacist so he could end slavery :lol: When the evidence goes against your narrative you just make something silly up.


No, that's the common perception of Lincoln by most legitimate historians. This was at a time when abolitionists were regarded the same way communists were in 1950's McCarthyist America. It would have been political suicide for Lincoln to have expressed his actual feelings about race and slavery, till he could move northern public opinion toward emancipation.
Why is it that you place more value on Lincoln's words rather than his actions?


Historians aren't above pushing conspiracy theories. I'm just going with the non fairy tale version. His treatment of the Natives doesn't go along with the fairy tales.


What you're pushing is a fractured fairy tale. No, Lincoln wasn't perfect. His treatment of Native Americans was bad. But he saved America from breaking to pieces, and he put an end to slavery, a reprehensible evil which was at the root of that potential end of American unity. That alone makes him America's greatest President.


Well No, it's just not been made into a Hollywood fairy tale by a known liar. Bad? Genocide is just bad? Negotiations could have been made with states rather than starting a trade war with them. Lol. Yeah genocide didn't seem to matter though when it came to 'unity'. And then the US just had the Chinese as basic slaves anyway. Slavery of Africans could have been abolished without war.


If you mean Spielberg, he didn't write the history on Lincoln, he based his movie on the work of legitimate historians.
Lincoln was not solely responsible for the genocide of Native Americans.
Chinese labor were not slaves by any definition. Yes, they suffered under racily draconian laws and violence here in America, then were denied the right to stay in the country due to the Chinese Exclusion Act. That said, they were still paid a wage for their work, while slaves were forced to perform labor. And despite blatantly racist law, plenty of Chinese remained in America and became Americans.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


JohnPowell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2016
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,806
Location: Palestine

07 Dec 2018, 5:12 pm

He doesn't do facts.
I know he wasn't but he played a major part.
Still treated like dirt. Well Africans stayed too and became Americans.


_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 42,317
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

07 Dec 2018, 6:10 pm

JohnPowell wrote:
He doesn't do facts.
I know he wasn't but he played a major part.
Still treated like dirt. Well Africans stayed too and became Americans.


Regardless if Spielberg does facts or not, his sources were correct.
Of course the Chinese were treated like dirt, I never said they weren't.
African slaves became Americans - - thanks to Lincoln.
It was impossible to free the slaves peacefully, because the slave owning states had chosen to secede and fired the first shot, rather than the north being the aggressors. Also, in the Confederate constitution, it was an illegal act to end slavery, meaning that the Confederacy would have continued as a backward, slave owning society. Worse, the Confederacy, after winning independence from the United States, had had imperialistic ambitions of invading and colonizing Latin America, and setting up plantations run on slave labor there. A vast, slave owning civilization would have existed late in the history of the western hemisphere.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


JohnPowell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2016
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,806
Location: Palestine

08 Dec 2018, 11:12 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
He doesn't do facts.
I know he wasn't but he played a major part.
Still treated like dirt. Well Africans stayed too and became Americans.


Regardless if Spielberg does facts or not, his sources were correct.
Of course the Chinese were treated like dirt, I never said they weren't.
African slaves became Americans - - thanks to Lincoln.
It was impossible to free the slaves peacefully, because the slave owning states had chosen to secede and fired the first shot, rather than the north being the aggressors. Also, in the Confederate constitution, it was an illegal act to end slavery, meaning that the Confederacy would have continued as a backward, slave owning society. Worse, the Confederacy, after winning independence from the United States, had had imperialistic ambitions of invading and colonizing Latin America, and setting up plantations run on slave labor there. A vast, slave owning civilization would have existed late in the history of the western hemisphere.


If he'd had his way they'd have been deported. You're starting the story in the middle again. The Union started it via a trade war. Lol yeah cause the US before and after has/had never colonized. Na, that's just gibberish.


_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 42,317
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

08 Dec 2018, 4:37 pm

JohnPowell wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
He doesn't do facts.
I know he wasn't but he played a major part.
Still treated like dirt. Well Africans stayed too and became Americans.


Regardless if Spielberg does facts or not, his sources were correct.
Of course the Chinese were treated like dirt, I never said they weren't.
African slaves became Americans - - thanks to Lincoln.
It was impossible to free the slaves peacefully, because the slave owning states had chosen to secede and fired the first shot, rather than the north being the aggressors. Also, in the Confederate constitution, it was an illegal act to end slavery, meaning that the Confederacy would have continued as a backward, slave owning society. Worse, the Confederacy, after winning independence from the United States, had had imperialistic ambitions of invading and colonizing Latin America, and setting up plantations run on slave labor there. A vast, slave owning civilization would have existed late in the history of the western hemisphere.


If he'd had his way they'd have been deported. You're starting the story in the middle again. The Union started it via a trade war. Lol yeah cause the US before and after has/had never colonized. Na, that's just gibberish.


Again, Lincoln in the final speech of his life spoke of giving freed blacks full citizenship. He came to realize after talking to blacks in the north that they had established lives in America, and that they just couldn't be uprooted.
I thought you and Trump approved of trade wars. :P
I will remind you that your country has been the biggest colonizer on earth.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


AnonymousAnonymous
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 58,570
Location: Portland, Oregon

08 Dec 2018, 8:10 pm

JohnPowell wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
He doesn't do facts.
I know he wasn't but he played a major part.
Still treated like dirt. Well Africans stayed too and became Americans.


Regardless if Spielberg does facts or not, his sources were correct.
Of course the Chinese were treated like dirt, I never said they weren't.
African slaves became Americans - - thanks to Lincoln.
It was impossible to free the slaves peacefully, because the slave owning states had chosen to secede and fired the first shot, rather than the north being the aggressors. Also, in the Confederate constitution, it was an illegal act to end slavery, meaning that the Confederacy would have continued as a backward, slave owning society. Worse, the Confederacy, after winning independence from the United States, had had imperialistic ambitions of invading and colonizing Latin America, and setting up plantations run on slave labor there. A vast, slave owning civilization would have existed late in the history of the western hemisphere.


If he'd had his way they'd have been deported. You're starting the story in the middle again. The Union started it via a trade war. Lol yeah cause the US before and after has/had never colonized. Na, that's just gibberish.


And what is your logic?


_________________
Silly NTs, I have Aspergers, and having Aspergers is gr-r-reat!


JohnPowell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2016
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,806
Location: Palestine

10 Dec 2018, 12:01 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
He doesn't do facts.
I know he wasn't but he played a major part.
Still treated like dirt. Well Africans stayed too and became Americans.


Regardless if Spielberg does facts or not, his sources were correct.
Of course the Chinese were treated like dirt, I never said they weren't.
African slaves became Americans - - thanks to Lincoln.
It was impossible to free the slaves peacefully, because the slave owning states had chosen to secede and fired the first shot, rather than the north being the aggressors. Also, in the Confederate constitution, it was an illegal act to end slavery, meaning that the Confederacy would have continued as a backward, slave owning society. Worse, the Confederacy, after winning independence from the United States, had had imperialistic ambitions of invading and colonizing Latin America, and setting up plantations run on slave labor there. A vast, slave owning civilization would have existed late in the history of the western hemisphere.


If he'd had his way they'd have been deported. You're starting the story in the middle again. The Union started it via a trade war. Lol yeah cause the US before and after has/had never colonized. Na, that's just gibberish.


Again, Lincoln in the final speech of his life spoke of giving freed blacks full citizenship. He came to realize after talking to blacks in the north that they had established lives in America, and that they just couldn't be uprooted.
I thought you and Trump approved of trade wars. :P
I will remind you that your country has been the biggest colonizer on earth.


Maybe he did take that stance, but it had nothing to do with caring about black people.
When I ever spoke on favour of trade wars?
I haven't denied that.


_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 42,317
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

10 Dec 2018, 4:26 pm

JohnPowell wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
He doesn't do facts.
I know he wasn't but he played a major part.
Still treated like dirt. Well Africans stayed too and became Americans.


Regardless if Spielberg does facts or not, his sources were correct.
Of course the Chinese were treated like dirt, I never said they weren't.
African slaves became Americans - - thanks to Lincoln.
It was impossible to free the slaves peacefully, because the slave owning states had chosen to secede and fired the first shot, rather than the north being the aggressors. Also, in the Confederate constitution, it was an illegal act to end slavery, meaning that the Confederacy would have continued as a backward, slave owning society. Worse, the Confederacy, after winning independence from the United States, had had imperialistic ambitions of invading and colonizing Latin America, and setting up plantations run on slave labor there. A vast, slave owning civilization would have existed late in the history of the western hemisphere.


If he'd had his way they'd have been deported. You're starting the story in the middle again. The Union started it via a trade war. Lol yeah cause the US before and after has/had never colonized. Na, that's just gibberish.


Again, Lincoln in the final speech of his life spoke of giving freed blacks full citizenship. He came to realize after talking to blacks in the north that they had established lives in America, and that they just couldn't be uprooted.
I thought you and Trump approved of trade wars. :P
I will remind you that your country has been the biggest colonizer on earth.


Maybe he did take that stance, but it had nothing to do with caring about black people.
When I ever spoke on favour of trade wars?
I haven't denied that.


How do you know he didn't care about blacks? The things he wrote, and his personal relationships with black abolitionists like Frederick Douglass says he did.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer