RiverDog wrote:Europeans aren't the only ethnic group to have abducted slaves. It was common amongst Native American tribes as late as the early 1800's. Sacajawea was a slave that had been abducted by a rival tribe. Slaves were used by Egyptians to build the pyramids. And Europeans aren't the only society that committed atrocities against their fellow man. The Japanese committed horrendous atrocities during the Rape of Nanking. More recently, the Khmer Rouge led by Pol Pot were responsible for a genocide that killed nearly 3 million Cambodians. In the 1990's, the Rwanda genocide killed between .5 and 1.0 million Rwandans. Atrocities have been committed by all races and almost societies at one point or another. It's an ugly part of our past, even our recent past. It is not the exclusive domain of Europeans or those of us that are of European descent.
I'm not exactly sure what your point is. You have to understand that Europeans, and Americans of European descent, are not the root of all evil. It's pretty well distributed.
Aseahawkfan wrote:My point is that in America, men of European ancestry are the villains to African folk and likely Native Americans. Not in the overall world, but in America. So don't confuse this as saying all white men evil, which is the usual translation as a white/European man tries to allay his guilt for this terrible behavior in America because they can't admit to it.
Even now you are showing an unwillingness to accept that your ancestors, people who look like you, were buying and selling African folk in America for 400 years. Stop trying to say. "well it's the world." No one is saying people of European ancestry are the only evil people, just that in America people of European ancestry are the Nazis to people of African descent. I'll repeat that again: strictly in America, not in the overall world though Europeans did screw Africans pretty badly in their nations.
Aseahawkfan wrote:Don't even try to pretend that Native Americans were even close to as involved in the slave trade or the subjugation of the African man in America as men of European ancestry.
Aseahawkfan wrote:What is my point? How do you expect a group of people of African descent to love a nation whose Founders were so evil to them? That is my point. If you were looking at history and your ancestors were treated as Africans were treated in America, would you love that nation or those people? Ask yourself that question and answer it honestly.
Aseahawkfan wrote:Look at your own daughter, imagine her being sold as a baby while you worked in the fields as a man being told you were an animal and I'm sorry, I needed the money so I sold your daughter. Get back to work or I'll have to call in the whip. Then segregation when you are told your separate but equal while experiencing the world as anything but equal. And even in the modern day having double the unemployment rate, minimal contact with white people to build the associations that help you get job, and the general feeling of being this underclass in America due to the historical teachings with an entire repertoire of insulting words to describe you. It's been a bad time. I think white/European ancestry men should wake up to why this occurred instead of denying it and fix it. So this country can be really free and live up to that Constitution that their ancestors fought for. It is not lost yet and the ability to make it a reality for all is right there in front of all of us.
RiverDog wrote:What is it that I have said that gives you the impression that I am personally unwilling to accept that my ancestors were buying and selling African folk? Do you even know where my ancestors came from, let alone what they did for a living? Heck, even I know very little about my ancestry. I'm not into genealogy. About the only thing specifically I know about generations prior to my grandparents is that my paternal great grandfather emigrated from England during the American Civil War and tried to enlist in the Union army but was denied due to poor eyesight. That doesn't sound like a slave trader to me.
Of course, they weren't. They weren't as organized, existing in small groups or 'tribes', many of whom were nomadic, mostly agrarian. They didn't even have horses prior to the arrival of Europeans. My point was that Native Americans were not morally as pure as the wind driven snow as some might have us think.
The majority of Americans of all ethnic groups know very little about American history, particularly of our founding fathers and the formation of our nation. IMO that's one of the problems with society today, that so many people are incredibly naïve about history.
None of us, black or white, can identify with some of the types of tragedies that you're describing. As far as the current day inequities, I can understand why many blacks are upset. I don't deny it. I've had black friends since I was a teenager, and remain in touch with several of them today.
You're making a lot of assumptions about me and my family. You really know very little about me. Quit making this personal.
Aseahawkfan wrote:American men of African ancestry still have a bad sense of the flag. It's not as bad as the Confederate Flag, but history shows clearly that come in to America was not the moving to a better life for men of African descent for the vast majority of our history.
Aseahawkfan wrote:The appreciation of Jefferson and Washington are mainly a feeling only felt by European ancestry men who know that history.
RiverDog wrote:I wouldn't make assumptions or generalizations about men of African ancestry anymore than I wouldn't make them about Europeans. It's called prejudice, pre-judging or expressing a biased opinion about someone based on a characteristic of theirs. I have a black friend, a high school classmate and Facebook friend, that spent 20 years in the Navy. He's normally very expressive but hasn't ventured an opinion about the Floyd murder.
I think that once they framed the kneeling issue as not disrespecting the flag, armed services members, or anyone else, I'm good with it, especially if they're still facing it and remain respectful. It's a better gesture than Michael Bennett sitting on his can or raising a clenched fist. Heck, I might even kneel with them just to show that I'm at least trying to understand, that I'm not their enemy.
So what about Lincoln? Do they realize that Lincoln's top priority was not abolishing slavery, it was keeping the union together? That he did not go to war with the south and would have lived with slavery if the south would come back into the union? Would it change what they think about Lincoln if they learned more about him?
I honestly don't think very many Americans, white, black, Hispanic, Asian, Native Americans, et al have an appreciation for history. If 30% of young Americans can't find the Pacific Ocean on a map I doubt that many of them realize anything about Washington and Jefferson except that they're on our currency.
Aseahawkfan wrote:Lincoln's House Divided Speech:
"A house divided against itself, cannot stand."
I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free.
I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided.
It will become all one thing or all the other.
Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become lawful in all the States, old as well as new — North as well as South.[6]:
Never believe that lie that Lincoln was not elected to abolish slavery. He was sent to bring the House together free of slavery. That is what he did. One of the most successful presidents in our history dealing with one of the most morally deplorable issues in our history. Lincoln will be elevated as times passes while other presidents shrink.
RiverDog wrote:Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.
Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.
I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.
Yours,
A. Lincoln.
http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lin ... reeley.htm
It is very apparent that Lincoln's primary objective was to save the Union. Lincoln did not go to war over slavery, the issue was forced upon him. Indeed, most of the states of the Confederacy had already seceded before Lincoln even took office. South Carolina was the first, on December 20th 1860, followed in January by MS, FL, AL, GA, and LA. TX seceded Feb. 1st, 1861. Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4th. Less than 6 weeks later, the confederates fired on Fort Sumter, the event commonly credited with the beginning of the war.
I do not mean this to in any way discount the efforts of Lincoln to abolish slavery. Indeed, IMO Lincoln is our greatest President due primarily to his moral conviction opposing slavery. But he was still a politician and not quite the crusader that we make him out to be and likely would have compromised to end the war w/o abolishing slavery if such an agreement had ever been on the table.
Aseahawkfan wrote:Do you know who Horace Greeley was?
Aseahawkfan wrote:This letter was an important political maneuver to garner Northern support for his war efforts.
Aseahawkfan wrote:This is one letter and written with a political purpose. I suggest you read that letter as many times as it takes for you to understand it. It's a beautifully written letter and shows how intelligent Lincoln was with how he did things. That quote is often cited, yet taken out of the context of the entire letter which I am glad you posted. The theory of the quote does not align with his actions or the reason he was elected. And it was a public letter written to a newspaper publisher meant to assure those supporting his war efforts that he was fighting for the continuation of the union, which was of course one of his goals. He was most assuredly fighting to end slavery and prevent slavery from continuing due to secession, but would not have found the support he had if he stated it in a clear manner. So no, I do not agree that the above letter is proof that he prosecuted the Civil War for the sole reason of preserving The Union, nor do his actions and political maneuvers support that.
Aseahawkfan wrote:Suffice it to say, that letter and quote does not somehow controvert all the other evidence clearly showing his primary purpose and goal was the end of slavery. It just so happened that the South seceded changing the priority from the destruction of slavery to first re-establishing the Union so he could end slavery in the entire land. You cannot exactly end slavery if half the nation is divided, can you?
It is very apparent that Lincoln's primary objective was to save the Union. Lincoln did not go to war over slavery, the issue was forced upon him. Indeed, most of the states of the Confederacy had already seceded before Lincoln even took office. South Carolina was the first, on December 20th 1860, followed in January by MS, FL, AL, GA, and LA. TX seceded Feb. 1st, 1861. Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4th. Less than 6 weeks later, the confederates fired on Fort Sumter, the event commonly credited with the beginning of the war.
RiverDog wrote:There's other evidence that Lincoln's top priority during the Civil War was preserving the union. I can't give you any quotes, but I've read several books and watched a number of documentaries on the Civil War, the best of which was done by Ken Burns.
I pretty much agree with your appraisal of Lincoln. As I stated, he is IMO our greatest President.
Aseahawkfan wrote:There is more evidence indicating that saving The Union became the priority because The South seceded because he was going to abolish slavery.
Aseahawkfan wrote:I have also read on Lincoln and The Civil War. It's pretty clear secession and the need for The Civil War would have never occurred were Lincoln not such an avowed abolitionist who had he votes and power to abolish it. For some historians and students of The Civil War come to the false conclusion that Lincoln somehow would have compromised is extreme speculation at best. The South certainly did not think Lincoln would compromise or they wouldn't have seceded. It is very clear The South knew Lincoln was going to abolish slavery with very little chance of compromise, thus the reason the seceded in the to begin with.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest