At least 50 dead in Florida nightclub terrorist attack.

Islamists??? :confused:
Presumably he is referring to Muslims taking part in the slave trade. One of the reasons King Leopold II got international approval for the Congo Free State was that -on paper at least- one of its major goals was the elimination of Arab slave traders operating out of Zanzibar to take slaves from Africa.
Given what happened in the Congo Free State, you may draw your own interpretations.


Also, Florida. Why does everything about Florida eventually have to end up talking about that time some people started a war for their right to hold human beings as property?
It is almost like Godwin's Law less interesting brother.

Senthro said:
For that matter, the various ethnicities in the Islamic world didn't move on either. Plenty of the nastier inter-ethnic incidents in recent times have been grievances between rich historically powerful tribes vs. those who weren't and want what they perceive as a fairer share of resources. Ethnic conflict, whether waged through open war or slave taking has a nasty habit of persisting down the generations.
It doesn't require pushing history that far to turn most of European history into "ethnic conflicts" which became acceptable because some guy with a big army declared he was doing it for reasons of state rather than the fact those dirty foreigners took some land (*cough* Alsace-Lorraine, Gdansk *cough*) and he was looking to get back at them.
 
civman110 said:
If having an economy largely, or partially based on slavery is your standard for something being "founded on slavery" then you can add pretty much every country that's ever existed to that list.

That is not exactly what I mean in the case of the Confederacy, which was founded on slavery in a literal sense - its (ubiquitously slaveholding) leaders seceded from the US with the stated goal of preserving slavery, because an antislavery party won a national election.

In a wider, more metaphorical sense I would say classical Rome and Greece were "founded on slavery" in that slavery was the dominant form of labor organization. That certainly applies to the US though slavery became less dominant as time went on. Other civilizations largely do not have slavery (that is, chattel slavery) playing such an important role.

civman110 said:
Why are you not mentioning Arab supremacy, or Asian supremacy, or Black supremacy? They all had slaves during the same time period.

You act as if slavery was something unique to the south and whites during that time and that they had slaves as some sort of hobby.

I certainly am not acting that way. The reason I don't mention these figments of your imagination is that they don't exist. Contemporary blacks, Asians, and Arabs had slavery (though not to the extent that it existed in the US south), but the key difference is that it wasn't based on and upheld by a racial caste system.
 
Whites did not move on and forget about it. Both of my parents were born prior to the civil rights act. Hell, if abradleys self reported age of 80+ is accurate then he was an adult prior to that. This particular racism started in history but it sure ain't stayed there. Yet.

For that matter, the various ethnicities in the Islamic world didn't move on either. Plenty of the nastier inter-ethnic incidents in recent times have been grievances between rich historically powerful tribes vs. those who weren't and want what they perceive as a fairer share of resources. Ethnic conflict, whether waged through open war or slave taking has a nasty habit of persisting down the generations.

Indeed, some whites are still trying to win the War of Northern Aggression on the internet by arguing really hard.

Then every race of people is guilty for slavery and racism. If that's going to be your standard. So either stop singling out whites and the south, or start hen pecking everybody because according to you everyone is guilty.

Now you seem to want to hen peck, so that begs the question what about Eastern European Slavs? They had nothing to do with the slave trade. Do we hen peck them for white privilege? What about the Irish, some of them were brought to North America as slaves; do they have white privilege? They also weren't considered white until after WWII, so do we only hold them responsible for what happened post-WWII, or is white privilege retro-active? Do we hen peck blacks for enslaving other blacks and selling them to whites and Arabs? Is there such a thing as Arab privilege? What about black privilege and is that different than white privilege because they enslaved other blacks? People ban the Confederate flag because they had slaves, but so did almost every country. Do we all have get new flags now?

When does all of this get to be stupid?
 
I certainly am not acting that way. The reason I don't mention these figments of your imagination is that they don't exist. Contemporary blacks, Asians, and Arabs had slavery (though not to the extent that it existed in the US south), but the key difference is that it wasn't based on and upheld by a racial caste system.

LOL!!!! You need a history lesson.

Slavery in the south was nothing compared to those groups, but since that's what you believe I see why you treat whites and the south as if slavery was unique to them.
 
It is a white supremacist falsehood that Irish people were brought to North America as slaves.

The rest of your post is hysterical racist nonsense.
 
It is a white supremacist falsehood that Irish people were brought to North America as slaves.

The rest of your post is hysterical racist nonsense.

It's true and Arab Barbary Pirates also enslaved Irish people up until the late 1800's. Read a book. The media has ruined your mind with racial hen pecking and identity politics.
 
It is a white supremacist falsehood that Irish people were brought to North America as slaves.

The rest of your post is hysterical racist nonsense.
Before you make statement like that do some research:
The Irish Slave Trade – The Forgotten “White” Slaves

The Slaves That Time Forgot


By John Martin
Global Research, March 17, 2015
Oped News and Global Research 14 April 2008
Region: Europe

The Irish Slave Trade – The Forgotten “White” Slaves
Originally published in 2008:

Editor’s Note. A couple of errors in the article were corrected pertaining to the 1625 Proclamation under James I.

Global Research will shortly be publishing several articles on the the issue of the Irish Slave Trade.

They came as slaves; vast human cargo transported on tall British ships bound for the Americas. They were shipped by the hundreds of thousands and included men, women, and even the youngest of children.

Whenever they rebelled or even disobeyed an order, they were punished in the harshest ways. Slave owners would hang their human property by their hands and set their hands or feet on fire as one form of punishment. They were burned alive and had their heads placed on pikes in the marketplace as a warning to other captives.

We don’t really need to go through all of the gory details, do we? We know all too well the atrocities of the African slave trade.

But, are we talking about African slavery? King James II and Charles I also led a continued effort to enslave the Irish. Britain’s famed Oliver Cromwell furthered this practice of dehumanizing one’s next door neighbor.

The Irish slave trade began when 30,000 Irish prisoners were sold as slaves to the New World. The King James I Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.

Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white.

From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade. Families were ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish dads to take their wives and children with them across the Atlantic. This led to a helpless population of homeless women and children. Britain’s solution was to auction them off as well.

During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers.
(Continued)
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-irish-slave-trade-the-forgotten-white-slaves/31076
We've all had our time in the barrel, get over it.
 
We know that many patrons claim to have seen him there on numerous occasions. Fox News carried a story opinion that the killing were in revenge for having been sexually used and abandoned by gay men.
i don't believe that this is the case. i think excluding homophobia entirely from the equation is laughably ignorant (you should really just excuse yourself from the conversation entirely if you're willing to believe that), but numerous other factors probably put him over the threshold between "homophobe" and "mass shooter". i highly doubt he was just angry about being a one night stand

i think lexicus put it better on another page, by saying that while he was homophobic he also had numerous screws loose
 

I'm sorry if I was being a bit brash. If you didn't know the historical context of slavery and how wide spread and common it really was that's not your fault. People have been intentionally told a very narrow version of events that really doesn't reflect reality.

I just get really frustrated trying to get through to people about this kind of stuff, especially when I am constantly accused of being a racist for stating objective facts that aren't part of the mainstream narrative.

I will say though, if you are going to make big accusations of white supremacy and institutionalized racism you should really know what you're talking about.
 
I'm sorry if I was being a bit brash. If you didn't know the historical context of slavery and how wide spread and common it really was that's not your fault. People have been intentionally told a very narrow version of events that really doesn't reflect reality.

I just get really frustrated trying to get through to people about this kind of stuff, especially when I am constantly accused of being a racist for stating objective facts that aren't part of the mainstream narrative.

I will say though, if you are going to make big accusations of white supremacy and institutionalized racism you should really know what you're talking about.

"Systemic racism doesn't exist and never existed in the US because a thing happened in a different part of the planet." - A white supremacist
 
i don't believe that this is the case. i think excluding homophobia entirely from the equation is laughably ignorant (you should really just excuse yourself from the conversation entirely if you're willing to believe that),

Maybe ABC News should also bow out.

The man who killed 49 people at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Omar Mateen, was a regular patron of gay clubs in Florida for years, club employees, acquaintances and former classmates told ABC News.

“Sometimes he would be there for a few weeks at a time and maybe on the weekends, and then you wouldn’t see him for a little while, then you’d see him again, and that’s the way it kind of went,” said 71-year-old James Van Horn, who has frequented Pulse.

Two people who worked at the club said they also recognized Mateen as a customer. One of them, head of security Estella Peterkin, said she had to kick him out multiple times for bad behavior.

The revelations about Mateen come as the FBI delves into his life, capitalizing on two major developments: the successful exploitation of his cellphone and the cooperation of his wife, 30-year-old Noor Mateen. A senior counterterrorism official told ABC News that Noor Mateen is providing key information to investigators.

FBI Director James Comey said Monday, “We are going through the killer’s life, as I said, especially his electronics, to understand as much as we can about his path and whether there were anyone else involved either in directing him or in assisting him.”

FBI agents are hearing accounts of Omar Mateen’s presence at gay clubs going back years.

A former classmate at a police academy — who requested he not be identified — told ABC News that Mateen hung out with him and others, frequenting Florida gay bars while they were at the Indian River State College training program, as far back as 2006.

One night, he said, Mateen asked him if he was gay. “You would be my kind of guy,” the classmate said Mateen told him.

Employees and patrons at Pulse told ABC News that Mateen went to the bar on a regular basis.

Chris Callen, a performer at the club, said Mateen “didn’t seem homophobic to me.”

“He seemed really warm,” Callen said. “I don’t get the terrorist part of it.”

“He would try to meet people and try to bump up against people and put his arm around and maybe try to dance with them or something, because that’s what everybody tries to do,” Van Horn said.

Another Florida man, Kevin West, told ABC News’ Houston affiliate, KTRK, that he was contacted by Mateen on a gay dating app.

“When he first contacted me, he was asking ... what clubs are popping and things of that sort and what are good places to go,” West said.

The purported behavior appears severely at odds with how Mateen said he felt about gay people, according to his ex-wife, Sitora Yusufiy, who was married to Mateen briefly in 2009.

“I started noticing in his emotional instability. He would express his anger towards [a] certain culture, homosexuality, because in ... Islamic culture, it is really not tolerated, homosexuality, and I know at the time he was trying to get his life straight and follow his faith. I guess that created some confusion between that, and there was definitely moments that he would express his intolerance to homosexuals,” she said Monday.

Today Yusufiy said Mateen had told her that he used to go out to night clubs “a lot,” but never said they were gay clubs.

“Do I think he was gay?... At this point, I think he might have been,” she said. “You know, knowing somebody and living with them every day... I can honestly say I had no clue. But from everything that has occurred and connecting the pieces to what I knew myself from my time and experience, I would not be surprised.”

Cases in which repressed homosexuality has been linked to extremism have been an interest for counterterrorism officials. In 2011 an analysis of homegrown extremists by the National Counterterrorism Center and obtained by ABC News included a secret report from the CIA that said that for some young men who converted to Islam and later became radicals, the strict religious structure offered “a hope of banishing their impulses and fantasies that they did not view as acceptable.”

Jerrold Post, formerly a longtime psychologist with the CIA, told ABC News today that over his career, he has seen the psychodynamic of individuals “striking out against a forbidden part of oneself” but that at this point, it’s too early to leap to conclusions about Mateen’s motives.

Mateen was born in New York to Afghan parents in 1986 and has been described by his ex-wife and father as devout in his Muslim faith but not radical. He regularly attended a local mosque, his family said, and twice traveled to Saudi Arabia for pilgrimages to the Islamic holy city of Mecca.

During the assault Sunday, officials said he called 911 and pledged his allegiance to ISIS, the Syrian-based Islamic terrorist group. But terrorism experts said evidence has yet to surface showing any substantive link to the group, and Comey said it does not appear that the attack was directed from abroad. The FBI investigated Mateen in 2013 for purportedly inflammatory claims he made about being linked to extremists, but after 10 months of surveillance and two interviews with him, agents determined that he was not a threat and closed the case.

“Is this an expression of radical Islam? Or does it have to do with the conflicted feelings about homosexuality?” said Post, now a professor of psychology at the Elliot School of International Affairs at George Washington University. “That’s an unnecessary separation. One can be, on the one hand, fighting against the perhaps inner attraction of homosexuality and at the same time honoring the act by saying he was a radical Islamist. It doesn’t have to be one or the other. But at this point, it’s all speculation.”
 
"Systemic racism doesn't exist and never existed in the US because a thing happened in a different part of the planet." - A white supremacist

Actually it happened in the exact same part of the planet, but don't let the facts get in the way of your opinions.

You also don't have the first clue as to what a white supremacist is, but something tells me you're going to see a whole lot of them in the very near future. Take notes. You're going to learn a lot about how wild your accusations of 'white supremacy" have been when you finally get to meet the real deal.
 
So, by your standard both the north and south were founded on slavery (along with everything else). OK, you've established that every group of people is pretty much guilty of slavery at some point and everything was founded on slavery. So what? Why single out the south and whites?
.

something to do with having founded their statehood with the declaration of independence
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
its not hard to understand and its not backwards looking history by not taking into account the thoughts of the time
if you didn't have that it would be harder to single the South and whites out, tho not impossible as they are hoisted by their own petard to use a saying of their times
 
something to do with having founded their statehood with the declaration of independenceits not hard to understand and its not backwards looking history by not taking into account the thoughts of the time
if you didn't have that it would be harder to single the South and whites out, tho not impossible as they are hoisted by their own petard to use a saying of their times
We paid for that with a bloody civil war.

Following the war the Repubs set up a free open society but the Dems got control and Jim Crow became the law in the South.

But let's assume the US didn't form, instead the North formed a Union and the Slavery South had formed another.

Would slavery have every ended in the south? Would it still be with us today?
 
We paid for that with a bloody civil war.

Following the war the Repubs set up a free open society but the Dems got control and Jim Crow became the law in the South.

But let's assume the US didn't form, instead the North formed a Union and the Slavery South had formed another.

Would slavery have every ended in the south? Would it still be with us today?

an alternate history could be anything so it dose not really mean much to speculate, fun yes but still pointless
the only real difference today would be where to build the wall and if it was to keep people out or in...
 
We paid for that with a bloody civil war.

Following the war the Repubs set up a free open society but the Dems got control and Jim Crow became the law in the South.

But let's assume the US didn't form, instead the North formed a Union and the Slavery South had formed another.

Would slavery have every ended in the south? Would it still be with us today?

There's an alternative-reality novel out called Underground Airlines on a similar subject, what would have happened with no civil war, and if we still had slavery in some states today.
 
an alternate history could be anything so it dose not really mean much to speculate, fun yes but still pointless
the only real difference today would be where to build the wall and if it was to keep people out or in...
You blamed us for forming a union with slavery, what was the alternative?
 
There's an alternative-reality novel out called Underground Airlines on a similar subject, what would have happened with no civil war, and if we still had slavery in some states today.
Yes, there have been many what if's on the 'No Union' including one that speculated the south expanded into the Caribbean.
 
Yes, there have been many what if's on the 'No Union' including one that speculated the south expanded into the Caribbean.

After Andrew Jackson took it upon himself to conquer Florida, he had planned to invade Cuba. But he got sick, went home, became President, did away with the Bank of the United States, and ended up on the $20 bill.
 
Top Bottom