I say 60/11th'sOriginally Posted by DarkShadow
I say 60/11th's
Meh, minor detail.
What truly shows the lefts hypocrisy is how they ignore the fact that their leading candidate Her Hilariousness just gave a campaign speech at the Virginia demoratic party's Jefferson/Jackson dinner that honors both men, who were both slave owners. Most of the MSM buried the story...
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...rs_977773.html
First, I didn't know this thread was about Hillary.
Secondly, photoshopping a flag that wasn't there in order to attack her character is a 'minor detail?' You keep showing your true colors, Hawgz, from your avatar to your responses. (BTW, I hope both of you keep both of your avatars for a long time, you know, for the 'cause.')
I preferred when you made inflammatory statements, then said you wouldn't post anymore in fear of someone calling you out on your BS (which you have conveniently incorrectly defined as 'trolling'.) Yet you'll address a false statement made by one of your cronies, which was obviously done to steer the thread off course, by saying it was a 'minor detail' when they called out, and then continue the tired trend by posting a link that has nothing to do with the topic at hand?
Shouldn't you be telling us more about Southern Pride and how the flag doesn't represent a certain mentality that was prevalent with the region and the time?
"Minor detail." So, if I was to say your German heritage is rife with Nazism, could I dismiss the fact that your family was part of the "other Germans" as a "minor detail"?
Hawggy, you've been fudging your pants about maintaining the legacy of the Founding Fathers for some time now. If you choose to extol their virtues, then by your very own standards you must embrace their slave-owning legacy as well. Unless you're being your usual hypocritical twit self.
Last edited by Lady Quagga; 07-08-2015 at 04:59 PM.
Slave history that they don't teach in school.
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 James II sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as slaves to the New World. His 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.
Many people today will avoid calling the Irish slaves what they truly were: Slaves. They’ll come up with terms like “Indentured Servants” to describe what occurred to the Irish. However, in most cases from the 17th and 18th centuries, Irish slaves were nothing more than human cattle.
As an example, the African slave trade was just beginning during this same period. It is well recorded that African slaves, not tainted with the stain of the hated Catholic theology and more expensive to purchase, were often treated far better than their Irish counterparts.
African slaves were very expensive during the late 1600s (50 Sterling). Irish slaves came cheap (no more than 5 Sterling). If a planter whipped or branded or beat an Irish slave to death, it was never a crime. A death was a monetary setback, but far cheaper than killing a more expensive African. The English masters quickly began breeding the Irish women for both their own personal pleasure and for greater profit. Children of slaves were themselves slaves, which increased the size of the master’s free workforce. Even if an Irish woman somehow obtained her freedom, her kids would remain slaves of her master. Thus, Irish moms, even with this new found emancipation, would seldom abandon their kids and would remain in servitude.
In time, the English thought of a better way to use these women (in many cases, girls as young as 12) to increase their market share: The settlers began to breed Irish women and girls with African men to produce slaves with a distinct complexion. These new “mulatto” slaves brought a higher price than Irish livestock and, likewise, enabled the settlers to save money rather than purchase new African slaves. This practice of interbreeding Irish females with African men went on for several decades and was so widespread that, in 1681, legislation was passed “forbidding the practice of mating Irish slave women to African slave men for the purpose of producing slaves for sale.” In short, it was stopped only because it interfered with the profits of a large slave transport company.
England continued to ship tens of thousands of Irish slaves for more than a century. Records state that, after the 1798 Irish Rebellion, thousands of Irish slaves were sold to both America and Australia. There were horrible abuses of both African and Irish captives. One British ship even dumped 1,302 slaves into the Atlantic Ocean so that the crew would have plenty of food to eat.
There is little question that the Irish experienced the horrors of slavery as much (if not more in the 17th Century) as the Africans did. There is, also, very little question that those brown, tanned faces you witness in your travels to the West Indies are very likely a combination of African and Irish ancestry. In 1839, Britain finally decided on it’s own to end it’s participation in Satan’s highway to hell and stopped transporting slaves. While their decision did not stop pirates from doing what they desired, the new law slowly concluded THIS chapter of nightmarish Irish misery.
But, if anyone, black or white, believes that slavery was only an African experience, then they’ve got it completely wrong.
Irish slavery is a subject worth remembering, not erasing from our memories.
But, where are our public (and PRIVATE) schools???? Where are the history books? Why is it so seldom discussed?
Do the memories of hundreds of thousands of Irish victims merit more than a mention from an unknown writer?
Or is their story to be one that their English pirates intended: To (unlike the African book) have the Irish story utterly and completely disappear as if it never happened.
None of the Irish victims ever made it back to their homeland to describe their ordeal. These are the lost slaves; the ones that time and biased history books conveniently forgot.
You can buy the book and read the whole history.
I say threeve.
TL:DR version - "Irish were slaves, so that justifies me being a flaming douchenozzle by displaying a symbol which owed its resurgence to racial bigotry and pro-segregation ideals."
Just going to throw my two cents in the ring, no judgments.
1st cent: The best way I've ever heard it put was like this: "The people who fly the Confederate Flag say they do so because it's a free country, but the flag they fly represents a country that was NOT free."
2nd cent: My opinion is that flying the Confederate flag because of "history and pride" or whatever else people call it would be akin to a German flying the Swastika because of "history and pride." Is it part of the country's history? Yes. Is it something to be proud of? God no.
Well it didn't take long to rewrite history in California. If you don't like something BAN IT. As I said in my original post the flag would not be the last to be removed if it's not PC to some.
SB-539 Public property: names: Confederate States of America.(2015-2016)
Bill Start
Amended IN Assembly July 08, 2015
Amended IN Assembly June 29, 2015
Amended IN Senate April 27, 2015
Amended IN Senate April 14, 2015
Amended IN Senate April 06, 2015
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2015–2016 REGULAR SESSION
Senate Bill No. 539
Introduced by Senator Glazer
(Principal coauthor: Senator Hall)
(Coauthors: Senators Block, Hueso, Huff, Lara, Mendoza, and Wieckowski)
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Alejo, Baker, Chu, Cooper, Gipson, Gonzalez, Jones-Sawyer, Weber, and Williams)
February 26, 2015
An act to amend the heading of Chapter 2.9 (commencing with Section 8195) of Division 1 of Title 2 of, and to add Section 8197 to, the Government Code, relating to public property.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 539, as amended, Glazer. Public property: names: Confederate States of America.
(1) Existing law prohibits the sale or display of the Battle Flag of the Confederacy, as specified, or its image, by the State of California, subject to exceptions serving educational or historical purposes.
This bill would, on and after January 1, 2017, prohibit the use of a name associated with the Confederate States of America to name schools, government buildings, parks, roads, and other state or local property. The bill would define a name associated with the Confederate States of America to include, but not be limited to, include the name of an elected leader or a senior military officer of the Confederacy. The bill would require a name associated with the Confederate States of America used to name state or local property prior to January 1, 2017, to be changed and any sign associated with the name to be removed. By increasing the duties of local officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would also make a statement of legislative findings and a conforming change.
(2) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.
Digest Key
Vote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: YES Local Program: YES
Bill Text
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) The Confederate States of America’s secessionist movement was rooted in the defense of slavery.
(b) Currently, certain ideological groups use the symbols of this movement to demean and offend whole segments of our society while sowing racial divisions.
(c) The use of names of political leaders and senior military officers of the Confederate States of America to name California public schools, buildings, parks, roadways, and other state and local property is antithetical to California’s mission for racial equality.
(d) California is opposed to enshrining the names of those associated with the Confederate States of America, the secessionist movement, or their discriminatory ideals in our public schools, buildings, parks, roadways, and other state and local property.
(e) California celebrates individuals who represent aspirations for social good, such as Frederick Douglass, one of America’s great historical figures.
(f) Frederick Douglass was an African American social reformer, abolitionist, orator, writer, and statesman. After escaping from slavery, he became a leader of the abolitionist movement, gaining note for his dazzling oratory and incisive antislavery writing, including his famous speech about what the 4th of July meant to slaves.
(g) Frederick Douglass became one of the most famous intellectuals of his time, advising presidents and lecturing to thousands on a range of causes, including women’s rights and Irish home rule. Among Douglass’ writings are several autobiographies eloquently describing his experiences in slavery and his life after the Civil War.
SEC. 2. The heading of Chapter 2.9 (commencing with Section 8195) of Division 1 of Title 2 of the Government Code is amended to read:
CHAPTER 2.9. Confederate Symbols The Frederick Douglass Liberty Act
SEC. 3. Section 8197 is added to the Government Code, to read:
8197. (a) On and after January 1, 2017, a name associated with the Confederate States of America shall not be used to name state or local property. If a name associated with the Confederate States of America is used to name state or local public property prior to January 1, 2017, the name shall be changed and any sign associated with the name shall be removed.
(b) For the purpose of this section, “name associated with the Confederate States of America” includes, but is not limited to, includes the name of an elected leader or a senior military officer of the Confederacy.
SEC. 4. If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
I read the article and my head almost exploded with contradictions!!! Others covered the part of the right loving the founding fathers except NOW, when they want to make a point above slave owning!!! I also found it impossible to believe that according to the article, when the Republicans want to stage an event they will use a Lincoln location. I know Lincoln was the first Republican President. However, it you look at a map of where a lot of the Red states are located. The South is almost all RED!!!!! The SOUTH where Lincoln made War on them and now the Republicans make a point to honor Lincoln!!!! This is just too much to try to make any sense of without going crazy!!!!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote