Should slave owners be removed from the dollar bill?

Mexica wrote:

Now, other than a possible explanation on what you meant when you said I got personal, I see no reason for me to continue on exchanging ideas on this topic with you.

According to my understanding of the English language people can be arrogant and bigoted, positions can not be. But maybe I am wrong.

snood wrote:

Quote:

Blacks love to play victim.

What is the difference between this statement and "Whites are greedy and insensitive pigs?"

Drop the pig out and I would say not much....they are both generally true statements that can be supported with the historical record. I think that whites have done a lot better of late than they used to, and blacks only partly so. Blacks are stuck with the historic truth of Jackson, Sharpton and Cornel West. These Black leaders have only been black leaders because many in the black community have been willing to dive into the mythology of the black race being the victim of the white race. Whites put down the skin heads and the white supremists for the most part, and they were never more than extreme fringe groups anyways.

Good point.
The manner in which you expressed your POV was arrogant and it is an example of a bigoted thought process. Of course, that isn't the same as calling you arrogant or a bigot. In other words, your cry about me "getting personal" is unwarranted.

Mexica wrote:

Good point.
The manner in which you expressed your POV was arrogant and it is an example of a bigoted thought process. Of course, that isn't the same as calling you arrogant or a bigot. In other words, your cry about me "getting personal" is unwarranted.

I perhaps read more personalization into your post then was there. I am ready to move on.....is that good with you?

Blacks love to play victim. They have been free for a long time, they have had loads of special deals which had no other purpose then to rectify any negative impact that slavery might have had on them. And yet new immigrants can and do come to America with nothing ( not even the language) and with-in one generation generally make a better life for themselves then the complaining blacks do. The black underclass is the black underclass not because of slavery, but because they refuse to make their lives better. They use slavery as an excuse, and a fair number of whites are prone to suffering from unjustified guilt over slavery, but that don't make it a legitimate reason. The Black middle class is another proof, those blacks who want a better life enough to work for it have no trouble obtaining it.

I disagree with your statement obviously however, I will guesstimate that during the 80's and afterward up until now, there is no excuse, in fact , it is the caucasian that suffers in some cases due to of course the color of his skin. Evil begets evil begets evil.

hawkeye10 wrote:

snood wrote:

Quote:

Blacks love to play victim.

What is the difference between this statement and "Whites are greedy and insensitive pigs?"

Drop the pig out and I would say not much....they are both generally true statements that can be supported with the historical record. I think that whites have done a lot better of late than they used to, and blacks only partly so. Blacks are stuck with the historic truth of Jackson, Sharpton and Cornel West. These Black leaders have only been black leaders because many in the black community have been willing to dive into the mythology of the black race being the victim of the white race. Whites put down the skin heads and the white supremists for the most part, and they were never more than extreme fringe groups anyways.

At times I have questioned the value of exchanging ideas on a forum like this. Surely, I muse, there are far better uses of time and energy - far more productive ways to seek out kindred voices or mental stimulation.
But then, I am fortunate - nay, even blessed - to be graced with a visionary such as yourself. Such extraordinary wisdom and clarity of thought! Such striking moral direction! such breathless expression.

I am in awe, and forever grateful that you deign share your measureless gifts with a worm like myself. I salute you, sir.

Setanta wrote:

My point (and i can't think why anyone would have missed this after i've pointed it out twice) is that only West African Negroes were able to survive the heavy labor in the brutal climate of the Sugar Islands, and possessed a resistance to malaria. This includes the slaves taken in East Africa, who had no immunity to malaria.

WE are talking about American slavery, not those brought in to work sugar cane in the islands. You don't find a lot of malaria in Georgia. Picking cotton is not demanding like working cane either. As for the availability of slaves from the Ukraine and such at the time I don't know. Your take is not what I remember from my history schooling, but I don't know that you are wrong.

Malaria has been endemic in the US until the late 1940's. Most of the transmission occurred in the southeastern states. (From this derives the fact that CDC, originally derived from malaria control operations, is located in Atlanta, Georgia).

In the United States, malaria flourished for centuries in the South and in port cities like Boston and New York. During the Civil War, armies on both sides stationed in the South sustained more than 1.2 million cases of malaria.

When you write: WE (there's no need to shout) are talking about American slavery, not those brought in to work sugar cane in the islands. . . . you are displaying more historical ignorance. The source of the slaves who were sold in the English colonies of North America were the slave populations of the Sugar Islands.

jasonrest wrote:

I disagree with your statement obviously however, I will guesstimate that during the 80's and afterward up until now, there is no excuse, in fact , it is the caucasian that suffers in some cases due to of course the color of his skin. Evil begets evil begets evil.

Right, America paid off anything that was remaining on that bill with the civil rights act during the Johnson Administration. Anyone who was ten years old at the time has had no racial barriers to their success, that means any black younger than 50 years old has no cause to b*tch. Once the civil rights struggle was over Blacks and Whites adapted quickly. The seventies were the golden period, this being before Blacks got the nutty idea that it was a good idea to resegregate themselves, and to get all worked up about black pride. Slowly since that time blacks have been pealing off, those who have elected to fully participate in the wider culture have found that they are successful in accomplishing what they want in life, that they are accepted.

Blacks need to deal with the fact that they were ill served by a group of black "leaders" who found it in their interest to sell the victim role to the black community. This would be people like Jesse Jackson, a man who is not bright enough to be successful if he needed to compete with white leaders, nor could he be competent enough for whites to accept him as a legitimate leader. In order to have a career he needed the blacks to see themselves as blacks, and to take as their leaders other blacks. Because of real racial barriers there were not a lot of blacks in the seventies who were ready to be leaders, Jesse Jackson had slim competition so long as his only competition was from other blacks.

I don't have the answer on this issue.
It's far too late to even consider reparations of any sort.
However, that issue still remains.

jasonrest wrote:

I don't have the answer on this issue.
It's far too late to even consider reparations of any sort.
However, that issue still remains.

The answer is to make sure that everyone abides by the civil rights laws, for the blacks to stop blaming slavery for why their lives are 100+ years later not what they want them to be, for whites to stop feeling guilty for their great-great grandparents and beyond participating in slavery, and for everybody to not get diverted onto loony ideas such as taking Founders off of American currency because they owned slaves.