The Confederacy was About Slavery

@edgarblythe,

FBI considers Hispanics, Latinos, Central Asians as Whites:
http://fbimostwanted.mobi/fbi_most_wanted_bank_robbers_9.php

From FBI site

Quote:

Hate crime offenders by race

A review of available race data reported in 2008 for the 6,927 known hate crime offenders revealed that:

61.1 percent were white. (also incl. Hispanics, Latinos, Central Asians)
20.2 percent were black.
5.9 percent were groups made up of individuals of various races (multiple races, group).
1.1 percent were Asian/Pacific Islander.
0.7 percent were American Indian/Alaskan Native.
11.0 percent were unknown. (Based on Table 9.)

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2008/offenders.html

Quote:

74.3% of America's population is white (excl. Hispanics) and 12,3 are Blacks or Africans-Americans

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts?_event=&geo_id=01000US&_geoContext=01000US&_street=&_county=&_cityTown=&_state=&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=010&_submenuId=factsheet_1&ds_name=DEC_2000_SAFF&_ci_nbr=002&qr_name=DEC_2000_SAFF_R1010&reg=DEC_2000_SAFF_R1010%3A002&_keyword=&_industry=

It looks that Blacks are at least twice likely to commit a hate crime compare to Whites.

1 Reply

@Foofie,

Quote:

Personally, I think a thread of this nature is divisive for Americans.

and????

I sure hope you dont mean to imply the the question should not be asked......you are not one of those head in the sand guys are you? Not one of those guys who start with no faith the people can work out their differences between themselves, are you?

1 Reply

@Pamela Rosa,

Quote:

FBI considers Hispanics, Latinos, Central Asians as Whites:

if you look you find that the definition is meaningless, because there is almost always a follow on question asking if people self identify as Hispanic.

I saw yesterday that there are now more interracial couples than ever before, because people overall care less about race than they used to. This is great, now if we can just get the government to stop being so prejudiced on race we might actually get someplace.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

The USA referred to them as Nations.
They recognised their ownership of the land and set about using legal methods and illegal methods to obtain the land from them.
The USA delt with them via the powers of the President and the Sec of War.
Other nations recognised the Indian Nations as owners of their land.

Your response to this is to say you mistreated them and I am Australian.
Rally round the flag boys, poor old Gomer is being attacked.

Quote:

You seemed to have built an entire argument upon how we entered into treaties with Indians and dealt with them as sovereign Nations.

No seeming about it I have...my whole argument is they were recognised as a sovereign nation and you calling it "political bullshit" is yet another pathetic attempt on your part to show off your anal obsession.

Quote:

Learn about "termination" and about suffrage and the actual rights of Indians during the last 2 centuries.

What does the way you treated individual Indians within the USA have to do with official recogntion of them as seperate nations ? Are you saying that if Iran arrests some USAians then obviously Iran doesnt recognise the USA as a nation ? That if they mistreat individuals and steal USA assets they can not possibly recognise the USA officially ?

Quote:

Im not proud of our dealings with NAtive Americans

Your guilt has nothing, like the rest of your post, to do with official recognition of the sovereignty over native lands and the recognition of nationhood.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

People can disagree without casting aspersions regarding our genetics...... Id most expect this kind of hoydenist calling from one of our foreign correspondents.

God you are a joke. If you dont read your posts how do you expect anyone else to ?

Quote:

Even hurrying up the seccession and first firing by the South CArolinians was clearly in response to Lincolns election since the south was deeply troubled re: his open condemnation of slavery.

So now it was Lincoln who started the Civil War ? Unbelievable...

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

We are living with the effect of slavery today.....You can't compare this to the Indian situation.

You arent living with Indians today ? To use your own words :

Quote:

That is such a profoundly ignorant post.

0 Replies

@Ionus,

what he was saying is this.

the Indians were not very worldly wise.

So we pretended to make nice with them, and then f*cked them hard.

We are not very nice as a country sometimes.

and arrogant enough that we don't care.

(yes, I'm part Indian)

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

I didnt say anything about blackmailing.....You may question my genetics

This from the person who is obsessed with me being Australian and likes my arse.

Quote:

It appears that with the Indian Claims Settlement act, the tribes ARE getting some degree of compensation.

This is further recognition that they had sovereignty over the land and were a nation.

1 Reply

@panzade,

Black mail, from "black meal" a type of local coarse bread. The Black Watch was formed to protect the farmers and later became the 42nd Highland Regt of Foot.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

This is a very ignorant post. The poor poor black man, and the well to do Indian. Good grief !

0 Replies

@High Seas,

Quote:

WHAT genetic shortfalls?!

Dont interfere with his guilt trip and wild accusations.

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Quote:

This is further recognition that they had sovereignty over the land and were a nation.

The operative word is "HAVE SOVEREIGNTY" not "HAD". They werent even people during the civil war. Look it up . Try to stop ignoring time.

Quote:

Indian Claims Settlement act

wasnt even a dream in the mind of the US govt until well into the late 20th century. AGain, try to recognize that time is that thing which prevents all history from happening at once.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Quote:
Indian Claims Settlement act
wasnt even a dream in the mind of the US govt until well into the late 20th century.

Where have I said "Indian Claims Settlement act" that you have quoted me as saying ?

Quote:

Quote:
This is further recognition that they had sovereignty over the land and were a nation.
The operative word is "HAVE SOVEREIGNTY" not "HAD".

So they magically have sovereignty now but not then ? Seriously ?

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Personally, I think a thread of this nature is divisive for Americans.

and????

I sure hope you dont mean to imply the the question should not be asked......you are not one of those head in the sand guys are you? Not one of those guys who start with no faith the people can work out their differences between themselves, are you?

The problem might just be that when the question is asked the answer is implied within the question. So, from the position of some, the Confederate flag can have only one pejorative meaning. Why should that be?

So, if we accept the premise, that might be quite false, that the Confederate flag has only one pejorative meaning, one can divide the country into those that accept said pejorative connotation, and those that do not. That means that the thread can be divisive, since it reflects a debate as to whether the Confederate flag has, or does not have, one pejorative connotation.

And, African-Americans have every right to believe that the Confederate flag has one pejorative meaning. However, must everyone look to the Confederate flag with that one pejorative meaning? Sort of like when many Jews will not buy a German car. Should everyone then not buy a German car? I believe not.

0 Replies

@Rockhead,

The whole point of this thread I think is what all these abuses were about. The Indians, the slaves, the rebels.....it was all about power and the expansion of the USA as one nation. Whilst other factors such as the rebels right to secede, and the nations of Indians, and the civil rights of slaves were all secondary to power. The prima facie cause was power and other secondary factors were removed as they got in the way.

To say the Indians were mistreated therefore they didnt have status as a nation is bizzare and is an attempt to back out of a corner he got himself into over the constitution and civil war.

3 Replies

@Ionus,

Have you ever read any of the various constitutions of the indian nations ?

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Quote:

From black + mail (“‘a piece of money’”).

Feel like sparring do ya lad? Very Happy

It has nothing to do with bread or meal.
Oh and the Black Watch was formed in 1725, way after the 16th century when the word blackmail was first recorded.
With all due respect.

1 Reply

@panzade,

Quote:

Blackmail - Its origin had nothing to do with the post office. Mail in this sense was an old Anglo-Norse term for rent or tribute. During the time of border warfare between England and Scotland, freebooters extorted payment from farmers of the area in exchange for protection and immunity from plunder. As the inhabitants were generally very poor, the tribute was paid in "black mail," that is, grain, meat, or the lowest coinage (copper), as opposed to "white mail," which was silver. In time the word took on the meaning of any payment extorted by threat of exposure of an incriminating secret.

This definition is not accurate. The most common form of blackmail from the peasants was blackmeal, a local bread. The bandits had no use for grain and the peasants had very little meat or coin. Black meal was the common food. An official watch was formed called the Black Watch, to protect people from black meal bandits. Years later, the Black Watch was expanded into the Highlands proper :

Quote:

After the 1715 Jacobite Rising the British government did not have the resources or manpower to keep a standing army in the Scottish highlands. As a result, they were forced to keep order by recruiting men from local Highland clans that had been loyal to the Whigs. This proved to be unsuccessful in deterring crime, especially cattle rustling, so independent companies (of what would be known as the Black Watch) were raised as a militia in 1725 by George Wade to keep "watch" for crime. The militia was recruited from local clans, with one company coming from Clan Munro, one from Clan Fraser, one from Clan Grant and three from Clan Campbell. These companies were commonly known as the Am Freiceadan Dubh, or Black Watch, taking their name from their task and from the dark green government tartan they were issued[citation needed], and eventually recruited many young gentlemen from both Jacobite and Whig clans.

This reference is inaccurate in attributing the title to 1725..it is far older than that.

Quote:

The Regiment of the Line was formed officially in 1739 as the 43rd Highland Regiment of Foot under John Lindsay, 20th Earl of Crawford, and first mustered in 1740, at Aberfeldy. In May 1740, when the Independent companies were formed into the 43rd Highland regiment (later the 42nd Royal Highlanders), Sir Robert Munro, 6th Baronet of Foulis was appointed lieutenant-colonel, John Earl of Crawford and Lindsay being its colonel. Among the captains were his next brother, George Munro of Culcairn, and his cousin John Munro, 4th of Newmore promoted to be lieutenant-colonel in 1745. The surgeon of the regiment was his younger brother, Dr James Munro.

You may fire when ready, Sir ! Very Happy

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Quote:

To say the Indians were mistreated therefore they didnt have status as a nation

It would be safe to say that the Indians were mistreated because they didn't have status as a nation.
It's very similar to the aboriginals in Australia.In the Gove Land Rights case of 1971 the high court asserted that Australia was terra nullius(no man's land) and therefore the native population had no rights to the land.
In the US terra nullius was given a catchy moniker: Manifest Destiny. In both cases native Indians had no rights to land until very recently.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

We lowered our cannons sir. It'll be pistols at 30 paces. Very Happy

0 Replies

The Confederacy was About Slavery

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know