18
   

Reparations To American Blacks... Yes/No?

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  3  
Reply Wed 4 Jun, 2014 07:19 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:
Truthfully, however, this particular anti-osso down-thumb campaign has nothing to do with her ideas.
I acknowledge the merit of obliterating abhorrently foul posts from vu, as Osso said,
but I believe that downgrading has been used negatively as a popularity contest
against designated pariahs, 2 of whom come readily to mind.

In those cases, no matter how innocuous a post might be,
if it is from one of them, it is peremptorily downgraded.

Is there a campaign against Osso ?





David
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Wed 4 Jun, 2014 07:57 am
@BillRM,
Thanks - I didn't realize that.

That's a terrible feature and almost assuredly being abused.

It appears I may have to start thumbing up posts that get this treatment just as a counter measure.
Buttermilk
 
  0  
Reply Wed 4 Jun, 2014 08:01 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
The thumbs up/down feature is stupid

1) It allows people to troll

2) Forums are filled with blind teammatism so buddies tend thumb each other up

3) Go on yahoo, it's worse especially if its an article about Serena Williams, if you try to remotely defend them you get thumbed down so much your post gets hidden.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Wed 4 Jun, 2014 08:21 am
@Buttermilk,
I took a look at the preferences page under My Account and there are quite a few ways one can control one's viewing experience which is a good thing.

I'm actually backing off my comment made to Bill. I don't think it's a terrible feature if someone has deliberately selected the preference to collapse unpopular posts.

My questions surrounding it though are:

What constitutes an "Unpopular" post? How many thumb downs are required to cross the threshold. If the number is high enough it can control the sort of abuse you and I dislike.

What is the Default setting for these preferences?

I don't recall changing any of mine, but I think I may have had to change most of them to "No" at one time. I say this because the the NSFW designation is new and I know I didn't make any changes to the setting related to it and it was set at "Yes" for collapsing or "hiding" So I'm wondering if the default setting is "Yes."

If it is that's fine as long as new members are somehow informed that they can change these settings. I don't know if that it done.

Maybe I'll PM Jespah and ask as she seems to know a lot about this site. (Whether or not she is one of the "secret" moderators Wink )
Buttermilk
 
  0  
Reply Wed 4 Jun, 2014 08:24 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
That's a very good question to ask.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jun, 2014 08:56 am
@OmSigDAVID,
There have been a couple of campaigns now and then, but I tend to wave them off. I spoke up this time because I'd prefer being argued with, even sharply, and I was crabby right that minute when I spoke up. Meantime, it's water under the bridge, eh?
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jun, 2014 09:00 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn, that's the default setting, but I am guessing most of us changed that on our preferences page. I've never wanted other people's downthumbs to affect what I see - and I figure most of us don't. I'm sorry myself that the default isn't the other way around.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jun, 2014 09:09 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
I used to know the number but that was a long time ago; I do remember it took pretty many to cause the 'collapse'.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 4 Jun, 2014 09:09 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
I don't think it's a terrible feature if someone has deliberately selected the preference to collapse unpopular posts.


Sorry but the problem here is that it is an op out not an op in setting and there is a saying dealing with the tyranny of default settings in software as few people ever look at let alone change default settings.

For example, in XP first release the build in fire wall was an op in setting and few have the protection of the firewall as few change the default settings to turn it on and only after Microsoft change it to an op out did almost everyone had a firewall turn on.

Another example of this tyranny of the default in software is that for some strange reason adobe software default setting allow pfd files to call and run other programs.

This is almost never used except for malware purposes and yet most users neither know about the problem or how to get to the settings to turn it off.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  4  
Reply Wed 4 Jun, 2014 10:05 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:
Truthfully, however, this particular anti-osso
down-thumb campaign has nothing to do with her ideas.
I 'm mildly surprized at that campaign,
in that Osso is hardly a very controversial personage in this forum.





David
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 4 Jun, 2014 12:15 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foofie wrote:
Nyet! Jews were part of the feudal system, since they were the King's/prince's property (aka, the King's Jews).
That's a nice urban legend.

The correct legal term is "servi camerae regis" (servants of the royal chamber, or in the original German: "Kammerknechtschaft". (It was a reaction of the enslavement of the Jewish people to the Roman emperors Vespasian and Titus.)
And exactly that is proof them being out of feudal system (They could not be tied to land nor belong to guilds.)


So, being correct, what was your point? It was germane to what?
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jun, 2014 12:22 pm
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:

So, being correct, what was your point? It was germane to what?
I responded. Jews were not part of the feudal system.
Foofie
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 4 Jun, 2014 12:32 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foofie wrote:

So, being correct, what was your point? It was germane to what?
I responded. Jews were not part of the feudal system.


And, therefore....
0 Replies
 
Pamela Rosa
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 5 Jun, 2014 06:55 am
Quote:
Research Date: 1.1.2014
Annual spending power for African Americans $1.2 Trillion
Revenue generated by African American owned businesses $71,200,000,000
http://www.statisticbrain.com/african-american-black-statistics/


plus others ''gibmedats' programs = at least 2 trillions per year
giujohn
 
  0  
Reply Fri 6 Jun, 2014 03:36 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
What possible difference does that make to this discourse??
giujohn
 
  0  
Reply Fri 6 Jun, 2014 03:43 pm
@Buttermilk,
buttermilk said:

Quote:
Although you probably meant to say that us blacks should thank you.


Are you clairvoyant
0 Replies
 
giujohn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jun, 2014 04:01 pm
@Buttermilk,
FROM THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES:
The Lincoln administration wrestled with the idea of authorizing the recruitment of black troops, concerned that such a move would prompt the border states to secede. When Gen. John C. Frémont in Missouri and Gen. David Hunter in South Carolina issued proclamations that emancipated slaves in their military regions and permitted them to enlist, their superiors sternly revoked their orders. By mid-1862, however, the escalating number of former slaves (contrabands), the declining number of white volunteers, and the increasingly pressing personnel needs of the Union Army pushed the Government into reconsidering the ban.

As a result, on July 17, 1862, Congress passed the Second Confiscation and Militia Act, freeing slaves who had masters in the Confederate Army. Two days later, slavery was abolished in the territories of the United States, and on July 22 President Lincoln presented the preliminary draft of the Emancipation Proclamation to his Cabinet. After the Union Army turned back Lee's first invasion of the North at Antietam, MD, and the Emancipation Proclamation was subsequently announced, black recruitment was pursued in earnest. Volunteers from South Carolina, Tennessee, and Massachusetts filled the first authorized black regiments. Recruitment was slow until black leaders such as Frederick Douglass encouraged black men to become soldiers to ensure eventual full citizenship. (Two of Douglass's own sons contributed to the war effort.) Volunteers began to respond, and in May 1863 the Government established the Bureau of Colored Troops to manage the burgeoning numbers of black soldiers.

By the end of the Civil War, roughly 179,000 black men (10% of the Union Army) served as soldiers in the U.S. Army and another 19,000 served in the Navy. Nearly 40,000 black soldiers died over the course of the war—30,000 of infection or disease. Black soldiers served in artillery and infantry and performed all noncombat support functions that sustain an army, as well. Black carpenters, chaplains, cooks, guards, laborers, nurses, scouts, spies, steamboat pilots, surgeons, and teamsters also contributed to the war cause. There were nearly 80 black commissioned officers. Black women, who could not formally join the Army, nonetheless served as nurses, spies, and scouts, the most famous being Harriet Tubman, who scouted for the 2d South Carolina Volunteers.

Because of prejudice against them, black units were not used in combat as extensively as they might have been. Nevertheless, the soldiers served with distinction in a number of battles. Black infantrymen fought gallantly at Milliken's Bend, LA; Port Hudson, LA; Petersburg, VA; and Nashville, TN. The July 1863 assault on Fort Wagner, SC, in which the 54th Regiment of Massachusetts Volunteers lost two-thirds of their officers and half of their troops, was memorably dramatized in the film Glory. By war's end, 16 black soldiers had been awarded the Medal of Honor for their valor.

In addition to the perils of war faced by all Civil War soldiers, black soldiers faced additional problems stemming from racial prejudice. Racial discrimination was prevalent even in the North, and discriminatory practices permeated the U.S. military. Segregated units were formed with black enlisted men and typically commanded by white officers and black noncommissioned officers. The 54th Massachusetts was commanded by Robert Shaw and the 1st South Carolina by Thomas Wentworth Higginson—both white. Black soldiers were initially paid $10 per month from which $3 was automatically deducted for clothing, resulting in a net pay of $7. In contrast, white soldiers received $13 per month from which no clothing allowance was drawn. In June 1864 Congress granted equal pay to the U.S. Colored Troops and made the action retroactive. Black soldiers received the same rations and supplies. In addition, they received comparable medical care.

The black troops, however, faced greater peril than white troops when captured by the Confederate Army. In 1863 the Confederate Congress threatened to punish severely officers of black troops and to enslave black soldiers. As a result, President Lincoln issued General Order 233, threatening reprisal on Confederate prisoners of war (POWs) for any mistreatment of black troops. Although the threat generally restrained the Confederates, black captives were typically treated more harshly than white captives. In perhaps the most heinous known example of abuse, Confederate soldiers shot to death black Union soldiers captured at the Fort Pillow, TN, engagement of 1864. Confederate General Nathan B. Forrest witnessed the massacre and did nothing to stop it.

The document featured with this article is a recruiting poster directed at black men during the Civil War. It refers to efforts by the Lincoln administration to provide equal pay for black soldiers and equal protection for black POWs. The original poster is located in the Records of the Adjutant General's Office, 1780's–1917, Record Group 94.

Article Citation

Freeman, Elsie, Wynell Burroughs Schamel, and Jean West. " [Revised and updated in 1999 by Budge Weidman.]

"Because of prejudice against them, black units were not used in combat as extensively as they might have been."

If in fact as you say the reason that blacks were being used was because the north was losing, they would have been used much more frequently in combat. Further more, 179,000 men, even if all were put into combat would have made little difference in the out come of that war strategically or otherwise.

0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jun, 2014 03:18 am
@giujohn,
giujohn wrote:
What possible difference does that make to this discourse??
It tells us from what perspective u are posting.
Its only fair.

Do u have a reason to conceal it ?
Romeo Fabulini
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 7 Jun, 2014 05:27 am
If we go to 'My Account' at the bottom of the page, then select 'My settings',
a list comes up where we have to tick yes or no, but it's a mystery to me.
For example 'Collapse Unpopular Topics', what does 'collapse' mean?
And who exactly decides what makes them 'unpopular?"

Same applies to 'Collapse Unpopular Posts'.

And there's one called 'Collapse NSFW posts', what the heck is NSFW?

There's also a 'Truncate long posts' option, what does truncate mean?

Then there's also the separate voting posts up or down business, and the putting people on ignore nonsense!

It seems to me that people are therefore seeing A2K differently on their screens compared to how other members are seeing it, depending on which settings they've selected, so things are in a bit of a mess if you ask me..
0 Replies
 
giujohn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jun, 2014 10:42 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Aside from the fact that we should all be color blind...my perspective is as an american, a human being, and a citizen of the world.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.19 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 07:20:01