Sanders: 'We have got to apologize for slavery'

[°Leprechaun]

Wow. I have always wondered how people can defend slave owners. Sadly, William Penn owned slaves as did a number of others, like Thomas Jefferson. I don't like it when I hear, "well they didn't know any better, it was ok in their time". There were opponents of slavery even in Penn's era. It is considered radical to be against slavery? Strange. Yet, the slightest politically incorrect words are considered racist? It makes no sense to me. It sounds like group think at it's worst.

[°Leprechaun]

We have no need to apologize for something that we didn't do.  None of us can be held responsible for something that happened over a century ago.

What we are responsible, however, are the racial inequalities in our society today.  We as a nation need to work toward a fairer and more equal society, not in order to 'make up for' slavery, but simply because its the right thing to do.

I would hope that most people would agree with this sentiment. I don't think that slavery, per se, is the issue, but Sanders and others like him would support this sentiment nevertheless.

[°Leprechaun]

True.

This could improve his standing among Blaxicans in the coming months.

Blaxicans? Seriously?

Guess people weren't exaggerating your racism.

I don't support the use of the term "Blaxican", but does anyone see an inconsistency of criticizing Branson for using it while "Blaxican's" use of it as a username has not, to my knowledge been challenged? Not that I am challenging it, just that I don't understand the philosophy here.

[°Leprechaun]

Wow. I have always wondered how people can defend slave owners. Sadly, William Penn owned slaves as did a number of others, like Thomas Jefferson. I don't like it when I hear, "well they didn't know any better, it was ok in their time". There were opponents of slavery even in Penn's era. It is considered radical to be against slavery? Strange. Yet, the slightest politically incorrect words are considered racist? It makes no sense to me. It sounds like group think at it's worst.

William Penn was actually fairly liberal for his time since he accepted and encouraged the German immigration in the 1600s and 1700s. Yes, he did own slaves, and that's bad, but there were also Quakers in Pennsylvania who drafted resolutions in slavery.

That was my point. Quakers were against slavery. Penn was extremely radical in other ways, like being a pacifist and egalitarian vis a vis native Americans, but does that excuse his owning slaves? That was my point.

[°Leprechaun]

True.

This could improve his standing among Blaxicans in the coming months.

Blaxicans? Seriously?

Guess people weren't exaggerating your racism.

I don't support the use of the term "Blaxican", but does anyone see an inconsistency of criticizing Branson for using it while "Blaxican's" use of it as a username has not, to my knowledge been challenged? Not that I am challenging it, just that I don't understand the philosophy here.

One poster has the copyright/tradename rights to it, the other poster is a mere infringer. Does that help? Oh, and neither use violates the terms of use, because while it may be offensive to some (including me a bit), it's not per se racist.

Thanks for the response, but I still don't understand that if the term is so offensive a poster would want to change his user name to "Blaxican". I can understand, that if it is offensive to some that they would object, but I don't necessarily believe that is meant to be offensive, although the term "minority" is not offensive, and would be a better way to describe these two groups. However, technically "minority" refers to more than just two groups. The term "queer" is also still offensive and yet some people use the word to describe themselves. I am not in any way trying to defend the use of the term "Blaxican". I am merely trying to understand the philosophy behind the controversy.

[°Leprechaun]

True.

This could improve his standing among Blaxicans in the coming months.

Blaxicans? Seriously?

Guess people weren't exaggerating your racism.

I don't support the use of the term "Blaxican", but does anyone see an inconsistency of criticizing Branson for using it while "Blaxican's" use of it as a username has not, to my knowledge been challenged? Not that I am challenging it, just that I don't understand the philosophy here.

One poster has the copyright/tradename rights to it, the other poster is a mere infringer. Does that help? Oh, and neither use violates the terms of use, because while it may be offensive to some (including me a bit), it's not per se racist.

Thanks for the response, but I still don't understand that if the term is so offensive a poster would want to change his user name to "Blaxican". I can understand, that if it is offensive to some that they would object, but I don't necessarily believe that is meant to be offensive, although the term "minority" is not offensive, and would be a better way to describe these two groups. However, technically "minority" refers to more than just two groups. The term "queer" is also still offensive and yet some people use the word to describe themselves. I am not in any way trying to defend the use of the term "Blaxican". I am merely trying to understand the philosophy behind the controversy.

The Reader's Digest version is the the second poster is mocking the first poster for his chutzpah or whatever. It's about intent.

Yes, makes sense. Thanks.

[°Leprechaun]

Since this thread is about apologizing, I apologize for the fact that the thread has gotten off topic; although it wasn't my intention and it may be too late for fixing the problem.

[°Leprechaun]

Wow. I have always wondered how people can defend slave owners. Sadly, William Penn owned slaves as did a number of others, like Thomas Jefferson. I don't like it when I hear, "well they didn't know any better, it was ok in their time". There were opponents of slavery even in Penn's era. It is considered radical to be against slavery? Strange. Yet, the slightest politically incorrect words are considered racist? It makes no sense to me. It sounds like group think at it's worst.

William Penn was actually fairly liberal for his time since he accepted and encouraged the German immigration in the 1600s and 1700s. Yes, he did own slaves, and that's bad, but there were also Quakers in Pennsylvania who drafted resolutions in slavery.

That was my point. Quakers were against slavery. Penn was extremely radical in other ways, like being a pacifist and egalitarian vis a vis native Americans, but does that excuse his owning slaves? That was my point.

Oh, no, of course it doesn't. I see your point, of course.  

Sorry, I wasn't so much disagreeing with you as trying to clarify my point. There doesn't seem to be any disagreement here. edit: actually I was only making the point that I was aware of how progressive Penn was in other areas than slavery.