Slavery

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Personally, I think we would long be past our unhealthy obsession with past slavery if blacks had been treated better in the south after they were freed from slavery.  In recent terms, the treatment of blacks in the post-Civil War south is much more of a problem today than slavery, in my opinion.

Here, here!

My complain is that even if slavery was as "bad" as it was portayed in Uncle Tom's Cabin, the mindset that created it in the way that it was is the problem.  That mindset was not outlawed by the 13th Amendment.

Good point.  The mindset continued, and nothing could change it.  But I think it's terribly tragic that it took another 100 years before we even tried to start treating blacks like regular citizens.

The ironic thing is that the south's treatment of its black population has a lot to do with why it was such an economic backwater for so long after the civil war.  When you deliberately impoverish a large segment of your population, it is bound to hold down the economic prospects of the whole society. 

It's too bad that we sometimes fail to see that citizens are at least potential assets to society.  To label them as liabilities when they have something to contribute ensures that their contribution will never be what it could be.  A society that helps its citizens to maximize their potential (without giving the type of "help" that simply reinforces negative behavior patterns) will maximize its potential for wealth and minimize social dislocation.  The treatment of blacks after the civil war did just the opposite.  It was not only wrong, but incredibly stupid.

What do you suppose we do with them now dazzleman???

Something radical, like treating them as people, citizens, and individuals.

Uhh we do, actually we give them freebies and all sorts of crap and boy look where its gotten them in 40 years, nowhere

[J. J.]

Personally, I think we would long be past our unhealthy obsession with past slavery if blacks had been treated better in the south after they were freed from slavery.  In recent terms, the treatment of blacks in the post-Civil War south is much more of a problem today than slavery, in my opinion.

Here, here!

My complain is that even if slavery was as "bad" as it was portayed in Uncle Tom's Cabin, the mindset that created it in the way that it was is the problem.  That mindset was not outlawed by the 13th Amendment.

Good point.  The mindset continued, and nothing could change it.  But I think it's terribly tragic that it took another 100 years before we even tried to start treating blacks like regular citizens.

The ironic thing is that the south's treatment of its black population has a lot to do with why it was such an economic backwater for so long after the civil war.  When you deliberately impoverish a large segment of your population, it is bound to hold down the economic prospects of the whole society. 

It's too bad that we sometimes fail to see that citizens are at least potential assets to society.  To label them as liabilities when they have something to contribute ensures that their contribution will never be what it could be.  A society that helps its citizens to maximize their potential (without giving the type of "help" that simply reinforces negative behavior patterns) will maximize its potential for wealth and minimize social dislocation.  The treatment of blacks after the civil war did just the opposite.  It was not only wrong, but incredibly stupid.

What do you suppose we do with them now dazzleman???

Something radical, like treating them as people, citizens, and individuals.

Uhh we do, actually we give them freebies and all sorts of crap and boy look where its gotten them in 40 years, nowhere

Ah, I never know Collin Powell was White.  I'm shocked. (That is sarcasm.)

If you want to start an affirmative action thread, or join a previous one, go right ahead.

[J. J.]

If you are interested look at the Brown vs. Board of Education thread under history.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=14375.0

[The Man From G.O.P.]

I say again, where has the last 40 years got them?

[Alcon]

I say again, where has the last 40 years got them?

It has gotten them to the point where it is perfectly acceptable to be a successful black person to most people.

I think that is something.

[dazzleman]

Good point.  The mindset continued, and nothing could change it.  But I think it's terribly tragic that it took another 100 years before we even tried to start treating blacks like regular citizens.

The ironic thing is that the south's treatment of its black population has a lot to do with why it was such an economic backwater for so long after the civil war.  When you deliberately impoverish a large segment of your population, it is bound to hold down the economic prospects of the whole society. 

It's too bad that we sometimes fail to see that citizens are at least potential assets to society.  To label them as liabilities when they have something to contribute ensures that their contribution will never be what it could be.  A society that helps its citizens to maximize their potential (without giving the type of "help" that simply reinforces negative behavior patterns) will maximize its potential for wealth and minimize social dislocation.  The treatment of blacks after the civil war did just the opposite.  It was not only wrong, but incredibly stupid.

What do you suppose we do with them now dazzleman???

First off, we need to get rid of the mindset, and any government programs that reflect that mindset, that we should have lower standards for any group of citizens due to past disadvantage.  This enables substandard performance in that group, and thereby encourages mediocrity rather than excellence.

We also need to get rid of any government programs that have had the effect of enabling and reinforcing destructive behavior, even if they were intended to help.  AFDC did so much damage to the black family that it is sickening.  Sure it was intended to help, but it did the opposite by encouraging the formation of mother-only households, and provided irresponsible men with a tax-supported concubine.  The results are clear if you drive through any neighborhood where participation in this program was prevalent.  The program thankfully is gone now, but its effects will linger for a long time.

We need to find constructive ways to eliminate the economic and social gap between the races.  The key is really education, for those who want it.  Our misguided attempts at forced integration have perversely created a situation in which blacks are more isolated than ever in largely dysfunctional inner city schools that have been fled by anybody with the economic means.  My belief is that these schools are so bad, and the communities and conditions around these schools so bad, that they can't be fixed without radical surgery.  I think we have to allow people trapped in these schools a real alternative, including private schools that are funded by vouchers, at the election of the parents.  The most effective way to help blacks is to encourage those who are trying to do the right thing by getting their kids educated, but find it virtually impossible due to economic circumstances.   We have done the opposite for decades under liberal social policies - we have catered to the type of people who do the wrong thing, and expect to be subsidized for it, and have their "rights" protected, with the result being grievous suffering by everyone around them.  This is what has positively ruined black education, and it must stop if the situation is ever to change.

We have to stop looking at blacks as an undifferentiated bloc.  Despite the fact that they often behave like a bloc, a characteristic of any group that has been rejected by the larger society, they are a collection of individuals with great variation.  There are many who are very intelligent and ambitious, and a little bit of constructive and positive help, rather than the negative incentives we have given them for so long, could go a long way.

There will be some hard-core laggards whom we cannot help.  But our current position on education allows the hard-core laggards to determine the fate of the whole group.  This must stop.

[k-onmmunist]

No, I don't support income tax or welfare either.

[Scam of God]

I find it hilarious how quick some breeds of libertarians are to defend a system that (A.) denies to the individual their absolute right of self-ownership, and (B.) stifles economic innovation by creating an underclass that does not contribute monetarily to the evolution of society.

[k-onmmunist]

I find it hilarious how quick some breeds of libertarians are to defend a system that (A.) denies to the individual their absolute right of self-ownership, and (B.) stifles economic innovation by creating an underclass that does not contribute monetarily to the evolution of society.

I despise slavery, whether declared or not.

[Mechaman]

I don't approve of slavery, but I would approve of Voluntary Servitude for those who have debts.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I don't approve of slavery, but I would approve of Voluntary Servitude for those who have debts.

     As do I. It would be interesting to do a poll of all Americans & see what responses you get.

[Хahar 🤔]

This stupid question is not the sort of thing I would've expected Alcoun to ask.

[Alcon]

I don't remember what I was going for here, but in my defense, I was 14

Kind of surreal to read this though, like watching yourself sleepwalking.

[Scam of God]

I don't approve of slavery, but I would approve of Voluntary Servitude for those who have debts.

Ugh, no. The right of the individual to ownership over his personage is inviolate, and is the very basic concept that underlies political liberalism.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I don't approve of slavery, but I would approve of Voluntary Servitude for those who have debts.

Ugh, no. The right of the individual to ownership over his personage is inviolate, and is the very basic concept that underlies political liberalism.

     If two or more people (as well as all parties affected) understand & agree to the terms of a contract, they should be able to go ahead with it, regardless of whatever it might be. After all, isn't you telling me that I can't sell ownership of myself on a temporary basis in exchange for gaining some benefit an unwarranted intrusion into my own business?

[Scam of God]

I don't approve of slavery, but I would approve of Voluntary Servitude for those who have debts.

Ugh, no. The right of the individual to ownership over his personage is inviolate, and is the very basic concept that underlies political liberalism.

     If two or more people (as well as all parties affected) understand & agree to the terms of a contract, they should be able to go ahead with it, regardless of whatever it might be. After all, isn't you telling me that I can't sell ownership of myself on a temporary basis in exchange for gaining some benefit an unwarranted intrusion into my own business?

If it's voluntary? Sure. But it should never be made the basis of a State's punishment for non-payment of debt, nor the only option possible.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I don't approve of slavery, but I would approve of Voluntary Servitude for those who have debts.

Ugh, no. The right of the individual to ownership over his personage is inviolate, and is the very basic concept that underlies political liberalism.

     If two or more people (as well as all parties affected) understand & agree to the terms of a contract, they should be able to go ahead with it, regardless of whatever it might be. After all, isn't you telling me that I can't sell ownership of myself on a temporary basis in exchange for gaining some benefit an unwarranted intrusion into my own business?

If it's voluntary? Sure. But it should never be made the basis of a State's punishment for non-payment of debt, nor the only option possible.

     If you'll re-read Mechaman's post, he explicitly states that it would be on a voluntary basis. I agree that the State should never have the power to force a person into servitude.

[Torie]

I don't approve of slavery, but I would approve of Voluntary Servitude for those who have debts.

Ugh, no. The right of the individual to ownership over his personage is inviolate, and is the very basic concept that underlies political liberalism.

     If two or more people (as well as all parties affected) understand & agree to the terms of a contract, they should be able to go ahead with it, regardless of whatever it might be. After all, isn't you telling me that I can't sell ownership of myself on a temporary basis in exchange for gaining some benefit an unwarranted intrusion into my own business?

If it's voluntary? Sure. But it should never be made the basis of a State's punishment for non-payment of debt, nor the only option possible.

Er, such a contract, even if voluntarily entered into by fully informed consenting adults with no fraud in the inducement, should be void and unenforceable as a matter of public policy. I told you I am not a libertarian Einzige.

[opebo]

I don't approve of slavery, but I would approve of Voluntary Servitude for those who have debts.

     As do I. It would be interesting to do a poll of all Americans & see what responses you get.

But why not just discharge the debts? 

If you think about it, your answer should reveal the real nature of capitalism that you have refused to see all your deluded lives.

[Mechaman]

I don't approve of slavery, but I would approve of Voluntary Servitude for those who have debts.

     As do I. It would be interesting to do a poll of all Americans & see what responses you get.

But why not just discharge the debts? 

If you think about it, your answer should reveal the real nature of capitalism that you have refused to see all your deluded lives.

Sorry I was thinking about IN REALITY not in my stateless eutopia that has no chance of happening IRL.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I think with Obama being a black president, reparations should be debated again.  Clinton, wasn't interested, neither was Carter, but if not passed under those Dems when will it be able to. 

Reparations shouldn't be given in a form of monetary, that's the way it was done in the past, but it could be done in other aspects, but the debate must continue.

Lastly, I rejected slavery, and Jim Crow laws in all aspects.

[John Dibble]

I think with Obama being a black president, reparations should be debated again.  Clinton, wasn't interested, neither was Carter, but if not passed under those Dems when will it be able to.

Why? Nobody alive today was alive when slavery was legal. It's been many generations since. Reparations might have been approrpriate back then when the slaves were freed, but I think the statute of limitations is long past.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I think with Obama being a black president, reparations should be debated again.  Clinton, wasn't interested, neither was Carter, but if not passed under those Dems when will it be able to. 

Reparations shouldn't be given in a form of monetary, that's the way it was done in the past, but it could be done in other aspects, but the debate must continue.

Lastly, I rejected slavery, and Jim Crow laws in all aspects.

IIRC Obama is not in favor of reparations........remember, all this "time to move forward" stuff Obama talks about........and I agree with him

[Earth]

I think with Obama being a black president, reparations should be debated again.  Clinton, wasn't interested, neither was Carter, but if not passed under those Dems when will it be able to. 

Obama isn't interested, either. Frankly, that's good. Reparations would be a joke.

[Psychic Octopus]

No, slavery sucks.