Random Thoughts Thread

[Nemoide]

Hey, HD-DVD is still the only way to watch Streets of Fire in HD. So there's that?

[dsheinem]

slaves were not looked at like people. They were viewed as a piece of farm equipment. Again, this is not my view, just the mentality of the time. Just like farm equipment, they had to be kept in good working order.
Many slave owners did not have hundreds of slaves, only a few and many had decent lives when compared with slavery in South American countries like Brazil, where the life expectancy of a slave was 7 years because of the dangers of growing and processing sugar. In the US, a slave could live a full life and have children, but not in South American countries.
Many had no idea of what they were fighting for, just that they were doing what their masters wanted them to do. In fact, many slaves had a harder time after slavery ended. They became sharecroppers.

I don't mean to single you out and I am pretty sure you aren't defending anything here, but I feel a need to call attention to this kind of narrative - a narrative I often encounter when reading "southern heritage" rhetoric.

These kinds of "hey U.S. slavery wasn't so bad comparatively" or "things were much worse for blacks after slavery" statements are really dangerous: they are often used to rationalize and whitewash a history of brutality, hate, and racism in a way that does a disservice to both its past context and its current legacy here in the U.S. Again, I don't mean to suggest you are doing this, but I recognize the rhetoric as one that pops up in lots of contexts where racism is rationalized or encouraged.

Yes: if you owned a slave you were, at least in part, a bad person who was doing a despicable thing (regardless of how "well" you treated your slave). This applies as much to founders like Jefferson as it does to slave owners in the pre-Civil War south. Just because the "prevailing mentality" of the day treated black people like livestock and just because there was a lot of people doing it doesn't mean that it was excusable in its time or that it was the only worldview people had. Slave owners were absolutely cognizant of the abolitionist movement and would have heard that movement's counter-claims about slavery and about universal freedom for all. Slave owners chose to reject that idea in much the same way that much of the South rejected/rejects so many civil/human rights laws historically and today.

Slave owners didn't and don't deserve any defense of their practices, regardless of how "nice" they were to the people that they enslaved. There's nothing honorable about that part of American history, nor should it be remembered or rationalized in such a way as to suggest there is.

[CRTGAMER]

Slave owners didn't and don't deserve any defense of their practices, regardless of how "nice" they were to the people that they enslaved. There's nothing honorable about that part of American history, nor should it be remembered or rationalized in such a way as to suggest there is.

THIS. I think most would prefer freedom even if it did mean a harder life.

Hey, HD-DVD is still the only way to watch Streets of Fire in HD. So there's that?

Great movie! Definitely that is one for RCBH928 to purchase for its exclusive HD picture. I'm stuck with the Laser Disc and DVD. Hopefully it will get a repressing Anamorphic on the DVD.

[SirGawain]

I don't mean to single you out and I am pretty sure you aren't defending anything here, but I feel a need to call attention to this kind of narrative - a narrative I often encounter when reading "southern heritage" rhetoric.

These kinds of "hey U.S. slavery wasn't so bad comparatively" or "things were much worse for blacks after slavery" statements are really dangerous: they are often used to rationalize and whitewash a history of brutality, hate, and racism in a way that does a disservice to both its past context and its current legacy here in the U.S. Again, I don't mean to suggest you are doing this, but I recognize the rhetoric as one that pops up in lots of contexts where racism is rationalized or encouraged.

Yes: if you owned a slave you were, at least in part, a bad person who was doing a despicable thing (regardless of how "well" you treated your slave). This applies as much to founders like Jefferson as it does to slave owners in the pre-Civil War south. Just because the "prevailing mentality" of the day treated black people like livestock and just because there was a lot of people doing it doesn't mean that it was excusable in its time or that it was the only worldview people had. Slave owners were absolutely cognizant of the abolitionist movement and would have heard that movement's counter-claims about slavery and about universal freedom for all. Slave owners chose to reject that idea in much the same way that much of the South rejected/rejects so many civil/human rights laws historically and today.

Slave owners didn't and don't deserve any defense of their practices, regardless of how "nice" they were to the people that they enslaved. There's nothing honorable about that part of American history, nor should it be remembered or rationalized in such a way as to suggest there is.

I seriously take no offense to what you said in anyway. I was waiting on someone to kinda single me out anyways solely for the subject matter. The main reason for my post was a response to a previous one and to try and explain why a slave would fight for his master during the Civil War. I wasn't trying to defend slave owners or the practice of slavery and racism. My comments about life after slavery and such were taken from a discussion I had with a doctor of African American History, so I realize some of it needed a little bit of context. I am also not saying he is the end all, but where some of the information came from. It may have seemed that my views were similar to Song of the South, but they are not. I am fully aware of the brutality and hatred that occurred under slavery.

I think a lot of the "southern heritage" people have comes from ignorance of the subject. Many public schools refuse to teach about that part of American history for fear of offending people and I believe that leads to people glossing it over in their minds (or hearing it from an older generation who are just as ignorant on the subject) and rationalizing it, which can be extremely dangerous and I have seen first hand. There is a romantic notion of the noble slave owner/slave relationship is just that, a notion. It did not exist. I am from probably the state most viewed as racist with people riding around with spray painted Confederate flags. I don't agree with this at all. I certainly have state pride but not the idiotic ideal the "the South will rise again"

[Luke]

There are some oddballs on this forum.

Like if I said, "Man that Rubix cube is tough, eh?" I'll get a diatribe of an email stating that "It's Rubik's, not Rubix. It's also not technically a cube, and although challenging, the cube is difficult not tough".

I get a ton of PM's, which I am grateful for, make no mistake.

[Luke]

My house smells like oatmeal.

Trust me. You may think you have a lot on your mind, but I hate to break it to you, you don't. Sit back and imagine your house smells like oatmeal, every inch of it. Deal.

[Ack]

I don't mean to single you out and I am pretty sure you aren't defending anything here, but I feel a need to call attention to this kind of narrative - a narrative I often encounter when reading "southern heritage" rhetoric.

These kinds of "hey U.S. slavery wasn't so bad comparatively" or "things were much worse for blacks after slavery" statements are really dangerous: they are often used to rationalize and whitewash a history of brutality, hate, and racism in a way that does a disservice to both its past context and its current legacy here in the U.S. Again, I don't mean to suggest you are doing this, but I recognize the rhetoric as one that pops up in lots of contexts where racism is rationalized or encouraged.

Yes: if you owned a slave you were, at least in part, a bad person who was doing a despicable thing (regardless of how "well" you treated your slave). This applies as much to founders like Jefferson as it does to slave owners in the pre-Civil War south. Just because the "prevailing mentality" of the day treated black people like livestock and just because there was a lot of people doing it doesn't mean that it was excusable in its time or that it was the only worldview people had. Slave owners were absolutely cognizant of the abolitionist movement and would have heard that movement's counter-claims about slavery and about universal freedom for all. Slave owners chose to reject that idea in much the same way that much of the South rejected/rejects so many civil/human rights laws historically and today.

Slave owners didn't and don't deserve any defense of their practices, regardless of how "nice" they were to the people that they enslaved. There's nothing honorable about that part of American history, nor should it be remembered or rationalized in such a way as to suggest there is.

I seriously take no offense to what you said in anyway. I was waiting on someone to kinda single me out anyways solely for the subject matter. The main reason for my post was a response to a previous one and to try and explain why a slave would fight for his master during the Civil War. I wasn't trying to defend slave owners or the practice of slavery and racism. My comments about life after slavery and such were taken from a discussion I had with a doctor of African American History, so I realize some of it needed a little bit of context. I am also not saying he is the end all, but where some of the information came from. It may have seemed that my views were similar to Song of the South, but they are not. I am fully aware of the brutality and hatred that occurred under slavery.

I think a lot of the "southern heritage" people have comes from ignorance of the subject. Many public schools refuse to teach about that part of American history for fear of offending people and I believe that leads to people glossing it over in their minds (or hearing it from an older generation who are just as ignorant on the subject) and rationalizing it, which can be extremely dangerous and I have seen first hand. There is a romantic notion of the noble slave owner/slave relationship is just that, a notion. It did not exist. I am from probably the state most viewed as racist with people riding around with spray painted Confederate flags. I don't agree with this at all. I certainly have state pride but not the idiotic ideal the "the South will rise again"

It should also be noted that slaves were entirely controlled by their masters and only given access to what their masters allowed, so in many cases slaves fought for their masters or defended against the Union based upon what the slave owner had taught them. In some cases, Union soldiers encountered slaves who had been told President Lincoln was a man-eating ogre with horns and a tail, while others had been taught the Union soldiers were monsters who would murder them and kidnap their children.

As for reasons why the U.S. Civil War was fought, it should also be noted that slavery was the primary topic of debate at secessionist conventions throughout the South. These conventions were generally led by aristocratic Southern gentry who owned plantations and slaves, and during the war, these men made up the regional governments as well as much of the officer corps of the CSA. Not all of the Southern officers fought for this reason(General Robert E. Lee sided with the South because he saw it as his homeland, despite generous offers from the Union to remain with them). And not all Union officers were interested in abolition or in hating and punishing the South(General William T. Sherman is generally reviled in the South for his actions, but he genuinely loved the region and did not want to see the Union broken apart). Conversly, many rank and file soldiers didn't care one way or the other about slavery, particularly drafted Irish immigrants for the Union, and many Confederate infantrymen were drafted based on arguments concerning the rights of states, such as Sam Watkins, author of Company Aytch.

Discussions of slavery in the United States do tend to overlook several things, however: 1) The enslavement of Native Americans by European Americans 2) The enslavement of Native Americans by Native Americans predating colonialism in the region and the Atlantic slave trade, and 3) Native Americans purchasing or capturing African slaves. There is some evidence to support the belief that Native Americans treated African slaves better than European Americans, though slavery is still slavery.

[flojocabron]

I have the somewhat blessing of a mod!

guess which one?

I should do this every year!

i'm somewhat sorry.

need to spice things up

I am the april fool

[Opa Opa]

I always know it's April Fools when flojo bumps 40 old threads.

[BoneSnapDeez]

flojo is the man. He needs to post more often.

Keep on bumpin brotha.