Originally posted by: lupi
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: lupi
Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
I would imagine that the most racist president would likely be one of the presidents that owned slaves.
for a large portion of time slavery was not associated with a color and did not infer racism but rather classism.
We're talking about the US in this thread, stupi. Slavery in the US was exactly, explicitly and exclusively based on color.
And slavery elsewhere was not classism iether, but rather tribalism/clannism/proto-nationalism.
Slavery was
never classism. :roll:
The institution of indentured servants, however, was.
Many "white" Americans got their start in this country as indentured servants. And, no, indentured servants were
never slaves -- big difference.
Your post is complete and utter drivel.
Don't let your hate blind you or else you post with stupidity such as here.
Slavery has existed since before man was able to document history. And not only has class played a heavy role on it's function, but in what can only be referred to as YAPDM, you validate that point in your description of it. Over thousands of years up to and including today slavery has been practiced. Throughout the ancient periods, through the middle ages, and in some areas entering the modern era, class could be described as the driving force behind it. But don't let that stop you from using your Olbermann method of statistic as slavery in the US existed for just a shade over 50 years. So by default the events within that period of course are the defacto standard when discussing it.
Just ignore that most of history saw people taken as slaves because they were of another tribe, non citizens of a nation, members of a different political or religious affiliation, unable to satisfy economic demands and the like. Wait, where did I mention color of those enslaved? Oh that's right, throughout most of practice skin tone played no role. In fact until around the late medieval period it still had no discernable mention in the process. It wasn't until society had developed to the point that the different groupings of people (oh, is that yet another reference to class, could be) agreed to not enslave another if they themselves would also not be treated as such that then you can begin to discuss the color of those utilized as a factor.
But not for the "traditional" reasons that the standard idiot gallery will babble about it, but rather as it became a matter of economics since the European traders (another shocker here for those ole "the bad US" haters like yourself as the US had a miniscule part in the collection and transportation part of the industry) went to where they had available stock. And even now as we finally near the portion of time where matters of color come to the forefront, it still has a heavy does of class and economics. Why so, well because you had people of similar color, yet different nations or tribes, willing to sell those members outside of their class into slavery, and those European traders were buying. So yes, if you want to dwell in your hatred and bigotry and continue to live in what is less than an eye blink in totality of the subject, then I could see how you would be misguided on it.
Facebook
Twitter