Al Sharpton Learns His Ancestors Were Slaves Owned By Relatives of Strom Thurmond

[senatorlamb]

From NY Daily News: (http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/500577p-422090c)

In a revelation that will stun the nation, the Rev. Al Sharpton, one of America's most powerful black leaders, has unearthed a shattering family secret - his ancestors were slaves owned by relatives of the late South Carolina Sen. Strom Thurmond.

It is an ironic twist of fate that inexorably links one of the most vocal civil rights activists and an icon of Deep South segregation.

A team of some of the country's most trusted genealogists spent two weeks examining Sharpton's family background.

Sharpton learned the results of their work this week. Today, in the first part of a Daily News series, Sharpton talks about the emotional shock of learning how his family was so closely linked to a man who embodied everything he despises.

The Rev. Al Sharpton sat silently in the sanctity of his Manhattan radio studio as his family's roots were laid bare before him.

[Trainsaw]

pretty ironic, doubt Strom Thurmond would have gave a shit

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

this is a non story
plenty of peoples relatives were slaves, and plenty of other peoples relatives were slave owners
acting as if he is a victim vicariously through his relatives doesnt advance the cause of civil rights or equality at all, it juts gets him on the news

[splat out path]

this is a non story
plenty of peoples relatives were slaves, and plenty of other peoples relatives were slave owners
acting as if he is a victim vicariously through his relatives doesnt advance the cause of civil rights or equality at all, it juts gets him on the news
Um, he hasn't said anything...

[Smash Adams]

Wait, is Alanis Morissette writing for the daily news since this isn't exactly ironic- Strom's famous for being racist, racism was a huge part of slavery

on another note- does anyone else really not like al sharpton- not for racist reasons but b/c he plays on people's emotions and does it in a non-intelligent way

[selftitled85]

virginia offered an apology to blacks for slavery. it is retarded. completely unneeded.

[chronomic]

hahahaha

[TJ Wells]

who cares?

[Jason Tate]

virginia offered an apology to blacks for slavery. it is retarded. completely unneeded.
Unneeded? Yeah .. of course .. totally unneeded. :hitself:

[senatorlamb]

virginia offered an apology to blacks for slavery. it is retarded. completely unneeded.

you're joking, right?

[selftitled85]

you're joking, right?

what is a non heartfelt...145+ years late apology going to accomplish?

va government: yeah...for all those years we kept you as slaves...my bad....i didnt know it was really bad. im sure my great great great grandparents are sorry too.
black man: my great great great grandparents accept your apology.

[selftitled85]

actions speak louder than words. instead of apologizing for something that the lawmakers themselves cannot do anything about...why not do something they can help. put more money into decrepit minority areas such as va beach...put more funding into colleges...do more to diversify the schools...etc.

[selftitled85]

you dont see many descendants of the original settlers of the west being like "yeah my bad...my ancestors were complete dicks...im sorry for them killing a bunch of you...here is your land back."

[Jason Tate]

you dont see many descendants of the original settlers of the west being like "yeah my bad...my ancestors were complete dicks...im sorry for them killing a bunch of you...here is your land back."
As someone from the west, they "appologized" a long time ago. It was all over the news. Bunch of money changed hands.

[get high]

issuing an apology for slavery is absurd. this generation had nothing to do with it. its completely over the top

[richter915]

actions speak louder than words. instead of apologizing for something that the lawmakers themselves cannot do anything about...why not do something they can help. put more money into decrepit minority areas such as va beach...put more funding into colleges...do more to diversify the schools...etc.
it's such an old issue like you said and many tax payers in Virginia probably feel the same way so they'd be pretty pissed to see their tax money going for this kind of thing. It's a double edged sword here.

[trindaddy]

i dont understand why anybody in here is arguing over if an apology is needed or not.

it's not like one of us is personally apologizing. and i checked profiles here. it doesn't seem that one person in here is black. if an african american wants an apology from the state of virginia for being a decendent of a slave, then they should get it. if thats what they feel they need to have peace at mind, who are we to say no?

[richter915]

i dont understand why anybody in here is arguing over if an apology is needed or not.

it's not like one of us is personally apologizing. and i checked profiles here. it doesn't seem that one person in here is black. if an african american wants an apology from the state of virginia for being a decendent of a slave, then they should get it. if thats what they feel they need to have peace at mind, who are we to say no?
that's actually an interesting perspective. So many people are caught up in their own pride. I guess the counter is is that if a descendant of slavery wants an apology, then a descendant of slave owners should give it and not the state?

[trindaddy]

that's actually an interesting perspective. So many people are caught up in their own pride. I guess the counter is is that if a descendant of slavery wants an apology, then a descendant of slave owners should give it and not the state?

but a counter to that counter would be, which one is more responsible for the slavery, the continuing governing body of the region, or a decendant who was born 100 years later? i like to think thats an easy question to answer.

[richter915]

but a counter to that counter would be, which one is more responsible for the slavery, the continuing governing body of the region, or a decendant who was born 100 years later? i like to think thats an easy question to answer.
I see what you're saying and that's agreeable but the main argument against that is just that it's 100 years later therefore all should have been forgiven.

[trindaddy]

I see what you're saying and that's agreeable but the main argument against that is just that it's 100 years later therefore all should have been forgiven.

i know what you mean as well, and i think things should be forgiven, but obviously they're not.
im just saying if all they want is an apology from the state, then give it to them.
i honestly wish none of this were an issue or brought up anymore though.

[senatorlamb]

issuing an apology for slavery is absurd. this generation had nothing to do with it. its completely over the top

although symbolic, the resolution acknowledges Virginia's sin. Acknowleding leads to acceptance which then leads to action. If you think slavery was some issue that was ages ago, that has no influence on contemporary society, that Lincoln just raised his hands like Moses and let blacks be free and happy from there on...well, then you should read more history. Virginia - the most prominent state of the Confederacy- acknowledged its role in slavery and apologized. I think its amazing and a start in dealing with America's historical racism.

[richter915]

although symbolic, the resolution acknowledges Virginia's sin. Acknowleding leads to acceptance which then leads to action. If you think slavery was some thing that was ages ago that has no influence on contemporary society, that Lincoln just raised his hands like Moses and let blacks be free and happy from there on...well, then you should read more history. Virginia - the most prominent state of the Confederacy- acknowledged its role in slavery and apologized. I think its amazing and a start in dealing with America's historical rascism.
as Chris Rock said..."now when I mean slavery, i'm talking about a period of time from 1700 to about 1965". What many states should be apologizing for is things like Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, grandfather clauses, etc. If that was what was focussed on, then I think more people would understand because it relates not to our generation but easily our parents generation and makes us more aware of how prominent the effects of racism are in the American society.

[TheByrus]

everyone's ancestors have had tough times, not just the blacks.


and pretty much everyone's ancestors were probably slaves at one time.


get over it.

[senatorlamb]

everyone's ancestors have had tough times, not just the blacks.


and pretty much everyone's ancestors were probably slaves at one time.


get over it.

Two things.

1) You don't know history.

2) I hate you.

[TheByrus]

Two things.

1) You don't know history.

2) I hate you.


i don't know history, eh?


how far back can you trace your genealogy?

[TheByrus]

where did ya go, captain history?

[senatorlamb]

i don't know history, eh?


how far back can you trace your genealogy?

Look, I learned to not take your comments seriously when you remark about the historical plight of African-Americans: "get over it." It just plainly shows that you have no concept of history. True, other civilizations throughout history have been conquered, and at times enslaved. There is however a difference with African-American slavery because it revolved around the notion that blacks were inferior and sub-human. It is that idea that created 400 years of some of the worst historical oppression. It destroyed a people's culture and destroyed knowledge of their own collective history. They were denied proper education for hundreds of years. They built a country into an industrial power without just pay or without the granting of rights. After slavery ended, freed blacks were not automatically granted the ability to live the American Dream. After the promises of Reconstruction, and the passage of Constitutional amendments by the Republican Congress, the Southern Democrats went about the strategy "Redemption" in order to turn back any black progress. Blacks were lynched, massacred, and killed. Southern governments with black elected legislatures were overthrown. All their political rights granted by the new Constitutional amendments were taken away by "poll taxes." "literacy tests" and sheer intimidation. This is when Jim Crowe came about. The system of sharecropping which many blacks (who were mostly concentrated in the south) were forced into was just as bad as slavery if not worst. Again, they were denied equal access to education and jobs. Our culture revolved around black sterotypes "Uncle Tom" and such that made blacks into simply sub-human creatures. The era of Jim Crowe created a system in the south in which blacks had to adhere to many rules or suffer deadly consquences. Thousands of lynchings occured- not in secret or at night - but they were instead public events with a carnival like atmosphere. "Human trophies" were given out, you know, a finger, a toe.

I could go on an on, but this is just a touch of it. You simply need to learn history.

[TheByrus]

Look, I learned to not take your comments seriously when you remark about the historical plight of African-Americans: "get over it." It just plainly shows that you have no concept of history. True, other civilizations throughout history have been conquered, and at times enslaved. There is however a difference with African-American slavery because it revolved around the notion that blacks were inferior and sub-human. It is that idea that created 400 years of some of the worst historical oppression. It destroyed a people's culture and destroyed knowledge of their own collective history. They were denied proper education for hundreds of years. They built a country into an industrial power without just pay or without the granting of rights. After slavery ended, freed blacks were not automatically granted the ability to live the American Dream. After the promises of Reconstruction, and the passage of Constitutional amendments by the Republican Congress, the Southern Democrats went about the strategy "Redemption" in order to turn back any black progress. Blacks were lynched, massacred, and killed. Southern governments with black elected legislatures were overthrown. All their political rights granted by the new Constitutional amendments were taken away by "poll taxes." "literacy tests" and sheer intimidation. This is when Jim Crowe came about. The system of sharecropping which many blacks (who were mostly concentrated in the south) was just as bad as slavery if not worst. Again, they were denied equal access to education and jobs. Our culture revolved around black sterotypes "Uncle Tom" and such that made blacks into simply sub-human creatures. The era of Jim Crowe created a system in the south in which blacks had to adhere to many rules or suffer deadly consquences. Thousands of lynchings occured- not in secret or at night - but they were instead public events with a carnival life atmosphere. "Human trophies" were given out, you know, a finger, a toe.

I could go on an on, but this is just a touch of it. You simply need to learn history.


ok, what is the difference between slaves in america before the civil war and slaves during the time of roman rule in europe?

[senatorlamb]

ok, what is the difference between slaves in america before the civil war and slaves during the time of roman rule in europe?

Very simple. Although you can say notions of race existed back in the Roman Empire, in which Romans believed themselves to be more civililized and superior to other peoples, they were not "racist" as we define it today. It was mainly seen as a military matter in which the losers of war were enslaved. Granted some slaves were abused, raped, killed etc.. yet the Romans eventually incorporated the ethnicity of the group into the Roman Empire. Yet, a whole people were not purposely denied any advancement. There was no social, sexual, scientific obsession with the race of these slaves as being inferior. A race of people were not systematically targeted for persecution.

Additionally, slavery was practiced differently in each civilization in world history. Slaves in past civilizations were not always abused or looked down upon. Some lived decent lives although obviously limited socially. The slavery practiced in America, especially in the South, was a very brutal slavery that humiliated and destroyed the pride a people. They were essentially treated like cattle. They lost all dignity and were held inferior to whites. Their merit and worth were not judged in terms of the individual. Instead, they were inheritantly judged by race. For example, a freed slave of Gaul heritage in the Roman Empire was not then judged inferior by Romans simply because of his "race". A freed black slave in America however had numerous difficulties being seen as equal to whites. The opportunities of that person would always be limited.

Then there is the sheer numbers factor. It is believed that about 10-12 million slaves were transported to America during the slave trade. Slavery practiced by other past civilizations had no where near this number.

[trindaddy]

Very simple. Although you can say notions of race existed back in the Roman Empire, in which Romans believed themselves to be more civililized and superior to other peoples, they were not "racist" as we define it today. It was mainly seen as a military matter in which the losers of war were enslaved. Granted some slaves were abused, raped, killed etc.. yet the Romans eventually incorporated the ethnicity of the group into the Roman Empire. Yet, a whole people were not purposely denied any advancement. There was no social, sexual, scientific obsession with the race of these slaves as being inferior. A race of people were not systematically targeted for persecution.

Additionally, slavery was practiced differently in each civilization in world history. Slaves in past civilizations were not always abused or looked down upon. Some lived decent lives although obviously limited socially. The slavery practiced in America, especially in the South, was a very brutal slavery that humiliated and destroyed the pride a people. They were essentially treated like cattle. They lost all dignity and were held inferior to whites. Their merit and worth were not judged in terms of the individual. Instead, they were inheritantly judged by race. For example, a freed slave of Gaul heritage in the Roman Empire was not then judged inferior by Romans simply because of his "race". A freed black slave in America however had numerous difficulties being seen as equal to whites. The opportunities of that person would always be limited.

Then there is the sheer numbers factor. It is believed that about 10-12 million slaves were transported to America during the slave trade. Slavery practiced by other past civilizations had no where near this number.


you hit the nail on the head on this one. did you write this down on the top of your head, or did you copy and paste online, because this is extremely accurate. I went over all of this in a class last quarter.
im glad he keeps referring to you as mr. history. you've obviously have a notch for history. i can appreciate this seeing how im actually a history education major in college right now.

[rlemv8]

Then there is the sheer numbers factor. It is believed that about 10-12 million slaves were transported to America during the slave trade. Slavery practiced by other past civilizations had no where near this number.

Rather than wasting my time with the problems with your whole statement, Im skipping just to the last few sentances. First, of course the America/Africa slave trade was the most of anybody thus far, due to naturally increasing population (The world hasnt had 8 billion people on it from the beginning), more people are being born, traded, whatever. Second, those are the transportation numbers (I think, but I dont think youre right), look at the levels of slavery of Native Americans and lower class people in South America up to present day, believe me, there are a lot more civilizations who have treated slaves much worse than the South did. I dont agree with slavery, and I believe it is a permanent stain on America, but you cant throw out random numbers and insist youre right.

[trindaddy]

Rather than wasting my time with the problems with your whole statement, Im skipping just to the last few sentances.



i'd love for you to waste your time with the whole statement.

[Bob Payne]

This Just In: A Friend Of A Friend Of A Guy's Cousin Who Knew Somebody Owned Slaves

[richter915]

This Just In: A Friend Of A Friend Of A Guy's Cousin Who Knew Somebody Owned Slaves
racist

[richter915]

everyone's ancestors have had tough times, not just the blacks.


and pretty much everyone's ancestors were probably slaves at one time.


get over it.
not everyone lives in the country of their ancestors. Not everyone can trace back slavery to about 3 or 4 generations. Not everyone lives in a country where their ancestors were kept down purely based on race even after slavery so that certain other races could enjoy what the nation had to offer. Not everyone's ancestors are from a country that can now claim themselves as the world's only superpower. Not everyone's ancestors came from "ideal" democracies which claimed "life liberty and justice for all"

you follow what I'm saying here?

[x togepi x]

we gave the Japanese Americans some reparations for interning them during WWII. Slavery was infinitely worse.

[TheByrus]

Very simple. Although you can say notions of race existed back in the Roman Empire, in which Romans believed themselves to be more civililized and superior to other peoples, they were not "racist" as we define it today. It was mainly seen as a military matter in which the losers of war were enslaved. Granted some slaves were abused, raped, killed etc.. (1)yet the Romans eventually incorporated the ethnicity of the group into the Roman Empire. Yet, a whole people were not purposely denied any advancement. (2)There was no social, sexual, scientific obsession with the race of these slaves as being inferior. A race of people were not systematically targeted for persecution.

Additionally, slavery was practiced differently in each civilization in world history. (3)Slaves in past civilizations were not always abused or looked down upon. Some lived decent lives although obviously limited socially. The slavery practiced in America, especially in the South, was a very brutal slavery that humiliated and destroyed the pride a people. They were essentially treated like cattle. They lost all dignity and were held inferior to whites. Their merit and worth were not judged in terms of the individual. Instead, they were inheritantly judged by race. For example, a freed slave of Gaul heritage in the Roman Empire was not then judged inferior by Romans simply because of his "race". A freed black slave in America however had numerous difficulties being seen as equal to whites. The opportunities of that person would always be limited.

Then there is the sheer numbers factor. It is believed that about 10-12 million slaves were transported to America during the slave trade. Slavery practiced by other past civilizations had no where near this number.

(1)just because a slave was freed, that did not make them a citizen of rome.

(2)are you sure about that? social classes were everything back then and slaves were the lowest of the low. what you were born into, you stayed for the rest of your life.

(3)that's a good one. sure, there are cases where i'm sure slaves were not abused, but the same is true for america. however, slaves were always looked down upon. that's what a slave is; someone who is not equal to you and belongs to someone.

[TheByrus]

not everyone lives in the country of their ancestors. Not everyone can trace back slavery to about 3 or 4 generations. Not everyone lives in a country where their ancestors were kept down purely based on race even after slavery so that certain other races could enjoy what the nation had to offer. Not everyone's ancestors are from a country that can now claim themselves as the world's only superpower. Not everyone's ancestors came from "ideal" democracies which claimed "life liberty and justice for all"

you follow what I'm saying here?


it doesn't matter if you can trace slavery back 4 generations or 30. YOU were never enslaved, therefore YOU do not deserve any form sympathy for it. slavery is bad no matter what time it occurred, and unfortunately it happened. despite what you think, you are not special.

[Ambulance Y]

we gave the Japanese Americans some reparations for interning them during WWII. Slavery was infinitely worse.


Compleeeetely different situation. And by the way, we've given blacks advantages in this society far better than reparations.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

Um, he hasn't said anything...

i didnt say he had said anything. except that he actually did say something. but that wasnt my point like i said. i said that everyone making him out to be a victim doesn't do anything, instead it gives him what he often appears to want most...media attention.

ps-he probably will end up saying a lot of things anyway


we gave the Japanese Americans some reparations for interning them during WWII. Slavery was infinitely worse.

yes, so lets give them money, not a sound byte

[richter915]

Compleeeetely different situation. And by the way, we've given blacks advantages in this society far better than reparations.
if u say affirmative action and welfare, you've got a lot to learn.

[richter915]

it doesn't matter if you can trace slavery back 4 generations or 30. YOU were never enslaved, therefore YOU do not deserve any form sympathy for it. slavery is bad no matter what time it occurred, and unfortunately it happened. despite what you think, you are not special.
I think u fail to realize that the effects of slavery are still seen today. For example, blacks have been in America since the 1700s yet they are well behind economically than immigrant groups like Italians and Asians...why? because the effects of slavery stayed through until the civil rights movement. It's easy to say "well blacks are just lazy and criminals" cause that's what we see on TV but there's this social reason and it does go back to racist doctrine set forth in the states.

by technicality I agree with you, I don't think a state should apologize to the offspring of slavery...I think apologies for slavery, jim crow laws, and other laws are all needed.

[richter915]

yes, so lets give them money, not a sound byte

like i said earlier, it's a double edged sword. You give them money then 1. taxpayers will complain, 2.it looks very superficial. Kinda like when ur dad yells at u and then he buys u a toy later on to make up for it. On the other side is what you're arguing, what good do shallow apologies do? Honestly, I think both would need to happen in order to make everyone happy.

[Royalstar]

We have to lay the facts down. Black people are having to struggle generation, after generation, because of, basically, lack of education. I'm not even sure that by supplying money to black school systems that we can overcome this lack of education...

LOL...there was this funny sketch on Dave Chappelle show where Dave asked "How will black people overcome" and this white lady was like "how can they overcome...?" then dave was like "that is correct we don't know"...anyways just trying to make this thread, more fun...theres so much tension...

But, seriously though, I think that black communities should be given the money...and I'm not saying it because I think 'the white man put us down' and 'its yalls ancestors that did this to us so yall are obligated', but because I think its the right thing to do...I'm pretty sure if we were in power we'd do the same thing for your people :D

[TheByrus]

I think u fail to realize that the effects of slavery are still seen today. For example, blacks have been in America since the 1700s yet they are well behind economically than immigrant groups like Italians and Asians...why? because the effects of slavery stayed through until the civil rights movement. It's easy to say "well blacks are just lazy and criminals" cause that's what we see on TV but there's this social reason and it does go back to racist doctrine set forth in the states.

by technicality I agree with you, I don't think a state should apologize to the offspring of slavery...I think apologies for slavery, jim crow laws, and other laws are all needed.

if a black man wants a harvard education and wants to make millions a year, he can have it. sure, people live below the poverty line, but all the races in america have people living there.

the american dream is the pursuit of happiness, not the guarantee of happiness.

[x togepi x]

Compleeeetely different situation. And by the way, we've given blacks advantages in this society far better than reparations.

yes, the lingering racism in this country is definitely a better advantage than reparations.

[senatorlamb]

I'll give my rebuttal tonight. Been busy today with classwork. But if anyone wants to show why African-American slavery was a unique thing, go ahead.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

like i said earlier, it's a double edged sword. You give them money then 1. taxpayers will complain, 2.it looks very superficial. Kinda like when ur dad yells at u and then he buys u a toy later on to make up for it. On the other side is what you're arguing, what good do shallow apologies do? Honestly, I think both would need to happen in order to make everyone happy.


i see your point
but i just think that these government apologies are more to make poiticians look good than to do any real good for the black community

[trindaddy]

if a black man wants a harvard education and wants to make millions a year, he can have it. sure, people live below the poverty line, but all the races in america have people living there.

the american dream is the pursuit of happiness, not the guarantee of happiness.


yeah, there are poor white people as well. white people constitutes the majority of poverty.
however, in comparison to the overall white population, the number is small. the percentages of ethnic persons who do not graduate high school, live in poverty, and are unemployed of imprisoned is far greater than that of white people.

america is still in the repercussions of slavery and jim crow laws.

and slaves in roman times had much more freedoms than those in the us. sure they had hard times as well but their slavery was not based on race, and they did have rights such as filing complaints in courts against their owners. Also it was considered homicide if a master killed his slave. once freed, a slave could do anything except for marry senatorial romans, but their children could as long as they were never enslaved. many roman slaves went on to be great military leaders, popes, and other historic philosophy and idealistic leaders. During roman times Stoics and later christians enforced slavery rights. In america, it was the southern christian who kept slavery occuring. about the only benefit a slave has is that they slightly qualified for a tax break for their state. even when freed, they were basically forced to stay away from those who freed them.

[TheByrus]

and slaves in roman times had much more freedoms than those in the us. sure they had hard times as well but their slavery was not based on race, and they did have rights such as filing complaints in courts against their owners. Also it was considered homicide if a master killed his slave. once freed, a slave could do anything except for marry senatorial romans, but their children could as long as they were never enslaved. many roman slaves went on to be great military leaders, popes, and other historic philosophy and idealistic leaders. During roman times Stoics and later christians enforced slavery rights. In america, it was the southern christian who kept slavery occuring. about the only benefit a slave has is that they slightly qualified for a tax break for their state. even when freed, they were basically forced to stay away from those who freed them.

slave masters were permitted to kill their slaves or force them to fight in the arena up til a certain point in history (around the 2nd century, i believe).


and as for the bolded section, flavius gratianus augustus ruled that any slave who accused his master of a crime would be burned alive.

before that, you just had to worry about crucifixion.

[trindaddy]

slave masters were permitted to kill their slaves or force them to fight in the arena up til a certain point in history (around the 2nd century, i believe).


and as for the bolded section, flavius gratianus augustus ruled that any slave who accused his master of a crime would be burned alive.

before that, you just had to worry about crucifixion.

augustus was also responsible for losing 2/3s of his eastern army in battles. of course he flexed his power again over slavery when he could actually capture somebody. do you honestly think he had access to many enslaved persons? for a few hundred years before he ruled, what i said previously is accurate, and after his death it is also accurate. he was in power for a total of 4 years, and was in powerjust 50 years before rome fell.
they didn't transport slaves, and it was illegal to sell yourself or children as a slave. it was merely pow's as slaves, and there weren't many slaves left at this time.

[TheByrus]

augustus was also responsible for losing 2/3s of his eastern army in battles. of course he flexed his power again over slavery when he could actually capture somebody. do you honestly think he had access to many enslaved persons? for a few hundred years before he ruled, what i said previously is accurate, and after his death it is also accurate. he was in power for a total of 4 years, and was in powerjust 50 years before rome fell.



congrats.


relevance?

[trindaddy]

congrats.


relevance?


are you kidding me? how can you question my revelance when you brought up the subject?

you bring up a guy who was in power for 4 years to try and continue your point on how roman slaves had it worse than african american slaves. i was rebutting the fact of what you said had very little relevance.

[TheByrus]

are you kidding me? how can you question my revelance when you brought up the subject?

you bring up a guy who was in power for 4 years to try and continue your point on how roman slaves had it worse than african american slaves. i was rebutting the fact of what you said had very little relevance.


i am not saying roman slavery is worse than american slavery. i am saying that slavery at any time is bad. and considering when you go back 30 generations (that is 1,073,741,824 people, btw) someone in your ancestory is bound to be a slave.

[senatorlamb]

yeah, I was going to do some more debating but trindaddy definitely has it right. He knows his history and clearly won this debate. Roman slavery was more a socio-economic status. African-American slavery was dominated by racism which led to more hatred, more violence, more human degradation than other forms of slavery. Importantly, it was racism that extended version slavery by default, even after the outcome of the Civil War and passage of the 13th amendment.

[TheByrus]

hah!


enjoy the make-out session, boys.

[senatorlamb]

hah!


enjoy the make-out session, boys.

does that mean you admit defeat?

[TheByrus]

does that mean you admit defeat?


does that mean you do not agree with this statement:



slavery at any time is bad. and considering when you go back 30 generations (that is 1,073,741,824 people, btw) someone in your ancestory is bound to be a slave.

[trindaddy]

i am not saying roman slavery is worse than american slavery. i am saying that slavery at any time is bad. and considering when you go back 30 generations (that is 1,073,741,824 people, btw) someone in your ancestory is bound to be a slave.

you sure about that?

(1)just because a slave was freed, that did not make them a citizen of rome.

(2)are you sure about that? social classes were everything back then and slaves were the lowest of the low. what you were born into, you stayed for the rest of your life.

(3)that's a good one. sure, there are cases where i'm sure slaves were not abused, but the same is true for america. however, slaves were always looked down upon. that's what a slave is; someone who is not equal to you and belongs to someone.


this statement you made ealier makes me think otherwise. which this statement is completely inaccurate. slaves were in fact freed and some went on to lead great lives. they were called "liberti" and people such as narcicist, 3 popes, and horace (brutus' right hand man). i just pulled this out of my notes from one of my roman history classes. and the decendents of slaves were in fact citizens of rome.
you make inferences, i, as a history major, base my argument upon facts.

[senatorlamb]

does that mean you do not agree with this statement:



slavery at any time is bad. and considering when you go back 30 generations (that is 1,073,741,824 people, btw) someone in your ancestory is bound to be a slave.

but due to racism and prejudice, the implications of African-American slavery proved to be particuarly brutal and long-lasting; never fully coming to an end. Sharecropping, Jim Crowe, segregation, lynchings, white terror campaigns, and other race problems are all just extensions of the original system of black slavery in America. Don't tell me that the ancestors of Celtic or Gaul or Germanic slaves of the Romans still live with the pain and suffering of their slavery.

[TheByrus]

and the decendents of slaves were in fact citizens of rome.
you make inferences, i, as a history major, base my argument upon facts.


you are right about that and i admit i was wrong.


i mixed up facts.

however, belittling is quite childish and completely unnecessary.

[TheByrus]

but due to racism and prejudice, the implications of African-American slavery proved to be particuarly brutal and long-lasting; never fully coming to an end. Sharecropping, Jim Crowe, segregation, lynchings, white terror campaigns, and other race problems are all just extensions of the original system of black slavery in America. Don't tell me that the ancestors of Celtic or Gaul or Germanic slaves of the Romans still live with the pain and suffering of their slavery.


this is getting redundant.


i am growing tired of repeating myself.


if you do not agree with me, fine.

[trindaddy]

this is getting redundant.


i am growing tired of repeating myself.


if you do not agree with me, fine.

well then i suppose we agree to disagree, which is fine

[senatorlamb]

this is getting redundant.


i am growing tired of repeating myself.


if you do not agree with me, fine.

Its not a matter of agreeing. Its a matter of fact. I accept your surrender.

[TheByrus]

Its not a matter of agreeing. Its a matter of fact. I accept your surrender.



this thread has been all about opinions backed up with facts.


however, your argument has been more sad than factual.

[trindaddy]

this thread has been all about opinions backed up with facts.


however, your argument has been more sad than factual.


his argument is completely fact based.

your argument is unsympathetic, completely opinionated and inferred

[senatorlamb]

this thread has been all about opinions backed up with facts.


however, your argument has been more sad than factual.

name one thing I wrote that wasn't factual. lets just end this. you lost, get over it.

[TheByrus]

name one thing I wrote that wasn't factual. lets just end this. you lost, get over it.


hahaha, classic.