SHAME sprayed on Robert E. Lee statue.

[Aardvark154]

Those sweatshop workers in the North were not whipped to the point of flaying nor were one of their limbs amputated if they tried to escape.

While I am certainly not defending chattel slavery.

Slavery in the Americas and even in the U.S.A. was not uniform. To bring this back, more or less, to the original topic a slave being "whipped to the point of flaying nor [having] one of their limbs amputated if they tried to escape," would have been incomprehensible to a Virginian such as Robert E. Lee, no one behaved in such a manner in Virginia in the 19th century. On the other hand such behaviour although not commonplace was most definitely to be found in parts of the deep south.

This geographic difference helps to make clearer the expression "being sold down the river."

 

[Insidious Von]

Now that Johnny Depp's crap film has bombed and if The Revenant does well at the box-office, a Bass Reeves biopic should be forthcoming. Idris Elba, who has a starring role in the next Star Trek film, shouldn't have any problems growing a hadle bar mustache.

 

[oldjones]

More like having a statue of Generalfeldmarschall von Rundstedt or perhaps even more a statute of Generalfeldmarschall Ritter von Leeb in Dresden.

Oh, so you mean the countless "Indian raids" and those who were killed in them, straight through from the Powhatan Uprising of 1622 and King Philip's War (1675-1678) to the mid-nineteenth century are merely an invention of deluded historians and genealogists?

Put your statue in Coventry, or London and you'd have an appropriate analogy for seeing a Lee statue as hateful. Or put it in Dachau. Suggesting fire-bombed Dresden as a place to glorify Generals who aided and abetted genocide is so creepily similar to the Civil War memorials that steadfastly ignore the crimes against humanity the South was guilty of, and which continue still, that I thank you for your support of my point.

As for sporadic resistance of Native American to the wholesale occupation and inexorable seizure and theft of their lands by invading Europeans, they were few, far between, and count as pinpricks measured against against the death toll of wholesale genocidal forced relocations and outright exterminations carried out against them. I grant their guerrilla resistance made the natives 'unlawful combattants' by the standards of their oppressors, a double-speak that's just as conveniently self-serving for invaders to day. But then and now, you have to ignore the reality of whose homeland was invaded, and being defended.

To get to a useful point beyond the infantile name-calling we actually must recognize the truth the other side sees and presents, not just our own half-truths, the ones we've always used to soothe ourselves and hide the wrongs we've done.

 

[red]

This was an episode in the Beaver Wars, a series of military expeditions in which the Iroquois attempted and largely succeeded in depopulating Ohio by genocide and torture of other Indian groups in order to obtain exclusive possession of prime beaver trapping territories.

Not all Indian tribes were nasty, but some were very, very nasty indeed. Read anything on the Comanche and what they did to lose your appetite for a couple of days. Ditto the Apache. And these were not desperate people defending their land from the Whites. These tribes were engaged in deliberate expansionist wars against both other Indian tribes and white settlements.

OJ knows fuck-all and is just ranting his usual leftie garbage.

I never read what he posts, it's generally tripe.

It's amazing to me how we portray the natives as gentle souls who had a unique relationship with the land. While the realty is they are human beings just like us and they could be mean, cruel, warlike just like the rest of the world. They had slaves as well.

If we could think of them as people and not charactures we would be all better off.

 

[SkyRider]

It's amazing to me how we portray the natives as gentle souls who had a unique relationship with the land. While the realty is they are human beings just like us and they could be mean, cruel, warlike just like the rest of the world. They had slaves as well.

Some indigenous South Americans use to sacrifice virgins until they were stopped by the white man.

 

[oil&gas]

I once read that missionaries had a tough time to preach
the christian doctrine of salvation to South American natives.
To them it made more sense to sacrifice virgins to God than for
God's son to sacrifice himself.

 

[SkyRider]

http://www.nps.gov/arho/learn/historyculture/slavery.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant

Life was hard in the 1800's.

 

[canada-man]

the Aztecs, Maya and the Incas used to perform human sacrifices in pre-columbian times. The Caribs used to war with the Tainos and eating them

 

[oil&gas]

Davy Crockett, Jim Bowie and Colonel Travis would
go down in history as national heroes by fighting liberators
of slaves in Texas. General Robert Lee somehow was seen
as a racist traitor. Isn't history ironic?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Slavery, although not the root cause of revolt, was undeniably linked to the Texas Revolution.

The issue caused discord between the colonists and Mexican officials. Laws existed in Mexico that aimed at ending slavery by curtailing the buying of slaves and dictating that all slave children be emancipated at age 14. Many Mexicans viewed slavery incompatible with their nation’s announced policy of equality for all, regardless of race. Others, however, saw the need to allow slaves in if the goals of immigration—economic prosperity and regional stability—were to be achieved.

In 1829, President Vicente Guerrero issued a decree abolishing African slavery, by then which existed only in a measurable degree in Texas. The colonists and their allies in the Legislature of Coahuila y Texas complained, securing an exemption for Texas. The Law of April 6, 1830, again closed Texas to slavery. However, in 1828 state lawmakers in Saltillo already gave the colonists a loophole than enable them to continue skirting prohibition on slavery. Based on Mexico’s own labour system of debt peonage, the state agreed to recognize labour contracts made in other countries, which allowed colonists to bring their human property under the guise of indentured servants. Thus, the South’s “peculiar institution” was transplanted to Texas. Records indicate that the number of slaves in Texas numbered 2,000 on the eve of the Texas Revolution.

http://www.thealamo.org/history/the-1836-battle/slavery.html

 

[SkyRider]

Many Mexicans viewed slavery incompatible with their nation’s announced policy of equality for all, regardless of race.

It's ironical, isn't it, that many (most?) Mexican would prefer to live in Texas if given a choice.Despite all the problems, blacks as a group are much better off in the U.S. than in any other country in the world.

 

[red]

It's ironical, isn't it, that many (most?) Mexican would prefer to live in Texas if given a choice.Despite all the problems, blacks as a group are much better off in the U.S. than in any other country in the world.

Based on what stats? Better off than in canada, bermuda, uk?