Trump attacks protections for immigrants from ‘s***hole’ countries

[Dill]

(02-02-2018, 04:49 PM)Bengalzona Wrote:

That is Lagos.

YOW, I want me one a them HUTS!!  

[Dill]

(02-02-2018, 05:05 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: While in the Navy we were off the coast of Kenya and Somalia in 94'. I was in the "Gator Navy" or amphibious side of things, beach assaults and that sort of thing.  Anyway we carried a lot of Marines on board and they were ashore conducting refugee operations.  However working in navigation and never leaving the ship in those 45 days, I never interacted with the native population.  

Interesting. Was that for UNOSOM II ?

[Bengalzona]

(02-02-2018, 05:05 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: While in the Navy we were off the coast of Kenya and Somalia in 94'. I was in the "Gator Navy" or amphibious side of things, beach assaults and that sort of thing.  Anyway we carried a lot of Marines on board and they were ashore conducting refugee operations.  However working in navigation and never leaving the ship in those 45 days, I never interacted with the native population.  

"Gator Navy".... hence the time at Little Creek NAB.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(02-02-2018, 05:23 PM)Dill Wrote: Interesting. Was that for UNOSOM II ?

The operation we were under was called Dynamic Guard.  It was all about assisting refugees fleeing Somalia. I was just a young 19yo QMSN (Quartermaster with a rank of Seaman) at the time.  I was not "in country" so to speak.  I spent most of my time on the bridge with the 5 other QM's, Chief, Navigation officer, XO, and the Captain of the boat.   After a month and a half at sea, I was never so happy to see port as I was then!

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(02-02-2018, 05:36 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: "Gator Navy".... hence the time at Little Creek NAB.

Sometimes I forget whom I've had these conversations with. 

[*bfine32*]

(02-02-2018, 02:06 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL He said "race".  But it's not there if no one says it out loud while resuscitating the classic three-centuries old defense of slavery--What about the Africans: THEY did it first, to themselves.

"The point made was that African people enslaved themselves," i.e., "by people with whom they coexisted." A "wrong we did not create."  Americans fought a war against other Americans to "right" THEIR wrong?  

Tribes are "grouped" together in to the "same society."   Sure. Just like Europeans. Germans were "enslaving their own people" when they forced Poles, with whom they "coexisted" on the same land (Europe) into work camps in 1941.

"They're in the same country. Of course they're part of the same society."  Of course. All were "citizens" of the great state of Africa, bound together by . . . what exactly: language, custom, religion?  What DID they have in common when Europeans lumped them all together as "people" enslaving themselves?

In 1774, Thomas Paine, of Common Sense fame, also mentioned "race" in addressing whataboutist apologetics in "African Slavery In America".  http://www.constitution.org/tp/afri.htm

The Managers of the [slave] Trade themselves, and others testify, that many of these African nations inhabit fertile countries, are industrious farmers, enjoy plenty, and lived quietly, averse to war, before the Europeans debauched them with liquors, and bribing them against one another; and that these inoffensive people are brought into slavery, by stealing them, tempting Kings to sell subjects, which they can have no right to do, and hiring one tribe to war against another, in order to catch prisoners. By such wicked and inhuman ways the English are said to enslave towards one hundred thousand yearly; of which thirty thousand are supposed to die by barbarous treatment in the first year; besides all that are slain in the unnatural ways excited to take them. So much innocent blood have the managers and supporters of this inhuman trade to answer for to the common Lord of all!

I believe this was the first time the historical whataboutery was challenged in public, in writing, in the U.S. The slavers argued--

"They are set forth to us as slaves, and we buy them without farther inquiry, let the sellers see to it."

LOL WE didn't do it!  Paine, the defender of universal human rights, isn't buying it though.

Such man may as well join with a known band of robbers, buy their ill-got goods, and help on the trade; ignorance is no more pleadable in one case than the other; the sellers plainly own how they obtain them. But none can lawfully buy without evidence that they are not concurring with Men-Stealers; and as the true owner has a right to reclaim his goods that were stolen, and sold; so the slave, who is proper owner of his freedom, has a right to reclaim it, however often sold.

Using the liberal premises which would ground the Declaration of Independence two years later, Paine refutes a list of defenses for slavery, including Biblical slavery.  The English have already addressed the issue in parliament by the 1760s, with Edmund Burke ably sorting out who is still responsible for slavery if an Englishman buys and uses a slave--even if an African enslaved him first. Still took them another 40 years to abolish the trade.

 But the question for us should be, why on earth are these apologies for slavery, which put responsibility for slavery on the victims, still in circulation?  Who is sowing supposed facts-they-don't-want-you-to-know-about-slavery on the internet nowadays to excite debates in forums like this? 

Nothing "unhealthy" about challenging disinformation and specious arguments.  Not back then.  Not now.

I can only speak for myself, as I did not consider the factor of race in the discussion; perhaps Pat did. My point was more what countrymen do to themselves. Pat disagreed with my assertion that rival tribes were part of the same society in sub-Saharan Africa, but I do not recall either talking about race and/or replying with the facetiousness that you did.

Your follow up continues to shine light on the race issue; as I said, find someone willing to go into the gutter with you.  

[StLucieBengal]

(02-02-2018, 03:42 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I'm curious how many of us on the board have been to Sub-Sahara Africa. I'm not trying to call anyone out here. But I am curious.

I have not. I have met several people from there. I've learned enough to not trust stereotypes or the short glimpses we get from media. For example, a lady in my Sunday School class is from Nigeria. She was just telling me this weekend about how people from the different tribes and different religions (primarily Christianity and Islam) interact there. It is far more intricate and complicated than I would have imagined, with much more cooperation rather than conflict or disagreement.

I have not been as of yet. My friends and I do want to plan a hunting trip and most likely that will be the only reason we go. There is just nothing else that would interest me on that continent.

Was told Morocco was cool though from a friend of mine.

[BmorePat87]

(02-02-2018, 06:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I can only speak for myself, as I did not consider the factor of race in the discussion; perhaps Pat did. My point was more what countrymen do to themselves. Pat disagreed with my assertion that rival tribes were part of the same society in sub-Saharan Africa, but I do not recall either talking about race and/or replying with the facetiousness that you did.

Your follow up continues to shine light on the race issue; as I said, find someone willing to go into the gutter with you.  

I mentioned it in my response to Lucie, accusing him of lumping all Africans together because of race and telling him that there was no concept of a unified racial identity among Africans, as I believed that was his motivating factor for his claim.

I didn't in our dialogue, though, because I didn't think it played a role in your position. 


Hopefully that sheds context on this back and forth between you and Dill. 

[StLucieBengal]

(02-02-2018, 09:00 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I mentioned it in my response to Lucie, accusing him of lumping all Africans together because of race and telling him that there was no concept of a unified racial identity among Africans, as I believed that was his motivating factor for his claim.

I didn't in our dialogue, though, because I didn't think it played a role in your position. 


Hopefully that sheds context on this back and forth between you and Dill. 

I was speaking generally about Africans because I didn’t want to get bogged down in the rabbit hole. Especially since I was speaking about them selling each other. Nothing more. Each other being Africans.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-02-2018, 02:06 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL He said "race".  But it's not there if no one says it out loud while resuscitating the classic three-centuries old defense of slavery--What about the Africans: THEY did it first, to themselves.

Wait, what?  Who in this thread "defended slavery"?!

[Dill]

(02-02-2018, 11:30 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: LOL He said "race".  But it's not there if no one says it out loud while resuscitating the classic three-centuries old defense of slavery--What about the Africans: THEY did it first, to themselves.

Wait, what?  Who in this thread "defended slavery"?!

Well, in the quote to which you respond, no one claims slavery is defended.  What is claimed is that someone resuscitated a classic defense of slavery.

To make that point stick, two conditions must be satisfied:

1) it must be established that slavers defended slavery by claiming "they enslaved themselves"--"they" being Africans who, unlike Europeans, were viewed as one "people" because of their race.  So even one tribe enslaved another tribe of very different culture, they were still enslaving "themselves."  Different tribes. Same race. Ergo, same people.

2) it must be established that someone on this thread repeated the claim. On this thread "race" has been updated to "society." African people who belonged to one "society," regardless of tribal/cultural differences, because they lived on the same land. So if one tribe enslaves people of another, no matter how different, they are still enslaving their own.  (People living on the same land in North America were not all the same society. So we have not heard that Whites enslaving Indians thereby enslaving their own people though they might be living on the same land.)  

I think my post #335 satisfies both conditions.

It is possible to re-purpose these old arguments so that even if they are no longer deployed in direct defense of slavery, they may still be used to denigrate victims of slavery and to minimize or deflect responsibility of the slavers.

[*bfine32*]

(02-05-2018, 04:57 PM)Dill Wrote: Well, in the quote to which you respond, no one claims slavery is defended.  What is claimed is that someone resuscitated a classic defense of slavery.

For real? 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-05-2018, 04:57 PM)Dill Wrote: Well, in the quote to which you respond, no one claims slavery is defended.  What is claimed is that someone resuscitated a classic defense of slavery.

To make that point stick, two conditions must be satisfied:

1) it must be established that slavers defended slavery by claiming "they enslaved themselves"--"they" being Africans who, unlike Europeans, were viewed as one "people" because of their race.  So even one tribe enslaved another tribe of very different culture, they were still enslaving "themselves."  Different tribes. Same race. Ergo, same people.

2) it must be established that someone on this thread repeated the claim. On this thread "race" has been updated to "society." African people who belonged to one "society," regardless of tribal/cultural differences, because they lived on the same land. So if one tribe enslaves people of another, no matter how different, they are still enslaving their own.  (People living on the same land in North America were not all the same society. So we have not heard that Whites enslaving Indians thereby enslaving their own people though they might be living on the same land.)  

I think my post #335 satisfies both conditions.

It is possible to re-purpose these old arguments so that even if they are no longer deployed in direct defense of slavery, they may still be used to denigrate victims of slavery and to minimize or deflect responsibility of the slavers.

First of all, don't alter my post in your quote by making it say something I didn't say.  Not only is it lame, it's cowardly.  You claimed someone defended slavery.  I asked you to point out who, not to give me a dissembling argument that people in this thread "resuscitated" a former pro-slavery argument.  So either kindly point out someone actually defending the institution of slavery or kindly retract your accusation.  I'll still be here when you actually address my question.

[Dill]

(02-05-2018, 11:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: First of all, don't alter my post in your quote by making it say something I didn't say.  Not only is it lame, it's cowardly.  You claimed someone defended slavery.  I asked you to point out who, not to give me a dissembling argument that people in this thread "resuscitated" a former pro-slavery argument.  So either kindly point out someone actually defending the institution of slavery or kindly retract your accusation.  I'll still be here when you actually address my question.

First of all, no one altered your post by "making it say something you didn't say."  I disputed a claim you made without altering that claim.

I said "What is claimed is that someone resuscitated a three-centuries old argument used to defend slavery." But you said I said "someone defended slavery."  Correct? That means YOU altered MY post to make it say something I didn't say.  

But perhaps you think a claim that someone "resuscitated" a pro slavery argument is the equivalent of a claim that someone defended slavery? You may think the statements are synonymous.  

Or maybe you know these statements are not synonymous, and that is why you insist on waiting around until I kindly prove or retract your altered version rather than my actual claim as I worded it.  And no "cowardly dissembling".

It is easy to prove that people on this thread have "resuscitated" arguments used to defend slavery.  Here is one for example.

(01-26-2018, 08:49 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Didn’t the African people sell off their own people as commerce?  
All this shows is that their selfish choices along the way Have contributed plenty to their demise.  
Sending them money and aid just enables their terrible choices and  gives us some sort of comfort watching them act like animals with each other.

Here is another:

(01-26-2018, 09:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: BLUF: You used an example of the US righting a wrong that many African countries did to their own citizens in an effort to show how animal-like we are. At any time you can just say: "Yeah, it was a stupid example"......or not. 

This poster takes it to a new level, interpreting the U.S. Civil War as a righting of a wrong done by Africans to "their own."

And this also makes plain the difference between "resuscitating" arguments used by slavers and "defending" slavery.  This poster says slavery was "a wrong." So he is not defending slavery. 

But he is still maintaining it is Africans who "did it to their own," is he not?  And he continues thereafter to defend the lumping of Africans together under whatever rubric is required to keep the point somehow unique to "them" and not "us"-- they are "countrymen," or tribal "groupings," or "citizens," or a society doing to themselves.

So until you can show the posters above didn't say what they said, or that slavers did not say what they said, I have kindly proved my claim.  Again. 

But I have not proved your rewording.  I don't actually see a defense of slavery on this thread.

Should I kindly retract your rewording?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-07-2018, 12:14 PM)Dill Wrote: First of all, no one altered your post by "making it say something you didn't say."  I disputed a claim you made without altering that claim.

Incorrect.  GO back and look at my "quote" in the post of yours I responded to.

Quote:I said "What is claimed is that someone resuscitated a three-centuries old argument used to defend slavery." But you said I said "someone defended slavery."  Correct? That means YOU altered MY post to make it say something I didn't say.  

No, I asked a question, which was, who in this thread defended slavery?  That isn't altering anything.

Quote:But perhaps you think a claim that someone "resuscitated" a pro slavery argument is the equivalent of a claim that someone defended slavery? You may think the statements are synonymous. 

 
I absolutely believe that's what you intended, but my question stands, who made that argument?  If you assert that no one did then the answer to my question would be, "No one defended slavery in this thread nor would I imply they did".  That would be an honest answer requiring much fewer words than what I'm currently responding to.

Quote:Or maybe you know these statements are not synonymous, and that is why you insist on waiting around until I kindly prove or retract your altered version rather than my actual claim as I worded it.  And no "cowardly dissembling".

My altered version of what?  I asked a question, I made no declarative or accusatory statement.

Quote:It is easy to prove that people on this thread have "resuscitated" arguments used to defend slavery.  Here is one for example.


Here is another:


This poster takes it to a new level, interpreting the U.S. Civil War as a righting of a wrong done by Africans to "their own."

Cool.  You did a great job of answering a question that wasn't asked. 

Quote:And this also makes plain the difference between "resuscitating" arguments used by slavers and "defending" slavery.  This poster says slavery was "a wrong." So he is not defending slavery. 

So, again, the answer to my question could have been much shorter.  "No one" would have sufficed.

Quote:But he is still maintaining it is Africans who "did it to their own," is he not?  And he continues thereafter to defend the lumping of Africans together under whatever rubric is required to keep the point somehow unique to "them" and not "us"-- they are "countrymen," or tribal "groupings," or "citizens," or a society doing to themselves.

Regardless of who points it out, the fact that Africans sold other Africans into slavery (a process that is sickeningly going on as we speak) is not a fact in dispute.

Quote:So until you can show the posters above didn't say what they said, or that slavers did not say what they said, I have kindly proved my claim.  Again. 

So your issue is with a factual statement that didn't defend slavery?

Quote:But I have not proved your rewording.  I don't actually see a defense of slavery on this thread.

Once again, a much shorter answer to the question I actually asked.

Quote:Should I kindly retract your rewording?

Sure, as soon as you find an example of my altering your statements I'll happily retract it. 

[*bfine32*]

(02-07-2018, 12:14 PM)Dill Wrote: And this also makes plain the difference between "resuscitating" arguments used by slavers and "defending" slavery.  This poster says slavery was "a wrong." So he is not defending slavery. 

 So in your world: someone can resurrect an argument defending slavery, without defending slavery? 

Perhaps dude just shared his opinion to a cause of slavery; yet you insist on it being about race. Do I need to "reword" your words that attempted to make an argument about race that was not?

[fredtoast]

(01-31-2018, 06:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course you can feel free to call it promoting gross negligence if you wish. When I was in Afghanistan warring neighbors would fight each other depending on what warlord they served. In Bosnia I witnessed the atrocities that Serbs did to Bosniaks, but they were all part of the same society and same citizenship. Just because the Jets didn't like the Sharks doesn't mean they were not the same.


   

Yet the citizens of the Confederate States were not part of the same society as the Northern States?

Too bad "mental gymnastics" is not an olympic event.

[*bfine32*]

(02-07-2018, 07:55 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yet the citizens of the Confederate States were not part of the same society as the Northern States?

To bad "mental gymnastics" is not an olympic event.

Who the hell said the North and South were not part of the same society? 

[fredtoast]

(02-07-2018, 08:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Who the hell said the North and South were not part of the same society? 

So the U.S. Civil War is an example of U.S. citizens commiting atrocities against members of their own society. right?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-07-2018, 07:55 PM)fredtoast Wrote: To bad "mental gymnastics" is not an olympic event.

"Too" bad.  Law degree at work people.