HRC thesis on Alinsky

[Dill]

(11-12-2016, 07:40 AM)djam Wrote: Its the over-emotional left and their depressing world view --its full of false claims and stretched truth. . . . .Thankfully, 'whitey' and the christian based countries were among the very first to abolish slavery. Did blacks abolish slavery first? No not at all. They have had it forever and even recently. But no one says that. Why dont you talk about the slavery that other races and countries have taken part of? Why "only" America and white people specifically, and why not look at the bright side that --you know, we got rid of it a long time ago? It's not politically correct to say that is it. It's a painful truth that too many lefties dont want to accept.

So "the blacks" did not abolish slavery but "whitey and the Christian-based countries were among the very first"?

I am not at all surprised "no one says that"--at least no one on "the left," where it is indeed politically incorrect to attribute  racial agency to cultural/historical/geographic groups of human beings.  
However, I am still surprised when people talk as if the history of world slavery, ancient and modern, is not comprehensively examined and discussed by "the left".   And which "lefties" don't want to acknowledge that legal slavery was abolished in the U.S.?  If you cannot cite one, then they exist only in the memes of right-wing groupthink.

The fact that some non-Christian non-white countries may have had some slavery has little pertinence to the fact that "Christian-based" countries established the largest (and biblically justified) slave economy in world history--until the opposition of liberals and "leftists" rolled it back.

Scholars don't examine the history of slavery to blame people. They examine it for the same reasons they examine all past institutions--so they can understand the institutions and the politics of the present. When 19th century arguments continue to circulate in 21st century politics, it is still very important to know who supported slavery, and why, and who opposed it, and why--however much certain groups would like us to forget.

Some "leftists" in the US may talk more about the history of US slavery rather than Indian or Chinese for the same reason that they talk more about US public education rather than Indian or Chinese--because it has a special pertinence to US state and national politics at any given moment. For example, the current right wing belief that government gives money to "the blacks" at the expense of hard-working whites with northern liberal politicians as their middlemen emerged with the legal/political death of slavery in 1865. It is a viewpoint perpetuated not by "the facts" but by certain social/political operatives, media, and institutions--including the Klan--over the last 150 years. It would be a good thing if more Americans knew this, but it would not better accomplish this goal to add: "and by the way, the 17th century Moghuls of Northwest India turned debtors into slaves called 'Pandavas'. Just so you know."

By positioning racial groups against one another according to their records on slavery and following that with an unabashedly ethnocentric discussion of colonialism, you have not addressed XXLT's original questions about the "false claims of whitey ruining the world" or all the "stuff" Obama supposedly "broke".