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

[Dill]

(02-01-2018, 10:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Pat and I had a healthy back and forth and not once did either of us make it about race; you made it to your second paragraph.

If you do not consider many cultures of sub-Saharan Africa to be members of grouped societies; that's your choice. But shre your race-baiting comments with other willing to join the fray.  

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.