> Olga writes
>>>> Remember - whites profited from UNPAID slave
>>>> labor for hundreds of years. When a tourist
>>>> goes to visit the White House, it is rarely
>>>> mentioned - if at all - that it was built
>>>> with unpaid slave labor. How shameful - both
>>>> this historic fact, and the fact that not
>>>> many people are aware of this.
:-) This is getting comical, the miscommunication,
I mean! Get a load of the following:
Okay, so I responded to the above with
>> You are quite wrong. I don't think I've ever
>> met anyone so ignorant of history as to be
>> unaware of slavery.
and first off, someone took this to mean that I
denied that slavery was implemented by white people,
or that I was defending it, or that I myself denied
that it existed. Good grief.
Now Olga comes back with
> You never met anyone so ignorant of history?
> Moi?
Oh no! Even though *she* was the one to bring up
the evils of slavery, she thinks that **I** am
talking about *her*!? Wow! When, of course,
I was merely responding to
>>>> and the fact that not many
>>>> people are aware of this.
(because, of course, everyone does know this, i.e.,
that "whites profited from UNPAID slave labor
for hundreds of years"). Duh! Well what does
slavery mean? (Gee! I hope that that isn't
misunderstood too!) For the last #!*%$ time,
the quoted phrase is %100 percent true (not that
it was Olga who was doubting that I knew it, but
I just have to protect myself from the 800 lurkers
on this list).
You think I'm exaggerating? No! She really
concluded from the above, that I was saying that
she was ignorant of the history (of course
that makes zero sense, since it was she who
described all that about who built the White
House, etc.).
She continues
> Lee, dearest, do you remember just a
> couple of days ago, when you were telling
> me that "It really would be best for all
> concerned to avoid personal references
> like this.
Olga, can you believe that I wasn't, really,
really, really, wasn't referring to you???
> You also wrote about the importance of
> "confin[ing] oneself to careful argument."
>
> And you didn't do that, either. Dear,
> oh dear - what am I going to do with you?
Ah, but I did. You (for some unknown reason
took personally what clearly did not apply to
you).
>You wrote:
>> It's usually put forth as the reason that the
>> Civil War was fought, "to free the slaves".
>> Abraham Lincoln is probably best known "for
>> freeing the slaves." Okay :-) maybe you
>> didn't hear this growing up because you
>> weren't here.
What I meant, was literal (as usual). Namely
that although you undoubtedly learned the
historical facts a long time ago (or have done
a very good job recently), you perhaps didn't
understand that everyone learns about Abraham
Lincoln in elementary school here. And in
middle school. And in high school.
You probably thought that this was yet another
slam: that I was implying (I am not) that you
simply didn't know about this period.
>>> If Thomas Sowell says that racism doesn't exist in the U.S.,
>>> he's lying ... if that's what he says ...).
>
>> By no means does he say such a thing!
>
> Lee, I didn't say Sowell says such a thing.
But it's customary to clear any innocent third
party's name in these discussions. To make it
**perfectly** clear to any other reader the
true nature of some prominent person's views.
> That's why I wrote the word
> "IF" up there a couple of times.
Don't be so sensitive. Again, you were reading
implications where they did not belong. I know
exactly what "IF" means. (Maybe I should have
said, "For your information, Thomas Sowell...
etc.") But no, there is a way to mis-read that
too. I give up.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:58 MDT