Can anyone confirm what one discussant on our BCPOLITICS list said last
year...That slavery in the US is not illegal, even today?
On Sat, 28 Jul 2001, Lee Corbin wrote:
> > 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 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.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:58 MDT