roosterjbh
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2013
- Messages
- 3,199
- Likes
- 3,954
There were some. Plenty would suggest a majority, or at least close to a majority, which there was not. But the numbers grew over decades. And even among those who opposed slavery, many did not see blacks as equal. Time educates people and leads to a change in views.There were plenty of people at the time of slavery that were against it.
Same theme as Bham.I was thinking more along the lines of he's had to put up with so much crap in the last few days. I would think this is probably one of the most challenging times in his life.
Did not see Bham's thoughts.
Maybe they assaulted him. On the surface it looks really bad, but we all know better than to trust a video that leaves out what happened prior. It’s hard to imagine a bike rider getting off his bike to assault people putting up signs for no reason.And what exactly in this hypothetical youve conjured would make it ok that this dude put his hands on that girl?
Okay, I think I got it the first time.Reread my post slowly.
People seem to not understand where the term Paddywagon came from...
They aren't taught anything about history anymore.
Was Rolf his Grandfather?off topic but I remember an exchange student from Austria (from a very wealthy family there and ethnically, a member of the Master Race) telling me how America was a racist country. I was thinking: sure but aren't you from Austria? Not exactly a history of tolerance there buddy
Ok, you have confirmed to me that you either do not understand what I said, or you don't like the fact that I'm leaving the door open to the possibility that he is genuinely upset about Floyd. I honestly can't tell which one because you literally quoted me saying that I THINK IT'S UNLIKLEY THAT HIS ACTIONS ARE 100% IN RESPONSE TO THE DEAD MAN IN FRONT OF HIM.Okay, I think I got it the first time.
If crying over emotions "unlikely 100% because of Floyd", who you never met, right in front of his casket at his funeral seems appropriate to you, by all means.
I think that is astronomically disrespectful. But then again, I think I missed the boarding call on the collective insanity boat ride everyone seemed to have hopped on in March, so I might be the wrong person to ask.
LOOL. Are you Irish? I am. You have no idea what you are talking about. Stay in your lane.Neither one of you are making good points. You obviously don't know your history.
Its paddywagon because all of the cops were Irish.
Also the Irish were only stigmatized and not included in the normal white up until the point they started working with poor blacks and having kids with them. Then the government made them fully white and turned them against the black population.
Unless you think irishtimes does not know its Irish history.
When the Irish became white: immigrants in mid-19th century US | Generation Emigration
"When Irish (poor, and Catholic) immigrants landed in the mid-19th century US they changed. They jettisoned the core of their identity – the long struggle for freedom. They joined in the oppression of African-Americans. Since I understand that this may seem controversial please allow me to explain.
In those days, the Irish immigrants had much in common with African-Americans; they might be nicknamed “Negroes turned inside out” while African-Americans would be “smoked Irish”. A quip, attributed to an African-American, went something like this: “My master is a great tyrant, he treats me like a common Irishman.” In the census of 1850, the term “mulatto” appears for the first time, due primarily to inter-marriage between Irish and African-Americans.
The white, Protestant business establishment believed amalgamation between the races would begin with the Irish and African-Americans. The resulting united front of labour would have increased wages, something the establishment did not want."
Irish had it rough for a sec and then quickly passed black people.
Neither one of you are making good points. You obviously don't know your history.
Its paddywagon because all of the cops were Irish.
Also the Irish were only stigmatized and not included in the normal white up until the point they started working with poor blacks and having kids with them. Then the government made them fully white and turned them against the black population.
Unless you think irishtimes does not know its Irish history.
When the Irish became white: immigrants in mid-19th century US | Generation Emigration
"When Irish (poor, and Catholic) immigrants landed in the mid-19th century US they changed. They jettisoned the core of their identity – the long struggle for freedom. They joined in the oppression of African-Americans. Since I understand that this may seem controversial please allow me to explain.
In those days, the Irish immigrants had much in common with African-Americans; they might be nicknamed “Negroes turned inside out” while African-Americans would be “smoked Irish”. A quip, attributed to an African-American, went something like this: “My master is a great tyrant, he treats me like a common Irishman.” In the census of 1850, the term “mulatto” appears for the first time, due primarily to inter-marriage between Irish and African-Americans.
The white, Protestant business establishment believed amalgamation between the races would begin with the Irish and African-Americans. The resulting united front of labour would have increased wages, something the establishment did not want."
Irish had it rough for a sec and then quickly passed black people.
I agree it was tasteless, but it was also political. It's not uncommon for Presidents to be hung in effigy. I remember it being done with Bush. Pics for that are out there as well. It doesn't justify it, but to say it's not a political thing is incorrect.No, putting a noose around a black man's likeness is not a "political thing"
The pics are out there if you're interested. If you aren't then stay ignorant