Mlk

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Not all of that is entirely true. There were many slaves who were white especially in the Northeast, these people were poor and worked as slaves in order to receive food and shelter. There were also people who signed contracts of slavery for wealthy families in order to gain passage to America from many European countries. The KKK often persecuted various white people due to their religious or even racial backgrounds. There is an example from a ND perspective. KKK members confronted students at ND, and began condemning them etc. then wrote a letter to the president complaining about the rebels that ND allowed on the campus, or something to that effect. A lot of academic institutions actually favor you or grant scholarships due to one's racial diversion, and there are many schools that are considered all black, but there are none that are considered all white. In cases such as ND, where only a third of applicants are admitted, it is easily understandable that a minority group would be admitted less. If 33% of students are admitted to ND, and 11% of the US is of African descent, then it make sense that 4% ( more than 1/3 of 11%) would be admitted.

I really like my post can someone please give me a rep boost.

They were indentured servants, not slaves. Slaves had NO HOPE of being free...ever. Period.

The KKK persecuted, yes, but persecution is not oppression per se.

Your math is wrong. Simply wrong. If 89% of the US is non-black and 11% is black...if you let in 32%...then still you have a breakdown of 89-11.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Just becuase it's not talked about doesn't mean it doesn't happen? I typically find those who have this attitude towards history are from well to do white families and think everyone who looks like them must have been the as fortunate... far from it

It has nothing to do with being talked about...it has everything to do with LAW and what happened.

Blacks were allowed to be sold, whites were not.

However, you should really read up on Mr Hoffman (the writer of this book)...he's an absolute nutcase.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_A._Hoffman_II

Hoffman's self-described vocation is "researching the occult cryptocracy's orchestration of American history." He believes that this cryptocracy runs American history, controlling culture and thought via ritualistic psychodramas and killing sprees. Examples of such "psychodramas," in Hoffman's view, include Route 66 (which connects various centers of Satanic importance), and the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy[1]. Hoffman also argues that the final plans of this ruling cabal are slowly being revealed through movies such as They Live and The Matrix.[1] Hoffman also contends that the British Empire might have achieved its power via a pact John Dee made with Kabbalistic Judaism [2]. He has characterized Jews as "Khazars" and Ashkenazi as "Ash-ken-nazi", [3]

 

[ACamp1900]

They were indentured servants, not slaves. Slaves had NO HOPE of being free...ever. Period.

The KKK persecuted, yes, but persecution is not oppression per se.

Your math is wrong. Simply wrong. If 89% of the US is non-black and 11% is black...if you let in 32%...then still you have a breakdown of 89-11.

First I would disagree with indentured servants not being salves... but never mind that... these people were NOT indentured servants and they were white


http://archive.salon.com/books/it/2000/06/15/white_slaves/index.html

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

The KKK was actually a stridently anti-Catholic organization as well, and there is a famous incident where a bunch of ND students got into a brawl with KKK members in downtown South Bend; this -- and much more -- is discussed in this book. Really cool stories ...

Again though, this is not oppression its persecution.

 

[leprechaun4life]

I say this as someone who by no means favors aff. action, but this reasoning is mistaken. Suppose the population is 90% white and 10% black (it isn't, but hold on while I illustrate my point). And so suppose ND's applicants are 90% white and 10% black. By your reasoning, if they accept 1/3 of the applicants, they end up with a population that is 30% white, 3.3% black, and ... well what are the other 66.7% made up of? Fact is, ND's population doesn't reflect the national demographics ... I for one don't have a problem with that, but I suppose some do.

Oh yeah, sorry, I got excited and forgot to check my math. Damn my inferior cerebral cortex. LOL


Oppression is a cognitive (psychological) suppression. Persecution is a physical suppression (torture, beating, killing, etc.) One could argue that persecution is worse than oppression.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

First I would disagree with indentured servants not being salves... but never mind that... these people were NOT indentured servants and they were white


http://archive.salon.com/books/it/2000/06/15/white_slaves/index.html

And if you read the article, he's really talking about exceptions not "rule". You COULD NOT go to Germany and get slaves...it was illegal. Now, the fact that a few people skirted the law, not a big surprise.

 

[ACamp1900]

Again though, this is not oppression its persecution.

So whites have been persecuted at least once in the nations' history is a correct statement... but white have been oppressed at least once in this nation's history is incorrect? correct?

 

[ACamp1900]

And if you read the article, he's really talking about exceptions not "rule". You COULD NOT go to Germany and get slaves...it was illegal. Now, the fact that a few people skirted the law, not a big surprise.

exceptions were what I was talking about LMI... anyway, whites were indeed slaves... no?

 

[ACamp1900]

anyway... let's cahnge to tone here...

I'm I the only one who feels silly talking about this on MLK day?... let's honor the man and stop bickering about white history of all things... funny thing is, he'd just tell us to stop bickering

 

[Vince Young]

Ok yes we all know what Martin Luther King has done for all the "African-Americans" but enough is enough. Im not racist nor dumb, but who else has a day named after him/her?

Getting back to the original post... how about CHRISTmas?

Happy MLK Day, everyone!

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

So whites have been persecuted at least once in the nations' history is a correct statement... but white have been oppressed at least once in this nation's history is incorrect? correct?

EVERYONE has been persecuted... Whites have not been oppressed as a group.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

exceptions were what I was talking about LMI... anyway, whites were indeed slaves... no?

I still have yet to see proof from someone who is not a nut... Hoffman does not count...not does indentured servitude.

 

[ACamp1900]

LOL... why do I get the feeling anything I post will be given the slap of "from a nut" simply because it's findings counter your feelings??? Anyway, here are some words from a few repected scholars/ researchers/ journalists what have you of differing races...

The belief that whites were never sold into slavery in America must be a Northern ignorance. As a child in southern Louisiana I knew about this, I was told by my grandfather. It was common enough that it was not talked about. They were usually immigrants, always poor. Often kidnapped, but sometimes they were children or wives sold to pay debts or just because they would fetch a good price. And they were sold as blacks. Even though everyone knew they were white. Because even in the selling of white slaves, slavery in America is a black thing.
-- Wawrena Brown (scholar)

Americans oversimplify the characterizations of the divisions between the races, acting as though they have always been as they are right now. What about how different immigrants were treated in different eras? Just a little digging into the history of immigration reveals a "whitening" of particular ethnic groups, such as Jews, Irish, Italians, etc. These groups were not always considered "white." There was a big difference between Western Europeans and Eastern Europeans. The Anglo-Saxon defined what "white" was and everything else was inferior to that standard at some point or another. Many groups of immigrants, especially those that were poor, were treated and thought of as just as "subhuman" as blacks when they arrived in the U.S. But now they're all considered "white."
-- Hedda Kniess (Ivy Leaguer Scholar and Journalist)

The fact that there were cases of white slavery is a fascinating historical fact and further points out the barbarity and depravity of the entire slave trade. Just as we are told that we should never forget about the Holocaust, we should not forget this dark period in American history. The sad fact, however, is that we do not learn the lessons of these terrible events. Rather than try to stop the continuing acts of genocide and slavery (slavery continues in Mali and the Sudan) that exist right now in Africa and other parts of the world, Americans would rather fight the battles of 50 or 150 years ago. They are focused on extracting apologies and recompense from the descendants of those responsible for horrific past deeds and they do nothing about alleviating the suffering of their fellow human beings today.
-- Martin Kannengieser (writer and historian)


These are hardly "nuts"... I think I have given more than enough evidence to show whites were slaves and or oppressed... and remember it only takes one case to disprove your statement that neither ever happened... even though it's FAR beyond that... and none of the evidence I gave (except for one link) was related to indentured servitude... is it so hard to take?

 

[ACamp1900]

EVERYONE has been persecuted... Whites have not been oppressed as a group.

I think that's where you miss something on this one LMI... "white's" are not really one group.. espec. from the perspective of early American history

 

[ACamp1900]

and again, you're a traveler right? Take a trip to Virginia next time you get a chance, stop by one of the plantations... get the info, talk to on site historians... from a historical perspective, very enlightening...

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Again though, you are talking about exceptions. It was illegal to own whites. It was not illegal to own blacks.

In most states, Blacks could not even vote until the 1960's...

The two cannot be compared.

 

[ACamp1900]

Again though, you are talking about exceptions. It was illegal to own whites. It was not illegal to own blacks.

In most states, Blacks could not even vote until the 1960's...

The two cannot be compared.

It's you who's comparing... I never did anything of the sort... I think you failed to see that?

 

[ACamp1900]

I simply said whites were slaves and whites were victums of race riots at times in our country after you said whites have never known oppression... where the black experience comes into this at all I fail to see...

 

[Vince Young]

Again though, you are talking about exceptions. It was illegal to own whites. It was not illegal to own blacks.

In most states, Blacks could not even vote until the 1960's...

All true.

The two cannot be compared.

I have a feeling that one of those white "exceptions" might beg to differ.

To be honest, though, the whole conversation seems a bit silly. It's like this weird, sick game show called "Who Suffered More?" or something.

One thing I think we can all agree on: slavery is bad, m'kay?

 

[ACamp1900]

All true.



I have a feeling that one of those white "exceptions" might beg to differ.

To be honest, though, the whole conversation seems a bit silly. It's like this weird, sick game show called "Who Suffered More?" or something.

One thing I think we can all agree on: slavery is bad, m'kay?

I agree ... except I must say I never compared the black experience to the white one, I think we may have fallen into an assumption trap here... I simply took issue with the white's have never known oppression statement and countered with they were slaves weren't they? I wouldn't say anything close to whites have suffered more... but it is extremely narrow to state they have not known their share of suffering