FROG PRINCESS Under Protest Already

Status
Not open for further replies.
ok, so you dispute that Egypt is on the African continent, and have even cited that some people consider it another continent- therefore, Jews were never enslaved or persecuted
and...
you ignore the entire second half of my post

i get it now:rolleyes1

I doubt that you 'get it' - and no - if you read my post I clearly stated that Egypt was a part of Africa - but the 'powers to be' do not see it that way. I ignored (or better stated, I didn’t comment) the second half of your post because it was nothing discuss. It was accurate. What do you want me to do - refute it? :confused3

I have to go pick up my daughter from school; it’s been stimulating chatting with you guys. I'm sure I'll return to much controversy. And I hope we don’t have ‘heart feelings’ here. I really am enjoying myself.
 
I didn't refuse to read it, you didn't add the information you quoted. I added that information. You left the reader to assume that the quotes were the number of whites. And if you don't call it a debate okay – I guess you were discussing these issues. Like I stated my families history could easily disproved those numbers inaccurate, especially since the article didn’t make a distinction between those who owned slaves as a means of labor, or those who purchased their own family. There is a difference. And that was the debate (or discussion).


Please go back and read real slowly...out loud if you need to...the first post where I quoted the stats. The numbers for white slave owners is clealy there.

If you want to disprove those numbers then by all means do so. I look foward to your book and properly cited research.

Oh btw Wiki is not accepted in any circle as a proper source for citing.
 
It sounds to me that Africa is to blame for everything racially wrong in this wrong. Wow. Yet again, I’m amazed!

kinda sucks to be held accountable for something you had nothing to do with, huh?
but, you're just reacting like this because, really, somewhere, deep down inside you feel guilty because your ancestors must have benefited in someway.
amazing how shoes can feet both feet, huh?
 
I'm sorry, but this is all a debate that I have never understood.

Yes, people in this country owned slaves. It was wrong. The United States was torn apart by war over this, among many other issues. We know now that it was wrong. In schools, we preach that it was wrong, and I sincerly think that most people will wholeheartedly agree about the inherant "wrongness" of it.

Yes, reconstruction following the civil war was done poorly and handled ineptly. Should things have been done better? Of course. Can we go back in time and change them? No.

Throughout history, many groups have been outcasts and have been persecuted for some reason or another to some degree or another. Is it wrong? Yes. Do we learn from it and move on? Not really. Should we? Of course.

As generations pass, the best that we can do is try to learn from those who have come before us and do what we can to leave the world a better place than we found it. Do we succeed? Not necessarily. Does that mean that we should give up? No. "Those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it."

There are so many things in life that seem right at the time, and even justifiable. When I look back upon human history, I am intigued, fascinated, elated, saddened and horrified all at once.

It is not my job nor my duty to pay for the "sins" of those who have come before me, just as my children should not have to pay for my "sins". If I am ignorant it does not make me less guilty, it simply means that those who follow me should strive to become more knowledgable.

I think that until we can stop blaming one another for a past that was we will never be able to move forward into a future that might be. The past is past. It doesn't make it right, wrong, less painful, or more acceptable. It just makes it over.

I think that whatever Disney's motivation for introducing a black princess, it is a good move and it is about time, though the most progressive step of all is when we no longer will notice such things.
 


I'm willing to bet the administrators will close this thread down shortly.........
 
Please go back and read real slowly...out loud if you need to...the first post where I quoted the stats. The numbers for white slave owners is clealy there. If you want to disprove those numbers then by all means do so. I look foward to your book and properly cited research.

o k a y - I - r e a d - it - r e a l slow - and yes you clearly stated the stats - you just didn't say to what the stats were directly to. You left a ‘fill in the blanks’ line of the percentage then southern whites. Southern Whites what? Yes I came to the conclusion that the percentage was the southern whites that owned slaves, but you left it out. Why is it so hard for you to admit that the information was omitted? What you clearly stated was that a flawed number of AA owned slaves – that was clear. You didn’t omit anything in that figure. Then you went on the write that you will ‘return to the census figures quoted above’. You didn’t state the census figures (the numbers you stated) - you just didn't refer to the census. The census figures of whites owning slaves (according to this article) were omitted from your quote. I read the article. That’s really NOT that big of deal. Why are you so insisted in proving information that was clearly omitted? You know what, I’ll let you win – your right!!!


Oh btw Wiki is not accepted in any circle as a proper source for citing.

Only when it fits your argument. :cool2:
 
o k a y - I - r e a d - it - r e a l slow - and yes you clearly stated the stats - you just didn't say to what the stats were directly to. To left a ‘fill in the blanks’ line of the percentage then southern whites. Southern Whites what? Yes I came to the conclusion that the percentage was the southern whites that owned slaves, but you left it out. Why is it so hard for you to admit that the information was omitted? What you clearly stated was that a flawed number of AA owned slaves – that was clear. You didn’t omit anything in that figure. Then you went on the write that you will ‘return to the census figures quoted above’. You didn’t state the census figures (the numbers you stated) - you just didn't refer to the census. The census figures of whites owning slaves (according to this article) were omitted from your quote. I read the article. That’s really NOT that big of deal. Why are you so insisted in proving information that was clearly omitted? You know what, I’ll let you win – your right!!!

I'm sorry that you had trouble figuring out that an article about slave owners is talking about slave owners. I'm sure you thought that the numbers listed for whites were cases of TB at the time.

I did not write the article. It is a quote. A direct in line quote from an article...I did not take out some magical text between the two paragraphs that would have drawn a picture for you. Seems that everyone else has been able to understand the text. I could have quoted the whole thing but that is hardly the correct thing to do. I could have included the wealth of Blacks at that time too...but again not the correct thing to do. Alas it is you that seems to have some sort of infatuation with white slave owners at the time...when (again) if you go back and look that was not the issue I was addressing.

Flawed number of blacks owning blacks? Where do you get this info? Where is your source that says the 3,000 free blacks in NO owned slaves is wrong?


btw...yes I use Wiki...however ask anyone if Wiki is considered a quotable source by any reliable citation standard such as MLA or APA.
 


I'm sorry that you had trouble figuring out that an article about slave owners is talking about slave owners. I'm sure you thought that the numbers listed for whites were cases of TB at the time.

I did not write the article. It is a quote. A direct in line quote from an article...I did not take out some magical text between the two paragraphs that would have drawn a picture for you. Seems that everyone else has been able to understand the text. I could have quoted the whole thing but that is hardly the correct thing to do. I could have included the wealth of Blacks at that time too...but again not the correct thing to do. Alas it is you that seems to have some sort of infatuation with white slave owners at the time...when (again) if you go back and look that was not the issue I was addressing.

Flawed number of blacks owning blacks? Where do you get this info? Where is your source that says the 3,000 free blacks in NO owned slaves is wrong?

But Jews did, it would seem irrefutably, have (at the very least) a "disproportionate role" in the slave trade even in the southern United States, where they were not -- as the NOI book shows -- as involved as in other places in the Americas. According to one survey noted by Jewish scholars Lee Soltow and Ira Rosenwaike, 75% of Jewish households surveyed in the American South owned slaves, more than double the average 36% for all southern households. [ROSENWAIKE, in SEC. LIFE, p. 180] And Jews, as we will continue to witness, have always been "disproportionately" represented in virtually any field where there is serious money to be made. (In Port Royal, Jamaica, in 1680, about 16% of Jewish households had no slaves; in the non-Jewish community, this figure was over 47%. Likewise 73.7 % of Jewish households had between one and four slaves; in the non-Jewish community the figure was 41.8 %.) [SCHORSCH, J., 2000]

btw...yes I use Wiki...however ask anyone if Wiki is considered a quotable source by any reliable citation standard such as MLA or APA.

I said you were right.

kinda sucks to be held accountable for something you had nothing to do with, huh?
but, you're just reacting like this because, really, somewhere, deep down inside you feel guilty because your ancestors must have benefited in someway. amazing how shoes can feet both feet, huh?

"In the tenth century," notes Jewish (and Zionist) author Julius Brutzkus, "the Jews possessed salt mines near Nuremberg. They also traded in arms, and exploited the treasuries of the churches. But their great specialty ... was their trade in slaves." [LEON, p. 124] "The first Jews that Poles encountered," states the Encyclopedia Judaica, "must certainly have been traders, probably slave traders, of the type called in the 12th-century Jewish sources holekhei rusyah (travelers to Russia). [EN JUD, v. 13, p. 710] "In the tenth century," notes Israel Abrahams, "the Spanish Jews often owed their wealth to their trade in slaves." [ABRAHAMS, p. 98]

Jews, says Lewis Browne, "traveled everywhere from England to India, from Bohemia to Egypt. Their commonest merchandise in those days, beginning with the eighth century, was slaves. On every high road and on every great river and sea, these Jewish traders were to be found with their gangs of shackled prisoners in convoy." Such disturbing facts that impugn the Jewish myths of perpetual victimhood must of course be apologized away. "Slave trading," says Browne, a Jewish scholar, "seems irredeemably vile and hateful to us today, but we must remember here again the standards have changed ...And in light of the customs of those times, the slave-traffickers were actually doing almost a moral act. They alone were keeping the conquering armies from slaughtering every one of their defeated foes after each battle." [WILLIAMS, J., p. 230]

Jewish apologists of course further argue that Jews were involved in the trade of European slaves (the English word "slave" is reputed to come from "Slav") because "they were forced into it" by others, they were only "doing the dirty work for Christians," it was a norm of the era, or that extensive Jewish slave trading was a "Christian ecclesiastical myth." Another Jewish apologist justifies the Jewish slave trade of Europeans during the era of Pope Gregory this way:

"Had the Jews been prevented from owning slaves it is likely that
they would have given up the slave trade and had they done this
the labor shortage that would have been created might have
caused an inestimable loss of life through sheer starvation."
[ABEL, p. 197]

"They came with ships carrying African blacks to be sold as slaves. The
traffic in slaves was a royal monopoly, and the Jews were often
appointed as agents for the Crown in their sale ... [LIEBMAN, in SEC.
LIFE, p. 55] ... [The Jews] were the largest ship chandlers in the entire
Caribbean region, where the shipping business was mainly a Jewish
enterprise ... The ships were not only owned by Jews, but were manned
by Jewish crews and sailed under the command of Jewish captains."

[SEYMOUR LIEBMAN, New World Jewry, 1493-1825 , in MARTIN, p. 113]
 
I'm wondering about you views on the current slave trade in Africa? Do you have as much venom towards that as you do over the act and people that brought slaves to the US?
 
Take the time and read through this thread. I did NOT in any way invite the conversation of the slavery, who enslaved who, and/or stats to 'prove' my point initially. My original discussion was about the lack of positive role models for black youth. If memory serves me correctly, YOU invited this discussion. It was your quote of blacks owning slaves that kicked all this off.

I don't have a problem with any group of people. I will 'say my peace' when someone points a finger at one, when three are pointing back at them. Remember you pointed a finger at blacks for owning blacks, so I in turn pointed three at you. Hate to sound like the typical racist with this line, but I have many Jewish and white friends. When I say friends, I'm talking they visit my home, I visit their home, my kids play with their kids, and one of my oldest friends from High School is Jewish. We have had this conversation before - respectfully. We agree to disagree and we move on. I don't have a problem with any race of people, just flawed, inaccurate, misleading, and imbalanced information.

Any enslavement of a human being is WRONG! I am disgusted when I read articles about young boys being enslaved in diamond mines, and for various other reasons. Some reports, I will admit, I'm often skeptical, but I do have an associate that has lived in Africa for many years (she is American) and has seen these things first hand. So there, you here it directly from me. I'll say it again so there is no confusion. ANY enslavement of a human being is barbaric, inhumane, and last but not least - sinful. It makes no difference of the captors color, race, ethnicity, or religion - it is inhumane. Period. No wiggle room.
 
So that would be a NO you don't?


edit...btw Where is the "flawed, inaccurate, misleading, and imbalanced information". That I posted?
 
I guess it is not suprising to me that yet another discussion is trumped by someone pulling the race card. How symbolic of where we are as a nation.
 
I guess it is not suprising to me that yet another discussion is trumped by someone pulling the race card. How symbolic of where we are as a nation.

Have you read these post. No one has played the race card on this discussion. Playing the race card refers to an allegation raised against a person who has unnecessarily brought the issue of race or racism into a debate so as to obfuscate the matter. Screaming racism and telling the truth about the lack of positive role model for black boys is not a scream of racism. The 'race card call is used in two contexts. 1st, and more common, context, it alleges that someone has falsely accused another person of being a racist in order to gain some sort of advantage. Where has ANYONE called/referred to another as racist on THIS thread. The 2nd context refers to someone exploiting prejudice against another race for political or some other advantage. So how does 'playing the race card' fit into the context of this discussion. We were discussing the slavery in America, who owned who, what stats we felt were accurate, etc. No one referred to anyone as being racist, or had anything to politically or any other advantage. We might all agree to disagree but no card games are being 'played' here. Discussing historical facts is not necessarily 'playing cards'. If anyone is playing cards its you. Racism and Historical facts is totally different. I hope you don't think its one in the same. How could one ever sit through a History Class. Does every mention or debate on historical fact include 'playing the race'. Was it playing the race card, when the individual made references to slavery (I didn't do that) and then another poster commented on that poster and added 'facts' of the amount of blacks that owned slaves in New Orleans. Was THAT poster (I'm assuming none black) playing the race card or stating what he thought was historical fact. I know that I've only commented (through reaction) of the posters. I did NOT invite this discussion. So who exactly is playing the race card on this discussion board. I'm assuming I'm the only known AA on this thread, so I'd like to know (if you are referring to me,) when I 'played the race card'. Maybe you are refering to the article that the OP didn't fully submit. I don't know, but reacting to a comment that someone stated is NOT playing cards. If you were referring to the OP's article, I'd read the whole article, because the writing is trying to insinuate that Disney is playing the 'trump' card in this whole race 'battle'. The article suggest that this 'new' princess is only a political move to release song of the south without much debate. A perfect example of 'playing the race card'.
 
I feel the discussion on this thread has run its course and its being closed down.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!











facebook twitter
Top