HOME | DD
OddGarfield — How I Feel in Modern America
Published: 2018-01-04 17:57:52 +0000 UTC; Views: 5646; Favourites: 61; Downloads: 15
Redirect to original
Description
As much as it pains me to cover parts of a painting dating back to the War Between the States, the message is clear.Related content
Comments: 251
The overwhelming majority of able-bodied slave owners fought in the war. There is no argument to be had over this subject.
Yes, older men that were physically incapable of fighting in a war. Look into books before you post such stupid comments.
As did the arguments in the Americas, of which I have already expressed. There will always be a subservient class as opposed to a ruling one.
No one was being "captured" in the South. Slaves were born to be slaves.
Men have enslaved each other for as long as they have invented gods to forgive or defend them in doing it. Furthermore, we are all already slaves to something ; me to my convictions and you to your non-arguments.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Really? So all slave owners left back home were either women or old coots?
Older men? Then what the fuck would you call Robert E. Lee? Or heck, what about Winfield Scott?
The difference is, subservience is something that is to be deserved, same as merit. In the days of Ancient Rome, you were enslaved because A) you fought on the losing side of the war, B) you're a criminal, or C) you're a deadbeat who wants his debts paid off. Medievals didn't have slaves, but had serfs who had rights that slaves didn't.
Then isn't that worse? You make slaves of people from birth, which they did not deserve to be enslaved because they haven't done anything wrong yet.
Yes, but the difference in those days was that they enslaved enemies, criminals, or people in debt. In short, they enslaved people who either A) were former enemies of the state, B) were criminals who deserved to be enslaved, or C) people who WANT to be slaves to get away from others who might break their legs for owing money.
That's not the same thing. Do your convictions force you to do back-breaking labor for zero pay every day? Would it be the same if I had you enslaved and I forced you to clean my house?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, that was easily the case 75% of the time.
General Lee was 54 at the start of the war, and it was widely believed in the United States that Winfield Scott was far too old to continue leading armies, his senility being blamed for his defeat at the Battle of Manassas.
It is not a matter of method, or what one has done to become a slave, through either birth or defeat in arms. Slaves in the Americas were living finer lives than the working class in Europe.
Slaves were born for the sole purpose of being slaves ; it isn't a matter of what they "deserve".
False equivalency in that this was not always the case, even in the majority of the time.
They wouldn't need to. I was not born to be your slave.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's not a point to boast about. The working classes of Europe were living like dregs. Everyone that came before them lived better lives than them.
Wrong again. If slaves were born for the sole purpose of being slaves, then God would not have given them free will. Just an animalistic mind like that of an ox, horse, or dog.
Slavery was always a matter who who deserved it, especially in Ancient Times. Aren't modern people supposed to be better?
But you could be. And if you get into trouble with the right people, you will be someone else's slave. And nobody will buy your freedom. Also, many of those "slaves" in the south were not born to be slaves either: they were born free in Africa until some greedy kings and their soldiers captured them and sold them to the white man.
Oh, and 1600 years ago, you people would totally be slaves. Most white people are partly Germanic, you see, and Germans used to be slaves to the Romans. 1600 years ago, your kind were meant to be nothing more but slaves in some Roman household or cannon fodder for Roman generals who didn't want to sacrifice Roman lives to fight Huns. And with Muslims coming to own Europe and America no longer being a majority white country, whites can get enslaved again if they piss off other people enough. Heck, some whites are already slaves in prison. More to the pile really won't change anything. Other whites already own their lives.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think it obvious that I'm not boasting.
Conscience. Divine instinct. Immortal voice from Heaven. Infallible judge of good and evil, making man like to God.
Rousseau; being born with a free will only means that you're a man, not that you are not born to be a slave.
No, it wasn't.
No, I couldn't be. In no world would a French nobleman be considered someone's property, especially to an American who watches too many movies. Those slaves in the South at the time of the Civil War would all have been born there.
No, we wouldn't. Most French people today are an admixture of Celtic, Germanic, and Latin, descended from Romans themselves.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It was boasting. You were waving around the fact that slaves lived better than European factory workers, even when Medieval serfs lived better lives than both. So I suppose Medieval warlords are a higher class of people than both European factory owners AND Dixie slaveowners, eh?
And what qualities separate slaves from masters? Both are born as men, and both have the same qualities. It's only by the nonsensical ideology of yours that some are randomly chosen to be free and others chosen to be slaves.
Yes, it was. Roman slavery was NOT based on a random accident of birth, but rather, who fought whom, who conquered whom, who owed money, and who committed a crime.
Actually, about that, French nobles in failed crusades were sold into slavery. I guess you didn't really study history at all then, eh? The only difference is that whenever Crusades fail, and Crusaders get enslaved, the Papacy sends agents into Muslim slave markets and specifically asks to buy Christian slaves to get them out.
The slaves of the South were descended from people who were bought from Africa. Otherwise you'd have white slaves, or Indian ones, because no African prior to the 20th century went to America of their own free will.....
Ah, but you also had Germanic in there. Which means slaves. Celts? Enslaved too, during the days of Caesar for fighting against Rome. Not to mention that being Roman doesn't free you from slavery, especially if you're the kind who willfully and maliciously forced others into servitude without just cause. Then you'd be a criminal, which means yes, slavery.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Where is the boasting? 
There is no "randomly chosen". You're either born a slave or a free man.
Many slaves were acquired through warfare, but not all of them as you have implied. The largest number of slaves in Rome were indigenous Italians, with most of them having died before the age of eighteen.
#ThingsThatNeverHappened ; Crusaders would take slaves but were never themselves enslaved.
The slaves of the South in the nineteenth century were born in the South as slaves. They were born to be slaves.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Medieval Serfs are very relevant to the 1800s. The people of the 1800s, both slave owners and factory bosses, see themselves as more enlightened than feudal lords who dominated the Middle Ages. They are not.
And yet those who are "born a slave" were descended from free men and women who were enslaved by greedy slave merchants. How can descendants of freedmen be slaves?
And Rome's slaves also included people in debt, or criminals. They were not enslaved from cradle to grave, rather, they were slaves for a period of time before they can buy their freedom or their masters let them go.
Crusaders didn't take slaves. They took serfs, at worst, and for the most part, most of their servants were free Muslim or Christian farmers who paid them modest taxes. The Crusaders who lost, however, were held captive by Muslims and sold as slaves. That is, if they weren't summarily executed for belonging to a knightly order like the Templars.
They were descendants of freedmen who were taken captive by greedy slave merchants, which means there's less justification for them to be slaves than say, Germanic peoples, or the natives of Gaul, who were enslaved for opposing Rome.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, they aren't. Medieval serfdom has nothing to do with nineteenth century slavery in the Americas.
Many slave owners of the eighteenth and nineteenth century would have been descended from feudal lords through their noble blood, and factory bosses were not particularly wealthy unless they were the owners of the businesses themselves. There is absolutely zero connection and you will not find documentation of nineteenth century slave owners and factory bosses looking down upon medieval serfdom and regarding themselves as lumières.
Those who were born slaves were born into slavery with the sole purpose of being a slave. That someone's great, great, great, great grandfather was an African shaman did not make a free man.
The average life expectancy of a Roman slave was not even eighteen, so your argument is obviously not the case.
Crusaders took slaves, both saracens who were captured enemies and citizens of captured cities, all of this while liberating the same Christians that the now-enslaved Saracens had been keeping as slaves. There is no historical documentation of French nobles and European knights being taken as slaves by Muslims. You're literally making that up.
No, no, no, no, no, and no. Their entire purpose in life was to work as slaves. They were literally born to be slaves.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes they do. Because the Americans prided themselves as more freedom-loving and enlightened than the feudal Europeans, yet their method of acquiring servants was more barbaric than any feudal lord ever was.
Many of them are also huge fans of the Enlightenment that took a huge dump on the feudal and monarchical social structure that came before them. Heck, the US founding fathers were Enlightenment Philosophes who were also slaveowners.
Uh, no, that doesn't make any sense. That's like if I said that your descendants deserve to be born slaves because someone enslaved you or one of your descendants.
Not true. Most slaves of the Romans lived long enough to be free. The Jews were a testament to that. Originally brought into the greater empire as slaves, they eventually won their freedom long before Christianity was legalized.
Crusaders didn't take slaves. They barely had enough to feed their own. Either they took over a town and made the Saracens pay them taxes, or they just killed them all. Crusaders who lost, however, were sold to slavery by the Muslims, unless they were Templars, which meant a summary execution.
Wrong again. Neither you nor your slave-owning idols have the moral justification to enslave anyone from birth. The Romans had more justifications, since as I said, their slaves were either voluntary slaves trying to pay off a debt, war criminals, or just plain criminals.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Colonial slavery was not the "American method". It was introduced to the Americas by Europeans ; English, French, Spanish, and Portuguese alike.
Who do you think was captaining and sailing those ships, carrying to Africa rum and Bibles, and purchasing slaves, and further stuffing those slaves into ships ?
You will find nowhere in your histories colonial slavers and nineteenth century factory owners glorifying themselves as lumières and spitting upon the legacy of medieval nobility.
The founding fathers of USA admired many of the ideas of the Enlightenment, but they were not glorifying themselves as lumières.
I am rarely an admirer of Enlightenment ideas but the Enlightenment was not inherently opposed to African and colonial slavery, with so many minds and different ideas.
You were either born into slavery or you weren't. There was no grey area. The average recorded age at death for the slaves of Rome was extraordinarily low: seventeen and a half years (17.2 for males; 17.9 for females). See Harper, James (1972). Slaves and Freedmen in Imperial Rome. Am J Philol.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_…
The Crusader states most certainly did take slaves, with most of them being former soldiers or Saracen citizenry who had owned Christian slaves. Though there is no evidence that slavery made a significant contribution to the economies of the Crusader states, there is documentation of Crusaders enslaving Mohammedans.
Yes, they most certainly did. It was every man's right to own as many slaves as he could afford. Those slaves were born into this world with the sole purpose of being slaves.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The French and Spanish freed their slaves after a set period of service. In former French colonies like New Orleans, free black military service was a tradition. In New Spain, slavery was banned long before Spain was expelled from the area. Hence why when Mexico accepted American colonists in Texas, they told them to abandon slavery, because Mexico, as the former New Spain, had banned slavery long before.
Actually, the factory owners saw themselves as the progressive new order. People like Rockefeller and Carnegie were not lovers of the old manorial order, and neither were the more forward-thinking, pro-industrial monarchs like Kaiser Wilhelm II who saw the factory as a temple and saw the old ways that did not serve his immediate needs as obsolete. They were not flattering towards the old order. Colonial slavers were closely tied to Enlightenment philosophies that condemned the old world order of Europe while unironically buying slaves from Africa.
Yes they did. They saw themselves as lumieres to the point where they waged war against England on the basis that the old order imposed upon them by the English was unjust. But in the same time they were breaking the chains that attached them to England, they found no moral conflict in chaining others in arbitrary bondage.
Yes there was. You could be born a free man who got enslaved. You could be a slave who gets freed after years of good service.
The very same article you posted said this about slaves:
"in general freed slaves could become citizens, with the right to vote if they were male". The only exceptions were dediticii, who "were mainly slaves whose masters had felt compelled to punish them for serious misconduct". Slaves were generally allotted freedom and allowed to become citizens unless they were uppity and problematic.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_…
So again, it's quite obvious you're pulling this shit out of your ass. Free men could become slaves. Enslaved men can become citizens who vote. Neither happened in Dixie South, where the most cruel murderer will have more rights than the most faithful and obedient slave. If that was ancient Rome, the latter would have been freed and given citizenship after years of service, while the former would have been drafted into gladiator combat.
Again, this is you pulling shit out of your ass. Aside from prisoners of war in the late Middle Ages and early Renaissance, Crusaders didn't take slaves. When they took over any given area, they either taxed the local populace, or if they were angry enough, just wiped them all out. They didn't have enough supplies to feed slaves. They barely had enough for themselves, to the point where they had to commit cannibalism to just not starve. So their only two options were to A) get the local citizens to provide for them in the form of taxes and agricultural services, or B) kill them all and take their stuff. I happen to know a lot about the Crusades, and nowhere was there any record of them taking slaves until long after the Kingdom of Jerusalem fell.
In other words, you have no objective measurement or justification for slavery, so you're just using arbitrary judgements to justify your position. So if the Muslims took over France and decided to enslave the local populace, you and your descendants being slaves would be justified by them as you being destined for slavery, and it's just as valid an argument as one you're making right now. Also, owning slaves, at least in the biblical moral sense, was a responsibility, as they're mouths for you to feed, not to mention that if you abuse them, God will abuse you.
So either the new world is right in saying that all men are created equal, which means that slavery is an abomination, or the old order is correct, and God will punish you for mistreating your slaves, or indeed, unjustly enslaving them in the first place. The Romans had some tangible moral justifications for enslaving people, whether it be debt, war, or crime. The same went for the Hebrews. You don't. Which means that if someone enslaves you, they have the right to use you as a bitch, because according to you, they have a right to have slaves, so long as they can provide for them. And despite being descendants of free men, the African slaves in the colonies were enslaved anyways, just to sate someone else's greed. Which is far unlike the Roman model, where they had actual moral and legal justifications for slavery.
How sad is it that a pagan civilization famous for debauched and brutal behavior has a higher standard for slavery than your idols? Well, that's because they were actually somewhat concerned about morality, whereareas the only thing that was of concern to the colonial slave owners that you defend was money. It was good old money, or in this case, greed for it, which is the root of many evils in the world. That was their guiding principle. And that's why they deserved to get bombed out by the likes of William Tecumseh Sherman and Ulysses S. Grant. That was a just revenge against a civilization that couldn't even come up with a moral justification for the suffering and slavery they inflicted upon an entire people, the consequences of which are still felt today.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
In no way is the argument that you are making based in the history of man. The French colony of Saint-Domingue was the most valuable colony in the West Indies, and very likely the most valuable in the world. Saint-Domingue produced 40% of Europe's sugar and 60% of its coffee ; slaves were very rarely set free, and certainly not after a set period of service. Slaves were born to be slaves and well over 90% of them would die as slaves. It was neither ours or the Spanish tradition to free slaves after a set period of time. The "free" blacks in French colonies were the gens de couleur (people of colour) who were the biracial children of slave-owning whites, as well as a miniscule number of freed slaves.
Rockefeller and Carnegie certainly did not see themselves as lumières of a new enlightenment. More often than not, colonial slavers would wisely cite Christianity as a defence of the practice of slavery ; some may have valued the Enlightenment, but these men were obviously not among them.
The Americans waged war on England as a result of taxation without representation and not being allowed to voice their concerns properly to the King ; had the English chosen to allow the Americans a stronger voice, it is highly likely that America's war for independence would have never happened.
At the time of the nineteenth century and the civil war in USA, as is the subject of this discussion, no slave in America would have been born a free man.
The triangular trade ceased in the early nineteenth century. All slaves in the Americas would have been born into slavery.
Nothing in your quote contradicts the argument that I have made regarding the age of slaves in Rome.
I never once said that free men would not become slaves in Rome, or that enslaved men were not allowed to vote. You have only contradicted yourself in adding this irrelevant detail and avoiding my argument.
Yes, the Crusaders did, as a matter of fact, partake in slavery. In the crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, 120,000 Franks ruled over 350,000 Muslims, Jews, and native Eastern Christians. Following the initial invasion and conquest, sometimes accompanied by massacres or expulsions of Jews and Muslims, a peaceable co-existence between followers of the three religions prevailed. The Crusader states inherited many slaves. To this may have been added some Muslims taken as captives of war. The Kingdom's largest city, Acre, had a large slave market; however, the vast majority of Muslims and Jews remained free. The laws of Jerusalem declared that former Muslim slaves, if genuine converts to Christianity, must be freed. In 1120, the Council of Nablus forbade sexual relations between crusaders and their female Muslim slaves: if a Christian raped his own slave, he would be castrated, but if he raped someone else's slave, he would be castrated and exiled from the kingdom. No Christian, whether Western or Eastern, was permitted by law to be sold into slavery in the Crusader states.
As a descendant of nobility, a faithful servant to the King, and a citizen patriot, I am most certainly not destined for slavery.
The "new world" would certainly be wrong in such an argument ; all men are not created equal, and wise men do not adhere to the diabolical partisan of "equality".
This is not the proper occasion, but, if it were, it would not be difficult to trace the various devices by which the wealth of all civilized communities has been so unequally divided, and to show by what means so small a share has been allotted to those by whose labor it was produced, and so large a share given to the non-producing classes. All free men enjoyed the bounty of a slave society. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, ... nor his manservant, nor his maidservant." ; the Southern cause in the United States was entirely moral, far more so than that of fanatic abolitionists.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Then why were there a large number of free blacks in New Orleans? New Orleans had black soldiers who fought for the US as early as the War of 1812. And of course, they were not Mulattoes. Also, the only reason why the French (and the Spanish) hung on to slavery in the Caribbean was because of money. Other parts of the Spanish Empire like New Spain outright banned slavery, while other entities such as the Empire of Brazil phased slavery out in a long, drawn-out process. Even in countries where slavery existed for centuries, they got rid of slavery, sinking your idea that slaves were meant to live as slaves from birth. Usually, the only reason they would preserve slavery is money, and once slavery becomes unprofitable, they get rid of it because of its moral quandaries and the fact that movements of Christian moralists in both Catholic and Protestant circles opposed slavery.
Early Christianity's practice of slavery is the Roman method, where slaves were more akin to indentured servants more than anything. Medieval Christianity got rid of slaves and replaced them with serfs, and in the Renaissance, Christian organizations such as the Papacy sought to limit slavery. Back when Spain did have slaves, they had to acquire them through the Asiento trade, which meant that foreign countries have to sell them slaves, because the Papacy forbade Spain from dealing in the slave trade directly, to the point where they have to go behind the Pope's back and acquire slaves from second-hand sources, usually other European countries like England.
Highly unlikely. America's Protestant clergy got it into the heads of their flock that they can govern their spiritual affairs on their own. Many of them were already itching to stretch that to political affairs, since even without the taxes, England was garrisoning troops and preventing the colonies from trading with France and Spain, which rankled the Colonists. Add that with Catholic kingdoms ready to aid the US against the English, and it was a disaster waiting to happen for England. In fact, France was already providing under-the-counter support for the Colonists with arms and supplies before they openly sent armies to aid the colonial rebels against England.
And yet all slaves in America were descended from freemen who were unjustly enslaved out of the greed of black slave merchants and their white customers. Unlike the Romans, who enslaved criminals, debtors, and enemies of the state, the colonies acquired slaves from raiders and pillagers in the West African coast. Indentured servants could have filled up the void needed for service, but the colonists were too lazy and were too wary of people who would one day be free and who would one day oppose them.
Very well then, I accept this correction. The local Muslims in the Crusader States might have had slaves, but the Christians themselves were uninterested in expanding that enterprise. As you yourself said, the vast majority of Muslims and Jews remained free, and conversion to Christianity automatically freed any slaves. And of course, as you yourself state, the slaves were treated as people, and not as property, since abuses such as rape were punished, and converts to Christianity were automatically freed. Far unlike the Southern Dixie form of slavery, where all the slaves were Christian, but were still the property of their masters and could be raped and abused as they wished. It's quite obvious that the slavery of the Crusader states, whatever little slavery that existed, was far more civil and moral than anything the Southern slave owners had, especially since they openly freed any slaves that accepted their religion.
Anglo-Saxon nobles might take issue with what you said there. When the Normans conquered them, they were subjugated with great force. Former nobles became paupers at best. And of course, the increasing Muslim populace would look at descendants of nobility as perfect slaves. You'd be perfect in their eyes for a trophy slave. A dhimmi nobleman.
The Bible says otherwise. God doesn't make distinctions between slaves and free, and the very idea that all men are created equal was an idea ripped from the Bible. When Adam plowed and Eve sowed, who was then the lord or the slave? Only God would be the master there, and He sees all human beings as equal and judges them all by their actions. Enter His demesne, and both slave and free are equal. Christian moralists were the ones who led the fight against slavery, not secular humanists like the Founding Fathers, who actually took slaves. As you yourself showed, the Crusaders, known far and wide for acts of barbarity and religious fanaticism, were far more civil when it comes to the franchise of slavery, granting automatic freedom to any slave who converts to Christianity, and even punishing slave owners who abused their slaves, while a Southern slave owner raping his slaves would face no legal repercussion whatsoever. The Southern form of slavery was based on greed, nothing more. Rome's slavery was based on morality and the needs of the state, while the Crusaders did nothing to increase the franchise of slavery, even granting automatic freedom to those who converted to Christianity. How sad is it, when fanatical religious radicals and pagan heathens had a higher standard of morality when it comes to slavery. And of course, technology renders slavery completely useless. The US produces more food today than it ever did under slavery.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And that's why you're the loser. You don't bother to read and make a reasoned argument against the other side.
When I envisioned conservatives vs. liberals, I envisioned a troop of reasoned scholars and enlightened philosophers who can systematically tear apart the left's arguments bit by bit. Imagine my surprise when I find that modern conservatives are like you, punks and morons with idiotic opinions and doubly idiotic ideas, acting like punks and dilettantes.
You say that you're of noble blood? You shame that blood by being such an imbecile.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Didn't read lol"
That pretty much sums up how vulgar and un-intellectual you are.
French nobility my ass. If that is how French nobles act, then the French Revolution was justified.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And why didn't you? Because you have no answer.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And why didn't you? Because you have no answer.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And why didn't you? Because you have no answer.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And why didn't you? Because you have no answer.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And why didn't you? Because you have no answer.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And why didn't you? Because you have no answer.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And why didn't you? Because you have no answer.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And why didn't you? Because you have no answer.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Dude... I'm not denying that the majority of the Union was like that, I just modernized the painting by using logos.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
And you insulted the Union soldiers that you painted as the precursors to the SJWs. Which they were not. In fact, they were the precursors to the modern religious right. Down to the point of employing violence for religious goals.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And that's the problem. You don't care that you took a group of people and associated them with things that they would never support in a million years.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I took a painting ... oh a group of people not associating them to Communism, Homosexuality or even Anarchism in any way. I even cited that the original painting isn't mine. Get a grip on reality.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Reality? Reality isn't painting the Union forces as SJW twats.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's an analogy, not a literal statement.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
How would you like it if they used Southerners as analogies to things they don't stand for?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I wouldn't care because people like you and I would still know the difference.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
But how would you feel, then? If someone associates the Confederate soldiers with say, Somali warlords, or Islamic jihadists who still enslave people today?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'd wonder what the comparison would be given the fact that the Confederacy wasn't dependent on slavery like those societies are.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Um, yes it was. Slavery was the one thing that prevented Europeans from supporting the South. The President of the Confederacy wanted slave owners to give up slavery since they needed the slaves as extra soldiers on the field. The slave owners practically told him to shove it up the ass, and threw away potential reinforcements and European support because they wanted to keep their slaves.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Considering that the Union UTTERLY DEFEATED the Confederacy....methinks your visual analogy is self-defeating, Garfy.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You forget, if you even know, that the Government of the Confederacy is now an Interim Government that still has its own voice and it's own representation over the States that the Union occupied. They may have defeated every Army and the entire Confederate States Navy but they did not suppress the Government of the Confederacy and won't as long as the American people uphold it, Drivan.
👍: 2 ⏩: 1
| Next =>