6 ms·

Here's a map which attempts to estimate when slavery was abolished across various parts of the world: https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/zsnr8q/year_of_

Here's a map which attempts to estimate when slavery was abolished across various parts of the world: https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/zsnr8q/year_of_abolition_of_slavery_by_country/#lightbox https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/zsnr8q/year_of_abo... The US wasn't much of an outlier. As a general rule, anyone who tries to use slavery as a skeleton key to understand US politics is most likely an ideologue with an agenda. Sane people don't propose struggle sessions for events which happened 100+ years ago when everyone involved is long dead. You wouldn't point to a gigantic statue of Genghis Khan to explain what's wrong with modern Mongolia. I don't think this is a slavery thing. Trump just sucks.

ModernMech 1mo ago
Genghis Khan died 800 years ago. The last American to have born into slavery died in the ~1970s~ 1960s.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 1mo ago
  The 1970s were 50 years ago. "Long dead", in other words. Did you know that Brazil didn't abolish until 1888? They also imported far more than the US: https://www.slavevoyages.org/static/uploads/01.jpg https://www.slavevoyages.org/static/uploads/01.jpg
  - ModernMech 1mo ago
    It's recent enough that people living today knew former slaves. That's not ancient history at all, so I think the comparison is not good. I'm sure Brazil also has to deal with fallout of their practices, but I don't see how it changes how the fallout of US slavery impacts the US.
    - 0xDEAFBEAD 1mo ago
      >It's recent enough that people living today knew a slave. Slavery ended in 1865. That's 161 years ago. So maybe there are a few modern 80-year-olds who interacted with 80-year-old former slaves when the modern 80-year-olds were infants. Those 80-year-old former slaves would themselves have no memory of slavery since it would've ended before they could form memories. And the modern 80-year-olds would have no memory of the interaction, since they themselves were infants when the interaction happened. In other words: There aren't very many of these people, and it's unclear if most of them would count. You know something which happened more recently in the US than slavery? Prohibition. A trendy, self-righteous moral crusade which didn't accomplish what it set out to achieve, and ended up creating a bunch of problems instead. I think Prohibition is a pretty good template for understanding the form and tendencies of modern left-wing activist movements. But--at least reducing alcoholism was a good cause that we had a shot at doing something about! Short of inventing a time machine, crusading against slavery from centuries ago seems rather pointless. That's not a problem for activists whose primary goal is to be trendy and self-righteous, of course.
      - ModernMech 1mo ago
        That's not the point, it's that people who were slaves died in a time when color TVs existed. This woman died in 1964! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_J._Cooper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_J._Cooper That's not long enough ago to call it ancient history.
        bluGill 1mo ago
        Someone who died in 1964 was technically a slave, but not yet old enough to function as a slave. Real slaves were mostly dead by 1940, the few who remained are outliers
        ModernMech 1mo ago
        Babies being born into slavery served the slave system just as much as grown men slaving in a field. Slave was a legal status in a system, not a job title. A baby born into slavery is a real slave, not a fake slave. Either George, who enslaved her mother, or his brother, Dr. Fabius Haywood, who enslaved her older brothers, Rufus and Andrew,[3] was probably Anna's father So Anna came into existence because her mother was raped by a man who legally owned her as property. And that was recent enough that Anna lived to witness Gilligan’s Island. Moreover, she was still a slave until she was six and served her masters as a domestic house servant. When you were six you were probably being educated to read and write and do math. You guys are so quick with your “well ackshually” that you’re missing the point which is very simple and has been restated by other posters.
      - antonvs 1mo ago
        [flagged]
        0xDEAFBEAD 1mo ago
        [dead]
    - hackernud3s 1mo ago
      I think you need to check the math on that. Knew a former slave maybe?
      - ModernMech 1mo ago
        Yes right indeed, edited.
    - budman1 1mo ago
      I don't know any former slaves. I don't know anyone that has spoken to a former slave. And most people of color in the US's ancestors were not slaves in the US south. They came as immigrants from other countries. The issue is not slavery. It might be racism. But it is not "I can't have slaves anymore"
      - ModernMech 1mo ago
        It really doesn't matter what you personally know, that's not the point.
      - anon84873628 1mo ago
        A full 76 of current serving US Senators were born before the passing of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which officially ended segregation and the Jim Crow era). That certainly means it's recent to me. My own parents (both still alive) grew up while "separate but equal" was still law of the land. So, yes, it's definitely racism. Or shall we say, the lasting imprint of slavery and the Confederate ideology more generally. Reconstruction failed and therefore allowed the Confederate ideology to persist for 100 years of Jim Crow and right on into today.
  - otterley 1mo ago
    What’s your angle here, exactly? I don’t get it.
    - creato 1mo ago
      That the issue of slavery has weak explanatory power for what is happening today.
      - otterley 1mo ago
        I didn’t ask you. But since you chose to get involved: do you believe there is no lasting impact or consequences resulting from slavery in the USA?
        WalterBright 1mo ago
        Pretty much everything that has happened in the past has consequences today. It's the butterfly effect. Slavery has existed as far back as history. The idea that people are created equal, and are equal under the law, is very, very new, and that idea has resulted in a great many positive things happening.
      - anon84873628 1mo ago
        You should check out this podcast episode with two historians, tracing the influence of the Confederacy ideology all the way to the current Supreme Court: https://youtu.be/1i2VuPACBbU?si=8jv8XrRTLHJ9hHTu https://youtu.be/1i2VuPACBbU?si=8jv8XrRTLHJ9hHTu
    - 0xDEAFBEAD 1mo ago
      I'm anti-Trump. If you tell people "Trump is a corrupt asshole", that has a chance at convincing supporters to abandon him. If you tell people "the US needs a cultural revolution due to events from past centuries", that's what got him elected in the first place. A good general wouldn't voluntarily shift the battleground to a region where their troops are weak. Political persuasion is no different. The Democratic Party keeps losing because they cling to unpopular positions on cultural issues. If Trump is as bad as you say, prove it to me by showing willingness to strategically cede ground on a few issues in order to win more voters.
  - tw04 1mo ago
    And does Brazil have their own 13th amendment that allows them to use prison labor as their modern slave workforce?
    - 0xDEAFBEAD 1mo ago
      "Around the world, at least eleven million people are imprisoned, either pre-trial or following conviction. Most sentenced prisoners will work while in custody... ... Most countries’ legal systems, however, carve out an exception for prisoner-workers, permitting the state to require them to work—sometimes for no pay, but typically for very low rates of pay. There are, even so, multiple potential benefits to prison work. For example, ICPR’s recent research indicated that prisoners who could not work (when prison regimes around the world were restricted during the COVID-19 pandemic) reported many negative consequences, including to their mental and physical wellbeing. At the minimum, work may mitigate some harmful impacts of imprisonment. At best, it may increase prisoners’ prospects of successful reintegration into society, potentially also benefitting society by reducing recidivism." https://www.prisonstudies.org/sites/default/files/publications/labouring_behind_bars.pdf https://www.prisonstudies.org/sites/default/files/publicatio... (emphasis mine) Here's a photo from a Brazilian prison from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_labour#/media/File:Inmateswork.JPG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_labour#/media/File:Inmat...
      - tw04 1mo ago
        The question isn’t whether prisoners work in other countries which I’m confident you know and dodged. The question is whether the prisons in Brazil are private, and are allowed to sell prison labor FOR A PROFIT, incentivizing both greater incarceration rates, and disincentivizing release. The answer is no, I’m not aware of ANY other country that allows a private organization to profit off the labor if people imprisoned by the state. At least not any country we would consider 1st world. It’s absolutely absurd to suggest the current situation is beneficial to anyone but the ruling class and anyone claiming otherwise has never been to prison, never had a relative or friend who has been to prison, or is literally a psychopath who lacks basic human empathy.
  - anon84873628 1mo ago
    I don't think you can say "long dead" until no one who met them is still alive. We have 6 serving Senators over the age of 80, meaning they were born in the 40s or earlier. We have a total of 76 serving Senators who were born before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed...
dataflow 1mo ago
You don't seem to believe that something like generational wealth makes much of a difference?
- hackernud3s 1mo ago
  It makes a difference at a demographics level but I don't think that's what we're discussing here.
TheOtherHobbes 1mo ago
Some people believe they have a right to land based on claims from millennia ago. I suppose you could question their sanity, but the point stands - history has a short memory, and a few generations are nothing. Especially when the after-effects of slavery, including segregation, disenfranchisement through gerrymandering and for-profit imprisonment, and other forms of continuing violence, are still live issues today.
tstrimple 1mo ago
Sounds like you’re completely ignorant to US history post civil war. You seem to know nothing about the daughters of the confederacy. Know nothing about segregation and Jim Crow. You have no idea that conservatives fight to this day to maintain monuments to literal traitors to the country. Or that they still routinely fly the flag of traitors to the country. Or more likely you do know about all of that and agree with it and just want to white wash conservative history in the US.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 1mo ago
  I know that stuff happened, but I don't think it's some sort of universal explanation for everything which happens in US politics.
  - tstrimple 1mo ago
    I'm sorry you're too dense to see why "The Party of Lincoln" is defending the confederate flags and confederate monuments. They must just really believe in states rights except where it actually helps people. Sort of like the confederates who pretended to be about states rights while demanding other states return their "escaped property". And it doesn't explain everything in US politics. I never claimed your strawman. It explains US conservative's degeneracy. Their complete lack of shame or civility. They never had any.
    - 0xDEAFBEAD 1mo ago
      >"The Party of Lincoln" is defending the confederate flags and confederate monuments I think the obvious answer here, insofar as that's true, is that historical continuity is simply not as strong as you are assuming. I mean you've basically admitted it yourself. In 1860 would you vote for the Democrats or the Republicans?
antonvs 1mo ago
As a general rule, someone trying to use a simple single numerical measure as a skeleton key to understand politics across nations is an ideologue with an agenda. As for the Genghis Khan comparison, I may have made an error. We may just be dealing with severe cognitive limitations here.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 1mo ago
  If you think slavery is the key to explaining everything about the US, the burden of proof is on you to show that. Just because something gets discussed a lot does not prove that it's important. Donald Trump is himself the child of immigrants who immigrated to the US well after the end of slavery, and maintained a residence in a state (New York) which opposed slavery. The relevance of slavery to his presidency is at best unclear.
  - anon84873628 1mo ago
    No one even mentioned the Trump administration. The major connection is through the Supreme Court.
  - antonvs 1mo ago
    The burden is on you to have studied the subject in even the slightest detail before you mouth off with your ridiculous hot takes. There are plenty of discussions of this available. Do you need me to spoonfeed you about where you can find them? Or do you not actually have the intellectual capacity to be able to use a search engine, or a chatbot?
Chermska1 1mo ago
The poster you responded to did not mention slavery, they mentioned the confederacy, which held a variety of views, many of which still inform the politics of many Americans today. Acknowledging this reality seems reasonable. Your replies indicate your disdain for appeals to the history of American slavery in political discussions, yet you were the one who brought it into the conversation, diverting the thread by initially straw-manning the parents view.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 1mo ago
  This is bad faith hair-splitting. You know perfectly well what tshrimple thinks "Nuremberg trials" were needed for, or why they think confederates were "evil fucks".
  - tstrimple 1mo ago
    They were evil fucks. Slavery was one among many deplorable things conservatives supported and still mostly support to this day. They also opposed women's suffrage. They opposed civil rights and fought to maintain segregation. They fought against gay rights. They fight against trans rights. They literally fight against any minority who might land on an equal playing field. Hey... guess who has been stating lately that women shouldn't be allowed to vote? They are always the first to cast someone as an "other" and scapegoat for all of their problems. You're the type of person to hear "Haitians are eating their cats and dogs!" or "Mexico is sending us rapists and murders" and say "That guy has a good point!". It's pretty fucking gross and you're a clown at best for defending them.
    - 0xDEAFBEAD 1mo ago
      >They are always the first to cast someone as an "other" and scapegoat for all of their problems. No kidding amigo.
    - bluGill 1mo ago
      That is revisionist history. Republicans are very proud of their opposition to slavery, and the Democrats were the ones opposing civil rights. There have been some changes in alignment over the years, but every Republican I've every talked to remains proud of their historic roles above.
deleted 1mo ago
[deleted]
nephihaha 1mo ago
That map is inaccurate. Unfortunately slavery is still very much a thing in many parts of the world, including forced labour, prostitution and some sweat shop labour. The PRC and North Korea still use slave labour as do some other countries. The Soviet Union had slavery with the Gulag system during the 20th century, and other places such as East Germany had some within living memory.
0xDEAFBEAD 1mo ago
Someone replied to my comment. I composed a reply, then they deleted their comment. Since I already put in the effort to write my reply, I will paste it here. * * * Trump outperformed with black people relative to Romney and has appointed black people to his cabinet. >problems going on to the present day Often more noise than substance, e.g. the odds of a black man being unarmed and killed by cops in the US are something like one in a million annually. >The white vote in the US was a solid majority for Democrats before the Civil Rights Act and is now a solid Republican majority. Ethnic bloc voting is not at all unusual by international standards. I might as well interpret black loyalty to the Democrats as racism against white people. >Those who "deserve it" are usually not white. Trump has had many many "beefs" with white people such as Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Mike Pence, James Comey, Mark Milley, Anthony Fauci, Megyn Kelly, Joe Scarborough, Rosie O'Donnell, etc. What frustrates me is when activists take an issue which should be a winner ("Trump is corrupt, let's do something about government corruption, all Americans can unite around this") and immediately pivot to handwavey, divisive race-baiting and talking about how utterly depraved conservatives supposedly are. Sometimes it seems like you guys are determined to lose.
anon84873628 1mo ago
You seem to be missing important parts of US history, not least of all the century of Jim Crow. I mean, come on, my Boomer parents were already alive to see the Civil Rights Act passed. For a trace of the thread directly from the civil war to the current Supreme Court, check out this podcast episode: https://youtu.be/1i2VuPACBbU?si=8jv8XrRTLHJ9hHTu https://youtu.be/1i2VuPACBbU?si=8jv8XrRTLHJ9hHTu

ModernMech 1mo ago

Genghis Khan died 800 years ago. The last American to have born into slavery died in the ~1970s~ 1960s.

0xDEAFBEAD 1mo ago
The 1970s were 50 years ago. "Long dead", in other words. Did you know that Brazil didn't abolish until 1888? They also imported far more than the US: https://www.slavevoyages.org/static/uploads/01.jpg https://www.slavevoyages.org/static/uploads/01.jpg
- ModernMech 1mo ago
  It's recent enough that people living today knew former slaves. That's not ancient history at all, so I think the comparison is not good. I'm sure Brazil also has to deal with fallout of their practices, but I don't see how it changes how the fallout of US slavery impacts the US.
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 1mo ago
    >It's recent enough that people living today knew a slave. Slavery ended in 1865. That's 161 years ago. So maybe there are a few modern 80-year-olds who interacted with 80-year-old former slaves when the modern 80-year-olds were infants. Those 80-year-old former slaves would themselves have no memory of slavery since it would've ended before they could form memories. And the modern 80-year-olds would have no memory of the interaction, since they themselves were infants when the interaction happened. In other words: There aren't very many of these people, and it's unclear if most of them would count. You know something which happened more recently in the US than slavery? Prohibition. A trendy, self-righteous moral crusade which didn't accomplish what it set out to achieve, and ended up creating a bunch of problems instead. I think Prohibition is a pretty good template for understanding the form and tendencies of modern left-wing activist movements. But--at least reducing alcoholism was a good cause that we had a shot at doing something about! Short of inventing a time machine, crusading against slavery from centuries ago seems rather pointless. That's not a problem for activists whose primary goal is to be trendy and self-righteous, of course.
    - ModernMech 1mo ago
      That's not the point, it's that people who were slaves died in a time when color TVs existed. This woman died in 1964! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_J._Cooper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_J._Cooper That's not long enough ago to call it ancient history.
      - bluGill 1mo ago
        Someone who died in 1964 was technically a slave, but not yet old enough to function as a slave. Real slaves were mostly dead by 1940, the few who remained are outliers
        ModernMech 1mo ago
        Babies being born into slavery served the slave system just as much as grown men slaving in a field. Slave was a legal status in a system, not a job title. A baby born into slavery is a real slave, not a fake slave. Either George, who enslaved her mother, or his brother, Dr. Fabius Haywood, who enslaved her older brothers, Rufus and Andrew,[3] was probably Anna's father So Anna came into existence because her mother was raped by a man who legally owned her as property. And that was recent enough that Anna lived to witness Gilligan’s Island. Moreover, she was still a slave until she was six and served her masters as a domestic house servant. When you were six you were probably being educated to read and write and do math. You guys are so quick with your “well ackshually” that you’re missing the point which is very simple and has been restated by other posters.
    - antonvs 1mo ago
      [flagged]
      - 0xDEAFBEAD 1mo ago
        [dead]
  - hackernud3s 1mo ago
    I think you need to check the math on that. Knew a former slave maybe?
    - ModernMech 1mo ago
      Yes right indeed, edited.
  - budman1 1mo ago
    I don't know any former slaves. I don't know anyone that has spoken to a former slave. And most people of color in the US's ancestors were not slaves in the US south. They came as immigrants from other countries. The issue is not slavery. It might be racism. But it is not "I can't have slaves anymore"
    - ModernMech 1mo ago
      It really doesn't matter what you personally know, that's not the point.
    - anon84873628 1mo ago
      A full 76 of current serving US Senators were born before the passing of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which officially ended segregation and the Jim Crow era). That certainly means it's recent to me. My own parents (both still alive) grew up while "separate but equal" was still law of the land. So, yes, it's definitely racism. Or shall we say, the lasting imprint of slavery and the Confederate ideology more generally. Reconstruction failed and therefore allowed the Confederate ideology to persist for 100 years of Jim Crow and right on into today.
- otterley 1mo ago
  What’s your angle here, exactly? I don’t get it.
  - creato 1mo ago
    That the issue of slavery has weak explanatory power for what is happening today.
    - otterley 1mo ago
      I didn’t ask you. But since you chose to get involved: do you believe there is no lasting impact or consequences resulting from slavery in the USA?
      - WalterBright 1mo ago
        Pretty much everything that has happened in the past has consequences today. It's the butterfly effect. Slavery has existed as far back as history. The idea that people are created equal, and are equal under the law, is very, very new, and that idea has resulted in a great many positive things happening.
    - anon84873628 1mo ago
      You should check out this podcast episode with two historians, tracing the influence of the Confederacy ideology all the way to the current Supreme Court: https://youtu.be/1i2VuPACBbU?si=8jv8XrRTLHJ9hHTu https://youtu.be/1i2VuPACBbU?si=8jv8XrRTLHJ9hHTu
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 1mo ago
    I'm anti-Trump. If you tell people "Trump is a corrupt asshole", that has a chance at convincing supporters to abandon him. If you tell people "the US needs a cultural revolution due to events from past centuries", that's what got him elected in the first place. A good general wouldn't voluntarily shift the battleground to a region where their troops are weak. Political persuasion is no different. The Democratic Party keeps losing because they cling to unpopular positions on cultural issues. If Trump is as bad as you say, prove it to me by showing willingness to strategically cede ground on a few issues in order to win more voters.
- tw04 1mo ago
  And does Brazil have their own 13th amendment that allows them to use prison labor as their modern slave workforce?
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 1mo ago
    "Around the world, at least eleven million people are imprisoned, either pre-trial or following conviction. Most sentenced prisoners will work while in custody... ... Most countries’ legal systems, however, carve out an exception for prisoner-workers, permitting the state to require them to work—sometimes for no pay, but typically for very low rates of pay. There are, even so, multiple potential benefits to prison work. For example, ICPR’s recent research indicated that prisoners who could not work (when prison regimes around the world were restricted during the COVID-19 pandemic) reported many negative consequences, including to their mental and physical wellbeing. At the minimum, work may mitigate some harmful impacts of imprisonment. At best, it may increase prisoners’ prospects of successful reintegration into society, potentially also benefitting society by reducing recidivism." https://www.prisonstudies.org/sites/default/files/publications/labouring_behind_bars.pdf https://www.prisonstudies.org/sites/default/files/publicatio... (emphasis mine) Here's a photo from a Brazilian prison from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_labour#/media/File:Inmateswork.JPG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_labour#/media/File:Inmat...
    - tw04 1mo ago
      The question isn’t whether prisoners work in other countries which I’m confident you know and dodged. The question is whether the prisons in Brazil are private, and are allowed to sell prison labor FOR A PROFIT, incentivizing both greater incarceration rates, and disincentivizing release. The answer is no, I’m not aware of ANY other country that allows a private organization to profit off the labor if people imprisoned by the state. At least not any country we would consider 1st world. It’s absolutely absurd to suggest the current situation is beneficial to anyone but the ruling class and anyone claiming otherwise has never been to prison, never had a relative or friend who has been to prison, or is literally a psychopath who lacks basic human empathy.
- anon84873628 1mo ago
  I don't think you can say "long dead" until no one who met them is still alive. We have 6 serving Senators over the age of 80, meaning they were born in the 40s or earlier. We have a total of 76 serving Senators who were born before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed...

dataflow 1mo ago

You don't seem to believe that something like generational wealth makes much of a difference?

hackernud3s 1mo ago
It makes a difference at a demographics level but I don't think that's what we're discussing here.

TheOtherHobbes 1mo ago

Some people believe they have a right to land based on claims from millennia ago. I suppose you could question their sanity, but the point stands - history has a short memory, and a few generations are nothing. Especially when the after-effects of slavery, including segregation, disenfranchisement through gerrymandering and for-profit imprisonment, and other forms of continuing violence, are still live issues today.

tstrimple 1mo ago

Sounds like you’re completely ignorant to US history post civil war. You seem to know nothing about the daughters of the confederacy. Know nothing about segregation and Jim Crow. You have no idea that conservatives fight to this day to maintain monuments to literal traitors to the country. Or that they still routinely fly the flag of traitors to the country. Or more likely you do know about all of that and agree with it and just want to white wash conservative history in the US.

0xDEAFBEAD 1mo ago
I know that stuff happened, but I don't think it's some sort of universal explanation for everything which happens in US politics.
- tstrimple 1mo ago
  I'm sorry you're too dense to see why "The Party of Lincoln" is defending the confederate flags and confederate monuments. They must just really believe in states rights except where it actually helps people. Sort of like the confederates who pretended to be about states rights while demanding other states return their "escaped property". And it doesn't explain everything in US politics. I never claimed your strawman. It explains US conservative's degeneracy. Their complete lack of shame or civility. They never had any.
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 1mo ago
    >"The Party of Lincoln" is defending the confederate flags and confederate monuments I think the obvious answer here, insofar as that's true, is that historical continuity is simply not as strong as you are assuming. I mean you've basically admitted it yourself. In 1860 would you vote for the Democrats or the Republicans?

antonvs 1mo ago

As a general rule, someone trying to use a simple single numerical measure as a skeleton key to understand politics across nations is an ideologue with an agenda. As for the Genghis Khan comparison, I may have made an error. We may just be dealing with severe cognitive limitations here.

0xDEAFBEAD 1mo ago
If you think slavery is the key to explaining everything about the US, the burden of proof is on you to show that. Just because something gets discussed a lot does not prove that it's important. Donald Trump is himself the child of immigrants who immigrated to the US well after the end of slavery, and maintained a residence in a state (New York) which opposed slavery. The relevance of slavery to his presidency is at best unclear.
- anon84873628 1mo ago
  No one even mentioned the Trump administration. The major connection is through the Supreme Court.
- antonvs 1mo ago
  The burden is on you to have studied the subject in even the slightest detail before you mouth off with your ridiculous hot takes. There are plenty of discussions of this available. Do you need me to spoonfeed you about where you can find them? Or do you not actually have the intellectual capacity to be able to use a search engine, or a chatbot?

Chermska1 1mo ago

The poster you responded to did not mention slavery, they mentioned the confederacy, which held a variety of views, many of which still inform the politics of many Americans today. Acknowledging this reality seems reasonable. Your replies indicate your disdain for appeals to the history of American slavery in political discussions, yet you were the one who brought it into the conversation, diverting the thread by initially straw-manning the parents view.

0xDEAFBEAD 1mo ago
This is bad faith hair-splitting. You know perfectly well what tshrimple thinks "Nuremberg trials" were needed for, or why they think confederates were "evil fucks".
- tstrimple 1mo ago
  They were evil fucks. Slavery was one among many deplorable things conservatives supported and still mostly support to this day. They also opposed women's suffrage. They opposed civil rights and fought to maintain segregation. They fought against gay rights. They fight against trans rights. They literally fight against any minority who might land on an equal playing field. Hey... guess who has been stating lately that women shouldn't be allowed to vote? They are always the first to cast someone as an "other" and scapegoat for all of their problems. You're the type of person to hear "Haitians are eating their cats and dogs!" or "Mexico is sending us rapists and murders" and say "That guy has a good point!". It's pretty fucking gross and you're a clown at best for defending them.
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 1mo ago
    >They are always the first to cast someone as an "other" and scapegoat for all of their problems. No kidding amigo.
  - bluGill 1mo ago
    That is revisionist history. Republicans are very proud of their opposition to slavery, and the Democrats were the ones opposing civil rights. There have been some changes in alignment over the years, but every Republican I've every talked to remains proud of their historic roles above.

deleted 1mo ago

[deleted]

nephihaha 1mo ago

That map is inaccurate. Unfortunately slavery is still very much a thing in many parts of the world, including forced labour, prostitution and some sweat shop labour. The PRC and North Korea still use slave labour as do some other countries. The Soviet Union had slavery with the Gulag system during the 20th century, and other places such as East Germany had some within living memory.

0xDEAFBEAD 1mo ago

Someone replied to my comment. I composed a reply, then they deleted their comment. Since I already put in the effort to write my reply, I will paste it here. * * * Trump outperformed with black people relative to Romney and has appointed black people to his cabinet. >problems going on to the present day Often more noise than substance, e.g. the odds of a black man being unarmed and killed by cops in the US are something like one in a million annually. >The white vote in the US was a solid majority for Democrats before the Civil Rights Act and is now a solid Republican majority. Ethnic bloc voting is not at all unusual by international standards. I might as well interpret black loyalty to the Democrats as racism against white people. >Those who "deserve it" are usually not white. Trump has had many many "beefs" with white people such as Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Mike Pence, James Comey, Mark Milley, Anthony Fauci, Megyn Kelly, Joe Scarborough, Rosie O'Donnell, etc. What frustrates me is when activists take an issue which should be a winner ("Trump is corrupt, let's do something about government corruption, all Americans can unite around this") and immediately pivot to handwavey, divisive race-baiting and talking about how utterly depraved conservatives supposedly are. Sometimes it seems like you guys are determined to lose.

anon84873628 1mo ago

You seem to be missing important parts of US history, not least of all the century of Jim Crow. I mean, come on, my Boomer parents were already alive to see the Civil Rights Act passed. For a trace of the thread directly from the civil war to the current Supreme Court, check out this podcast episode: https://youtu.be/1i2VuPACBbU?si=8jv8XrRTLHJ9hHTu https://youtu.be/1i2VuPACBbU?si=8jv8XrRTLHJ9hHTu