Off of the subject, so no comment.

Gerald,

May I call you by your given name?

Official s***ery ended 160 odd years ago. Now, repression of minorities did not end until 1960s. Why be ashamed? This is history, and there is nothing we can do to change the facts. We can only do something about today and influence tomorrow. But, shame is not necessary. We need to feel shame about our misdoing, not those of generations past. Learn from history, do better than our forefathers. Politics are mixed in with the s***ery issue, but the real cause was the need for cheep labor. I say cheep simply because each s***e was purchased, they were fed, clothed, housed, and medical care was given to each. This was necessary to keep a strong and healthy work force. It was a matter of economics and not politically motivated.

Now, do you want to discuss the conditions of the modern day poor, how they are trying to survive, the motivation behind keeping them poor, and how it started?

Now that we have the starvation issue out of the way, I will address your other comments.

1. The portion of the Constitution I quoted is not just in the time of war. This is a very common misconception. National defense is exclusively the function of the national government. Under our Constitution, the states are generally sovereign, which means that the legitimate functions of government not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved to the states. But Article One, Section 10 does specifically prohibit the states, except with the consent of Congress, from keeping troops or warships in time of peace or engaging in war, the only exception being that states may act on their own if actually invaded. Now invasion is defined as: in·va·sion [in-vey-zhuhn]
noun

1. an act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, especially by an army.

2. the entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as disease.

3. entrance as if to take possession or overrun

4. infringement by intrusion

The last concern of what my parents did to me. Well, they taught me manners. They taught me to be respectful, they taught me how to love, they taught me to be calm in face of anger, they taught me to listen with an open mind, they taught me the need to stop and think before taking action our speaking, they taught me to look at all sides of issues before claiming one as my own, they taught me patience, and they taught me how to read, write, and speak with clarity. They taught me right from wrong, how to manage my finances, how to handle problems without anger. They gave me love, a home, enough latitude to form opinions, comfort, encouragement, an education, and the fellowship of the synagogue. They disciplined me when I broke the rules, and their discipline was not corporal punishment. So, what did my parents do to me they were parents. Something that many of our youth can not claim.

I hope that this answers your questions regarding my personal life, although I did consider your remark as inappropriate and bordered on intrusion of my privacy.

Is it that difficult for you to be civil? I ask you to stop, think. Overly emotional people have difficulty in separating facts and formulating logical and informed opinions. I do not want to be harsh or cruel, but you may want to check out the symptoms of Cluster B personality disorders. You may want to discuss this with someone competent to direct you and also you may want to discuss your anger issues.

I simply asked you some civilized questions and presented you with some comparisons. I had no intent of offending you, but to draw your attention to problems within your comment.

Duplicate

Good point, it is against the law to shoot someone that is running away. Our founding fathers took a deliberate and unarguable stand for their God-given rights to self-defense and protection of property. As Americans, we have enjoyed that right since the Continental Congress signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776. The right to defend ourselves includes the legal and justifiable right to use deadly force. Though wording is different in each one, every state has self-defense statutes or case law that defines how and when a person can use deadly force. One must abide by the individual state laws, some have an obligation to retreat law, while others simply use court cases, and other states say that if you are or someone else is in such a position that you fear your own or their lives or excessive bodily harm then lethal self defense is your obligation.

It is quite different with the military and government, either federal or state. When you are hired you take an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic. The federal government is given may permissive powers, but only one that is mandatory. That is the defense of the United States. Article Four, Section Four states that the “United States shall guarantee to every State a republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion.” In other words, even if the federal government chose to exercise no other power, it must, under the Constitution, provide for the common defense.

You are very welcome. :wink: :wink: :wink:

Just google black opinion, or black websites, or black politics and you will get a long list. Pick one and start reading. You can do the same with You Tube and get a ton of information on current thoughts.

I warn you, wear a Teflon suit. It can get brutal.

Sure. Let us start with the Roman Empire and go forward.

In 392 Emperor Theodosius I decreed that Christianity was the only legal religion of the Roman Empire, and forbidding pagan practices by law: is Our will that all the peoples who are ruled by the administration of Our Clemency shall practice that religion which the divine Peter the Apostle t***smitted to the Romans....The rest, whom We adjudge demented and insane, shall sustain the infamy of heretical dogmas, their meeting places shall not receive the name of churches, and they shall be smitten first by divine vengeance and secondly by the retribution of Our own initiative" (Codex Theodosianus XVI 1.2.).

During the Saxon Wars, Charlemagne, King of the Franks, forcibly Roman Catholicized the Saxons from their native Germanic paganism by way of warfare and law upon conquest. Examples include the Massacre of Verden in 782, during which Charlemagne reportedly had 4,500 captive Saxons massacred upon rebelling against conversion, and the Capitulatio de partibus Saxoniae, a law imposed on conquered Saxons in 785 which prescribes death to those that refuse to convert to Christianity.

Pope Innocent III pronounced in 1201 that even if torture and intimidation had been employed in receiving the sacrament, one nevertheless:

...does receive the impress of Christianity and may be forced to observe the Christian Faith as one who expressed a conditional willingness though, absolutely speaking, he was unwilling. ... [For] the grace of Baptism had been received, and they had been anointed with the sacred oil, and had participated in the body of the Lord, they might properly be forced to hold to the faith which they had accepted perforce, lest the name of the Lord be blasphemed, and lest they hold in contempt and consider vile the faith they had joined.

From The Crusades, by Bernard Hamilton“In 1309 the Teutonic Order moved its headquarters to Marienburg in Prussia. It had a papal license to wage perpetual war against the pagans and used this to launch annual crusades against Lithuania. These expeditions were very popular with the nobility of northern Europe: campaigns were held twice a year, in the summer and in the winter when the order laid on special Christmas festivities for visiting crusaders.” “The excuse for men who enjoyed fighting and to lay waste large parts of Lithuania in the name of Christ was removed in 1386 when the King of Lithuania, Jagiello, married Queen Jadwiga of Poland and received Catholic baptism. The two kingdoms were united under Christian rulers and the Teutonic Knights no longer had any justification for crusading against pagans there.”

Spanish Inquisition

After the end of the Islamic control of Spain, Muslims and Jews were murdered and expelled from Spain in 1492 and from Portugal in 1497. After the Reconquista, so called "New Christians" were those inhabitants (Sephardic Jews or Mudéjar Muslims) during the Middle Ages and the Early Modern Era who were baptized under coercion and in the face of murder, becoming forced converts from Islam (Moriscos, Conversos and secret Moors) and forced converts from Judaism (Conversos, Crypto-Jews and Marranos). Then the Spanish Inquisition targeted primarily forced converts from Judaism who came under suspicion of either continuing to adhere to their old religion or of having fallen back into it. Jewish conversos still resided in Spain and often hidden (cryptically) practiced Judaism and were suspected by the "Old Christians" of being Crypto-Jews. The Spanish Inquisition generated much wealth and income for the church and individual inquisitors by confiscating the property of the persecutees or selling them into s***ery. The end of the Al-Andalus and the expulsion of the Sephardic Jews from the Iberian Peninsula went hand in hand with the increase of Spanish-Portugal influence in the world, as exemplified in the Christian conquest of the Americas and their aboriginal Indian population. The Ottoman empire, the Netherlands, and the New World absorbed much of the Jewish refugees.

Goa Inquisition

Religious persecution took place by the Portuguese in Goa, India from 16th to the 17th century. The natives of Goa, most of them Hindus were subjected to severe torture and oppression by the zealous Portuguese rulers and missionaries and forcibly converted to Christianity.

In 1567, the campaign of destroying temples in Bardez met with success. At the end of it 300 Hindu temples were destroyed. Enacting laws, prohibition was laid from December 4, 1567 on rituals of Hindu marriages, sacred thread wearing and cremation. All the persons above 15 years of age were compelled to listen to Christian preaching, failing which they were punished. In 1583 Hindu temples at Assolna and Cuncolim were destroyed through army action. The fathers of the Church forbade the Hindus under terrible penalties the use of their own sacred books, and prevented them from all exercise of their religion. They destroyed their temples, and so harassed and interfered with the people that they abandoned the city in large numbers, refusing to remain any longer in a place where they had no liberty, and were liable to imprisonment, torture and death if they worshipped after their own fashion the gods of their fathers." wrote Filippo Sassetti, who was in India from 1578 to 1588. An order was issued in June 1684 for suppressing the Konkani language and making it compulsory to speak the Portuguese language. The law provided for dealing toughly with anyone using the local language. Following that law all the non-Christian cultural symbols and the books written in local languages were sought to be destroyed.

Methods such as repressive laws, demolition of temples and mosques, destruction of holy books, fines and the forcible conversion of orphans were used.

Native American Boarding Schools

The government paid religious societies to provide education to Native American children on reservations. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) founded additional boarding schools based on the assimilation model of the Carlisle Indian Industrial School.

Children were usually immersed in European-American culture through appearance changes with haircuts, were forbidden to speak their native languages, and traditional names were replaced by new European-American names. The experience of the schools was often harsh, especially for the younger children who were separated from their families. In numerous ways, they were encouraged or forced to abandon their Native American identities and cultures. The number of Native American children in the boarding schools reached a peak in the 1970s, with an estimated enrollment of 60,000 in 1973. Especially through investigations of the later twentieth century, there have been many documented cases of sexual, physical and mental abuse occurring at such schools.

Since those years, tribal nations have increasingly insisted on community-based schools and have also founded numerous tribally controlled colleges. Community schools have also been supported by the federal government through the BIA and legislation. The largest boarding schools have closed. In some cases, reservations or tribes were too small or poor to support independent schools and still wanted an alternative for their children, especially for high school. By 2007, the number of Native American children in boarding schools had declined to 9,500.

These are only a sampling of examples. I could expound on the other religions also if you would like. And if this is not enough of a history lesson, I can suggest a small library in Painsville, Ohio that is run by Episcopal Nuns. Their library is rich with old books and documents.

Wow, you say that people on this site "spew r****t s**t" and are illogical makes me wonder if you have ever listened to the lyrics of many rap (or wh**ever they are calling music....the counter beat a*********n to my ears) or gone to a black web site to read what is said about:

1) Hispanics
2) Jews
3) W****s


What is written here is so gentle and polite compared to what is said and written it would make you think that we are in church.

Following your logic, then I guess for r****m to fully die, we will have to wait for not only the older (like me) w****s to finally die, but we will need for the black elementary school age through their grandmothers to die. But, that how do you prevent the future generation from telling their children the facts as they see them? And, again following your logic, perhaps it is only the w****s that are r****t. And the b****s are all open hearted. That w****s are trying to deny the facts of r****m and thereby acerbating the situation. Perhaps you are right, there were no mobs of b****s singling out white people to k**l and w****s are the ones who made up and is playing the knockout game. I guess I need to make another trip to finish reading the archives.

Thank you for your opinion.

I had read several bound hand written documents that were transcriptions of Lincoln's personal papers and speeches. This article was actually toned down and painted a more tolerant view of Abe. But, I am glad you found it interesting.

So, if I follow you. The b****s decided, make a conscious decision to stay in the US. And, this being held as a t***h, then the b****s of today have no beef about s***ery. They do have a complaint about the way they were treated up until the 60s, this I understand. But now we are almost 2 generations removed from the 60s. I think that I read a study complete with scientifically based questions and the b****s who have the major issues are the last two. Those in their 60s and beyond did not show any bigotry toward w****s. So, here is another question. Welfare and special benefits are relatively new and have increased for the past 40 years. Could the biased treatment (a) have given birth to the recent mob and gang violence and (b) could there be a relationship between welfare increases to hatred?

I did not find any reference to that train of thought, but it is interesting. So, here is a further question. If Africans were already enslaving Africans (and still do) how much of an impact would the rehoming of these s***es cause? I wonder if Lincoln cared? If you read the transcripts of many of Lincoln's speeches, he seemed to think that b****s could not be assimilated into white society. He rejected the notion of social e******y of the races, and held to the view that b****s should be resettled abroad. As President, he supported projects to remove b****s from the United States. It seems that most Americans at that time was in favor of paying for their t***sportation back to their fatherland. I found one paper on the net that is written from neither conservative or liberal point of view but based on the transcripts of Lincoln. http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n5p-4_Morgan.html
It supports what I saw in the archives. Very interesting!

I agree with your assessment, as with anything there is always a better and bigger machine. But, I still wonder why they did not take advantage of the free t***sportation back to their homeland. And, why be bitter toward a complete race of people for what only a small percentage did? I guess I need to dig deeper into real historical records. The new history will not tell the complete story as seen back in the day.

Thank you for your honest reply!

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: