Jump to content

Happy Juneteenth!

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 119 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Finite said:

Yes it's certainly all relative to the era. It's kind of like saying Abe Lincoln would be a republican in today's landscape. I think he'd have a hard time choosing a party. He'd be either moderate democrat or moderate republican I guess? 

Aye, one has to keep up.  Politicians and others in the public eye can keep up, but once they die, they quickly fall behind.  Karl Marx, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Mother Teresa all failed to meet current standards in some ways, often by a large margin.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Desiree Moonwinder said:

I think to qualify as a liberal you have to hold recent views.  I don't think even Karl Marx would qualify as a liberal these days.  Read some of his writings on race and gender and see what you think. 

It's almost as if the words "liberal" and "conservative" don't actually mean anything anymore in contemporary parlance.

Juneteenth is a welcome addition after we lost a holiday when they merged Washington's and Lincoln's birthday holidays that we used to celebrate back in Pennsylvania into the singular Presidents' Day. I suppose that this is just the Biden Administration distributing the idea of a holiday associated with the emancipation of the country from externally-supported capitalistic slavery entrenched in the southern "former" colonies (probably because of their proximity to the massive Caribbean slave industry) to everyone who hadn't yet heard the outcome of that decisive battle to settle for all time the "question" of human sacrifice (still a "nope!").


Centre County courthouse, Bellefonte, PA, USA


Pennsylvania Governor Curtin, 15th Governor of PA, 1861-1867.

Bellefonte, PA, municipal park


"What we call the Inter-American Slave Trade, it was the route that probably 15% of all Africans coming into the United States took because each American port drew heavily on the Caribbean,” Eltis said. “So, it wasn't just slave trading voyages coming from Africa that was populating the United States, but slave trade voyages coming from other parts of the Americas."

Eltis discovered, because the slave trade was a business, there are more and better detailed records of movement of Africans across the Atlantic than records of Europeans.

"So, we've got a very dramatic situation here, which not many people realize," he said, "which is that, by 1830 ... we've estimated that about four Africans arrived in the Americas for every single European. So, in effect, the Americas is an extension of Africa rather than of Europe."

In the U.S., that was especially true in places such as South Carolina where, by 1830, Europeans were outnumbered by Africans. That was nearly the case in Georgia at the time, too.

(from  https://www.gpb.org/news/2021/06/18/website-gives-more-revealing-look-at-transatlantic-slave-trade) 


selfie at home flat, late 2001.

Edited by Chroma Starlight
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, LittleMe Jewell said:
21 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

In the 60's early 70's seems the conservative elements of society that wanted to control their wage slaves (who produce excess profits for the CEO's of our unjust system) were freaked out about all these so-called "radicals" rebelling against the established system. The increasing struggle for women's rights, rights for Blacks, worker's rights, opposition to wars, and more -- these were all threatening to the conservative establishment.


The Democrats were in control when the  US entered the Vietnam war and for the next many years & Presidencies. So I'm not sure how the concept of the conservatives wanting to control the radicals plays into the US getting involved in that war.

I said "conservative elements in society" and so was not referring to a specific political party. A basic tenant of conservativism is that it seeks the maintenance of the status quo or reversion to some earlier status in a particular society, whereas more progressive elements in society actively strives for progress towards what it perceives as improved conditions.

At that particular point in time (late 60's, early 70's) there was a definite challenge to the status quo where women, people of color, and workers had less rights in society, as well as a challenge to the legitimacy of the Vietnam war and excesses of materialism and rigidity inherent in the 1950's.

Change can be difficult, for both individuals and society as a whole, and the 'powers-that-be' use our fears around change to funnel more of the goodies to themselves -- typically they manipulate political parties (getting us to fight each other -- divide and conquer strategy), and it proves to be very effective in the attainment of their goals. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 119 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Create New...