A Message to "mixed" black girls who are my color.....
Options
Comments
-
Undefeatable wrote: »Ok, I'm posting again because it looks like some people have comprehension issues. The issue is whether there were any whites who championed the black cause. I say that Brown should be an uncontroversial example of one who did. Nobody is saying that he should be the face of the struggle against slavery.
Of course Jews should be thankful that there were decent people who, at risk to themselves, sheltered Jews from ? persecution. Likewise, blacks should admire Brown for what he did. Suppose that his plan was successful, and that he was able to overthrow slavery. If that was the case, should blacks admire him for what he did? Of course we should. But now his plan was of course not successful. I maintain that we should admire him no less for that fact.
It is commonly acknowledged that people deserve admiration for supererogatory behavior. And leading a slave revolt with the intention of overthrowing slavery, when it must have been known that the chance of success was miniscule, surely counts as supererogatory. It is one thing to be against slavery -- even to speak out vociferously against it -- and quite another to give your life in the fight against it.
People understand what you are trying to say but we are just not ? impressed with the actions of john brown. most likely if he was successful jim crow would have had a longer history that it.
Why do you think that?
So you're saying that Brown should not have tried to free slaves? Wow.
Also, what would be worse: a longer period of Jim Crow or a shorter period of slavery? -
Undefeatable wrote: »Undefeatable wrote: »Ok, I'm posting again because it looks like some people have comprehension issues. The issue is whether there were any whites who championed the black cause. I say that Brown should be an uncontroversial example of one who did. Nobody is saying that he should be the face of the struggle against slavery.
Of course Jews should be thankful that there were decent people who, at risk to themselves, sheltered Jews from ? persecution. Likewise, blacks should admire Brown for what he did. Suppose that his plan was successful, and that he was able to overthrow slavery. If that was the case, should blacks admire him for what he did? Of course we should. But now his plan was of course not successful. I maintain that we should admire him no less for that fact.
It is commonly acknowledged that people deserve admiration for supererogatory behavior. And leading a slave revolt with the intention of overthrowing slavery, when it must have been known that the chance of success was miniscule, surely counts as supererogatory. It is one thing to be against slavery -- even to speak out vociferously against it -- and quite another to give your life in the fight against it.
People understand what you are trying to say but we are just not ? impressed with the actions of john brown. most likely if he was successful jim crow would have had a longer history that it.
Why do you think that?
So you're saying that Brown should not have tried to free slaves? Wow.
Also, what would be worse: a longer period of Jim Crow or a shorter period of slavery?
Stop putting words in my mouth i never said anything about what john should have done or not do.
the mass of white people, slave owners or not did not give two ? about the suffering of black people. slavery could have ended 50 sooner it would have made no difference white people hated black people and one white mans actions would not have changed anything. it took a full blown war between white men to stop slavery and it was not stopped for the benefit of black people.
jim crow especially in it's early days equals slavery. the few years between slavery and jim crow equaled a new kind of hell for black people because in some places slavery continued . -
Mixed chix are pretty 'balla'
-
Undefeatable wrote: »Undefeatable wrote: »Ok, I'm posting again because it looks like some people have comprehension issues. The issue is whether there were any whites who championed the black cause. I say that Brown should be an uncontroversial example of one who did. Nobody is saying that he should be the face of the struggle against slavery.
Of course Jews should be thankful that there were decent people who, at risk to themselves, sheltered Jews from ? persecution. Likewise, blacks should admire Brown for what he did. Suppose that his plan was successful, and that he was able to overthrow slavery. If that was the case, should blacks admire him for what he did? Of course we should. But now his plan was of course not successful. I maintain that we should admire him no less for that fact.
It is commonly acknowledged that people deserve admiration for supererogatory behavior. And leading a slave revolt with the intention of overthrowing slavery, when it must have been known that the chance of success was miniscule, surely counts as supererogatory. It is one thing to be against slavery -- even to speak out vociferously against it -- and quite another to give your life in the fight against it.
People understand what you are trying to say but we are just not ? impressed with the actions of john brown. most likely if he was successful jim crow would have had a longer history that it.
Why do you think that?
So you're saying that Brown should not have tried to free slaves? Wow.
Also, what would be worse: a longer period of Jim Crow or a shorter period of slavery?
Stop putting words in my mouth i never said anything about what john should have done or not do.
the mass of white people, slave owners or not did not give two ? about the suffering of black people. slavery could have ended 50 sooner it would have made no difference white people hated black people and one white mans actions would not have changed anything. it took a full blown war between white men to stop slavery and it was not stopped for the benefit of black people.
jim crow especially in it's early days equals slavery. the few years between slavery and jim crow equaled a new kind of hell for black people because in some places slavery continued .
What relevance is it whether or not one man could have changed anything? Even if he couldn't, that doesn't mean he didn't champion the black cause.
Jim Crow does not equal slavery. Smh. Are you really indifferent to whether you are Jim Crowed or enslaved? Wow.
It seems that you are just inventing increasingly implausible reasons to avoid acknowledging that ONE white man was genuinely a champion of the black cause. -
Undefeatable wrote: »Undefeatable wrote: »Undefeatable wrote: »Ok, I'm posting again because it looks like some people have comprehension issues. The issue is whether there were any whites who championed the black cause. I say that Brown should be an uncontroversial example of one who did. Nobody is saying that he should be the face of the struggle against slavery.
Of course Jews should be thankful that there were decent people who, at risk to themselves, sheltered Jews from ? persecution. Likewise, blacks should admire Brown for what he did. Suppose that his plan was successful, and that he was able to overthrow slavery. If that was the case, should blacks admire him for what he did? Of course we should. But now his plan was of course not successful. I maintain that we should admire him no less for that fact.
It is commonly acknowledged that people deserve admiration for supererogatory behavior. And leading a slave revolt with the intention of overthrowing slavery, when it must have been known that the chance of success was miniscule, surely counts as supererogatory. It is one thing to be against slavery -- even to speak out vociferously against it -- and quite another to give your life in the fight against it.
People understand what you are trying to say but we are just not ? impressed with the actions of john brown. most likely if he was successful jim crow would have had a longer history that it.
Why do you think that?
So you're saying that Brown should not have tried to free slaves? Wow.
Also, what would be worse: a longer period of Jim Crow or a shorter period of slavery?
Stop putting words in my mouth i never said anything about what john should have done or not do.
the mass of white people, slave owners or not did not give two ? about the suffering of black people. slavery could have ended 50 sooner it would have made no difference white people hated black people and one white mans actions would not have changed anything. it took a full blown war between white men to stop slavery and it was not stopped for the benefit of black people.
jim crow especially in it's early days equals slavery. the few years between slavery and jim crow equaled a new kind of hell for black people because in some places slavery continued .
What relevance is it whether or not one man could have changed anything? Even if he couldn't, that doesn't mean he didn't champion the black cause.
Jim Crow does not equal slavery. Smh. Are you really indifferent to whether you are Jim Crowed or enslaved? Wow.
It seems that you are just inventing increasingly implausible reasons to avoid acknowledging that ONE white man was genuinely a champion of the black cause.
I don't understand what you're trying to prove here. I personally don't think all whites are bad and believe some may be genuinely sympathetic to our cause. Should this keep us from organizing ourselves as nation? -
-
Ioniz3dSPIRITZ wrote: »Undefeatable wrote: »Undefeatable wrote: »Undefeatable wrote: »Ok, I'm posting again because it looks like some people have comprehension issues. The issue is whether there were any whites who championed the black cause. I say that Brown should be an uncontroversial example of one who did. Nobody is saying that he should be the face of the struggle against slavery.
Of course Jews should be thankful that there were decent people who, at risk to themselves, sheltered Jews from ? persecution. Likewise, blacks should admire Brown for what he did. Suppose that his plan was successful, and that he was able to overthrow slavery. If that was the case, should blacks admire him for what he did? Of course we should. But now his plan was of course not successful. I maintain that we should admire him no less for that fact.
It is commonly acknowledged that people deserve admiration for supererogatory behavior. And leading a slave revolt with the intention of overthrowing slavery, when it must have been known that the chance of success was miniscule, surely counts as supererogatory. It is one thing to be against slavery -- even to speak out vociferously against it -- and quite another to give your life in the fight against it.
People understand what you are trying to say but we are just not ? impressed with the actions of john brown. most likely if he was successful jim crow would have had a longer history that it.
Why do you think that?
So you're saying that Brown should not have tried to free slaves? Wow.
Also, what would be worse: a longer period of Jim Crow or a shorter period of slavery?
Stop putting words in my mouth i never said anything about what john should have done or not do.
the mass of white people, slave owners or not did not give two ? about the suffering of black people. slavery could have ended 50 sooner it would have made no difference white people hated black people and one white mans actions would not have changed anything. it took a full blown war between white men to stop slavery and it was not stopped for the benefit of black people.
jim crow especially in it's early days equals slavery. the few years between slavery and jim crow equaled a new kind of hell for black people because in some places slavery continued .
What relevance is it whether or not one man could have changed anything? Even if he couldn't, that doesn't mean he didn't champion the black cause.
Jim Crow does not equal slavery. Smh. Are you really indifferent to whether you are Jim Crowed or enslaved? Wow.
It seems that you are just inventing increasingly implausible reasons to avoid acknowledging that ONE white man was genuinely a champion of the black cause.
I don't understand what you're trying to prove here. I personally don't think all whites are bad and believe some may be genuinely sympathetic to our cause. Should this keep us from organizing ourselves as nation?
I'm trying to get him to knowledge what is obvious to anyone with an open mind will see: that John Brown was a champion of the black cause. Nothing more or less. -
Undefeatable wrote: »Undefeatable wrote: »Undefeatable wrote: »Ok, I'm posting again because it looks like some people have comprehension issues. The issue is whether there were any whites who championed the black cause. I say that Brown should be an uncontroversial example of one who did. Nobody is saying that he should be the face of the struggle against slavery.
Of course Jews should be thankful that there were decent people who, at risk to themselves, sheltered Jews from ? persecution. Likewise, blacks should admire Brown for what he did. Suppose that his plan was successful, and that he was able to overthrow slavery. If that was the case, should blacks admire him for what he did? Of course we should. But now his plan was of course not successful. I maintain that we should admire him no less for that fact.
It is commonly acknowledged that people deserve admiration for supererogatory behavior. And leading a slave revolt with the intention of overthrowing slavery, when it must have been known that the chance of success was miniscule, surely counts as supererogatory. It is one thing to be against slavery -- even to speak out vociferously against it -- and quite another to give your life in the fight against it.
People understand what you are trying to say but we are just not ? impressed with the actions of john brown. most likely if he was successful jim crow would have had a longer history that it.
Why do you think that?
So you're saying that Brown should not have tried to free slaves? Wow.
Also, what would be worse: a longer period of Jim Crow or a shorter period of slavery?
Stop putting words in my mouth i never said anything about what john should have done or not do.
the mass of white people, slave owners or not did not give two ? about the suffering of black people. slavery could have ended 50 sooner it would have made no difference white people hated black people and one white mans actions would not have changed anything. it took a full blown war between white men to stop slavery and it was not stopped for the benefit of black people.
jim crow especially in it's early days equals slavery. the few years between slavery and jim crow equaled a new kind of hell for black people because in some places slavery continued .
What relevance is it whether or not one man could have changed anything? Even if he couldn't, that doesn't mean he didn't champion the black cause.
Jim Crow does not equal slavery. Smh. Are you really indifferent to whether you are Jim Crowed or enslaved? Wow.
It seems that you are just inventing increasingly implausible reasons to avoid acknowledging that ONE white man was genuinely a champion of the black cause.
To me jim crow was no better than slavery. what do you not understand about that ? they are the same i want my total freedom and nothing less. the black cause is the empowerment of african people and nothing else. We don't want white people helping, their help only further traps us into a false sense of unity with white people, a unity that cannot exist and that never has.
Why the ? would any black person care about john brown when we have nat turner as a hero. if one man can have no relevance why are you bring up john brown? i don't care what john brown did or did not do, i care about black people and will only venerate black people what jim brown did is not impressive to me and he deserves no special mention in black history. -
Undefeatable wrote: »Ioniz3dSPIRITZ wrote: »Undefeatable wrote: »Undefeatable wrote: »Undefeatable wrote: »Ok, I'm posting again because it looks like some people have comprehension issues. The issue is whether there were any whites who championed the black cause. I say that Brown should be an uncontroversial example of one who did. Nobody is saying that he should be the face of the struggle against slavery.
Of course Jews should be thankful that there were decent people who, at risk to themselves, sheltered Jews from ? persecution. Likewise, blacks should admire Brown for what he did. Suppose that his plan was successful, and that he was able to overthrow slavery. If that was the case, should blacks admire him for what he did? Of course we should. But now his plan was of course not successful. I maintain that we should admire him no less for that fact.
It is commonly acknowledged that people deserve admiration for supererogatory behavior. And leading a slave revolt with the intention of overthrowing slavery, when it must have been known that the chance of success was miniscule, surely counts as supererogatory. It is one thing to be against slavery -- even to speak out vociferously against it -- and quite another to give your life in the fight against it.
People understand what you are trying to say but we are just not ? impressed with the actions of john brown. most likely if he was successful jim crow would have had a longer history that it.
Why do you think that?
So you're saying that Brown should not have tried to free slaves? Wow.
Also, what would be worse: a longer period of Jim Crow or a shorter period of slavery?
Stop putting words in my mouth i never said anything about what john should have done or not do.
the mass of white people, slave owners or not did not give two ? about the suffering of black people. slavery could have ended 50 sooner it would have made no difference white people hated black people and one white mans actions would not have changed anything. it took a full blown war between white men to stop slavery and it was not stopped for the benefit of black people.
jim crow especially in it's early days equals slavery. the few years between slavery and jim crow equaled a new kind of hell for black people because in some places slavery continued .
What relevance is it whether or not one man could have changed anything? Even if he couldn't, that doesn't mean he didn't champion the black cause.
Jim Crow does not equal slavery. Smh. Are you really indifferent to whether you are Jim Crowed or enslaved? Wow.
It seems that you are just inventing increasingly implausible reasons to avoid acknowledging that ONE white man was genuinely a champion of the black cause.
I don't understand what you're trying to prove here. I personally don't think all whites are bad and believe some may be genuinely sympathetic to our cause. Should this keep us from organizing ourselves as nation?
I'm trying to get him to knowledge what is obvious to anyone with an open mind will see: that John Brown was a champion of the black cause. Nothing more or less.
what is the black cause to you ?? -
Undefeatable wrote: »Undefeatable wrote: »Undefeatable wrote: »Ok, I'm posting again because it looks like some people have comprehension issues. The issue is whether there were any whites who championed the black cause. I say that Brown should be an uncontroversial example of one who did. Nobody is saying that he should be the face of the struggle against slavery.
Of course Jews should be thankful that there were decent people who, at risk to themselves, sheltered Jews from ? persecution. Likewise, blacks should admire Brown for what he did. Suppose that his plan was successful, and that he was able to overthrow slavery. If that was the case, should blacks admire him for what he did? Of course we should. But now his plan was of course not successful. I maintain that we should admire him no less for that fact.
It is commonly acknowledged that people deserve admiration for supererogatory behavior. And leading a slave revolt with the intention of overthrowing slavery, when it must have been known that the chance of success was miniscule, surely counts as supererogatory. It is one thing to be against slavery -- even to speak out vociferously against it -- and quite another to give your life in the fight against it.
People understand what you are trying to say but we are just not ? impressed with the actions of john brown. most likely if he was successful jim crow would have had a longer history that it.
Why do you think that?
So you're saying that Brown should not have tried to free slaves? Wow.
Also, what would be worse: a longer period of Jim Crow or a shorter period of slavery?
Stop putting words in my mouth i never said anything about what john should have done or not do.
the mass of white people, slave owners or not did not give two ? about the suffering of black people. slavery could have ended 50 sooner it would have made no difference white people hated black people and one white mans actions would not have changed anything. it took a full blown war between white men to stop slavery and it was not stopped for the benefit of black people.
jim crow especially in it's early days equals slavery. the few years between slavery and jim crow equaled a new kind of hell for black people because in some places slavery continued .
What relevance is it whether or not one man could have changed anything? Even if he couldn't, that doesn't mean he didn't champion the black cause.
Jim Crow does not equal slavery. Smh. Are you really indifferent to whether you are Jim Crowed or enslaved? Wow.
It seems that you are just inventing increasingly implausible reasons to avoid acknowledging that ONE white man was genuinely a champion of the black cause.
To me jim crow was no better than slavery. what do you not understand about that ? they are the same i want my total freedom and nothing less. the black cause is the empowerment of african people and nothing else. We don't want white people helping, their help only further traps us into a false sense of unity with white people, a unity that cannot exist and that never has.
Why the ? would any black person care about john brown when we have nat turner as a hero. if one man can have no relevance why are you bring up john brown? i don't care what john brown did or did not do, i care about black people and will only venerate black people what jim brown did is not impressive to me and he deserves no special mention in black history.
You're crazy if you think all forms of racial injustice are equal. And you're dishonoring our enslaved ancestors by saying that.
I'm only pursuing this conversation because it is just so obvious that Brown was a champion of the black cause. Whether there are black people who deserve our admiration for what they did is another matter. You are confusing the issue by bring up all these other things.
The black cause surely goes well beyond emancipation from slavery, if that is what you are asking. But surely, while slavery existed the number one issue -- by far and away -- was emancipation. -
Undefeatable wrote: »Undefeatable wrote: »Undefeatable wrote: »Undefeatable wrote: »Ok, I'm posting again because it looks like some people have comprehension issues. The issue is whether there were any whites who championed the black cause. I say that Brown should be an uncontroversial example of one who did. Nobody is saying that he should be the face of the struggle against slavery.
Of course Jews should be thankful that there were decent people who, at risk to themselves, sheltered Jews from ? persecution. Likewise, blacks should admire Brown for what he did. Suppose that his plan was successful, and that he was able to overthrow slavery. If that was the case, should blacks admire him for what he did? Of course we should. But now his plan was of course not successful. I maintain that we should admire him no less for that fact.
It is commonly acknowledged that people deserve admiration for supererogatory behavior. And leading a slave revolt with the intention of overthrowing slavery, when it must have been known that the chance of success was miniscule, surely counts as supererogatory. It is one thing to be against slavery -- even to speak out vociferously against it -- and quite another to give your life in the fight against it.
People understand what you are trying to say but we are just not ? impressed with the actions of john brown. most likely if he was successful jim crow would have had a longer history that it.
Why do you think that?
So you're saying that Brown should not have tried to free slaves? Wow.
Also, what would be worse: a longer period of Jim Crow or a shorter period of slavery?
Stop putting words in my mouth i never said anything about what john should have done or not do.
the mass of white people, slave owners or not did not give two ? about the suffering of black people. slavery could have ended 50 sooner it would have made no difference white people hated black people and one white mans actions would not have changed anything. it took a full blown war between white men to stop slavery and it was not stopped for the benefit of black people.
jim crow especially in it's early days equals slavery. the few years between slavery and jim crow equaled a new kind of hell for black people because in some places slavery continued .
What relevance is it whether or not one man could have changed anything? Even if he couldn't, that doesn't mean he didn't champion the black cause.
Jim Crow does not equal slavery. Smh. Are you really indifferent to whether you are Jim Crowed or enslaved? Wow.
It seems that you are just inventing increasingly implausible reasons to avoid acknowledging that ONE white man was genuinely a champion of the black cause.
To me jim crow was no better than slavery. what do you not understand about that ? they are the same i want my total freedom and nothing less. the black cause is the empowerment of african people and nothing else. We don't want white people helping, their help only further traps us into a false sense of unity with white people, a unity that cannot exist and that never has.
Why the ? would any black person care about john brown when we have nat turner as a hero. if one man can have no relevance why are you bring up john brown? i don't care what john brown did or did not do, i care about black people and will only venerate black people what jim brown did is not impressive to me and he deserves no special mention in black history.
You're crazy if you think all forms of racial injustice are equal. And you're dishonoring our enslaved ancestors by saying that.
I'm only pursuing this conversation because it is just so obvious that Brown was a champion of the black cause. Whether there are black people who deserve our admiration for what they did is another matter. You are confusing the issue by bring up all these other things.
The black cause surely goes well beyond emancipation from slavery, if that is what you are asking. But surely, while slavery existed the number one issue -- by far and away -- was emancipation.
You still have not answered the question what is the black cause to you? the black cause is total empowerment of african people, many abolitionist wanted an end to slavery but did not want to see black people empowered so just because john brown wanted an end to slavery that does not mean he was down for the cause. he was motivated by religion and not the empowerment of black folks -
Undefeatable wrote: »Undefeatable wrote: »Undefeatable wrote: »Undefeatable wrote: »Ok, I'm posting again because it looks like some people have comprehension issues. The issue is whether there were any whites who championed the black cause. I say that Brown should be an uncontroversial example of one who did. Nobody is saying that he should be the face of the struggle against slavery.
Of course Jews should be thankful that there were decent people who, at risk to themselves, sheltered Jews from ? persecution. Likewise, blacks should admire Brown for what he did. Suppose that his plan was successful, and that he was able to overthrow slavery. If that was the case, should blacks admire him for what he did? Of course we should. But now his plan was of course not successful. I maintain that we should admire him no less for that fact.
It is commonly acknowledged that people deserve admiration for supererogatory behavior. And leading a slave revolt with the intention of overthrowing slavery, when it must have been known that the chance of success was miniscule, surely counts as supererogatory. It is one thing to be against slavery -- even to speak out vociferously against it -- and quite another to give your life in the fight against it.
People understand what you are trying to say but we are just not ? impressed with the actions of john brown. most likely if he was successful jim crow would have had a longer history that it.
Why do you think that?
So you're saying that Brown should not have tried to free slaves? Wow.
Also, what would be worse: a longer period of Jim Crow or a shorter period of slavery?
Stop putting words in my mouth i never said anything about what john should have done or not do.
the mass of white people, slave owners or not did not give two ? about the suffering of black people. slavery could have ended 50 sooner it would have made no difference white people hated black people and one white mans actions would not have changed anything. it took a full blown war between white men to stop slavery and it was not stopped for the benefit of black people.
jim crow especially in it's early days equals slavery. the few years between slavery and jim crow equaled a new kind of hell for black people because in some places slavery continued .
What relevance is it whether or not one man could have changed anything? Even if he couldn't, that doesn't mean he didn't champion the black cause.
Jim Crow does not equal slavery. Smh. Are you really indifferent to whether you are Jim Crowed or enslaved? Wow.
It seems that you are just inventing increasingly implausible reasons to avoid acknowledging that ONE white man was genuinely a champion of the black cause.
To me jim crow was no better than slavery. what do you not understand about that ? they are the same i want my total freedom and nothing less. the black cause is the empowerment of african people and nothing else. We don't want white people helping, their help only further traps us into a false sense of unity with white people, a unity that cannot exist and that never has.
Why the ? would any black person care about john brown when we have nat turner as a hero. if one man can have no relevance why are you bring up john brown? i don't care what john brown did or did not do, i care about black people and will only venerate black people what jim brown did is not impressive to me and he deserves no special mention in black history.
You're crazy if you think all forms of racial injustice are equal. And you're dishonoring our enslaved ancestors by saying that.
I'm only pursuing this conversation because it is just so obvious that Brown was a champion of the black cause. Whether there are black people who deserve our admiration for what they did is another matter. You are confusing the issue by bring up all these other things.
The black cause surely goes well beyond emancipation from slavery, if that is what you are asking. But surely, while slavery existed the number one issue -- by far and away -- was emancipation.
You still have not answered the question what is the black cause to you? the black cause is total empowerment of african people, many abolitionist wanted an end to slavery but did not want to see black people empowered so just because john brown wanted an end to slavery that does not mean he was down for the cause. he was motivated by religion and not the empowerment of black folks
Whether someone was a champion of the black cause doesn't depend on their ultimate motivation, so even if what you're saying is true that doesn't mean he wasn't a champion of the black cause. If a man works his whole life trying to empower women -- organizing, marching, fighting legal battles, etc. -- surely it would be wrong to say he was not a champion of women's issues if he was motivated by religion.
Again, just because he was focused on slavery does not mean that he did not favor a more general black empowerment. Yes, some abolitionists were like that. The evidence suggests that Brown wasn't.
My ideas of what the black cause consists in is irrelevant. While slavery existed the number one issue was emancipation, and that is what any champion of the black cause -- black or white -- would have focused on. -
Undefeatable wrote: »Undefeatable wrote: »Undefeatable wrote: »Undefeatable wrote: »Undefeatable wrote: »Ok, I'm posting again because it looks like some people have comprehension issues. The issue is whether there were any whites who championed the black cause. I say that Brown should be an uncontroversial example of one who did. Nobody is saying that he should be the face of the struggle against slavery.
Of course Jews should be thankful that there were decent people who, at risk to themselves, sheltered Jews from ? persecution. Likewise, blacks should admire Brown for what he did. Suppose that his plan was successful, and that he was able to overthrow slavery. If that was the case, should blacks admire him for what he did? Of course we should. But now his plan was of course not successful. I maintain that we should admire him no less for that fact.
It is commonly acknowledged that people deserve admiration for supererogatory behavior. And leading a slave revolt with the intention of overthrowing slavery, when it must have been known that the chance of success was miniscule, surely counts as supererogatory. It is one thing to be against slavery -- even to speak out vociferously against it -- and quite another to give your life in the fight against it.
People understand what you are trying to say but we are just not ? impressed with the actions of john brown. most likely if he was successful jim crow would have had a longer history that it.
Why do you think that?
So you're saying that Brown should not have tried to free slaves? Wow.
Also, what would be worse: a longer period of Jim Crow or a shorter period of slavery?
Stop putting words in my mouth i never said anything about what john should have done or not do.
the mass of white people, slave owners or not did not give two ? about the suffering of black people. slavery could have ended 50 sooner it would have made no difference white people hated black people and one white mans actions would not have changed anything. it took a full blown war between white men to stop slavery and it was not stopped for the benefit of black people.
jim crow especially in it's early days equals slavery. the few years between slavery and jim crow equaled a new kind of hell for black people because in some places slavery continued .
What relevance is it whether or not one man could have changed anything? Even if he couldn't, that doesn't mean he didn't champion the black cause.
Jim Crow does not equal slavery. Smh. Are you really indifferent to whether you are Jim Crowed or enslaved? Wow.
It seems that you are just inventing increasingly implausible reasons to avoid acknowledging that ONE white man was genuinely a champion of the black cause.
To me jim crow was no better than slavery. what do you not understand about that ? they are the same i want my total freedom and nothing less. the black cause is the empowerment of african people and nothing else. We don't want white people helping, their help only further traps us into a false sense of unity with white people, a unity that cannot exist and that never has.
Why the ? would any black person care about john brown when we have nat turner as a hero. if one man can have no relevance why are you bring up john brown? i don't care what john brown did or did not do, i care about black people and will only venerate black people what jim brown did is not impressive to me and he deserves no special mention in black history.
You're crazy if you think all forms of racial injustice are equal. And you're dishonoring our enslaved ancestors by saying that.
I'm only pursuing this conversation because it is just so obvious that Brown was a champion of the black cause. Whether there are black people who deserve our admiration for what they did is another matter. You are confusing the issue by bring up all these other things.
The black cause surely goes well beyond emancipation from slavery, if that is what you are asking. But surely, while slavery existed the number one issue -- by far and away -- was emancipation.
You still have not answered the question what is the black cause to you? the black cause is total empowerment of african people, many abolitionist wanted an end to slavery but did not want to see black people empowered so just because john brown wanted an end to slavery that does not mean he was down for the cause. he was motivated by religion and not the empowerment of black folks
Whether someone was a champion of the black cause doesn't depend on their ultimate motivation, so even if what you're saying is true that doesn't mean he wasn't a champion of the black cause. If a man works his whole life trying to empower women -- organizing, marching, fighting legal battles, etc. -- surely it would be wrong to say he was not a champion of women's issues if he was motivated by religion.
Again, just because he was focused on slavery does not mean that he did not favor a more general black empowerment. Yes, some abolitionists were like that. The evidence suggests that Brown wasn't.
My ideas of what the black cause consists in is irrelevant. While slavery existed the number one issue was emancipation, and that is what any champion of the black cause -- black or white -- would have focused on.
I'll say this, brown was an exception to the concensus of most whites durin that period. The reason I wouldn't give him a full pat on the back is because he did suport black enslavement at first. -
idoitforhiphop10 wrote: »Undefeatable wrote: »Undefeatable wrote: »Undefeatable wrote: »Undefeatable wrote: »Undefeatable wrote: »Ok, I'm posting again because it looks like some people have comprehension issues. The issue is whether there were any whites who championed the black cause. I say that Brown should be an uncontroversial example of one who did. Nobody is saying that he should be the face of the struggle against slavery.
Of course Jews should be thankful that there were decent people who, at risk to themselves, sheltered Jews from ? persecution. Likewise, blacks should admire Brown for what he did. Suppose that his plan was successful, and that he was able to overthrow slavery. If that was the case, should blacks admire him for what he did? Of course we should. But now his plan was of course not successful. I maintain that we should admire him no less for that fact.
It is commonly acknowledged that people deserve admiration for supererogatory behavior. And leading a slave revolt with the intention of overthrowing slavery, when it must have been known that the chance of success was miniscule, surely counts as supererogatory. It is one thing to be against slavery -- even to speak out vociferously against it -- and quite another to give your life in the fight against it.
People understand what you are trying to say but we are just not ? impressed with the actions of john brown. most likely if he was successful jim crow would have had a longer history that it.
Why do you think that?
So you're saying that Brown should not have tried to free slaves? Wow.
Also, what would be worse: a longer period of Jim Crow or a shorter period of slavery?
Stop putting words in my mouth i never said anything about what john should have done or not do.
the mass of white people, slave owners or not did not give two ? about the suffering of black people. slavery could have ended 50 sooner it would have made no difference white people hated black people and one white mans actions would not have changed anything. it took a full blown war between white men to stop slavery and it was not stopped for the benefit of black people.
jim crow especially in it's early days equals slavery. the few years between slavery and jim crow equaled a new kind of hell for black people because in some places slavery continued .
What relevance is it whether or not one man could have changed anything? Even if he couldn't, that doesn't mean he didn't champion the black cause.
Jim Crow does not equal slavery. Smh. Are you really indifferent to whether you are Jim Crowed or enslaved? Wow.
It seems that you are just inventing increasingly implausible reasons to avoid acknowledging that ONE white man was genuinely a champion of the black cause.
To me jim crow was no better than slavery. what do you not understand about that ? they are the same i want my total freedom and nothing less. the black cause is the empowerment of african people and nothing else. We don't want white people helping, their help only further traps us into a false sense of unity with white people, a unity that cannot exist and that never has.
Why the ? would any black person care about john brown when we have nat turner as a hero. if one man can have no relevance why are you bring up john brown? i don't care what john brown did or did not do, i care about black people and will only venerate black people what jim brown did is not impressive to me and he deserves no special mention in black history.
You're crazy if you think all forms of racial injustice are equal. And you're dishonoring our enslaved ancestors by saying that.
I'm only pursuing this conversation because it is just so obvious that Brown was a champion of the black cause. Whether there are black people who deserve our admiration for what they did is another matter. You are confusing the issue by bring up all these other things.
The black cause surely goes well beyond emancipation from slavery, if that is what you are asking. But surely, while slavery existed the number one issue -- by far and away -- was emancipation.
You still have not answered the question what is the black cause to you? the black cause is total empowerment of african people, many abolitionist wanted an end to slavery but did not want to see black people empowered so just because john brown wanted an end to slavery that does not mean he was down for the cause. he was motivated by religion and not the empowerment of black folks
Whether someone was a champion of the black cause doesn't depend on their ultimate motivation, so even if what you're saying is true that doesn't mean he wasn't a champion of the black cause. If a man works his whole life trying to empower women -- organizing, marching, fighting legal battles, etc. -- surely it would be wrong to say he was not a champion of women's issues if he was motivated by religion.
Again, just because he was focused on slavery does not mean that he did not favor a more general black empowerment. Yes, some abolitionists were like that. The evidence suggests that Brown wasn't.
My ideas of what the black cause consists in is irrelevant. While slavery existed the number one issue was emancipation, and that is what any champion of the black cause -- black or white -- would have focused on.
I'll say this, brown was an exception to the concensus of most whites durin that period. The reason I wouldn't give him a full pat on the back is because he did suport black enslavement at first.
This wouldn't mean that he did not champion the black cause, but this news to me. Are you sure? His father was an abolitionist. -
Undefeatable wrote: »Undefeatable wrote: »Undefeatable wrote: »Undefeatable wrote: »Undefeatable wrote: »Ok, I'm posting again because it looks like some people have comprehension issues. The issue is whether there were any whites who championed the black cause. I say that Brown should be an uncontroversial example of one who did. Nobody is saying that he should be the face of the struggle against slavery.
Of course Jews should be thankful that there were decent people who, at risk to themselves, sheltered Jews from ? persecution. Likewise, blacks should admire Brown for what he did. Suppose that his plan was successful, and that he was able to overthrow slavery. If that was the case, should blacks admire him for what he did? Of course we should. But now his plan was of course not successful. I maintain that we should admire him no less for that fact.
It is commonly acknowledged that people deserve admiration for supererogatory behavior. And leading a slave revolt with the intention of overthrowing slavery, when it must have been known that the chance of success was miniscule, surely counts as supererogatory. It is one thing to be against slavery -- even to speak out vociferously against it -- and quite another to give your life in the fight against it.
People understand what you are trying to say but we are just not ? impressed with the actions of john brown. most likely if he was successful jim crow would have had a longer history that it.
Why do you think that?
So you're saying that Brown should not have tried to free slaves? Wow.
Also, what would be worse: a longer period of Jim Crow or a shorter period of slavery?
Stop putting words in my mouth i never said anything about what john should have done or not do.
the mass of white people, slave owners or not did not give two ? about the suffering of black people. slavery could have ended 50 sooner it would have made no difference white people hated black people and one white mans actions would not have changed anything. it took a full blown war between white men to stop slavery and it was not stopped for the benefit of black people.
jim crow especially in it's early days equals slavery. the few years between slavery and jim crow equaled a new kind of hell for black people because in some places slavery continued .
What relevance is it whether or not one man could have changed anything? Even if he couldn't, that doesn't mean he didn't champion the black cause.
Jim Crow does not equal slavery. Smh. Are you really indifferent to whether you are Jim Crowed or enslaved? Wow.
It seems that you are just inventing increasingly implausible reasons to avoid acknowledging that ONE white man was genuinely a champion of the black cause.
To me jim crow was no better than slavery. what do you not understand about that ? they are the same i want my total freedom and nothing less. the black cause is the empowerment of african people and nothing else. We don't want white people helping, their help only further traps us into a false sense of unity with white people, a unity that cannot exist and that never has.
Why the ? would any black person care about john brown when we have nat turner as a hero. if one man can have no relevance why are you bring up john brown? i don't care what john brown did or did not do, i care about black people and will only venerate black people what jim brown did is not impressive to me and he deserves no special mention in black history.
You're crazy if you think all forms of racial injustice are equal. And you're dishonoring our enslaved ancestors by saying that.
I'm only pursuing this conversation because it is just so obvious that Brown was a champion of the black cause. Whether there are black people who deserve our admiration for what they did is another matter. You are confusing the issue by bring up all these other things.
The black cause surely goes well beyond emancipation from slavery, if that is what you are asking. But surely, while slavery existed the number one issue -- by far and away -- was emancipation.
You still have not answered the question what is the black cause to you? the black cause is total empowerment of african people, many abolitionist wanted an end to slavery but did not want to see black people empowered so just because john brown wanted an end to slavery that does not mean he was down for the cause. he was motivated by religion and not the empowerment of black folks
Whether someone was a champion of the black cause doesn't depend on their ultimate motivation, so even if what you're saying is true that doesn't mean he wasn't a champion of the black cause. If a man works his whole life trying to empower women -- organizing, marching, fighting legal battles, etc. -- surely it would be wrong to say he was not a champion of women's issues if he was motivated by religion.
Again, just because he was focused on slavery does not mean that he did not favor a more general black empowerment. Yes, some abolitionists were like that. The evidence suggests that Brown wasn't.
My ideas of what the black cause consists in is irrelevant. While slavery existed the number one issue was emancipation, and that is what any champion of the black cause -- black or white -- would have focused on.
motivation is important, ? whatever you do if you do it for selfish reasons and that includes dying, You have no proof the john brown wanted black empowerment only that he wanted the end of chattel slavery which is not enough, based on his religious views he wanted an end to slavery. The evidence shows that he was like most abolitionist with one exception he was willing to die for his religious beliefs. you have put forth no proof or reasoning that would convince any black person who knows what time it is that john brown wanted real power for black people. Your idea of what the black cause is very relevant because HOW can you know what you are arguing for
without a proper definition of the thing.
