CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Most racist argument ever posted on CD?
The Civil War affected everybody in the nation - mostly in a negative manner. Slavery, however, mostly affected the Negroids. I might add that, even to the Negroids slavery was not always despised. There were some who, after being given their freedom, would ask for it to be taken away.
Slaves were an investment thus, to further that investment, it was in the slave-owner's best wishes to keep him alive and healthy.
- Terminator
I know there have been other arguments that probably said some pretty terrible things, but what I'm asking is if this is the most racist argument that wants to be taken seriously and isn't blatent flamebait.
His statement implies that that it is worse to negatively effect white people than black people.
Not so. I stated that only Negroids were affected by slavery, whereas the whole of society was injured by the War.
'Negroid' is highly offensive, it's use in that argument adds to it's notoriety.
Negroid is a linguistically, anthropologically, and historically valid term. It is only because of political correctness that one is not allowed to use it.
He wasn't claiming white superiority or shit like that. He was merely making a good point. Yes, I disagree; but still, it's a good point.
Would it be racist to say that if it weren't for slavery, most blacks in America would still be in Africa facing the AIDS and starvation issue? Or would be killed, mutilated, and raped by those militia forces that are OTHER Africans?
No. it's a good point. If you disagree, than argue back. But if you disagree and can't argue back, too fuckin' bad. We can't censor ourselves just because it might hurt someone's feelings. History would be so fucked up if we worried about what might be considered racist.
The reason that Africa is so fucked up right now is because Europe (and later the U.S.) spend centuries basically raping the continent and slavery was a huge part of that. Yes some African Americans wouldn't have ended up in this country, but it's very likely that the Africa they lived in wouldn't be at all similar to the one we see today. Slavery didn't just hurt the ones we brought over, but also the ones that are currently living there now who have to suffer from serious issues that you mentioned such as AIDS, corruption and political instability.
In addition, I wasn't rejecting historical facts based on the fact that they were racist (because how can a fact be racist) I was calling his claim that a lot of the slaves liked being slaves as racist and blatantly an attempt to revise history (a practice that really does fuck up history). If so many slaves "liked" the way things were we wouldn't see all the slave rebellions and slaves risking their lives to escape.
In addition, you can't deny that we still see the legacy of slavery in society today. Think about other ethnic groups in America: do any of them get treated even close to the same way as African-Americans do? As someone so strongly against affirmative action as you are, I'm surprised you can't realize the implications that not having slavery in our history would have. Do you think that it would even exist at all if our past wasn't so racist? Of course not.
But you're totally right: I'm sorry for pointing it out when someone severely understates the second most atrocious thing that the United States has ever done. I just figured it was so obvious that it didn't need explaining, but clearly I was wrong.
I was calling his claim that a lot of the slaves liked being slaves as racist and blatantly an attempt to revise history
It is a fact; an historical fact. It was taken from a non-fiction book I read about a year ago written some 150 years ago.
If so many slaves "liked" the way things were we wouldn't see all the slave rebellions and slaves risking their lives to escape.
How many slaves were in the South? How many escaped, or even tried?
As I stated, there were those who were treated badly - but according to the book I mentioned, those who were mean to their slaves were an abomination to society.
You have fallen prey to Northern Abolitionist propaganda; not so unlikely a fall, I must sadly admit, seeing as how all other views are exorcised from historical textbooks.
Your book was written by the daughters of a plantation owner. Try reading one written by a slave. Narrative of the life of Fredrick Douglass, an American Slave would be one good example.
I find it hilarious that you are so incredulous about sources that dispute your beliefs and yet willingly accept those sources which support them. You didn't think to ask yourself even once if these girls didn't want to make their father look bad? Come on, you have to be smarter than that.
Seriously though actually try and learn something about slavery because it was absolutely awful and your ignorance is whitewashing it. Even aside from the conditions though how could anyone justify owning another human being. It was a direct contradiction to everything that America stood for.
That's the problem with bleeding hearts; they disregard the historical truth that hurts.
1. Whether America took slaves or not, Europe would have gone into Africa anyway. but AIDS is not a result of European colonization. AIDS originated in Africa (according to scientists, at least). So even if you can somehow claim that starvation and militia forces are ONLY a result of European colonization, AIDS is a result of Africa being Africa.
Before the white man came, though, a less modern version of militia forces existed. Yeah, this shit goes back hundreds of years. Tribes constantly attacked other tribes and took their own slaves. They were the same people who eventually traded with white settlers (slave trading). It was something common among them. But what also happened was what militias do nowadays; mass murder, mutilation, and rape. Also, the taking of children to join their groups or tribes.
Starvation; I will say that if Europe hadn't come along, it may not have been much of an issue as it is today. But that's an uncertainty. I'm only going by what Europe did when they colonized. But genocide and AIDS would be happening anyway, with or without Europe.
Does that excuse slavery itself? Of course not; I'm pretty sure slave traders weren't thinking about the benefits for the eventual gene pool in the long run, they did it out of selfishness and disregard for other human beings. Hell, they didn't even see them as humans (maybe to help them with their moralfaggotry). But what I am saying is that modern African youth is better off because of slavery in America.
2. Most slavers were used to being slaves. Sure, the first generation may not have liked it (even though many of them were slaves under worse conditions in Africa, already), but after a couple of generations it became what they were used to. Hell, it was even common to believe back then that labor workers in the North had it worse than slavers in the South. Yes, there was abuse, and that is where some of the slaves tried to escape, but most slaves didn't attempt to revolt or even escape. Some of them thought it a very stupid idea to try and escape because in the Southern plantations they had food and shelter. They didn't know the outside world and didn't want to. I support the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation, but I'm not going to try and revise social history just because I want everything to seem black and white. Terminator made a valid point that was true on many levels (as I explained).
3. And as for the whole point; trying to call someone racist just because it hurts your whole "Blame America first" bleeding heart agenda is intellectually dishonest and historically revisionist. It's as bad as Germany making it illegal for historians to review what exactly happened in the Holocaust (at least that's not the case in America, but your attitude is as bad as Germany's attitude).
I figure, though, that eventually we'll be able to blatantly point out historical facts without some jackass (Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson) calling us racist. What I've pointed out is already historically accepted; we just can't say it in the media.
1. Guess which nations suffer most from AIDS? Poor countries! In case you haven't noticed we have AIDS here too, but it's not as big a deal because we have institutions in place that minimize the risk of contracting aids, and make it treatable. Also, guess which ethnic group suffers the most from AIDS in the U.S. If you guessed African Americans then you've just won yourself a fabulous...well I guess pat yourself on the back.
In addition, you once again seem to assume that the militias are exogenous to the European colonization of the continent, which is complete bullshit. As with many social issues, poverty is the key cause. If people have economic stability then they're not likely to take over the government and go out and kill people. Had Europe decided to trade with Africa instead of taking them over than Africa wouldn't be in the mess it's in today. They have a shitload of natural resources that could have been used to make the continent rich. Instead they're broke as shit.
Now let's think about why Europe chose to fuck with Africa. Initially they thought of Africans as equals. You can see European kings exchanging letters with African leaders and speaking to them as equals. However once the slave trade began (and became extremely profitable), Europeans had to convince themselves of the inferiority of Africans. In reality the slave trade was the birth of modern racism.
2. Yes there were slaves and tribes in Africa but there was a huge difference between the slaves that were taken by other tribes and those that were sold to work in the Americas. Those slaves that were taken in Africa were mostly prisoners of war and were actually treated with some measure of respect. They weren't looked on as inferiors like those in America, and they held normal jobs.
All I can say about your portrayal of slave in America though is that you are completely wrong. Ever heard of whips? Beatings of women? If the woman was pregnant they would just dig a hole in the ground for her to put her stomach into while they whipped her. These punishments were not exceptions, they were the rules. If a slave was caught reading then he could have a digit chopped off. But I'm sure after a while they got used to losing their fingers and toes, right?
Maybe you don't believe me though. Maybe you think I have no idea what I'm talking about since I'm not a historian. Well, how about we look at what the actual historians have to say. David Brion Davis is a pulitzer prize winning historian, and in the historical community is considered the formost expert on the subject and according to many "no scholar has played a larger role in expanding contemporary understanding of how slavery shaped the history of the United States, the Americas, and the world than David Brion Davis.” So what does he say about their treatment? Not that it "wasn't that bad" or that they "got used to it" as you claim, but:
Yet we must never forget that these same "welfare capitalist" plantations in the Deep South were essentially ruled by terror. Even the most kindly and humane masters knew that only the threat of violence could force gangs of field hands to work from dawn to dusk "with the discipline," as one contemporary observer put it, "of a regular trained army." Frequent public floggings reminded every slave of the penalty for inefficient labor, disorderly conduct, or refusal to accept the authority of a superior.
So is it safe to assume you're just making shit up to back up your version of history? Yeah, I'd say so.
3. Go fuck yourself. I love my country. I hate the slave trade because it basically is a huge scar on the U.S. but unlike you I am willing to admit where faults happened. I am not supporting any kind of agenda but basing my assessment on the facts which I presented to you. What facts did you bring? AIDS came from Africa? So allow me to repeat:
Go fuck yourself (and maybe pick up a history book when your asshole heals).
oooo, make it personal and tell me to go fuck myself; sounds like the typical liberal response.
1. Ah yes yes, all the problems in Africa that STARTED in Africa are somehow America's fault because we did slave trades. And somehow, Europe deciding to use their power to raid Africa is also America's fault. AIDS spreading rapidly in Africa (usually, Ground Zero feels it worse) is America's fault.
"Things Fall Apart". A pretty good portrayal of what it was like before the white man came. Yeah, the white man was bad, but the tribes were barbaric. Respect? What fantasy did you read that out of? As I stated, the action of the current militias are merely modern versions of what they did before the white man even came. Tribes were barbaric towards each other. Although, I will say that in the 1800s, that's when slavery within Africa started to become more like Indentured servants.
I never said that ALL SLAVES were happy and treated well. I merely said that the idea that slaver holders were evil, stains of America and that every plantation was like "Uncle Tom's Cabin" (even though it was merely a propaganda book and was used more to further the Christian agenda of love and shit) is a lot like American Revolution propaganda. Boston Massacre is something often overplayed in order to try and make the British seem like barbaric assholes towards the civilians. Hell, if you see the movie "The Patriot" it follows along with this propaganda. Propaganda accepted by most of the public and some historians, but not all. Most historians know that the evils that we have portrayed (through the Boston Massacre and Uncle Tom's Cabin) were used to try and support an agenda (agendas that I support, but will not let YOU try and hold as absolute fact).
But in the link I showed you, it will talk about many things. One, the mistreatment of slaves as you pointed out, and two, the well-treatment of slaves by many slave holders that Terminator pointed out. BOTH things happened. Shoot, even the Southern government made laws to try and balance out the treatment of slaves. Not too nice, but not too mean. And, it was even alright to merely let your slaves go free.
3. The difference between you and I is that I'm willing to see the other side and look into it. I know that bad about slavery and European colonization, but I also know that "not so bad" about it as well. You wish to create a portrait of absolute evil that was slavery. And yes, slavery is evil, no doubt. But there's a certain point where I have to call people on their bullshit. I hate religion, but I call Atheists on their bullshit when they make shit up about religion. I hate the Patriot Act, but I have to call Liberals on their bullshit when they try to make up reasons for the Patriot Act or call Bush an absolute Fascist. Hell, I hate Obama but often have to call Conservatives on their bullshit when they bring up Birther bullshit or his views on Environmentalism. yes, I disagree with the views, but I will NOT let propaganda all of a sudden become the absolute truth.
I hate the slave trade, as well. But as I stated, the difference is that I'm willing to look beyond bias in order to keep my brain free of propaganda. It's actually a lot easier to have legitimate hatred towards something if you researched it well enough to see how it's not as evil people try to point it out to be.
Take a look at Satan. Evil spirit and all, but let's say he exists; I would show some sympathy.
But I know how this will end. I'm somehow a racist trying to merely justify slavery and say that only good came from it, just because I will not give into the propaganda that's so easily acceptable. It's easy to pile more shit onto shit.
1. Summarizing my points in a sarcastic way is not an actual argument, nice try though.
The fact is that slavery caused modern day racism because (as is mentioned in your link) slavery was very lucrative.
In addition, you keep taking what I'm saying out of context. I said it was the slave trades fault not America's fault, but if you keep needing to frame this in a way that makes it sound like I hate my country that's your own issue.
As far as whether things were better or worse before the Europeans, how would you like to work on a banana plantation and get your limbs chopped off if you complained. It's no wonder it ended up so fucked up over there.
2. I give you the assessment of the most well respected historian when it comes to U.S. slavery, and you give me an internet site. I think if the evolution creationism debates have taught us anything, it's that you can find arguments for almost anything on the internet. In addition, the article deals mostly with legal and economic issues, not the daily lives of slaves. There is a reason for that too: it was written by economists. I have nothing against economists (I'm considering on majoring in it), but they likely only analyzed documents regarding laws and business transactions. If you read a little farther down though, you'd read about how most states basically left it up to the owner to decide how to punish slaves, and there was almost no way a master could be punished for hurting a slave since they couldn't testify in court. Another thing I neglected to mention in my first argument was the whole slaves getting raped by their masters, and slaves being separated from their families when they were sold (a very common occurrence).
3. "Blah blah blah, I'm such an independent thinker and you're a liberal stereotype."
Honestly, you accuse me of believing propaganda, which by your definition appears to be anything that goes against your own view of history. I gave you a view that is accepted by most historians, whereas you barely even thought about your own source. Now you can argue that there is some kind of conspiracy to hide the truth or that "our pc culture" has changed history, but let me ask you this: who wrote the initial history books? Almost exclusively white people. I dare you to check out a history book from 100 years ago, they are hilarious. I saw one from texas that actually was even more racist than terminators argument: that the slaves essentially benefited from the relationship and that the slave master was essentially like a father. Now I don't know how many fathers use whips on their kids, but then again I wasn't around back then.
Once again ignoring what I said and making accusations of what I've been saying:
I did not say that ALL slaves were treated well, or that even MOST slaves were treated decently. I said that your understanding of slavery is an extreme. Unfortunately, it's not as black and white as you try to paint it.
But yes, you bleeding hearts will believe anything that creates some kind of white, american guilt. Makes things a lot easier than realizing harsh realities.
How fast we backpedal. No you didn't say that most slaves were treated well, but the quote you defended implied it and you said that they "got used to it." I'm not saying there weren't masters who treated there slaves with some measure of decency, but these were in the fast vast minority, and even under the best of circumstances being a slave was still miserable. Making a profit was the primary goal of the masters and therefore slaves would work extremely long days, basically every day (some might have gotten off sundays, but I honestly don't know). Here's the question I pose to you though: should we define the institution through the rare exceptions or through what was the most common? Based on your statements about "bleeding hearts" I guess we should blame it on the extreme examples, but that wouldn't be fair, now, would it?
Why the fuck would I feel guilty, or why would anyone feel guilty? I haven't visited the deep south recently but they got rid of their slaves right? Is anyone that had slaves still alive? No? Well then why don't you go ahead and calm down.
As far as realizing harsh realities, I think it's about time you realized that slavery in the U.S. was fucking terrible and had long lasting and far reaching consequences. In fact I'm pretty sure that the only reason that you are disagreeing is because your typical strategy when choosing an argument is not so independent as you think, but is to look at what the left says, and what the right says and assume that the correct answer is in the middle. Here, the facts show that there is a very clear answer, and as much as you'd like to use this as another opportunity to rip on liberals, the facts say otherwise.
The "facts"? A historian who blamed cruelty towards slaves on Capitalism?
Sounds like a bias and asshole move.
Another harsh reality would be that Robert E. Lee was against slavery and let his free. Many southerners actually found it immoral. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves and found it wrong. So how do they cope? By not being such dickheads towards them.
As I stated, it wasn't all "Uncle Tom's Cabin". It was Christian propaganda. Sure, many slaves were treated horribly and slavery itself is overall bad. But also, many slavers WERE used to it and did NOT get dismembered. Plus, once they were freed many of them just went back to working for their masters. They knew no other life.
I don't always take the middle. I take the side of nonbias. Slavery has an easy bias for it (KKK vs. everyone else). I'm everyone else since I am against it, but why not look further into it? Do I agree with Terminator? As stated, no. I do feel that slaves are better off free, even though a lot of them did end up just going back to work for their masters in exchange for food and shelter. I agree with the Civil War and I agree with the Emancipation Proclamation. But this does not mean that I will merely shelter away some truths about the mentality of slaves back then and how exactly ALL masters treated their slaves.
And I'm glad you don't feel guilty. Guilt is what creates Affirmative Action and Political Correctness.
Would it be racist to say that if it weren't for slavery, most blacks in America would still be in Africa facing the AIDS and starvation issue? Or would be killed, mutilated, and raped by those militia forces that are OTHER Africans?
I have said stuff like that before.
I was called a 'racist'.
History would be so fucked up if we worried about what might be considered racist.
They are, and have been for a long time, altering history books to make other people (minorities, etc) look better.
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
Given the definition, the statements are not racist.
I think you fell into a trap. Since the statements cannot be disproved, you jumped on the name calling band wagon. If you feel that the statements can be disproved, then you should have done so in the original debate the argument was posted on.
Only a liberal sees racism where a rational person sees legitimacy. I read a diary of a young girl during the Civil War, she said that the slaves were treated well, that hurting a slave was virtually unheard of - though she did hear the occasional story or two, that there were times when freed slaves came to her father asking to be taken in as slaves, and that her and her sister, after learning to read, write, and do arithmetic, were the 'teachers' and the Negroids were the 'students'.
Most of what you've heard is Northern propaganda, it isn't true. Just like the anti-Red American propaganda of the 50s and 60s, and the Anti-Iraq propaganda of today.
"a diary of a young girl " I'm sorry but that would be incredibly biased, she probably wouldn't have witnessed half the brutality brought upon the slaves because of her age, and she would be pro slavery.
Who is to say that the information on those links are not solely the worst examples imaginable? Is it not possible that they are 'cherrypicking' and only showing you how bad slave-life was for a fraction of the slaves?
Sure, life was tough for some of them. Some of them. We only hear about the harsh times, but how do you know that the so-called 'harsh times' were only harsh for an extremely small percentage of slaves, and that the others had it fairly good?
It most certainly would not be the first time that people have used propaganda to further an ill-founded agenda.
is it not the same for both sides? South promoting their side north promoting their side, as I'm studying in history, i have to look at primary and secondary evidence, have to look at both sides and see which has the most. and from what Ive seen, the north has more evidence. while yes it will probably be biased, it has more going for it then the south
(you may want to change the tag of your post to no)
primary and secondary evidence is not evidence as you may think it when it comes to history, it may be crooked and wrong, but it supplies a great view of what people though like at the time, and yes while it could be wrong, would rather go with the side that has statistics and a lot more secoundary and primary evidence rather then the side that has a a young girls diary backing it up.
I wish you'd learn to write properly; I can hardly understand what you are trying to say.
A diary is a primary source; perhaps even one of the most reliable primary sources seeing as how it is meant as the private thoughts of the reader, and is most often not meant to be read. That is why the Diary of Samuel Pepys is considered valid, as are letters.
You want an even more racist comment, but one also based on fact?:
The people of Africa are historically untrustworthy. I take, for an example, the account of Richard Burton as he traversed central Africa. He had hired a group of natives to control the vessel that was to bring them up the river. They did their job, but they did so horribly; for instance, every few hours they would stop rowing, get off the boat, and get drunk. They did this repeatedly, most likely at least doubling the time required for Burton and his party to arrive at their destination.
Africa is a highly diseased land, and the people who live there - Negro and otherwise - are constantly at risk of contracting many diseases including malaria, hepatitis, and typhoid fever; jiggers in the jungle areas and a wide assortment of many poisonous creatures throughout the continent. Those who come to America and the rest of the civilized world run the risk of causing a plague in said countries !
AIDS, a venereal disease rampant throughout the world, began in Africa.