🚀 go-pugleaf

"Mark Richards" <markrichards8@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I once told a fellow that being supportive of whites did not necessarily
>mean hatred toward anyone else. He replied that it really did, in almost
>every case. Well, I don't know about that. But the reverse seems to be true:
>whites who are critical of whites do seem to develop a pathological hatred
>of their own people, as you so aptly illustrate.

How do you know that I am white?

Whatever color I am, I don't particularly "hate" anyone.  I feel
disrespect towards racists and conspiracy theorists (groups that
overlap), no matter what color their skin is.

>So you think America owes its prosperity to blacks.

Did I say that?  Nope.  I said that American was NOT built solely by
white men.

>Bob, that is amazing. If
>blacks are such a benefit, Africa would be an economic powerhouse.

Why would that necessarily follow.  Africa is not the United States.
Different continent, different climate, different resources, a lack of
investment by those with money.  A lack of good natural transportation
in the time before modern transportation (except along the Nile, where
indeed the Egyptians, who had a significant black component to their
population had one of the earliest great civilizations).

>>And all of it financed by the Jews,
>
>You think us white nationalists are hateful, do you? Keep talking like this
>and you'll get a lesson in real hatred.

Why?  I stick fairly carefully to uncontroversial history.

>> Who are you kidding?  Even after slavery ended, blacks were still a
>> very high percentage of Southern population and did most of the work,
>> for cheap.  Meanwhile anyone who says that the South prospered after
>> the Civil War better study their history.  Even today, almost 150
>> years later, the average income and education level in Mississippi and
>> Louisiana is a fraction of the average for Yankees.
>
>You're making my point for me. I don't suppose you consider that Missisippi
>has the highest proportion of blacks in the country as explanation for your
>facts.

No, I don't.  

For one thing, as recently as 50 years ago, several of the deep South
states had as high a proportion of blacks as did Mississippi, and at
various times, Georgia and South Carolina had significantly higher
percentages of blacks, but were better off economically than
Mississippi.

Does this mean that you are taking back the following:
>All the talk about the South being
>built by slaves doesn't explain how the South continued to prosper without
>them.

Perhaps it is because the old habits of the white supremacists did not
fade away after the end of slavery, and THEY kept the economy from
recovering.  They also kept the blacks down by failing to provide them
equal educational services.

>> How?  What did he do for his slaves while he sat in France for a
>> dozen-odd years?
>
>If they ate, he fed them. If they were clothed, he clothed them. If they
>slept indoors, it was his house.

It was "his" house ONLY because THEY kept the plantation operating.
Jefferson was deeply in debt and couldn't afford to free his slaves,
or he wouldn't have been able to keep his land.  It would NOT have
been "his" house if he and his father and his father's father had not
built their wealth on the backs of their slaves.

>> >He obviously believed it made more economic sense to have slaves as
>> >servants than free whites or blacks, or he wouldn't have had any.
>>
>> Correct.  He owned them and did not have to pay them wages.  He could
>> not afford to run his property without slaves.
>
>That is ridiculous.

Nope.

>The fact that he kept slaves does not mean he had no other viable alternatives.

He did not feel that he did.

>Do you believe it was impossible for estate
>owners to run their property without slaves,

Probably.  There was a labor shortage of people willing to work the
back-breaking work needed to produce cotton.  That is why they first
imported slaves.  If the had had to pay workers, the wages would have
been high because of the shortage.  If they had had to pay their
slaves, and if they could not sell them, they would have gone
bankrupt.  Indeed that was WHY the South was unwilling to abandon
slavery, and part of the reason it did not recovery quickly from the
Civil War.

>so therefore there were no non-slave holding property owners?

Of course they were.  Poorer than dirt, their descendants are now the
"poor white trash" that one read about.

>Not even one, anywhere? Or perhaps you
>think it was just Jefferson who was so incompetent he could not function
>without them?

On the contrary, he was quote competent.  But he could not have
functioned without them.  It is rather hard to pick crops when you are
3000 miles away.

>> >But
>> >regardless of what they believed, the wealthy white Northerners did not
>> >become poor after the slavery option was no longer available.
>>
>> The wealthy white Northerners used their ill-gotten wealth to build
>> industry (incidentally, often by industrial espionage against the
>> British), whereas the South did not have the resources, and kept their
>> wealth in land like the aristocrats of Europe.  Yankee ingenuity also
>> included Yankee cutthroatedness.
>
>Yes, we whites are just a bunch of crooked SOB's, aren't we?

Some are.  Some aren't.  Jefferson certainly wasn't a "crooked SOB".
The people who ran Enron and Worldcom are.

>Here's a thought, Bob: since you're so ashamed of your country and your
>people,

Am I ashamed of my country?  Not hardly.  I'm PROUD of my country -
all of it *including* the minorities who have as much right as I do to
its wealth (maybe more, because the ancestors of most blacks were here
for 300+ years, whereas my ancestors came here 100-150 years ago).

lojbab