Now your talking broI got the first shot last Saturday, get the second one next month
call me when you get the second one
I can't respect or tolerate unvaccinated people
Now your talking broI got the first shot last Saturday, get the second one next month
If you're going to make posts about "negativity" please stop trolling people.Now your talking bro
call me when you get the second one
I can't respect or tolerate unvaccinated people
"[Freed Slaves] are a distinct and inferior race of people, which all experience proves to be the greatest evil that afflicts a community."
Is the anthem not about a fort defence during the war of 1812?"[Freed Slaves] are a distinct and inferior race of people, which all experience proves to be the greatest evil that afflicts a community."
- Francis Scott Key
"No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave."
source
yes, and a regiment of freed slaves was involved in the defense of that fort.Is the anthem not about a fort defence during the war of 1812?
Given the context it seems like a bit of a stretch that's the only thing he was or could have been referencing.yes, and a regiment of freed slaves was involved in the defense of that fort.
Hence Key's reference.
that's why historians disagree.Given the context it seems like a bit of a stretch that's the only thing he was or could have been referencing.
So you're just like completely incapable of good faith conversation, eh?that's why historians disagree.
welcome to the debate, I see you're all caught up.
no, @Thuglife13 presented the GMA comment as some sort of new thing, but it's been a point of contention for a couple decades.So you're just like completely incapable of good faith conversation, eh?
That's reasonable.no, @Thuglife13 presented the GMA comment as some sort of new thing, but it's been a point of contention for a couple decades.
there's no political points to be made there, that's all I was pointing out.
a better headline for the story would be "Irrespective of Mark Cuban, Some Historians Think FSK Was Racist & So Was His Poem"
absolutely. Racism was an inherent and assumed aspect of virtually EVERY society in the world until ~ 150 years ago.That's reasonable.
I think some historians need to remember that things racism need to be graded on a curve.
"Racism was an inherent and assumed aspect of virtually EVERY society"absolutely. Racism was an inherent and assumed aspect of virtually EVERY society in the world until ~ 150 years ago.
and I'm not even talking about the colloquialisms and stereotypes racism - but legit "that race is less than this race and everybody knows it" kind of racism.
no doubt FSK was a racist, but for his time a fairly progressive person. It's hard for modern minds to get in a place where you can think of a race as less than yours but still deserving of "human decency", and not be a racist. But for his time, FSK probably wouldn't have been considered racist, nor would the sentiments of the 3rd Stanza - even if given the least favorable interpretation.
That's racism, bruv.Most conflicts were over culture and religion.
Culture and Religion is not the same as raceThat's racism, bruv.
Racism is defined as:Culture and Religion is not the same as race
An Arab and Black Moor would be buried in the same graves
fight, marry and eat beside each other.
A Christian no matter the race would be treated as an infidel.
Also the Kushites, Nubians and Kemetians/Egyptians
had no issues with race
Ethnic group is defined as:noun: racism
- prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
noun
1. a community or population made up of people who share a common cultural background or descent.
Cmon' now... You know that isn't the context and type of "racism" we are discussing here.Racism is defined as:
Ethnic group is defined as:
You can find countless examples in ancient writing of things like "The Gaulic race" even though they shared a skin color with the people writing about them. The same people who tried their best to wipe them off the face of the planet because they deemed them to be inferior. There are 2 things you'll never find in history. 1) Groups who weren't the targets of genocide. 2) Groups who weren't victims of slavery.Cmon' now... You know that isn't the context and type of "racism" we are discussing here.
Arguing semantics and shadings of words is a circular discussion
Don't know how I posted twice... But I didYou can find countless examples in ancient writing of things like "The Gaulic race" even though they shared a skin color with the people writing about them. The same people who tried their best to wipe them off the face of the planet because they deemed them to be inferior. There are 2 things you'll never find in history. 1) Groups who weren't the targets of genocide. 2) Groups who weren't victims of slavery.
As @Filthy was rightly pointing out, it's only apparent to us now because in the last 150 years or so we (at least in the western world) have broken the chain and have "tried" (clearly not very well) to have some sort of reconciliation. Ie, You'll notice no one is lobbying the U.N. to give the Akkadians their land back.
i think you're using a very narrow definition of racism, but I'm pretty sure you can name any race from >150 years ago and I can name the race that they considered inferior."Racism was an inherent and assumed aspect of virtually EVERY society"
Hmmm...
You're generalizing quite a bit with that statement.
In much of the Ancient World race was a non issue.
Most conflicts were over culture and religion.
Heck even Black, Arab and EuroAsian Moors fought side by
side and were buried in the same graves during the conquest
of Spain.
Greeks referred to the Ethiopians as the "darkest, most beautiful
and rigteuos people in the world."
The King of Spain literally referred to a Moorish army as
"Their faces were black as pitch and the most handsome
among them as dark as a cooking pan"
There was also no wide race based chattel slavery
until the Transatlantic slave trade and British Colonialism.
Not sure which time period you are referencing specifically
but to say racism was present in virtually all cultures/societies is
simply inaccurate.
PS - Yes FSK was an overt racist and the 3rd Stanza you are correct
on as well. Then again Abe Lincoln and the Founders were some of most
racist people you could ever meet as well...
So FSK may have indeed been viewed as a moderate
I understand, but skin color didn't come into the conversation until you conflated skin color with race. I pointed out that historically, race and skin color haven't been considered the same thing. As @Filthy points out, you're using a very narrow definition of "racism". Shit, Hitler was the Babe Ruth of racism and even he was like "Shit, no white people aren't equal."I'm not saying there was no racism in the Ancient World.
I'm saying to say it was widespread in most cultures
is simply historically inaccurate.
"There are 2 things you'll never find in history. 1) Groups who weren't the targets of genocide. 2) Groups who weren't victims of slavery."
1. Not entirely true... Indus Valley civilization was extremely peaceful
2. Genocide and enslavement is ot the same as Genocide and enslavement
based purely on skin color. That type of oppression is not what we see
in the ancient world
Couple things...
I'm not saying there was no racism in the Ancient World.
I'm saying to say it was widespread in most cultures
is simply historically inaccurate.
I'm also not arguing general race/ ethnicity/culture. I'm speaking
about racism and oppression based "purely on skin color".
"There are 2 things you'll never find in history. 1) Groups who weren't the targets of genocide. 2) Groups who weren't victims of slavery."
1. Not entirely true... Indus Valley civilization was extremely peaceful
2. Genocide and enslavement is not the same as Genocide and enslavement
based "purely on skin color". That type of oppression is not what we see in the
ancient world.
Heck up until about early Neolithic Period (Roughly 8K years ago) most
phenotypes of skin color were generally the same and there was no huge
difference prior to then.
To Wit: To say "Most Ancient cultures had racism" (again based on pure sdkin color) is demonstrably false
J., Reich, D. and Krause, J., 2021. Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for present-day Europeans.
Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for present-day Europeans
We sequenced the genomes of a ~7,000 year old farmer from Germany and eight ~8,000 year old hunter-gatherers from Luxembourg and Sweden. We analyzed these and other ancient genomes[–] with 2,345 contemporary humans to show that most present Europeans ...www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
The discussion was on racism of the founders and Americas history correct?I understand, but skin color didn't come into the conversation until you conflated skin color with race. I pointed out that historically, race and skin color haven't been considered the same thing. As @Filthy points out, you're using a very narrow definition of "racism". Shit, Hitler was the Babe Ruth of racism and even he was like "Shit, no white people aren't equal."
No. The discussion was that racism should be graded on a curve based on the standards of that individuals time.The discussion was on racism of the founders and Americas history correct?