Ummmm, I don't think his claim was that the actual number of slave owners was in the single digits, but that its percentage was in the single digits (both relative to the total US population and the total population in the southern states). It looks like his claim is correct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantation_economy#Slave_statistics
Maybe if he would actually have stated it was a percentile, then there wouldn't have been a problem.
Dakryn said:
I'm absolutely positive that my knowledge of American history is not only accurate, but factual counting I've the assistance I have provided to many professors in both the Ethnic Studies department and the histories department.
And before you wail about how I didn't read your text be sure to read what I wrote. I said that if what the Irish and Italians were doing was slave labor, then there is no way to categorize what blacks were going through because in our society, there is no position lower than slave. I didn't say the Irish and Italians and etc. didn't have a hard time, far from it - and if you wanted to quote a piece in time that actually included both the Irish and the Africans to validate that point you should have used Bacon's Rebellion - that alone took place far before any of your examples. Furthermore, to illustrate the difference in both Black and Irish, and see why they still have the right to complain - along with other "races" (including white's that weren't of "Anglo" origin), we need only look at the geopolitical eugenics movement that took place from the nineteenth to the twentieth century - culminating in the most racist laws ever made that were not only enacted during WWI, but lasted till after WWII - because only then did most other ethnicities feel it was bullshit that they could be heroes on the battlefield and come home to a country that didn't support them/treated them like garbage.
Here, let's go through a rundown on just some of those laws:
Slide 10 .O {font-size:149%;} Chronology of Immigration legislation:
1875 Congress passes the Page Law; marks the beginning of direct federal regulation of immigrants
1882 -The Chinese Exclusion act is passed; which barres Chinese immigrants from naturalization and denied entry to Chinese laborers.
1891 The Immigration Act is passed; this act excludes persons suffering from contagious diseases, felons, polygamists and persons convicted of misdemeanors.
1893 The Immigration act receives an addendum; Cripples, the blind, deaf and other physically imperfect persons are not allowed into the country unless proof of support could be established by relatives
1907 The Immigration act receives another addendum; further persons to be excluded are imbeciles, feeble-minded persons, children who were not accompanied by their parents and women who came for immoral (which was designed to keep southern and eastern Europeans out of the country). The act also designated an Asiatic Bastard Zone, which meant anyone native to the lands between India, Australia and Japan were denied entry to the United States.
1907 The informal Gentleman's Agreement occurs between Japan and America, which barres the entry of Japanese laborers to the United States.
1921 The Quota Law is passed It's a temporary act that puts a cap on the amount of immigrants allowed into the country based on national origin.
1924 The Quota Law is made permanent with a passage from the Immigration act of 1924 a.k.a Johnson-Reed Act. This act would remain in effect until 1952
The eugenic ideal of an Anglo notion in conjunction with a geopolitical vision of the health of the nation state barred entry to all ethnicities including those of Norway, Germany, Italy, and everywhere else in Europe. Because, you know, god forbid anyone intermix with the righteous Anglo blood that Americans hold in their veins. Yeah, the Irish and every other white person from Europe had it bad, just as bad as Asians and Blacks in fact, except only in America do we see the expulsion of Blacks and Asians (specifically Asians when we begin to talk about Philippine immigration reform) in the twenty-first century.
Also, clarify on your second point about the North keeping the south down... you don't have to go into specifics, I more interested in your gun/carrot metaphor. Seeing as with the carrot portion I have no idea what you are referring too.
And when you refer to the government actually using prisons to keep the black man down, provide proof. It's not hard, see I'll do this for you - Here is a mega-example: Going back to the early 90's when many police stations began to produce crack cocaine. You can argue what you will about that being legal or not, the point that I am going to press however is the law as made to state that crack cocaine is the same as "pure" powdered cocaine. You see, during those times someone had the crazy idea that crack cocaine was far more addictive than its powdered counterpart. Of course, this being the prime "war on d-r-u-g-s era, this just couldn't be allowed. What happened was that Crack and Powdered Cocaine were given the same prison sentence, even though Crack cocaine was typically $20/gram versus Powdered which was exorbitantly more expensive. Prisons were not built in this decade to keep the black man schackled, laws were created to do that. It didn't matter that a study was done to entirely disprove the myth that crack was more addictive to powder (it wasn't, especially when powder in done intravenously). Of course, you didn't see many poor people doing powdered cocaine. It just so happens that with all the arrests the officers are doing that the prison population begins to soar, specifically for one ethnicity.
Marvin D. Free (whose article The Impact of Federal Sentencing Reforms of African Americans) details the history of the reform for drug laws, the mandatory minimums that were established, and the change ethnic ratio's between the prisons which led to blacks, who were only 12.1% of the entire population in 1993, to being 33.8% of all federal inmates for that year. The racial disparity was created entirely because of how they processed crack vs powdered cocaine, as it was obvious by the data that blacks were disproportionately likely to be charged with crack than they would with powder (white's, not surprisingly charged with powder more than crack) (this was shown in State vs. Russel in 1991). Furthermore, blacks were not only heavily charged more for possessing a lesser quality drug, they had more prison time due to the re-establishment of a mandatory minimum sentence - that in conjunction with the Omnibus Anti-Drug Abuse Act which set specifically a 5 year minimum for possession of crack (5 grams specifically - or the weight of two pennies). Now you may say "there is no reason why a drug that is of lesser quality be deemed less dangerous to society as a whole, furthermore it is illegal and all illegal substances should be treated the same". Well for that I have quite a few arguments, one would be the charges for possession of marijuana, and it having no ill effects on the human body when compared to legal substances such as alcohol or tobacco. The argument I will focus on however will be what the court/sentencing commissions stated: "guidelines: shall be entirely neutral as to race, sex, national origin, creed and
socioeconomic status of offenders". Judges however were prohibited from taking into consideration the background of the defendant, this includes the defendant's "mental health or alcohol/drug dependence". This in conjunction with the lack of rehabilitation practices and lack of parole (as it was abolished for individuals engaging in federal crimes after the effective date of the guidelines) essentially seems to pick on the disenfranchised and poor African American community, with a greater punishment for lesser-crimes than for higher grade ones.
I'm really amazed though that you complain about Blacks bitching and whining that things aren't fair, yet you yourself state the government is out there to keep them down. So... do you not plan to resolve that personal conception or what? Because it entirely seems that you're fine being totally hypocritical in specific instances - I was curious if this is actually true or not. Also, your point about "nameless field monkey/they're like family!" point is not accurate. Some owners were like this, the majority weren't. Even when looking at "The Journal of Southern History" you can see examples of your error in both the distant past and relative future (specifically in the article "The Legacy of Racial Slavery: Free Enterprise and Forced Labor in Florida in the 1940's"). Maybe then it would be alright for blacks to bitch when they are misrepresented in most ways if it happened as little as twenty years ago? What about Native Americans? Are they allowed to bitch because they have not only had their history erased from k-12 textbooks, but are still not getting the recognition of having the federal government issue a request for genocide upon them - are they entitled to a form of reparations (and NO, most Indians do not get money from casino's, I don't know why people continuously think this)?
Also, I read everything you post, but when I see something like (single digits" and no mention that is a statistic... yeah, I think you're stupid to (say the least). The reason I say this also lies on my own end; if you don't say something specific, I am not going to fill out the rest of your argument or assume to know what you are trying to convey. Example: My previous post was literally me asking you what the fuck you were talking about. In that passage alone that I quoted what you previously stated. Many of those things that you had stated in your own words had many actual factual counter-points. Only after I posted did you clarify. Next time please specify your arguments and I won't flip the fuck out. I hate putting people on ignore, and damn near did with your Tesla arguments (which still made no fucking sense in response to the death ray) - but I would rather take my experience of the forum as it actually: that of a shared space.
