Their "side"... Texas Democrat Rep. Jasmine Crockett:

[AlaCowboy]

Nov 21, 2024 21:27:49 GMT -5 Panama pfRedd said:

‘There Has Been No Oppression for the White Man’

Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) blew up during a Wednesday House hearing on the “Dismantle DEI Act,” yelling that there “has been no oppression for the white man in this country!”

The act was introduced by Sen. JD Vance (R-OH) and Rep. Mike Cloud (R-TX) in June to “ensure equal protection of the law” and to “prevent racism in the Federal Government.”

The bill aims to end the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs in government agencies like the Department of Defense (DOD), Health and Human Services (HHS), as well as “public companies subject to [the] Civil Rights Act.”

During a House Oversight Committee markup on the bill, Crockett became enraged at Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA) for using the word “oppression”:



“You consistently said over and over the word ‘oppression,’ and every time that you said it, it was almost as if I was hearing nails on a chalkboard because it seems like you don’t understand the definition of ‘oppression,” Crockett said, while gesturing at Higgins.

“And I’d ask you to just refer to Google to help you out,” she continued. “Oppression is the prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control. That is the definition of oppression.”

In using the Cambridge Dictionary’s definition of the term — “a situation in which people are governed in an unfair and cruel way and prevented from having opportunities and freedom” — one could make the argument that unfairly denying someone a government job or federally funded scholarship because he is a white man could qualify as “oppression.”

Crockett continued, “And so, as I sit here as a black woman who practiced civil rights, let me tell you the reason that my colleagues wanted to make sure you understood the same black history that your side of the aisle wants to delete out of classrooms is because you can then misuse words like ‘oppression.’”

“There has been no oppression for the white man in this country,” she yelled, with her finger wagging in their air.

“You tell me which white men were dragged out of their homes. You tell me which one of them got dragged all the way across an ocean and told that ‘you are going to go to work. We are going to steal your wives. We are going to rape your wives,'” the congresswoman loudly demanded.

“That didn’t happen. That is oppression,” Crockett said. “We didn’t ask to be here. We’re not the same migrants that y’all constantly come up against. We didn’t run away from home. We were stolen. So yeah, we are going to sit here and be offended when you want to sit here and act like… and don’t let it escape you that it is white men on this side of the aisle telling us, people of color on this side of the aisle, that y’all are the ones being oppressed, that y’all are the ones that are being harmed. That’s not the definition of oppression. You tell me the prolonged, cruel or unjust treatment that you’ve had and we can have a conversation.”

Crockett handily won her reelection bid for Texas’s thirtieth congressional district after running unopposed by the Republican Party.

In an interview with Breitbart News, Rep. Cloud explained that the Dismantle DEI Act would rescind DEI-related executive orders in the government and close a number of DEI offices “throughout every single agency.”

“It prohibits federal funding for DEI activities. It ensures equal treatment,” Cloud said, before adding that “this is something we would love to see Trump sign.”

That dodo needs to study the history of Reconstruction after the War Of Northern Aggression in the South to learn about the oppression of white people in the American South.

[Panama pfRedd]

quote:

“You tell me which white men were dragged out of their homes. You tell me which one of them got dragged all the way across an ocean and told that ‘you are going to go to work. We are going to steal your wives. We are going to rape your wives,'”




Rome and Greece took slaves from all over Europe, including Celts, Gauls, Thracians and more. The Egyptians took slaves from a number of cultures and regions, including modern Greece or Turkey. The Egyptians themselves were mostly white, despite what modern black Americans would like to claim, and took and kept slaves from within their own culture. This is reflected in their artwork. Vikings enslaved people from across Europe, including Britons, Irish, and Slavs. The term slave is derived from "Slav," so guess what group was favored for that? Then there's the Barbary pirates who targeted Europe from Iceland to Italy (and even into Eastern Europe), taking and selling into slavery in North Africa and the Middle East a million plus people from the 16th to 19th century.

The Ottoman Empire had the Devshirme system, which conscripted Christian boys, primarily from the Balkans, to serve as janissaries (that's a whole sad horror story on it's own). Mamluks were enslaved boys from the Caucasus region, particularly Circassians, Georgians, and Armenians, often trained and used as soldiers.

Indentured servitude existed throughout colonial America. Men, women, and children from all over western Europe were exploited and essentially owned as property until they worked off their debt for portage to America. How long this took and how hard they were worked varied widely, but cruelty wasn't uncommon.

Ukrainians and Russians served as slaves for the Crimean Khanate, a Tatar state that stole people in raids they called "harvesting of the steppe." They were often sold to the Ottoman Empire.

Basically all of Europe was harvested for white slaves between the Soviet and Nazi regimes, untold millions for decades worked to death in camps that equaled or rivaled in cruelty and inhumanity anything I've heard or read from the Americas from the colonial period on up through to the Civil War.

That's just touching on some of the low hanging fruit and easy examples throughout the last couple millenia.

This mythology of "only black people were slaves" is f-ing horseshit and it needs to end already. Name a major culture from before 1800 that didn't have slaves and prove it, I dare anyone, especially Ms. Crockett. The history is plain: white people were slaves long before the first African set foot in the Americas, and have been slaves in many parts of the world long after the Emancipation Proclamation.

[Panama pfRedd]

To the idiot libs, slavery is EXCLUSIVELY limited to the United States from Plymouth Rock through the end of the US Civil War. After that it's been 'soft' slavery for blacks ever since. And the race whores like sharpton make millions off the oppression myth.

Never mind the Caribbean or South America had WAY more slaves than the American south during this same time frame. They don't care about historical truth - they ONLY care about perpetuating black victimhood.

[canefan]

Nov 22, 2024 7:46:24 GMT -5 Panama pfRedd said:

To the idiot libs, slavery is EXCLUSIVELY limited to the United States from Plymouth Rock through the end of the US Civil War. After that it's been 'soft' slavery for blacks ever since. And the race whores like sharpton make millions off the oppression myth.

Never mind the Caribbean or South America had WAY more slaves than the American south during this same time frame. They don't care about historical truth - they ONLY care about perpetuating black victimhood.

Professor Gates, yes that Gates, is the world's leading expert on the slave trade. He says the most generous estimate of African slaves into what was eventually America is 300K but more likely closer to 200K. There were million taken to Brazil alone.

[oujour76]

Nov 22, 2024 8:30:57 GMT -5 canefan said:

Nov 22, 2024 7:46:24 GMT -5 Panama pfRedd said:

To the idiot libs, slavery is EXCLUSIVELY limited to the United States from Plymouth Rock through the end of the US Civil War. After that it's been 'soft' slavery for blacks ever since. And the race whores like sharpton make millions off the oppression myth.

Never mind the Caribbean or South America had WAY more slaves than the American south during this same time frame. They don't care about historical truth - they ONLY care about perpetuating black victimhood.

Professor Gates, yes that Gates, is the world's leading expert on the slave trade. He says the most generous estimate of African slaves into what was eventually America is 300K but more likely closer to 200K. There were million taken to Brazil alone.

One of those inconvenient truths.

[Walter]

Nov 22, 2024 9:18:39 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Nov 22, 2024 8:30:57 GMT -5 canefan said:

Professor Gates, yes that Gates, is the world's leading expert on the slave trade. He says the most generous estimate of African slaves into what was eventually America is 300K but more likely closer to 200K. There were million taken to Brazil alone.

One of those inconvenient truths.

WTF is inconvenient about that?

[oujour76]

Nov 22, 2024 9:55:17 GMT -5 Walter said:

Nov 22, 2024 9:18:39 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

One of those inconvenient truths.

WTF is inconvenient about that?

Do I really have to explain this? Especially since we’ve talked about it in the past?

[Walter]

Nov 22, 2024 10:19:54 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Nov 22, 2024 9:55:17 GMT -5 Walter said:

WTF is inconvenient about that?

Do I really have to explain this? Especially since we’ve talked about it in the past?

And it did not make sense any prior time either.

It's like Pol Pot saying, "Cut us some slack. We didn't kill as many people as Stalin.".

So yeah..Explain it again.

[oujour76]

Nov 22, 2024 11:08:46 GMT -5 Walter said:

Nov 22, 2024 10:19:54 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Do I really have to explain this? Especially since we’ve talked about it in the past?

And it did not make sense any prior time either.

It's like Pol Pot saying, "Cut us some slack. We didn't kill as many people as Stalin.".

So yeah..Explain it again.

Pretty simple. If you’re going to talk about slavery, teach it in full. Not to cut slack, simply to teach the full story. In the case of the North Atlantic slave trade, why ignore 95% of it?

[trnyerheadncough]

Nov 22, 2024 11:28:21 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Nov 22, 2024 11:08:46 GMT -5 Walter said:

And it did not make sense any prior time either.

It's like Pol Pot saying, "Cut us some slack. We didn't kill as many people as Stalin.".

So yeah..Explain it again.

Pretty simple. If you’re going to talk about slavery, teach it in full. Not to cut slack, simply to teach the full story. In the case of the North Atlantic slave trade, why ignore 95% of it?

Because it is usually taught within the broader category of American history, in which that 95% doesn’t apply?

To further explain…if one was in a class about Brazilian history, why would the professor waste much time bringing up the 5% that was going on in the U.S. around the same time?

[Walter]

Nov 22, 2024 11:28:21 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Nov 22, 2024 11:08:46 GMT -5 Walter said:

And it did not make sense any prior time either.

It's like Pol Pot saying, "Cut us some slack. We didn't kill as many people as Stalin.".

So yeah..Explain it again.

Pretty simple. If you’re going to talk about slavery, teach it in full. Not to cut slack, simply to teach the full story. In the case of the North Atlantic slave trade, why ignore 95% of it?

To continue my analogy then, in order to understand and critique what happened in Cambodia, we need also to study what happened in, say, Rwanda?
That makes no sense. What happened in Cambodia stands on its own as a heinous act by a despot, no? I don't need to know about the tribal differences in Rwanda that triggered that genocide in order to understand what Pol Pot was doing, do I?

The fundamental truth here is simply this: Slavery=bad. Doesn't matter where it occurred or if it happened more here or more there.
That it happened less here than Brazil is meaningless to a discussion about American slavery unless one is trying to whitewash what happened here by claiming that is wasn't SOOOOOO bad....It was only 'a little bit bad'..

[oujour76]

Nov 22, 2024 11:53:01 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Nov 22, 2024 11:28:21 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Pretty simple. If you’re going to talk about slavery, teach it in full. Not to cut slack, simply to teach the full story. In the case of the North Atlantic slave trade, why ignore 95% of it?

Because it is usually taught within the broader category of American history, in which that 95% doesn’t apply?

To further explain…if one was in a class about Brazilian history, why would the professor waste much time bringing up the 5% that was going on in the U.S. around the same time?

That’s a myopic view, one that I don’t share. History rarely fits into neat boxes, and it shouldn’t be treated as such. And if you’re teaching a subject, not talking much about 5% of it is much different from not talking much about 95%. The slave trade didn’t occur in a vacuum, and it shouldn’t be treated as if it did. Just my opinion.

[trnyerheadncough]

Nov 22, 2024 12:30:45 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Nov 22, 2024 11:53:01 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Because it is usually taught within the broader category of American history, in which that 95% doesn’t apply?

To further explain…if one was in a class about Brazilian history, why would the professor waste much time bringing up the 5% that was going on in the U.S. around the same time?

That’s a myopic view, one that I don’t share. History rarely fits into neat boxes, and it shouldn’t be treated as such. And if you’re teaching a subject, not talking much about 5% of it is much different from not talking much about 95%. The slave trade didn’t occur in a vacuum, and it shouldn’t be treated as if it did. Just my opinion.

Agree that history rarely fits into neat boxes, but, by necessity, it realistically must be taught in boxes, otherwise, you can spend an entire semester in an American history class fully fleshing out the economics of pre-Revolution America and its use of the slave trade incorporated therein.

You can call it myopic, but you can’t deny that it is reality.

The slave trade didn’t occur in a vacuum, but it isn’t taught as such. The term “triangle trade” certainly involves more than just America. However, suggesting that the numbers in America or Brazil being so different isn’t particularly meaningful. America didn’t import less slaves because there was some moral undercurrent against its use. We just didn’t run the transport business, by and large. Portugal did (about 95% of the trade), so, consequently and logically, more slaves ended up where they had colonies that they controlled….oddly enough, 95%.

[oujour76]

Nov 22, 2024 11:58:57 GMT -5 Walter said:

Nov 22, 2024 11:28:21 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Pretty simple. If you’re going to talk about slavery, teach it in full. Not to cut slack, simply to teach the full story. In the case of the North Atlantic slave trade, why ignore 95% of it?

To continue my analogy then, in order to understand and critique what happened in Cambodia, we need also to study what happened in, say, Rwanda?
That makes no sense. What happened in Cambodia stands on its own as a heinous act by a despot, no? I don't need to know about the tribal differences in Rwanda that triggered that genocide in order to understand what Pol Pot was doing, do I?

The fundamental truth here is simply this: Slavery=bad. Doesn't matter where it occurred or if it happened more here or more there.
That it happened less here than Brazil is meaningless to a discussion about American slavery unless one is trying to whitewash what happened here by claiming that is wasn't SOOOOOO bad....It was only 'a little bit bad'..

The Cambodian and Rwanda genocides took place at different times and had different reasons. And understanding each is not excusing the other.

The North Atlantic slave trade to the Americas took place at the same time and involved the same slaves and traders. Why would you ignore that? That’s a simplistic approach and it fosters ignorance of a subject. IMO at least.

[oujour76]

Nov 22, 2024 12:36:39 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Nov 22, 2024 12:30:45 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

That’s a myopic view, one that I don’t share. History rarely fits into neat boxes, and it shouldn’t be treated as such. And if you’re teaching a subject, not talking much about 5% of it is much different from not talking much about 95%. The slave trade didn’t occur in a vacuum, and it shouldn’t be treated as if it did. Just my opinion.

Agree that history rarely fits into neat boxes, but, by necessity, it realistically must be taught in boxes, otherwise, you can spend an entire semester in an American history class fully fleshing out the economics of pre-Revolution America and its use of the slave trade incorporated therein.

You can call it myopic, but you can’t deny that it is reality.

The slave trade didn’t occur in a vacuum, but it isn’t taught as such. The term “triangle trade” certainly involves more than just America. However, suggesting that the numbers in America or Brazil being so different isn’t particularly meaningful. America didn’t import less slaves because there was some moral undercurrent against its use. We just didn’t run the transport business, by and large. Portugal did (about 95% of the trade), so, consequently and logically, more slaves ended up where they had colonies that they controlled….oddly enough, 95%.

As far as the history of slavery goes, the North Atlantic portion is a box. I disagree that the numbers are not meaningful. And I haven’t made any claims that those numbers make the U.S. superior. The numbers are what they are, so teach them. Don’t ignore them. That’s all I’m saying.