[Unthinking Majority]

No, you are exaggerating. The conservative right is panicking about everything that progressives are doing.

Because progressive have gone absolutely mental, and want to ban everything that could be offensive to anyone at any time (as long as they are a perceived victim group).

You're obviously a fairly young person, the schools and universities got to you too didn't they?

I am sure MLK would be quite disappointed in how racism is still prevalent, over 50 years after he made his famous speech...

Maybe, he would also be proud of how massively less racist the country has become since the 60's. He'd also be ashamed that now a lot of black people are being hired for jobs and get into schools they aren't qualified for because of the colour of their skin and not the content of their character (or qualifications).

[Godstud]

You're obviously a fairly young person, the schools and universities got to you too didn't they?

I'm not young. I'm in my 50s. So, no, they didn't "get to me".

He'd also be ashamed that now a lot of black people are being hired for jobs and get into schools they aren't qualified for because of the colour of their skin and not the content of their character (or qualifications).

I think he'd be looking at the deeper reasons behind this, like the continuation of systemic racism. I guess we'll never know, though... <shrug>

@Politics_Observer So far, all we're basing this on, is opinion polls, which are notoriously unreliable.

[Politics_Observer]

@Kaiserschmarrn

Could you show us some evidence that there is an explosion of white supremacy in the US and that this is driven by fear of replacement.

CNN did an interview of white nationalist Jared Taylor where he talks about the fear of "replacement." The link shows a video where he is interviewed by CNN. Here is the link that I use as my evidence that comes right from a white nationalist himself:

https://edition.cnn.com/videos/us/2019/06/28/fareed-zakaria-state-of-hate-ron-1.cnn



References-

CNN. (2019, June 28). He wants to create a whites-only version of America. Retrieved July 6, 2019, from https://edition.cnn.com/videos/us/2019/06/28/fareed-zakaria-state-of-hate-ron-1.cnn

[Kaiserschmarrn]

I totally understand. I was going back and forth doing school work while also writing my response to you. No rush in responding. I look forward to reading your response to see how you defend your position. You might win the debate, we'll see if your arguments are logical enough and your sources are solid.

The weekend got in the way.

I hope my sources and arguments are up to scratch.

The textile industry in the US and in the Northern US like New York City were ENTIRELY dependent upon the southern US for cotton. Cheap plentiful land in the south along with soil necessary to grow cotton and the slave labor required to work that land produced ALOT of millionaires who were white slave owners in the American south.

It's true that slavery made a number of slave owners in the South very rich, but cotton only constituted 5% of GDP in 1835 (see 3rd para in the quote below), and around 20% of industrial production in 1850 (page 13).

Consider the outcome of the debate among scholars that raged through the 1980s over the transformation of the northern countryside. There is now broad agreement that farmers in the northern colonies always produced surpluses for sale although they were careful to limit their market involvement in ways that protected their economic independence. That began to change in the 1790s, when New England farmers found themselves trapped by the competitive demands of a rapidly commercializing agriculture in ways that forced them to steadily increase their productivity. The process spread westward, and the northern countryside was thoroughly transformed by 1845, when wheat farmers began to mechanize production at an astonishing pace.17 Northern agricultural productivity skyrocketed even as the rural economy extruded “surplus” population into cities and factories at a rate that outpaced number of immigrants—who were by then streaming into the North by the millions. Those landless workers were attracted by a new form of free labor that had simultaneously developed in the North in the decades following the American Revolution. Apprentice contracts became wage contracts, indentured servitude disappeared, and slavery was abolished. By the 1820s “a day’s pay for a day’swork” became the norm—and with it a uniquely mobile population of free laborers was created. Within the space of a single lifetime forms of long-term labor subordination that had existed for centuries, even millennia, were dramatically overthrown. “Thus it was not slavery,” Gavin Wright has concluded, “but the post-Revolutionary abolitions and the exclusion of slavery from the Northwest Territory that launched the American economy on its modern trajectory.”18 Put these two developments together — the transformation of the northern countryside and the rapidly expanding population of highly mobile wage laborers—and the stage was set for the dynamic interaction of the city and the country that so many scholars have seen as the preeminent characteristic of northern economic development.19

None of this appears in Baptist’s account. Instead, he disinters an older story that told of industrialization “spiraling outward” from the textile mills of Massachusetts and Rhode Island—a story long ago abandoned by most economic historians. Before we revert to this traditional account, however, Baptist will have to explain where historians like Diane Lindstrom went wrong when they adduced evidence that the southern trade was relatively unimportant to the economic development of the Philadelphia. He would have to explain away the evidence that “metropolitan industrialization” overshadowed New York City’s ties to slavery, that economic development bound the city much more closely to the wheat and dairy farmers in the Hudson, Mohawk, and Ohio River valleys—as most scholars now believe. He would have to explain away the extraordinary maps in William Cronon’s Nature’s Metropolis demonstrating the way railroads spread out from Chicago bringing wheat farmers throughout the Midwest into the city’s powerful economic orbit — an orbit that reached back to the east coast and all the way to Europe but that barely touched the slave states. In these accounts the history of the northern economy after 1776 is one of growing independence from slavery, a fact of no small significance for the origins of the Civil War.

In addition to explaining where generations of scholarship on northern economic development have gone wrong, Baptist would have to tell us where he’s getting his numbers. He points out that in 1836 cotton production represented about five percent of the gross domestic product. This is a widely accepted statistic, having been calculated in several different ways by a number of different scholars.

In addition, Britain got 75% of it's cheap cotton from the American south which played a big role in fueling it's Industrial Revolution and supplying it's empire. Slave labor was the key, the cornerstone to producing cheap cotton that the US economy was heavily dependent upon, including the textile mills in New England and slave labor in the American south was key and important to fueling the British Industrial Revolution and supplying it's empire given that 75% of the cotton they got from the American south and it was all produced by slave labor.

Slave labour wasn't key any more than the farmers who massively improved their productivity without slaves, the former peasants and workers who worked in factories and on infrastructure, the engineers and scientists with their inventions and improvements, the merchants and capitalists and their investments, etc. That is to say, it was one factor among many that fuelled the industrial revolution.

Furthermore, more generally slavery was not necessary for the rapid and transformative economic development in Britain. Britain had readily available alternative markets for cotton. Note what happens to British imports during the civil war when the South embargoed exports to put pressure on Britain and how after abolition the US is back to supplying almost the same amount of imports to Britain in 1870.


Table from this paper. Full paper here (page 11).

Without that slave labor, the US economy then and today would not be where it was and is. Slaves in the 1860 represented a 4 billion dollar investment and it was slave labor in the US and the cotton it produced that made the US credit worthy. This 4 billion dollar investment and the fact that the south perceived Lincoln as a threat to this investment was the reason why the south attempted to secede from the US but was ultimately defeated by the superior factory and industrial output of New England factories. Slavery was also not just an entirely a southern US thing, it also existed in the Northern US for some time.

It stands to reason that the South wanted to save its investment. For the same reason there had been powerful interests in the South in favour of closing off the supply from the trans-Atlantic slave trade.

Prices for slaves fluctuated with market conditions as well as with individual characteristics. U.S. slave prices fell around 1800 as the Haitian revolution sparked the movement of slaves into the Southern states. Less than a decade later, slave prices climbed when the international slave trade was banned, cutting off legal external supplies. Interestingly enough, among those who supported the closing of the trans-Atlantic slave trade were several Southern slaveowners. Why this apparent anomaly? Because the resulting reduction in supply drove up the prices of slaves already living in the U.S and, hence, their masters’ wealth. U.S. slaves had high enough fertility rates and low enough mortality rates to reproduce themselves, so Southern slaveowners did not worry about having too few slaves to go around.

However, over most of the period after independence prices were lower (graph from the same article):

As for the assertion that cotton made the US credit worthy, this seems to be an exaggeration for the reasons given in my first source above (Oakes) and, additionally, cotton exports were less than 5% of GDP and less than merchandise exports.

The graph is from the paper I linked in my last post. The fact that the US carried on pretty much as before shortly after the civil war is a powerful counter factual to the idea that slavery was crucial.

-------------------------------------------------

CNN did an interview of white nationalist Jared Taylor where he talks about the fear of "replacement." The link shows a video where he is interviewed by CNN. Here is the link that I use as my evidence that comes right from a white nationalist himself:

https://edition.cnn.com/videos/us/2019/06/28/fareed-zakaria-state-of-hate-ron-1.cnn

Since he is a self-identified white nationalist, this shouldn't come as a surprise. As far as I know, he's been making the same kind of arguments for a long time, so this is not a recent development. The question is whether he is representative for a large number of people which should be the case if there is an "explosion" of the same or similar attitudes and perceptions in the US today.

-------------------------------------------------

:lol: Since this all appears to be about your feelings towards me, and not the actual topic, "Good day".

Only after you found it necessary to explain your feelings about me and my posts did I do the same. If you are unaware that you demonstrate the same behaviours you are complaining about, I'd recommend you re-read your own posts.

You obviously cannot argue in good faith, if you're all hung up on me, and not actually addressing the arguments.

I've addressed your arguments, such as they were, and in the same tone as they were presented. That is, I'm using your standards, so I only have to invest the minimum in terms of time and effort.

[BigSteve]

CNN did an interview of white nationalist Jared Taylor where he talks about the fear of "replacement." The link shows a video where he is interviewed by CNN. Here is the link that I use as my evidence that comes right from a white nationalist himself:

https://edition.cnn.com/videos/us/2019/06/28/fareed-zakaria-state-of-hate-ron-1.cnn

See, this is why it's so easy to dismiss anything you say.

Fareed Zakaria calling something an "explosion" doesn't make it so, nor do the ramblings of one old man.

Your dramatics are noted, but there's no "explosion"...

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Fareed Zakaria also thought it was a good idea to speak to Bono to understand populism in Europe. Absolutely clueless.

[Godstud]

@Kaiserschmarrn too bad I'd need a subscription to read that, otherwise I'll bet that'd be a fun read.

[Verv]

Fareed Zakaria also thought it was a good idea to speak to Bono to understand populism in Europe. Absolutely clueless.

To be fair, the guy did agree to interview Taylor.

I haven't watched their 58-minute interview and I did hear that it was a lot of them talking past each other. I got some critical appraisal where folks were sayign that there were some lost opportunities for Taylor.

But, ultimately, the information and ideas that Taylor dabbles in are just too far divorced from the reality of most people. They don't even think in these terms.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

@Kaiserschmarrn too bad I'd need a subscription to read that, otherwise I'll bet that'd be a fun read.

Not sure which one you mean. If it's the paper from my first quote, you can access that here: Oakes - 2016 - Capitalism and Slavery and the Civil War

Links to the other three in the order I quoted them:
Davis - 2004- An Annual Index of U. S. Industrial Production, 1790-1915
Surdam - 1998 - King Cotton: Monarch or Pretender? The State of the Market for Raw Cotton on the Eve of the American Civil War
Olmstead, Rhode - 2016 - Cotton, Slavery, and the New History of Capitalism

[Godstud]

@Kaiserschmarrn The Bono one...

[Kaiserschmarrn]

^ Sorry, can't help with that. The scholarly work will have to do.

[Verv]

Let me just say real quick... I can't imagine a worst potential source for information & ideas about right wing populism / identitarianism / ethnonationalism than Bono.

The guy has been a wealthy rockstar since decades before it started, and is mostly famous for really, REALLY shallow activism.

The guy manages to seem way out of his depth when he is discussing something simple -- how the heck is he going to speak on this?

That's why they chose him, perahps, right? He's just going to say "White people who are racists? Still?! I can't even...." "Racists on our streets..? Can you IMAGINE..?"

"in the 1970s, I was a regular guy for a while, right? I walked around on the streets, IN THE BARS! And there were people that existed who were racist, and I disliked them along with everyone else. We fought for REEEEL change. And that's special."

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Bono will have confirmed his worst assumptions and fears about European populism which I suspect was the objective anyway.

[Politics_Observer]

@Kaiserschmarrn

It's true that slavery made a number of slave owners in the South very rich, but cotton only constituted 5% of GDP in 1835 (see 3rd para in the quote below), and around 20% of industrial production in 1850 (page 13).

So, I looked at the document you linked and it looked at p. 13 out of the 40 pages and this is what I saw:



I also checked 12 out of 40 and 14 out of 40 and did not see anything from this source that supports your claim that cotton only constituted 5% of GDP in 1835. I also looked on the left side of the document viewer to see if any page was actually labeled page 13 and it wasn't. I even typed in "page 13" in the upper left hand corner and no page 13 popped up. As far as I can tell, the source you have posted does not show where cotton constituted 5% of GDP. Did I look at the wrong page or something? Could you post a screen shot showing the exact page highlighting the information to support your claim?

Your source from James Oake of City University of New York City seems to be solid and according to your source from James Oake he states:

Most scholars agree that slavery played at least some role in spurring the Industrial Revolution, especially in Great Britain, particularly in the critical early decades of its development. The slave trade was a massive, highly sophisticated commercial enterprise that required, among other things, a secure financial system that could extend credit and insurance to shippers and a physical infrastructure of docks, port facilities, a shipbuilding industry, and a transportation network within Britain—all of which contributed to the Industrial Revolution.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... re-reader#

This very same source that you used to back up one of your claims in turn can be used to support my claim that indeed slavery DID make the US credit worthy and your very own source supports my claim that indeed slavery helped to spur Great Britian's Industrial Revolution. However, once the Industrial Revolution was in full swing it is accurate to say that the south in the United States fell quickly behind New England in that factories could outproduce the agricultural south which relied on slave labor by huge margins.

The state of New York by itself could outproduce the ALLL the states that were in the Confederacy of the South combined. So, once industrialization was in full swing, slavery was swept away in the US in a bloody war in which the south simply couldn't match the massive industrial output of the North. The US economy was transitioning to industrialization when the American Civil War broke out. That being said, that doesn't erase the legacy of slavery and it's effects that are still felt today. And using one of your own sources where I quoted it above, we can see, that indeed slavery played a key role in spurring industrialization and did make the US creditworthy given that slavery required credit. It was the American south that also produced 2/3rds of the world's supply of cotton at that time. How can anybody argue that cotton and the slave labor used to produce cotton didn't play a big role in supplying factories up North in the US and in Britain? Here is another source to back up my claim here:

The American economy was caught in transition on the eve of the Civil War. What had been an almost purely agricultural economy in 1800 was in the first stages of an industrial revolution which would result in the United States becoming one of the world's leading industrial powers by 1900. But the beginnings of the industrial revolution in the prewar years was almost exclusively limited to the regions north of the Mason-Dixon line, leaving much of the South far behind.

In 1860, the South was still predominantly agricultural, highly dependent upon the sale of staples to a world market. By 1815, cotton was the most valuable export in the United States; by 1840, it was worth more than all other exports combined. But while the southern states produced two-thirds of the world's supply of cotton, the South had little manufacturing capability, about 29 percent of the railroad tracks, and only 13 percent of the nation's banks. The South did experiment with using slave labor in manufacturing, but for the most part it was well satisfied with its agricultural economy.

The North, by contrast, was well on its way toward a commercial and manufacturing economy, which would have a direct impact on its war making ability. By 1860, 90 percent of the nation's manufacturing output came from northern states. The North produced 17 times more cotton and woolen textiles than the South, 30 times more leather goods, 20 times more pig iron, and 32 times more firearms. The North produced 3,200 firearms to every 100 produced in the South. Only about 40 percent of the Northern population was still engaged in agriculture by 1860, as compared to 84 percent of the South.

Even in the agricultural sector, Northern farmers were out-producing their southern counterparts in several important areas, as Southern agriculture remained labor intensive while northern agriculture became increasingly mechanized. By 1860, the free states had nearly twice the value of farm machinery per acre and per farm worker as did the slave states, leading to increased productivity. As a result, in 1860, the Northern states produced half of the nation's corn, four-fifths of its wheat, and seven-eighths of its oats.

https://www.nps.gov/resources/story.htm%3Fid%3D251

In addition to that source, I would like to provide a video from PBS that talks about the cotton from the American south and it's contributions to spurring Industrialization in Great Britain to strengthen my prior claims. The video also touches a little (but just touches on it) on the lasting negative effects of slavery in the United States:

References-

Arrington,, Benjamin T. "Story (U.S. National Park Service)." NPS.gov Homepage (U.S. National Park Service), http://www.nps.gov/resources/story.htm%3Fid%3D251. Accessed 8 July 2019.

Oakes, James. "Capitalism and Slavery and the Civil War." Cambridge Core, 195, http://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ ... re-reader#. Accessed 8 July 2019.

PBS. "The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross | The Cotton Economy and Slavery, Episode 2 | PBS." YouTube, 29 Oct. 2013, "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRlfMhP_CMI." Accessed 8 July 2019.

[Finfinder]

You support his intervening based on fake outrage?


You should oppose Kaepernick then. He's trying to make a profit by associating a flag that was shown at Obama's inauguration with racism.

Exactly !! We support Kaepernicks rite to express fraudulent opinions.

@Drlee @BigSteve

Serious question to military people. What would happen to you , (if anything) if you were openly against celebrating the American flag?

[Deutschmania]

@Unthinking Majority What's anti-American about not liking the old flag, that is no longer used, and is sort of synonymous with slavery?

Name-calling isn't an argument. You'd think you guys would know that by now.

Ad hominem, short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

You don't have to agree with Nike's marketing, but they seem to be pretty successful at finding who is consuming their product and appealing to them, regardless of your feelings.

QFT. See the Mississippi flag... for an example.

Not just that of Mississippi , although it's certaintly the most blatant example , but also most every state flag in the South . Take for example Arkansas . http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/these-5-states-still-use-confederate-symbols-their-flags. And the Confederate flag , unlike the original stars and stripes design , was actually intended by its creator to symbolize white supremacy https://www.politicususa.com/2015/07/03/confederate-flag-designer-symbol-white-supremacy-southern-heritage.html. However , as Frederick Douglass said , "What to the slave is the Fourth of July" ? For it was the British whom made attempts to emancipate the slaves , during both the American War of Independence , and the War of 1812 , for much the same reason that Pres . Lincoln issued his own Emancipation Proclamation , during the Civil War . https://www.history.org/Almanack/people/african/aadunpro.cfm , https://www.nps.gov/articles/slave-loyalism.htm All in all , some would even go so far as to assert that the War of Independence was really a counterrevolution , for this reason . https://www.democracynow.org/2014/6/27/counter_revolution_of_1776_was_us

[Politics_Observer]

The controversary surrounding Kaepernick reminds me Frederick Douglas's speech about the 4th of July. The 4th of July shouldn't be just a holiday for "white Americans only" but rather a holiday for ALL Americans. Part of making sure that the 4th of July is a holiday for ALL Americans not just ONLY white Americans is dealing with the negative and divisive legacy of slavery and righting a past wrong. Here is a speech from Frederick Douglas in regards to the 4th of July:

“Fellow Citizens, I am not wanting in respect for the fathers of this republic. The signers of the Declaration of Independence were brave men. They were great men, too, great enough to give frame to a great age. It does not often happen to a nation to raise, at one time, such a number of truly great men. The point from which I am compelled to view them is not, certainly, the most favorable; and yet I cannot contemplate their great deeds with less than admiration. They were statesmen, patriots and heroes, and for the good they did, and the principles they contended for, I will unite with you to honor their memory….

The article continues:

"…Fellow-citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here to-day? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?"

"...Would to God, both for your sakes and ours, that an affirmative answer could be truthfully returned to these questions! Then would my task be light, and my burden easy and delightful. For who is there so cold, that a nation’s sympathy could not warm him? Who so obdurate and dead to the claims of gratitude, that would not thankfully acknowledge such priceless benefits? Who so stolid and selfish, that would not give his voice to swell the hallelujahs of a nation’s jubilee, when the chains of servitude had been torn from his limbs? I am not that man. In a case like that, the dumb might eloquently speak, and the 'lame man leap as an hart.'

But such is not the state of the case. I say it with a sad sense of the disparity between us. I am not included within the pale of glorious anniversary! Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. The blessings in which you, this day, rejoice, are not enjoyed in common. The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fathers, is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought light and healing to you, has brought stripes and death to me. This Fourth July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn..."

https://nmaahc.si.edu/blog-post/nations ... ourth-july

References-

Smithsonian. "A Nation's Story: "What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?"." National Museum of African American History and Culture, 19 July 2018, nmaahc.si.edu/blog-post/nations-story-what-slave-fourth-july. Accessed 8 July 2019.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

So, I looked at the document you linked and it looked at p. 13 out of the 40 pages and this is what I saw. I also checked 12 out of 40 and 14 out of 40 and did not see anything from this source that supports your claim that cotton only constituted 5% of GDP in 1835. I also looked on the left side of the document viewer to see if any page was actually labeled page 13 and it wasn't. I even typed in "page 13" in the upper left hand corner and no page 13 popped up. As far as I can tell, the source you have posted does not show where cotton constituted 5% of GDP. Did I look at the wrong page or something? Could you post a screen shot showing the exact page highlighting the information to support your claim?

The 5% of GDP is in the Oakes document, i.e. the first quote in my previous post. I'll re-quote:

In addition to explaining where generations of scholarship on northern economic development have gone wrong, Baptist would have to tell us where he’s getting his numbers. He points out that in 1836 cotton production represented about five percent of the gross domestic product. This is a widely accepted statistic, having been calculated in several different ways by a number of different scholars.

Your source from James Oake of City University of New York City seems to be solid and according to your source from James Oake he states:

Well, nobody would claim that slave labour was completely inconsequential and that Britain or the US didn't benefit from it. After all, they produced lots of cotton and other raw materials. However, I submit that "at least some role" and "especially in Great Britain" is quite different to the importance that you ascribe to slavery not only in Britain but also in the United States. In your telling slaves "built much of the US", the US economy "would not be where it is today" and "slave labour was key". Nothing in the Oakes paper supports these claims. As he goes on to say after the bit you quoted, with respect to Britain it was one of many factors.

It is far less clear how much slavery contributed to industrialization and whether the contribution was indispensable. The Industrial Revolution had many causes, and it is no easy thing to parse out slavery’s specific contribution.

This very same source that you used to back up one of your claims in turn can be used to support my claim that indeed slavery DID make the US credit worthy

I can't find anything that would support your assertion. Since cotton production was only around 5% of GDP, exports must constitute even less, as not all cotton was exported, which is in line with the graph in my previous post. Moreover:

It was widely recognized that cotton was leading U.S. export in the antebellum period. But exports represented less than one-tenth of total income (Kravis 1972).

Oakes also makes clear that the vast majority of export proceeds weren't invested in industrial activities, so slavery hardly directly contributed to industrial capital formation in the US:

To begin with, most of the receipts from cotton sold in Britain ultimately made their way back into the South where planters used them not to build factories or mechanize production, but to do more of what they were already doing—they bought more slaves to plant more cotton to buy more slaves, and so on. But what about the receipts from the cotton trade that stayed in the North as the profits of merchants and bankers? It would appear that not very much of that money went into productive activity, either. Most of the returns from the cotton trade were instead used to speculate in western lands or to purchase railroad bonds. No doubt railroads were important to northern economic development, and in that sense the profits of slavery fueled economic growth. But as Albert Fishlow demonstrated decades ago, railroads did not cause development, they followed it.

It was the American south that also produced 2/3rds of the world's supply of cotton at that time. How can anybody argue that cotton and the slave labor used to produce cotton didn't play a big role in supplying factories up North in the US and in Britain?

I'm trying to give you some perspective by showing what slave labour contributed compared to the rest of the economy, primarily in the US because that was your original claim. To recap, cotton production was around 5% of GDP in 1835, cotton exports constituted less than 5% of GDP, all exports represented less the 10% of total income, textiles were around 20% of industrial production by 1850, and the profits from cotton exports didn't contribute much to industrial capital formation. Now, of course this contributed to economic development and industrialisation in the US to some extent, but as should hopefully be obvious from the numbers the remaining sectors did too and, together, much more so. Hence why I said in my last post:

Slave labour wasn't key any more than the farmers who massively improved their productivity without slaves, the former peasants and workers who worked in factories and on infrastructure, the engineers and scientists with their inventions and improvements, the merchants and capitalists and their investments, etc. That is to say, it was one factor among many that fuelled the industrial revolution.

You have so far failed to address this.

[Drlee]

Serious question to military people. What would happen to you , (if anything) if you were openly against celebrating the American flag?

You can be against just about anything you like. If you refused to perform your ceremonial duties pertaining to the flag you could be punished.

If, for example, a soldier refused to salute the flag when ordered to do so, the soldier could face pretty serious punishment.

The flag means something different to soldiers. It is the banner they bury us under. It is on the coffins of our fallen comrades. I get it when civilians don't feel that way and I am a big proponent of freedom of speech. My personal choice would be to not use the flag for political protest.

That said. I would be hard pressed to fault a black veteran who, after leaving the service, chose to protest by taking a knee. It is respectful (kneeling) and it is protesting a very real thing for this veteran.

What I wish these high-dollar athletes would do is get involved in politics by supporting the candidates who represent their opinions.

[Politics_Observer]

Serious question to military people. What would happen to you , (if anything) if you were openly against celebrating the American flag?

Yeah, that's a very serious offense in the Army and you would get into some serious trouble. Plus, you won't have any friends in the unit anymore that's for sure (and you will most likely have enemies in the unit). You will very likely be discharged from the services. I regard this as hugely dishonorable and disgraceful if you are discharged because you didn't salute the flag and it's a huge black mark on your reputation and potentially your permanent record as a veteran to be discharged under those circumstances.

Anytime you join the the military, you swear an oath to the United States government which is very serious (a lot of the young people who join up in my opinion don't understand the seriousness of that oath initially when they first join). It might seem like no big deal to civilians, but it is extraordinarily serious once you join the military (many people don't immediately feel the full weight or fully understand what swearing the oath means until later on when first joining and again to civilians on the outside looking in, it might not seem like a big deal or anything serious at first to them but it is).

You also subject yourself to military law and regulation which means saluting and respect for the flag is a requirement. Now, my understanding, unless you have retired from the military, once you are discharged from the services, then you are no longer subject to these laws and regulations but are now only subject to civilian laws.

Now, in my view, civilians who are not members of the military, if they wish to kneel in protest, I feel that is their 1st amendment right as civilians. But if you are in the military and are in civilian clothes off duty, then you better render proper respect to the American flag (put your right hand over your heart and I would take your hat off out of respect) and not kneel at all.

Even when off duty in civilian clothes you are still in the military and are governed by military law and regulation. So, while serving in the military you are held to different standards than civilians given that you are governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the regulations of your branch of military service in addition to civilian law where you reside.

Realistically, you give up some of your rights and individuality when you join the military and swear the oath and you will have to submit to more authority and the US government as well as the military services have more control over your life. Your conduct as a soldier in the military can have life long rewards or consequences on your permanent record once you are discharged depending on the nature of your discharge.

@Kaiserschmarrn

I'll respond to your next post when I have the opportunity. Right now I am hammered with school work.