Juneteenth made an official holiday in the US: What is your opinion on the matter? - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15234669
snapdragon wrote:The queen’s birthday is not a holiday in the U.K. Not her real birthday, or the official one.

She was given a separate official birthday so she could enjoy her real birthday with her family.


What do they do on a Queen's birthday holiday? She's on every single pound, canadian dollar and coin, creepy, such as, be creative...
#15234671
Mike12 wrote:OK but how particular is the Holiday. Abraham Lincoln is on Presidents Day ,the Emancipation Proclomation. Martin Luther King Jr. associated with Civil Rights. Inbetween when did the last person hear about the end of slavery. How Republican. An ultra-Republican holiday about Lincoln's full effect everywhere.


Puerto Rico and many nations in the Caribbean and in other nations where slavery lasted well into the 19th century, they had an official holiday. Puerto Rico's is March 22nd, 1873. The US did not have an emancipation day or end of slavery day because the Southern Confederate losing states would block celebrating it for a very very long time. It was a festering wound and they did not want to have it poked every year with Black people in Mississippi, Alabama, Lousiana, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia, West Virginia, Oklahoma, Texas celebrating the end of the slave states.





Notice there wasn't a civil war in PR to end slavery. It was ended by the Spanish Crown's decree. And Betances from Puerto Rico pressured the Spanish court to do so.

The USA had to go to a bloody civil war that lasted four years 1961-1865. And it had issues for years afterwards with the KKK raiding the South to kill at will. It terrorized the people who were living their 40 acres and a mule settlement from the federal government in DC.
#15234672
Tainari88 wrote:Puerto Rico and many nations in the Caribbean and in other nations where slavery lasted well into the 19th century, they had an official holiday. Puerto Rico's is March 22nd, 1873. The US did not have an emancipation day or end of slavery day because the Southern Confederate losing states would block celebrating it for a very very long time. It was a festering wound and they did not want to have it poked every year with Black people in Mississippi, Alabama, Lousiana, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia, West Virginia, Oklahoma, Texas celebrating the end of the slave states.





Notice there wasn't a civil war in PR to end slavery. It was ended by the Spanish Crown's decree. And Betances from Puerto Rico pressured the Spanish court to do so.

The USA had to go to a bloody civil war that lasted four years 1961-1865. And it had issues for years afterwards with the KKK raiding the South to kill at will. It terrorized the people who were living their 40 acres and a mule settlement from the federal government in DC.

Destinations and flags of carriers
Most of the Atlantic slave trade was carried out by seven nations and most of the slaves were carried to their own colonies in the new world. But there was also significant other trading which is shown in the table below.[110] The records are not complete, and some data is uncertain. The last rows show that there were also smaller numbers of slaves carried to Europe and to other parts of Africa, and at least 1.8 million did not survive the journey and were buried at sea with little ceremony.

Flag of vessels carrying the slaves
Destination Portuguese British French Spanish Dutch American Danish Total
Portuguese Brazil 4,821,127 3,804 9,402 1,033 27,702 1,174 130 4,864,372
British Caribbean 7,919 2,208,296 22,920 5,795 6,996 64,836 1,489 2,318,251
French Caribbean 2,562 90,984 1,003,905 725 12,736 6,242 3,062 1,120,216
Spanish Americas 195,482 103,009 92,944 808,851 24,197 54,901 13,527 1,292,911
Dutch Americas 500 32,446 5,189 0 392,022 9,574 4,998 444,729
North America 382 264,910 8,877 1,851 1,212 110,532 983 388,747
Danish West Indies 0 25,594 7,782 277 5,161 2,799 67,385 108,998
Europe 2,636 3,438 664 0 2,004 119 0 8,861
Africa 69,206 841 13,282 66,391 3,210 2,476 162 155,568
Did not arrive 748,452 526,121 216,439 176,601 79,096 52,673 19,304 1,818,686
Total 5,848,266 3,259,443 1,381,404 1,061,524 554,336 305,326 111,040 12,521,339

So 388,747 landed in all of North America, thats 300,000 in the United States. Brother man. By the way, thats faster growth rate than the general population in frontier disease conditions, disease is the top killer of everybody. An estimated 4.9 million enslaved people from Africa were imported to Brazil during the period from 1501 to 1866. Of the total, only 10.7 million slaves survived the journey.
Canadian scholar Adam Jones characterized the deaths of millions of Africans during the Atlantic slave trade as genocide.

Eltis argues that traditional beliefs existed in Europe against enslaving Christians (few Europeans not being Christian at the time) and those slaves that existed in Europe tended to be non-Christians and their immediate descendants (since a slave converting to Christianity did not guarantee emancipation) and thus by the fifteenth century Europeans as a whole came to be regarded as insiders. Eltis argues that while all slave societies have demarked insiders and outsiders, Europeans took this process further by extending the status of insider to the entire European continent, rendering it unthinkable to enslave a European since this would require enslaving an insider. Conversely, Africans were viewed as outsiders and thus qualified for enslavement. While Europeans may have treated some types of labour, such as convict labour, with conditions similar to that of slaves, these labourers would not be regarded as chattel and their progeny could not inherit their subordinate status, thus not making them slaves in the eyes of Europeans. The status of chattel slavery was thus confined to non-Europeans, such as Africans.[87]

Slavery was not legally ended nationwide until 1888, when Isabel, Princess Imperial of Brazil, promulgated the Lei Áurea ("Golden Act"). But it was already in decline by this time (since the 1880s the country began to attract European immigrant labor instead). Brazil was the last nation in the Western world to abolish slavery, and by then it had imported an estimated 4,000,000 (other estimates are 5, 6, or as high as 12.5 million) slaves from Africa. This was 40% of all slaves shipped to the Americas.[16]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Brazilians
14,517,961
7.61% of the Brazilian population

The prominent rapists dominators and appropriators being the Catholic forced-marriage operations with mass genocides. It appears to be a by-word among the 41 million african americans to discuss the 14 million afro-Brazilians who are outcasts and not valued as humans among African Americans who are firmly assured of their own story and superpowers within the American experience.
#15234691
When all the Confederate (Southern) slaves were free... The USA still had slavery in the Union (North) states.
Lincoln could not free the USA held slaves because slavery was legal. It took ratification of the 13th Amendment to free the last of the Union slaves. And this happened after the Civil War was over, and Lincoln was dead for his war crimes against the South.
Many historically ignorant people like to say the Civil War was fought over slavery. But they don't know that several Union states still had slavery during the Civil War. History books up North try to hide the truth about Northern slavery.
The North fought the war to free the southern slaves, but it was ok for the North to still have slaves?
Define hypocrisy.
#15234695
@Scamp As early as 1849, Abraham Lincoln believed that slaves should be emancipated, advocating a program in which they would be freed gradually.

In September of 1862, after the Union's victory at Antietam, Lincoln issued a preliminary decree stating that, unless the rebellious states returned to the Union by January 1, freedom would be granted to slaves within those states. The decree also left room for a plan of compensated emancipation. No Confederate states took the offer, and on January 1 Lincoln presented the Emancipation Proclamation. The proclamation declared, "all persons held as slaves within any States, or designated part of the State, the people whereof shall be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free."

The Emancipation Proclamation did not free all slaves in the United States. Rather, it declared free only those slaves living in states not under Union control. William Seward, Lincoln's secretary of state, commented, "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free." Lincoln was fully aware of the irony, but he did not want to antagonize the slave states loyal to the Union by setting their slaves free.


Yes, freedom wasn't immediate, everywhere. That's common knowledge. Slavery was a big part of why the war was fought.

So most of what you said is lies, mischaracterization or misinterpretations on your part.

Abraham Lincoln committing war crimes? Lies, made up by racists who liked slavery. You.
#15234698
Godstud wrote:@Scamp As early as 1849, Abraham Lincoln believed that slaves should be emancipated, advocating a program in which they would be freed gradually.

In September of 1862, after the Union's victory at Antietam, Lincoln issued a preliminary decree stating that, unless the rebellious states returned to the Union by January 1, freedom would be granted to slaves within those states. The decree also left room for a plan of compensated emancipation. No Confederate states took the offer, and on January 1 Lincoln presented the Emancipation Proclamation. The proclamation declared, "all persons held as slaves within any States, or designated part of the State, the people whereof shall be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free."

The Emancipation Proclamation did not free all slaves in the United States. Rather, it declared free only those slaves living in states not under Union control. William Seward, Lincoln's secretary of state, commented, "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free." Lincoln was fully aware of the irony, but he did not want to antagonize the slave states loyal to the Union by setting their slaves free.


Yes, freedom wasn't immediate, everywhere. That's common knowledge. Slavery was a big part of why the war was fought.

So most of what you said is lies, mischaracterization or misinterpretations on your part.

Abraham Lincoln committing war crimes? Lies, made up by racists who liked slavery. You.



"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.
...Abraham Lincoln
#15234699
Mike12 wrote:Which leads naturally to the French Empire's Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor, a gift from the French Anti-Slavery society, the broken chains at the Statue of Liberty's feet. They are a bunch of double-talking liars seems like. Now what's Cinco De Mayo, the French Empire invading and attacking Mexico in 1862, that's the same fight in two places. Dixie saw its states as equal in detail to all the ex-colonial ex-european Empire states of South America like Mexico, Brazil, Chile, and others in detail. It seemed like they tried to share a fight there.



You are what we call "Un come mierda". :lol:
#15234702
Scamp wrote:And not a single Southern State voted for Lincoln the Tyrant.
Sorry Fascist, but even if you didn't vote for it, more people than you did, and you have to go by that. It's called Democracy. I can see why you don't like that.

A democratically elected President, is not a "Tyrant".
#15234708
wat0n wrote:No, it was not. This was reaffirmed by the SCOTUS after the war.

This goes back to the Articles of Confederation, which made the union perpetual.

Also, why did the Southern states want to secede anyway?


Wrong. Secession of states was not prevented by the Constitution. And the 10th Amendment says anything not covered by the Constitution is left up to the states (or the people).
#15234711
Scamp wrote:@Godstud, tell us all when that third world sh!thole you say you are from, Thailand, officially ended slavery. Wasn't it way after the USA did? 8)
Pretty irrelevant, but I'll bite. Thailand has less racism today than your uneducated shit-hole(USA), and they didn't even have to have a Civil War and then a civil rights movement 100 years later, to do it.

Strangely enough, Thailand didn't have the same history as the USA.

Thailand, technically, ended slavery before the USA. No Jim Crow in Thailand. No KKK, either.
#15234713
Godstud wrote:Pretty irrelevant, but I'll bite. Thailand has less racism today than your uneducated shit-hole(USA), and they didn't even have to have a Civil War and then a civil rights movement 100 years later, to do it.

Thailand, technically, ended slavery before the USA.

You @Godstud are either totally ignorant or just an outright liar which is it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Thailand
"Slavery in Thailand was practiced from the Ayutthaya period until its abolition by King Chulalongkorn (Rama V) through a series of reforms taking place from 1874 to 1905. Today, modern slavery has emerged as an issue, especially involving migrant workers in Thailand's fishing industry."
#15234714
It's not the same as in USA, @Scamp. There didn't have to be a civil war. There isn't a large minority still facing racism and the effects of slavery, either.

There is no slavery today in Thailand, and your source doesn't say that, either, liar.

As for slavery in USA...

The answer is simple: yes, slavery does still exist in America today. In fact, the estimated number of people living in conditions of modern slavery in the United States right now is 403,000.
https://theexodusroad.com/does-slavery- ... ica-today/
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 12

She's back. :D https://twitter.com/MyLordBebo/s[…]

Mexicans are speculating that he might use them i[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

I see USA has some kind of problem with the size o[…]

Just English and scottish actually. Absolute ho[…]