SuccessfulOperation Reddit Banner
SuccessfulOperation Reddit Profile Image

u/SuccessfulOperation

Karma

1667974

Cake day

21 Dec 2016
1
Posted by u/PodClipsApp 4 days
Ok Sam. Do Israel vs Palestinians
265 Comments Share Save
-1
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 4 days
Collusion isn't a legal term. And you're wrong. https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-paul-manafort-russia-campaigns-konstantin-kilimnik-d2fdefdb37077e28eba135e21fce6ebf https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/u-s-has-new-intel-manafort-friend-kilimnik-gave-trump-n1264371 https://www.justsecurity.org/75766/us-treasury-provides-missing-link-manaforts-partner-gave-campaign-polling-data-to-kremlin-in-2016/ https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/15/us/politics/russian-intelligence-trump-campaign.html
6 Comments Share Save
-1
Posted by u/chefanubis 5 days
Rogan just mocking white supremacy, huh? Got it.
1.5k Comments Share Save
-1
Posted by u/chefanubis 5 days
Who is going to tell Saagar that: "You know all the evidence around the Lab Leak?...Good. I agree with you. theres ***EVEN MORE*** evidence that Trump colluded with Russia, and you're ignoring that"
1.5k Comments Share Save
-4
Posted by u/chefanubis 5 days
90% attacking democrats. Laughable
1.5k Comments Share Save
2
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 5 days
Submission statement: James Lindsay and Peter Boghossian have both been guests on JRE multiple times. Marc Lamont Hill is actually a topical expert (PhD) in this field and it shows. Whats ironic is that Lindsay's "expertise" in his current railing against CRT and all things socially progressive is him admitting he "studies 16 hours a day but he has a PhD in math"...so yeah. [https://twitter.com/deonteleologist/status/1382813777943400452](https://twitter.com/deonteleologist/status/1382813777943400452) Anyways Marc Lamont Hill interviews them...and it doesn't go well for Lindsay. At all.
22 Comments Share Save
0
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 6 days
My mother just got a new GLC and I'm legitimately wondering if she knows how to use THAT infotainment. And I've showed her multiple times and her response lets me know she's probably never going to be fully comfortable with it. If she got an S-Class I'm sure she'd need a chauffeur. This is getting out of hand. Changing the radio station requires a damn training course. Of course I can figure it out. But tuning a radio station doesn't need to carry the risk of a collision. This never used to carry such a risk.
11 Comments Share Save
1
Posted by u/hover22 6 days
the false equivalency happy hour
236 Comments Share Save
1
Posted by u/incendiaryblizzard 6 days
>Moritūrī tē salūtant. Cute. Not an answer though.
188 Comments Share Save
1
Posted by u/incendiaryblizzard 6 days
The CRT debate obscures a real attempt at being honest about american history. Historians are ridiculously addicted to consensus and scared to buck trends. So much of this critique didnt even address anything pre-1776, but rather emotional appeals to national identity and fears it makes america look bad. Listen to it. Its 90 minutes of whining, not history. People are mad that the 1619 project highlights the influence of slavery during the American revolution. Slavery was illegal from 1735-1751 in Georgia specifically to strategically stop the Spanish from encouraging slaves to revolt against British colonialists: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Experiment) It took ~200 years for proof of Sally Hemmings and Jefferson's relationship to be confirmed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annette_Gordon-Reed#Thomas_Jefferson_and_Sally_Hemings:_An_American_Controversy_(1997) The continental congress started as a way to get colonies to start networking more as fear of slave revolts and slave testimonies being used in court like in the Gaspee Affair [https://twitter.com/HiddenHistoryRI/status/1267493901872640000 [https://twitter.com/HiddenHistoryRI/status/1267508642368151552] [https://upriseri.com/2020-06-09-gaspee/ >The colonial ruling class was further angered by the growing belief that **Great Britain was uniting with free and enslaved Indigenous and Black people,** as well as Catholics and other groups consider outsiders, to limit White Protestant colonists’ autonomy. White Protestant colonists felt themselves unique within the British empire, imagining themselves as British subjects with the same rights and privileges as any White man within England itself. Following the 7 Years’ War, however, Britain shifted its policies, and began granting other subjects certain rights. The Proclamation Line of 1763 limited White expansion past a certain line, in a concession to Indigenous peoples whom Britain did not feel equipped to continue war with. **The Crown also began debating giving Catholics in newly-conquered Canada some rights, which culminated in a full list of rights outlined in the Quebec Act of 1774. The Continental Congress denounced the Act as “dangerous in an extreme degree to Protestant religion and to the civil rights and liberties of all America.”** > >Most shocking to colonists, however, was the shifting imperial policy on slavery. Great Britain in reality had no interest in abolition, and in fact earned enormous sums off the slave trade and the slave plantations across its empire. **But because of constant slave uprisings in the Caribbean and elsewhere, growing domestic protests, and self-interested imperial calculations, British administrators had been inching toward granting certain rights to enslaved people for some years.** > >The trends coalesced into a set of court cases leading to the **landmark Somerset judgement—centered on the enslaved James Somerset’s successful petition for freedom—which effectively ended slavery within England itself.** **The case began in 1771 and was decided in June, 1772, the very same month Rhode Islanders burned the Gaspee**\*.\* The decision terrified the colonies, as settlers feared the Crown would soon outlaw slavery across the colonies. Settlers imagined London would use enslaved people against them, arming Black and Indigenous people just as they had done to fight the Spanish in Havana. Of course, as **the Somerset decision occurred concomitantly with the Gaspee attacks, its unlikely it directly influenced them, but the imperial trends leading to Somerset had certainly influence colonists prior to June, 1772.** > >Britain would not ban slavery in its empire for many decades. Yet even **minuscule shifts away from full settler autonomy on questions of slavery terrified the colonial ruling class.** Numerous works, such as Robert G Parkinson’s Common Cause, Gerald Horne’s The Counter-Revolution of 1776, and the Blumrosens’ Slave Nation, have **outlined just how much fear colonists had that Britain was stoking Black and Indigenous uprisings to destroy them. The feeling was strong enough to make its way directly into the Declaration of Independence, which lists amongst its complaints that “\[King George\] has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions.”** Dunmore freaked the colonist slave owners out: [https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2013/11/battle-of-hampton-and-lord-dunmores-proclamation-how-fear-of-a-slave-revolt-drew-the-south-into-the-revolutionary-war.html](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2013/11/battle-of-hampton-and-lord-dunmores-proclamation-how-fear-of-a-slave-revolt-drew-the-south-into-the-revolutionary-war.html) Look at colonial reactions to the Somerset case in 1772. They. Freaked. Out.: (https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED245272) >To examine colonial American press coverage of the British court decision to free American slave James Somerset, a study was conducted to clarify why the decision worked as a victory for British abolitionists but was usually citied even in a post-revolution America in the passage of increasingly oppressive slave legislation ... **Since the patriotic press saw its duty as inflaming rather than informing the public, the findings suggest that coverage of the Somerset trial manipulated colonial fear of racial equality as a way of providing yet another reason colonist should seek reparation from Great Britain.** [https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/opinion/did-a-fear-of-slave-revolts-drive-american-independence.html] >In fact, **Jefferson had originally included an** [**extended attack**](https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/declara/ruffdrft.html) **on the king for forcing slavery upon unwitting colonists**. Had it stood, it would have been the patriots’ most powerful critique of slavery. **The Continental Congress cut out all references to slavery as “piratical warfare” and an “assemblage of horrors,” and left only the sentiment that King George was “now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us.”** The Declaration could have been what we yearn for it to be, a statement of universal rights, but it wasn’t. What became the official version was one marked by division. [https://www.newenglandhistoricalsociety.com/james-somerset-the-boston-runaway-who-ended-slavery-in-england/] >In 1771, James Somerset languished in an English prison ship that would soon set sail for Jamaica. From there, he would be sold to a sugar plantation owner who would probably work him to death well before he reached old age. > >But he had friends in England, and they went to court asking for a writ of *habeas corpus*. And so the prison ship captain dutifully took James Somerset to the Court of King’s Bench, where a judge would decide whether he had been legally imprisoned. > >He hadn’t. And **the judge’s decision in** ***Stewart v. Somerset*** **would end slavery in England, at least in the public’s mind. It sent American Southerners into the patriot camp, fearing that England would take away their slaves. And it inspired enslaved men and women to sue for their freedom in the northern colonies.** > >... > >**Stewart’s lawyers argued that property rights took precedence over human rights. Plus, they pointed to the danger of freeing all 15,000 enslaved black people in England.** > >In 1772, Lord Mansfield, the chief justice, ruled on the case. **He decided that slavery had no basis in natural law or in English law. He found slavery so odious, he wrote, that it required Parliament to pass a law to legitimize it.** > >*The state of* ***slavery is of such a nature that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political, but only by positive law \[statute\]… Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from the decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore the black must be discharged*** > >... > >Slavery did persist in England, however, for another six decades after the ruling. James Somerset, though, had set in motion a series of actions that would ultimately end slavery in England. And his legal victory persuaded the English public at large that no man was a slave on English soil. > >In the American colonies, of course, it would take a Civil War to end slavery. > >During the run-up to the American Revolution, the colonial newspapers reported extensively on *Stewart v. Somerset*. **The case created a sensation, especially in the South. Plantation owners realized that Parliament could not only tax them without representing them, it could free their slaves.** > >**The Massachusetts General Court in 1771 had actually drafted a bill to emancipate the slaves, but the patriot leaders killed it.** **James Warren** **explained it “would have a bad effect on the union of the colonies.”** > >Historian Alan Taylor argues that James Somerset’s victory persuaded many African Americans to take the Loyalist side in the looming revolution. > >**“Many enslaved men and women began to look to the king as a potential liberator,” Taylor wrote. African-American preachers preached the king ‘was about to alter the World and set the Negroes Free.’ The selfish colonials had blocked his wishes.** > >Some colonies did take the battle for liberty to include more than just white men. Vermont abolished slavery in 1777, and Pennsylvania followed in 1780, Massachusetts in 1783 and Connecticut in 1784. > >In Massachusetts, two enslaved servants followed James Somerset’s example and filed freedom suits. Elizabeth Freeman and Quock Walker both won their cases, effectively ending slavery in Massachusetts.
188 Comments Share Save
1
Posted by u/incendiaryblizzard 6 days
> > > > > No one is going to convince me that CRT is not an attempt at literal Maoist cultural revolution within America. No one Do you support criminal justice reform? if so, how did you reach that conclusion?
188 Comments Share Save
3
Posted by u/incendiaryblizzard 6 days
its pretty impressive. They can issue sweeping narratives connecting aspects of history and culture and behavior but get clueless and confused when the actual present system of hierarchy is questioned and challenged.
188 Comments Share Save
1
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 6 days
> If someone knows that the mere fact of using "master-slave" a completely inocous classification that has nothing to do with racism or slavery, may result in a hate campaign on Twitter and potencially losing their job, that person was essencially "forced" to stop using the word. Not because it's racist, but because there is a mob that intimidades a company to fire someone for a non-crime. A company abandoning that language to appeal to a changing consumer base isn't proof of forced indoctrination.
62 Comments Share Save
1
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 6 days
> It's quite relevant because Tucker Carlson was smeered by the WP for asking Hillary Clinton "why is diversity good?". The full quote asked "where is the diversity of thought?" which was exactly his point. Tucker ["Immigrants make america dirty"](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/dec/18/tucker-carlson-immigrants-poorer-dirtier-advertisers-pull-out) Carlson is a bad faith actor though. he's not pushing for diversity of thought because he doesn't frame it that way. Its purely against people.
62 Comments Share Save
2
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 6 days
> James Lindsay is a truth-teller. CRT is a mountain of linguistic and conceptual deception, which leads to one place: neocommunist atrocities. Lets say your intention is to prevent bloodshed (or something.) Whats that got to do with understanding history and its decisions? OK. If individuals are responsible for EVERYTHING. What about laws?
22 Comments Share Save
1
Posted by u/incendiaryblizzard 6 days
https://www.theroot.com/we-found-the-textbooks-of-senators-who-oppose-the-1619-1846832317
188 Comments Share Save
2
Posted by u/RememberRossetti 6 days
https://www.theroot.com/we-found-the-textbooks-of-senators-who-oppose-the-1619-1846832317
82 Comments Share Save
1
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 6 days
Lindsay tried to say master/slave framing for housing marketing has a recent history and not one rooted in …actual slavery.
62 Comments Share Save
2
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 6 days
Why won’t Lindsay et al discuss critical LEGAL theory? That’s the entire foundation for all of this.
62 Comments Share Save
-1
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 6 days
Submission statement: I still can’t believe these clips from James’ testimony on NH HB 544 haven’t gone viral. James Lindsay was a guest on a discussion about CRT but immediate negates his own presumed expertise in the field as basically reading stuff online. However in his debate/discussion with marc lamont hill he gets revealed as incorrectly conflating various ideas and having flaws in the underlying frameworks being asserted in various critical fields: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJObwe259CQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJObwe259CQ) | https://www.reddit.com/r/IntellectualDarkWeb/comments/o050aj/marc\_lamont\_hill\_sits\_down\_with\_dr\_james\_lindsay/
22 Comments Share Save
0
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 6 days
>he just trying to make the point where just trying to participate in normal dialogue can go into the realm of lunacy. Says who? We can have dialogue. Not to mention Lindsay is literally lying about the invocation of master/slave language in commerce.
62 Comments Share Save
-3
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 1 week
Submission statement: This post examines Chris Rufo's rise as a right wing pundit against the spectre of "critical race theory" and the slight of hand used by Rufo and his associates like James Lindsay in reframing generic right wing reactionary politics against anything they deem as insurgent beyond what literal critical race theory is. Among these complaints is the grouping of obviously unrelated topics or historical arguments or debates that are grouped by Rufo in front of an unsuspecting audience into something to be feared much less encountered.
1 Comments Share Save
0
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 1 week
This dude's best argument was arguably a dumb one. Most people kinda do have a problem with calling bedrooms "masters and slaves" then he wants to just magically think those terms originated in marketing language in the 1920s...but not...say...pre-1863?
62 Comments Share Save
1
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 1 week
>You are not being "inclusive" when you force other people to cater to your rules, just because you use the argument that you are "offended". Lindsay wasn't being inclusive, he was an aggressor. Who is being forced to do anything?
62 Comments Share Save
0
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 1 week
Who is Lindsay to determine what offends anyone if all conservatives have ever done is oppose inclusion at every step?
62 Comments Share Save
1
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 1 week
This wasn't the argument Lindsay made. He referred to consumer items of "master slave" in computers AND in bed room furniture. He didn't discuss anything related to initimidation. He left it purely as an economic move made by consumers. If he wanted to argue over social topics that could leverage intimidation, he should have done that. Thats another miscalculation by Lindsay. He did that to himself.
62 Comments Share Save
0
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 1 week
No. You're missing the point. Lindsay was so shaken by the fact that MLH can just accept Lindsay's request that he continued his mini-rant about the history of "folk" as if it would change anything. MLH isn't a reactionary. Lindsay is. So MLH is more than willing to accommodate anything Lindsay is saying because MLH doesn't have a problem with inclusion. THAT is the point. It backfired on Lindsay when he was trolling.
62 Comments Share Save
4
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 1 week
I mean seriously. It this the master rhetorician James Lindsay? Being mad about "master and slave" computer drives? REALLY? He completely contradicted himself on the "master and slave" thing. Marc got it right. A market decision isn't a "loss of freedom" Whats hilarious is when MLH admitted that when Lindsay was upset about the word "folk" that he wouldn't use it anymore, Lindsay just kept going forward with his point oblivious to the fact that other people can actually comfortably tolerate other people's requests for inclusion. Then at the end, when Lindsay goes on that little mini-wikipedia short rant...Marc Lamont Hill just fires back breaking down everything he said using the same and equal academic referencing and counter balancing. Just masterful. Lindsay thought he could filibuster to the end of the clip and MLH was ready for it. **Lindsay was LITERALLY shocked MLH knew what he was talking about @ 15m:49s. This is damning if Lindsay thinks people are fooled by his carnival act.**
62 Comments Share Save
6
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 1 week
Submission statement: >Marc Lamont Hill sits down with Dr. James Lindsay, founder of New Discourses and Dr. Peter Boghossian, co-author of “How to Have impossible Conversations;” authors of “Responding to Social Justice Rhetoric,” about a cheat they created to respond to particular social justice issues and statements. They believe that social justice rhetoric curbs free speech. “The application of that rhetoric is very chilling,” Lindsay says. “It leads people to believe that they’re going to be accused of participating and supporting, or being complicit in racism, sexism, misogyny, etc... for voicing views that differ from the views of \[other people\].” This was phenomenal. Marc Lamont Hill held court with Lindsay and Boghossian over their critics and conflation of various things they've labeled as critical race theory as separate from other things they've thrown into the pot. Marc actually responds to Lindsay's attempt at trolling in good faith and exposes the shortsighted attacks Lindsay seems to frame his arguments in. Marc also points out that Lindsay is employing caricatures of what social justice activists and progressives are addressing and how irresponsible it is to be imprecise in what the critiques being set out actually are. This needs to happen more often since this is one of the first times I've seen ANY of these IDW guys actually debate someone who is a fellow academic AND has a contrasting opinion
62 Comments Share Save
-8
Posted by u/Say_wutagain 1 week
if you're a white reactionary, sure.
167 Comments Share Save
-3
Posted by u/hankjmoody 1 week
Tonights New Rule: "black people are getting ahead, why can't they stop complaining!"
396 Comments Share Save
8
Posted by u/hankjmoody 1 week
Honestly, Rachel is right. Bill just wants the democrats to literally pivot to the Right. Thats what he is avoiding saying. Everything he says frames and centers what republicans think and say, not what he wants from democrats.
396 Comments Share Save
1
Posted by u/piano_person3777 1 week
I think its not having kids...but probably not
19 Comments Share Save
1
Posted by u/Indred_coldman 1 week
Teanna Trump: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y-weAe1Xz0
81 Comments Share Save
26
Posted by u/hankjmoody 1 week
The aggression against masks is insane. Dude, I'm probably going to be wearing a mask for years in some places. Some of yall are straight up NASTY.
396 Comments Share Save
1
Posted by u/pizzazza 1 week
Wrong
1.1k Comments Share Save
1
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 1 week
Submission statement : I honestly can't keep up. Now [James Lindsay is saying](https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1401676506380840963) the American revolution's"anti-capitalist" motives have been ignored? Well what's his problem with the 1619 project then if not the literal foundation and influence of slavery in early American capitalism? If you want to say we're ignoring the influence of factors other than a pseudo-religious spirit of self actualization and speeches that gave rise to the american revolution and not economic narrow-mindedness and arrogance from ruling elite colonialists, then you would celebrate attempts to expand the scope of how the american revolution is interpreted and understood. Hell, the entire post-civil war gave rise to the Lost Cause myth and an entire flawed school of history bent on obscuring the real causes of the civil war and its impacts in the [Dunning School](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning_School). Ironically guys like [Charles Beard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_A._Beard) tried to get people to focus on the fact a lot of the history about the american revolution was wrong but it got swept up in the anti-communist movements of the era and have only recently been reconsidered for its accurate portrayal of the revolution.
3 Comments Share Save
2
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 1 week
Wrong. The 1619 project is accurate. Slavery was immensely impactful to decisions colonial leaders made.
74 Comments Share Save
1
Posted by u/pizzazza 1 week
Drake LACED them
1.1k Comments Share Save
9
Posted by u/xwing1212 1 week
Dave. You sleep with men. Conservatives will never TRULY accept you.
53 Comments Share Save
10
Posted by u/SpicyDragoon93 1 week
Its arguably worse than that. The guy got a PhD and basically hasn't written a paper since then, and isn't even a frequent academic in that realm. He was running around doing the yuppie yoga thing before he had to buckle down and get a career of some sort...
87 Comments Share Save
11
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 1 week
This has nothing to do with the 1619 project. Which is accurate. Slavery was a major reason for the American revolution.
74 Comments Share Save
1
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 1 week
wrong Historians are ridiculously addicted to consensus and scared to buck trends. People are mad that the 1619 project highlights the influence of slavery during the American revolution. Slavery was illegal from 1735-1751 in Georgia specifically to strategically stop the Spanish from encouraging slaves to revolt against British colonialists: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Experiment) It took ~200 years for proof of Sally Hemmings and Jefferson's relationship to be confirmed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annette_Gordon-Reed#Thomas_Jefferson_and_Sally_Hemings:_An_American_Controversy_(1997) The continental congress started as a way to get colonies to start networking more as fear of slave revolts and slave testimonies being used in court like in the Gaspee Affair [https://twitter.com/HiddenHistoryRI/status/1267493901872640000 [https://twitter.com/HiddenHistoryRI/status/1267508642368151552] [https://upriseri.com/2020-06-09-gaspee/ >The colonial ruling class was further angered by the growing belief that **Great Britain was uniting with free and enslaved Indigenous and Black people,** as well as Catholics and other groups consider outsiders, to limit White Protestant colonists’ autonomy. White Protestant colonists felt themselves unique within the British empire, imagining themselves as British subjects with the same rights and privileges as any White man within England itself. Following the 7 Years’ War, however, Britain shifted its policies, and began granting other subjects certain rights. The Proclamation Line of 1763 limited White expansion past a certain line, in a concession to Indigenous peoples whom Britain did not feel equipped to continue war with. **The Crown also began debating giving Catholics in newly-conquered Canada some rights, which culminated in a full list of rights outlined in the Quebec Act of 1774. The Continental Congress denounced the Act as “dangerous in an extreme degree to Protestant religion and to the civil rights and liberties of all America.”** > >Most shocking to colonists, however, was the shifting imperial policy on slavery. Great Britain in reality had no interest in abolition, and in fact earned enormous sums off the slave trade and the slave plantations across its empire. **But because of constant slave uprisings in the Caribbean and elsewhere, growing domestic protests, and self-interested imperial calculations, British administrators had been inching toward granting certain rights to enslaved people for some years.** > >The trends coalesced into a set of court cases leading to the **landmark Somerset judgement—centered on the enslaved James Somerset’s successful petition for freedom—which effectively ended slavery within England itself.** **The case began in 1771 and was decided in June, 1772, the very same month Rhode Islanders burned the Gaspee**\*.\* The decision terrified the colonies, as settlers feared the Crown would soon outlaw slavery across the colonies. Settlers imagined London would use enslaved people against them, arming Black and Indigenous people just as they had done to fight the Spanish in Havana. Of course, as **the Somerset decision occurred concomitantly with the Gaspee attacks, its unlikely it directly influenced them, but the imperial trends leading to Somerset had certainly influence colonists prior to June, 1772.** > >Britain would not ban slavery in its empire for many decades. Yet even **minuscule shifts away from full settler autonomy on questions of slavery terrified the colonial ruling class.** Numerous works, such as Robert G Parkinson’s Common Cause, Gerald Horne’s The Counter-Revolution of 1776, and the Blumrosens’ Slave Nation, have **outlined just how much fear colonists had that Britain was stoking Black and Indigenous uprisings to destroy them. The feeling was strong enough to make its way directly into the Declaration of Independence, which lists amongst its complaints that “\[King George\] has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions.”** Dunmore freaked the colonist slave owners out: [https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2013/11/battle-of-hampton-and-lord-dunmores-proclamation-how-fear-of-a-slave-revolt-drew-the-south-into-the-revolutionary-war.html](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2013/11/battle-of-hampton-and-lord-dunmores-proclamation-how-fear-of-a-slave-revolt-drew-the-south-into-the-revolutionary-war.html) Look at colonial reactions to the Somerset case in 1772. They. Freaked. Out.: (https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED245272) >To examine colonial American press coverage of the British court decision to free American slave James Somerset, a study was conducted to clarify why the decision worked as a victory for British abolitionists but was usually citied even in a post-revolution America in the passage of increasingly oppressive slave legislation ... **Since the patriotic press saw its duty as inflaming rather than informing the public, the findings suggest that coverage of the Somerset trial manipulated colonial fear of racial equality as a way of providing yet another reason colonist should seek reparation from Great Britain.** [https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/opinion/did-a-fear-of-slave-revolts-drive-american-independence.html] >In fact, **Jefferson had originally included an** [**extended attack**](https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/declara/ruffdrft.html) **on the king for forcing slavery upon unwitting colonists**. Had it stood, it would have been the patriots’ most powerful critique of slavery. **The Continental Congress cut out all references to slavery as “piratical warfare” and an “assemblage of horrors,” and left only the sentiment that King George was “now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us.”** The Declaration could have been what we yearn for it to be, a statement of universal rights, but it wasn’t. What became the official version was one marked by division. [https://www.newenglandhistoricalsociety.com/james-somerset-the-boston-runaway-who-ended-slavery-in-england/] >In 1771, James Somerset languished in an English prison ship that would soon set sail for Jamaica. From there, he would be sold to a sugar plantation owner who would probably work him to death well before he reached old age. > >But he had friends in England, and they went to court asking for a writ of *habeas corpus*. And so the prison ship captain dutifully took James Somerset to the Court of King’s Bench, where a judge would decide whether he had been legally imprisoned. > >He hadn’t. And **the judge’s decision in** ***Stewart v. Somerset*** **would end slavery in England, at least in the public’s mind. It sent American Southerners into the patriot camp, fearing that England would take away their slaves. And it inspired enslaved men and women to sue for their freedom in the northern colonies.** > >... > >**Stewart’s lawyers argued that property rights took precedence over human rights. Plus, they pointed to the danger of freeing all 15,000 enslaved black people in England.** > >In 1772, Lord Mansfield, the chief justice, ruled on the case. **He decided that slavery had no basis in natural law or in English law. He found slavery so odious, he wrote, that it required Parliament to pass a law to legitimize it.** > >*The state of* ***slavery is of such a nature that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political, but only by positive law \[statute\]… Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from the decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore the black must be discharged*** > >... > >Slavery did persist in England, however, for another six decades after the ruling. James Somerset, though, had set in motion a series of actions that would ultimately end slavery in England. And his legal victory persuaded the English public at large that no man was a slave on English soil. > >In the American colonies, of course, it would take a Civil War to end slavery. > >During the run-up to the American Revolution, the colonial newspapers reported extensively on *Stewart v. Somerset*. **The case created a sensation, especially in the South. Plantation owners realized that Parliament could not only tax them without representing them, it could free their slaves.** > >**The Massachusetts General Court in 1771 had actually drafted a bill to emancipate the slaves, but the patriot leaders killed it.** **James Warren** **explained it “would have a bad effect on the union of the colonies.”** > >Historian Alan Taylor argues that James Somerset’s victory persuaded many African Americans to take the Loyalist side in the looming revolution. > >**“Many enslaved men and women began to look to the king as a potential liberator,” Taylor wrote. African-American preachers preached the king ‘was about to alter the World and set the Negroes Free.’ The selfish colonials had blocked his wishes.** > >Some colonies did take the battle for liberty to include more than just white men. Vermont abolished slavery in 1777, and Pennsylvania followed in 1780, Massachusetts in 1783 and Connecticut in 1784. > >In Massachusetts, two enslaved servants followed James Somerset’s example and filed freedom suits. Elizabeth Freeman and Quock Walker both won their cases, effectively ending slavery in Massachusetts.
74 Comments Share Save
1
Posted by u/Schupud 1 week
This is DIFFERENT
8 Comments Share Save
1
Posted by u/DaveRubinBot 2 weeks
"political divide...with a literal theocrat"
10 Comments Share Save
1
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 2 weeks
> Israel-bashing ehhhhhh
27 Comments Share Save
3
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 2 weeks
When Katt said: **"Some of yall weren't funny when you could say anything you wanted"** I felt that. A lot of comedians need to hear that LOUD AND CLEAR
146 Comments Share Save
11
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 2 weeks
When Katt said: ***"Some of yall weren't funny when you could say anything you wanted"*** I felt that. A lot of comedians need to hear that LOUD AND CLEAR
146 Comments Share Save
36
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 2 weeks
Hit Boy himself says kendrick wrote it: https://hiphop-n-more.com/2021/06/hit-boy-back-in-traffic-new-song/
22 Comments Share Save
9
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 2 weeks
https://www.reddit.com/r/Portland/comments/iussji/joe\_rogan\_spreading\_the\_antifa\_arsonist\_bullshit/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Portland/comments/ivbcn8/joe\_rogan\_apologizes\_about\_spreading\_false\_info/
146 Comments Share Save
5
Posted by u/Confirmative 2 weeks
he literally doesn't say anything
19 Comments Share Save
23
Posted by u/hankjmoody 2 weeks
Kasich: "I'm saying things without saying things!"
128 Comments Share Save
-2
Posted by u/TheOddScreen 2 weeks
This is the best collab album since Watch The Throne. PURE RAP MUSIC. STRAIGHT SPITTING.
590 Comments Share Save
-6
Posted by u/TheOddScreen 2 weeks
Lil Baby is on a T.I. level run right now
590 Comments Share Save
1
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 3 weeks
WSWS commentary is personally even less credible. WSWS isn't left wing socially, its a socially conservative site thats only pushing for a bigger welfare state. WSWS even attacked BLM and tried to jacket it in corporate PR conspiracy points. WSWS's commentary on the 1619 project isn't honest IMO because it keeps trying to insert "what about class" and making slavery just "something capitalism did" instead of the moral failure it was.
23 Comments Share Save
12
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 3 weeks
Charles Murray is an ideologically driven eugenicist hack. He's not a topical expert: https://old.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/6gidnl/why\_arent\_we\_discussing\_charles\_murrays\_backing/
14 Comments Share Save
2
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 3 weeks
Please tell me you've heard of Prof. Gerald Horne's work on this. [https://nyupress.org/9781479893409/the-counter-revolution-of-1776/](https://nyupress.org/9781479893409/the-counter-revolution-of-1776/) He's been leading the charge to expose the fact that 1776 was more about slavery than people realize.
23 Comments Share Save
1
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 3 weeks
I just watched this: https://katu.com/amnw/am-northwest-books-authors/somersett-or-why-and-how-benjamin-franklin-orchestrated-the-american-revolution Is this your book? Very interesting. See, I just learned about Charles Beard and his interpretation that annoyed the conservative view of history that the revolution was largely economic and not so much idealistic and that slavery was a bigger role than people realized. Especially with the Gaspee Affair and the increasing role of slaves being used to testify against colonists on behalf of Britain.
23 Comments Share Save
1
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 3 weeks
"because it had to struggle its way out of racism that existed when it was founded" - James Lindsay
15 Comments Share Save
1
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 3 weeks
Yes.
3 Comments Share Save
24
Posted by u/hankjmoody 3 weeks
Mister "eat your greens and lose weight" caught COVID But he didn't die so his "hypothesis" still has legs, in his eyes. smh.
244 Comments Share Save
9
Posted by u/hankjmoody 3 weeks
No. Bill literally said "what's a war crime?" WHAT?
244 Comments Share Save
30
Posted by u/hankjmoody 3 weeks
"what's a war crime? war is a crime" WHAT?!
244 Comments Share Save
17
Posted by u/hankjmoody 3 weeks
The Hadid twins are literally Palestinian.
244 Comments Share Save
22
Posted by u/hankjmoody 3 weeks
Bill didn't even know the history of the Israeli conflict I wonder if this is more about his his disdain for islam or just Israel
244 Comments Share Save
20
Posted by u/hankjmoody 3 weeks
"Media doesn't like to talk about people not being hospitalized!" Bill. Thats what vaccines are for.
244 Comments Share Save
2
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 3 weeks
There was no mistake. 1619 project is laying it out plainly. Of course the British weren’t gung ho enforcing anti slave patrols. Yet. Not fully. But colonists were extremely spooked
12 Comments Share Save
1
Posted by u/Qxc4 3 weeks
1619 project is accurate
254 Comments Share Save
2
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 3 weeks
Historians are ridiculously addicted to consensus and scared to buck trends. So much of this critique didnt even address anything pre-1776, but rather emotional appeals to national identity and fears it makes america look bad. Listen to it. Its 90 minutes of whining, not history. People are mad that the 1619 project highlights the influence of slavery during the American revolution. Slavery was illegal from 1735-1751 in Georgia specifically to strategically stop the Spanish from encouraging slaves to revolt against British colonialists: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Experiment) It took ~200 years for proof of Sally Hemmings and Jefferson's relationship to be confirmed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annette_Gordon-Reed#Thomas_Jefferson_and_Sally_Hemings:_An_American_Controversy_(1997) The continental congress started as a way to get colonies to start networking more as fear of slave revolts and slave testimonies being used in court like in the Gaspee Affair [https://twitter.com/HiddenHistoryRI/status/1267493901872640000 [https://twitter.com/HiddenHistoryRI/status/1267508642368151552] [https://upriseri.com/2020-06-09-gaspee/ >The colonial ruling class was further angered by the growing belief that **Great Britain was uniting with free and enslaved Indigenous and Black people,** as well as Catholics and other groups consider outsiders, to limit White Protestant colonists’ autonomy. White Protestant colonists felt themselves unique within the British empire, imagining themselves as British subjects with the same rights and privileges as any White man within England itself. Following the 7 Years’ War, however, Britain shifted its policies, and began granting other subjects certain rights. The Proclamation Line of 1763 limited White expansion past a certain line, in a concession to Indigenous peoples whom Britain did not feel equipped to continue war with. **The Crown also began debating giving Catholics in newly-conquered Canada some rights, which culminated in a full list of rights outlined in the Quebec Act of 1774. The Continental Congress denounced the Act as “dangerous in an extreme degree to Protestant religion and to the civil rights and liberties of all America.”** > >Most shocking to colonists, however, was the shifting imperial policy on slavery. Great Britain in reality had no interest in abolition, and in fact earned enormous sums off the slave trade and the slave plantations across its empire. **But because of constant slave uprisings in the Caribbean and elsewhere, growing domestic protests, and self-interested imperial calculations, British administrators had been inching toward granting certain rights to enslaved people for some years.** > >The trends coalesced into a set of court cases leading to the **landmark Somerset judgement—centered on the enslaved James Somerset’s successful petition for freedom—which effectively ended slavery within England itself.** **The case began in 1771 and was decided in June, 1772, the very same month Rhode Islanders burned the Gaspee**\*.\* The decision terrified the colonies, as settlers feared the Crown would soon outlaw slavery across the colonies. Settlers imagined London would use enslaved people against them, arming Black and Indigenous people just as they had done to fight the Spanish in Havana. Of course, as **the Somerset decision occurred concomitantly with the Gaspee attacks, its unlikely it directly influenced them, but the imperial trends leading to Somerset had certainly influence colonists prior to June, 1772.** > >Britain would not ban slavery in its empire for many decades. Yet even **minuscule shifts away from full settler autonomy on questions of slavery terrified the colonial ruling class.** Numerous works, such as Robert G Parkinson’s Common Cause, Gerald Horne’s The Counter-Revolution of 1776, and the Blumrosens’ Slave Nation, have **outlined just how much fear colonists had that Britain was stoking Black and Indigenous uprisings to destroy them. The feeling was strong enough to make its way directly into the Declaration of Independence, which lists amongst its complaints that “\[King George\] has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions.”** Dunmore freaked the colonist slave owners out: [https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2013/11/battle-of-hampton-and-lord-dunmores-proclamation-how-fear-of-a-slave-revolt-drew-the-south-into-the-revolutionary-war.html](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2013/11/battle-of-hampton-and-lord-dunmores-proclamation-how-fear-of-a-slave-revolt-drew-the-south-into-the-revolutionary-war.html) Look at colonial reactions to the Somerset case in 1772. They. Freaked. Out.: (https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED245272) >To examine colonial American press coverage of the British court decision to free American slave James Somerset, a study was conducted to clarify why the decision worked as a victory for British abolitionists but was usually citied even in a post-revolution America in the passage of increasingly oppressive slave legislation ... **Since the patriotic press saw its duty as inflaming rather than informing the public, the findings suggest that coverage of the Somerset trial manipulated colonial fear of racial equality as a way of providing yet another reason colonist should seek reparation from Great Britain.** [https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/opinion/did-a-fear-of-slave-revolts-drive-american-independence.html] >In fact, **Jefferson had originally included an** [**extended attack**](https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/declara/ruffdrft.html) **on the king for forcing slavery upon unwitting colonists**. Had it stood, it would have been the patriots’ most powerful critique of slavery. **The Continental Congress cut out all references to slavery as “piratical warfare” and an “assemblage of horrors,” and left only the sentiment that King George was “now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us.”** The Declaration could have been what we yearn for it to be, a statement of universal rights, but it wasn’t. What became the official version was one marked by division. [https://www.newenglandhistoricalsociety.com/james-somerset-the-boston-runaway-who-ended-slavery-in-england/] >In 1771, James Somerset languished in an English prison ship that would soon set sail for Jamaica. From there, he would be sold to a sugar plantation owner who would probably work him to death well before he reached old age. > >But he had friends in England, and they went to court asking for a writ of *habeas corpus*. And so the prison ship captain dutifully took James Somerset to the Court of King’s Bench, where a judge would decide whether he had been legally imprisoned. > >He hadn’t. And **the judge’s decision in** ***Stewart v. Somerset*** **would end slavery in England, at least in the public’s mind. It sent American Southerners into the patriot camp, fearing that England would take away their slaves. And it inspired enslaved men and women to sue for their freedom in the northern colonies.** > >... > >**Stewart’s lawyers argued that property rights took precedence over human rights. Plus, they pointed to the danger of freeing all 15,000 enslaved black people in England.** > >In 1772, Lord Mansfield, the chief justice, ruled on the case. **He decided that slavery had no basis in natural law or in English law. He found slavery so odious, he wrote, that it required Parliament to pass a law to legitimize it.** > >*The state of* ***slavery is of such a nature that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political, but only by positive law \[statute\]… Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from the decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore the black must be discharged*** > >... > >Slavery did persist in England, however, for another six decades after the ruling. James Somerset, though, had set in motion a series of actions that would ultimately end slavery in England. And his legal victory persuaded the English public at large that no man was a slave on English soil. > >In the American colonies, of course, it would take a Civil War to end slavery. > >During the run-up to the American Revolution, the colonial newspapers reported extensively on *Stewart v. Somerset*. **The case created a sensation, especially in the South. Plantation owners realized that Parliament could not only tax them without representing them, it could free their slaves.** > >**The Massachusetts General Court in 1771 had actually drafted a bill to emancipate the slaves, but the patriot leaders killed it.** **James Warren** **explained it “would have a bad effect on the union of the colonies.”** > >Historian Alan Taylor argues that James Somerset’s victory persuaded many African Americans to take the Loyalist side in the looming revolution. > >**“Many enslaved men and women began to look to the king as a potential liberator,” Taylor wrote. African-American preachers preached the king ‘was about to alter the World and set the Negroes Free.’ The selfish colonials had blocked his wishes.** > >Some colonies did take the battle for liberty to include more than just white men. Vermont abolished slavery in 1777, and Pennsylvania followed in 1780, Massachusetts in 1783 and Connecticut in 1784. > >In Massachusetts, two enslaved servants followed James Somerset’s example and filed freedom suits. Elizabeth Freeman and Quock Walker both won their cases, effectively ending slavery in Massachusetts.
12 Comments Share Save
2
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 3 weeks
Submission Statement: Lindsay has made it his recent/current life mission to disprove the 1619 project and "critical race theory" buy acknowledging the central claims about the importance and influence of slavery as foundational and instructional in the founding of the United States of America. Additionally, this thread on twitter [HERE](https://twitter.com/bernybelvedere/status/1398126374251028485)or [HERE](https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1398126374251028485.html) explains the problems with Lindsay's framing that removes complete agency from the Founders themselves. If you acknowledge the USA was racist at its founding...thats ball game. Additionally... the 1619 is accurate as discussed [HERE](https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughIDWspam/comments/nn20eb/james_lindsay_indirectly_proved_the_controversial/gzs00is/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).
12 Comments Share Save
-4
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 3 weeks
Historians are ridiculously addicted to consensus and scared to buck trends. So much of this critique didnt even address anything pre-1776, but rather emotional appeals to national identity and fears it makes america look bad. Listen to it. Its 90 minutes of whining, not history. People are mad that the 1619 project highlights the influence of slavery during the American revolution. Slavery was illegal from 1735-1751 in Georgia specifically to strategically stop the Spanish from encouraging slaves to revolt against British colonialists: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Experiment) It took ~200 years for proof of Sally Hemmings and Jefferson's relationship to be confirmed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annette_Gordon-Reed#Thomas_Jefferson_and_Sally_Hemings:_An_American_Controversy_(1997) The continental congress started as a way to get colonies to start networking more as fear of slave revolts and slave testimonies being used in court like in the Gaspee Affair [https://twitter.com/HiddenHistoryRI/status/1267493901872640000 [https://twitter.com/HiddenHistoryRI/status/1267508642368151552] [https://upriseri.com/2020-06-09-gaspee/ >The colonial ruling class was further angered by the growing belief that **Great Britain was uniting with free and enslaved Indigenous and Black people,** as well as Catholics and other groups consider outsiders, to limit White Protestant colonists’ autonomy. White Protestant colonists felt themselves unique within the British empire, imagining themselves as British subjects with the same rights and privileges as any White man within England itself. Following the 7 Years’ War, however, Britain shifted its policies, and began granting other subjects certain rights. The Proclamation Line of 1763 limited White expansion past a certain line, in a concession to Indigenous peoples whom Britain did not feel equipped to continue war with. **The Crown also began debating giving Catholics in newly-conquered Canada some rights, which culminated in a full list of rights outlined in the Quebec Act of 1774. The Continental Congress denounced the Act as “dangerous in an extreme degree to Protestant religion and to the civil rights and liberties of all America.”** > >Most shocking to colonists, however, was the shifting imperial policy on slavery. Great Britain in reality had no interest in abolition, and in fact earned enormous sums off the slave trade and the slave plantations across its empire. **But because of constant slave uprisings in the Caribbean and elsewhere, growing domestic protests, and self-interested imperial calculations, British administrators had been inching toward granting certain rights to enslaved people for some years.** > >The trends coalesced into a set of court cases leading to the **landmark Somerset judgement—centered on the enslaved James Somerset’s successful petition for freedom—which effectively ended slavery within England itself.** **The case began in 1771 and was decided in June, 1772, the very same month Rhode Islanders burned the Gaspee**\*.\* The decision terrified the colonies, as settlers feared the Crown would soon outlaw slavery across the colonies. Settlers imagined London would use enslaved people against them, arming Black and Indigenous people just as they had done to fight the Spanish in Havana. Of course, as **the Somerset decision occurred concomitantly with the Gaspee attacks, its unlikely it directly influenced them, but the imperial trends leading to Somerset had certainly influence colonists prior to June, 1772.** > >Britain would not ban slavery in its empire for many decades. Yet even **minuscule shifts away from full settler autonomy on questions of slavery terrified the colonial ruling class.** Numerous works, such as Robert G Parkinson’s Common Cause, Gerald Horne’s The Counter-Revolution of 1776, and the Blumrosens’ Slave Nation, have **outlined just how much fear colonists had that Britain was stoking Black and Indigenous uprisings to destroy them. The feeling was strong enough to make its way directly into the Declaration of Independence, which lists amongst its complaints that “\[King George\] has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions.”** Dunmore freaked the colonist slave owners out: [https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2013/11/battle-of-hampton-and-lord-dunmores-proclamation-how-fear-of-a-slave-revolt-drew-the-south-into-the-revolutionary-war.html](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2013/11/battle-of-hampton-and-lord-dunmores-proclamation-how-fear-of-a-slave-revolt-drew-the-south-into-the-revolutionary-war.html) Look at colonial reactions to the Somerset case in 1772. They. Freaked. Out.: (https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED245272) >To examine colonial American press coverage of the British court decision to free American slave James Somerset, a study was conducted to clarify why the decision worked as a victory for British abolitionists but was usually citied even in a post-revolution America in the passage of increasingly oppressive slave legislation ... **Since the patriotic press saw its duty as inflaming rather than informing the public, the findings suggest that coverage of the Somerset trial manipulated colonial fear of racial equality as a way of providing yet another reason colonist should seek reparation from Great Britain.** [https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/opinion/did-a-fear-of-slave-revolts-drive-american-independence.html] >In fact, **Jefferson had originally included an** [**extended attack**](https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/declara/ruffdrft.html) **on the king for forcing slavery upon unwitting colonists**. Had it stood, it would have been the patriots’ most powerful critique of slavery. **The Continental Congress cut out all references to slavery as “piratical warfare” and an “assemblage of horrors,” and left only the sentiment that King George was “now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us.”** The Declaration could have been what we yearn for it to be, a statement of universal rights, but it wasn’t. What became the official version was one marked by division. [https://www.newenglandhistoricalsociety.com/james-somerset-the-boston-runaway-who-ended-slavery-in-england/] >In 1771, James Somerset languished in an English prison ship that would soon set sail for Jamaica. From there, he would be sold to a sugar plantation owner who would probably work him to death well before he reached old age. > >But he had friends in England, and they went to court asking for a writ of *habeas corpus*. And so the prison ship captain dutifully took James Somerset to the Court of King’s Bench, where a judge would decide whether he had been legally imprisoned. > >He hadn’t. And **the judge’s decision in** ***Stewart v. Somerset*** **would end slavery in England, at least in the public’s mind. It sent American Southerners into the patriot camp, fearing that England would take away their slaves. And it inspired enslaved men and women to sue for their freedom in the northern colonies.** > >... > >**Stewart’s lawyers argued that property rights took precedence over human rights. Plus, they pointed to the danger of freeing all 15,000 enslaved black people in England.** > >In 1772, Lord Mansfield, the chief justice, ruled on the case. **He decided that slavery had no basis in natural law or in English law. He found slavery so odious, he wrote, that it required Parliament to pass a law to legitimize it.** > >*The state of* ***slavery is of such a nature that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political, but only by positive law \[statute\]… Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from the decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore the black must be discharged*** > >... > >Slavery did persist in England, however, for another six decades after the ruling. James Somerset, though, had set in motion a series of actions that would ultimately end slavery in England. And his legal victory persuaded the English public at large that no man was a slave on English soil. > >In the American colonies, of course, it would take a Civil War to end slavery. > >During the run-up to the American Revolution, the colonial newspapers reported extensively on *Stewart v. Somerset*. **The case created a sensation, especially in the South. Plantation owners realized that Parliament could not only tax them without representing them, it could free their slaves.** > >**The Massachusetts General Court in 1771 had actually drafted a bill to emancipate the slaves, but the patriot leaders killed it.** **James Warren** **explained it “would have a bad effect on the union of the colonies.”** > >Historian Alan Taylor argues that James Somerset’s victory persuaded many African Americans to take the Loyalist side in the looming revolution. > >**“Many enslaved men and women began to look to the king as a potential liberator,” Taylor wrote. African-American preachers preached the king ‘was about to alter the World and set the Negroes Free.’ The selfish colonials had blocked his wishes.** > >Some colonies did take the battle for liberty to include more than just white men. Vermont abolished slavery in 1777, and Pennsylvania followed in 1780, Massachusetts in 1783 and Connecticut in 1784. > >In Massachusetts, two enslaved servants followed James Somerset’s example and filed freedom suits. Elizabeth Freeman and Quock Walker both won their cases, effectively ending slavery in Massachusetts.
15 Comments Share Save
-8
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 3 weeks
Submission statement : Lindsay has made it his recent/current life mission to disprove the 1619 project and "critical race theory" by acknowledging the central claims about the importance and influence of slavery as foundational and instructional in the founding of the United States of America. Additionally, this thread on twitter [HERE](https://twitter.com/bernybelvedere/status/1398126374251028485)or [HERE](https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1398126374251028485.html) explains the problems with Lindsay's framing that removes complete agency from the Founders themselves. If you acknowledge the USA was racist at its founding...thats ball game. Additionally... the 1619 is accurate as discussed [HERE](https://www.reddit.com/r/IntellectualDarkWeb/comments/nn1xt9/james_lindsay_indirectly_proved_the_controversial/gzrzqn5/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).
15 Comments Share Save
0
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 3 weeks
they had an infamous episode talking about "police unions are unions too" ...if i can find the episode ill post it. Amber was a guest on there too.
8 Comments Share Save
0
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 3 weeks
western leftists do more theory than work though. look at the 2020 protests. They were mocking "libs" for getting out into the streets, then when corporate got involved they tried to act like they were too cool for school to do anything since it wasn't purely an anticapitalist moment.
8 Comments Share Save
0
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 3 weeks
ironically I see a little more nuance than that. When you zoom out to other international issues, then you compare it with how the "dirtbag left" responded to the 2020 protests, I see the point of the article a little more. You had guys like Chapo Trap House and other left wing podcasts mocking the protests and refusing to engage an actual movement getting people engaged and in the streets because it wasn't literally tackling capitalism per se. It seemed like a missed moment for so many who claimed to be disaffected by the Bernie lost to actually push for something but instead sat on their hands. Then when corporate got involved, because they always do, they jacketed the entire movement as a corporate PR stunt instead of accepting that their chasing of purity of movements and theory instead ceded ground to institutional power.
8 Comments Share Save
2
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 3 weeks
So why is he worried about attacks on white people?
43 Comments Share Save
-1
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 3 weeks
It’s a misguided. Rufo wants to run back to “Italian” to avoid the “white label” white ignoring the obvious history of being white in America and the fact black people in the USA were “black” longer than “Italy” was a country. MLH isn’t racist. America is. Whites get to be individuals then gaslight minorities with the titles they gave to minorities. Why do you think black immigrants from Garvey to Kwame Toure/Stokley Carmichael had to fight a “black” struggle and not a Jamaican or Trinidadian one?
43 Comments Share Save
9
Posted by u/jackw95 3 weeks
oh, its going down. wow.
715 Comments Share Save
1
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 3 weeks
Wrong.
43 Comments Share Save
1
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 3 weeks
Clearly. And you dont know american history, either.
269 Comments Share Save
1
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 3 weeks
I know **FOR A FACT** that you did not know about the GEORGIA EXPERIMENT before 10 minutes ago when i posted it. How about you sit down, take the time to read about black history in the USA, and you might learn something. Your response here is "i already..." no. Stop right there. I gave you something that completely blew up your little mini-pro-slavery-was-ad-hoc BS and so now you should humble yourself and try again.
269 Comments Share Save
2
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 3 weeks
Agreed. But CRT is trying to provide context to things that people like to divert attention from.
43 Comments Share Save
1
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 3 weeks
Nope. This is wrong. You can't remove one without the other. Look at the Georgia Experiment. Slavery was rejected not for economic reasons but political ones. i.e. it was expedient for multiple geopolitical reasons and not just issues of commodity and values. * [https://www.savannahnow.com/article/20080215/OPINION/302159906](https://www.savannahnow.com/article/20080215/OPINION/302159906) * [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia\_Experiment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Experiment) * [https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/united-states-history-primary-source-timeline/colonial-settlement-1600-1763/georgia-colony-17 >These developments would have occurred whether the workers were black slaves or paid white farmers. Wrong again. It DID not happen and when they had the chance to do so, they opted for slavery. Are you forgetting the entire movement by catholics create the notion of race chasing purity away from Jews and Muslims following the explusion of the Moors from Spain in 1492?
269 Comments Share Save
2
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 3 weeks
Who said anything about uniqueness ?
269 Comments Share Save
3
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 3 weeks
>Rufo doesn't claim that the white race does not exist. He says he resists such racial categorizations. So why claim being italian??? See, he gets to go between lanes like that then act like black people just popped up with grievances and gaslighting them about their concerns. > Of course its true that racial categories are used all the time in America and Rufo's refusal to accept the racial label that everybody else of his skin hue is assigned will not change the fact that others will still classify him as a white person What does his personal refusal have to do with the fact that there is a COLLECTIVE problem with things done to "black" people? >Yes. And there are many other societal factors besides systemic discrimination. I will acknowledge systemic/institutional racism is a factor, but its not the only one. Many Antiracists will not acknowledge this. Some like Kendi assert that differences in racial outcomes must be due to racist policies. What does "besides" mean? Give a percentage. And show how and why you deny "race" but want to amp up your other variables. You just keep asserting this as if its self evident. >Why does it happen? What created circumstances where black kids don't have the instruction and resources to give their kids better scholastic outcomes? And why do children of upper middle class black families (an almost infinitesimal small number) still struggle to get the same access to resources in labor and career advancement and professional access that "lower class" white citizens get? Why are things outside of the control of black people always resulting with black people on the bottom?
43 Comments Share Save
2
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 3 weeks
> He doesn't call it "state sponsored communism" in this video. He avoids that topic here and never links the 2 directly here. The only mention of "communism" is an analogy. An analogy to WHAT? 18 months ago they'd be talking about cultural marxism. He's still sleepwalking from that to this new CRT fascination without addressing what CRT actually is. >I think calling that discussion "embarrassing" is ignoring some valid points he makes around the subject. I don't think the line is so obvious or linear as he does. However, there are some similar goals and focuses the 2 share. I think it's worth diving into the shift from "class" to "race". "Race" does allow for a variable that can not change, thus has some power to it that "class" does not seeing as social mobility is possible, even if some claim it's too hard. Why are black people on the bottom of the race and class ladder then?
43 Comments Share Save
3
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 3 weeks
What are you arguing?
43 Comments Share Save
4
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 3 weeks
>Rufo did not claim this. Instead He pointed out that the Critical Whiteness Scholar Noel Ignatiev called for the abolition of the white race. Noel Ignatiev did explicitly call for this in an excerpt for the Harvard magazine from his book titled: When Race Becomes Real: Black and White Writers Confront Their Personal Histories. Rufo rightly notes that some might see this as a "near Genocidal" sentiment. If white doesn't exist, then why is Rufo claiming being white and attacks on "white" people? he did the bait and switch when he adopted being "italian". His own identity shifts but he then sees a bigger plot against him. So yeah, if we're all the same, then get rid of the term. If not...then we have some things to discuss. >When Lamont Hill points out that black student's are less likely to graduate, he implies that racism is the causal factor. But any decent social scientist would tell you differential achievements across racial groups are not necessarily evidence of systemic discrimination. its almost like... societal factors impact these things? >This report table greatly demonstrates what Rufo mentioned. There is considerable difference in the amount of time spent per week on homework across the different racial groups. Bear in mind that it is a parents responsibility to make sure kids do their homework. They should nurture such behavior. Kids do need monitoring. I recall in my case the teacher would tell my parents if I failed to do any homework tasks. So perhaps the difference in time spent on homework is not proof of systemic racism against black kids but evidence that different parents show different interests in their children's work Again, you're not asking WHY this happens. You're just reflecting some supposed disparity.
43 Comments Share Save
3
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 3 weeks
So what’s the difference between CRT and studying Jim Crow?
269 Comments Share Save
1
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 3 weeks
No. You don’t have a point you presented. Most black people in the USA are from a single history and background. You mentioning a handful of Nigerians isn’t fixing much. L
43 Comments Share Save
2
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 3 weeks
Rufo has grouped a range of things making this conversation very difficult even for him. He’s attacking HR trainings, the 1619 project, and the very notion of comparative history …and the legacy of state sponsored communism. What am I supposed to be replying to here?
43 Comments Share Save
2
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 3 weeks
his opening statement
43 Comments Share Save
3
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 3 weeks
Theres a big gap between "diversity trainings at work are cringe" (i agree, but they're also necessary so people know whats acceptable AT WORK because i've seen a lot of personal transgressions of space and offenses that make work inhospitable) to "CRT is a plot to kill all white people" Rufo can't distinguish history education from critical analysis of any sort and its telling he keeps making reductive arguments without explaining anything. > That categorization classifies him as an oppressor and assumes him to supporter of white supremacy. So yes, critical race theory does place people into a binary of oppressor/oppressed and Rufo is right to repudiate it Who said Rufo is an oppressor? Rufo? Why does Rufo even say "racism does exist" then act like its never a factor? He can't have it both ways. he didn't even support his conclusion of 'family and church and hard work overcoming racism". He just said it and walked away. Rufo, why do black employees get hired last and fired first? Why does all this hard work talk not factor in things out of the hands of black people who themselves are at the whim of employers who discriminate? Does he not realize that NOT GETTING HIRED affects "black families?"
43 Comments Share Save
2
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 3 weeks
domestic political demographic outcomes? Its like saying there was no effect of Brown v Board.
43 Comments Share Save
2
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 3 weeks
Only 10% of black people in the USA are from other countries (africa/carribbean)
43 Comments Share Save
5
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 3 weeks
Italians went from being [mass lynched and the USA almost going to war over it](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_14,_1891_New_Orleans_lynchings), to being defacto white people indistinguishable from brits and french and in the eyes of the standard American
43 Comments Share Save
-1
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 3 weeks
AMERICA did that. Thanks for playing.
43 Comments Share Save
3
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 3 weeks
>Then why are you here Hmm
13 Comments Share Save
-3
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 3 weeks
1619 isn't fake history.
13 Comments Share Save
1
Posted by u/SuccessfulOperation 3 weeks
Rufo resorting to saying he's "Italian" is laughable. Black people have been "black" in the USA longer than Italy was a unified modern country.
43 Comments Share Save