Ummm....Wouldn't you think that would send some black people into a frenzy? I say just ship the person who first started wondering about this theory and never mention it to anyone ever again...asdf said:tear them down, rebuild them with 100% recycled, eco-friendly, power-saving, anti-terrorist architechture.
And then you'll have Jesse Jackson screaming about how the white man is destroying his people's contribution to this great nation's founding. Either way the black man is going to lose. Jesse Jackson will continue to convince them they're being oppressed. Meanwhile the white man will get their backs up over Jackson's race baiting and the cycle of hate will continue.asdf said:tear them down, rebuild them with 100% recycled, eco-friendly, power-saving, anti-terrorist architechture.
Great reference. SuggestiveName +1SuggestiveName said:I'm sure they did. As the Wonder Showzen song goes:
"Slaves! Built the pyramids!
Slaves! Built the parthenon!
Slaves! Built America!
Slaves! This is your song,
Thank you slaves!"
I can't believe i agree with you Smeg. Unless someone decides to privately fund this study, in which case i don't care.Freemason said:
There is little we can do about it now. Slapping today's views on the 18th and 19th century ideals will not change the past or correct it in any way. The parties responsible and those who toiled under the heinious institution of slavery are long gone.Freemason said:
Nothing much will happen. Perhaps someone may dedicate a plaque on any such buildings in memory and recognition of those who toiled under the yoke, but even their names are probably forgotten.Freemason said:If it's true, what will be the fallout from it?
Hi, Ill! Let's squabble!llad12 said:Nothing much will happen. Perhaps someone may dedicate a plaque on any such buildings in memory and recognition of those who toiled under the yoke, but even their names are probably forgotten.
What the hey... ? You don't like my moderate views on this subject Jman?jmervyn said:Hi, Ill! Let's squabble!
I would disagree - the black "leadership" in the U.S. has gotten a lot of political mileage out of applying modern sensibilities to 18th and 19th century issues. Hell, there's still schools of thought 70 miles to my south that claim blacks are <still> slaves on occasion, though I guess they fail to recognize the colors of everyone else riding the subway.
So I expect there to be demands for reparations, apologies, & so forth. And I won't be at all surprised if they are given, at least by some parties.
Or didn't you hear what Howard Dean was just saying about the Dems' lack of concern for black voters? To me, this sounds like a great issue to agonize publicly about.
llad12 said:Then again, I may be wrong ... I seem to remember an evangelical, sitting war president who has vowed to halt any meaningful governmental support of research that could potentially cure juvenile diabetes or Parkinson's disease or a host of other terrible maladies that cripple our society.
Well, we might as well have fun discussing them - rare as they are. :-Dllad12 said:What the hey... ? You don't like my moderate views on this subject Jman?
Well, I'm just thinking of good ole' Al Sharpton - he & Jesse seem to be what passes for black leadership at the moment. If Barack joins with them in calling for <whatever>, I don't think you can write them off as extremists. I would agree that there's less than a snowball's chance in a hot place that there would be actual dollars attached, or that the tiny number of black politicos that aren't deep Dems will say anything.llad12 said:If 225 yr old former slaves were calling for reparations, then this issue might have more relevance. It remains an open question, however, if they would actually receive any compensation. Sherman's 40 acres and a mule field order was rescinded by President Johnson in 1865 and even the victims of the Tulsa race riot in 1921 have recently been denied reparations.
While certain activists and/or extremists may rant, they usually don't get into power.
Who're you talking about, Clinton?llad12 said:Then again, I may be wrong ... I seem to remember an evangelical, sitting war president who has vowed to halt any meaningful governmental support of research that could potentially cure juvenile diabetes or Parkinson's disease or a host of other terrible maladies that cripple our society.
I was talking about the current bipartisan stem cell research legislation that has passed the House of Representatives and will probably pass the Senate shortly.jmervyn said:Who're you talking about, Clinton?
If you sift your talking points, I think you'll find that most of the stuff Shrub did simply opposes growth or additional investments, rather than a 'halt', at the Gov't feeding trough. Some might that call that a smidgin of responsibility when looking at the way the rest of the spending & deficit has grown. But I, too, could be wrong (oh, and the Shrubster's a Methodist. Do you think they're extremists too?).
Thanks for clarifying your reference - though I happen to back the Shrubster on this one. To throw an equal and opposing loop around a similar illogical conclusion, if he backed this one we'd see the abortion industry farming welfare moms for embryos. We're all clumps of cells...llad12 said:Bush believes a clump of cells is a human being. I guess, according to beliefs, we should hold funerals for all the leftover blastocytes disposed of at invitro fertilization clinics.
The "mainstream" is a slippery fish to catch - one man's mainstream can be another's fringe. Our previous firefight could be easily regarded with the same moralistic high-handedness as this issue, and would be just as far off-thread.llad12 said:I don't give a damn if Bush calls himself a Methodist, Southern Baptist, or whatever. His views are extreme; out of the mainstream, and a hinderance to our medical research on this most promising field.
As for the study: Good for them, another thing to distract the public from getting the shaft.Freemason said:
Nice to get an unexpected Amen on this one (and this will be the last time I go off-subject here). But the basic justification should sound very familiar: If there can only completely unregulated and uncontrolled research by the testing establishments, at ever-increasing taxpayer expense, then all will be right with the world. We'll cure cancer, stop AIDS, repair spinal damage, etc. etc. All this for the cost of a few foetuses that nobody really wants anyways...Stevinator said:Stem cells and the definition of life aside, I think this research is a complete waste of money, time and effort. There is no reason to care if the capitol was built by slaves or not. today, when we are in such a pinch for funds, we're clinging to social security's benefits, which are under funded, we're funding a multi-front war on Terror, public education is failing, americans are still overtaxed, and no one has the political might to slash the budget the way it needs to be slashed, how dare the politicians waste even a penny on silly research? what is the supposed justification?