Went out to protest yesterday

[Tekky]

Re: Went out to protest yesterday

[ QUOTE ]
I got yer back Todd, I'll take the 17 that are left, cause you can't handle the rest.... [img]/images/graemlins/poke.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Pat

[/ QUOTE ]

Dayum!!! Did you carry that Big-Ass-Can-o-Worms in yourself little boy??? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[YetAnotherOne]

Re: Went out to protest yesterday

[ QUOTE ]
Becuase there was so many people freeing slaves in 1785? Yeah right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's see:

1780 - Pennsylvania abolishes slavery.

1782 - Virginia legislature authorizes manumission of slaves.

1783 - Quaco (a slave) sues for freedom and wins in Massachusettes S.Ct. citing 1780 MA constitution which states that "all men are born free and equal). By 1790 no slaves were reported on the MA census.

1784 - Connecticut abolishes slavery.

So yeah, there were a lot of slaves freed right around that time.

[Guest]

Re: Went out to protest yesterday

[ QUOTE ]
Dayum!!! Did you carry that Big-Ass-Can-o-Worms in yourself little boy???

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, my daughter did, she's got my back... [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Pat

[the_drip]

Re: Went out to protest yesterday

it was not the popular thing to do. Especially if you were a plantation owner, as was Jefferson.

"Thomas Jefferson on Slavery


.... It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the state, and thus save the expense of supplying, by importation of white settlers, the vacancies they will leave? Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions, which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race. - To these objections, which are political, may be added others, which are physical and moral. The first difference which strikes us is that of colour. - Whether the black of the negro resides in the reticular membrane between the skin and scarf-skin, or in the scarf-skin itself; whether it proceeds from the colour of the blood, the colour of the bile, or from that of some other secretion, the difference is fixed in nature, and is as real as if its seat and cause were better known to us. And is this difference of no importance? Is it not the foundation of a greater or less share of beauty in the two races? Are not the fine mixtures of red and white, the expressions of every passion by greater or less suffusions of colour in the one, preferable to that eternal monotony, which reigns in the countenances, that immovable veil of black which covers all the emotions of the other race? Add to these, flowing hair, a more elegant symmetry of form, their own judgment in favour of the whites, declared by their preference of them, as uniformly as is the preference of the Oranootan for the black women over those of his own species. The circumstance of Superior beauty, is thought worthy attention in the propagation of our horses, dogs, and other domestic animals; why not in that of man? Besides those of colour, figure, and hair, there are other physical distinctions proving a difference of race. They have less hair on the face and body. They secrete less by the kidneys, and more by the glands of the skin, which gives them a very strong and disagreeable odour. This greater degree of transpiration renders them more tolerant of heat, and less so of cold than the whites. Perhaps too a difference of structure in the pulmonary apparatus, which a late ingenious experimentalist has discovered to be the principal regulator of animal heat, may have disabled them from extricating, in the act of inspiration, so much of that fluid from the outer air, or obliged them in expiration, to part with more of it. They seem to require less sleep. A black after hard labour through the day, will be induced by the slightest amusements to sit up till midnight, or later, though knowing he must be out with the first dawn of the morning. They are at least as brave, and more adventuresome. But this may perhaps proceed from a want of forethought, which prevents their seeing a danger till it be present..- When present, they do not go through it with more coolness or steadiness than the whites. They are more ardent after their female: but love seems with them to be more an eager desire, than a tender delicate mixture of sentiment and sensation. Their griefs are transient. Those numberless afflictions, which render it doubtful whether heaven has given life to us in mercy or in wrath, are less felt, and sooner forgotten with them. In general, their existence appears to participate more of sensation than reflection. To this must be ascribed their disposition to sleep when abstracted from their diversions, and unemployed in labour. An animal whose body is at rest, and who does not reflect, must be disposed to sleep of course. Comparing them by their faculties of memory, reason, and imagination, it appears to me that in memory they are equal to the whites; in reason much inferior, as I think one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid; and that in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous. It would be unfair to follow them to Africa for this investigation.

We will consider them here, on the same stage with the whites, and where the facts are not apocryphal on which a judgment is to be formed. It will be right to make great allowances for the difference of condition, of education, of conversation, of the sphere in which they move. Many millions of them have been brought to, and born in America. Most of them indeed have been confined to tillage, to their own homes, and their own society: yet many have been so situated, that they might have availed themselves of the conversation of their masters; many have been brought up to the handicraft arts, and from that circumstance have always been associated with the whites. Some have been liberally educated, and all have lived in countries where the arts and sciences are cultivated to a considerable degree, and have had before their eyes samples of the best works from abroad. The Indians, with no advantages of this kind, will often carve figures on their pipes not destitute of design and merit. They will crayon out an animal, a plant, or a country, so as to prove the existence of a germ in their minds which only wants cultivation. They astonish you with strokes of the most sublime oratory; such as prove their reason and sentiment strong, their imagination glowing and elevated. But never yet could I find that a black had uttered a thought above the level of plain narration; never saw even an elementary trait of painting or sculpture. In music they are more generally gifted than the whites with accurate ears for tune and time, and they have been found capable of imagining a small catch.

Whether they will be equal to the composition of a more extensive run of melody, or of complicated harmony, is yet to be proved. Misery is often the parent of the most affecting touches in poetry. Among the blacks is misery enough, God knows, but no poetry. Love is the peculiar oestrum of the poet. Their love is ardent, but it kindles the senses only, not the imagination. Religion indeed has produced a Phyllis Whately but it could not produce a poet. The compositions published under her name are below the dignity of criticism. The heroes of the Dunciad are to her, as Hercules to the author of that poem. Ignatius Sancho has approached nearer to merit in composition; yet his letters do more honour to the heart than the head. They breathe the purest effusions of friendship and general philanthropy, and show how great a degree of the latter may be compounded with strong religious zeal. He is often happy in the turn of his compliments, and his style is easy and familiar, except when he affects a Shandean fabrication of words. But his imagination is wild and extravagant, escapes incessantly from every restraint of reason and taste, and, in the course of its vagaries, leaves a tract of thought as incoherent and eccentric, as is the course of a meteor through the sky. His subjects should often have led him to a process of sober reasoning: yet we find him always substituting sentiment for demonstration. Upon the whole, though we admit him to the first place among those of his own colour who have presented themselves to the public judgment, yet when we compare him with the writers of the race among whom he lived and particularly with the epistolary class, in which he has taken his own stand, we are compelled to enrol him at the bottom of the column. This criticism supposes the letters published under his name to be genuine, and to have received amendment from no other hand; points which would not be of easy investigation. The improvement of the blacks in body and mind, in the first instance of their mixture with the whites, has been observed by every one, and proves that their inferiority is not the effect merely of their condition of life. We know that among the Romans, about the Augustan age especially, the condition of their slaves was much more deplorable than that of the blacks on the continent of America. The two sexes were confined in separate apartments, because to raise a child cost the master more than to buy one. Cato, for a very restricted indulgence to his slaves in this particular, took from them a certain price. But in this country the slaves multiply as fast as the free inhabitants. Their situation and manners place the commerce between the two sexes almost without restraint. The same Cato, on a principle of oeconomy, always sold his sick and superannuated slaves. He gives it as a standing precept to a master visiting his farm, to sell his old oxen, old wagons, old tools, old and diseased servants, and every thing else become useless. . . . The American slaves cannot enumerate this among the injuries and insults they receive. It was the common practice to expose in the island Esculapius, in the Tyber, diseased slaves, whose cure was like to become tedious. The emperor Claudius, by an edict, gave freedom to such of them as should recover, and first declared that if any person chose to kill rather than expose them, it should be deemed homicide. The exposing them is a crime of which no instance has existed with us; and were it to be followed by death, it would be punished capitally. We are told of a certain Vedius Pollio, who, in the presence of Augustus, would have given a slave as food to his fish, for having broken a glass. With the Romans, the regular method of taking the evidence of their slaves was under torture. Here it has been thought better never to resort to their evidence. When a master was murdered, all his slaves, in the same house, or within hearing, were condemned to death. Here punishment falls on the guilty only, and as precise proof is required against him as against a freeman. Yet notwithstanding these and other discouraging circumstances among the Romans, their slaves were often their rarest artists. They excelled too in science, insomuch as to be usually employed as tutors to their masters' children. Epictetus, Terence, and Phaedrus, were slaves. But they were of the race of whites. It is not their condition then, but nature, which has produced the distinction. Whether further observation will or will not verify the conjecture, that nature has been less bountiful to them in the endowments of the head, I believe that in those of the heart she will be found to have done them justice. That disposition to theft with which they have been branded, must be ascribed to their situation, and not to any depravity of the moral sense. The man, in whose favour no laws of property exist, probably feels himself less bound to respect those made in favour of others. When arguing for ourselves, we lay it down as a fundamental, that laws, to be just, must give a reciprocation of right; that, without this, they are mere arbitrary rules of conduct, founded in force, and not in conscience: and it is a problem which I give to the master to solve, whether the religious precepts against the violation of property were not framed for him as well as his slave? And whether the slave may not as justifiably take a little from one, who has taken all from him, as he may slay one who would slay him? That a change in the relations in which a man is placed should change his ideas of moral right or wrong, is neither new, nor peculiar to the colour of the blacks. Homer tells us it was so 2600 years ago.

Jove fix'd it certain, that whatever day Makes man a slave, takes half his worth away.

But the slaves of which Homer speaks were whites. Notwithstanding these considerations which must weaken their respect for the laws of property, we find among them numerous instances of the most rigid integrity, and as many as among their better instructed masters, of benevolence, gratitude and unshaken fidelity. The opinion, that they are inferior in the faculties of reason and imagination, must be hazarded with great diffidence. To justify a general conclusion, requires many observations, even where the subject may be submitted to the anatomical knife, to optical classes, to analysis by fire, or by solvents. How much more then where it is a faculty, not a substance, we are examining; where it eludes the research of all the Senses; where the conditions of its existence are various and variously combined; where the effects of those which are present or absent bid defiance to calculation; let me add too, as a circumstance of great tenderness, where our conclusion would degrade a whole race of men from the rank in the scale of beings which their Creator may perhaps have given them. To our reproach it must be said, that though for a century and a half we have had under our eyes the races of black and of red men, they have never yet been viewed by us as subjects of natural history. I advance it therefore as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind. It is not against experience to suppose, that different Species of the same genus, or varieties of the same species, may possess different qualifications. Will not a lover of natural history then, one who views the gradations in all the races of animals with the eye of philosophy, excuse an effort to keep those in the department of man as distinct as nature has formed them? This unfortunate difference of colour, and perhaps of faculty, is a powerful obstacle to the emancipation of these people. Many of their advocates, while they wish to vindicate the liberty of human nature are anxious also to preserve its dignity and beauty. Some of these, embarrassed by the question `What further is to be done with them?' join themselves in opposition with those who are actuated by sordid avarice only. Among the Romans emancipation required but one effort. The slave, when made free, might mix with, without staining the blood of his master. But with us a second is necessary, unknown to history. When freed, he is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture.

The particular customs and manners that may happen to be received in that state? It is difficult to determine on the standard by which the manners of a nation may be tried, whether catholic, or particular. It is more difficult for a native to bring to that standard the manners of his own nation, familiarized to him by habit. There must doubtless be an unhappy influence on the manners of our people produced by the existence of slavery among us. The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. Our children see this, and learn to imitate it; for man is an imitative animal. This quality is the germ of all education in him. From his cradle to his grave he is learning to do what he sees others do. If a parent could find no motive either in his philanthropy or his self love, for restraining the intemperance of passion towards his slave, it should always be a sufficient one that his child is present. But generally it is not sufficient. The parent storms, the child looks on, catches the lineaments of wrath, puts on the same airs in the circle of smaller slaves, gives a loose to the worst of passions, and thus nursed, educated, and daily exercised in tyranny, cannot but be stamped by it with odious pecularities. The man must be a prodigy who can retain his manners and morals undepraved by such circumstances. And with what execration should the statesman be loaded, who, permitting one half the citizens thus to trarnple on the rights of the other, transforms those into despots, and these into enemies, destroys the morals of the one part, and the amor patriae of the other. For if a slave can have a country in this world, it must be any other in preference to that in which he is born to live and labour for another; in which he must lock up the faculties of his nature, contribute as far as depends on his individual endeavours to the evanishment of the human race, or entail his own miserable condition on the endless generations proceeding from him. With the morals of the people, their industry also is destroyed. For in a warm climate, no man will labour for himself who can make another labour for him. This is so true, that of the proprietors of slaves a very small proportion indeed are ever seen to labour. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference! The almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest. - But it is impossible to be temperate and to pursue this subject through the various considerations of policy, of morals, of history natural and civil. We must be contented to hope they will force their way into every one's mind. I think a change already perceptible, since the origin of the present revolution. The spirit of the master is abating, that of the slave rising from the dust, his condition mollifying, the way I hope preparing, under the auspices of heaven, for a total emancipation, and that this is disposed, in the order of events, to be with the consent of the masters, rather than by their extirpation. "

[the_drip]

Re: Went out to protest yesterday

I posted that as much for me as for any of you. just so you know...i'm not beyond being wrong.

but slandering Jefferson who's responsible for most of us even being located in the U.S seems incredibly vile to me.

[Sukisyn]

Re: Went out to protest yesterday

Actually, slavery in Virginia (where Jefferson lived) went on long after Jefferson had died. It was actually against to law to free slaves in Viginia. Below are a few dates of note.

1793 - Virginia passes state law forbidding free blacks from entering the state

1805 - Virginia General Assembly passed legislation giving free Blacks one year to get out of Virginia once their freedom had been gained, though modified in 1846 so that local courts could grant a free blacks the right to remain if he had performed some extraordinary good deed or if he were known to possess a good character and be peaceable sober, orderly and industrious person.


1831
Virginia, Thomas Dew, a legislator, proudly refers to Virginia as a Negro-raising state" for other states. Between 1830 and 1860, Virginia exports some 300,000 slaves. The price of slaves increases sharply due to expanding territory in which slaves are permitted and a booming economy in products harvested and processed by slave labor.

1832
An act to abolish slavery was introduced into the Virginia legislature by Thomas Jefferson’s grandson and was defeated by only seven votes.

1847-48
The Virginia Legislature has enacted (Sess. Acts 1847-8, ch. 10, § 24,) that "any free person who, by speaking or writing, shall maintain that owners have not right of property in their slaves, shall be punishable by confinement in the jail, not more than twelve months, and by fine not exceeding five hundred dollars."

Also, Jefferson had gone well above and beyond other slave owners in that era in that he actually paid his slaves for the vegetables they raised and for the meat they obtained while hunting and fishing. Additionally, he paid them for extra tasks they performed outside their normal working hours and even offered a revolutionary profit sharing plan for the products that his enslaved artisans produced in their shops.

Anway, enough of this history lesson... Got a little carried away...
[img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[Tekky]

Re: Went out to protest yesterday

[ QUOTE ]
Let's get real here. The FCC is not Religiously motivated. I am sure plenty of Athiests would not want thier 8 year old exposed to naked breasts on broadcast television nor would they want every dirty word imagineable being broadcast on TV and Radio. People want the basic right to be able to block smut from thier teenagers.

Matt

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with your statement, but the most important thing about it is "People want the basic right to be able to block smut from thier teenagers." And the inverse of that statement is also true. What my main cause is, is the right to decide what my future children will see or will not see. No, I won't let my son or daughter see smut or even listen to smut, but I don't want the FCC making that decision for me.

As far as religious motivation goes, I agree. At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, the motivations are mostly political and economical. Someone earlier in the thread mentioned the Clear Channel monopoly... Why are they allowed to maintain this monopoly while SBC has to jump through hoops just to get the right to provide long distance service where their long-distance based competitors are allowed to provide local service?? Hmmm, maybe it's because when "Dubya" sold the Texas Rangers to Clear Channel for millions.

[Tekky]

Re: Went out to protest yesterday

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dayum!!! Did you carry that Big-Ass-Can-o-Worms in yourself little boy???

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, my daughter did, she's got my back... [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Pat

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL

See everyone??? Pat and I are on different ends of the spectrum politically, but when we meet up in Anaheim this winter, there's gonna be some serious drinkin' goin on. I've met Pat a few times and he's a great guy. While we don't agree on politics we can voice our opinions respectfully and still want do drink with each other.

[RacerX]

Re: Went out to protest yesterday

[ QUOTE ]
What were you protesting????

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.kesq.com/Global/story.asp?S=2530833

Also:

Police arrest four war protesters in Hollywood

Associated Press


LOS ANGELES - About 1,000 protesters gathered in Hollywood Saturday to rally against President Bush's re-election and U.S. military operations in Iraq, police said. Four people were arrested.

Demonstrators chanting anti-war slogans and waving signs marched to a military recruiting office at a busy intersection as police in riot gear looked on.

"What is it going to take for the American people and the world to understand that George W. Bush is not good for America?" protester Franco Massimo said on KNBC-TV.

A scuffle broke out after authorities stepped between the protesters and a military recruiting office. Demonstrators were arrested for allegedly throwing bottles and vandalizing cars and trying to prevent officers from making an arrest. Police later dispersed the crowd.

No major injuries were reported, authorities said.

[Deneb]

Re: Went out to protest yesterday

Kevin, I liked your post, what you said was good. The term better man, is subjective however. You vote for who you want, and I can't assume that you vote Republican, because you are one, I mean people do,and people don't.

The better man, or the good man is completely subjective to how you feel about things, and issues.

I understand America was founded on Christian ideals, however, the TRUE ideal we wanted was Freedom.

It doesn't matter if it's religion or not. It's Freedom.

As I said before, Freedom at any cost, that's my America.

If you censor my music, my opinion when I bash your candidate, you chastise my religion or lack of, you alienate my opinion, or you tell me how to live my life, That's when you put my freedom on the line. It's worse than terrorism. It's almost like big brother telling you how to feel.

Yeah, people probably think, this guy talks big, but would he live up to it?

Yes, in a heart beat. Would I die for my country in the present state? Hell no, but would I fight, to make it better? Yes. And when it was better, or if my fight would make it better, would I sacrifice my life? Yes. What I'm saying is, people died for our right to freedom. And whenever someone, Republican, Democrat, or Republocrat forgets that, or takes it for granted, that's when America begins to fall apart.

Protestors, activists, the religous left and right, everyone, Dems, Reps, EVERYONE it seems, has forgotten that America was fought for, and the freedoms were fought for, but they are the first ones to bitch whenever their rights were alienated.

[lerxstcat]

Re: Went out to protest yesterday

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Karl Marx didn't believe in God or an afterlife, so he'd be insulted that you feel he could be doing anything in his grave, besides rotting that is.It doesn't alter the fact that Thomas Jefferson was a hypocritical slaveowning rapist, does it?

[/ QUOTE ]I was speaking hypothetically. Who's dog bit off your dick? [img]/images/graemlins/eviltongue.gif[/img]I don't know if you could be any more condescending, it would be a stretch.

[/ QUOTE ]Calm down Sparky! [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] I don't really have any disrespect for Jefferson at all! I was "demonizing" him, tongue in cheek, the way Democrats do to Bush in earnest. I thought it would be obvious but I guess not. was inspired by a similar thread on Metal Sludge about France's little military action in Ivory Coast this weekend. "No blood for Cocoa" was the rallying cry of that one. Most people there didn't get it either.As for condescension, you've been pretty vitriolic and condescending towards most people on this board since it became obvious a few weeks before the election that your boy was probably going to lose. If you'd gotten a few million more of your young compatriots to get out and vote then you'd be glowing in victory and we'd be the ones sulking. Better luck next time.

[Guest]

Re: Went out to protest yesterday

[ QUOTE ]
See everyone??? Pat and I are on different ends of the spectrum politically, but when we meet up in Anaheim this winter, there's gonna be some serious drinkin' goin on. I've met Pat a few times and he's a great guy. While we don't agree on politics we can voice our opinions respectfully and still want do drink with each other.

[/ QUOTE ]

True dat bro! Back atcha!

Pat

[lerxstcat]

Re: Went out to protest yesterday

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
todd, i owe you twenty seven pints of guinness, and a shot of jameson to go with each one.sully

[/ QUOTE ]I'm printing this thread and bringing it with me to NAMM.

[/ QUOTE ]Better buy fresh toner and a ream of paper! [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[YetAnotherOne]

Re: Went out to protest yesterday

[ QUOTE ]
As I said before, Freedom at any cost, that's my America.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't necessarily disagree with that statement but how do you propose to define "Freedom?" Anarchy is the only state of society in which absolute freedom exists. If there are rules you cannot be free, if you're to be free there can be no rules. Any set of rules under which you would consider yourself free will doubtless be seen by others as limiting their freedom.

[skidd]

Re: Went out to protest yesterday

I'm puttin the foil on coach!

No has to agree, but we should all respect each others opinions. That really is the core of rebuilding the great US that most of us live. We cannot change the outcome of the election or go back and rewrite history. But we can move foward with our head up and eyes and ears open so that hopefully we can make things better for everyone after us.

A toast to everyone for not kicking each other in the balls! [img]/images/graemlins/toast.gif[/img]