The Cross and the Confederate Flag

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

alex.....what rights have we lost recently. Let's start with you can keep your doctor if you want to under Obamacare. We are under constant threat on owning guns and that's huge compared to me being able to fly a flag.

[Mims44 1,871]

Just a question for yall,

America wasn't the only country that used slavery so why is it that America has culturally had integration problems that other countries didn't have? Many countries voluntarily gave up slavery after all. So what did we do wrong beginning with Lincoln?

I haven't read enough of how slavery ended in every other country, but I know that at least with England, when Wilberforce pushed for the abolition of slavery you didn't have half the country rebel and a civil war break out over it. But also, most of England's slavery didn't occur in the country of England. It was in their various colonies around the world. In other words, they didn't have to integrate a huge population of former slaves into the fabric of the nation as much. They stopped the slave trade and it mainly just set slaves free in the Caribbean, Africa, and other places far removed from England proper.

That's kind of inaccurate, Lincolns plan was to set in motion the eventual abolition of slavery. It was a 100 years plan, putting slavery ending in the 1960's. The reasoning behind that was he (and most others of the time) were afraid of crashing the economy if slavery was abolished overnight. EDIT: It's a bit early, but it's one of the Lincoln-Douglas debates where he talks about it a bit... interesting reads.

There's also the fact that abolitionists were also extremely racist, but that might have been the same in other countries... not sure.

[TitanTiger 20,483]

Just a question for yall,

America wasn't the only country that used slavery so why is it that America has culturally had integration problems that other countries didn't have? Many countries voluntarily gave up slavery after all. So what did we do wrong beginning with Lincoln?

I haven't read enough of how slavery ended in every other country, but I know that at least with England, when Wilberforce pushed for the abolition of slavery you didn't have half the country rebel and a civil war break out over it. But also, most of England's slavery didn't occur in the country of England. It was in their various colonies around the world. In other words, they didn't have to integrate a huge population of former slaves into the fabric of the nation as much. They stopped the slave trade and it mainly just set slaves free in the Caribbean, Africa, and other places far removed from England proper.

That's kind of inaccurate, Lincolns plan was to set in motion the eventual abolition of slavery. It was a 100 years plan, putting slavery ending in the 1960's. The reasoning behind that was he (and most others of the time) were afraid of crashing the economy if slavery was abolished overnight. EDIT: It's a bit early, but it's one of the Lincoln-Douglas debates where he talks about it a bit... interesting reads.

There's also the fact that abolitionists were also extremely racist, but that might have been the same in other countries... not sure.

No it's not inaccurate. Regardless of Lincoln's plans, the South rebelled against the idea of ending slavery, of restricting slavery in future states and territories and ultimately were willing to secede from the Union to preserve their right to keep slavery for the foreseeable future. That situation simply did not play out in England for instance. You didn't have the northern half of the England decide to take their ball and go home or start a war with southern England when Parliament took steps to abolish slavery.

And England did not have many African slaves working inside the country at the time. So they didn't have quite the same obstacles to integration that we had here.

Did you mean to respond to someone else?

[alexava 6,973]

alex.....what rights have we lost recently. Let's start with you can keep your doctor if you want to under Obamacare. We are under constant threat on owning guns and that's huge compared to me being able to fly a flag.

you can use any dr who you can work out payment with. Guns are not going anywhere. There is a decent chance you or i will be killed by one, hell you can't get anymore free than that. Freedom of speech will allow you to display that flag as long as you enjoy the stereotype that comes with it.

[aujeff11 6,243]

So the United States has/ had more cultural integration problems because slaves formed a greater percentage of our population and business in the early 19th century?

Hypothetically, if we could go back in time to the emancipation of the slaves, it would be fruitless to attempt a better legislation that could possibly nip the integration problems in the butt?

[homersapien 11,379]

Seems the Irish people don't have the same issues.

http://www.irishcent...-237793261.html

***Don't bother posting the Google searches from liberal sites saying this never happened. I've seen them already.

What do you mean by "have the same issues"?

[Mims44 1,871]

Just a question for yall,

America wasn't the only country that used slavery so why is it that America has culturally had integration problems that other countries didn't have? Many countries voluntarily gave up slavery after all. So what did we do wrong beginning with Lincoln?

I haven't read enough of how slavery ended in every other country, but I know that at least with England, when Wilberforce pushed for the abolition of slavery you didn't have half the country rebel and a civil war break out over it. But also, most of England's slavery didn't occur in the country of England. It was in their various colonies around the world. In other words, they didn't have to integrate a huge population of former slaves into the fabric of the nation as much. They stopped the slave trade and it mainly just set slaves free in the Caribbean, Africa, and other places far removed from England proper.

That's kind of inaccurate, Lincolns plan was to set in motion the eventual abolition of slavery. It was a 100 years plan, putting slavery ending in the 1960's. The reasoning behind that was he (and most others of the time) were afraid of crashing the economy if slavery was abolished overnight. EDIT: It's a bit early, but it's one of the Lincoln-Douglas debates where he talks about it a bit... interesting reads.

There's also the fact that abolitionists were also extremely racist, but that might have been the same in other countries... not sure.

No it's not inaccurate. Regardless of Lincoln's plans, the South rebelled against the idea of ending slavery, of restricting slavery in future states and territories and ultimately were willing to secede from the Union to preserve their right to keep slavery for the foreseeable future. That situation simply did not play out in England for instance. You didn't have the northern half of the England decide to take their ball and go home or start a war with southern England when Parliament took steps to abolish slavery.

And England did not have many African slaves working inside the country at the time. So they didn't have quite the same obstacles to integration that we had here.

Did you mean to respond to someone else?

Nope meant for you, and I said kind of inaccurate because it's just the way you worded it that made it seem a little off.

The CW would have started even if Lincoln had not been against slavery, any republican candidate winning the election would have likely set off the CW. The democratic south all voted for the democrat, the north all voted for the republican. The republican won, so the ruling aristocracy decided to secede. They saw their power structure waning and took extreme steps to keep it intact, slavery was a big part of it as it is how that aristocracy had built their power.

It's confusing to a lot of people because one cause fed the other for the war. It's why people argue over the reason of the CW.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Just a question for yall,

America wasn't the only country that used slavery so why is it that America has culturally had integration problems that other countries didn't have? Many countries voluntarily gave up slavery after all. So what did we do wrong beginning with Lincoln?

I haven't read enough of how slavery ended in every other country, but I know that at least with England, when Wilberforce pushed for the abolition of slavery you didn't have half the country rebel and a civil war break out over it. But also, most of England's slavery didn't occur in the country of England. It was in their various colonies around the world. In other words, they didn't have to integrate a huge population of former slaves into the fabric of the nation as much. They stopped the slave trade and it mainly just set slaves free in the Caribbean, Africa, and other places far removed from England proper.

That's kind of inaccurate, Lincolns plan was to set in motion the eventual abolition of slavery. It was a 100 years plan, putting slavery ending in the 1960's. The reasoning behind that was he (and most others of the time) were afraid of crashing the economy if slavery was abolished overnight. EDIT: It's a bit early, but it's one of the Lincoln-Douglas debates where he talks about it a bit... interesting reads.

There's also the fact that abolitionists were also extremely racist, but that might have been the same in other countries... not sure.

No it's not inaccurate. Regardless of Lincoln's plans, the South rebelled against the idea of ending slavery, of restricting slavery in future states and territories and ultimately were willing to secede from the Union to preserve their right to keep slavery for the foreseeable future. That situation simply did not play out in England for instance. You didn't have the northern half of the England decide to take their ball and go home or start a war with southern England when Parliament took steps to abolish slavery.

And England did not have many African slaves working inside the country at the time. So they didn't have quite the same obstacles to integration that we had here.

Did you mean to respond to someone else?

Nope meant for you, and I said kind of inaccurate because it's just the way you worded it that made it seem a little off.

The CW would have started even if Lincoln had not been against slavery, any republican candidate winning the election would have likely set off the CW. The democratic south all voted for the democrat, the north all voted for the republican. The republican won, so the ruling aristocracy decided to secede. They saw their power structure waning and took extreme steps to keep it intact, slavery was a big part of it as it is how that aristocracy had built their power.

It's confusing to a lot of people because one cause fed the other for the war. It's why people argue over the reason of the CW.

Interesting in regard to "civil war" as, the power of one aristocracy versus another as opposed to, the power of the aristocracy versus a discontent proletariat.

[homersapien 11,379]

Just a question for yall,

America wasn't the only country that used slavery so why is it that America has culturally had integration problems that other countries didn't have? Many countries voluntarily gave up slavery after all. So what did we do wrong beginning with Lincoln?

I haven't read enough of how slavery ended in every other country, but I know that at least with England, when Wilberforce pushed for the abolition of slavery you didn't have half the country rebel and a civil war break out over it. But also, most of England's slavery didn't occur in the country of England. It was in their various colonies around the world. In other words, they didn't have to integrate a huge population of former slaves into the fabric of the nation as much. They stopped the slave trade and it mainly just set slaves free in the Caribbean, Africa, and other places far removed from England proper.

That's kind of inaccurate, Lincolns plan was to set in motion the eventual abolition of slavery. It was a 100 years plan, putting slavery ending in the 1960's. The reasoning behind that was he (and most others of the time) were afraid of crashing the economy if slavery was abolished overnight. EDIT: It's a bit early, but it's one of the Lincoln-Douglas debates where he talks about it a bit... interesting reads.

There's also the fact that abolitionists were also extremely racist, but that might have been the same in other countries... not sure.

No it's not inaccurate. Regardless of Lincoln's plans, the South rebelled against the idea of ending slavery, of restricting slavery in future states and territories and ultimately were willing to secede from the Union to preserve their right to keep slavery for the foreseeable future. That situation simply did not play out in England for instance. You didn't have the northern half of the England decide to take their ball and go home or start a war with southern England when Parliament took steps to abolish slavery.

And England did not have many African slaves working inside the country at the time. So they didn't have quite the same obstacles to integration that we had here.

Did you mean to respond to someone else?

Nope meant for you, and I said kind of inaccurate because it's just the way you worded it that made it seem a little off.

The CW would have started even if Lincoln had not been against slavery, any republican candidate winning the election would have likely set off the CW. The democratic south all voted for the democrat, the north all voted for the republican. The republican won, so the ruling aristocracy decided to secede. They saw their power structure waning and took extreme steps to keep it intact, slavery was a big part of it as it is how that aristocracy had built their power.

It's confusing to a lot of people because one cause fed the other for the war. It's why people argue over the reason of the CW.

The reason people argue over the reasons for the CW is some combination of ignorance, pride and denial regarding slavery.

The idea that slavery was a side issue was propagated by Southern historians who were not willing to admit the truth.

[Mims44 1,871]

Just a question for yall,

America wasn't the only country that used slavery so why is it that America has culturally had integration problems that other countries didn't have? Many countries voluntarily gave up slavery after all. So what did we do wrong beginning with Lincoln?

I haven't read enough of how slavery ended in every other country, but I know that at least with England, when Wilberforce pushed for the abolition of slavery you didn't have half the country rebel and a civil war break out over it. But also, most of England's slavery didn't occur in the country of England. It was in their various colonies around the world. In other words, they didn't have to integrate a huge population of former slaves into the fabric of the nation as much. They stopped the slave trade and it mainly just set slaves free in the Caribbean, Africa, and other places far removed from England proper.

That's kind of inaccurate, Lincolns plan was to set in motion the eventual abolition of slavery. It was a 100 years plan, putting slavery ending in the 1960's. The reasoning behind that was he (and most others of the time) were afraid of crashing the economy if slavery was abolished overnight. EDIT: It's a bit early, but it's one of the Lincoln-Douglas debates where he talks about it a bit... interesting reads.

There's also the fact that abolitionists were also extremely racist, but that might have been the same in other countries... not sure.

No it's not inaccurate. Regardless of Lincoln's plans, the South rebelled against the idea of ending slavery, of restricting slavery in future states and territories and ultimately were willing to secede from the Union to preserve their right to keep slavery for the foreseeable future. That situation simply did not play out in England for instance. You didn't have the northern half of the England decide to take their ball and go home or start a war with southern England when Parliament took steps to abolish slavery.

And England did not have many African slaves working inside the country at the time. So they didn't have quite the same obstacles to integration that we had here.

Did you mean to respond to someone else?

Nope meant for you, and I said kind of inaccurate because it's just the way you worded it that made it seem a little off.

The CW would have started even if Lincoln had not been against slavery, any republican candidate winning the election would have likely set off the CW. The democratic south all voted for the democrat, the north all voted for the republican. The republican won, so the ruling aristocracy decided to secede. They saw their power structure waning and took extreme steps to keep it intact, slavery was a big part of it as it is how that aristocracy had built their power.

It's confusing to a lot of people because one cause fed the other for the war. It's why people argue over the reason of the CW.

Interesting in regard to "civil war" as, the power of one aristocracy versus another as opposed to, the power of the aristocracy versus a discontent proletariat.

I like to think of the antebellum republican party as for the proletariat, where the democratic south was very against the common working man. The republicans of the time were all about expanding the middle class to as large an extent as possible. Where the South was all about keeping 99 percent of the power in the hand of the top 1 percent.

[Mims44 1,871]

Just a question for yall,

America wasn't the only country that used slavery so why is it that America has culturally had integration problems that other countries didn't have? Many countries voluntarily gave up slavery after all. So what did we do wrong beginning with Lincoln?

I haven't read enough of how slavery ended in every other country, but I know that at least with England, when Wilberforce pushed for the abolition of slavery you didn't have half the country rebel and a civil war break out over it. But also, most of England's slavery didn't occur in the country of England. It was in their various colonies around the world. In other words, they didn't have to integrate a huge population of former slaves into the fabric of the nation as much. They stopped the slave trade and it mainly just set slaves free in the Caribbean, Africa, and other places far removed from England proper.

That's kind of inaccurate, Lincolns plan was to set in motion the eventual abolition of slavery. It was a 100 years plan, putting slavery ending in the 1960's. The reasoning behind that was he (and most others of the time) were afraid of crashing the economy if slavery was abolished overnight. EDIT: It's a bit early, but it's one of the Lincoln-Douglas debates where he talks about it a bit... interesting reads.

There's also the fact that abolitionists were also extremely racist, but that might have been the same in other countries... not sure.

No it's not inaccurate. Regardless of Lincoln's plans, the South rebelled against the idea of ending slavery, of restricting slavery in future states and territories and ultimately were willing to secede from the Union to preserve their right to keep slavery for the foreseeable future. That situation simply did not play out in England for instance. You didn't have the northern half of the England decide to take their ball and go home or start a war with southern England when Parliament took steps to abolish slavery.

And England did not have many African slaves working inside the country at the time. So they didn't have quite the same obstacles to integration that we had here.

Did you mean to respond to someone else?

Nope meant for you, and I said kind of inaccurate because it's just the way you worded it that made it seem a little off.

The CW would have started even if Lincoln had not been against slavery, any republican candidate winning the election would have likely set off the CW. The democratic south all voted for the democrat, the north all voted for the republican. The republican won, so the ruling aristocracy decided to secede. They saw their power structure waning and took extreme steps to keep it intact, slavery was a big part of it as it is how that aristocracy had built their power.

It's confusing to a lot of people because one cause fed the other for the war. It's why people argue over the reason of the CW.

The reason people argue over the reasons for the CW is some combination of ignorance, pride and denial regarding slavery.

You are too smart to make that statement Homer, revise it:)

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

alex......just about all of us do or believe something that stereotypes us. A I said, I only fly the Confederate flag once a year. My friends all know who and what I am and I have never lost a friend over the flag. I don't always fly the battle flag. Heck I could have a ton of people over of all persuasions and few would even know what it was. In fact, I have done it just to prove it.

I've had more heated arguments over politics and religion than anything else and you stereotype yourself with those too.

[MDM4AU 332]

...To this point, it is not "you MUST take it down", it is, "you should WANT to take it down".

Nail, meet Head.

[AUUSN 823]

Why is it White people who tell Blacks to get over the slavery thing, can't let go of this supposed "Southern Heritage?"

[homersapien 11,379]

Just a question for yall,

America wasn't the only country that used slavery so why is it that America has culturally had integration problems that other countries didn't have? Many countries voluntarily gave up slavery after all. So what did we do wrong beginning with Lincoln?

I haven't read enough of how slavery ended in every other country, but I know that at least with England, when Wilberforce pushed for the abolition of slavery you didn't have half the country rebel and a civil war break out over it. But also, most of England's slavery didn't occur in the country of England. It was in their various colonies around the world. In other words, they didn't have to integrate a huge population of former slaves into the fabric of the nation as much. They stopped the slave trade and it mainly just set slaves free in the Caribbean, Africa, and other places far removed from England proper.

That's kind of inaccurate, Lincolns plan was to set in motion the eventual abolition of slavery. It was a 100 years plan, putting slavery ending in the 1960's. The reasoning behind that was he (and most others of the time) were afraid of crashing the economy if slavery was abolished overnight. EDIT: It's a bit early, but it's one of the Lincoln-Douglas debates where he talks about it a bit... interesting reads.

There's also the fact that abolitionists were also extremely racist, but that might have been the same in other countries... not sure.

No it's not inaccurate. Regardless of Lincoln's plans, the South rebelled against the idea of ending slavery, of restricting slavery in future states and territories and ultimately were willing to secede from the Union to preserve their right to keep slavery for the foreseeable future. That situation simply did not play out in England for instance. You didn't have the northern half of the England decide to take their ball and go home or start a war with southern England when Parliament took steps to abolish slavery.

And England did not have many African slaves working inside the country at the time. So they didn't have quite the same obstacles to integration that we had here.

Did you mean to respond to someone else?

Nope meant for you, and I said kind of inaccurate because it's just the way you worded it that made it seem a little off.

The CW would have started even if Lincoln had not been against slavery, any republican candidate winning the election would have likely set off the CW. The democratic south all voted for the democrat, the north all voted for the republican. The republican won, so the ruling aristocracy decided to secede. They saw their power structure waning and took extreme steps to keep it intact, slavery was a big part of it as it is how that aristocracy had built their power.

It's confusing to a lot of people because one cause fed the other for the war. It's why people argue over the reason of the CW.

The reason people argue over the reasons for the CW is some combination of ignorance, pride and denial regarding slavery.

You are too smart to make that statement Homer, revise it:)

I am certainly not going to revise it. It's true.

No serious, modern historian would argue that slavery was not the central overriding issue that caused the civil war. Lay people (non-historians) who argue otherwise are basing their arguments on the widespread revisionism that was promulgated well into the early 1900's by many who played key roles in the confederacy as well as Southern historians who were all too willing to find a non-slavery justification.

After all, it's tough to admit you started such a bloody war over an immoral cause.

Again, I would recommend Dew's "Apostles of Disunion" for an accounting straight from the mouths of those promoting secession.

But it's important to note that while slavery was the issue that created the war, it was not the motivating reason for the majority of people who fought for the South. This is perhaps a moot point but I think it does address some of the reasons so many Southerners are willing to dismiss slavery as the central cause.

For more information on the personal motivations I would suggest McPherson's "For Cause and Comrades" which takes a more scattered view of the Civil War. While Charles Dew's book was more committed to exploring the issues leading up to the war, James McPherson, although divergent in many respects (especially slavery), picks up where the secessionist commissioners left off and explores how the sentiments in pre-Civil War America stayed with soldiers as they faced one of the most brutal, bloody, and destructive wars seen in centuries.

His main thesis begins with the question of what caused these men to fight and even reenlist when it was such a horrible and devastating war. The answer on both sides, to varying degrees, really has nothing at all to do with slavery per se. In fact, "20 percent of the 429 Southern soldiers he examined voiced proslavery convictions" (110). Rather than focusing on the more predictable issue of slavery, McPherson's thesis is that it was a sense of honor and duty that motivated them. As the author states, slavery was secondary, "larger ideals remained the glue that held the armies together" (89).”

I think if more Southerners recognized this distinction they would more receptive to the truth the war was initiated over slavery.

But even McPherson recognized slavery as the central reason for the war: ".... secession was a “counter-revolution” not a “revolution.” White southerners, he argues, saw the Lincoln administration and the Republican Party as the revolutionaries. The move to secede was a counter-revolution, a conservative effort designed to protect what they had and stem the tide of change sweeping across the nation. All of their resistance, he argues, was aimed at maintaining slavery and their position in society.

Actually from my studies, I have concluded that the Confederacy was largely a creation of the wealthy, lowland slave owners. None of the seceding states put the question to a popular referendum, partly because it might not have passed, especially in the more upland and mountainous regions where slavery was less common. In fact, many of these regions remained loyal to the Union throughout the war (see :The Republic of Winston County AL).

Many common soldiers were more or less "duped" into fighting for slavery as McPherson's "For Cause and Comrades" illustrated.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Why is it White people who tell Blacks to get over the slavery thing, can't let go of this supposed "Southern Heritage?"

Exactly. Criticize for not "assimilating" but, continue to block acceptance and assimilation.

[homersapien 11,379]

Why is it White people who tell Blacks to get over the slavery thing, can't let go of this supposed "Southern Heritage?"

Excellent point.

I was raised in Alabama and taught the typical revisionist views. I found learning the actual truth to be liberating.

Maybe it's because I personally identify more with the upland mountain cultures in the South. But I know I had ancestors who fought for the South.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

I don't tell blacks to get over slavery. They can do whatever they want with it. It's part of their heritage, even though it's bad. I would tell them don't blame me for it and don't tell me I owe you something because of it.

[AUUSN 823]

I don't tell blacks to get over slavery. They can do whatever they want with it. It's part of their heritage, even though it's bad. I would tell them don't blame me for it and don't tell me I owe you something because of it.

Ummmmmm, wut?

[icanthearyou 4,463]

I don't tell blacks to get over slavery. They can do whatever they want with it. It's part of their heritage, even though it's bad. I would tell them don't blame me for it and don't tell me I owe you something because of it.

Ignorant and intolerant in light of the fact that it has only been 50 years since black Americans were overtly and institutionally demoralized, discouraged, and discriminated, against by this society. We all owe black America the understanding and respect that, at the very least, recognizes how offensive and idiotic, flying the Confederate flag is.

[AUDub 11,149]

Looks like Governor Haley is going to do the right thing and call for its removal.

[quietfan 233]

I don't tell blacks to get over slavery. They can do whatever they want with it. It's part of their heritage, even though it's bad. I would tell them don't blame me for it and don't tell me I owe you something because of it.

I agree with you, somewhat. We do not have a system in which the "sins" or crimes of the father are legally transmitted to the son or later generations. That does not mean later generations, out of the goodness of their hearts or shame for their ancestors' actions, can't choose to make amends. If my great-grandfather stole money, my personal code of ethics would make me want to do justice for any such stolen loot that passed down to me through his estate.

But then, if we're talking reparations or past injustices, I'd tell African-Americans that whatever they may be owed or whatever transgressions were inflicted upon their ancestors, their claim comes behind the Native Americans who had an entire continent stolen and were victims of genocide. Of course, that also begs the question(s): What does modern England owe modern Scotland for atrocities of the Middle Ages? Do European governments and/or the Catholic Church owe modern Wiccans anything for the days of witch burnings? Does modern Egypt owe Jews or modern Israel for the years the Hebrews of Moses' time spent in captivity?

But back to the Confederate Battle Flag:

We should always remember our heritage, but that includes remembering and admitting to the ugly things in our heritage. Most folks who claim the Stars & Bars reminds them of their proud heritage conveniently overlook the fact that that particular period in our southern heritage is something to be ashamed of, not proud of. Hitler will always be a part of German heritage, but only a neo-Nazi would proudly fly the Nazi flag in commemoration of it. In fact, it is illegal in Germany today to display Nazi symbolism as a point of pride. (And the Nazis didn't even commit armed treasonous revolt against their standing national government as the Confederates did, although they did use strong arm tactics in the streets to influence elections.)

IMHO, flying the Confederate Battle Flag is not much different than flying the North Vietnamese flag during the Vietnam War, or flying the ISIS flag over US soil today: Sure it's protected freedom of speech for an individual, but not something I'd condone or something a governmental agency--city, state, or federal--should do. I've also always felt that while defacing the U.S. flag is rightfully protected free speech, the freedom to do so is one reason I respect the flag. If the government acted to restrain my freedom of speech, that might give me reason to disrespect the Stars & Stripes in protest.

[homersapien 11,379]

Looks like Governor Haley is going to do the right thing and call for its removal.

Finally! A little leadership instead of the more familiar pandering.

Perhaps even politicians have at long last a modicum of shame.

[Weegle777 78]

Seems the Irish people don't have the same issues.

http://www.irishcent...-237793261.html

***Don't bother posting the Google searches from liberal sites saying this never happened. I've seen them already.

What do you mean by "have the same issues"?

I poorly worded that statement. What I mean is that the Irish people who were slaves, (white slaves), don't seem to exhibit the same amount of anger. In some ways, they were treated worse. Why is this?

*Serious question, not a racially slanted jab.*

[homersapien 11,379]

Seems the Irish people don't have the same issues.

http://www.irishcent...-237793261.html

***Don't bother posting the Google searches from liberal sites saying this never happened. I've seen them already.

What do you mean by "have the same issues"?

I poorly worded that statement. What I mean is that the Irish people who were slaves, (white slaves), don't seem to exhibit the same amount of anger. In some ways, they were treated worse. Why is this?

*Serious question, not a racially slanted jab.*

First, I imagine the Irish personally familiar with the history do have some anger over it.

But the obvious reason is the slavery of blacks was directly related to their race. And that race-based discrimination continued for many decades after slavery was outlawed. Consequently Blacks, unlike the Irish, can relate to (or are impacted by) racial discrimination personally and directly or at least indirectly via their ancestors.

And I seriously doubt the Irish were treated worse.