If any of you are interested in listening to a very insightful breakdown of American slavery, this is good. I listened to it a few weeks ago. It’s a little long at around 4 hours, but worth it.
If you don’t have an Apple device, it’s Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History, episode 68.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/da...0553133741
(12-16-2022, 09:59 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (12-16-2022, 02:11 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe so. Not sure the Tackies would agree with you. This is again arguably true for the many Irish who took that risk to come to America, also.
Not sure who the Tackies were, but many of the Irish people arriving in colonial times were on 7 year contracts. That's bad, but not as bad as being a slave for life.
The good thing about misremembering something is that you can't google it to pretend like you knew it already.
In the south, there were a group of people that were so poor, they ate dirt/clay. Their skin turned yellow, and were known as clay-eaters, and were often called tacky. The Irish had it so bad, they were willing to enslave themselves to people (even for a time), and even at the risk that they might not ever be free, which is often what happened. I just really don't think people have a good enough grasp of how bad things were for people back then.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cPII2l-K4s
That's worth a watch. Life was HARD... even for whites.
(12-17-2022, 11:15 AM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status...SSWng&s=19
I'm assuming here that there was no statistician overseeing the decision to 'randomly' choose 50 from each category. Picking 50 from each would imply that the population of each category wasn't even considered, which means that those 50 from each might not even be valid statistical samples. Sounds like some judge just pulled the number 50 out of his/her [BLEEP].
Plus, what do they mean by '50 early ballots cast on Election Day'? Unless they are calling an 'early' vote a vote made in the first couple of hours on Election day, then this sounds contradictory. And why would this even be significant?
What's ironic is these boutique liberal arts schools create this dynamic themselves and call it philanthropy.
They bring in talented but poor kids and expect them to make social connections with talented but rich kids. They put them all in the same dorms and same classes but then the invites go out for an off campus party, and some can BYOB and some can't. No easy answer.
(12-18-2022, 09:02 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]What's ironic is these boutique liberal arts schools create this dynamic themselves and call it philanthropy.
They bring in talented but poor kids and expect them to make social connections with talented but rich kids. They put them all in the same dorms and same classes but then the invites go out for an off campus party, and some can BYOB and some can't. No easy answer.
Or even worse, they let the black kids and white kids live in separate dorms. We've come full circle from the 1950s, when we had safe spaces for white kids, to now, we have safe spaces for black kids, and the result is the same. They discriminate against Asian students so they can have more black students, in the name of diversity, then they allow the black students to have a black-only dorm. How does a black-only dorm foster diversity?
(12-18-2022, 09:47 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (12-18-2022, 09:02 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]What's ironic is these boutique liberal arts schools create this dynamic themselves and call it philanthropy.
They bring in talented but poor kids and expect them to make social connections with talented but rich kids. They put them all in the same dorms and same classes but then the invites go out for an off campus party, and some can BYOB and some can't. No easy answer.
Or even worse, they let the black kids and white kids live in separate dorms. We've come full circle from the 1950s, when we had safe spaces for white kids, to now, we have safe spaces for black kids, and the result is the same. They discriminate against Asian students so they can have more black students, in the name of diversity, then they allow the black students to have a black-only dorm. How does a black-only dorm foster diversity?
Because it blends perfectly with the hypocrisy of leftist dogma that we must be a colorblind society by emphasizing the color and ethnicity of every single person, unless they’re white.
Equity and diversity are nothing more than weaponized buzz words for them.
Argentina has few black players because the country has few black people, obviously.
If you go back 150 years, there were many more black people in Argentina. There's a story there, but, maybe don't blame their 2022 soccer team for what happened in 1864.
(12-18-2022, 07:56 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Argentina has few black players because the country has few black people, obviously.
If you go back 150 years, there were many more black people in Argentina. There's a story there, but, maybe don't blame their 2022 soccer team for what happened in 1864.
Let’s not blame the US for the same reasons.
(12-18-2022, 08:00 PM)Jags Wrote: [ -> ] (12-18-2022, 07:56 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Argentina has few black players because the country has few black people, obviously.
If you go back 150 years, there were many more black people in Argentina. There's a story there, but, maybe don't blame their 2022 soccer team for what happened in 1864.
Let’s not blame the US for the same reasons.
I'm a big fan of the US soccer teams.
I also think history needs to be taught as accurately and completely as possible, without blaming anyone who wasn't alive when it happened.
![[Image: 20221218-092835.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/rwyV9fk7/20221218-092835.jpg)