Maybe the case in your family but not mine. My family is a blended one from the northeast and midwest. It was not an easy situation and we all look back on it now and realize we were all just trying to get through the day. Us kids weren't taught anything other than how to cook meals and do housework and other chores, to respect them and everyone else, what church meant, how to be productive human beings as we grew up, etc. We were not political in any way though my parents did vote. Race, segregation and all that BS was definitely never a topic of conversation in our house. Anything I learned about outside of that as a kid was either at school or in interactions with people.

I literally have no traditions from growing up so my values are from what I believe in from my experiences, not from anything anyone told me. I can't look at any one thing and say that my parents had any influence on me outside of what I listed above. Maybe that's weird, maybe not, but it's all I know. It's also probably why I hate being told what or how to think. 

You act like people with traditional values sit around and talk to their kids about the days of racism and segregation like it's a badge of honor or a rite of passage to pass on to little Susie and little Johnny. There are people like that, yes, but not in the quantity you seem to think by a long shot.

Did you spend your middle school years in Jacksonville? Did you ever go to a school with forced desegregation?

Dude, just don't. I've said what I have to say about it. Just as you tried to tell me (in another thread) with your word salads that I owe reparations to the black community you are once again trying to tell me who I am. You don't know anything and you and I are done with this conversation. 

Shame on me for trying to help you understand something from a different perspective. For as much [BLEEP] as I give you I also try to give you the benefit of the doubt. No more.

---

Did you spend your middle school years in Jacksonville? Did you ever go to a school with forced desegregation?

Dude, just don't. I've said what I have to say about it. Just as you tried to tell me (in another thread) with your word salads that I owe reparations to the black community you are once again trying to tell me who I am. You don't know anything and you and I are done with this conversation. 

Shame on me for trying to help you understand something from a different perspective. For as much [BLEEP] as I give you I also try to give you the benefit of the doubt. No more.

I just asked two questions about who you are. That's the opposite of telling. 
All I'm trying to show is that, even though we are both white people who grew up in the south, your experiences were very different from mine and therefore we each know things about the south that the other does not.
And I never said you would owe reparations to the black community.  I asked if you benefited from generational wealth that was created during the redlining era.  You did not.  And even if you did, it's basically impossible to turn that into a government tax anyhow.  It was just a question.  I know that I've benefitted from some generational wealth, but I'm not sure if it came from the redlining era. I don't think it did.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Stop using your brain power to win an argument and start using it to think about why you are saying racism is a traditional value, while also admitting that all people don't share that tradition.

There was a long, slow, and violent march of progress in the west BY THE WEST to eradicate slavery and racism, not just in our own countries, but worldwide. So much so, that it has become a value in this country NOT to be racist. Why did that happen in the West and nowhere else, Mikey? Do you ask yourself that question EVER?

---

Stop using your brain power to win an argument and start using it to think about why you are saying racism is a traditional value, while also admitting that all people don't share that tradition.

There was a long, slow, and violent march of progress in the west BY THE WEST to eradicate slavery and racism, not just in our own countries, but worldwide. So much so, that it has become a value in this country NOT to be racist. Why did that happen in the West and nowhere else, Mikey? Do you ask yourself that question EVER?

But he was told that racism and chattel slavery are uniquely white American values.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Stop using your brain power to win an argument and start using it to think about why you are saying racism is a traditional value, while also admitting that all people don't share that tradition.

There was a long, slow, and violent march of progress in the west BY THE WEST to eradicate slavery and racism, not just in our own countries, but worldwide. So much so, that it has become a value in this country NOT to be racist. Why did that happen in the West and nowhere else, Mikey? Do you ask yourself that question EVER?

What a silly question.
Let's take "the west" to mean western Europe.  Indeed, western Europeans like Sonthonax and Wilberforce did start and lead the effort to eradicate slavery from the Western Hemisphere.  But it was Western Europeans themselves who, two centuries earlier, had established African slavery in the Western Hemisphere in the first place, on a scale and over a distance that was previously unimaginable.  So who else was going to lead the eradication effort? Morally, is this anything more than a wash?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Stop using your brain power to win an argument and start using it to think about why you are saying racism is a traditional value, while also admitting that all people don't share that tradition.

There was a long, slow, and violent march of progress in the west BY THE WEST to eradicate slavery and racism, not just in our own countries, but worldwide. So much so, that it has become a value in this country NOT to be racist. Why did that happen in the West and nowhere else, Mikey? Do you ask yourself that question EVER?

But he was told that racism and chattel slavery are uniquely white American values.

No one told me that.  I never said that.
I focus on America because we are mostly all here in America. That doesn't mean other countries don't also have massive problems in their histories.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Stop using your brain power to win an argument and start using it to think about why you are saying racism is a traditional value, while also admitting that all people don't share that tradition.

There was a long, slow, and violent march of progress in the west BY THE WEST to eradicate slavery and racism, not just in our own countries, but worldwide. So much so, that it has become a value in this country NOT to be racist. Why did that happen in the West and nowhere else, Mikey? Do you ask yourself that question EVER?

What a silly question.
Let's take "the west" to mean western Europe.  Indeed, western Europeans like Sonthonax and Wilberforce did start and lead the effort to eradicate slavery from the Western Hemisphere.  But it was Western Europeans themselves who, two centuries earlier, had established African slavery in the Western Hemisphere in the first place, on a scale and over a distance that was previously unimaginable.  So who else was going to lead the eradication effort? Morally, is this anything more than a wash?

No. It's not a wash, you nincompoop. 

Slavery was an accepted practice and already common across the globe. Africans enslaved each other. Europeans enslaved each other. Native Americans enslaved each other. Asians enslaved each other (still do). 

Europeans didn't invent slavery. They harnessed new technologies, which gave them a dominance that was unique in world history. The only thing that changed was the reach. That doesn't give them a reason to stop the practice of slavery. So, Mikey, I ask you again. What VALUE or VALUES caused the WEST to be unique in history and eradicate slavery when they had the capability to continue enforcing it?

---

What a silly question.
Let's take "the west" to mean western Europe.  Indeed, western Europeans like Sonthonax and Wilberforce did start and lead the effort to eradicate slavery from the Western Hemisphere.  But it was Western Europeans themselves who, two centuries earlier, had established African slavery in the Western Hemisphere in the first place, on a scale and over a distance that was previously unimaginable.  So who else was going to lead the eradication effort? Morally, is this anything more than a wash?

No. It's not a wash, you nincompoop. 

Slavery was an accepted practice and already common across the globe. Africans enslaved each other. Europeans enslaved each other. Native Americans enslaved each other. Asians enslaved each other (still do). 

Europeans didn't invent slavery. They harnessed new technologies, which gave them a dominance that was unique in world history. The only thing that changed was the reach. That doesn't give them a reason to stop the practice of slavery. So, Mikey, I ask you again. What VALUE or VALUES caused the WEST to be unique in history and eradicate slavery when they had the capability to continue enforcing it?

Slavery was absent in Western Europe from about 300 AD onwards. It may have come back for a time in Britain, but it was gone again by the Norman conquest. The Arabs reintroduced slavery into Spain, but they were gone from that scene by 1492. Native Americans, Africans, and Asians, not all of those societies practiced slavery.  Some did, some didn't.
The Portuguese began purchasing African slaves in the mid 1400s. They were offered for sale in various parts of Europe, but found no buyers in Britain or France. Those kings and societies frowned on it at the time. Only the Spanish purchased any significant amount of Africans for slavery in Europe.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Serfs were property. Just because it's institutionalized, doesn't mean it's not the same concept. They just put a pretty bow on it. And even then, you have the same question. What VALUE or VALUES in the west caused them to rebrand? You love to not answer questions.

---

Serfs were property. Just because it's institutionalized, doesn't mean it's not the same concept. They just put a pretty bow on it. And even then, you have the same question. What VALUE or VALUES in the west caused them to rebrand? You love to not answer questions.

Serfdom is when you are tied to the land.  You are only bought or sold when the land is bought and sold.  They had more legal rights than slaves.  It was bad, but it's an improvement over chattel slavery.

As for why serfdom ended, first in England then westward and finally into Russia, that's very complicated.  Spain, Portugal, and Italy never had very many serfs in the first place.  By the time you get to the Germans and Austrians considering an end to serfdom, they were doing so because the English and French had already demonstrated that abolition vastly helped with raising, feeding, and equipping armies.  It was material, not spiritual.  And the French did it to imitate the English and White and Native Americans, again because they saw it would make them more materially prosperous.  Why did the English get that train going in the 1300s?  That's much less clear.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Serfs were property. Just because it's institutionalized, doesn't mean it's not the same concept. They just put a pretty bow on it. And even then, you have the same question. What VALUE or VALUES in the west caused them to rebrand? You love to not answer questions.

He has no answers because he doesn't think for himself. 

It's a shame he probably grasps the idea of critical theory but not critical thinking.

---

Serfs were property. Just because it's institutionalized, doesn't mean it's not the same concept. They just put a pretty bow on it. And even then, you have the same question. What VALUE or VALUES in the west caused them to rebrand? You love to not answer questions.

He has no answers because he doesn't think for himself. 

It's a shame he probably grasps the idea of critical theory but not critical thinking.

The answers are literally right above your post lol.
You have no idea what critical theory is, and anyhow I don't adhere to it.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

It's not easy to explain, but it's not complicated. Being tied to the land, then giving people charge over the land is rebranded slavery, like I said. So, like I asked before, what VALUE or VALUES did the west adopt that would cause them to want to rebrand slavery and ultimately end it?

---

It's not easy to explain, but it's not complicated. Being tied to the land, then giving people charge over the land is rebranded slavery, like I said. So, like I asked before, what VALUE or VALUES did the west adopt that would cause them to want to rebrand slavery and ultimately end it?

Roman slavery ended in many waves, it got smaller and smaller as you get closer and closer to the end of the Western empire. The end of slavery coincides with the beginning of Christianity, but the connection is hotly debated because at first Christianity was banned, and a noble would be risking his own status to admit being a Christian, and later Christianity was legally established, and a noble would be risking his own status to deny being a Christian. Anyhow I don't want to violate the CoC. And those same late Romans turned around and created serfdom, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

It's not easy to explain, but it's not complicated. Being tied to the land, then giving people charge over the land is rebranded slavery, like I said. So, like I asked before, what VALUE or VALUES did the west adopt that would cause them to want to rebrand slavery and ultimately end it?

Roman slavery ended in many waves, it got smaller and smaller as you get closer and closer to the end of the Western empire. The end of slavery coincides with the beginning of Christianity, but the connection is hotly debated because at first Christianity was banned, and a noble would be risking his own status to admit being a Christian, and later Christianity was legally established, and a noble would be risking his own status to deny being a Christian. Anyhow I don't want to violate the CoC.  And those same late Romans turned around and created serfdom, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Trying to follow your logic is worse than following Little Billy in Family Circus.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

Roman slavery ended in many waves, it got smaller and smaller as you get closer and closer to the end of the Western empire. The end of slavery coincides with the beginning of Christianity, but the connection is hotly debated because at first Christianity was banned, and a noble would be risking his own status to admit being a Christian, and later Christianity was legally established, and a noble would be risking his own status to deny being a Christian. Anyhow I don't want to violate the CoC.  And those same late Romans turned around and created serfdom, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Trying to follow your logic is worse than following Little Billy in Family Circus.

In this case I'm only answering a question, and I don't know what the point of the question was.  So I'm not following the logic either.  Maybe L2L can clear that up.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

It's not easy to explain, but it's not complicated. Being tied to the land, then giving people charge over the land is rebranded slavery, like I said. So, like I asked before, what VALUE or VALUES did the west adopt that would cause them to want to rebrand slavery and ultimately end it?

Roman slavery ended in many waves, it got smaller and smaller as you get closer and closer to the end of the Western empire. The end of slavery coincides with the beginning of Christianity, but the connection is hotly debated because at first Christianity was banned, and a noble would be risking his own status to admit being a Christian, and later Christianity was legally established, and a noble would be risking his own status to deny being a Christian. Anyhow I don't want to violate the CoC.  And those same late Romans turned around and created serfdom, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

That's a very western-centric world view you have. Slavery was common everywhere, but you only focus on the west, and you're essentially proving my point. The convergence of Roman law (human rights), Greek philosophy (rationalism and liberty) and Christianity (individualism and sanctity of human life), created the unique foundational values that are prevalent in the west. Those values ultimately are what began to curb the natural human inclination to dominate those weaker than them, which ultimately led to liberalism. 

Only in liberal societies have you seen a move against racism and slavery. Why? Because individualism, justice, rationality, personal responsibility, sanctity of human life, and liberty are core traditional values in the west. You could also add strong families and faith to the list. Progressives do not adhere to any of these values. You don't get to take racism, which is a blight on the American past, and falsely attribute it to an entire group of people who are annoyed with progressives for tarnishing these values. 

I honestly don't think you're wise enough to understand why you are repeating propaganda that is literally designed to undermine ALL of the values above. Racism is a smokescreen. Don't be so open minded your brain falls out.

---

Roman slavery ended in many waves, it got smaller and smaller as you get closer and closer to the end of the Western empire. The end of slavery coincides with the beginning of Christianity, but the connection is hotly debated because at first Christianity was banned, and a noble would be risking his own status to admit being a Christian, and later Christianity was legally established, and a noble would be risking his own status to deny being a Christian. Anyhow I don't want to violate the CoC.  And those same late Romans turned around and created serfdom, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

That's a very western-centric world view you have. Slavery was common everywhere, but you only focus on the west, and you're essentially proving my point. The convergence of Roman law (human rights), Greek philosophy (rationalism and liberty) and Christianity (individualism and sanctity of human life), created the unique foundational values that are prevalent in the west. Those values ultimately are what began to curb the natural human inclination to dominate those weaker than them, which ultimately led to liberalism. 

Only in liberal societies have you seen a move against racism and slavery. Why? Because individualism, justice, rationality, personal responsibility, sanctity of human life, and liberty are core traditional values in the west. You could also add strong families and faith to the list. Progressives do not adhere to any of these values. You don't get to take racism, which is a blight on the American past, and falsely attribute it to an entire group of people who are annoyed with progressives for tarnishing these values. 

I honestly don't think you're wise enough to understand why you are repeating propaganda that is literally designed to undermine ALL of the values above. Racism is a smokescreen. Don't be so open minded your brain falls out.

Well, you baited me by saying "europeans enslaved europeans" so I had to tell you that they in fact had not enslaved each other for perhaps an entire millenia.  I agree with most of what you're saying about liberals and progressives and western society, if what we mean by western society is western Europe.  
My point of disagreement with you is I don't think anywhere in the western Hemisphere is really western in this sense.  We were colonial and then post-colonial, aspiring to become western.  Writing law like westerners but living lives like colonizers. We are much better now than we were, but we have to keep aspiring to be better and better, especially with regard to how we treat the descendents of the slaves and the natives.
Meanwhile in some odd senses we have leapfrogged our European forebears. Much of what passes as feminism here, French and German women regard as totally over the top. We should have had less "progress" on gender here and more on race.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.