I know that most whites did not own slaves, nor land, and voluntarily
signed on for indentures. I also know that there were whites here
that were worse off than slaves, except they were white. My point to
that is the slaves did not put them in that position. No matter how
far they were down on the totem pole, they still had freedom to come
and go as they pleased. They also had the right to own slaves, and
purchase land. That was a right most slaves did not, and would not
ever have.
Does that make whites racist? I don't think so. I don't believe
racism reared its' ugly head until there was a threat of losing the
rights that many poor whites felt they were entitled to.
Anita
-- macbd1 <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
...Listers,
With all of the 'supposed' political correctness at this list, the
'supposed' multi-culturalism, the
oh-how-we-would-never-treat-others-that-way, the comparison of white
Americans to Nazi Germans, the claims of "white racism extending over
almost
the entire US, if not near the entirity of the white population," the
"political lynchings as well that targeted primarily left-wing
organizers,"
(huh...?), the feelings that respect for the law was fundamental and
that
Reagan, _*unlike the people who call themselves conservative today*_,
understood the dangers that are intrinsic to democracy, that 'a few'
good
whites (were fearful and) were bullied into submission by the
KKK...., ad
infintum to nauseum. Now I'm simply wondering why 'nobody' at this
list
has had 'the guts' to stand up and back James Brothers' statement 'in
its
entirety': "To assume that all/most Whites felt the non-judicial
murder of
Blacks was appropriate is racist."
*Many/most* (68% to 90%) white Americans came willingly to this
country as
indentured servants (for 4 to 7 years and more) to pay for their
passage,
who then and later worked as hard or harder than slaves to claim and
maintain freedom for themselves and family. It was many years before
they
were able to have even one coin, they bartered their labor for means
to have
food, clothes, a roof over their heads and a rough-hewn garden. Most
were
landless, well over 50% in many frontier counties during the 1700's,
that
demonstrated it was a myth that most frontiersmen were land-owning
yeomen.
They fought for their nation's independence and their individual
liberties;
and they stood ready to personally fight anyone to the death who
threatened
their country, freedom, family or meager belongings. They would have
certainly fought to their deaths before submitting to a lifetime of
slavery.
Well, I could say much more but I will leave it at that..... as
another
poster so thankfully said.....
The results of this VA-HIST's thread (so far) is a great surprise and
eye-opener to me, it's a stomach-turner indeed !!!
Thank you very much, James Brothers, for your comments to which I
agree and
greatly respect!!
Neil McDonald
PS - If J South had made such types of derogatory comments about
natives,
blacks or African-Americans there would have been no end of
complaints and
negative commentary. Maybe I'm beginning to understand why many at
this
list are so at odds with 'J South' maybe liking to 'jab' or 'stir up'
some
controversy while some of his 'aside' comments demonstrate a caring
sensitivity. Why do some/most of you 'hush up' when contoversy
arises -- is
that just your way...? C'mon, stand up and be counted so everybody
may
understand the majority beliefs at this list.... Let's find out
what's
really going on in the minds of my countrymen (and women.) I
sincerely care
and would like to know.
_____________________________________________________________
Click for free info on paralegal training and make up to $150K/ year
http://track.netzero.net/s/lc?u=http://tagline.untd.us/fc/Ioyw6ijm0beANOQA4nIvvEwQKoSMmIFdHpdCdv1QIGZ8fsjB21HByb/
|