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/