Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

He's Not Black
WAPOOPED ^ | 11-30-08 | Marie Arana

Posted on 11/30/2008 4:21:44 AM PST by Nick Thimmesch

He is also half white.

Unless the one-drop rule still applies, our president-elect is not black.

We call him that -- he calls himself that -- because we use dated language and logic. After more than 300 years and much difficult history, we hew to the old racist rule: Part-black is all black. Fifty percent equals a hundred. There's no in-between.

That was my reaction when I read these words on the front page of this newspaper the day after the election: "Obama Makes History: U.S. Decisively Elects First Black President."

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption
KEYWORDS: 100percentred; 50white; america2point0; arab; bho2008; biracial; blackpresident; mulatto; notblack; obama
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-104 next last
Well, I am not "black", "white", "brown" or "pink": these are colors (well, black and white ain't even colors technically), not "races". I suppose in this race obsessed country (Mark Levin is correct: liberals are OBSESSED with race & sex) I am one of the three races: "Caucasian". But even THAT is debatable as in the melting pot that this world is today I might have "Negroid" or even "Mongoloid" blood flowing through my 100% American blood. If one reviews the so-called "Certification of Live Birth" purported to prove Obama's citizenship, you will see "Mother's Race" as "Caucasian" and "Father's Race" as "African". Now Africa is a continent, and someone from that continent can, I suppose, call themselves, "African". But "African" is NOT a "race". Would not a "Caucasian" farmer from South Africa (now THERE's a dying species) who migrates -- legally, hopefully -- to the United States not be able to call themselves, "African-American" with a straight face? Nope, not if he didn't want to get hit upside his head at DC's DMV by an irate "African-American" clerk.

A better but certainly not asked question by this columnist's opinion piece would be: "Is Obamba a natural born United States citizen?"

Fat chance we'll see an opinion piece in the Wash Obama's Feet Post.

How disgusting is it that Ms. Arana states:

"But Obama's ascent to the presidency is more than a triumph for blacks. It is the signal of a broad change with broad ramifications. The world has become too fused, too interdependent to ignore this emerging reality: Just as banks, earthly resources and human disease form an intricate global web, so do racial ties. No one appreciates this more, perhaps, than the American Hispanic."

1 posted on 11/30/2008 4:21:44 AM PST by Nick Thimmesch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Nick Thimmesch

He’s the new black. Think Mariah Carey, Halle Berry and so on.


2 posted on 11/30/2008 4:23:08 AM PST by sarasota
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nick Thimmesch

Mulatto as I understand it.


3 posted on 11/30/2008 4:24:51 AM PST by AmericanInTokyo (Shouldn't we form "Committees of Correspondence" thru Freepmail & V-Cards if FR is to be shut down?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nick Thimmesch

No, he’s not black. He’s about the same color as my Khaki BDU Parade Shorts...

...hey yeah, THAT’S the ticket! America has just elected its first Khaki President!


4 posted on 11/30/2008 4:29:02 AM PST by DieHard the Hunter (Is mise an ceann-cinnidh. Cha ghéill mi do dhuine. Fàg am bealach.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sarasota

Well if the slave owners did not make the rule, it would not be used today. Slave owners have really messed up America in many ways. Thank God the North had the sense to fix the travesty.


5 posted on 11/30/2008 4:33:52 AM PST by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Nick Thimmesch
And, when a beagle and dachshund mate, what you get is a mess. When Stanley and who ever the father was mated, that is what we now have, a mess....
6 posted on 11/30/2008 4:37:58 AM PST by Born In America (Warning: Use liberals only under close conservative supervision.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nick Thimmesch

It is ironic that the first ‘black’ to become President happens to be Kenyan and therefore no legitimate ties to American slavery and the ‘American’ ties he inherited were from a white woman. 0bama will do a disservice in that he is going to be a bad example of a ‘President’. One we will not recover from. That’s what you get from people who are obsessed with race and build their lives on it.


7 posted on 11/30/2008 4:43:36 AM PST by bushfamfan (United States of America: July 4, 1776-November 4, 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

A lot of blood was shed to right the wrongs and has gone unappreciated. The United States is responsible for 89 yrs. of it, but if 0bama and his cronies push for reparations maybe they ought to look England’s way as well as 0bama hails from Kenya-what part did his ancestors play in selling those to American slavery?


8 posted on 11/30/2008 4:47:10 AM PST by bushfamfan (United States of America: July 4, 1776-November 4, 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Nick Thimmesch

Ray Nagin said that New Orleans was a “Chocolate City”. Does that mean Obama is “Milk Chocolate”?


9 posted on 11/30/2008 4:49:37 AM PST by BuffaloJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bushfamfan
If he decides to push for reparations, he won't get a dime himself. His family does not come from the South at all. He is from a Northern family who did not have any problems with blacks obviously.
10 posted on 11/30/2008 4:49:50 AM PST by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator
Slave owners have really messed up America in many ways.

Thank God the North had the sense to fix the travesty.

Your ignorance regarding the War of Northern Aggression is astounding.

11 posted on 11/30/2008 4:50:46 AM PST by humblegunner (Where my PIE at, fool?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Nick Thimmesch

Proof that dunb comes in all colors.


12 posted on 11/30/2008 4:51:21 AM PST by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nick Thimmesch

I had a buddy when I was stationed in Germany who was black,Japanese and Irish.He was a loon,fun guy to get drunk with.


13 posted on 11/30/2008 4:53:37 AM PST by Uncle Meat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

Who ended slavery? The North. Nothing ignorant about that fact. Obviously your from the South so no use arguing about with a person that was for slavery. Over and out.


14 posted on 11/30/2008 4:54:44 AM PST by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Nick Thimmesch
Then why were we being threatened with being called anti-black bigots and racists if we didn't vote for Obama? The WaPo is trying to have it both ways.


15 posted on 11/30/2008 4:59:26 AM PST by magooey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nick Thimmesch
Hawaii, Kenya, Indonesia, all south, moved to Chicago...

Oh! I get it! He went 'up nawth' and 'passed'.

16 posted on 11/30/2008 5:02:16 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nick Thimmesch

” He is our first biracial, bicultural president.”

Who says?

“Racial heritage of six former presidents is questioned”
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08036/854713-51.stm

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-129761

http://www.amazon.com/Five-Negro-Presidents-J-Rogers/dp/0960229485


17 posted on 11/30/2008 5:04:06 AM PST by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

What ports did the slave ships use? Who made money when a slave was sold to a Southerner? Why was slavery OK until the South started exporting cotton to England because of the low prices the Northern textile mills were willing to pay?


18 posted on 11/30/2008 5:07:48 AM PST by seemoAR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Nick Thimmesch

They did the same with Tiger Woods, who is only 1/4 th black. I think he is is actually 3/4 Asian (Thai) or is that 1/4 white, 1/4 black and 1/2 Asian? Well, you can see how silly this is getting!


19 posted on 11/30/2008 5:08:34 AM PST by Libertina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nick Thimmesch

The case is clearly outlined in the great black myth of former royalty in Africa that is the movie Coming To America. Eddie Murphy portrays a prince, a ruler who throws away his past to find something new.

The big eared one is from Africa. He is new. He is different. He is not black. He is not Sharpton. He is not Jessee. He is not any of those old men who marched with Martin.

He is not black.


20 posted on 11/30/2008 5:09:37 AM PST by bert (K.E. N.P. +12 . Save America......... put out lots of waferin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nick Thimmesch

Dear Leader is Mulatto.


21 posted on 11/30/2008 5:13:32 AM PST by Dallas59 (Not My President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nick Thimmesch

I have a friend who is from Johannesburg, South Africa and White. We were at a party and she announced that she had become a citizen along with her sister. A very lefty friend quipped “So, how does it feel to be an African-American?”.

Very funny!


22 posted on 11/30/2008 5:13:35 AM PST by Vendome
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator
Well if the slave owners did not make the rule, it would not be used today. Slave owners have really messed up America in many ways. Thank God the North had the sense to fix the travesty.

Well if the slave owners democrat slavers did not make the rule, it would not be used today. Slave owners KKK democrats have really messed up America in many ways. Thank God the North Republicans had the sense to fix the travesty.

23 posted on 11/30/2008 5:14:52 AM PST by ROCKLOBSTER (RATs...nothing more than Bald Haired Hippies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Nick Thimmesch
because we use dated language and logic.

More proof that libs/progressives are REALLY reactionaries

24 posted on 11/30/2008 5:15:39 AM PST by syriacus (OBAMA'S CHOICE ----> is to leave a newborn's fate in the hands of 2 people who wanted to kill her.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Born In America
when a beagle and dachshund mate, what you get is a mess. When Stanley and who ever the father was mated, that is what we now have...

Barky the Mutt!

25 posted on 11/30/2008 5:20:09 AM PST by ROCKLOBSTER (RATs...nothing more than Bald Haired Hippies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Libertina

“They did the same with Tiger Woods, who is only 1/4 th black. I think he is is actually 3/4 Asian (Thai) or is that 1/4 white, 1/4 black and 1/2 Asian? Well, you can see how silly this is getting!”

Tiger used to refer to himself as “Cablinasian”. Some years ago on a Sunday talk show, General Colin Powell was being interviewed regarding presidential aspirations and referred to Tiger’s racial designation but said he preferred himself to be regarded as an “African-American”.


26 posted on 11/30/2008 5:25:46 AM PST by Ozone34 ("There are only two philosophies: Thomism and bullshitism!" -Leon Bloy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator
" Obviously your from the South so no use arguing about with a person that was for slavery."

How old are ... 10?

27 posted on 11/30/2008 5:30:26 AM PST by Red_Devil 232 (VietVet - USMC All Ready On The Right? All Ready On The Left? All Ready On The Firing Line!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator; humblegunner
...Obviously your from the South so no use arguing about with a person that was for slavery...

You're an idiot.

28 posted on 11/30/2008 5:40:15 AM PST by FReepaholic (Diversity = .45 .357 .223 .38 ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator
NO, the north did not end slavery. What they did was to be the aggressor toward the southern states. Certain southern states had already made plans to get rid of slavery before the north ever started their farce of a civil war. I say farce because once the states seceded they were no longer part of the U.S., therefor no civil war. In MO, the war was going on for about a decade before the official date of the war started. The war was about states’ rights and it was not really about slavery, except toward the end of it, when Lincoln realized that he had to do something to be able to win. As usual it was all politics and some great wonderful thing that Lincoln wanted to do to purge the south of slavery. It would probably help you if you read up on the history of the country and especially the War of Northern Aggression and then you might actually get educated about what was really was going on in the country at that time.
29 posted on 11/30/2008 5:40:53 AM PST by Anonymous Political Junky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Red_Devil 232; napscoordinator
...How old are ... 10? ...

Just another Obama voter.

30 posted on 11/30/2008 5:41:42 AM PST by FReepaholic (Diversity = .45 .357 .223 .38 ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER
In 1865 the Republicans freed the slaves; in 1933 the Democrats bought them back.
31 posted on 11/30/2008 5:50:05 AM PST by reg45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Anonymous Political Junky

If I remember my history correctly, Lincoln only freed the slaves in the states which had seceded, not in the states that remained in the union. His concern was for politics, not for freeing the slaves.


32 posted on 11/30/2008 5:51:40 AM PST by aberaussie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: aberaussie

You are correct.


33 posted on 11/30/2008 5:56:24 AM PST by Salamander (Welcome to Obamageddon! The best apocalypse foreign money can buy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator
Obviously your from the South so no use arguing about with a person that was for slavery.

Humblegunner was for slavery? Gee, that would require him to be...what... 150 years old?

Congratulations on a long life, HG!

Over and out.

Effective way to back out of an argument when you know that you're fixing to get your a$$ handed to you for a hat.

Silly, but effective.

34 posted on 11/30/2008 6:02:13 AM PST by PalmettoMason (Can't we all just get along? At least until I'm finished reloading?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
I bought a slim booklet, barely legible mimeographed pages actually, with a title like "The Six (or was it Eight?) Black Presidents of the United States" in a little shop on 125th Street in Harlem in the late '80s or very early '90s.

The author, whose name I can't recall, claimed the current president was part black, but wouldn't name him. I assumed he was referring to LBJ based on the age of this little pamphlet. The claims sound a lot like those in your links . . . particularly the stuff on Harding. It's all very interesting but not very scholarly.

35 posted on 11/30/2008 6:02:41 AM PST by Oratam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Anonymous Political Junky

You make some good points. If true emancipation was really Lincoln’s aim, why were the slaves in non-secessionist states EXEMPTED-?! Lincoln’s war of Northern Agression was really the beginning of the end of the U.S. Constitution. The Second American Revolution was unsuccesful.


36 posted on 11/30/2008 6:03:52 AM PST by imjimbo (The constitution SHOULD be our "gun permit")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Nick Thimmesch
Technically, you probably aren't even caucasian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian

Caucasian may refer to:

Caucasian, an adjective describing anything from the Caucasus region
Peoples of the Caucasus, humans from the Caucasus region
Languages of the Caucasus, languages spoken in the Caucasus region
Caucasian race, a racial classification of human beings
Brown Caucasian (cattle), a cattle breed
North Caucasian (pig), a pig breed
Caucasian Snowcock, a type of bird
Caucasian Shepherd Dog, a dog breed
The Caucasian Chalk Circle, a play by Bertolt Brecht
Caucasian, a nickname for a White Russian (cocktail)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race

The Caucasian race, sometimes the Caucasoid race, is a term of racial classification, coined around 1800 by Johann Friedrich Blumenbach for the "white" race of mankind, which he derived from the region of the Caucasus.[1] It was thus in use as denoting populations of Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, and parts of Central and South Asia, or more narrowly people of European origin.[2] The concept's existence is based on the now obsolete typological method of racial classification.[3][4]

The term Caucasian originated as one of the racial categories recognized by 19th century craniology and is derived from the region of the Caucasus mountains[5].The concept of a "Caucasian race" or Varietas Caucasia was first proposed under those names by the German scientist and classical anthropologist, Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752-1840).[5] His studies based the classification of the Caucasian race primarily on skull features, which Blumenbach claimed were optimized by the Caucasian Peoples...

(snip)

19th century classifications of the peoples of India considered the Dravidians of non-Caucasoid stock, as "Australoid" (Thomas Huxley 1865) or a separate "Dravida" race (Edgar Thurston) and assumed a gradient of miscegenation of high-caste Caucasoid "Aryans" and indigenous Dravidians. Carleton S. Coon in his 1939 The Races of Europe classifies the Dravidians as Caucasoid as well, due to their "Caucasiod skull structure" and other physical traits (e.g. noses, eyes, hair), in his 1969 The Living Races of Man stating that "India is the easternmost outpost of the Caucasian racial region".

With the turn away from racial theory in the late 20th century, the term Caucasian as a racial classification fell into disuse in Europe. Thus, in the United Kingdom, Caucasian is more likely than in the United States to describe people from the Caucasus, although it may still be used as a racial classification...

(snip)

According to Leonard Lieberman, Rodney C. Kirk, and Alice Littlefield, the concept of race has been all but completely rejected by modern mainstream anthropology...

(snip)

In the United States, Caucasian has been mainly a distinction, based on skin color, for a group commonly called White Americans, as defined by the government and Census Bureau.

Between 1917 and 1965, immigration to the USA was restricted by "national origins quota". The Supreme Court in United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind (1923) decided Indians – unlike Europeans and Middle Easterners – were Caucasian but not 'white', because most common people did not consider them to be white.


37 posted on 11/30/2008 6:09:06 AM PST by weegee (Sec. of State Clinton. What kind of change is it to keep the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton Oligarchy?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nick Thimmesch

A fine point is being missed.

Is he being regarded as BLACK, or black?


38 posted on 11/30/2008 6:11:46 AM PST by UCANSEE2 (The Last Boy Scout)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Anonymous Political Junky

ny good books that you would recommend on the subject?


39 posted on 11/30/2008 6:12:22 AM PST by vidbizz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Nick Thimmesch

I don’t care what color he is on the outside. It’s his RED inner-core that bothers me.


40 posted on 11/30/2008 6:14:34 AM PST by Diana in Wisconsin ('Taking the moderate path of appeasement leads to abysmal defeat.' - Rush on 11/05/08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator
Obviously your from the South so no use arguing
about with a person that was for slavery

You Sir, are an idiot.

41 posted on 11/30/2008 6:15:52 AM PST by ThreePuttinDude (-)....Election 2008, the year of the Affirmative Action President....(-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: BuffaloJack

“How do you make chocolate? You take dark chocolate, you mix it with white milk and it becomes a delicious drink. That’s the chocolate I’m talking about.” Backpeddlin’ Ray Nagin, Democrat bigot.


42 posted on 11/30/2008 6:17:54 AM PST by weegee (Sec. of State Clinton. What kind of change is it to keep the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton Oligarchy?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Nick Thimmesch

I don’t give a rat’s ass if he is green. It makes no difference what his skin color is.

He is 100% racist, socialist and marxist.

He is racist because he was a member of the Trinity “church”. Flip that around, and that white candidate would probably never even have got elected to the senate.

He is socialist because of the policies he proposes.

He is Marxist because he is a devotee of class warfare.

Watch. The left is going to make EVERY issue into a race issue. Someone disagrees with him? Racist. Someone says something bad about him? Racist. They have already done so.


43 posted on 11/30/2008 6:20:26 AM PST by rlmorel ("A barrel of monkeys is not fun. In fact, a barrel of monkeys can be quite terrifying!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2

During the campaign, Obama tried to play the “I’m down with the struggle” card by claiming that “his family” was descended from slaves (by way of his wife and through him, his wife’s children).

He was not descended from American slaves, he grew up in Indonesia where he didn’t even experience “racism” from American “imperialism”. He eventually got tired of moving around with “wandering mama” and moved to Hawaii to live with his grandmother who worked as the VP of a bank.

But don’t question his authority.


44 posted on 11/30/2008 6:20:54 AM PST by weegee (Sec. of State Clinton. What kind of change is it to keep the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton Oligarchy?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator; humblegunner

You said — “Who ended slavery? The North. Nothing ignorant about that fact. Obviously your from the South so no use arguing about with a person that was for slavery. Over and out.”

Well, the war started because of secession of states from the Union (which, actually and technically, should have been allowed, although it would have definitely destroyed the U.S. as we know it now). These states left the Union as a result of “state’s rights” issues, and not primarily because of slavery.

There are still state’s rights issues today and some think that the Federal Government has encroached way too much on states rights issues. Some have been affirmed for the states (against the Federal Government) by the Supreme Court, but it’s still a viable issue, even today. There are state’s rights issue with the Federal Government encroaching way too much upon the sovereignty of the individual states of the United States. The Federal Government (thanks to the “liberals” have enforced their agendas by means of taking away “state’s rights issues” from the states and transferring them over to the Federal Government where they can control things *centrally*.

So, in the Civil War, slavery was a secondary issue, and the South was going to end slavery anyway, but it wasn’t on the same timetable as some others wanted. Slavery would have ended soon, too, with automation and mechanization, since the economy would have shifted to machines instead of slavery for much of their work. And there were also people in the South who wanted to end slavery. Everyone knew that its time was limited and would be over soon.

As far as the Civil War being primarily for ending slavery, that’s very far from the truth. The war that Lincoln launched had nothing to do with that. His *primary purpose* was to preserve the Union and not allow those states to leave (although, as I said, they did have the right to do so...). Lincoln took a *military position* to force those states to stay in the Union, even though they had the right to leave.

Now, I’m not saying that we aren’t better off — in regards to the “Union” with everyone staying as part of the Union, but our “states rights issues” suffered as a result of Lincoln, even though he preserved the Union.

However, the North (the people of the North) did not want a prolonged war and they would have given up on Lincoln’s idea, soon — and he knew it. In order to shift gears, somewhat and as a matter of military strategy, Lincoln decided to give slaves freedom, as the Emancipation Proclamation declares. It’s looked upon as a fine and noble document — but at the same time, one must realize that it was *an instrument of war* and had a military objective, which was to gain support by a certain segment of people in the South and also to disrupt the economy of the South as much as possible.

I would say that a significant part of the North did not care if the South left and if they took all their slaves with them. Their attitude would be “let them leave and let them have their slaves...”

BUT, it was Lincoln’s war and it was something that he struggled to maintain, *primarily* for the purpose of *maintaining the Union* and not so much because of slavery. The slavery issue became a means to an end (the “end” being “winning the war”).

So, neither side really held a good “high ground” on the issue, from each side’s behavior and reasoning.

In fact, today, I see that the (so-called) “North” is probably more prejudiced against blacks and them being integrated fully into society than is true in the “South”. I’ve seen this for a long time. Many in the South do quite well living together with blacks, fully integrated and functioning in the South, while in the North, people seem to “spout off platitudes” about inequality of blacks, until blacks come into *their* neighborhoods... LOL... (it’s very true..., in the North). People in the North also seem to be afraid of blacks, more so than people in the South are. It’s a curious thing.

I did ride on those segregated busses (in the South) and grew up “knowing” where I was supposed to sit — and wondered about it. I laugh at a time when I was a kid and decided I was going to sit in the back of the bus (because I thought it was weird that we each sat in different parts of the bus). Well..., when I went back there, I sure got a lot of dirty looks from the blacks, back there..., like “what are you doing back here? The blacks definitely did not want me in “their territory”.

And likewise, the blacks didn’t sit in the front of the bus, either, getting equally dirty looks from whites and the bus driver telling them to go to the back of the bus...

However, into the future, when that changed, it was no problem. I didn’t have a problem and a lot of others didn’t have a problem. There were people that did have a problem with it, just like we have others that don’t abide by the right thing to do, today, either.

So, regardless of what you think the Civil War was about, it wasn’t about slavery — but rather — it was about *preserving the Union*. The slavery issue because a means to an end for winning the war, a simple “tool of war” — more or less..., just like the U.S. uses the Shia population of Iraq against the Sunni population, in order to further progress the U.S. aims and goals in the war.

It’s only in “retrospect” that we (of today) make the slavery issue to be more of a romantic ideal for the Civil War, which it wasn’t.


45 posted on 11/30/2008 6:21:26 AM PST by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

"Tonto can you believe what this guy just said?"
"No kemosobi, can you find out if he is goofy, or just idiot?"

46 posted on 11/30/2008 6:22:52 AM PST by ThreePuttinDude (-)....Election 2008, the year of the Affirmative Action President....(-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

Your an idiot. Got back to the 3d grade and start again.


47 posted on 11/30/2008 6:26:53 AM PST by RetiredArmy (NOTE TO REPUBLICAN POLITICIANS: PLAY THE CONSERVATIVE CARD!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

“Obviously your from the South so no use arguuing about with a person that was for slavery”.
What an incoherent statement. When did Humblegunner state that he was “for slavery”? He merely stated that you were ignorant of the facts concerning the War of Northern Aggresion which is true. You are.
Do you think that Southerners went to Africa and chased Natives through the Jungle to capture Slaves? No. They were bought from New England Slave Traders who did go to Africa and bought them from other Native African Slave Trading Tribes and brought them to the U.S.in ships flying the American Flag.


48 posted on 11/30/2008 6:28:16 AM PST by BnBlFlag (Deo Vindice/Semper Fidelis "Ya gotta saddle up your boys; Ya gotta draw a hard line")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ThreePuttinDude; napscoordinator; PalmettoMason; aberaussie; reg45; FReepaholic; ...

You said to the other poster — “You Sir, are an idiot.”

He’s definitely showing his ignorance of the Civil War and has a “romanticized idea” (typical of liberals of today) of what the Civil War was about (like it was about slavery... LOL..).

He doesn’t know that the slavery issue is about as related to the Civil War, as us going to war with Iraq because we believe in Shias over Sunnis... LOL...

We had our own reasons for going to war there, and he had a name of Saddam Hussein...

Some people don’t know about “states rights” issue and don’t even realize that the liberals take away states rights issues (away from the sovereign states of the United States) in order to *consolidate control* in Washington DC, where they figure it’s easier to do (and to control everyone, through the Federal Government).

This is a person who is severely ignorant about what went on before and what is going on today....


49 posted on 11/30/2008 6:31:00 AM PST by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

LINCOLN DID NOT START THE WAR TO END SLAVERY. Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union. He would have kept slavery if it would have preserved the Union. Both R.E. Lee and Jefferson Davis both thought slavery would simply die out on its own in time. Lee fought for the south because he fought for Virginia. He fought for the rights of his state. Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union at all costs. Try reading some of the books on this. I was looking at one in the book store just the other day and it was covering this subject in detail. Lincoln did not want the USA to break up into two countries, maybe three if the western US did something even different.


50 posted on 11/30/2008 6:32:01 AM PST by RetiredArmy (NOTE TO REPUBLICAN POLITICIANS: PLAY THE CONSERVATIVE CARD!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-104 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson