Islam, the sneaky buggers

[GostHacked]

That's the best you can do? Entirely fabricate something? See, here's the double standard I'm talking about...I say something about Islam and you folks all fall over each other to throw rotten eggs, but you think nothing of trashing European society or Christianity even if it means just conjuring up ridiculous fiction. Slaves? Oh, you must mean the institution that the British government stamped out 150 years ago, that unfortunately lingers on in some Islamic nations, but hasn't been seen in western Europe since...oh, I dunno...for about 1000 years or so?

Or how about the slave trade to North America in the 1800's. Come on Scott, you can do better than this. I have faith in you pal. The only fabrications are the ignorant facts you hold in your own mind. And when you say jewdayoh christians, you are pointing out your intolerance of other cultures. Would you accept Russians into the country for immigration? Lybians? Venezuelans? Cubans?

For about 1000 years? Can you exaggerate anymore? The Germans enslaved the Jews in WWII. The French abolished it in 1794, most of Europe had abolished slavery by the 1800s. The US had abolished slavery in 1865, and Canada, I cannot seem to find an article that shows the exact date, if any, when slavery in Canada was abolished.

Again, great job there Scottyboy.

Just to show the other side of the coin, the African Arabs had many Europeans as slaves. I guess, do unto others as you would have done unto you...... but whatever eh?

[ScottSA]

Or how about the slave trade to North America in the 1800's. Come on Scott, you can do better than this. I have faith in you pal. The only fabrications are the ignorant facts you hold in your own mind. And when you say jewdayoh christians, you are pointing out your intolerance of other cultures. Would you accept Russians into the country for immigration? Lybians? Venezuelans? Cubans?

For about 1000 years? Can you exaggerate anymore? The Germans enslaved the Jews in WWII. The French abolished it in 1794, most of Europe had abolished slavery by the 1800s. The US had abolished slavery in 1865, and Canada, I cannot seem to find an article that shows the exact date, if any, when slavery in Canada was abolished.

Again, great job there Scottyboy.

Just to show the other side of the coin, the African Arabs had many Europeans as slaves. I guess, do unto others as you would have done unto you...... but whatever eh?

The topic is Europeans bringing their slaves here, remember? Not us taking ours there. Europe incrementally abolished slavery after it was long gone, as you may or may not know from your short Google U jaunt. The reason slavery wasn't abolished here is because it was abolished in Britain long before Canada gained autonomy. Didn't you take grade 12 history?

And really, how silly can one get? Can you really make a case that Europeans are going to bring slaves here? Isn't that just silly?

[M.Dancer]

. The French abolished it in 1794, ............

They did indeed.....slavery in the french colonies....there was no slavery in continental france....even the slave lover himself, Jefferson, had to free his slaves when he was an ambassador there......

[GostHacked]

The topic is Europeans bringing their slaves here, remember? Not us taking ours there. Europe incrementally abolished slavery after it was long gone, as you may or may not know from your short Google U jaunt. The reason slavery wasn't abolished here is because it was abolished in Britain long before Canada gained autonomy. Didn't you take grade 12 history?

And really, how silly can one get? Can you really make a case that Europeans are going to bring slaves here? Isn't that just silly?

Yes, and the response that I gave of "As long as they don't bring their slaves with them." was a response to just that. Or can you not see that? Maybe need to reread some of the postings here, and string them together.

And yes I took grade 12 history. And no I guess I cannot really make a case for Modern Europeans bringing slaves to North America.

So the reason slavery was not abolished here in Canada, is because they abolished it in the UK ??? Before Canada gained autonomy as a nation? This makes no sense Scott. If it does make sense, then it is how you worded it. Care to try again and refine your statement? No, the reason it was abolished here, is because slavery was deemed wrong and then banned. It took Canada much longer than the UK to come around to that result. It had nothing to do with how autonomous Canada was from the UK.

[ScottSA]

So the reason slavery was not abolished here in Canada, is because they abolished it in the UK ??? Before Canada gained autonomy as a nation? This makes no sense Scott. If it does make sense, then it is how you worded it. Care to try again and refine your statement? No, the reason it was abolished here, is because slavery was deemed wrong and then banned. It took Canada much longer than the UK to come around to that result. It had nothing to do with how autonomous Canada was from the UK.

Why would I want to rephrase it? Is it hard to understand? When did Canada get autonomy again? When was slavery abolished?

However, slavery remained in Upper and Lower Canada until 1834 when the British Parliament's Slavery Abolition Act finally abolished slavery in all parts of the British Empire.

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

You should probably learn to walk away when you're ahead, before you get trounced. This stuff is common knowledge. Basic history, a la grade 12.

[GostHacked]

ScottSA said..

Point A

The reason slavery wasn't abolished here is because it was abolished in Britain long before Canada gained autonomy. Didn't you take grade 12 history?

Then he quoted the Wikipedia article

Point B

However, slavery remained in Upper and Lower Canada until 1834 when the British Parliament's Slavery Abolition Act finally abolished slavery in all parts of the British Empire.

Why would I want to rephrase it? Is it hard to understand? When did Canada get autonomy again? When was slavery abolished?

So is it A, or B??

[ScottSA]

ScottSA said..

Point A

Then he quoted the Wikipedia article

Point B

So is it A, or B??

What exactly is your problem? Canada was a colony of Britain in 1834. It had no autonomy. Britain abolished slavery in 1834, and because Canada was a colony, that means it was abolished in Canada in 1834, before Canada gained autonomy, by virtue of its abolishment in Britain. What's so hard to understand about that? It's both A and B. They are not mutually exclusive in any way.

[GostHacked]

What exactly is your problem? Canada was a colony of Britain in 1834. It had no autonomy. Britain abolished slavery in 1834, and because Canada was a colony, that means it was abolished in Canada in 1834, before Canada gained autonomy, by virtue of its abolishment in Britain. What's so hard to understand about that? It's both A and B. They are not mutually exclusive in any way.

Ah well, as I reread it. You did make sense. I will admit that now. I guess it was how you worded it that threw me off, and without a little more explanation next time, we might avoid this whole mess. But again, I did not read that correctly.

[jbg]

They did indeed.....slavery in the french colonies....there was no slavery in continental france....even the slave lover himself, Jefferson, had to free his slaves when he was an ambassador there......

I believe his slaves were auctioned off at some point to pay debts. Maybe a few were freed on his death. Jefferson was a great man but fell quite short on the slavery issue.

[DogOnPorch]

Britain abolished slavery in 1834, and because Canada was a colony, that means it was abolished in Canada in 1834, before Canada gained autonomy, by virtue of its abolishment in Britain.

Aside: It also shows the brilliance of Lincoln's Gettysburg address.

Britian was all set to recognize the CSA in 1862. This would have split the Union forever as Great Britain was planning to swap guns for cotton and defend the shipping lanes with her vast navy. All that was needed was a decisive victory on Union soil by the Reble Army. Antietam was too much of a draw, so it was the following year's invasion and the battle of Gettysburg that was a lynchpin for the CSA. They lost...and Abe's famous address switched the focus of the US Civil War away from King Cotton and into a battle to free the slaves...which Great Britain couldn't support in any case, forcing the South to fight on alone with no hope of outside help.

Very clever...

-----------------------------------------------------------

If the Confederacy fails, there should be written on its tombstone: Died of a Theory.

---Jefferson Davis CSA

Edited October 10, 2007 by DogOnPorch

[ScottSA]

Ah well, as I reread it. You did make sense. I will admit that now. I guess it was how you worded it that threw me off, and without a little more explanation next time, we might avoid this whole mess. But again, I did not read that correctly.

Very gracious of you. Most people don't admit when they're wrong. I would, always, except that I'm never wrong.

[ScottSA]

Aside: It also shows the brilliance of Lincoln's Gettysburg address.

Britian was all set to recognize the CSA in 1862. This would have split the Union forever as Great Britain was planning to swap guns for cotton and defend the shipping lanes with her vast navy. All that was needed was a decisive victory on Union soil by the Reble Army. Antietam was too much of a draw, so it was the following year's invasion and the battle of Gettysburg that was a lynchpin for the CSA. They lost...and Abe's famous address switched the focus of the US Civil War away from King Cotton and into a battle to free the slaves...which Great Britain couldn't support in any case, forcing the South to fight on alone with no hope of outside help.

I didn't realize that was one of the reasons for the address. I always saw it as just a brilliant piece of rhetoric. Thanks.

[Moxie]

What countries currently practice slavery? Saudia Arabia, the Sudan, the Horn of Africa. What do they all have in common? Even in Canada we've prosecuted immigrants for holding domestic workers as slaves. Repeatedly raped, not paid for services rendered, beaten and abused in Canada. Cough cough where did they hail from? Saudi Arabia/Ottawa. Name a current (or in the past century) where slaves were acceptable as the norm in the West? Yea that's what I thought.

[Michael Hardner]

Even in Canada we've prosecuted immigrants for holding domestic workers as slaves.

What does that mean ?

You make it sound surprising that Canada would prosecute for slavery !

[ScottSA]

What does that mean ?

You make it sound surprising that Canada would prosecute for slavery !

After years of listening to limpid milquetoast coming from you, I've never been able to figure out whether you're intentionally obtuse or just plain dumb.

[jbg]

I didn't realize that was one of the reasons for the address. I always saw it as just a brilliant piece of rhetoric. Thanks.

I think it was more a reason for the Union to rally hard and make sure they won a must-win battle. I think the address was aimed at shoring up morale. I doubt that the address was aimed at Britain.

For what it's worth, here's the text:

Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation: conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war. . .testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated. . . can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war.

We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate. . .we cannot consecrate. . . we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract.

The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here,

but it can never forget what they did here.

It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us. . .that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion. . . that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain. . . that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. . . and that government of the people. . .by the people. . .for the people. . . shall not perish from the earth.

Lincoln was sure wrong about one thing; the highlighted portion of the text. He is among many Americans and others (most notably, Winston Churchill) that have given democracy necessary, great rhetoric which alone gives it a chance against the forces of dictatorship and evil.

Edited October 10, 2007 by jbg

[ScottSA]

Actually, while it's a great and timeless piece of rhetoric, it comes from a time when the standards of English were far higher than they are now. Any literate person of the day was classically trained, learned in narrow depth rather than broad shallowness as we are today, and commanded an English vernacular far superior to ours. Shakespeare, in a different era, wrote magnificent prose, but not so far off the standard of the time either. English of the day still held traces of Chaucer's melodic middle English...probably the most beautiful stage in the evolution of English.

[WestViking]

What countries currently practice slavery? Saudia Arabia, the Sudan, the Horn of Africa. What do they all have in common? Even in Canada we've prosecuted immigrants for holding domestic workers as slaves. Repeatedly raped, not paid for services rendered, beaten and abused in Canada. Cough cough where did they hail from? Saudi Arabia/Ottawa. Name a current (or in the past century) where slaves were acceptable as the norm in the West? Yea that's what I thought.

Regrettably human slavery is rampant world-wide, including in America and Canada.

I do not wish to throw the thread off-topic, but please Google the term "human trafficking" to get some grasp of the problem.

[Michael Hardner]

After years of listening to limpid milquetoast coming from you, I've never been able to figure out whether you're intentionally obtuse or just plain dumb.

Scott - READ THAT SENTENCE. Tell me what point they're trying to make.

EVEN in Canada ? EVEN Canada acts against slavery.... Why wouldn't we ? That's what I'm trying to get at.

[M.Dancer]

Very gracious of you. Most people don't admit when they're wrong. I would, always, except that I'm never wrong.

Peloponnese......

[ScottSA]

Peloponnese......

"I'm" is a present tense conjunction. "I am." Therefore, my claim refers to the immediate tense, as in this...oh fine...whatever.

[ScottSA]

Scott - READ THAT SENTENCE. Tell me what point they're trying to make.

EVEN in Canada ? EVEN Canada acts against slavery.... Why wouldn't we ? That's what I'm trying to get at.

Maybe it's the just plain dumb thing. Moxie said:

"What countries currently practice slavery? Saudia Arabia, the Sudan, the Horn of Africa. What do they all have in common? Even in Canada we've prosecuted immigrants for holding domestic workers as slaves...."

You seriously don't understand the nuance there? Why do you think she specified "immigrants" in a sentence following a denotation of several Islamic countries? Why didn't she say "Even in Canada we've prosecuted people for...?" In other words (I'm embarrassed to have to spell it out for you, really), even when they come to Canada, Muslims continue to practise slavery. When canada catches them, it prosecutes them. I suppose Moxie assumed that most people would take it for granted that Canada would prosecute slave holders, so didn't feel the need to pander to Michaelian brainfarts.

Obviously your brain hit a bump somewhere in that passage, dropped into neutral, whereupon you decided the reason you weren't going forward was the composition of the road rather than a defect in your head. Her sentence is quite clear Mikey.

Edited October 10, 2007 by ScottSA

[M.Dancer]

You seriously don't understand the nuance there?

You are wasting your time with him. There's a feature in your control panel that allows you to block posts from people you consider worthless. A fine feature I might add.

[DogOnPorch]

I think it was more a reason for the Union to rally hard and make sure they won a must-win battle. I think the address was aimed at shoring up morale. I doubt that the address was aimed at Britain.

The Battle of Gettysburg was well over by the time Lincoln made it to the battlefield for his address.

Union General Scott's blockade of the Southern ports (The Anaconda Plan) was preventing weapons from coming in and cotton from going out. Europe was soon starved for the valuable fibre and was desperate to get the supplies moving ASAP out of the Reb ports.

All the South needed was to be recognized by Great Britain or France and it would assure its survival. In November, 1861, the British sent the HMS Trent to convey Confederate diplomats James Murray Mason and John Slidell to Europe. The Trent was boarded by Union sailors from the USS San Jacinto who removed the two diplomats bringing them back to a Union port.

This nearly started a major war with Great Britain. Lincoln ordered them released and they continued on to Europe on another ship. They, however, failed in their mission of recognition. The diplomats were informed that if they could beat the Union army on its own soil thus proving the survivability of the Rebel cause Great Britain would deal with the blockade. They needed the South's cotton and the Rebs needed British weapons.

The Gettysburg Address prevented this from ever happening. It was aimed not only at the home audience and the blacks of the South but the entire World least they dare get involved.

You're free to add your spin, though...but I assure you this was the true genius of Lincoln's Address.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it.

---Gen. Robert E. Lee CSA

[jbg]

The Battle of Gettysburg was well over by the time Lincoln made it to the battlefield for his address.

That I was aware of. The rest of the post, I am a willing learner.