|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Apr 4, 2020 22:04:06 GMT
*deletes thread because he doesn't like responses*
*calls everyone else snowflakes*
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 5, 2020 2:26:15 GMT
Are you making shit up again? You should know this stuff: "The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise reached among state delegates during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention. Whether and, if so, how slaves would be counted when determining a state's total population for legislative representation and taxing purposes was important, as this population number would then be used to determine the number of seats that the state would have in the United States House of Representatives for the next ten years. The compromise solution was to count three out of every five slaves as people for this purpose. Its effect was to give the Southern states a third more seats in Congress and a third more electoral votes than if slaves had been ignored, but fewer than if slaves and free people had been counted equally. The compromise was proposed by delegate James Wilson and seconded by Charles Pinckney on June 11, 1787." Counting three out of five slaves for legislative representation and taxing purposes based on population does not translate to individuals being "3/5 of a human being."
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 5, 2020 3:40:58 GMT
"The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise reached among state delegates during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention. Whether and, if so, how slaves would be counted when determining a state's total population for legislative representation and taxing purposes was important, as this population number would then be used to determine the number of seats that the state would have in the United States House of Representatives for the next ten years. The compromise solution was to count three out of every five slaves as people for this purpose. Its effect was to give the Southern states a third more seats in Congress and a third more electoral votes than if slaves had been ignored, but fewer than if slaves and free people had been counted equally. The compromise was proposed by delegate James Wilson and seconded by Charles Pinckney on June 11, 1787." Counting three out of five slaves for legislative representation and taxing purposes based on population does not translate to individuals being "3/5 of a human being." Regardless, it devalued African-Americans as being worth only 60% of a white person. In a true republic, they would have been counted as one person and given the vote. Counting three out of five slaves for legislative representation and taxing purposes based on population does not translate to individuals being "60% of a white person."
|
|
|
|
Post by Morgana on Apr 5, 2020 9:50:01 GMT
Indeed. So, this Gandhi thing. I've never heard the word "Kaffirs." Was it considered a racial slur when he said it? Maybe another KX quote fits here: "There was a black flag on everything around me and I was walking backwards again."
|
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Apr 5, 2020 11:00:13 GMT
*deletes thread because he doesn't like responses* *calls everyone else snowflakes* It was a trigger thread to call out his own notion of racism. Perhaps he should try starting lighthearted threads because he’s slipping back into the OP habit again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Apr 5, 2020 19:08:39 GMT
All the people involved with US slavery are dead but I suppose being divisive and virtuous on behalf of long dead people gives some a sense empowerment, you know because doing something about injustices that exist now would be effort and have the potential for failure.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 5, 2020 23:39:14 GMT
Counting three out of five slaves for legislative representation and taxing purposes based on population does not translate to individuals being "60% of a white person." I originally stated that slavery is enshrined in the U.S Constitution. It is. No one disputes that. It took the 13th Amendment and a Civil War to change that. Bottom line, black slaves were counted as .6 of a freeman. You said I was making shit up. And the fugitive slave act where escaped slaves can be apprehended in free states is also written into the Constitution. Counting three out of five slaves for legislative representation and taxing purposes based on population does not translate to individuals being ".6 of a freeman."
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 6, 2020 1:09:01 GMT
Counting three out of five slaves for legislative representation and taxing purposes based on population does not translate to individuals being ".6 of a freeman." Do the math. The hell it don't.  Three out of five slaves were counted for the census, which means each of them were considered 3/3 of a human being. Adding in the other two to conclude they were all considered 2/3 of a human being is convoluted logic. Furthermore, it had nothing to do with whether or not they were considered human beings and everything to do with the numbers. You know...math.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 6, 2020 2:18:21 GMT
Three out of five slaves were counted for the census, which means each of them were considered 3/3 of a human being. Adding in the other two to conclude they were all considered 2/3 of a human being is convoluted logic. Furthermore, it had nothing to do with whether or not they were considered human beings and everything to do with the numbers. You know...math. Nonsense. You can try any convoluted extrapolation of parsed words you want. So you're saying they pretended 40% of black slaves didn't exist? No, I'm saying they were not counted for legislative representation and taxing purposes based on population. The Constitution says that the total size of a state's delegation to the House (ie, number of Representatives) depends on its population. I believe it's something like one for every 40k or so people. If I go to Mexico and bring back 100 million Mexicans to Los Angeles, does California then get 2,000 additional Representatives?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Apr 6, 2020 3:01:10 GMT
No, I'm saying they were not counted for legislative representation and taxing purposes based on population. The Constitution says that the total size of a state's delegation to the House (ie, number of Representatives) depends on its population. I believe it's something like one for every 40k or so people. If I go to Mexico and bring back 100 million Mexicans to Los Angeles, does California then get 2,000 additional Representatives? Actually, non-citizens are counted in the census. So their numbers are used to decide the size of congressional districts and the number of representatives each state gets in the House. So yes, if you bring over 100 million Mexicans then California gets over a fourth of the House. But the Mexicans still can't vote. And you think no one should have a problem with that.. some did and thus the 3/5ths compromise. There are reasons behind things if you bother to learn them. Reminder, you're bitching about people long dead. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 6, 2020 4:09:12 GMT
No, I'm saying they were not counted for legislative representation and taxing purposes based on population. The Constitution says that the total size of a state's delegation to the House (ie, number of Representatives) depends on its population. I believe it's something like one for every 40k or so people. If I go to Mexico and bring back 100 million Mexicans to Los Angeles, does California then get 2,000 additional Representatives? Actually, non-citizens are counted in the census. So their numbers are used to decide the size of congressional districts and the number of representatives each state gets in the House. So yes, if you bring over 100 million Mexicans then California gets over a fourth of the House. But the Mexicans still can't vote. So the state with the most Mexicans wins the House? Better not let Texas hear about that. At any rate, I'm sure there were many back then who truly believed that blacks were not "fully human," (not unlike how Jews were viewed by the Nazis), but that isn't why only 66% of them were counted for the census. As stated, the reason only three out of five slaves were counted for the census was... drum roll please...
for legislative representation and taxing purposes based on population.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 6, 2020 4:44:24 GMT
So the state with the most Mexicans wins the House? Better not let Texas hear about that. At any rate, I'm sure there were many back then who truly believed that blacks were not "fully human," (not unlike how Jews were viewed by the Nazis), but that isn't why only 66% of them were counted for the census. As stated, the reason only three out of five slaves were counted for the census was... drum roll please...
for legislative representation and taxing purposes based on population.
But bottom line, Americans were still counted as 3/5 of a human being. Slavery is enshrined in the Constitution. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 6, 2020 5:48:22 GMT
Yeah, you are running around in circles. I won the argument. I tried to extricate but you keep beating your dead horse. Yup. You got me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Apr 6, 2020 18:23:50 GMT
Behind compared to whom? Is there another reason for this besides using slavery as a scapegoat? One only need look at Africa and its history and culture to see how the continent has developed. Africa has been exploited by whites, but also exploited by its own people.
The constitution has always been a source of contention regarding what it says and how things get administered. It is a buffer only to protect those that can use and manipulate it for their own self-serving means. It is man-made, so therefore very flawed and disingenuous.
Homosexuality operates on a different sphere, as that is a subtext within all races and creeds. It still operates as a subterfuge and does come wrapped up in a human rights package, due to others sense of attitude, ignorance, prejudice and bigotry and all based purely on sexual attraction.
Toasty, I've told you umpteen times already blacks are behind whites in income. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States And this income gap applies only to African-Americans whose ancestors were slaves. New immigrants from Africa don't suffer the same disparity with whites. Slavery is the cause of the disparity. You seem to be blaming African culture. That's nonsense. Immigrants come here from poor backwards Asian nations and flourish. How many African immigrants do you know? None I'd guess or would know they come from money. |
|
|
|
Post by pennypacker on Apr 6, 2020 20:41:45 GMT
As a snowflake, I’m quite sorry I missed the OP.
|
|
|
|
Post by ProjectError on Apr 6, 2020 20:45:44 GMT
What was the question?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Apr 7, 2020 17:22:30 GMT
How many African immigrants do you know? None I'd guess or would know they come from money. Nigerian immigrants are rich? . Yeah, how do you think they afford to change countries. Did you think the Dutch are still bringing them over. |
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Apr 7, 2020 17:33:03 GMT
Yeah, how do you think they afford to change countries. Did you think the Dutch are still bringing them over. Sure, any immigrant needs to be able to buy an airline ticket to actually move here. But they're not wealthy. Can you explain to me why African immigrants do better than the descendants of slaves if it's not the legacy of slavery? I already did. You should think things through. |
|
|
|
Post by onethreetwo on Apr 7, 2020 22:25:40 GMT
As a snowflake, I’m quite sorry I missed the OP. He asked if Gandhi was a racist for using what is now a racial slur. In the OP's defense he was merely asking a question. He didn't call Gandhi a racist. Maybe he just wanted to know what other people thought. I don't know. But from what I've seen from him here, the OP seems like a good guy. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 7, 2020 22:38:01 GMT
As a snowflake, I’m quite sorry I missed the OP. He asked if Gandhi was a racist for using what is now a racial slur. In the OP's defense he was merely asking a question. He didn't call Gandhi a racist. Maybe he just wanted to know what other people thought. I don't know. But from what I've seen from him here, the OP seems like a good guy. FTR, I did not edit the OP or the thread title. I know, you didn't say I did, but I feel the need to clear that up anyway.
|
|
