rickyp wrote:The reference to 1102 is right. Though the Magna Carta was more important.

Not unless you were a Baron. It did little for the rights of the peasantry and serfs.

bbauska wrote:Owen, are you saying that slavery was outlawed in England because the Church outlawed it, even though the Church was not in power of England? If so, that seems a little too much obfuscation for me.

No, because Sass mentioned 1102, but I am Owen.

The 1102 decree only bars enslavement of the English, not the English owning or trading in slaves. The 1772 judgement also only applies to England, and did nothing to outlaw slavery anywhere else owned or operated by the English.

It established a common law tradition which did largely bar the trading in slaves within the jurisdiction of the common law. Of course it didn't ultimately prevent the slave trade from happening in English colonies, but in large part this was down to the fact that the colonies had autonomy to set their own legal precedents, and they chose to emulate the example of the Portuguese and Spanish colonies.

I appreciate that this is to some extent a semantic distinction, but not entirely. Slavery was introduced in the English colonies at the behest of the colonists, and survived for as long as it did because if the political pressure exerted by those colonists. I do think it's important for this fact to be acknowledged when we start to see people like Ray assert that the US inherited slavery from England. It's only partially true.

Sassenach wrote:I appreciate that this is to some extent a semantic distinction, but not entirely. Slavery was introduced in the English colonies at the behest of the colonists, and survived for as long as it did because if the political pressure exerted by those colonists. I do think it's important for this fact to be acknowledged when we start to see people like Ray assert that the US inherited slavery from England. It's only partially true.

It also formed the basis for much wealth in England from the trade triangle across the Atlantic. However, I tend to agree that without willing slave owning colonists it would not have happened. Some left England for religious freedom (or to have the freedom to impose their brand of it on others). Others to make their fortune - slavery was a lucrative means to do that.

As far I understand it some slaves were sold in Great Britain proper up until the 18th century. I think if you said the sale of white slaves died out around 1100 or so that's correct ( but that was largely true in Europe). But I don't think it's accurate to say that slavery was not allowed in Great Britain or that only colonies engaged in the slave trade. The British were very involved in the slave trade. The difference was that slaves did not become incorporated into British society (for the most part) like they did in the southern US, but except for earlier abolition the Brits don't have too such of a moral advantage here.

http://www.discover-liverpool.com/24/section.aspx/7
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/06/15/tr ... rrer=&_r=0

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/apple-removing-games-confederate-flag-app-store-32039382

Now here we have an over-reaction. This is not representing the political view or flying a flag over a government building.

Do others think this is an over-reaction? Shall we remove the history of the South from a history book next?

Yes, I think it is, but as you capitalists will understand, Apple have the freedom to sell or not sell what they like across their platform, and customers have the right to accept that or go elsewhere.

It's not a government ban.

Now, talking of History books, do you think Texas' attempts to decide what and how history is taught are over-reach?

Now you say Capitalism can solve the issue. #flipflop

I want facts taught. If TX is having facts in the books, it is fine w/ me.

bbauska wrote:Now you say Capitalism can solve the issue. #flipflop

No. I observe that the market is involved, and has its own way of dealing with problems.

While it is an overreaction, I don't see a retailer deciding not to sell on products as a "problem" to be solved.

bbauska wrote:I want facts taught. If TX is having facts in the books, it is fine w/ me.

Equally important are which facts are omitted.

The textbooks they approved last year have some factual issues

They listed Moses as one of the four main influences for the US's founding documents. Locke, Montesquieu and Blackstone were, and we're explicitly. Moses is not mentioned as an influence by the Founding Fathers as far as I am aware. "Biblical Law" was not anywhere near as important as English Common Law.

They originally said slavery was the third most important factor in the US Civil War (under scrutiny that was corrected). They said Mccarthyist blacklists were justified, they have been accused of politicising history.

But as it was the Republican-dominated Board of Education, dictating content, that's fine. It is perhaps a "States Right" for them and another dozen or two states to have politicians dictate educational content.

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:I want facts taught. If TX is having facts in the books, it is fine w/ me.

Equally important are which facts are omitted.

The textbooks they approved last year have some factual issues

They listed Moses as one of the four main influences for the US's founding documents. Locke, Montesquieu and Blackstone were, and we're explicitly. Moses is not mentioned as an influence by the Founding Fathers as far as I am aware. "Biblical Law" was not anywhere near as important as English Common Law.

They originally said slavery was the third most important factor in the US Civil War (under scrutiny that was corrected). They said Mccarthyist blacklists were justified, they have been accused of politicising history.

But as it was the Republican-dominated Board of Education, dictating content, that's fine. It is perhaps a "States Right" for them and another dozen or two states to have politicians dictate educational content.

Perhaps the market will take care of that as well.

bbauska wrote:Perhaps the market will take care of that as well.

Facts are not market based. And neither are State Boards of Education.

Speech.

Having spent some time with high school text book publishing many years ago, there is a dynamic whereby larger states have outsized influence in terms of which books get accepted into the market. If you are a serious publisher advancing large dollars to produce a text book, it is very important to get Texas to adopt it or your profits can suffer immensely. Same goes with California. So, companies will change their text books for ALL states so that Texas will use them. That's just how the marketplace works in this industry.

danivon wrote:So? My point is that the soldiers of the nation are not the same as the leaders. And the reasons why leaders take their nations to war are not to be judged on whether the soldiery agreed with them or not. And in both cases, many of the soldiers were drafted/conscripted, and so their opinions are irrelevant in that sense.

Not at all. Confederate soldiers were not fighting for slavery. Nazi soldiers were fighting for the "glory" of Germany in offensive wars. Confederate soldiers were fighting to defend their homes from "northern aggression."

Now, there were other political considerations, but most Confederate soldiers were not willing to die for slavery.

Even Robert E. Lee fought for Virginia, not for slavery. There is a State component that seems to have fallen from memory.

I think if we put it to a vote, you might not get the numbers you expect. Yes, that's just opinion. Still, I think it's worth a vote. Right now, there's a stampede fueled by hysteria.

Do we need a vote? How about polling (taken before the attack on the church this month)?

From 2013: https://today.yougov.com/news/2013/10/1 ... rate-flag/

There is also, unsurprisingly, a divide between the opinions of white Americans and black Americans towards the meaning of the Confederate flag. Many white people (42%) believe that the flag is primarily a symbol of Southern pride, while many black people (38%) see it as being exclusively a symbol of racism, while another 28% of black Americans view it as both a symbol of racism and a symbol of Southern pride.

Does not demarcate black Americans by where they live, but shows that 66% of them see it as being a symbol of racism.

And, 42% of them (using your same logic) see it as a matter of Southern pride.

Now, do you really think that a "vote" or a poll of black Americans in the Southern states would show much difference today?

None of those polls are telling. Look, 9.5 of 10 black voters voted for Obama. Now, THAT is a telling number. 3/2 or 2/1 are indeed strong. However, it's not so overwhelming that it is a symbol of hate.