-Caveat Lector-
Gerald Harp wrote:
> -Caveat Lector-
>
> In a message dated 1/11/99 2:08:08 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> Potemkin Village was a bogus stage prop erected by the Czar to show visiting
> bleeding heart liberal West Europeans that the local peasants had it made.
Well, one or the other of those photos appears to have had that objective. As for
the other evidence, Camp Ford's prisoners had about the same "death rate" as its
guards. Although prison life is no fun, it appears from evidence of the prisoners
that they were better off there than in combat. It is well documented that the
prisoners were allowed to manufacture what we might call "handi-crafts" for sale
in the community, and that food vendors frequently visited the camp allowing
prisoners to purchase additional rations. It is also well documented that the
commander, Col RTP Allen purchased additional food for the prisoners, paying for
it from his own salary. Allen's wife as known as "Ma Allen" because of her
personal interest in the emotional and physical health of the prisoners (as shown
my letters from the men). Finally, while Allen was a stern disciplinarian with
regard to his own troops, they complained bitterly that he treated the prisoners
better than he treated them, finally resulting in a politically-inspired transfer.
> > We'd have to consider A LOT of other evidence along with
> > their personal feelings
>
> The slave narratives are not about feelings. They are matter of fact in tone
> and the descriptions of conditions are well buttressed by related events.
But, they were non-the-less children at the time.
> It is all but mind numbingly horrific to realize how these folks lived.
I think you are exaggerating... European visitors to the south generally commented
that the slaves were better off than other working class peasants in most
countries, and while plantation life certainly was difficult, it was so for most
of the slave owners, too, especially those who had three or four slaves, and who
worked side by side with the slaves. I have two documents from a widely-read and
respected magazine printed for plantation/farm managers which describe in details
how to best run an operation where the laborers were slaves. Unless this was a
gigantic conspiracy (notice the neat tie-in?) these were well-meant advice offered
to enhance efficiency and productivity. I would be glad to email these articles
to you. These were both printed in 1851, in June and October issues of "DeBow's
Review."
> It's true that they were in their teens but in those conditions, work began in
> earnest at age 7 or 8.
Not according to my research... Puberty was about the time of starting to ork in
earnest.
> The slaves were adults in their teen years. Actually, even when i lived through
> the adolescent years during the 1940s, there were no teen-agers. In white
> America, you were simply not a child and not yet an adult, ambiguous to say the
> least.
I think I was alive, and residing in "white America" during the 1940's. As I
recall, there were teen-agers all over the place, and there was no ambiguity. The
boys were expected to get summer jobs after turning twelve, but they were rarely
ever "real full-time jobs," and were more along the lines of mowing lawns
(although my jobs were more in harvesting hay, etc). There wasn't any threat
regarding going to work then, but parents more or less just stopped providing
"spending money," so if a teenager wanted some pocket cash, he had to work for it
some kind of way.
> The term and concept of teen-ager didn't come along until the late 1950s.
What country was this in? I remember WWII, and my oder cousins were teenagers at
that time, Frank Sinatra fans, etc...
> You were expected to be a fully functioning and responsible adult by age 18
> during the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s.
That is true, but 18 is a far cry from eight. I suggest that anyone who doesn't
make a distinction between and 8 year old and an 18 year old is foolish in all
cases, and incarcerated in some.
> The narratives i have read were lengthy excerpts in the book Bull Whip Days, a
> work that should be in every American's library.
And I suppose, from the title of the book, you presume that the author is
presenting a well-balanced view of the Narratives? What does "Bull Whip Days"
refer to? I have read lengthy exerpts from the Narratives which I wager were NOT
included in the book you read.
> The Civil War called us out from the grave and the Civil Rights movement removed
> the wrap but we still need to hose ourselves down with the cleansing truth.
I suggest that you don't overlook portions of the truth because they tend to
conflict with what you already believe.
> > Racism has not decreased as a result of "civil rights" laws.
>
> Well, things are a bit more complicated than that. What you say has a morsel
> of truth.
Its more than a morsel... It is 100% true. There has been no decline in "racism"
that I have been able to observe. It has merely changed its form.. ie From laws
that required whites to discriminate against blacks, to laws that require
discrimination if favor of blacks. The difference is, the first were local laws,
whereas the others are national in scope.
> However, the CR laws were necessary to firmly establish the rights, whether of
> voting, attending public schools or whatever.
I agree wholeheartedly with you in the two examples you mentioned... both of which
are CIVIC rights. Those CR laws requiring or prohiting discrimination in private
matters, such as employment, are -- in my opinion -- the worst, and I have
first-hand experience with them, as it is my field of expertise.
> It is necessary to see the entire flow of the civil rights movement, seemingly
> ending when LBJ signed the CR Bill of 1964. Of course the CR movement was a
> sort of add-on to the Civil War.
Absolutely... The Voting Rights Act only applied to states that were formerly in
the Confederacy.
> The initial shot of phase 2 being the Rosa Parks thing. It included Medgar
> Evers at the University of Alabama (There was another fellow who preceded Evers
> except he was at Ole Miss.
I agree with this portion also... IF a bus is paid for with public funds, there
should be NO discrimination as to who rides in what seat. If a university is
supported by public funds there should be no racial discrimination -- for or
against any race.
> The kindly white students beat him so bad,
I would rather describe them as ruffians, rather than kindly.. of course I know
you jest.
> he was permanently injured and died prematurely with complication stemming from
> that time.) , and other practicing integrationist such as the Little Rock school
> children and the freedom bus riders who registered people and crossed into white
> areas of bus stations and sat in at cafes and lunch counters and so on.
>
> Blood was necessary, it was shed and people went to jail. The Southern blacks
> simply essentially said, "We're not taking this any longer. From now on we
> will verbally correct you at the time of the infraction and by our presence
> and boycotts and demonstrations and by law suit until you treat us with
> dignity just as you do others."
I don't think anyone has a right to enlist the law to enforce being "treated with
dignity." I don't know of any such civil right that existed, then or now. And I
will tell you, if anyone ever gets "in my face" and threatens me with violence
because they don't think I've treated them with the dignity they covet, then some
blood is very likely to be shed. Notice, I said "and threatens me with violence."
> Truly a great day in America! In other words, the signing of the civil rights
> bill was like the formal signing of a peace treaty.
More like the sound of jack-boots on the stair in the middle of the night.
> The Southerners did not have to like blacks but they had to obey the law or from
> then on it would be the white overseers who had to explain and possibly go to
> jail when blacks were denied voting rights or the use of public rest rooms.
Absolutely... They should not be denied voting rights on the basis of color, and
public rest rooms (paid for with tax money, of course) should be "open to the
public" regardless of race.
> Incidentally, if you wish to get an earful of how it was like for a Negro to
> travel through the South during the 1950s, read Black Like Me.
I have read it. One can have a similar experience by joining the Army as a
private. You quickly learn that no one regards you as "who you are," but that you
are "the lowest form of possible humanity" on the post.
> I certainly was not surprised by the discourtesy of the bus drivers and
> offensive
> treatment at various business establishments. What took me back was how
> difficult it was for a black person to simply find a john they were allowed to
> use and the resultant necessary stratagems.
As I mentioned, I grew up in the South... and have lived in the South most of my
life. When I was in my late teens, I worked summers in the family business, which
required some travel between towns in the South. I had a black "side-kick" or
co-worker. It always embarrased me when he could not eat in the regular dining
room of road-side restaurants (which have developed into truck stops). There were
many reasons for such "social rules," some of which were valid, and others
weren't. Most of the time I ate outside, or in the "back room" with Raymond (my
co-worker). My family was in the theatre business, and at that time blacks were
required to sit in the balcony... there were reasons for that, too, which I will
tell you about by private email if you desire... Just don't want to get into a
ruckus on the list. I'm glad things are no longer that way, and I am certain that
the CR laws pushed the changes ahead.
But, when laws grant privaleges to persons on the basis of their race, they are
wrong... You seem to agree with that, IF the laws discriminate AGAINST
minorities. Well, sir, I am consistent enough to believe that they are indeed
wrong, even if the discriminate IN FAVOR OF minorities. My stance is more easily
supported... Racial discrimination enforced by the law is wrong. Let's don't
muddy the waters by saying, "except blah blah blah."
Hawk
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
