Chris Matthews: Slavery Impacts People's View of the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman Case
Maybe it's time for MSNBC's Chris Matthews to retire.
On Friday's Hardball, the 66-year-old host actually said that people's view of the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman case is impacted by "so much history ever since the first slave arrived in the United States" (video follows with transcribed highlights and commentary):
In the middle of a lengthy opening segment about the case gripping the nation, Matthews played a clip of Florida prosecutor Bernie De La Rionda telling a press conference, “You haven’t heard all the evidence. Please be patient and wait for the trial.”
After the clip, Matthews said, “Well, this is so tricky here, Joy-Ann, and I don’t know how we’re going to cover this. I’m going to try to do it with the presumption of innocence as we do in all cases.”
Isn’t that nice of Matthews to "try" to cover this case “with the presumption of innocence?” You'd think that after decades in the business, it wouldn't be too difficult to presume the innocence of the accused when reporting on a murder trial.
For her part, Joy-Ann Reid of The Grio responded, “The bottom line here is that this case has already been litigated and relitigated on Twitter, online, on blogs. Everyone feels that they too are prosecuting this case and people have taken a side. And I think that raises a lot of troubling questions really about jury selection. Is the entire jury pool in the country tainted and can Zimmerman get a fair trial?”
Actually, the taint is on the Left not the Right.
It’s the folks on the left that have already convicted Zimmerman and are just awaiting sentencing. That’s how atrocious the reporting has been by much of the liberal media.
By contrast, the Right’s position is and has been that Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty and that none of us has seen all the evidence to render a judgment. That will come out in the trial.
With this in mind, I think Reid was projecting the short-comings and failings of her side in this debate onto those that have acted far more responsibly.
But fasten your seatbelts, for Matthews’ response was startling.
“What scares me if we could all watch the picture, like a movie, a tape of everything that happened that night, from the beginning to the end, I think there would be difference of attitudes about guilt and innocence. That’s what scares me about this case, there’s so many different perspectives, so much history ever since the first slave arrived in the United States. The attitude of history here, you can’t push it aside I don’t think.”
What? So whenever a crime is committed against a black person by someone other than a black person, the “history ever since the first slave arrived in the United States” is a factor?
Shouldn't the only factor be the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense with total disregard to the color of these folks' skin or something that was outlawed centuries ago in this country?
It's been almost 150 years since the Emancipation Proclamation, and almost 50 years since the last Civil Rights Act, and slavery is still a part of our criminal justice system?
How sad that in the year 2012, a so-called newscaster on a so-called news network thinks this.
It seems a metaphysical certitude racism will never end in this country as long as people like Matthews bring slavery into every mixed race incident.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
(scratching head)
Submitted by MidAmerica on Fri, 04/20/2012 - 7:00pm.
I didn't know that Hispanics were guilty for slavery in this country.
But blacks were...
Submitted by Joe W. on Fri, 04/20/2012 - 7:55pm.
Actually, one of the very first slave owners in the Western Hemisphere was, indeed, a black man.
And many of those slaves were
Submitted by Soldat44 on Fri, 04/20/2012 - 8:02pm.
And many of those slaves were sold out by their own tribe.
T be honest,
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 04/20/2012 - 8:14pm.
I never really like that "defense". Just because someone has the power to sell folks, doesn't make the buying right.
Fact is, it all helped build the civil society.
All peoples that I can think of have suffered under the tyranny of another.
It may not a defense
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 04/20/2012 - 8:21pm.
but it requires blacks to take some responsibility for slavery.
The First Slaves
Submitted by Franksam on Fri, 04/20/2012 - 8:31pm.
The first slaves in what is now the USA were native people who were captured and enslaved and sold by their contemporary enemies long before white people showed up. The Spanish enslaved indigenous people when they arrived, still well ahead of the first African slaves in the colonies. It seems to me that if were going to spread the wealth we should be able to spread the blame, too.
Many of those indigenous people
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 04/20/2012 - 8:40pm.
enslaved other tribes of people. Slavery is a practice that has been practiced throughout history, and continues today. Somewhere in their history, the ancestors of just about everyone have been slaves.
Which reinforces
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 04/21/2012 - 12:15am.
The claim that all folks have had their opportunity at oppression. Your right though, most of em got over it.
Ah, but he's a white (bad)
Submitted by Pinetree3 on Fri, 04/20/2012 - 8:16pm.
Ah, but he's a white (bad) Hispanic instead of being a good (darker skinned) Hispanic. Big difference to progressives.
Ever since slaves arrived from across the Atlantic....
Submitted by bigdaddy on Fri, 04/20/2012 - 7:10pm.
....and Hispanics arrived from across the Rio Grande...
You Go Chris! We "Right Leaning Whites" get to sit this one out. This was a crime between two non white, likely liberal, perennial-victim groups. I'm pulling up with a brew in the comfy chair and watching you and the rest of the "Conga line of Morons" on MESSDNC make your magic.
Matthews is the slave here.
Submitted by Jim54 on Fri, 04/20/2012 - 7:11pm.
To his own white guilt.
Well said, Jim54
Submitted by Galvanic on Fri, 04/20/2012 - 9:01pm.
Game - set - match
"Like"
Submitted by misterbee241 on Sat, 04/21/2012 - 7:52am.
"Like"
Hey Newsbusters admins - how about a "like" button?
Thanks in advance.
It sounds like he is saying
Submitted by tcm14 on Fri, 04/20/2012 - 7:31pm.
It sounds like he is saying if you support Zimmerman then you are in favor of slavery. Isn't that where his logic leads?
Yep.
Submitted by Soldat44 on Fri, 04/20/2012 - 8:00pm.
Yep.
Nope.
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 04/21/2012 - 3:03am.
Nope.
I dont want to burst anyones bubbles, but
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 04/20/2012 - 7:52pm.
There are way more Black immigrants here, then there were ever Black slaves. Quite a few folks in this country need to get their act together, and end the pity party.
Really?
Submitted by buttercup815 on Fri, 04/20/2012 - 8:10pm.
That seems a rather complex claim to prove.
a) How many black slaves were actually imported?
b) How many have immigrated since slavery ended?
c) How many are currently the descends of the original slaves.
Sounds like some serious research. Got a link?
Why would a conservative even bother to ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 04/20/2012 - 8:16pm.
attempt to "prove" something to a liberal dork troll?
Complete waste of time.
MD
Excellent defense
Submitted by buttercup815 on Fri, 04/20/2012 - 8:33pm.
So a conservative can claim absolutely anything they want and if they get asked for "proof" just call the questioner a liberal dork troll!
Works for me.
BTW. I was really curious about the stats on this.
BTW. I was really curious about the stats on this.
Submitted by Dave. on Fri, 04/20/2012 - 8:56pm.
Yeah, I know you lefty trolls want us to lead you to the restroom and all, but do we have to wipe your arses, too?
Ever heard of Google?
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Ever hear of PopTech?
Submitted by buttercup815 on Fri, 04/20/2012 - 8:59pm.
He never went around making claims without providing long lists of links and proofs. What ever happend to that kind of spirit anyway?
Opps, maybe that was before your time.
Long past time for your drive back to the valley.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Fri, 04/20/2012 - 9:04pm.
recycled user, what is it now 32 times?
You Didn't Build That.
Poop Deck defiled himself on this site...
Submitted by Dave. on Fri, 04/20/2012 - 9:59pm.
...thus converting his once stellar reputation here into a pile of steaming bull-squeeze over his He-Man-Woman-Hating-Club hatred of Gov. Palin.
And it wasn't before my time, poopie, as you know damned good and well who I am.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Time is on
Submitted by HockeyKid on Fri, 04/20/2012 - 8:36pm.
the side of the original argument. If you want to counter, do the research.
Suck it up, Buttercup.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Did I say that?
Submitted by buttercup815 on Fri, 04/20/2012 - 8:49pm.
Did I say I wanted to counter? For someone to make such a remarkable statement, it must be backed up by research and facts. I was just asking where I could find such data!
Here Buttercup*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 04/20/2012 - 8:56pm.
I'll help you in your search
http://slaverebellion.org/index.php?page=the-black-slave-owners
http://southernloyalists.tripod.com/documents/id12.html
Stunning Deuce
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 04/20/2012 - 11:45pm.
Of the (500,000) blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. In New Orleans over 3,000 free blacks owned slaves, about 28 percent of the free Black population in the city
1860 there were at least six African Americans in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves. The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation. Another Black slave magnate in Louisiana with over 100 slaves was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at $264, 000. In North Carolina 69 free Blacks were slave owners.
I had know idea, wow
Just think Boudin*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 04/21/2012 - 12:18am.
Antoine Dubclet was one of the richest men in La and a black slave owner. After the civil war and all his slaves were released, he then became the first Treasury Secretary of the state....
Years ago, I had a good friend who was a "mullato" and he often told me how blacks treated him and bullied him all his life. I gave him a book of the History of New Orleans. Part of the book was a great cause of his spontaneous laughter on a daily basis. Several blacks who worked with us were Rideaus from the small rural community known as Rideau. Part of the history of black slave owners ID'd one of the richest slave owners as Xavier Rideau, a black man granted slaves and hundreds of acres of land near Melville for his "loyalty" to the French Empire. My buddy threw that back at them rather often.
La has a very long and interesting history due to the native americans that were here, the Spanish held territory, then the French took over, then the cajuns arrived, and finally, the La Purchase. New Orleans has always been majority black because the French Government rewarded all their "loyal" subjects from various French held territories, with land and slaves here in the La Territory which reached all the way to Canada.
Those "loyal subjects" and cajuns were then known as creoles. Cajuns were distinguished from other creoles since they were originally from European French descent. When exiled from Nova Scotia in 1751, the French government gave about 3000 Acadians permission to come to La. The "authorties" in New Orleans did not approve since the cajuns were "peasants" and slowly forced the cajuns to move inland northward along the Mississippi river. From there the cajuns spread out to the "prairies" and became farmers, other cajuns settled into the basin and the lowlands and became fishermen.
And there you are Boudin. Blacks have always "ruled" New Orleans , they always had the positions of power and were the majority slave owners. Needless to say, much of La history has been distorted to remove this information from our education system of today.
When you give this history some thought, you will then understand the rest of the story...;-)
Just fascinating info
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 04/21/2012 - 12:26am.
These folks of the past, could be such an inspiration to the Black population. But I guess we cant have em feeling good about themselves and their ancestors?
That's right Boudin*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 04/21/2012 - 12:39am.
Because then that "victimhood" could not be blamed on those evil whites....LOL
There are many well written and well documented books on those "free people of color" who ruled in New Orleans. Including documents and sales receipts from the slave markets. Land registrations and many other sources that go back to the early 1700's and you would surprised at some of the names. For instance, one of the most powerful women in the French government back then, and one of the richest women in New Orleans was a woman who had a very strange hobby. Her name was Marie Laveau...hahahahaha
Recheck Deuce's link...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 04/21/2012 - 1:26am.
Just in your home state of Louisiana, the 1860 slave population was around 330,000 [out of LA's total population of app. 700,000]. The number of free blacks was a little over 18,000.
Facts are important, as well as stubborn.
Jer
Jer*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 04/21/2012 - 12:28pm.
Did you read my posts and links? New Orleans, back in the late 1700's was one of the biggest ports in the US. Both Spanish held and then French held territory all the way to Canada. New Orleans was one of the largest ports that held huge slave markets. They were then moved after being "sold" to other parts of the country. "Yes, numbers can be stubborn. The majority of "people of color" in New Orleans were "free" and were part of the French Authority. They were educated, spoke Parisian French, and were all from other French held territories rewarded for their loyalty and heritage ( decendents of European French aristocricy) with land, positions of authority and SLAVES. They were all rich men and women. Does the name Landrieu ring a bell?
In 1751, thousands of "cajuns" were being exiled from Canada. That event is called "The Grand De'rangement". Many were outright slaughtered by the British, many were placed on ships and sent to sea with no food or water. Several of those ships made landfall at Plymouth Rock where the pilgrims had no food themselves and slaughtered the cajuns as they came ashore. About 3000 cajuns were allowed to resettle in New Orleans. But the black aristocracy in New Orleans did not like the cajuns since they did not speak proper french. They were once again exiled for being peasants. Many died but many survived and moved inland where they became fishermen or farmers. Most of the farmers however were "share croppers". That is basically a "white slave".
The Irish were also treated poorly when they came to this country. But guess what? They were welcomed by the cajun community. Wonder why? As a result, La has a very large Irish decended population today in New Orleans and thoughout cajun country. My husbands grandfather was one of those NINA. And as a result of this "diversity", south La has a very large Catholic population. New Orleans has a very large black population. Because of the spanish, french and native american population here, we have a very large population of "bi racials". Until around 1950, anyone with black "blood" was considered black, mullato, or quatroons..That changed and anyone could put "white" or "black" on their birth certificates. Before that, anyone with black ancestory were considered black but the majority of New Orleans in the 1800's were mostly bi racial.
With this history, you may now understand why Ray Nagin, Mayor of New Orleans during Katrina, said that his goal was once again to make New Orleans a "chocolate city".
Other than Boudin, I am sure no one cares about the history of La. But the reason I gave this information is to understand how La was so different from other places in the south. La has a very diverse population and cultures. Look up Jim Bowie, we had "red necks" here as well. Slavery in La is historically well kept documents. They show that the slaves traders were black, dealt with the Islanders of French territories, sold the slaves to black slave traders in New Orleans who sold the slaves to "free people of color". Here in La, the slave owners and slave traders were blacks. Very different from other areas like Charleston and Boston.
MY people, the cajuns, have a long history of being treated poorly. Even while I was a child and even while in college, I was treated like a "peasant". It is only in the past 30 yrs or so, that the cajun culture and all the "creoles" have become interesting and acceptable to outsiders, or as my grandmother would say,,,,"c'est Americannes".
The history of the US is most interesting and shows how and why we are the greatest and most diverse country in the world. Those with an agenda have tried for decades to distort that history for whatever reasons. Telling the truth, to me, though some of our history aint pretty, would show the trevails, the sacrifice, and the courage our people have over 3 centuries. Maybe we could get back some pride in our country instead of apologizing to the whole damn world and feeling guilty for our sins of the last 300 yrs that were pretty much the same early history of civilizations that are 5000 yrs old. This country was the refuge for millions who suffered discrimination for various reasons in other parts of the world and came here for the most basic and simple freedoms. The opportunity to survive with hard work and perserverance.
This history is why I chose a particular post name. I AM A PATRIOTIC AMERICAN first and foremost and I am cajun too!
Now Jer, feel free to nit pick
Cajun
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 04/21/2012 - 12:45pm.
Actually I find your history lesson very interesting. I think we all learn a few facts about the entire country but only learn about the background of the people who are from our specific region. I had heard of "Cajun" seasoning, nut that was it. So thanks for sharing. We really do live in an amazing country with many stories to tell.
Well done Caj!!
Submitted by BEGRUNT on Sat, 04/21/2012 - 1:29pm.
That was a fantastic history lesson! I knew some of it, but not in the great detail you presented. History has, and will always be a passion of mine. I now have a better understanding about New Orleans/Louisiana history thanks to you!
"A nation can suffer it's fool's, but cannot survive the traitor"
Cicero
thanks guys*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 04/21/2012 - 1:51pm.
Glad you enjoyed my ramblings. I am not really a history buff but I do study cultures. It is that diversity of cultures that made this country different. In China there are a billion chinese and they all look alike and have a 5000 yr old civilization. Here in this country, we sorta got made like a gumbo. Melting pot is a great description. The different cultures, religions, and ethnic groups that came here are as important as to WHY they came to America. Studying these cultures and their impact on the developement of our society as well as the basis of our constitution is where the true history of America lies. It is also why we succeeded to become the greatest nation in the world in such a short time compared to other societies thousands of years old.
Now we must figure out why the greatest assets and strengths that built this society are the very things being destroyed or distorted.
I dont know about you guys but I do not want America to become a part of the "global society" when there is still slavery, religious war fare, dictatorial leadership, poverty and starvation in many other countries. Basically all due to the lack of freedom and liberties that we are slowly giving away.
Cajun
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 04/21/2012 - 7:21pm.
Yes the studies of other cultures in our country and how they've come together is worth the effort. Few other places in the world have been able to assimilate varying countries and cultures as we have. People that were at war with one another in their homeland did not war with one another here to any degree that broke down our civilization.
It's funny how young we are as a nation. I live in one of the older parts of the country, and yet our history goes back barely 300 years. As you said, the history of China goes back 5,000 years, yet we have more freedom than all those Chinese.
So no, I also don't want to be part of a "global society", for all the reasons you outlined.
Goody Ms Rad*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 04/21/2012 - 7:58pm.
Since you also come from an older part of the nation with wonderful patriotic history, lets start a club and all join in so we can preserve our freedoms and republic. Let's call it THE TEA PARTY...;-)
Caj
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 04/21/2012 - 8:16pm.
I'm in. Already. LOL
cajun...why should I nitpick
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 04/22/2012 - 1:59am.
such an informative and enlightening (and eloquent) vignette?
What I questioned and what you depicted are separate issues.
Jer
Hhmmm, interesting
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 04/21/2012 - 1:10pm.
On the other hand the black population in 1860 was 4.5 million, with about 500,000 living in the South. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. In New Orleans over 3,000 free blacks owned slaves, about 28 percent of the free Black population in the city.
Well, if this contradiction is true, then I am obviously wrong. According to those statistics, Blacks were over half of the population? Or am I missing something?
Some of the census from 1860. Real problem is these are supposed to be the population of the Black folks only. Considering there was supposable only 4.5 mil Blacks in the country at the time, I am not sure how this could be correct.
Bama Pop 963K slaves 442k
Ark Pop 435k slaves 111k
GA Pop 1m slaves 462k
TX Pop 600k slaves 182k
LA Pop700k slaves 331k
FLA Pop 140k slaves 61k
Ken Pop 1.1m slaves 225k
VA Pop 1.5 mil slaves 490k
SC Pop 703k slaves 402k
And example of the numbers:
SC 1860
Total Population: 703708
Total Male Slave Population: 196571
Total Female Slave Population: 205835
Total Free Colored Male: 4548
Total Free Colored Female: 5366
Total Slaves: 402406
Total Free Colored People: 301302
Total slaves 402k
Total free CP 301k
= 703k
- Free Male/Female 9800 ?
Something doesnt add up?
Seem we have a quandary. If I am wrong, I will freely admit it. But considering the census of 1870 and the the simple math involved, I am not convinced.
BTW my Son got me into this. His American History class is talking about the Population Growth in America, and he noticed these numbers in past Census.
Consider this Boudin*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 04/21/2012 - 1:33pm.
The numbers are confusing because of a number of issues. There were many people that did not count "slaves" nor admitted to owning slaves back in 1860. Also, remember that the French "free people of color" were not really blacks and after the civil war, many of them "passed" as white. But, in certain areas, though they may have been "white" in color, if they had any "black" heritage, they were listed as black. Many of those, you can guess, were decendents of the French or white slave owners. It is difficult to translate all those issues with numbers compared to the way we document now.
If you really want to to get a picture of how different the world was back then, consider this. There were many "blacks" that fought for the confederacy. Some of them "passed" as whites but also many blacks volunteered to fight. A fighting unit of blacks were from Louisiana.
Very good,
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 04/21/2012 - 2:58pm.
And I knew the Blacks fought for the South, but I always thought it was begrudgingly. Truly have been surprised by a lot of this info. Fascinating,
The numbers are off by a factor of 10+, and I could make arguments either way.
Seems, I may have only "half of the story", and might be mistaken.
BAM!
Submitted by Rukus on Sat, 04/21/2012 - 1:13am.
And the lovely Cajun brings a badass S&W Model .500 to buttersluts butterknife fight. I luz me some cajuns! ; )
That you wanted to "counter", cuttterbup, in ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 04/20/2012 - 9:03pm.
one form or another, is pretty much implied in your post.
Otherwise, why even bother to ask?
Unless, of course, you are just up to your normal lib "stir the pot" schtick.
If you aren't/weren't; you would have just passed over the original post w/o comment.
MD
Let me answer
Submitted by HockeyKid on Fri, 04/20/2012 - 9:32pm.
your question with a question:
Are you really that stupid?
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
I had no idea my wife had an account here
Submitted by buttercup815 on Fri, 04/20/2012 - 10:03pm.
Sorry dear..Love and kisses!
"I had no idea my wife had an account here"
Submitted by Dave. on Fri, 04/20/2012 - 10:12pm.
And if you don't knock off with being such an obstinate a$$hole, you won't, either.
And you better believe I can arrange that.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Actually she doesn't
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 04/20/2012 - 10:27pm.
that was her boy toy you were speaking to.
ooof
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 04/20/2012 - 11:24pm.
lol
Thank you Ms Rad*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 04/20/2012 - 11:34pm.
*snicker*
Anuddah ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 04/20/2012 - 11:57pm.
zingah !
Nice one, Rad.
MD
Day-ummmm, that's gonna leave a mark, Rad.
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 04/21/2012 - 12:09am.
Nicely done.
Answer to b): At least one
Submitted by Franksam on Fri, 04/20/2012 - 10:16pm.
We do have an African-immigrant President who is not descended from slaves.
Hey Buttercup,
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 04/20/2012 - 11:18pm.
In 1870 (first census since the end of slavery) the population was just over 38 million, and even if we assume that the Black population was at the current 12% (and it wasnt) their would be just over 4 million Black folks here. Current count is somewhere north of 35 million, maybe more then the entire population of 1870.
You still doubting my claim?
Find your own link
Submitted by misterbee241 on Sat, 04/21/2012 - 7:53am.
Google and Bing are really easy to use. You should have no problem.
That statement is beyond stupid,
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 04/21/2012 - 12:10am.
even for you, Boudin.
Jer
Beyond?
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 04/21/2012 - 12:18am.
It's true!
Boudin...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 04/21/2012 - 1:04am.
In 1860 alone, the slave population was approximately 4 million. Obviously, there had been many more slaves who were no longer alive in1860. As of 2008, there were a little over 3 million blacks of foreign birth living in the US.
And yet you claim there are more black immigrants here than the total number of blacks who were ever slaves. Sorry...no way.
Jer
Maybe he meant the total black immigrants as of ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 04/21/2012 - 3:28am.
today versus the number of slaves then.
MD
Are you saying he may have meant
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 04/21/2012 - 4:13am.
the total number of blacks who have immigrated to this country at any time in its history [including colonial], excluding any such immigrants who may have become slaves, versus the slave population of the US in 1860?
I think he needs to explain exactly what he meant.
Jer
Question,
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 04/21/2012 - 9:33am.
Is it somehow more offensive if there are more immigrants then slaves?
How much more time do the ancestors of slaves get to hold the 98.6% of white ancestors of non slave owners to account?
The Jews, British, Chinese, Russians, Pols, French, and many others have suffered as a people well after the slaves were freed, most of these folks seem to have gotten over it.
More Jews were killed in less then 10 years just 70-80 yrs ago, then the whole US population of Blacks in 1860.
I posted, Jer, that ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 04/21/2012 - 6:53pm.
'maybe' he meant ---.
That was MY take.
YOUR take, being a lefty on a conservative site; the stalkee target, so you claim, of literally hundreds of ambushes perpetrated by the thread wraith known as Boudin, is apparently different.
Amazing, no?
MD
Bingo Matt
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 04/21/2012 - 9:15am.
What I am driving home here is, more have come here of their own free will, then were forced here as property.
In 1860 there were 500,000 Blacks in the South (slave states), so let look at the numbers.
On the other hand the black population in 1860 was 4.5 million, with about 500,000 living in the South. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves.
So, considering Jer numbers above, I guess my question would be: Do you think since there were ~238,000 Slaves in 1860, was there ever more then the 3m who immigrated here from Africa?
I think that many more came of their own free will.
What I have learned, was that 28% of the free black population in the South, owned slaves. Amazing just amazing, maybe this is common knowledge, but I never knew.
Correction
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 04/21/2012 - 11:15am.
1.4% of whites in the South owned slaves, there were only 8mil in the South, out of the 27mil in the country. So that makes it ~ .35% of Whites owned slaves, 99.65% did not.
Boudin...I couldn't care less whether the number of slaves
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 04/21/2012 - 7:55pm.
was lesser or greater than the number of black immigrants in the US. I care a lot about accurate information, however. You keep referring to the statistics contained in the statement below. Please provide your source. The 500,000 figure is ludicrous.
"On the other hand the black population in 1860 was 4.5 million, with about 500,000 living in the South. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves."
See e.g. this data from the 1860 census.
Jer
It's in the very same link
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 04/21/2012 - 8:03pm.
On the first Page
Well,
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 04/21/2012 - 8:13pm.
According to your link, their were 31 million total Blacks in the US in 1860, but the 1870 Census claims their were only 38 million total folks in the country? So which is it, cause I am pretty damd confused bout now!
Boudin...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 04/21/2012 - 10:47pm.
31 million was the total US population in 1860--both free [whites, free blacks, etc.] and slave. As far as the statement from cajun's link referring to 500,000 blacks in the South out of a 4.2 million black population, either Holloway is very confused or errors were made in the editing/publishing process. Actually, it makes more sense if the geographical regions are reversed. According to the 1860 census the black slave population totaled slightly less than 4 million of which nearly 500,000 resided in the North [mostly in the border states of Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri] and the remaining 3.5 million were almost all located in the "South" [i.e. the eleven southern states that would soon thereafter secede from the Union and form the Confederacy].
Jer
Another try Jer*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sun, 04/22/2012 - 11:13am.
Apparantly my efforts to explain the discrepencies in numbers failed. Lets look back at the 1800's. Charleston and New Orleans were the largest ports that handled the slave trade. Prior to 1803, the La french held territories went from La all the way to the rocky mountains and canada. Consider the "dispersment" and transport of slaves in such a large area. Naturally, due to the times and conditions of travel, the majority of slaves would be in the south.
But other states had numbers of slaves as well due to the location of the largest ports of entry.Compare a map of the La territory, ports of entry, and the surrounding states that had large numbers of slaves. There is much about this issue that cannot be associated with statistics due to the differences from record keeping, territory, culture, corruption, political issues, etc. from todays standards. Not to mention that much of these documentations were done in FRENCH.
cajun...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 04/22/2012 - 7:14pm.
What exactly is the point of contention? Do you disagree with anything that I've posted? If so, what? Are you saying the slave population of some coastal states was vastly overstated because of the temporary concentration of blacks at ports of entry before their dispersal to inland areas of the US and western territories? Assuming that is true, do you believe that of the 4.2 black population in 1860, only 500,000 lived in the "South"?
Jer
No way Jer*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sun, 04/22/2012 - 7:27pm.
I was focusing on the cultural differences back then and compare to todays assessment of those events. They have been distorted by those with an agenda when many aspects of the history of slavery is well documented but never discussed truthfully. The distortion of history and our past, culturally,has always been of interest to me and how those cultures have quickly been assimilated into our society unlike some that are thousands of years older than ours. The actual numbers are your thing not mine...;-)
Understood, cajun...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 04/22/2012 - 8:07pm.
...but Boudin introduced the issue of comparative population size, and also was the first to cite "actual numbers" [from your link, btw]. So it's not just my thing. :-)
Jer
As of 2008, there were a
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 04/22/2012 - 6:59pm.
As of 2008, there were a little over 3 million blacks of foreign birth *living* in the US.
Is that a fact or figure of speech?
Well, as I had know business making the claim,,,, although I think it's still pretty damn close.
Boudin...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 04/22/2012 - 7:21pm.
"living" as in alive and residing in the US at the time.
Jer
Are we going to start talking about what the meaning
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 04/22/2012 - 7:47pm.
of the word "is" is?
;)
Why are you asking me, Rad?
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 04/22/2012 - 7:53pm.
Boudin brought it up.
:-)
Jer
Good, then I think it's safe to assume
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 04/23/2012 - 10:55am.
Another million or so came here that are no longer with us.
Either way, I had no business making the claim.
I simply figured that since there were 4 million here in 1870, and about 40 million now, that more then 10% of them were immigrants.
Some say there are up to12-20 million illegals here now. My assumption was based on those kinda numbers.
Slaves wore hoodies ?
Submitted by Dave the mailman on Fri, 04/20/2012 - 7:55pm.
AND were "confronted" by "white hispanics" ?
...news to me.
I didn't know that Hispanics
Submitted by Pinetree3 on Fri, 04/20/2012 - 8:03pm.
I didn't know that Hispanics were guilty for slavery in this country.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, but he's a white (bad) Hispanic instead of being a good (darker skinned) Hispanic. Big difference to progressives.
Reply to Pinetree above...
Submitted by motherbelt on Fri, 04/20/2012 - 8:20pm.
Well, the "white" Hispanics were, I'm sure.....
Yes, because we all know
Submitted by pilgrim4jc on Fri, 04/20/2012 - 8:43pm.
Yes, because we all know Mexico was huge in the slave business!
He is the poster boy for "Idiots Unite!"
Yes, because we all know
Submitted by pilgrim4jc on Fri, 04/20/2012 - 8:41pm.
Yes, because we all know Mexico was huge in the slave business!
He is the poster boy for "Idiots Unite!"
With all of the leftist gasbags......
Submitted by BEGRUNT on Fri, 04/20/2012 - 8:44pm.
going on and on about this, whipping up the frenzy. I truly believe that NO MATTER the outcome of this, there will be violence for perceived injustices. Matthews and the rest of his ilk, attempting to try this in the court of public opinion, will get the violence they so desperately want. If we had ANY courage in this country, Mattews et. al. should be charged with incitement to riot. Maybe after a couple of these so-called journalists spend some time in prison, and are forced to pay restitution for the violence THEY INCITED. THEN, we may get responsible journalists again in this country!!
"A nation can suffer it's fool's, but cannot survive the traitor"
Cicero
secretly rooting for the other side to win
Submitted by MidAmerica on Fri, 04/20/2012 - 9:10pm.
The worst possible outcome for the race baiters would be a conviction of Zimmerman. They want him aquitted resulting in riots because of America's 'bigotry and injustice!'
Mid........I agree......
Submitted by BEGRUNT on Fri, 04/20/2012 - 9:22pm.
I'm starting to think the "Justice Brothers", Mattew's and the rest of the choir, have hitched their wagon to this just for the reason that it is an incredibly weak, overcharged case that screams acquittal! The bail amount says it all!!
"A nation can suffer it's fool's, but cannot survive the traitor"
Cicero
Beg, in my part of Michigan,
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 04/21/2012 - 12:16am.
the prosecutors, if there is evidence, charge the defendant with Open Murder. That includes the lesser included offenses of 2nd Degree Murder and Manslaughter. And there is no bail. The "special prosecutor" saw that this case was practically non-existent from the get-go, and over-charged, hoping for a plea.
Absolutely UpNorth!!
Submitted by BEGRUNT on Sat, 04/21/2012 - 12:42am.
The bail says it all!!!!!
"A nation can suffer it's fool's, but cannot survive the traitor"
Cicero
ABC vs NBC
Submitted by ricklail on Fri, 04/20/2012 - 10:04pm.
O'Reilly did a comparsion between the way ABC and NBC covered Trayvon. ABC is reporting it as hard news. NBC and their idiot network MESSNBC are covering it as opinion and how Zimmerman is guilty.
Ratings
Submitted by sngnsgt on Fri, 04/20/2012 - 10:35pm.
Any wonder that his ratings are as low as his IQ?
and are forced to pay
Submitted by Pinetree3 on Fri, 04/20/2012 - 10:50pm.
and are forced to pay restitution for the violence THEY INCITED. THEN, we may get responsible journalists again in this country!!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would be ironic if they themselves were victims of the violence they are fomenting.
chris matthews is the most racist
Submitted by equusarts on Fri, 04/20/2012 - 11:58pm.
Chris matthews is THE most racist liberal I've seen in quite a while. Pathetic.
Spot on
Submitted by oldfart on Sat, 04/21/2012 - 5:58am.
The only people I hear talk about racism are the liberals. I guess the difference is that right leaning people look at results - not entitlements. AND entitlements are a form of slavery - you are bound to the massa in Washington, DC for food, clothing and shelter. The difference is that today the plantation is mental, not physical.
Yo, slavery
Submitted by ZuccoZoid on Sat, 04/21/2012 - 4:34am.
I've had it with the "slavery" excuse. The Irish were also indentured, and you never hear us whining about that. http://goo.gl/onHs5
We have Leprechauns ;-)
Whys is this even a topic of conversation
Submitted by misterbee241 on Sat, 04/21/2012 - 8:01am.
except for people that want to keep a long dead institution alive for their own purposes?
We have bigger fish to fry other than the number of slaves in Louisiana in 1840. Who cares really? America has become a moral and spiritual wasteland, thanks to liberalism, the Constitution is in shreds, the schools are indoctrinations centers, religion is under attack, unemployment is STILL up, and people want to sit around and talk about SLAVERY???
COME ON, PEOPLE, GET WITH IT!!!
Not "get with it".....Get OVER it!!
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 04/21/2012 - 8:10am.
it's been over for 150 years!!
Like the famous quote about Clinton....can't we just MOVE ON????
With respect to Chris Matthews...
Submitted by needle on Sat, 04/21/2012 - 8:24am.
All the evidence points to: NO
You see, he is a Progressive.
- Looking forward to the self-annihilation of the Manipulated Stories Machine.
Chris Matthews and all other
Submitted by jkwtrading on Sat, 04/21/2012 - 9:50am.
Chris Matthews and all other liberals have beaten the "white guilt", "slavery" and any other sympathy for blacks into the ground. Their horse is dead.
what Matthews left out is video after video of black behavior has given people a perception they will lock onto. I doubt he watched the video's. His own view is still the one within his mind .
Artificial martyr
Submitted by ZuccoZoid on Sat, 04/21/2012 - 6:03pm.
The more I learn about this story, the more I feel for Zimmerman. This was no 12 year old happy-go-lucky kid skittling down the street; but a nasty punk looking for trouble. Gold teeth, tattoos and a screwdriver.
Meanwhile our "attorney general" calls us a "nation of cowards" while publicly rewarding Al Sharpton.
http://goo.gl/n8qrf
http://goo.gl/RxqOS
The Irish were slaves; we got over it. http://goo.gl/onHs5
they never even met a slave...
Submitted by wizardjr on Sat, 04/21/2012 - 11:40am.
None of these race mongers and ethnic grievence mongers has even met a slave much less grown up in or around slavery. It's just been a convenient cop out for being lazy and culturally stupid - "Well my family is descended from slaves." Bah. Humbug.
Waht history?
Submitted by CobraMan on Sat, 04/21/2012 - 1:56pm.
"The attitude of history here, you can’t push it aside I don’t think."
What history is that? Is it the history between the Hispanics, who were enslaved by the Spaniards, or the Blacks, who were enslaved by the English? Of course, you forget about the Native Indians, who were enslaved by the French.
Or maybe you're revering to the Blacks, who were enslaved by the Blacks. The Mayans (the precursor to "Hispanic.") who were enslaved by the Mayans, the Native Americans who were enslaved by the Native Americas, and the Whites who were enslaved by the Whites?
Oh, I got it! Blacks were enslaved by the "White Hispanics," although that never actually happened, and this is what is affecting people's perceptions, right?
A false view of history is what is affecting people's perceptions of guilt and innocence. In this case, you're right. That bothers me too.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Can't ever parse their statements anymore...
Submitted by krendler on Sat, 04/21/2012 - 5:02pm.
Always love it when the liberals and black pundits (e.g., Matthews, DOCTOR Eric Dyson, Fathead Roland Martin, Toure, etc) start with their incoherent, 10,000 word ramblings, spoken loudly (almost shouted) at 100 mph, eg., "You really have to examine this within the historical context of America's Sin of slavery and the enormous sociological impact it continues to have on the collective mindset of people of color" yada yada yada, followed by "and White America simply doesn't have sufficient life experiences and necessary cultural context to understand the black perspective."
As opposed to "Wannabe cop meets wannabe thug. Wannabe thug lost."
And I love how the media always tries to present these cases as white viewpoint versus black viewpoint, as if there are only whites and blacks in this country. No such thing as Asian, Hispanics, or South Asians and middle-easterners in the U.S.
Chris Matthews and Perpetrating Racism
Submitted by Netstatter on Sat, 04/21/2012 - 8:39pm.
Correct: racism will always exist in this country as long as people on the Left (such as Chris Matthews) keep bringing it up and pretending like it is some kind of obvious motivator when tragedies like this happen.
But, what else can Chris do? He himself is a slave to the Leftist pre-occupation with seeing human beings in terms of race and income levels, and the Left's knee-jerk reactions which result in the nurturing of racial divides and class divisions.
Extinguishing Trayvon's Bonfire
Submitted by berlet98 on Sun, 04/22/2012 - 2:02am.
Extinguishing Trayvon's Bonfire
(See “The Trayvon Martin Bonfire,” http://bit.ly/H28Eaf, which drew parallels between the Trayvon Martin killing and Tom Wolfe’s 1987 novel, The Bonfire of the Vanities, and “The Whitewashing of Trayvon Martin,” http://bit.ly/IZkzjK, which made the case for, well, Trayvon’s whitewashing.)
From the outset, the media coverage of the February 26th, 2012 shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman in Sanford, Florida has been skewed, biased, and journalistically disgraceful. The prosecution has demonstrated it is equivalently skewed, biased, and disgraceful.
Now that Zimmerman has been arrested and charged with second degree murder, the whole truth is finally seeping out which should dampen the Trayvon fires but I wouldn’t count on that.
At the beginning of this racial and legal fiasco, the only surety was that Zimmerman had shot Martin, which he freely admitted. The hype and lies that he was a racist, that he stalked Martin, etc. was just that, hype and lies manufactured by the MSM and exploited by black race hustlers in order to stir up racial unrest.
A reputable media would have reported the known facts in the case devoid of editorialized “news” stories designed to paint Zimmerman as a bloodthirsty murderer and Martin as a defenseless youth “hunted down like a rabid dog,” according to Democrat Rep. Frederika Wilson.
Instead of objectively reporting the known truth about the case, most of the broadcast, cable, and print media consistently distorted the facts. That distortion was epitomized by the MSM featuring photographs of Zimmerman looking more like a white man when he is actually half-hispanic and depicting Martin as an innocent child when he was actually full grown.
In reality, at the time he was killed Martin was anything but a child. He was a strapping, 6 foot, 2 inch 17 year old with a history of school suspensions, drug and gang associations, possession of a burglary tool, and possession of unexplained woman’s jewelry at school.
In an unorthodox move, on Friday the shackled Zimmerman courageously waived his Fifth Amendment rights against self incrimination and took the stand at his bond hearing. He said to the Martin family, “I am sorry for the loss of your son. I did not know how old he was. I thought he was a little bit younger than I am. I did not know if he was armed or not.”
The apology was immediately rejected as “self-serving” and “an outrage” by the family attorney, Benjamin Crump, and the prosecution described his testimony as “a media stunt.”
Zimmerman was granted bail in the amount of $150,000, a far cry from the million dollars the prosecution sought. More relevantly, Zimmerman never said he was guilty of any crime. Nevertheless, indicative of the state’s intent to convict him of all charges at all costs, the prosecuting attorney then asked him a totally unethical and inappropriate question under cross examination.
It’s remarkable that the defendant’s attorneys didn’t strongly object to the misleading question: “After you committed this crime and you spoke to the police, did you ever make that statement to the police? That you were sorry for what you’d done or for their loss?”
Equally remarkable is the prosecutor’s apparent obliviousness that no “crime” had yet been established and that Zimmerman is considered innocent under the law until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Now that a cell phone photo has surfaced substantiating Zimmerman’s contention that Martin had slammed his head into the pavement, one would hope the media would be more objectiveis. However, they are still as committed as the state of Florida to exonerating Martin and hanging the defendant.
The photo, taken by an eyewitness three minutes after the altercation, graphically shows blood streaming from two deep gashes in the back of his head, wounds that supplement neighbors’ statements that Zimmerman also had a bloody, swollen nose.
ABC World News’ Diane Sawyer displayed the picture then proceeded to effectively dismiss it as exculpatory evidence that Zimmerman feared for his life before he shot Martin. . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=22073.)