posted November 13, 2004 02:19 AM              

Eerie, wot?

posted November 13, 2004 02:24 PM            

If it DID ..then you would have the whole DAMN country highlighted as it was COMMON practice for tribes to raid others, taking the women and children INTO their tribe. It was COMMON for the SPANISH in the California Region to take Indian's and Mexican Indian's as slaves and sell them off to that region as well as send them back to Spain.

Slavery was NOT just black versus white- it has been a part of ALL societies.

For the RECORD: Maryland was a slave state- PA did have slaves but later joined the right to NOT have slaves.

The western part of the US was in a completely different way of life - mainly because it wasn't even incorporated into the US of A - remember it was still considered a wild, frontier region where "savages" reigned.

posted November 13, 2004 06:15 PM              

quote:

---

THAT MAP does NOT take into account the slavery of American Indians / Mexican BY American Indians and Mexicans.

---

That's right, Pid...duh!

It seems to me the civil war had nothing at all to do with the incidents you mention above, either!...and....well...frankly...you throwing in those "other" slavery stories appears to be one of those "diversions" you're always talking about...*sigh*

Now back to the maps...

The slavery states shown on the map are the states showing where people kept slaves, brought over here from Africa, for the specific purpose of BEING USED FOR SLAVES!...and gee, the "red states" kinda look like the same states....

(what to apples have to do with oranges?)

posted November 15, 2004 03:17 PM            

What is being done is taking a map, out of context- because it reflects only a partial truth of the real slave states, and then applying it to today.

At the same time we can look at that map and say "Those states with the highest number of minorities on welfare and illegal aliens voted went BLUE".

That is also true....but is it? The whole North East had slaves - some states only dropped them as a condition for the war.

NOW...I do think that ALL slavery is relevant- because what you are saying is that only slavery of blacks...at a specific period of time has meaning..because it matches to how the country voted and it makes a very passionate argument (propaganda).

In Science we call that using specific data points to support our theory. It is wrong and false because one must take the entire research into consideration NOT just some part.

The West Coast was not involved with the civil war, so we shouldn't even count it in this "study". It is not relevant at all...add to that parts of the Midwest and West - Montana, Wyoming, Nevada..etc...

Let's look at the real Civil war map and then extrapolate what counties, states and regions went for the Blue or Red.

Then lets look at it over the whole period of time.....how long was the North East into slavery? When did each state sign off on saying "NO to slavery"..did slavery still exist in pockets?

Let's then look at what each region -including the West advocated slavery. Did California have slaves? Did the Mexicans have slaves or did they abhor slavery? I mean, come on the crux of this argument is which regions went for Bush and also supported slavery right?

If we look at the MAP...and really get into each county and votes, could we say that there were states that went RED (BUSH) but only by a margin, therefore even the BLUE could have been pro-slavery? Are we saying that Southern states have NO people that are anti-slavery?

It is my nature to poke holes in arguments, especially those fueled by propaganda. IF I saw this coming from the Republican party I would say the same thing. For example, if the pubbies said "The people that are more intelligent and produce more raw products for the US (i.e. Farmers, livestock owners, business developers..etc...) are more likely to vote for Bush as seen in this map" I would question that the same way.

for the record MARYLAND was NOT a free state- the tag line "free state" when applied to Maryland (like on our license plates) had nothing to do with slavery in the least.

I would like to add one more thing in question of this propaganda:

posted November 16, 2004 11:11 AM            

quote:

---

taking something and making more of it that what it is.

---

***

Does anyone wish to share with us what precisely it is that you think the similarities could possibly be and why you feel this way? Or, conversely, what do you think the maps are trying to suggest that you don't agree with and why you feel that way, like miss_apples started to?

posted November 16, 2004 01:45 PM            

If you read the website and the context in which this was posted you will clearly see the following:

The map indicates that those states that went Red are ALSO the states that ALLOWED SLAVES OR ACCEPTED SLAVERY...

I suggest that in order to comment one goes to that website that is referenced at the top of the page and READ what is posted in reference to the site...here..I will post it just in case:

_________________________________________

In case it's hard to read, on the Pre-Civil War Map, the red areas were slave states and the brown areas were territories open to slavery, while the green areas were free states and territories. These distinctions eerily correspond to the red states vs. blue states on the 2004 Election Map ~~ i.e., the blue (Kerry) states correspond to the pre-civil-war free states and territories, while the red (Bush) states correspond to what were the slave states and territories. As one of my co-workers said to me, this might be the most "devastatingly accurate explanation I've seen for what happened on Tuesday." There's a little more discussion about all this, here.

As I post this, I am getting ready to attend the Alameda County Women Judges' Dinner in Oakland, celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Brown v. Board decision, and Congresswoman Barbara Lee is scheduled to speak. After seeing this map today, I'm relieved to have this event to attend tonight. Oh how far we have come as a free country, right?

___________________________________________

One does one take from that? It is clear that the site is making the distinction that there is a strong correlation between those that went RED and the states that promoted slavery.

That is WHY I posted the 1992, 1996 and 2000 election map in order to prove this sick theory wrong.