Yes, let’s keep the race war going forever. Let’s keep hate going from one generation to another. That won’t solve anything, but it will keep the votes flowing to the Democrat Party which admires and encourages victimhood has a lifestyle.

Here is example #2 of your liberal credentials. Liberals live for opportunities to put a chip on the shoulders of every member of every ethic group to keep them complaining, hating and voting.


Slowly backing away from your f’d up post man.


Not my fault you think America invented horrible race relations.

Frederick Douglas once said that the state of the Irish in Ireland was precisely the same as the Negro in America; was he lying?


He was just an ‘uncle tom’, he didn’t count…


No, you’re lying. Douglass explicitly rejected claims by the Irish that they were “slaves” equivalent to blacks in America, pointing out that the Irish poor had basic liberties.

So first you claim the Nazis who slaughtered an oppressed minority for racist reasons are morally analogous to the Black Panthers—an outrageous and truly despicable claim. And now you distort the writings of an icon of American philosophy (Douglass) to support your insinuation that Irish Catholics were victims of “exactly the same” racism as blacks in America.

I’m just about done with you.


Here you have an Irish hut or cabin, such as millions of the people of Ireland live in. And some live in worse than these. Men and women, married and single, old and young, lie down together, in much the same degradation as the American slaves. I see much here to remind me of my former condition, and I confess I should be ashamed to lift up my voice against American slavery, but that I know the cause of humanity is one the world over. He who really and truly feels for the American slave, cannot steel his heart to the woes of others; and he who thinks himself an abolitionist, yet cannot enter into the wrongs of others, has yet to find a true foundation for his anti-slavery faith.

He was an anglo-phile whose position evolved – he was a guest of the Protestant gentry, and he didn’t want to upset them. But overtime, he dispensed with it.


Your quote does not support your wording.

From “The Cambria Riot, My Slave Experience, and My Irish Mission: An Address Delivered in Belfast, Ireland, on December 5, 1845”

Douglass explicitly denying what you attribute to him, viz., that the condition of the Irish poor was “precisely the same” as that of black American slaves.

Since he had come to Ireland he had been thus accosted—“We are slaves here as well as your countrymen in America;” and his answer was, “if you have slaves they ought to be emancipated; if the people here are tyrannized over, they ought to be relieved from oppression; but let us inquire what slavery really is, and see whether you are in that state.” The error which people who spoke in the way he had stated fell into was, that they did not sufficiently distinguish between certain forms of oppression and slavery. Slavery was not what took away any one right or property in man: it took man himself, and made him the property of his fellow. It was what unmans man, takes him from himself, dooms him as a degraded thing, ranks him with the bridled horse and muzzled ox, makes him a chattel personal, a marketable commodity, to be swayed by the caprice and sold at the will of his master.


Quoting early speeches gets you no-where:

No people on the face of the earth have been more relentlessly persecuted and oppressed on account of race and religion, than the Irish people. But in Ireland, persecution has at last reached a point where it reacts terribly upon her persecutors. England today is reaping the bitter consequences of her own injustice and oppression…. Fellow citizens! We want no Black Ireland in America.

Life and Times of Frederick Douglass, pg. 661, 1881.

Please read, at your pleasure:


Again, an ACTUAL study of human history shows us that EVERY ethnic/racial group has, at one time or another, been enslaved and treated as “property.” That experience is NOT unique to blacks…nor the Irish, for that matter.


Your own source demonstrates your distortions. The quote you just offered is Douglass saying that—after black Americans are no longer slaves—we must not tolerate allowing them to live lives of poverty and persecution like the Irish (which, let’s get real, is exactly what happened). Douglass explicitly rejected the idea that the Irish were “slaves” in the sense of treated like animals and property, with no more rights than an animal, like black American slaves.

Please read, at your pleasure:

In contrast to plight of poverty and oppression of the Irish:

"Negro-slavery consisted not in taking away a man’s property, but in making property of him, and in destroying his identity—in treating him as the beasts and creeping things. GOD had given the negro a conscience and a will, but his conscience was no monitor to him, for he had no power to exercise his will—his master decided for him not only what he should eat and what he should drink, what he should wear, when and to whom he should speak, how much he should work, how much and by whom he is to be punished—he not only decided all these things, but what is morally right and wrong.

“The slave must not even choose his wife, must marry and unmarry at the will of his tyrant, for the slave-holder had no compunction in separating man and wife, and thus putting as under what GOD had joined together.”

“the Irishman is poor, but he is not a slave. He may be in rags, but he is not a slave. He is still the master of his own body … The Irishman has not only the liberty to emigrate from his country, but he has liberty at home. He can write, and speak, and cooperate for the attainment of his rights and the redress of his wrongs.”


I hope this ends this disgraceful line of discussion. Douglass explicitly assigns your very position—that the condition of white Irishmen is comparable to that of American slaves—to supporters of slavery, and wholesale rejects the position that you assigned to him.

From My Bondage and My Freedom:

It is often said, by the opponents of the anti-slavery cause, that the condition of the people of Ireland is more deplorable than that of the American slaves. Far be it from me to underrate the sufferings of the Irish people. They have been long oppressed; and the same heart that prompts me to plead the cause of the American bondman, makes it impossible for me not to sympathize with the oppressed of all lands. Yet I must say that there is no analogy between the two cases. The Irishman is poor, but he is not a slave. He may be in rags, but he is not a slave. He is still the master of his own body, and can say with the poet, “The hand of Douglass is his own.” “The world is all before him, where to choose;” and poor as may be my opinion of the British parliament, I cannot believe that it will ever sink to such a depth of infamy as to pass a law for the recapture of fugitive Irishmen! The shame and scandal of kidnapping will long remain wholly monopolized by the American congress. The Irishman has not only the liberty to emigrate from his country, but he has liberty at home. He can write, and speak, and coöperate for the attainment of his rights and the redress of his wrongs.

The multitude can assemble upon all the green hills and fertile plains of the Emerald Isle; they can pour out their grievances, and proclaim their wants without molestation; and the press, that “swift-winged messenger,” can bear the tidings of their doings to the extreme bounds of the civilized world. They have their “Conciliation Hall,” on the banks of the Liffey, their reform clubs, and their newspapers; they pass resolutions, send forth addresses, and enjoy the right of petition. But how is it with the American slave? Where may he assemble? Where is his Conciliation Hall? Where are his newspapers? Where is his right of petition? Where is his freedom of speech? his liberty of the press? and his right of locomotion? He is said to be happy; happy men can speak. But ask the slave what is his condition—what his state of mind what he thinks of enslavement? and you had as well address your inquiries to the silent dead. There comes no voice from the enslaved. We are left to gather his feelings by imagining what ours would be, were our souls in his soul’s stead.


None of these quotes came from the Life and Times of Frederick Douglass.

You’re quoting the My Bondage and My Freedom, which was printed in 1855.

If you want to understand why Douglass was willing to make the comparison later on, read the Salon article. They’re stating the same thing I am.

Also, so you don’t miss it:

These people lacked only a black skin and wooly hair, to complete their likeness to the plantation Negro,


I hope at some point you understand just how repugnant it is to distort an icon of black liberation in order to minimize the struggle of black Americans. Terrible stuff.


I hope at some point you realize “moral outrage” is a trite rhetorical device from you at this point. You dramatically overuse it, and you misidentify when you should use it.

I never minimized anything here, I put it in a category and stated these “differ in degrees, not kind.”

The cause of a victimhood mentality, doesn’t change how toxic it is. You’ve done nothing to dissuade my point.
Victimhood culture creates supremacy ideology, and creating policies that feed into that perception, that zeitgeist, are counterproductive.

You entrap people by doing it.


Actually, I’m genuinely disgusted by your posts in this thread. This is a shameful display by you.


Yup, still trite. Go read the Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt, you’re not convincing, and you should understand why.


I sincerely couldn’t care less what you find “convincing,” especially after seeing this profoundly intellectually dishonest display.


And I don’t care what you find outrageous, you’ve overused that. It’s not binding to me because you don’t know when to use it.

The “dishonesty” is yours by trying to call the Black panther “rebels” when they made no secret that they were vanguards of a revolution that was toting a supremacist ideology.

From the psychological perspective, the victim-hood mentality is toxic, and makes people behave in predictable ways. It doesn’t even matter if you think the causes can’t be compared, the broad sociological effects are the same, because they’re acting on the same circuit in the human brain.


The southern plantation owners, in dire need of cheap labor, FIRST tried enslaving white Europeans, but found out that wasn’t practical because they could blend in with the mostly-white population in the non-slave States and simply disappear. That they did it by “indentured servants” instead of calling them slaves doesn’t detract from the fact that they WERE slaves…a large percentage of which came from Wales and Ireland. They also tried enslaving Native Americans, but that didn’t work either because they could just walk away into the wilderness and live off of the land just fine. The final “solution” for these people was the importation of sub-Saharan blacks from Africa…the first enslaved by a black plantation owner, by the way. They were perfect for this role because unlike Europeans, they couldn’t blend into the mostly white cities of the era and unlike Native Americans, they were ignorant of New World flora and fauna and generally unable to cope with our wilderness OR our climate on their own.


You should feel “privileged” to get answers from J.Anderson. Alaskaslim. He’s found me to be “a tedious little man” and doesn’t answer me any more.

Victimization is indeed part of the stock and trade of liberalism, and it does nothing to improve the lives who fall into its grasp. All it does is make it harder for people improve their lives going forward. It’s a good vote getter for the Democrats however.

The Irish and the Chinese were treated like crap in the United States in the 19th century. Instead of feeling sorry for themselves, they got to work. They also have not formed violent, revolutionary organizations like the Black Panthers who mostly give the civil rights movement a bad image.