Comments by "Debany Doombringer" (@debanydoombringer1385) on "CNN Analyst TRASHES Kamala Harris In Front Of Democrat Panel For Made Up Slavery Lie!" video.

@cindy844 I was taught this nuance in school in the 80s. We were shown that it was complicated. Nothing is black and white. Everything is gray. There's a reason the 2-3 years following the war aren't talked about much in history. Most of the freed slaves ended up back on the same properties they'd been freed from. The Union turned them away and refused to help them. About 1 million died from starvation and unsanitary conditions. Even the abolitionists turned their back on them because it looked like people saying they wouldn't be able to care for themselves was true. They went back to the plantations to work which ended up creating sharecropping. Then history picks back up discussing how horrible that was. It leaves out the middle because it makes the Union look bad and shows they were no different which destroys the narrative of what it was all about and it shows that sharecropping was done because they willingly came back to the slave quarters. I'm not discussing the morality of anything, just the history of what happened. I don't feel like I need to preface a discussion about historical facts with moral proclamations about it.
6
First off, it wasn't just slaves. It included former indentured servants as well which my ancestors were. Yes what he did was objectively wrong. You can attempt to justify it, but killing a bunch of people who had nothing to do with what happened to him personally is objectively wrong. You're justifying the murder of men, women, and children. That's like saying it's justifiable for a serial killer to target women that look like his mother that abused him. Had he only targeted the people directly responsible for what happened to him, you'd have an argument, but he didn't. Edit: I'll remind you, the vast majority of the population never owned a slave. Only a tiny fraction did. Which makes your attempt at justification sick.
3
You really need to look a bit deeper into the Tulsa thing. It's funny how when black people riot and burn buildings and loot it's fine, but when a group of angry huwhite people do it because they'd been shot at at the courthouse it's because they didn't like black people being prosperous. The "massacre" wasn't just dead black people. Books are very careful to not make that claim outright but instead insinuate it. It's similar to the Emmitt Till thing. What happened shouldn't have happened, but with everything when it comes to history, there's nuances involved that gets discarded in favor of painting a particular picture. Everything has to be framed as good or bad rather than just being factual.
1