Reply
  • Nov 4, 2022

    wtf bros 😳

    "The Redeemers movement was an unofficial group of Southern elites who wanted to “redeem” the South during Reconstruction by returning it to the pre–Civil War norms. Redeemers were business leaders, politicians, and others who ran Southern society. They destroyed progress and sustained ethnocide by any means necessary, but they had to sustain a façade of legitimacy and dignity while they did so. A redeemer could be an influential business leader who was also secretly part of the Ku Klux Klan, or at the very least collaborated with the KKK to obtain power. The KKK not only terrorized Black people, but they prevented Black people from voting and terrorized the white Republican politicians who won elected office. Voter suppression, intimidation, and demonization of the opposition became the political norm in the South, and this dynamic could only be sustained if the Redeemer candidates could appear above and disconnected from the terror while they actually orchestrated all of it"

    The Crime Without a Name: Ethnocide and the Erasure of Culture in America

    Book by Barrett Holmes Pitner

  • Nov 4, 2022
    ·
    1 reply

    Yeah, the Union didn’t take the land-owning plantation class out of power after the war, due to fears that it could’ve kept the war going through guerilla warfare

  • Nov 4, 2022

    Explains why parts of the South and Republican majority areas are run ass backwards and look like Red Dead Redemption towns.

  • Nov 4, 2022
    ·
    4 replies

    u mean the jews op

  • Nov 4, 2022
    ·
    1 reply
    Water Giver

    u mean the jews op

    ?

  • Nov 4, 2022

    but seriously yeah, also lets not even get into how they got reparations that were owed to black people

  • Nov 4, 2022
    ·
    1 reply
    Water Giver

    u mean the jews op

    Here we go with this Jew stuff again!

  • Nov 4, 2022
    ·
    1 reply
    space0cadet

    ?

    its a joke of how "everyone" thinks jew are "the enemy" of usa since ye

  • Nov 4, 2022
    ·
    2 replies

    I don't believe they only operated in the South

  • Nov 4, 2022
    Pusha P

    Here we go with this Jew stuff again!

    Everyday like a repeat marathon

  • Nov 4, 2022
    soapmanwun

    I don't believe they only operated in the South

    settler colonialism moment

  • Nov 4, 2022
    ·
    1 reply
    Water Giver

    u mean the jews op

  • Nov 4, 2022
    ·
    1 reply

    there were also a lot of slavery sympathizers even in the north that made the south get off so easy n actually gave them REWARDS like the reparations i mentioned while black people didnt get s*** n were herded into ghettos n contracts that re put them into slavery s*** is wild bro

  • Nov 4, 2022
    ·
    edited

    thats part of the reason why theres hella big houses with hella land even in poor areas nowadays that are ran down n cheap af the more south you go, they were just giving s*** away to "ex" slave masters & their families while ex slaves n their families didnt get s*** but a contract to work "legally free" with THE "EX" SLAVE MASTERS

    so when they tell niggas to pull themselves up by their boot straps

    tell them you didnt tho

  • Nov 4, 2022
    ·
    1 reply
    Water Giver

    its a joke of how "everyone" thinks jew are "the enemy" of usa since ye

  • Nov 4, 2022
    ·
    1 reply
    ProhibitionDev

    youre using the meme wrong

  • Nov 4, 2022
    ·
    1 reply
    Water Giver

    youre using the meme wrong

    your joke was not well executed so idc

  • Nov 4, 2022
    krishna bound

    its always n only the jews dont u know

  • Nov 4, 2022
    ·
    1 reply
    ProhibitionDev

    your joke was not well executed so idc

  • Nov 4, 2022
    ·
    1 reply
    Water Giver

    cope

  • Nov 4, 2022
    ProhibitionDev

    cope

    mmhm

  • Nov 4, 2022
    soapmanwun

    I don't believe they only operated in the South

    of course, but thats where they started

    also there were/are allies n sympathizers in the north that helped them

  • Nov 4, 2022
    ·
    1 reply
    Water Giver

    there were also a lot of slavery sympathizers even in the north that made the south get off so easy n actually gave them REWARDS like the reparations i mentioned while black people didnt get s*** n were herded into ghettos n contracts that re put them into slavery s*** is wild bro

    its a little more complicated than that. there were obv lots of slavery sympathizers in the north, infamously prior to his presidency post-civil war, Johnson gave speeches saying slavery needed to be kept legal to appease secessionists for example. however i wouldnt really say its like they were "rewarding" the south. the post-civil war reconstruction era was more about rebuilding industrial power as soon as possible and trying to prevent a secession movement from arising again; there's a direct quote from Johnson for example which called post-slavery suffrage a distraction, essentially delaying the viability of a united country again. While on the surface this just sounds like it was because of racism, it really wasn't primarily, it was because ultimately that purposeful ignorance of racial issues was a byproduct of caring primarily about economics over social issues to begin with. Union politicians didn't really "like" the south, and the historical elitism you still see in the North East against southerners/midwesterners is still related to that strain of thought - they only cared about the south in terms of essentially re-balancing the economy. A large part of the Union's care about the south was also worry about if the south were to essentially become a competing country w/ different diplomatic ties; you can likely understand why in the mid-1800s this would be the case especially given the contextual relationship with european powers like France, Spain, and UK; territorial disputes like the war of 1812 were less than half a century away at that point, and then the Mexican-American War was like a decade earlier from the Civil War essentially. So territorial disputes and the idea of a crumbling south affecting the stability of the union by extension overruled any willingness to punish the south for the civil war in and of itself. On the surface it seems like rewarding them but in reality it was always more about narcissism in the union for retaining a powerful wide-spanning territorial empire and growing economic powerhouse (ideology you'll see only get more prevalent all the way up through WW1 & WW2) by cooperating with the south despite resenting them and by extension wider social issues in turn

  • Nov 4, 2022
    ·
    edited
    ·
    1 reply
    krishna bound

    its a little more complicated than that. there were obv lots of slavery sympathizers in the north, infamously prior to his presidency post-civil war, Johnson gave speeches saying slavery needed to be kept legal to appease secessionists for example. however i wouldnt really say its like they were "rewarding" the south. the post-civil war reconstruction era was more about rebuilding industrial power as soon as possible and trying to prevent a secession movement from arising again; there's a direct quote from Johnson for example which called post-slavery suffrage a distraction, essentially delaying the viability of a united country again. While on the surface this just sounds like it was because of racism, it really wasn't primarily, it was because ultimately that purposeful ignorance of racial issues was a byproduct of caring primarily about economics over social issues to begin with. Union politicians didn't really "like" the south, and the historical elitism you still see in the North East against southerners/midwesterners is still related to that strain of thought - they only cared about the south in terms of essentially re-balancing the economy. A large part of the Union's care about the south was also worry about if the south were to essentially become a competing country w/ different diplomatic ties; you can likely understand why in the mid-1800s this would be the case especially given the contextual relationship with european powers like France, Spain, and UK; territorial disputes like the war of 1812 were less than half a century away at that point, and then the Mexican-American War was like a decade earlier from the Civil War essentially. So territorial disputes and the idea of a crumbling south affecting the stability of the union by extension overruled any willingness to punish the south for the civil war in and of itself. On the surface it seems like rewarding them but in reality it was always more about narcissism in the union for retaining a powerful wide-spanning territorial empire and growing economic powerhouse (ideology you'll see only get more prevalent all the way up through WW1 & WW2) by cooperating with the south despite resenting them and by extension wider social issues in turn

    yeah i know, its all about money n production in the end thus the reorienting of slavery, my posts is just a shorten dumb down version

    there were people that did want to punish them but people went against them, from literally wiping out all of them, to taking their property, to jailing etc. but most if not all got shot down

    in my eyes tho its seen as "reward" imo especially since some did have connects to the south, while still not doing anything for black people. and the north as a whole still didnt give af about black people really overall anyways, it was just their bias n jealously against the south n their wealth from the labor n them getting to big.

    which on a sidenote, the excuses to not give black reparations (such as not being feasible, not realistic, a different time now etc. etc.) is bull because they basically did give them to ex slavers instead.

    they wanted to keep america whole, while getting over on the south. so if "freeing" black people at the time was the best way to cripple n spite them then so be it.

    but the "benefits" they did receive plus not really recieving any punish outside of the war itself had cascading effect where these people went back into their old ways & started developing deeper, & more, hatred groups which f***ed over a lot over time. mainly blacks then other minorites such as Jews n Spanish etc. still to this day where a lot of that type of thinking stems form since it was allowed to recollect itself. left the weed to regrow and then stretch even further. which you could even say that part was also on purpose, in a way.

    its all f***ed up, & no really cared about black people outside of the money aspect. similar to modern day.

  • Nov 4, 2022
    ·
    1 reply

    it's actually the WASPs and Jesuits