 |
byteme
Registered: Dec 2008
Posts: 557 |
07-06-12 10:39 PM
Quote from 377OHMS:
...committed by my antecedents...
...descended from people who let themselves be dragged...
So, which is it? What happened before has an impact on who some one is today or not?
|
| |
|
Edit/Delete • Quote • Complain |
Mercor
Registered: Jun 2007
Posts: 3851 |
07-07-12 12:24 AM
Quote from mrbill:
What an ass. Just like the Native Americans allowed themselves to have their lands stolen by the white man. Take some responsibility for your race, if not your ancestors. We, white people, stole the land, and stole the human lives. Hard to admit, but true to those who have gone to school.
You are an ignorant ass......
The slave trading posts in West Africa had no soldiers, just a small crew of ship operators. They could have been captured without any problem.
They were there to accept Africans brought to them from the African tribes themselves. By the 19th century all slave trade was illegal except in the continent of Africa. The only supply of slaves at that time were Africans.
__________________________________
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/slavetra.html
What these records show is that the modern slave trade flourished in the early middle ages, as early as 869, especially between Muslim traders and western African kingdoms. For moralists, the most important aspect of that trade should be that Muslims were selling goods to the African kingdoms and the African kingdoms were paying with their own people. In most instances, no violence was necessary to obtain those slaves. Contrary to legends and novels and Hollywood movies, the white traders did not need to savagely kill entire tribes in order to exact their tribute in slaves. All they needed to do is bring goods that appealed to the kings of those tribes. The kings would gladly sell their own subjects. (Of course, this neither condones the white traders who bought the slaves nor deny that many white traders still committed atrocities to maximize their business).
This explains why slavery became "black". Ancient slavery, e.g. under the Roman empire, would not discriminate: slaves were both white and black (so were Emperors and Popes). In the middle ages, all European countries outlawed slavery (of course, Western powers retained countless "civilized" ways to enslave their citizens, but that's another story), whereas the African kingdoms happily continued in their trade. Therefore, only colored people could be slaves, and that is how the stereotype for African-American slavery was born. It was not based on an ancestral hatred of blacks by whites, but simply on the fact that blacks were the only ones selling slaves, and they were selling people of their own race.
|
| |
|
Edit/Delete • Quote • Complain |
Ricter
Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 13177 |
07-07-12 12:33 AM
Quote from Mercor:
You are an ignorant ass......
The slave trading posts in West Africa had no soldiers, just a small crew of ship operators. They could have been captured without any problem.
They were there to accept Africans brought to them from the African tribes themselves. By the 19th century all slave trade was illegal except in the continent of Africa. The only supply of slaves at that time were Africans.
__________________________________
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/slavetra.html
What these records show is that the modern slave trade flourished in the early middle ages, as early as 869, especially between Muslim traders and western African kingdoms. For moralists, the most important aspect of that trade should be that Muslims were selling goods to the African kingdoms and the African kingdoms were paying with their own people. In most instances, no violence was necessary to obtain those slaves. Contrary to legends and novels and Hollywood movies, the white traders did not need to savagely kill entire tribes in order to exact their tribute in slaves. All they needed to do is bring goods that appealed to the kings of those tribes. The kings would gladly sell their own subjects. (Of course, this neither condones the white traders who bought the slaves nor deny that many white traders still committed atrocities to maximize their business).
This explains why slavery became "black". Ancient slavery, e.g. under the Roman empire, would not discriminate: slaves were both white and black (so were Emperors and Popes). In the middle ages, all European countries outlawed slavery (of course, Western powers retained countless "civilized" ways to enslave their citizens, but that's another story), whereas the African kingdoms happily continued in their trade. Therefore, only colored people could be slaves, and that is how the stereotype for African-American slavery was born. It was not based on an ancestral hatred of blacks by whites, but simply on the fact that blacks were the only ones selling slaves, and they were selling people of their own race.
So if American slavery had been "white" (they being marked not by skin color, but by, say, mandatory tattoos), but everything else about our history played out the same, with the end of mandatory tattooing (Jim Crow) ending in 1965, would the descendents of the slaves be economically "caught up" with the rest of us?
|
| |
|
Edit/Delete • Quote • Complain |
Mercor
Registered: Jun 2007
Posts: 3851 |
07-07-12 12:43 AM
Quote from Ricter:
So if American slavery had been "white" (they being marked not by skin color, but by, say, mandatory tattoos), but everything else about our history played out the same, with the end of mandatory tattooing (Jim Crow) ending in 1965, would the descendents of the slaves be economically "caught up" with the rest of us?
Millions of immigrants have come to the US since 1965, with nothing and not knowing English, yet many have become successful.
Many Blacks are middle class, you're talking about the poor and undereducated Blacks. For that group I would argue that "Jim Crow" is still happening to them by the Democrats who run the urban cities.
The poor Blacks live in segregated neighborhood , irregular Police protection and terrible schools. They are outside the economic activity of the city. Separate but (not) equal...sound familiar?
|
| |
|
Edit/Delete • Quote • Complain |
Wide Tailz
Registered: Sep 2011
Posts: 1515 |
07-07-12 12:55 AM
Quote from Mercor:
The poor Blacks live in segregated neighborhood , irregular Police protection and terrible schools. They are outside the economic activity of the city. Separate but (not) equal...sound familiar?
They also make babies faster than just about every other race. Why is that? Could it be their culture of profanity, glorification of violence and theft, and general disregard of honorable behavior, such as sheltering the weak and telling the truth?
|
| |
|
Edit/Delete • Quote • Complain |
| Receive
an email whenever a new post is added to this thread by subscribing
to it. |
|
|
|
|
