Black Slave Owners:

a reply to: Spider879

This was a good read. I think that whites certainly drew on popular arguments (at the time) that justified slavery based on skin color; presenting one race as more advanced and therefor worthy of dominating the other. At it's core I think that racism that still exists in the U.S. is built upon those ideas. At the end of the day though, slavery is more about dominance and profit than race. Race or heritage is just a common way that we justify it, although certainly not the only one.

Star and Flag.

This is definitely one of those topics that far too many in the black community won't acknowledge as it doesn't fit with the victimization narrative.

originally posted by: Edumakated
Star and Flag.

This is definitely one of those topics that far too many in the black community won't acknowledge as it doesn't fit with the victimization narrative.

It's uncomfortable and touchy, but we have to live with nuisance there is pain, struggle triumph betrayal brutality good guys and bad guys on all sides , sometimes even in the same individual, history like people is complex and messy like that

Irrelevant. We're referring to the history of this country.

originally posted by: THEatsking
Irrelevant. We're referring to the history of this country.

How so when the process started on continents away, non of this happens in a vacuum, matter of fact slaves were sometimes moved back and forth from the U.S mainland to the Caribbean and Vice versa.

Great information! The only way the slave trade was able to sdustain itself wasd through the cooperation of the Africans, sad but true.

nice OP! great subject for a thread especially for people not from the USA. How the USA deals with it's/the history concerning slavery is always mind blowing.

originally posted by: cenpuppie
Great information! The only way the slave trade was able to sdustain itself wasd through the cooperation of the Africans, sad but true.

Yes as an equal partner or partners and they controlled the flow from the African side , and like I said they shut it down whenever they got displeased and lobbied for it's continuation when the Brits tried to get out of it.

This is good info, thank you for taking the time to tell all sides of the story!

originally posted by: stinkelbaum
a reply to: Cancerwarrior

thats because he is cherry picking a few from history with the edict being that, 'because blacks had black slaves it was cool for whites to keep black slaves', rather than all slavery, at any time was and still is wrong.

Er, no. All the OP is doing is dispelling the myth that White People pretty much plundered Africa for slaves for hundreds of years when it is much more complex than that. Many people think Europeans invaded Africa and raided villages took slaves and transported them across the Atlantic all in their own, when in fact, most slaves taken were sold to Europeans by Africans themselves. There is also this myth that black people are inherently united, all Africans suffered the same way. This is also a bunch of Progressive non sense. They more closely followed the same pattern of the time: Rich Africans used and manipulated poor Africans in much the same way that Rich Europeans used and manipulated poor Europeans. The end result of such manipulation was different of course, Europeans may be executed for speaking against the Church, Africans that spoke against the aristocracy were sold as slaves.

a reply to: Spider879

Yes. It didn't help the crown when they decided to do away with slavery to sit and see the Portuguese not only continuing the trade but profiting from it handsomely. The money was so ridiculous they had to get back in it, cuz money

originally posted by: redhorse
a reply to: Spider879

This was a good read. I think that whites certainly drew on popular arguments (at the time) that justified slavery based on skin color; presenting one race as more advanced and therefor worthy of dominating the other. At it's core I think that racism that still exists in the U.S. is built upon those ideas. At the end of the day though, slavery is more about dominance and profit than race. Race or heritage is just a common way that we justify it, although certainly not the only one.

Yes you are right, but if the popular perception is that a certain identifiable race were slaves. It takes a long time for some reason for the stigma to dissolve. Even in the nineteen sixties in Britain, boarding houses had signs, saying "No Blacks or Irish"
Slavery is an insidious thing, in Eastern Europe when land was sold, the deeds of sale usually stated, how many Gypsies came with it, as the work force. Before the Russian revolution, the aristocracy owned the surfs, if they were great singers or had some talent that brought in the cash, the Aristocrat got the money as it was his or her property that generated it. In Moscow their was usually a flogging room in the basement, to maintain control of the servants.
Many think that if technology, didn't make slavery uneconomic then it would be endemic today. But if you define slavery, as one who works for no reward, except for the necessaries of life. Then the reality is that it still exists.

originally posted by: redhorse
a reply to: Spider879

This was a good read. I think that whites certainly drew on popular arguments (at the time) that justified slavery based on skin color; presenting one race as more advanced and therefor worthy of dominating the other. At it's core I think that racism that still exists in the U.S. is built upon those ideas. At the end of the day though, slavery is more about dominance and profit than race. Race or heritage is just a common way that we justify it, although certainly not the only one.

Yes you are right, but if the popular perception is that a certain identifiable race were slaves. It takes a long time for some reason for the stigma to dissolve. Even in the nineteen sixties in Britain, boarding houses had signs, saying "No Blacks or Irish"
Slavery is an insidious thing, in Eastern Europe when land was sold, the deeds of sale usually stated, how many Gypsies came with it, as the work force. Before the Russian revolution, the aristocracy owned the surfs, if they were great singers or had some talent that brought in the cash, the Aristocrat got the money as it was his or her property that generated it. In Moscow their was usually a flogging room in the basement, to maintain control of the servants.
Many think that if technology, didn't make slavery uneconomic then it would be endemic today. But if you define slavery, as one who works for no reward, except for the necessaries of life. Then the reality is that it still exists.

I would challenge you to find a significant amount of black slave owners. By default you would most likely find a few jews that participated in the holocaust. Not sure if this is suppose to make excuses but Ive never seen a black in america participate in lynching, cross burning, castration etc

Just to show that no one is immune to the tyranny of slavery, the Barbary slave trade—something rarely spoken about in America—dealt in white Christian European slaves. I suppose we're all recuperating from our slavish past.

Good post OP.

originally posted by: magnetik
I would challenge you to find a significant amount of black slave owners. By default you would most likely find a few jews that participated in the holocaust. Not sure if this is suppose to make excuses but Ive never seen a black in america participate in lynching, cross burning, castration etc

That's a result of slavery itself and the demeaning effects it had on the enslaved it allowed for a racist mindset driven by extreme contempt to kick in, and in the west slaves became chattel the worst form of that institution.

a reply to: Spider879

That's a result of slavery itself and the demeaning effects it had on the enslaved it allowed for a racist mindset to kick in, and in the west slaves became chattel the worst form of that institution.

Do you think racism was the result of slavery? Or was slavery the result of racism?

I forget where I heard it, but apparently most slavery between different races did not occur until travel and transport was relatively easy, and it was often that slaves had little racial difference to their masters, given that they were taken for the most part from neighboring areas.

originally posted by: stinkelbaum
a reply to: Cancerwarrior

thats because he is cherry picking a few from history with the edict being that, 'because blacks had black slaves it was cool for whites to keep black slaves', rather than all slavery, at any time was and still is wrong.

Would you be inclined to reconsider your conclusion if you were aware that the creator of this thread is in fact a black man himself?

Personally, I saw the thread as being primarily in the interest of sharing Truth, a most admirable goal, and also perhaps as a secondary purpose, aiming to build bridges across the racial divide that exists as a near unfathomable chasm in our society, also a noble effort of the highest order.

As long as the false belief that the "white man" is somehow more capable of, or more proficient, in commiting evil acts reigns supreme, it will be just about impossible to have any type of equality amongst humankind.

My utmost respect and appreciation as well as gratitude to Spider, I always look forward to hearing from you, whether it be in the form of thread or post, or private message for that matter.

originally posted by: magnetik
I would challenge you to find a significant amount of black slave owners. By default you would most likely find a few jews that participated in the holocaust. Not sure if this is suppose to make excuses but Ive never seen a black in america participate in lynching, cross burning, castration etc

It's always been the wealthy and powerful taking advantage of whoever they can. That, and, such as in the case of Nazi collaborators, the less powerful doing whatever they can to survive or increase their own position over others around them, trying to avoid the wrath of the wealthy and powerful.

It might be easier to accept when the person looks different, but history has shown that those with an disproportionate amount of power over others will trample anyone in their pathway, regardless of any differences or similarities, or even those of the closest family relation, simply because they can.

It has been shown that awareness of inequalities in wealth in nature cause psychological disorders on both ends. There was a study involving primates and awarding some with more bananas with the others. There was also another study involving humans playing the roles of prison inmates and guards that shows that power over others will always be abused. Undeserved and too greatly imbalanced inequalities in wealth and power goes against nature.

The existence of leaders is natural, when the position of leadership is seen as deserved and worthy, and the power and wealth of the individual does not vastly outweigh that of one's constituency. That leads to a person desiring to do what it takes to hold their position because of the power and wealth it brings them, rather than because they are passionate about doing what's best for the people they have been tasked with leading. That desire, among other things that come with a disproportionate balance of wealth, is what can lead to much evil and much unecessary , undue suffering...

a reply to: 3n19m470

Respect: