ninja007
Gold Member
ANOTHER GREAT AND RELEVANT TOPIC....
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Dear Black People: Stop Blaming Whites For Slavery
- Thread starter ninja007
- Start date
ANOTHER GREAT AND RELEVANT TOPIC....
Asclepias
Diamond Member
Dear white people,
Stop proving you have an overabundance of people in your "race" that lack the ability to form complex thoughts.
Stop proving you have an overabundance of people in your "race" that lack the ability to form complex thoughts.
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,519
- 2,165
- Banned
- #5
American Negro Chattel Slavery evolved in the African slave trade involving whites, Arabs, and blacks. Whites overwhelmingly were the transformative force moving millions of blacks to slavery under whites in the Americas.
- Nov 3, 2012
- 37,635
- 4,526
- 1,170
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,519
- 2,165
- Banned
- #7
Meaningless. White Europeans and North Americans were overwhelmingly responsible for African Chattel Slavery in America. The exceptions, like the one above, proves the rule.
Asclepias
Diamond Member
That has been debunked several times already and even if were true is irrelevant to the point. The first documented slave owner was a white boy by the name of Gwyn. That wont change no matter how many internet memes trick your simple mind. Interesting footnote is that the first slave is actually an ancestor of our current POTUS through his moms white side of the family.
John Punch slave - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
"For this reason, historians consider John Punch the "first official slave in the English colonies,"[4] and his case as the "first legal sanctioning of lifelong slavery in the Chesapeake."
- Nov 3, 2012
- 37,635
- 4,526
- 1,170
The Origins of the Slave Trade
In 1807 Britain outlawed slavery. In 1820 the king of the African kingdom of Ashanti inquired why the Christians did not want to trade slaves with him anymore, since they worshipped the same god as the Muslims and the Muslims were continuing the trade like before.
The civil rights movement of the 1960's have left many people with the belief that the slave trade was exclusively a European/USA phenomenon and only evil white people were to blame for it. This is a simplistic scenario that hardly reflects the facts.
Thousands of records of transactions are available on a CDROM prepared by Harvard University and several comprehensive books have been published recently on the origins of modern slavery (namely, Hugh Thomas' The Slave Trade and Robin Blackburn's The Making Of New World Slavery) that shed new light on centuries of slave trading.
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.
In 1807 Britain outlawed slavery. In 1820 the king of the African kingdom of Ashanti inquired why the Christians did not want to trade slaves with him anymore, since they worshipped the same god as the Muslims and the Muslims were continuing the trade like before.
The civil rights movement of the 1960's have left many people with the belief that the slave trade was exclusively a European/USA phenomenon and only evil white people were to blame for it. This is a simplistic scenario that hardly reflects the facts.
Thousands of records of transactions are available on a CDROM prepared by Harvard University and several comprehensive books have been published recently on the origins of modern slavery (namely, Hugh Thomas' The Slave Trade and Robin Blackburn's The Making Of New World Slavery) that shed new light on centuries of slave trading.
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.
- Nov 3, 2012
- 37,635
- 4,526
- 1,170
The first ones were the Portuguese, who, applying an idea that originally developed in Italian seatrading cities, and often using Italian venture capital, started exploiting sub-Saharan slaves in the 1440s to support the economy of the sugar plantations (mainly for their own African colonies of Sao Tome and Madeira).
The Dutch were the first, apparently, to import black slaves into North America, but black slaves had already been employed all over the world, including South and Central America.
We tend to focus on what happened in North America because the United States would eventually fight a war over slavery (and it's in the U.S. that large sectors of the population would start condemning slavery, contrary to the indifference that Muslims and most Europeans showed for it).
Even after Europeans began transporting black slaves to America, most trade was just that: "trade".
In most instances, the Europeans did not need to use any force to get those slaves. The slaves were "sold" more or less legally by their (black) owners.
Scholars estimate that about 12,000,000 Africans were sold by Africans to Europeans (most of them before 1776, when the USA wasn't yet born) and 17,000,000 were sold to Arabs.
The legends of European mercenaries capturing free people in the jungle are mostly just that: legends.
A few mercenaries certainly stormed peaceful tribes and committed terrible crimes, but that was not the norm. There was no need to risk their lives, so most of them didn't: they simply purchased people.
As an African-American scholar (Nathan Huggins) has written, the "identity" of black Africans is largely a white invention: sub-Saharan Africans never felt like they were one people, they felt (and still feel) that they belonged to different tribes. The distinctions of tribe were far stronger than the distinctions of race.
The Origins of the Slave Trade
The Dutch were the first, apparently, to import black slaves into North America, but black slaves had already been employed all over the world, including South and Central America.
We tend to focus on what happened in North America because the United States would eventually fight a war over slavery (and it's in the U.S. that large sectors of the population would start condemning slavery, contrary to the indifference that Muslims and most Europeans showed for it).
Even after Europeans began transporting black slaves to America, most trade was just that: "trade".
In most instances, the Europeans did not need to use any force to get those slaves. The slaves were "sold" more or less legally by their (black) owners.
Scholars estimate that about 12,000,000 Africans were sold by Africans to Europeans (most of them before 1776, when the USA wasn't yet born) and 17,000,000 were sold to Arabs.
The legends of European mercenaries capturing free people in the jungle are mostly just that: legends.
A few mercenaries certainly stormed peaceful tribes and committed terrible crimes, but that was not the norm. There was no need to risk their lives, so most of them didn't: they simply purchased people.
As an African-American scholar (Nathan Huggins) has written, the "identity" of black Africans is largely a white invention: sub-Saharan Africans never felt like they were one people, they felt (and still feel) that they belonged to different tribes. The distinctions of tribe were far stronger than the distinctions of race.
The Origins of the Slave Trade
ClosedCaption
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2010
- 53,233
- 6,719
- 1,830
Is it okay to blame 'whites' for Jim Crow?
Nope, you're being divisive!
- Nov 3, 2012
- 37,635
- 4,526
- 1,170
Incidentally, in 1830 about 25% of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves: that is a much higher percentage (ten times more) than the number of white slave owners. Thus slave owners were a tiny minority (1.4%) and it was not only whites: it was just about anybody who could, including blacks themselves.
Moral opposition to slavery became widespread even before Lincoln, and throughout Europe. On the other hand, opposition to slavery was never particularly strong in Africa itself, where slavery is slowly being eradicated only in our times. One can suspect that slavery would have remained common in most African kingdoms until this day: what crushed slavery in Africa was that all those African kingdoms became colonies of western European countries that (for one reason or another) eventually decided to outlaw slavery.
When, in the 1960s, those African colonies regained their independence, numerous cases of slavery resurfaced. And countless African dictators behaved in a way that makes a slave owner look like a saint.
Given the evidence that this kind of slavery was practiced by some Africans before it was practiced by some Americans, that it was abolished by all whites and not by some Africans, and that some Africans resumed it the moment they could, why would one keep blaming the USA but never blame, say, Ghana or the Congo?
The more we study it, the less blame we have to put on the USA for the slave trade with black Africa: it was pioneered by the Arabs, its economic mechanism was invented by the Italians and the Portuguese, it was mostly run by western Europeans, and it was conducted with the full cooperation of many African kings.
The USA fostered free criticism of the phenomenon: for a long time no such criticism was allowed in the Muslim and Christian nations that started trading goods for slaves, and no such criticism was allowed in the African nations that started selling their own people (and, even today, slavery is a taboo subject in the Arab world).
Today it is politically correct to blame some European empires and the USA for slavery (forgetting that it was practiced by everybody since prehistoric times). But I rarely read the other side of the story: that the nations who were the first to develop a repulsion for slavery and eventually abolish slavery were precisely those countries (especially Britain and the USA).
In 1787 the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade was founded in England: it was the first society anywhere in the world opposed to slavery. In 1792 English prime minister William Pitt called publicly for the end of the slave trade: it was the first time in history (anywhere in the world) that the ruler of a country had called for the abolition of slavery. No African king and emperor had ever done so.
As Dinesh D'Souza wrote, "What is uniquely Western is not slavery but the movement to abolish slavery".
The Origins of the Slave Trade
Moral opposition to slavery became widespread even before Lincoln, and throughout Europe. On the other hand, opposition to slavery was never particularly strong in Africa itself, where slavery is slowly being eradicated only in our times. One can suspect that slavery would have remained common in most African kingdoms until this day: what crushed slavery in Africa was that all those African kingdoms became colonies of western European countries that (for one reason or another) eventually decided to outlaw slavery.
When, in the 1960s, those African colonies regained their independence, numerous cases of slavery resurfaced. And countless African dictators behaved in a way that makes a slave owner look like a saint.
Given the evidence that this kind of slavery was practiced by some Africans before it was practiced by some Americans, that it was abolished by all whites and not by some Africans, and that some Africans resumed it the moment they could, why would one keep blaming the USA but never blame, say, Ghana or the Congo?
The more we study it, the less blame we have to put on the USA for the slave trade with black Africa: it was pioneered by the Arabs, its economic mechanism was invented by the Italians and the Portuguese, it was mostly run by western Europeans, and it was conducted with the full cooperation of many African kings.
The USA fostered free criticism of the phenomenon: for a long time no such criticism was allowed in the Muslim and Christian nations that started trading goods for slaves, and no such criticism was allowed in the African nations that started selling their own people (and, even today, slavery is a taboo subject in the Arab world).
Today it is politically correct to blame some European empires and the USA for slavery (forgetting that it was practiced by everybody since prehistoric times). But I rarely read the other side of the story: that the nations who were the first to develop a repulsion for slavery and eventually abolish slavery were precisely those countries (especially Britain and the USA).
In 1787 the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade was founded in England: it was the first society anywhere in the world opposed to slavery. In 1792 English prime minister William Pitt called publicly for the end of the slave trade: it was the first time in history (anywhere in the world) that the ruler of a country had called for the abolition of slavery. No African king and emperor had ever done so.
As Dinesh D'Souza wrote, "What is uniquely Western is not slavery but the movement to abolish slavery".
The Origins of the Slave Trade
- Nov 3, 2012
- 37,635
- 4,526
- 1,170
Number of Africans deported to the Americas by the Europeans: about 10-15 million (about 30-40 million died before reaching the Americas).
Number of Africans deported by Arabs to the Middle East: about 17 million.
European slave trade by destination
Brazil: 4,000,000 35.4%
Spanish Empire: 2,500,000 22.1%
British West Indies: 2,000,000 17.7%
French West Indies: 1,600,00 14.1%
British North America: 500,000 4.4%
Dutch West Indies: 500,000 4.4%
Danish West Indies: 28,000 0.2%
Europe: 200,000 1.8%
Total 1500-1900: 11,328,000 100.0%
Source: "The Slave Trade", Hugh Thomas, 1997
The slave trade was abolished by Britain in 1812, and subsequently by all other European countries. Portugal and France, though, continued to import slaves, although as contract labourers, which they called respectively "libertos" or "engages a` temps". Portugal had a virtual monopoly on the African slave trade to the Americas until the mid 1650s, when Holland became a major competitor. In the period 1700-1800 Britain became the leading "importer".
By century
1500-1600: 328,000 (2.9%)
1601-1700: 1,348,000 (12.0%)
1701-1800: 6,090,000 (54.2%)
1801-1900: 3,466,000 (30.9%), including French and Portuguese contract labourers
Source: "Transformations in Slavery", Paul Lovejoy, 2000
By slave-trading country
Portugal/Brazil: 4,650,000
Spain: 1,600,000
France: 1,250,000
Holland: 500,000
Britain: 2,600,000
U.S.A.: 300,000
Denmark: 50,000
Others: 50,000
Total: 11,000,000
Source: "Slave Trade", Hugh Thomas, 1977
The Origins of the Slave Trade
Number of Africans deported by Arabs to the Middle East: about 17 million.
European slave trade by destination
Brazil: 4,000,000 35.4%
Spanish Empire: 2,500,000 22.1%
British West Indies: 2,000,000 17.7%
French West Indies: 1,600,00 14.1%
British North America: 500,000 4.4%
Dutch West Indies: 500,000 4.4%
Danish West Indies: 28,000 0.2%
Europe: 200,000 1.8%
Total 1500-1900: 11,328,000 100.0%
Source: "The Slave Trade", Hugh Thomas, 1997
The slave trade was abolished by Britain in 1812, and subsequently by all other European countries. Portugal and France, though, continued to import slaves, although as contract labourers, which they called respectively "libertos" or "engages a` temps". Portugal had a virtual monopoly on the African slave trade to the Americas until the mid 1650s, when Holland became a major competitor. In the period 1700-1800 Britain became the leading "importer".
By century
1500-1600: 328,000 (2.9%)
1601-1700: 1,348,000 (12.0%)
1701-1800: 6,090,000 (54.2%)
1801-1900: 3,466,000 (30.9%), including French and Portuguese contract labourers
Source: "Transformations in Slavery", Paul Lovejoy, 2000
By slave-trading country
Portugal/Brazil: 4,650,000
Spain: 1,600,000
France: 1,250,000
Holland: 500,000
Britain: 2,600,000
U.S.A.: 300,000
Denmark: 50,000
Others: 50,000
Total: 11,000,000
Source: "Slave Trade", Hugh Thomas, 1977
The Origins of the Slave Trade
- Nov 3, 2012
- 37,635
- 4,526
- 1,170
30-40 million died before reaching the Americas).
Number of Africans deported by Arabs to the Middle East: about 17 million.
European slave trade by destination
Brazil: 4,000,000 35.4%
Spanish Empire: 2,500,000 22.1%
British West Indies: 2,000,000 17.7%
French West Indies: 1,600,00 14.1%
British North America: 500,000 4.4%
Dutch West Indies: 500,000 4.4%
Danish West Indies: 28,000 0.2%
Europe: 200,000 1.8%
Total 1500-1900: 11,328,000 100.0%
Source: "The Slave Trade", Hugh Thomas, 1997
The slave trade was abolished by Britain in 1812, and subsequently by all other European countries. Portugal and France, though, continued to import slaves, although as contract labourers, which they called respectively "libertos" or "engages a` temps". Portugal had a virtual monopoly on the African slave trade to the Americas until the mid 1650s, when Holland became a major competitor. In the period 1700-1800 Britain became the leading "importer".
By century
1500-1600: 328,000 (2.9%)
1601-1700: 1,348,000 (12.0%)
1701-1800: 6,090,000 (54.2%)
1801-1900: 3,466,000 (30.9%), including French and Portuguese contract labourers
Source: "Transformations in Slavery", Paul Lovejoy, 2000
By slave-trading country
Portugal/Brazil: 4,650,000
Spain: 1,600,000
France: 1,250,000
Holland: 500,000
Britain: 2,600,000
U.S.A.: 300,000
Denmark: 50,000
Others: 50,000
Total: 11,000,000
Source: "Slave Trade", Hugh Thomas, 1977
Key dates
700: Zanzibar becomes the main Arab slave trading post in Africa
1325: Mansa Musa, the king of Mali, makes his pilgrimage to Mecca carrying 500 slaves and 100 camels
1444: the first public sale of African slaves by Europeans takes place at Lagos, Portugal
1482: Portugal founds the first European trading post in Africa (Elmira, Gold Coast)
1500-1600: Portugal enjoys a virtual monopoly in the slave trade to the Americas
1528: the Spanish government issues "asientos" (contracts) to private companies for the trade of African slaves
1619: the Dutch begin the slave trade between Africa and America
1637: Holland captures Portugal's main trading post in Africa, Elmira
1650: Holland becomes the dominant slave trading country
1700: Britain becomes the dominant slave trading country
1789: the English Privy Council concludes that almost 50% of the slaves exported from Africa die before reaching the Americas
1790: at the height of the British slave trade, one slave vessel leaves England for Africa every other day
1807: Britain outlaws slavery
1848: France abolishes slavery
1851: The population of the USA is 20,067,720 free persons and 2,077,034 slaves
1865: the Union defeats the Confederates and slavery is abolished in the USA
The Origins of the Slave Trade
Number of Africans deported by Arabs to the Middle East: about 17 million.
European slave trade by destination
Brazil: 4,000,000 35.4%
Spanish Empire: 2,500,000 22.1%
British West Indies: 2,000,000 17.7%
French West Indies: 1,600,00 14.1%
British North America: 500,000 4.4%
Dutch West Indies: 500,000 4.4%
Danish West Indies: 28,000 0.2%
Europe: 200,000 1.8%
Total 1500-1900: 11,328,000 100.0%
Source: "The Slave Trade", Hugh Thomas, 1997
The slave trade was abolished by Britain in 1812, and subsequently by all other European countries. Portugal and France, though, continued to import slaves, although as contract labourers, which they called respectively "libertos" or "engages a` temps". Portugal had a virtual monopoly on the African slave trade to the Americas until the mid 1650s, when Holland became a major competitor. In the period 1700-1800 Britain became the leading "importer".
By century
1500-1600: 328,000 (2.9%)
1601-1700: 1,348,000 (12.0%)
1701-1800: 6,090,000 (54.2%)
1801-1900: 3,466,000 (30.9%), including French and Portuguese contract labourers
Source: "Transformations in Slavery", Paul Lovejoy, 2000
By slave-trading country
Portugal/Brazil: 4,650,000
Spain: 1,600,000
France: 1,250,000
Holland: 500,000
Britain: 2,600,000
U.S.A.: 300,000
Denmark: 50,000
Others: 50,000
Total: 11,000,000
Source: "Slave Trade", Hugh Thomas, 1977
Key dates
700: Zanzibar becomes the main Arab slave trading post in Africa
1325: Mansa Musa, the king of Mali, makes his pilgrimage to Mecca carrying 500 slaves and 100 camels
1444: the first public sale of African slaves by Europeans takes place at Lagos, Portugal
1482: Portugal founds the first European trading post in Africa (Elmira, Gold Coast)
1500-1600: Portugal enjoys a virtual monopoly in the slave trade to the Americas
1528: the Spanish government issues "asientos" (contracts) to private companies for the trade of African slaves
1619: the Dutch begin the slave trade between Africa and America
1637: Holland captures Portugal's main trading post in Africa, Elmira
1650: Holland becomes the dominant slave trading country
1700: Britain becomes the dominant slave trading country
1789: the English Privy Council concludes that almost 50% of the slaves exported from Africa die before reaching the Americas
1790: at the height of the British slave trade, one slave vessel leaves England for Africa every other day
1807: Britain outlaws slavery
1848: France abolishes slavery
1851: The population of the USA is 20,067,720 free persons and 2,077,034 slaves
1865: the Union defeats the Confederates and slavery is abolished in the USA
The Origins of the Slave Trade
ClosedCaption
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2010
- 53,233
- 6,719
- 1,830
Slavery has been in America since like 1619...So how is this guy the first slave owner 40 years later? Dont answer, this is just a pathetic attempt for whites to wash their hands of all the blood on them by pointing at one black guy picture and text boxes saying something happened
- Nov 3, 2012
- 37,635
- 4,526
- 1,170
Sources used for fact finding on this research -
General sources
The Origins of the Slave Trade
General sources
- Ajayi: General history of Africa
- Shillington: History of Africa (1995)
- David Brion Davis: Lecture Series on the History of Slavery
- David Brion Davis: The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Revolution (1976)
- David Brion Davis: The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Emancipation (2014)
- Hugh Thomas: The Story of the Atlantic Slave Trade (1997)
- Abdul Sheriff: Slaves, Spices and Ivory (1988)
- Walter Rodney: How Europe Underdeveloped Africa (1972)
- Claude Meillassoux: L'Esclavage en Afrique precoloniale (1975)
- Philip Curtin: The Atlantic Slave Trade, A Census (1969)
- Joseph Inikori: Forced Migration (1982)
- James Rawley: Transatlantic Slave Trade (1981)
- Peter Russell: Prince Henry the Navigator (2000)
- Robert Davis: Christian Slaves Muslim Masters
- Kishori Saran Lal: Muslim Slave System in Medieval India (1994)
- Bernard Lewis: Race and Slavery in the Middle East (1992)
- Humphrey Fisher: Slaves and Slavery in Muslim Africa (1986)
- Allan Fisher: Slavery and Muslim Society in Africa (1971)
- John Thornton: Africa and Africans in the Making of the Atlantic World, 1400-1680 (1992)
- David Brion Davis: Inhuman Bondage (2006) Monde Diplomatique 1998"
The Origins of the Slave Trade
- Nov 3, 2012
- 37,635
- 4,526
- 1,170
Slavery has been in America since like 1619...So how is this guy the first slave owner 40 years later? Dont answer, this is just a pathetic attempt for whites to wash their hands of all the blood on them by pointing at one black guy picture and text boxes saying something happened
If the facts disturb you then your problem is not that the whites are trying to wash their hands of blood but rather your hands are tied from accusing them falsely on the matter. Examine the research material posted here on this thread, Caption. It isn't politically correct but it is the truth and that is what we need to examine. The truth. Not the communist agenda to bury it. Truth is sovereign. It outlives every lie and in the end it is known by those who care to know it. The rest of you remain in eternal ignorance because you condemn it without thinking to examine it first. That is another truth for you to think on. You've listened to Hollywood and their false depictions of slavery in films for far too long rather than researching the truth for yourselves. You've believed a lie. Therein lies another one of your problems.
ClosedCaption
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2010
- 53,233
- 6,719
- 1,830
Slavery has been in America since like 1619...So how is this guy the first slave owner 40 years later? Dont answer, this is just a pathetic attempt for whites to wash their hands of all the blood on them by pointing at one black guy picture and text boxes saying something happened
If the facts disturb you then your problem is not that the whites are trying to wash their hands of blood but rather your hands are tied from accusing them falsely on the matter.
You cant just put text next to a old time picture and claim its a fact. Its not. Slavery in America existed before him so he cant be the first.
Examine the research material posted here on this thread, Caption. It isn't politically correct but it is the truth and that is what we need to examine. The truth. Not the lefts agenda to bury it. Truth is sovereign. It outlives every lie and in the end it is known by those who care to know it. The rest of you remain in eternal ignorance because you condemn it without thinking to examine it first. That is another truth for you to think on. You've listened to Hollywood and their false depictions of slavery rather than researching the truth for yourselves. Therein lies another one of your problems.
Why do you assume I dont have facts? Does that help prevent you from answering how someone is the first slave owner 50 years AFTER slavery came to America? Do you think insults mask the facts you failed to present?
- Nov 3, 2012
- 37,635
- 4,526
- 1,170
You're confused. I've just presented you with the facts. You can either examine them or refuse to examine them, Caption. As for black slavers? The blacks had slaves in the 1830's - note this portion of the research on blacks owning slaves -
Incidentally, in 1830 about 25% of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves: that is a much higher percentage (ten times more) than the number of white slave owners. Thus slave owners were a tiny minority (1.4%) and it was not only whites: it was just about anybody who could, including blacks themselves.
See post #12 for more if you are interested in the truth. If not? I cannot help you.
If the blacks owned slaves in the 1830's - they could own slaves prior to that time - therein this story is accurate:
Incidentally, in 1830 about 25% of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves: that is a much higher percentage (ten times more) than the number of white slave owners. Thus slave owners were a tiny minority (1.4%) and it was not only whites: it was just about anybody who could, including blacks themselves.
See post #12 for more if you are interested in the truth. If not? I cannot help you.
If the blacks owned slaves in the 1830's - they could own slaves prior to that time - therein this story is accurate:
Asclepias
Diamond Member
You already lost credibility on the issue Jeramiah. No need to plaster the thread with more wild claims that are less valid than your claim regarding Anthony Johnson.The Origins of the Slave Trade
In 1807 Britain outlawed slavery. In 1820 the king of the African kingdom of Ashanti inquired why the Christians did not want to trade slaves with him anymore, since they worshipped the same god as the Muslims and the Muslims were continuing the trade like before.
The civil rights movement of the 1960's have left many people with the belief that the slave trade was exclusively a European/USA phenomenon and only evil white people were to blame for it. This is a simplistic scenario that hardly reflects the facts.
Thousands of records of transactions are available on a CDROM prepared by Harvard University and several comprehensive books have been published recently on the origins of modern slavery (namely, Hugh Thomas' The Slave Trade and Robin Blackburn's The Making Of New World Slavery) that shed new light on centuries of slave trading.
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.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 55
- Views
- 569
- Replies
- 33
- Views
- 489
- Replies
- 53
- Views
- 595
- Replies
- 130
- Views
- 1K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 20
- Views
- 68
- Replies
- 8
- Views
- 48
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 1
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8080
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-