Did African-American Slaves Rebel?

[IM2]

I remember the assassination of MLK. And the backlash, the riots, people burning down their own homes I remember when JFK was murdered, no mass riots, none of that. Blacks need to grow up an out of that victimhood gambit. Get over it. It's perfectly doable. Get over outrages, real or imagined. Past or present. It's Kool. You can do IT!

Whites didn't riot when Kennedy was killed. Instead they riot after they win a football game.



Whites like you have psychosis.

STFU.

 

[Indeependent]

The vast majority of American black slaves didn't revolt because they knew they had a good deal being owned by benevolent white people.

Back in Africa they lived in filthy grass huts and were usually starving most of the time.

But here in America the black slaves were provided a small house in which to live, given food for themselves and their families, and had a guaranteed job on the plantation where they lived for free. ....

I disagree since being a slave is demeaning. Better to be poor and free without the beatings slaves were getting,

The vast majority couldn't revolt because of the situation they were in.

That's why they came in droves to NYS for welfare.

Did not happen.

Welfare: A White Secret
By Barbara Ehrenreich

Come on, my fellow white folks, we have something to confess. No, nothing to do with age spots or those indoor-tanning creams we use to get us through the | winter without looking like the final stages of TB. Nor am I talking about the fact that we all go home and practice funky dance moves behind drawn shades. Out with it, friends, the biggest secret known to whites since the invention of powdered rouge: welfare is a white program. Yep. At least it's no more black than Vanilla Ice is a fair rendition of classic urban rap.

The numbers go like this: 61% of the population receiving welfare, listed as "means-tested cash assistance" by the Census Bureau, is identified as white, while only 33% is identified as black. These numbers notwithstanding, the Republican version of "political correctness" has given us "welfare cheat" as a new term for African American since the early days of Ronald Reagan. Yet if the Lakers were 61% white and on a winning streak, would we be calling them a "black team"?

Wait a minute, I can hear my neighbors say, we're not as slow at math as the Asian Americans like to think. There's still a glaring disproportion there. African Americans are only 12% of the population as a whole, at least according to the census count, yet they're 33% of the welfare population -- surely evidence of a shocking addiction to the dole.

But we're forgetting something. Welfare is a program for poor people, very poor people. African Americans are three times as likely as whites to fall below the poverty level and hence to have a chance of qualifying for welfare benefits. If we look at the kind of persons most likely to be eligible -- single mothers living in poverty with children under 18 to support -- we find little difference in welfare participation by race: 74.6% of African Americans in such dire straits are on welfare, compared with 64.5% of the poor white single moms.

That's still a difference, but not enough to imply some congenital appetite for a free lunch on the part of the African-derived. In fact, two explanations readily suggest themselves: First, just as blacks are disproportionately likely to be poor, they are disproportionately likely to find themselves among the poorest of the poor, where welfare eligibility arises. Second, the black poor are more likely than their white counterparts to live in cities, and hence to have a chance of making their way to the welfare office. Correct for those two differences, and you won't find an excess of African Americans fitting the stereotype of the sluttish welfare queen who breeds for profit.

More.

So our confession stands: white folks have been gobbling up the welfare budget while blaming someone else. But it's worse than that. If we look at Social Security, which is another form of welfare, although it is often mistaken for an individual insurance program, then whites are the ones who are crowding the trough. We receive almost twice as much per capita, for an aggregate advantage to our race of $10 billion a year -- much more than the $3.9 billion advantage African Americans gain from their disproportionate share of welfare.

Welfare: A White Secret

See Post #35.
50 years and the sucking sounds continues,

 

[IM2]

Why is it, Vietnamese transcended all their bugaboos from the Chinese to the French colonialists to American war? And they even had children with us, but some how they got over THAT war but blacks can't get over the American Civil and the still hang that over us? Why not? Dang cong san whatever, as the Vietnamese say, get over it. They did.

Your tax money went to help rebuild Vietnam. STFU.

 

[IM2]

The vast majority of American black slaves didn't revolt because they knew they had a good deal being owned by benevolent white people.

Back in Africa they lived in filthy grass huts and were usually starving most of the time.

But here in America the black slaves were provided a small house in which to live, given food for themselves and their families, and had a guaranteed job on the plantation where they lived for free. ....

I disagree since being a slave is demeaning. Better to be poor and free without the beatings slaves were getting,

The vast majority couldn't revolt because of the situation they were in.

That's why they came in droves to NYS for welfare.

Did not happen.

Welfare: A White Secret
By Barbara Ehrenreich

Come on, my fellow white folks, we have something to confess. No, nothing to do with age spots or those indoor-tanning creams we use to get us through the | winter without looking like the final stages of TB. Nor am I talking about the fact that we all go home and practice funky dance moves behind drawn shades. Out with it, friends, the biggest secret known to whites since the invention of powdered rouge: welfare is a white program. Yep. At least it's no more black than Vanilla Ice is a fair rendition of classic urban rap.

The numbers go like this: 61% of the population receiving welfare, listed as "means-tested cash assistance" by the Census Bureau, is identified as white, while only 33% is identified as black. These numbers notwithstanding, the Republican version of "political correctness" has given us "welfare cheat" as a new term for African American since the early days of Ronald Reagan. Yet if the Lakers were 61% white and on a winning streak, would we be calling them a "black team"?

Wait a minute, I can hear my neighbors say, we're not as slow at math as the Asian Americans like to think. There's still a glaring disproportion there. African Americans are only 12% of the population as a whole, at least according to the census count, yet they're 33% of the welfare population -- surely evidence of a shocking addiction to the dole.

But we're forgetting something. Welfare is a program for poor people, very poor people. African Americans are three times as likely as whites to fall below the poverty level and hence to have a chance of qualifying for welfare benefits. If we look at the kind of persons most likely to be eligible -- single mothers living in poverty with children under 18 to support -- we find little difference in welfare participation by race: 74.6% of African Americans in such dire straits are on welfare, compared with 64.5% of the poor white single moms.

That's still a difference, but not enough to imply some congenital appetite for a free lunch on the part of the African-derived. In fact, two explanations readily suggest themselves: First, just as blacks are disproportionately likely to be poor, they are disproportionately likely to find themselves among the poorest of the poor, where welfare eligibility arises. Second, the black poor are more likely than their white counterparts to live in cities, and hence to have a chance of making their way to the welfare office. Correct for those two differences, and you won't find an excess of African Americans fitting the stereotype of the sluttish welfare queen who breeds for profit.

More.

So our confession stands: white folks have been gobbling up the welfare budget while blaming someone else. But it's worse than that. If we look at Social Security, which is another form of welfare, although it is often mistaken for an individual insurance program, then whites are the ones who are crowding the trough. We receive almost twice as much per capita, for an aggregate advantage to our race of $10 billion a year -- much more than the $3.9 billion advantage African Americans gain from their disproportionate share of welfare.

Welfare: A White Secret

See Post #35.
50 years and the sucking sounds continues,

See post 338.

242 years of whites still sucking is the noise you hear.

 

[MaryL]

Dang cong san

I remember the assassination of MLK. And the backlash, the riots, people burning down their own homes I remember when JFK was murdered, no mass riots, none of that. Blacks need to grow up an out of that victimhood gambit. Get over it. It's perfectly doable. Get over outrages, real or imagined. Past or present. It's Kool. You can do IT!

Whites didn't riot when Kennedy was killed. Instead they riot after they win a football game.



Whites like you have psychosis.

STFU.

I have to say, that is jolly good. Blacks rioting after a sports event, Not sure if that is either here nor there, however. are you saying, its excusable to riot and be out of control because you are of a certain race or another?

 

[MaryL]

Dang cong san

I remember the assassination of MLK. And the backlash, the riots, people burning down their own homes I remember when JFK was murdered, no mass riots, none of that. Blacks need to grow up an out of that victimhood gambit. Get over it. It's perfectly doable. Get over outrages, real or imagined. Past or present. It's Kool. You can do IT!

Whites didn't riot when Kennedy was killed. Instead they riot after they win a football game.



Whites like you have psychosis.

STFU.

I have to say, that is jolly good. Blacks rioting after a sports event, Not sure if that is either here nor there, however. Are you saying, its excusable to riot and be out of control because you are of a certain race or another?

 

[MaryL]

I am confonfounded here. We absolutely smashed the Vietnamese, and yet they still welcome us into their homeland with welcome arms still I am at a loss here, why blacks can't grow up and get over past wrongs, real or imagined? Why hang that over everyone's heads? Why cling to the past?

 

[MaryL]

I remember the assassination of MLK. And the backlash, the riots, people burning down their own homes I remember when JFK was murdered, no mass riots, none of that. Blacks need to grow up an out of that victimhood gambit. Get over it. It's perfectly doable. Get over outrages, real or imagined. Past or present. It's Kool. You can do IT!

Whites didn't riot when Kennedy was killed. Instead they riot after they win a football game.



Whites like you have psychosis.

STFU.

No, that didn't happen. I remember hearing back in early 63' how much they (protestants) despised the Kennedys. I remember hearing such disparagements about Rich Catholics it would make your head spin. I am poor Irish catholic, so all of that escaped me. Still does.

 

[impuretrash]

I am confonfounded here. We absolutely smashed the Vietnamese, and yet they still welcome us into their homeland with welcome arms still I am at a loss here, why blacks can't grow up and get over past wrongs, real or imagined? Why hang that over everyone's heads? Why cling to the past?

Maybe its because the Vietnamese don't have left wing media outlets broadcasting 24/7 the idea that all their problems are the white man's fault. Or maybe it's because black people in general truly are intellectually inferior.

 

[MaryL]

I remember November 22, 1963 . My father died on the exact same date, eleven years later. I remember where I was both times. I remember when MLK was assassinated, too.I remember the fear of blacks that instilled. Nobody brings that up. I do. People were afraid of blacks after that. Like they weren't already a cause of concern already. Please.

 

[Indeependent]

The vast majority of American black slaves didn't revolt because they knew they had a good deal being owned by benevolent white people.

Back in Africa they lived in filthy grass huts and were usually starving most of the time.

But here in America the black slaves were provided a small house in which to live, given food for themselves and their families, and had a guaranteed job on the plantation where they lived for free. ....

I disagree since being a slave is demeaning. Better to be poor and free without the beatings slaves were getting,

The vast majority couldn't revolt because of the situation they were in.

That's why they came in droves to NYS for welfare.

Did not happen.

Welfare: A White Secret
By Barbara Ehrenreich

Come on, my fellow white folks, we have something to confess. No, nothing to do with age spots or those indoor-tanning creams we use to get us through the | winter without looking like the final stages of TB. Nor am I talking about the fact that we all go home and practice funky dance moves behind drawn shades. Out with it, friends, the biggest secret known to whites since the invention of powdered rouge: welfare is a white program. Yep. At least it's no more black than Vanilla Ice is a fair rendition of classic urban rap.

The numbers go like this: 61% of the population receiving welfare, listed as "means-tested cash assistance" by the Census Bureau, is identified as white, while only 33% is identified as black. These numbers notwithstanding, the Republican version of "political correctness" has given us "welfare cheat" as a new term for African American since the early days of Ronald Reagan. Yet if the Lakers were 61% white and on a winning streak, would we be calling them a "black team"?

Wait a minute, I can hear my neighbors say, we're not as slow at math as the Asian Americans like to think. There's still a glaring disproportion there. African Americans are only 12% of the population as a whole, at least according to the census count, yet they're 33% of the welfare population -- surely evidence of a shocking addiction to the dole.

But we're forgetting something. Welfare is a program for poor people, very poor people. African Americans are three times as likely as whites to fall below the poverty level and hence to have a chance of qualifying for welfare benefits. If we look at the kind of persons most likely to be eligible -- single mothers living in poverty with children under 18 to support -- we find little difference in welfare participation by race: 74.6% of African Americans in such dire straits are on welfare, compared with 64.5% of the poor white single moms.

That's still a difference, but not enough to imply some congenital appetite for a free lunch on the part of the African-derived. In fact, two explanations readily suggest themselves: First, just as blacks are disproportionately likely to be poor, they are disproportionately likely to find themselves among the poorest of the poor, where welfare eligibility arises. Second, the black poor are more likely than their white counterparts to live in cities, and hence to have a chance of making their way to the welfare office. Correct for those two differences, and you won't find an excess of African Americans fitting the stereotype of the sluttish welfare queen who breeds for profit.

More.

So our confession stands: white folks have been gobbling up the welfare budget while blaming someone else. But it's worse than that. If we look at Social Security, which is another form of welfare, although it is often mistaken for an individual insurance program, then whites are the ones who are crowding the trough. We receive almost twice as much per capita, for an aggregate advantage to our race of $10 billion a year -- much more than the $3.9 billion advantage African Americans gain from their disproportionate share of welfare.

Welfare: A White Secret

See Post #35.
50 years and the sucking sounds continues,

See post 338.

242 years of whites still sucking is the noise you hear.

Cut them all off.

 

[night_son]

Just be quiet and learn the different types of slavery. When women get equal rights as granted by the constitution, let me know.

Please post a list of rights that don't apply to women and blacks.

Not until you do this.

Prove when racism ended and its effects were allayed. Show, with data and peer-reviewed studies supporting your argument, when the effects of the hundreds of years of anti-Black racism from chattel slavery through Old Jim Crow leveled off. Show when the wealth expropriated during that oppression was repaid to those it was expropriated from and through. And remember, after you’ve addressed the end of anti-Black racism you’ll still have to explain when anti-Latinx, anti-Asian, anti-Arab, and anti-Native racism came to an end as well.

What makes most sense is, you are a USMB Live Action Role-Player who approaches online political discussions in a manner similar to players of pen and paper Dungeons and Dragons. You use identity politics and historical revisionism in place of the many sided dice, and after creation of so many anti-Caucasian, poor oppressed African American thread-campaigns, have risen to the rank of level 35 or so Black Racist Dungeon Master.

Failing the above to be the actual case, then in the possible second explanation for your rants we are much alike you and I in that I also arrived at USMB born out of a need to relieve frustration over the American prevailing political and cultural winds driving me out of my mind with pent up agitation of the intellectual digestion these last several years. Meaning USMB has, for me, become an outlet not unlike kicking a tree, albeit one which requires purchase of far fewer pairs of new boots. Be that the case, then I suppose there's no real harm done in your chosen flavor of dialectic here on-the-line with the rest of us tree-kickers.

However, if you are speaking from either the heart or what you IRL define as intellectual honesty then said intellect belongs to a weak, misled mind fraught with vengeance and an in-chains servant of a Democratic party narrative long running to the tune of continuing the oppression of African Americans. A narrative of being used for perpetuating race warfare to divide Americans against each other by skin tone; a narrative of chaining the African American mind and keeping it so for eternity, for the purpose of exploiting it for political currency.

Your ancestor's bodies were freed from slavery many decades ago. Isn't it time to free your mind from intellectual chains of thought--the way your ancestors were freed from iron chains? You do them a great disservice whining and complaining about the inability to afford expensive sneakers or fear of a white man looking at you funny, in the face of the violent physical hell they endured under actual slavery.

Further, young African Americans killing each other in our streets over those $500 pairs of sneakers; over packets of white powder; over ownership of a city block: surely you're once enslaved ancestors would be quite ashamed at how some of their future generations have wasted their freedom--particularly when engaging some places in America in rampant cultural self-destruction.

Your problem is, is that you identify with some massive hive group of people who share the same or similar skin tone, rather than identify yourself and other African Americans as individuals. I am guessing it's easier that way for some of you to kill each other, right, because you're not killing another individual, just another small piece of a millions strong group and there's plenty more pieces where that one came from. That is the exact self-genocidal belief Democrat identity politics has brainwashed you to hold, think and act on.

In both the faces, souls and context of entire American indigenous peoples who now exist solely in the genetic material of hybrid progeny, your arguments are disgraceful, intellectually lacking, stereotypically predictable, and dishonest as possible in their reliance on revisionist history.

In your mind you still view yourself as an oppressed slave owned by a white dominated cultural and political dynasty you must forever seek vengeance upon to fill the non-existent void in your culture's soul. A dark, swirling non-existent void chiseled there by a combination of political exploitation, generational following of a religion of deception known as coerced race warfare and the relentless pop cultural, media and political inspired need to self-martyrize and self-destruct for the pity of history. Just remember, history is pitiless enough in its truthful retelling. Revising it will only serve to weaken your case for forgiveness in the eyes of your ancestors.

Lastly, slavery as a civilizational institution is as primeval as the professions of prostitution and assassination. The disingenuousness of the claim that African American slavery is somehow more amorally profound does great disservice to the historically countless slaves of all civilizations since time out of mind. Your own mock or misled into genuine modern outcry and reverse racism over your ancestor's small historical chapter of all slavery is had for one true purpose: for politicization of their horrible plight as a weapon to use against opposing political and cultural ideologies; but most of all for justification of Black racism.

Shamefully ironic.

 

[Penelope]

The vast majority of American black slaves didn't revolt because they knew they had a good deal being owned by benevolent white people.

Back in Africa they lived in filthy grass huts and were usually starving most of the time.

But here in America the black slaves were provided a small house in which to live, given food for themselves and their families, and had a guaranteed job on the plantation where they lived for free. ....

I disagree since being a slave is demeaning. Better to be poor and free without the beatings slaves go

For a long time, until 1856 (or about) white men who didn't own property couldn't vote, they could but they came out with $1 tax and then literacy tests, and yet blacks were not allowed, or women till 1920.

White rich men, poor white men, poor illiterate men, then white women, now and then some blacks were allowed to vote, then the Civil rights act in 1960 and now the GOP are suppressing blacks, disabled and poor seniors again.

District of Columbia is yet not allowed to vote, yet they pay taxes, funny how their demographics is now largely black.

Anyway, blacks, poor white men, women, Catholics, and Native Americans had to fight for the right to vote, but the blacks and poor have it worst.

Wasps, stands for Weathy, anglo- saxon, protestants. Today it still means what it originally meant.

You made errors such as the following:

1) District of Columbia is yet not allowed to vote, yet they pay taxes, funny how their demographics is now largely black.

" DC citizens were prohibited from voting in Presidential elections until the 23rd amendment to the Constitutional was ratified in 1961. They have never been permitted full voting rights in Congress."

2) then the Civil rights act in 1960

Actually it is 1964-1965.

3) Blacks couldn't vote

False they have legal voting rights since 1870, but wasn't enforced for years because of racist Democrats fighting it for many decades with various methods employed to prevent blacks from voting.

You might be aware because we sure are how it was a northern and southern thing. The south were known as Dixiecrats, and wanted slavery to continue. They were not allowed to vote in 1870 what do you think the civil rights acts was about which passed in 1964. Today the parties are switched. It was always a northern and southern thing.

Also why did feel the need to sign the:

This act was signed into law on August 6, 1965, by President Lyndon Johnson. It outlawed the discriminatory voting practices adopted in many southern states after the Civil War, including literacy tests as a prerequisite to voting.
Our Documents - Voting Rights Act (1965)
Welcome to OurDocuments.gov

They have no representation in the congress. You are right they have the min of 3 electors in the Presidential election, same as Wyoming, and we also need to do away with the EC.

Funny how the black and disable votes are being suppressed in Georgia since they want to close what 7-9 polling places that are not handicapped applicant, why aren't they?? They also seem to be in black dominate areas, how convenient.

 

[Meathead]

The vast majority of American black slaves didn't revolt because they knew they had a good deal being owned by benevolent white people.

Back in Africa they lived in filthy grass huts and were usually starving most of the time.

But here in America the black slaves were provided a small house in which to live, given food for themselves and their families, and had a guaranteed job on the plantation where they lived for free. ....

I disagree since being a slave is demeaning. Better to be poor and free without the beatings slaves go

For a long time, until 1856 (or about) white men who didn't own property couldn't vote, they could but they came out with $1 tax and then literacy tests, and yet blacks were not allowed, or women till 1920.

White rich men, poor white men, poor illiterate men, then white women, now and then some blacks were allowed to vote, then the Civil rights act in 1960 and now the GOP are suppressing blacks, disabled and poor seniors again.

District of Columbia is yet not allowed to vote, yet they pay taxes, funny how their demographics is now largely black.

Anyway, blacks, poor white men, women, Catholics, and Native Americans had to fight for the right to vote, but the blacks and poor have it worst.

Wasps, stands for Weathy, anglo- saxon, protestants. Today it still means what it originally meant.

You made errors such as the following:

1) District of Columbia is yet not allowed to vote, yet they pay taxes, funny how their demographics is now largely black.

" DC citizens were prohibited from voting in Presidential elections until the 23rd amendment to the Constitutional was ratified in 1961. They have never been permitted full voting rights in Congress."

2) then the Civil rights act in 1960

Actually it is 1964-1965.

3) Blacks couldn't vote

False they have legal voting rights since 1870, but wasn't enforced for years because of racist Democrats fighting it for many decades with various methods employed to prevent blacks from voting.

You might be aware because we sure are how it was a northern and southern thing. The south were known as Dixiecrats, and wanted slavery to continue. They were not allowed to vote in 1870 what do you think the civil rights acts was about which passed in 1964. Today the parties are switched. It was always a northern and southern thing.

Also why did feel the need to sign the:

This act was signed into law on August 6, 1965, by President Lyndon Johnson. It outlawed the discriminatory voting practices adopted in many southern states after the Civil War, including literacy tests as a prerequisite to voting.
Our Documents - Voting Rights Act (1965)
Welcome to OurDocuments.gov

They have no representation in the congress. You are right they have the min of 3 electors in the Presidential election, same as Wyoming, and we also need to do away with the EC.

Funny how the black and disable votes are being suppressed in Georgia since they want to close what 7-9 polling places that are not handicapped applicant, why aren't they?? They also seem to be in black dominate areas, how convenient.

Wrong again. DC has a representative in congress:

Eleanor Holmes Norton - Wikipedia

You are a veritable train-wreck of misinformation.

 

[SweetSue92]

It appears that many whites here need to earn the true history of life in America.
Did African-American Slaves Rebel?
by Henry Louis Gates, Jr

One of the most pernicious allegations made against the African-American people was that our slave ancestors were either exceptionally “docile” or “content and loyal,” thus explaining their purported failure to rebel extensively. Some even compare enslaved Americans to their brothers and sisters in Brazil, Cuba, Suriname and Haiti, the last of whom defeated the most powerful army in the world, Napoleon’s army, becoming the first slaves in history to successfully strike a blow for their own freedom.

As the historian Herbert Aptheker informs us in American Negro Slave Revolts, no one put this dishonest, nakedly pro-slavery argument more baldly than the Harvard historian James Schouler in 1882, who attributed this spurious conclusion to ” ‘the innate patience, docility, and child-like simplicity of the negro’ ” who, he felt, was an ” ‘imitator and non-moralist,’ ” learning ” ‘deceit and libertinism with facility,’ ” being ” ‘easily intimidated, incapable of deep plots’ “; in short, Negroes were ” ‘a black servile race, sensuous, stupid, brutish, obedient to the whip, children in imagination.’ ”

Consider how bizarre this was: It wasn’t enough that slaves had been subjugated under a harsh and brutal regime for two and a half centuries; following the collapse of Reconstruction, this school of historians — unapologetically supportive of slavery — kicked the slaves again for not rising up more frequently to kill their oppressive masters. And lest we think that this phenomenon was relegated to 19th- and early 20th-century scholars, as late as 1959, Stanley Elkins drew a picture of the slaves as infantilized “Sambos” in his book Slavery: A Problem in American Institutional and Intellectual Life, reduced to the status of the passive, “perpetual child” by the severely oppressive form of American slavery, and thus unable to rebel. Rarely can I think of a colder, nastier set of claims than these about the lack of courage or “manhood” of the African-American slaves.

So, did African-American slaves rebel? Of course they did. As early as 1934, our old friend Joel A. Rogers identified 33 slave revolts, including Nat Turner’s, in his 100 Amazing Facts. And nine years later, the historian Herbert Aptheker published his pioneering study, American Negro Slave Revolts, to set the record straight. Aptheker defined a slave revolt as an action involving 10 or more slaves, with “freedom as the apparent aim [and] contemporary references labeling the event as an uprising, plot, insurrection, or the equivalent of these.” In all, Aptheker says, he “has found records of approximately two hundred and fifty revolts and conspiracies in the history of American Negro slavery.” Other scholars have found as many as 313.

The Five Greatest Slave Rebellions in the United States | African American History Blog | The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross

Just one thing to address here. I don't know how ignorant you have to be to think a people who basically gave us all of American music except maybe classical composers and bluegrass were "stupid, brutish....children in imagination."

I do not happen to think that music is an aside, btw. I think it changes the world. American music is now at the forefront of the entire world. The oppressed people in slavery basically invented it. So, there is that. Children in imagination is just beyond ignorant.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

It appears that many whites here need to earn the true history of life in America.
Did African-American Slaves Rebel?
by Henry Louis Gates, Jr

One of the most pernicious allegations made against the African-American people was that our slave ancestors were either exceptionally “docile” or “content and loyal,” thus explaining their purported failure to rebel extensively. Some even compare enslaved Americans to their brothers and sisters in Brazil, Cuba, Suriname and Haiti, the last of whom defeated the most powerful army in the world, Napoleon’s army, becoming the first slaves in history to successfully strike a blow for their own freedom.

As the historian Herbert Aptheker informs us in American Negro Slave Revolts, no one put this dishonest, nakedly pro-slavery argument more baldly than the Harvard historian James Schouler in 1882, who attributed this spurious conclusion to ” ‘the innate patience, docility, and child-like simplicity of the negro’ ” who, he felt, was an ” ‘imitator and non-moralist,’ ” learning ” ‘deceit and libertinism with facility,’ ” being ” ‘easily intimidated, incapable of deep plots’ “; in short, Negroes were ” ‘a black servile race, sensuous, stupid, brutish, obedient to the whip, children in imagination.’ ”

Consider how bizarre this was: It wasn’t enough that slaves had been subjugated under a harsh and brutal regime for two and a half centuries; following the collapse of Reconstruction, this school of historians — unapologetically supportive of slavery — kicked the slaves again for not rising up more frequently to kill their oppressive masters. And lest we think that this phenomenon was relegated to 19th- and early 20th-century scholars, as late as 1959, Stanley Elkins drew a picture of the slaves as infantilized “Sambos” in his book Slavery: A Problem in American Institutional and Intellectual Life, reduced to the status of the passive, “perpetual child” by the severely oppressive form of American slavery, and thus unable to rebel. Rarely can I think of a colder, nastier set of claims than these about the lack of courage or “manhood” of the African-American slaves.

So, did African-American slaves rebel? Of course they did. As early as 1934, our old friend Joel A. Rogers identified 33 slave revolts, including Nat Turner’s, in his 100 Amazing Facts. And nine years later, the historian Herbert Aptheker published his pioneering study, American Negro Slave Revolts, to set the record straight. Aptheker defined a slave revolt as an action involving 10 or more slaves, with “freedom as the apparent aim [and] contemporary references labeling the event as an uprising, plot, insurrection, or the equivalent of these.” In all, Aptheker says, he “has found records of approximately two hundred and fifty revolts and conspiracies in the history of American Negro slavery.” Other scholars have found as many as 313.

The Five Greatest Slave Rebellions in the United States | African American History Blog | The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross

Hey IM@ you have the same writing style as some other poster on this board. Are you Pasting or Posting. It could be you have the Troll manual that has it all written out for you?

 

[dave p]

For a long time, until 1856 (or about) white men who didn't own property couldn't vote, they could but they came out with $1 tax and then literacy tests, and yet blacks were not allowed, or women till 1920.

White rich men, poor white men, poor illiterate men, then white women, now and then some blacks were allowed to vote, then the Civil rights act in 1960 and now the GOP are suppressing blacks, disabled and poor seniors again.

District of Columbia is yet not allowed to vote, yet they pay taxes, funny how their demographics is now largely black.

Anyway, blacks, poor white men, women, Catholics, and Native Americans had to fight for the right to vote, but the blacks and poor have it worst.

Wasps, stands for Weathy, anglo- saxon, protestants. Today it still means what it originally meant.

It didn't stand for wealthy. It stands for white. Blacks and poor have what worse?

 

[dave p]

Blacks during the days of slavery became used to having free housing and food provided for them by white people.

What legacy it still carried on today, with most black people living in rent free section 8 houses and given food stamps to feed themselves. ....

27% or so live in poverty, so how do you figure that?

They can avail themselves of work just like every other race and creed.

 

[IM2]

Blacks during the days of slavery became used to having free housing and food provided for them by white people.

What legacy it still carried on today, with most black people living in rent free section 8 houses and given food stamps to feed themselves. ....

27% or so live in poverty, so how do you figure that?

They can avail themselves of work just like every other race and creed.

Or we can get the government to write the rules so we can have everything. Just like whites did.

 

[IM2]

It appears that many whites here need to earn the true history of life in America.
Did African-American Slaves Rebel?
by Henry Louis Gates, Jr

One of the most pernicious allegations made against the African-American people was that our slave ancestors were either exceptionally “docile” or “content and loyal,” thus explaining their purported failure to rebel extensively. Some even compare enslaved Americans to their brothers and sisters in Brazil, Cuba, Suriname and Haiti, the last of whom defeated the most powerful army in the world, Napoleon’s army, becoming the first slaves in history to successfully strike a blow for their own freedom.

As the historian Herbert Aptheker informs us in American Negro Slave Revolts, no one put this dishonest, nakedly pro-slavery argument more baldly than the Harvard historian James Schouler in 1882, who attributed this spurious conclusion to ” ‘the innate patience, docility, and child-like simplicity of the negro’ ” who, he felt, was an ” ‘imitator and non-moralist,’ ” learning ” ‘deceit and libertinism with facility,’ ” being ” ‘easily intimidated, incapable of deep plots’ “; in short, Negroes were ” ‘a black servile race, sensuous, stupid, brutish, obedient to the whip, children in imagination.’ ”

Consider how bizarre this was: It wasn’t enough that slaves had been subjugated under a harsh and brutal regime for two and a half centuries; following the collapse of Reconstruction, this school of historians — unapologetically supportive of slavery — kicked the slaves again for not rising up more frequently to kill their oppressive masters. And lest we think that this phenomenon was relegated to 19th- and early 20th-century scholars, as late as 1959, Stanley Elkins drew a picture of the slaves as infantilized “Sambos” in his book Slavery: A Problem in American Institutional and Intellectual Life, reduced to the status of the passive, “perpetual child” by the severely oppressive form of American slavery, and thus unable to rebel. Rarely can I think of a colder, nastier set of claims than these about the lack of courage or “manhood” of the African-American slaves.

So, did African-American slaves rebel? Of course they did. As early as 1934, our old friend Joel A. Rogers identified 33 slave revolts, including Nat Turner’s, in his 100 Amazing Facts. And nine years later, the historian Herbert Aptheker published his pioneering study, American Negro Slave Revolts, to set the record straight. Aptheker defined a slave revolt as an action involving 10 or more slaves, with “freedom as the apparent aim [and] contemporary references labeling the event as an uprising, plot, insurrection, or the equivalent of these.” In all, Aptheker says, he “has found records of approximately two hundred and fifty revolts and conspiracies in the history of American Negro slavery.” Other scholars have found as many as 313.

The Five Greatest Slave Rebellions in the United States | African American History Blog | The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross

Just one thing to address here. I don't know how ignorant you have to be to think a people who basically gave us all of American music except maybe classical composers and bluegrass were "stupid, brutish....children in imagination."

I do not happen to think that music is an aside, btw. I think it changes the world. American music is now at the forefront of the entire world. The oppressed people in slavery basically invented it. So, there is that. Children in imagination is just beyond ignorant.

Ask the other whites here that.