The Irony of Whites Talking About Fatherless Black Families...

[IM2]

The descendants of the same people who would break up black families by selling them are today the loudest talking people trying to diss the black community about single parent families.

When people start talking about race, there are just some simple realities that cannot be denied. If you are white and don't like how you are portrayed, start thinking about how unpleasant it really is for us who are not white to be portrayed as weak inferior people who got conquered by a supposedly superior race and culture. It is not a pleasant subject. For this to end we all must face the unpleasantness.

The doctrine of Partus sequitur ventrem comes from European civil law. It means; “That which is brought forth follows the belly.” This principle determined the legal status of children born by slave women in the America as well as other English or European colonies In colonial law, the partus doctrine justified enslavement, the indigenous people of the Americas and of the Africans imported to various European colonies personal property of those who imported them.

During the time American was a colony, this doctrine established de facto and de jure slavery for all children born to female slaves. Partus sequitur ventrem exempted the father from his obligations to children he fathered by slaves thereby creating the ability for slaveowners to have their way with enslaved women. Under this doctrine the biological father had no paternal responsibility to any child born to a slave woman. Because of this the slaver was provided the right to profit from exploiting the labor of children born to slaves. It gave the slaver the ability to sell children by taking them away from their biological parents. Partus sequitur ventrem was the doctrine that created the first family separation policy in what is now America.

Despite the claims of Africans selling each other, the doctrine of Partus sequitur ventrem does not appear to be a part of the system of African slavery.

Partus Sequitur Ventrem — The Rule That Perpetrated Slavery And Legalized Rape

This was the legal doctrine that made any child of an American female slave a slave as well. It meant any white fathers had no financial responsibility for their progeny. They were free to rape their slaves at will as there were no laws against that either. With no concern for any children that might come from the forced union. In fact, there was a market for mulatto and octaroon children who would be purchased to work as domestics. Some owners (Thomas Jefferson) used their half-white slaves as their concubines, finding them more attractive the closer they were to white. Sally Hemings was Jefferson’s wife’s half-sister, the product of her father raping a slave. Then again the master might sell their offspring to keep the peace with their wives who might be annoyed at little slave children running around who favor their husbands.

Not talked about in proper society were the children of free white women and black slaves. White women who weren’t sure what color the child might be could get a legal abortion those days. “Cottonwood” was a remedy known to slaves who sometimes refused to have children after being raped or as often as the masters would like. Some women would be forced to have over a dozen children if they survived as death during childbirth was relatively common. The rare slave would be offered their freedom if they produced enough children. Sometimes the dark child of a white woman was abandoned or given away. Usually just sold off although technically they were legally free.

Partus Sequitur Ventrem — The Rule That Perpetrated Slavery And Legalized Rape | by William Spivey | Dialogue & Discourse | Medium

Partus sequitur ventrem legal definition of Partus sequitur ventrem (thefreedictionary.com)

 

[Meathead]

The descendants of the same people who would break up black families by selling them are today the loudest talking people trying to diss the black community about single parent families.

When people start talking about race, there are just some simple realities that cannot be denied. If you are white and don't like how you are portrayed, start thinking about how unpleasant it really is for us who are not white to be portrayed as weak inferior people who got conquered by a supposedly superior race and culture. It is not a pleasant subject. For this to end we all must face the unpleasantness.

The doctrine of Partus sequitur ventrem comes from European civil law. It means; “That which is brought forth follows the belly.” This principle determined the legal status of children born by slave women in the America as well as other English or European colonies In colonial law, the partus doctrine justified enslavement, the indigenous people of the Americas and of the Africans imported to various European colonies personal property of those who imported them.

During the time American was a colony, this doctrine established de facto and de jure slavery for all children born to female slaves. Partus sequitur ventrem exempted the father from his obligations to children he fathered by slaves thereby creating the ability for slaveowners to have their way with enslaved women. Under this doctrine the biological father had no paternal responsibility to any child born to a slave woman. Because of this the slaver was provided the right to profit from exploiting the labor of children born to slaves. It gave the slaver the ability to sell children by taking them away from their biological parents. Partus sequitur ventrem was the doctrine that created the first family separation policy in what is now America.

Despite the claims of Africans selling each other, the doctrine of Partus sequitur ventrem does not appear to be a part of the system of African slavery.

Partus Sequitur Ventrem — The Rule That Perpetrated Slavery And Legalized Rape

This was the legal doctrine that made any child of an American female slave a slave as well. It meant any white fathers had no financial responsibility for their progeny. They were free to rape their slaves at will as there were no laws against that either. With no concern for any children that might come from the forced union. In fact, there was a market for mulatto and octaroon children who would be purchased to work as domestics. Some owners (Thomas Jefferson) used their half-white slaves as their concubines, finding them more attractive the closer they were to white. Sally Hemings was Jefferson’s wife’s half-sister, the product of her father raping a slave. Then again the master might sell their offspring to keep the peace with their wives who might be annoyed at little slave children running around who favor their husbands.

Not talked about in proper society were the children of free white women and black slaves. White women who weren’t sure what color the child might be could get a legal abortion those days. “Cottonwood” was a remedy known to slaves who sometimes refused to have children after being raped or as often as the masters would like. Some women would be forced to have over a dozen children if they survived as death during childbirth was relatively common. The rare slave would be offered their freedom if they produced enough children. Sometimes the dark child of a white woman was abandoned or given away. Usually just sold off although technically they were legally free.

View attachment 437108

Partus Sequitur Ventrem — The Rule That Perpetrated Slavery And Legalized Rape | by William Spivey | Dialogue & Discourse | Medium

Partus sequitur ventrem legal definition of Partus sequitur ventrem (thefreedictionary.com)

Oh, so whites are responsible for all those black thugs and knocked up teenagers.

I knew it!

 

[pknopp]

People as individuals are not responsible for what others did in the past. Society is responsible for trying to correct the wrongs of the past.

So while individuals have a need to understand today's problems, one can not actually address those problems without understanding the reasoning behind them.

Condemning others without taking all the issues into the argument is condemning only and solves nothing.

 

[AMart]

The vast majority of white Americans had no ancestor buying/selling slaves, so stop with mass blanket generalizations. Black nuclear families were every bit intact as white families until about 1970.

 

[pknopp]

The vast majority of white Americans had no ancestor buying/selling slaves, so stop with mass blanket generalizations. Black nuclear families were every bit intact as white families until about 1970.

No but they did have ancestors telling blacks to get in the back of the bus and dont even think about eating at the same table they do. Many still think that way.

 

[Mac-7]

The descendants of the same people who would break up black families by selling them are today the loudest talking people trying to diss the black community about single parent families.

When people start talking about race, there are just some simple realities that cannot be denied. If you are white and don't like how you are portrayed, start thinking about how unpleasant it really is for us who are not white to be portrayed as weak inferior people who got conquered by a supposedly superior race and culture. It is not a pleasant subject. For this to end we all must face the unpleasantness.

The doctrine of Partus sequitur ventrem comes from European civil law. It means; “That which is brought forth follows the belly.” This principle determined the legal status of children born by slave women in the America as well as other English or European colonies In colonial law, the partus doctrine justified enslavement, the indigenous people of the Americas and of the Africans imported to various European colonies personal property of those who imported them.

During the time American was a colony, this doctrine established de facto and de jure slavery for all children born to female slaves. Partus sequitur ventrem exempted the father from his obligations to children he fathered by slaves thereby creating the ability for slaveowners to have their way with enslaved women. Under this doctrine the biological father had no paternal responsibility to any child born to a slave woman. Because of this the slaver was provided the right to profit from exploiting the labor of children born to slaves. It gave the slaver the ability to sell children by taking them away from their biological parents. Partus sequitur ventrem was the doctrine that created the first family separation policy in what is now America.

Despite the claims of Africans selling each other, the doctrine of Partus sequitur ventrem does not appear to be a part of the system of African slavery.

Partus Sequitur Ventrem — The Rule That Perpetrated Slavery And Legalized Rape

This was the legal doctrine that made any child of an American female slave a slave as well. It meant any white fathers had no financial responsibility for their progeny. They were free to rape their slaves at will as there were no laws against that either. With no concern for any children that might come from the forced union. In fact, there was a market for mulatto and octaroon children who would be purchased to work as domestics. Some owners (Thomas Jefferson) used their half-white slaves as their concubines, finding them more attractive the closer they were to white. Sally Hemings was Jefferson’s wife’s half-sister, the product of her father raping a slave. Then again the master might sell their offspring to keep the peace with their wives who might be annoyed at little slave children running around who favor their husbands.

Not talked about in proper society were the children of free white women and black slaves. White women who weren’t sure what color the child might be could get a legal abortion those days. “Cottonwood” was a remedy known to slaves who sometimes refused to have children after being raped or as often as the masters would like. Some women would be forced to have over a dozen children if they survived as death during childbirth was relatively common. The rare slave would be offered their freedom if they produced enough children. Sometimes the dark child of a white woman was abandoned or given away. Usually just sold off although technically they were legally free.

View attachment 437108

Partus Sequitur Ventrem — The Rule That Perpetrated Slavery And Legalized Rape | by William Spivey | Dialogue & Discourse | Medium

Partus sequitur ventrem legal definition of Partus sequitur ventrem (thefreedictionary.com)

Why are you telling us this?

If you think dwelling in the past can somehow change the present you are mistaken

white people who died 200 years ago are not causing young black girls to have babies with no fathers

I guess that some blacks just need an excuse for their failure

 

[Oldestyle]

The descendants of the same people who would break up black families by selling them are today the loudest talking people trying to diss the black community about single parent families.

When people start talking about race, there are just some simple realities that cannot be denied. If you are white and don't like how you are portrayed, start thinking about how unpleasant it really is for us who are not white to be portrayed as weak inferior people who got conquered by a supposedly superior race and culture. It is not a pleasant subject. For this to end we all must face the unpleasantness.

The doctrine of Partus sequitur ventrem comes from European civil law. It means; “That which is brought forth follows the belly.” This principle determined the legal status of children born by slave women in the America as well as other English or European colonies In colonial law, the partus doctrine justified enslavement, the indigenous people of the Americas and of the Africans imported to various European colonies personal property of those who imported them.

During the time American was a colony, this doctrine established de facto and de jure slavery for all children born to female slaves. Partus sequitur ventrem exempted the father from his obligations to children he fathered by slaves thereby creating the ability for slaveowners to have their way with enslaved women. Under this doctrine the biological father had no paternal responsibility to any child born to a slave woman. Because of this the slaver was provided the right to profit from exploiting the labor of children born to slaves. It gave the slaver the ability to sell children by taking them away from their biological parents. Partus sequitur ventrem was the doctrine that created the first family separation policy in what is now America.

Despite the claims of Africans selling each other, the doctrine of Partus sequitur ventrem does not appear to be a part of the system of African slavery.

Partus Sequitur Ventrem — The Rule That Perpetrated Slavery And Legalized Rape

This was the legal doctrine that made any child of an American female slave a slave as well. It meant any white fathers had no financial responsibility for their progeny. They were free to rape their slaves at will as there were no laws against that either. With no concern for any children that might come from the forced union. In fact, there was a market for mulatto and octaroon children who would be purchased to work as domestics. Some owners (Thomas Jefferson) used their half-white slaves as their concubines, finding them more attractive the closer they were to white. Sally Hemings was Jefferson’s wife’s half-sister, the product of her father raping a slave. Then again the master might sell their offspring to keep the peace with their wives who might be annoyed at little slave children running around who favor their husbands.

Not talked about in proper society were the children of free white women and black slaves. White women who weren’t sure what color the child might be could get a legal abortion those days. “Cottonwood” was a remedy known to slaves who sometimes refused to have children after being raped or as often as the masters would like. Some women would be forced to have over a dozen children if they survived as death during childbirth was relatively common. The rare slave would be offered their freedom if they produced enough children. Sometimes the dark child of a white woman was abandoned or given away. Usually just sold off although technically they were legally free.

View attachment 437108

Partus Sequitur Ventrem — The Rule That Perpetrated Slavery And Legalized Rape | by William Spivey | Dialogue & Discourse | Medium

Partus sequitur ventrem legal definition of Partus sequitur ventrem (thefreedictionary.com)

Black families without fathers over the past sixty years wasn't caused by slavery, IM2...it's something that took place because of a short sighted welfare system that made it financially beneficial to NOT have a father in the house incentivized that to take place!

 

[IM2]

People as individuals are not responsible for what others did in the past. Society is responsible for trying to correct the wrongs of the past.

So while individuals have a need to understand today's problems, one can not actually address those problems without understanding the reasoning behind them.

Condemning others without taking all the issues into the argument is condemning only and solves nothing.

Well that excuse ain't going to cut it since individuals of the past created the laws we live by today. Our nations wealth is built upon what was done in the past. Public policy is created by individuals and those policies harm groups so please stop trying to use a micro level argument in debating a macri level issue.

 

[pknopp]

The descendants of the same people who would break up black families by selling them are today the loudest talking people trying to diss the black community about single parent families.

When people start talking about race, there are just some simple realities that cannot be denied. If you are white and don't like how you are portrayed, start thinking about how unpleasant it really is for us who are not white to be portrayed as weak inferior people who got conquered by a supposedly superior race and culture. It is not a pleasant subject. For this to end we all must face the unpleasantness.

The doctrine of Partus sequitur ventrem comes from European civil law. It means; “That which is brought forth follows the belly.” This principle determined the legal status of children born by slave women in the America as well as other English or European colonies In colonial law, the partus doctrine justified enslavement, the indigenous people of the Americas and of the Africans imported to various European colonies personal property of those who imported them.

During the time American was a colony, this doctrine established de facto and de jure slavery for all children born to female slaves. Partus sequitur ventrem exempted the father from his obligations to children he fathered by slaves thereby creating the ability for slaveowners to have their way with enslaved women. Under this doctrine the biological father had no paternal responsibility to any child born to a slave woman. Because of this the slaver was provided the right to profit from exploiting the labor of children born to slaves. It gave the slaver the ability to sell children by taking them away from their biological parents. Partus sequitur ventrem was the doctrine that created the first family separation policy in what is now America.

Despite the claims of Africans selling each other, the doctrine of Partus sequitur ventrem does not appear to be a part of the system of African slavery.

Partus Sequitur Ventrem — The Rule That Perpetrated Slavery And Legalized Rape

This was the legal doctrine that made any child of an American female slave a slave as well. It meant any white fathers had no financial responsibility for their progeny. They were free to rape their slaves at will as there were no laws against that either. With no concern for any children that might come from the forced union. In fact, there was a market for mulatto and octaroon children who would be purchased to work as domestics. Some owners (Thomas Jefferson) used their half-white slaves as their concubines, finding them more attractive the closer they were to white. Sally Hemings was Jefferson’s wife’s half-sister, the product of her father raping a slave. Then again the master might sell their offspring to keep the peace with their wives who might be annoyed at little slave children running around who favor their husbands.

Not talked about in proper society were the children of free white women and black slaves. White women who weren’t sure what color the child might be could get a legal abortion those days. “Cottonwood” was a remedy known to slaves who sometimes refused to have children after being raped or as often as the masters would like. Some women would be forced to have over a dozen children if they survived as death during childbirth was relatively common. The rare slave would be offered their freedom if they produced enough children. Sometimes the dark child of a white woman was abandoned or given away. Usually just sold off although technically they were legally free.

View attachment 437108

Partus Sequitur Ventrem — The Rule That Perpetrated Slavery And Legalized Rape | by William Spivey | Dialogue & Discourse | Medium

Partus sequitur ventrem legal definition of Partus sequitur ventrem (thefreedictionary.com)

Black families without fathers over the past sixty years wasn't caused by slavery, IM2...it's something that took place because of a short sighted welfare system that made it financially beneficial to NOT have a father in the house incentivized that to take place!

Of course sending jobs overseas that once made it possible for people to survive had nothing to do with it. It all goes back to the same thing. Slavery, the dismantling of our manufacturing. Greed.

 

[pknopp]

People as individuals are not responsible for what others did in the past. Society is responsible for trying to correct the wrongs of the past.

So while individuals have a need to understand today's problems, one can not actually address those problems without understanding the reasoning behind them.

Condemning others without taking all the issues into the argument is condemning only and solves nothing.

Well that excuse ain't going to cut it since individuals of the past created the laws we live by today. Our nations wealth is built upon what was done in the past. Public policy is created by individuals and those policies harm groups so please stop trying to use a micro level argument in debating a macri level issue.

In the past people could get a job, work hard at it but then we pulled that rug out from underneath them.

 

[AMart]

The vast majority of white Americans had no ancestor buying/selling slaves, so stop with mass blanket generalizations. Black nuclear families were every bit intact as white families until about 1970.

No but they did have ancestors telling blacks to get in the back of the bus and dont even think about eating at the same table they do. Many still think that way.

Same for various European immigrant groups. There was a lot of classism based or country of origin and religion in the USA. And the bold part I totally disagree with that. If anything white able bodied hetero male, bonus points if you are a Christian, is the target to go after.

 

[fncceo]

The descendants of the same people who would break up black families by selling them

Not a single one of my descendants sold Black Slaves.

That being said, single-parent families aren't exclusive to any one race or ethnicity. One can make arguments about the disadvantages of single-parent families, but race doesn't enter into the equation.

 

[fncceo]

In the past people could get a job, work hard at it but then we pulled that rug out from underneath them.

Would you please tell my boss that I no longer have to work hard at my job?

I could use the break.

 

[pknopp]

The vast majority of white Americans had no ancestor buying/selling slaves, so stop with mass blanket generalizations. Black nuclear families were every bit intact as white families until about 1970.

No but they did have ancestors telling blacks to get in the back of the bus and dont even think about eating at the same table they do. Many still think that way.

Same for various European immigrant groups. There was a lot of classism based or country of origin and religion in the USA. And the bold part I totally disagree with that. If anything white able bodied hetero male, bonus points if you are a Christian, is the target to go after.

I'm a Christian. I have never felt "gone after". No one tried to deny me the right to move into a neighborhood because I was a Christian. No one tried to stop me from taking my kids to a certain school because I am a Christian.

 

[pknopp]

In the past people could get a job, work hard at it but then we pulled that rug out from underneath them.

Would you please tell my boss that I no longer have to work hard at my job?

I could use the break.

I look back at the neighborhood I grew up in 40-60 years ago and many of the jobs my friends parents worked at are gone.

 

[fncceo]

causing young black girls to have babies with no fathers

Is that even possible?

 

[fncceo]

In the past people could get a job, work hard at it but then we pulled that rug out from underneath them.

Would you please tell my boss that I no longer have to work hard at my job?

I could use the break.

I look back at the neighborhood I grew up in 40-60 years ago and many of the jobs my friends parents worked at are gone.

And millions upon millions of jobs that never existed 60 years ago replaced them.

 

[AMart]

People as individuals are not responsible for what others did in the past. Society is responsible for trying to correct the wrongs of the past.

So while individuals have a need to understand today's problems, one can not actually address those problems without understanding the reasoning behind them.

Condemning others without taking all the issues into the argument is condemning only and solves nothing.

Well that excuse ain't going to cut it since individuals of the past created the laws we live by today. Our nations wealth is built upon what was done in the past. Public policy is created by individuals and those policies harm groups so please stop trying to use a micro level argument in debating a macri level issue.

Just stop dude. Nigerian Americans are the most likely group, by country of origin, to get a Master's Degree in the USA. There is nothing preventing anyone from moving ahead in the USA.

 

[pknopp]

In the past people could get a job, work hard at it but then we pulled that rug out from underneath them.

Would you please tell my boss that I no longer have to work hard at my job?

I could use the break.

I look back at the neighborhood I grew up in 40-60 years ago and many of the jobs my friends parents worked at are gone.

And millions upon millions of jobs that never existed 60 years ago replaced them.

Low wage jobs with no benefits. We were never at risk of bankruptcy because someone got sick.

 

[pknopp]

People as individuals are not responsible for what others did in the past. Society is responsible for trying to correct the wrongs of the past.

So while individuals have a need to understand today's problems, one can not actually address those problems without understanding the reasoning behind them.

Condemning others without taking all the issues into the argument is condemning only and solves nothing.

Well that excuse ain't going to cut it since individuals of the past created the laws we live by today. Our nations wealth is built upon what was done in the past. Public policy is created by individuals and those policies harm groups so please stop trying to use a micro level argument in debating a macri level issue.

Just stop dude. Nigerian Americans are the most likely group, by country of origin, to get a Master's Degree in the USA. There is nothing preventing anyone from moving ahead in the USA.

There are very limited jobs for people with master degree's.