- Mar 11, 2015
- 89,264
- 63,190
- 3,645
All I've done since I got here six months ago was try to leaven the rhetoric against whites and inject a little common sense and reality into the discussions.
There are over 1,000 threads here full of racism by whites. But you call yourself leavening things for whites. And that's because you can't accept what is being said.
Leavening the hateful rhetoric against whites. Did you not get that? And what exactly makes you think I can't accept what is being said?
"Very often I see comments by people who argue that Africans sold each other into slavery. To speak of the slave trade solely as Africans selling each other t is a gross oversimplification of what was a complex historical event. This also seems to be an attempt to shift the burden of the slave trade on the victims of that very trade."You did exactly what the writer said and you actually think that your disingenuous opinion of this matte is what is correct as opposed to a scholar who has written multiple books on this issue.
I couldn't help but notice that you only requoted what the author said but not what I said. Here's what I said in my first response to this quote:
"This is true. But what he doesn't say that is just as true is that to speak of the slave trade solely as whites raiding and taking innocent Africans and selling them into slavery is also a gross oversimplification."
In this response I openly acknowledged and agreed with the author that Africans selling each other is a gross oversimplification. I then went on to merely say that whites capturing and selling slaves is also an oversimplification in that Africans sold Africans for the Atlantic slave trade. This is an historical fact and part and parcel of the entire history of slavery and cannot be denied.
You deliberately left out what I said to make it look like I'm avoiding the truth of white involvement in the slave trade. It was dishonest, disingenuous and hypocritical.
You say you are trying to bring common sense and reality but when you are confronted with common sense and reality you reject it for your uneducated opinion.
Uneducated? Given that I'm the one pointing out the fact that Africans sold Africans into slavery and that you have not acknowledged that fact, I would say I'm at least as educated as you are on the matter.
This is the most idiotic thing I've ever read. The victims of the slave trade were those that were enslaved. Ergo, the Africans that enslaved other Africans were not victims. Jesus, how fucking stupid do you have to be.
The major problem with your comments is the fact that Africa consisted of nations and tribes. Africans did nothing. A Nigerian captured a Ugandan in a war started by whites who handed Nigerians the guns to capture the Ugandans. These are not the same people any more than Germans are the same as the French.
This is a gross oversimplification. European Portuguese arrived in 1441 to explore West Africa to look for gold, spices and other commodities. They encountered an African chieftain who had two prisoners from a battle that the Portuguese had had no part in. The chieftain sold his two prisoners as slaves to the Portuguese and the Portuguese returned the following year to purchase more slaves from African traders.
The Portuguese were not even looking for slaves at the time and European colonization didn't take place until much later. In your own twisted style of jurisprudence where we place all the blame on the enablers and none on those who commit the crime as you do in the case of Rwanda, the Africans themselves are guilty of initiating what would later become the Atlantic slave trade.
I'm not unable to answer it, I just haven't because I don't know what the hell you're talking about and it's irrelevant to anything I've been saying anyway.
You know what I am talking about.
Of course. If you can't get what you want out of me, just fill in the gaps with your assumptions as you usually do. I could say "Mares eat oats and does eat oats and little lambs eat ivy" and you'd say I was denying white racism.
So learn this, if laws are passed denying non whites that law affects everyone. There have been no laws or polices that said only some whites when it was passed. There was no law saying not all whites either.
What?
Last, what is preposterous is your lying. I never said you had to prove you were not a racist. I stated you had not shown proof he incident was racially motivated.
Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. You accused me of concocting the story at the outset. I'm not going to let you forget that. Also, once you allowed that it actually happened, you assumed I did something to him to provoke it. I'm not letting you forget that either. And since you had this idiotic preconceived notion that blacks can't be racist even before I told my story, you were never going to believe it anyway.
You see in the real world you must have evidence the act was racist.
You didn't seem to have a problem with the fact that he had no evidence that I was racist or even evidence that I was harassing him for whatever reason.
I kw that whites like you think we just make up racism when we feel like it but when wed it is based on evidence. This is another reason why I say you have never really faced racism.
I'm sorry but, making an issue of cotton plants and white dreadlocks is making up racism and I will always maintain that and any other incidents like it.
I'm just going to speak on your last sentence because I have posted enough about all the other stuff you keep repeating and know I am correct. You have chosen to build a strawman out of nothing because you want to dismiss white racism. Whites do not get to tell us what is offensive to us. Learn that. So if you can call us racists for pointing out that whites still practice racism or cry every day because we don't say not all whites in every sentence we post about white people then really you don't have anything to say about anyone complaining about cotton and dreadlocks being offensive. For you make up racism all the time.