Whites did NOT enslave africans.

[IanC]

Whites merely bought the slaves from their black african masters who had already captured and enslaved them.

So ShootSpeeders,
If a kidnapper forcibly detains a person,
then sells them to another kidnapper,
Both parties aren't equally guilty of kidnapping? What?

You cannot judge people from a different time against the laws and morals of today. There is a large chance we will be considered savages by those who live 200 years from now.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Whites merely bought the slaves from their black african masters who had already captured and enslaved them.

Certainly at the beginning it was like that. Once the market demand was there it morphed into a somewhat different business.

No - it was always like that. Whites never did invade africa and capture blacks. They bought the slaves from other blacks.. THINK

 

[IanC]

Whites merely bought the slaves from their black african masters who had already captured and enslaved them.

Certainly at the beginning it was like that. Once the market demand was there it morphed into a somewhat different business.

No - it was always like that. Whites never did invade africa and capture blacks. They bought the slaves from other blacks.. THINK

Black tribes always fought with other tribes and took slaves. What changed was that there was now a market for those slaves, and the practice increased dramatically.

Do you think rhinos and elephants would be poached to the point of extinction if there was no market for horns and ivory?

 

[syonidv]

I have to agree with IanC: if you're willing to pay top dollar for slaves, you're just as culpable as the local slavers for the people being kidnapped.

Having said this, white America circa 2015 owes black America circa 2015 no restitution for the sins of men long dead, nor should they feel any guilt or responsibility. It is sufficient that white men treat black men as fellow citizens and equals today, showing no partiality either for or against.

"The soul that sins, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." - Ezekiel 18:20

 

[IanC]

I have to agree with IanC: if you're willing to pay top dollar for slaves, you're just as culpable as the local slavers for the people being kidnapped.

Having said this, white America circa 2015 owes black America circa 2015 no restitution for the sins of men long dead, nor should they feel any guilt or responsibility. It is sufficient that white men treat black men as fellow citizens and equals today, showing no partiality either for or against.

"The soul that sins, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." - Ezekiel 18:20

Thanks, well said.

My gooey liberal insides still think blacks deserve the first stage of affirmative action, preference amongst near equals, but for the benefit of society rather than because it is 'owed' to them.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

My gooey liberal insides still think blacks deserve the first stage of affirmative action, preference amongst near equals, but for the benefit of society rather than because it is 'owed' to them.

Thanks for admitting you're a white-hating racist. Would you tolerate ANY govt law that mandated whites get hiring preferences.?

 

[IanC]

My gooey liberal insides still think blacks deserve the first stage of affirmative action, preference amongst near equals, but for the benefit of society rather than because it is 'owed' to them.

Thanks for admitting you're a white-hating racist. Would you tolerate ANY govt law that mandated whites get hiring preferences.?

This isn't really the right thread to be talking about AA but...

There are three levels of affirmative action.
1. Preference amongst (nearly) equal candidates.
2. Preference amongst unequal candidates.
3. Racial quotas.

I am for the first. Against the second because it turns into the third.

I am for AA because society benefits when capable members of an historically under utilized group are brought into the middle-class and become role models for success.

It was an easy transition with women because they bring a nearly equal skill set. With blacks it is hard because they have a genetically inherent deficit in respect to being trained in our technology based society. Near equal access will not bring near equal outcomes, even if there was no such thing as actively hostile racism.

 

[Gracie]

If a kidnapper forcibly detains a person,
then sells them to another kidnapper,
Both parties aren't equally guilty of kidnapping? What?

My mistake. I thought i was addressing an adult.

ShootSpeeders
(1) A more "Adult" response you COULD have posted:
That slavery, at that time, was legal in America.
Both Blacks and Whites bought and sold slaves as a business.
So you could have argued that legally this wasn't considered like criminal trafficking is today.

(2) Instead, not answering, but trying to sidetrack as you did
appears childish.

I'm sorry I have to "spoonfeed" to you what you could have said in return.

Can you take the content and respond intelligently?
Or do I need to cut the meat into bite sized pieces for you to digest?

(3) As for RACE and slavery, if you look at Slavery in South Africa,
they would enslave the foreigners of a different skin color in order to tell them apart.

So YES RACE was used to divide the people visibly into classes of
slaves/noncitizens and upper class people with ownership and citizenship privileges.

In South Africa, the Indians were targeted.

In America, the white Irish slaves and "indentured servants" were forcibly raped and bred
with Black slaves to produce slaves with the darker skin.

This was meant to distinguish the slaves, but it caused problems between free and enslaved mulattos where, their status wasn't clear.

When the COLOR of your skin is used to distinguish whether you are
a lower class slave or an upper class free citizen,
sorry ShootSpeeders, but that part is contigent on RACE.

Again, an Adult mature and agile in logic and reason
might be able to show the LARGER dynamic was ECONOMIC and CLASS warfare,
while STILL ACKNOWLEDGING that color and race were integral factors in
keeping these classes divided and distinguished.

ShootSpeeders, even the BLACK owners enslaved
BLACK SLAVES and TRADED BLACK SLAVES as their business.

So that is still ENSLAVING BLACKS, whether it is Blacks or Whites doing it.

You CAN argue that there were other European slaves, too, the Irish and
other poor indentured servants.

Let me know if you can swallow and digest any of this,
without throwing up like a little baby who can't take it.

Do let me know when the next news report talks of a white witch doctor dismembering an albino child for their body parts, m'kay?

Meanwhile, much as I can't stand ShootsSpeeders, he is right. Warring tribes killed, sometimes ate, or sold the defeated warriors and their villagers. And sometimes it was not even due to wars..it was sons competing to take their fathers places and instead of killing their siblings, they sold them to the slavers camped out on shore waiting for whomever had the biggest bag of gold to buy them. To europeans, to other tribes, etc.
And it was not just black slaves. Humans throughout history have had slaves or enslaved those that lost whatever battle happened.

 

[IanC]

My gooey liberal insides still think blacks deserve the first stage of affirmative action, preference amongst near equals, but for the benefit of society rather than because it is 'owed' to them.

Thanks for admitting you're a white-hating racist. Would you tolerate ANY govt law that mandated whites get hiring preferences.?

What would be the reason for whites getting a hiring preference? Do they need it? Perhaps you are talking about unfair hiring practices that use a racial quota in all things but name. That wouldn't be a preference, just fairness.

 

[Gracie]

Tanzania s albino community Killed like animals - BBC News

It's in their blood. THEY KILL THEIR OWN. There, and here. Anywhere they happen to be, actually.

 

[IanC]

If a kidnapper forcibly detains a person,
then sells them to another kidnapper,
Both parties aren't equally guilty of kidnapping? What?

My mistake. I thought i was addressing an adult.

ShootSpeeders
(1) A more "Adult" response you COULD have posted:
That slavery, at that time, was legal in America.
Both Blacks and Whites bought and sold slaves as a business.
So you could have argued that legally this wasn't considered like criminal trafficking is today.

(2) Instead, not answering, but trying to sidetrack as you did
appears childish.

I'm sorry I have to "spoonfeed" to you what you could have said in return.

Can you take the content and respond intelligently?
Or do I need to cut the meat into bite sized pieces for you to digest?

(3) As for RACE and slavery, if you look at Slavery in South Africa,
they would enslave the foreigners of a different skin color in order to tell them apart.

So YES RACE was used to divide the people visibly into classes of
slaves/noncitizens and upper class people with ownership and citizenship privileges.

In South Africa, the Indians were targeted.

In America, the white Irish slaves and "indentured servants" were forcibly raped and bred
with Black slaves to produce slaves with the darker skin.

This was meant to distinguish the slaves, but it caused problems between free and enslaved mulattos where, their status wasn't clear.

When the COLOR of your skin is used to distinguish whether you are
a lower class slave or an upper class free citizen,
sorry ShootSpeeders, but that part is contigent on RACE.

Again, an Adult mature and agile in logic and reason
might be able to show the LARGER dynamic was ECONOMIC and CLASS warfare,
while STILL ACKNOWLEDGING that color and race were integral factors in
keeping these classes divided and distinguished.

ShootSpeeders, even the BLACK owners enslaved
BLACK SLAVES and TRADED BLACK SLAVES as their business.

So that is still ENSLAVING BLACKS, whether it is Blacks or Whites doing it.

You CAN argue that there were other European slaves, too, the Irish and
other poor indentured servants.

Let me know if you can swallow and digest any of this,
without throwing up like a little baby who can't take it.

Do let me know when the next news report talks of a white witch doctor dismembering an albino child for their body parts, m'kay?

Meanwhile, much as I can't stand ShootsSpeeders, he is right. Warring tribes killed, sometimes ate, or sold the defeated warriors and their villagers. And sometimes it was not even due to wars..it was sons competing to take their fathers places and instead of killing their siblings, they sold them to the slavers camped out on shore waiting for whomever had the biggest bag of gold to buy them. To europeans, to other tribes, etc.
And it was not just black slaves. Humans throughout history have had slaves or enslaved those that lost whatever battle happened.

Sad but true. Many parts of Africa are impervious to civilizing influences. I doubt that much can be done. But we should still try.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Thanks for admitting you're a white-hating racist. Would you tolerate ANY govt law that mandated whites get hiring preferences.?

What would be the reason for whites getting a hiring preference?

No reason at all except racism. Same as with giving blacks preferences. THINK

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Sad but true. Many parts of Africa are impervious to civilizing influences. I doubt that much can be done. But we should still try.

Talk about stupid. Why do you want to try to do something you admit can't be done.?