WSJ: When the Slave Traders Were African

Somehow all the Revisionist history has been about how bad us 'White Colonialists' were.
Nothing about untold Milennia of genocide and slavery in Africa.
Sorry but can't post whole artilce. Alas No exception is made for subscription sites either.

When the Slave Traders Were African
Those whose ancestors sold slaves to Europeans now struggle to come to terms with a painful legacy
By Adaobi Tricia Nwaubani
Sept. 20, 2019 - Wall Street Journal
When the Slave Traders Were African

This August marked 400 years since the first documented enslaved Africans arrived in the U.S. In 1619, a ship reached the Jamestown settlement in the colony of Virginia, carrying “some 20 and odd Negroes” who were kidnapped from their villages in present-day Angola. The anniversary coincides with a controversial debate in the U.S. about whether the country owes reparations to the descendants of slaves as compensation for centuries of injustice and inequality. It is a moment for posing questions of historic guilt and responsibility.

...Africans are now also reckoning with their own complicated legacy in the slave trade, and the infamous “Middle Passage” often looks different from across the Atlantic......The organization of the slave trade was structured to have the Europeans stay along the coast lines, relying on African middlemen and merchants to bring the slaves to them,” said Toyin Falola, a Nigerian professor of African studies at the University of Texas at Austin. “The Europeans couldn’t have gone into the interior to get the slaves themselves.”

The anguished debate over slavery in the U.S. is often silent on the role that Africans played. That silence is echoed in many African countries, where there is hardly any national discussion or acknowledgment of the issue. From nursery school through university in Nigeria, I was taught about great African cultures and conquerors of times past but not about African involvement in the slave trade. In an attempt to reclaim some of the dignity that we lost during colonialism, Africans have tended to magnify stories of a glorious past of rich traditions and brave achievement..... But there are other, less discussed chapters of our history. When I was growing up, my father Chukwuma Nwaubani spoke glowingly of my great-grandfather, Nwaubani Ogogo Oriaku, a chief among our Igbo ethnic group who sold slaves in the 19th century. “He was respected by everyone around,” he said. “Even the white people respected him.” From the 16th to the 19th centuries, an estimated 1.4 million Igbo people were transported across the Atlantic as slaves.

Some families have chosen to hide similar histories. “We speak of it in whispers,”....
[.....]
[.....]​

Slave traders --- which existed everywhere --- in Africa, were still not cramming their human commodities into vessels to send them to another continent where the victims would have no connection with the land or the culture. What you're trying to refer to here without saying it, because it's inconvenient, is TransAtlantic slave traders. That --- the bold part --- was what made this particular slavery different from all others. That, and the concept of "slave for life" by simple virtue of one's race. NONE of that was present in previous slavery systems in Africa, Asia, Europe or Native America.

To be transported in chains to a foreign shore that may as well have been another planet, utterly unfamiliar in climate, culture, language, etc, was the ultimate control-freak subjugation of human chattel. Slavery over the millennia of human history derived from the spoils of war, not from cockamamie ideas of "race". That latter idea began with Columbus (who tried to enslave Indians and sent them back to Europe as "specimens") and left the launchpad of reason with the Spanish, French, British and Portuguese merchants dealing in human lives --- in other words, it derives from the greed of profit.

And by the way this part here:

>> This August marked 400 years since the first documented enslaved Africans arrived in the U.S. In 1619, a ship reached the Jamestown settlement in the colony of Virginia, carrying “some 20 and odd Negroes” who were kidnapped from their villages in present-day Angola. <<​

... is off by 93 years. The first enslaved Africans were brought to (what is now) the US, South Carolina specifically, in 1526. The happy ending is that this particular group revolted and escaped to live among the Native Americans. Needless to say, the US did not exist in 1526 or 1619, so it's erroneous on that basis as well.
Are you saying that it was a kinder, gentler, slavery before they came to America? Remarkable.

Feel free to refute anything I posted there. Until then, it stands.
You would have to be open to a real discussion.

I know that you are not. Since you did not refute my observation, enjoy your closed mind.

So you *CAN'T* refute anything I said.

There's a fuckin' surprise.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: IM2
Right. So instead of blaming the US for slavery, blame the bloody Spanish who were first here with slaves. The bastards!

And AGAIN once again AGAIN --- the US did not exist when transAtlantic slaving established. It didn't exist in the 16th century. It didn't exist in the 17th century. It didn't exist until the END of the 18th century. Linear time therefore dictates that the US could not have started the slave trade. Maybe that's why NOBODY CLAIMED IT DID.

JESUS CHRIST ON A BICYCLE :banghead:
Then why are libs demanding the US pay reparations and no one else?

Then why are you selling strawmen?

You have no clue in the world what a Composition Fallacy is, do you.
Don't deflect-modern day Americans are not responsible for reparations per
Right. So instead of blaming the US for slavery, blame the bloody Spanish who were first here with slaves. The bastards!

And AGAIN once again AGAIN --- the US did not exist when transAtlantic slaving established. It didn't exist in the 16th century. It didn't exist in the 17th century. It didn't exist until the END of the 18th century. Linear time therefore dictates that the US could not have started the slave trade. Maybe that's why NOBODY CLAIMED IT DID.

JESUS CHRIST ON A BICYCLE :banghead:
Then why are libs demanding the US pay reparations and no one else?

Then why are you selling strawmen?

You have no clue in the world what a Composition Fallacy is, do you.


WSJ: When the Slave Traders Were African- that's the OP
Modern day Americans should not pay reparations for slavery-period- because slave traders were African too-got it? And your foray into logical hocus pocus doesn't impress.

Nobody brought up a damn thing about "reparations", Dickhead. OP claimed African slaves first got here in 1619, I proved him wrong. And there's literally nothing you can do about that.
I'm glad you proved him wrong but you got stuck on a history lesson when I'm just saying since there were AFRICAN slave traders, that lets the US off the hook for reparations-if anything the Spanish should pay them.
 
And AGAIN once again AGAIN --- the US did not exist when transAtlantic slaving established. It didn't exist in the 16th century. It didn't exist in the 17th century. It didn't exist until the END of the 18th century. Linear time therefore dictates that the US could not have started the slave trade. Maybe that's why NOBODY CLAIMED IT DID.

JESUS CHRIST ON A BICYCLE :banghead:
Then why are libs demanding the US pay reparations and no one else?

Then why are you selling strawmen?

You have no clue in the world what a Composition Fallacy is, do you.
Don't deflect-modern day Americans are not responsible for reparations per
And AGAIN once again AGAIN --- the US did not exist when transAtlantic slaving established. It didn't exist in the 16th century. It didn't exist in the 17th century. It didn't exist until the END of the 18th century. Linear time therefore dictates that the US could not have started the slave trade. Maybe that's why NOBODY CLAIMED IT DID.

JESUS CHRIST ON A BICYCLE :banghead:
Then why are libs demanding the US pay reparations and no one else?

Then why are you selling strawmen?

You have no clue in the world what a Composition Fallacy is, do you.


WSJ: When the Slave Traders Were African- that's the OP
Modern day Americans should not pay reparations for slavery-period- because slave traders were African too-got it? And your foray into logical hocus pocus doesn't impress.

Nobody brought up a damn thing about "reparations", Dickhead. OP claimed African slaves first got here in 1619, I proved him wrong. And there's literally nothing you can do about that.
I'm glad you proved him wrong but you got stuck on a history lesson when I'm just saying since there were AFRICAN slave traders, that lets the US off the hook for reparations-if anything the Spanish should pay them.

Once AGAIN r e a l s l o w n o w ------- nobody suggested there was a "hook" for any "reparations", Gummo.

OP posted a false history, AND tried to equate the transAtlantic slave trade with intracontinental African slavery, and he got busted on both of those boners. PERIOD.

I get that you're all butthurt because you can't refute my history so you want to change the subject. Tough shit.
 
Then why are libs demanding the US pay reparations and no one else?

Then why are you selling strawmen?

You have no clue in the world what a Composition Fallacy is, do you.
Don't deflect-modern day Americans are not responsible for reparations per
Then why are libs demanding the US pay reparations and no one else?

Then why are you selling strawmen?

You have no clue in the world what a Composition Fallacy is, do you.


WSJ: When the Slave Traders Were African- that's the OP
Modern day Americans should not pay reparations for slavery-period- because slave traders were African too-got it? And your foray into logical hocus pocus doesn't impress.

Nobody brought up a damn thing about "reparations", Dickhead. OP claimed African slaves first got here in 1619, I proved him wrong. And there's literally nothing you can do about that.
I'm glad you proved him wrong but you got stuck on a history lesson when I'm just saying since there were AFRICAN slave traders, that lets the US off the hook for reparations-if anything the Spanish should pay them.

Once AGAIN r e a l s l o w n o w ------- nobody suggested there was a "hook" for any "reparations", Gummo.

OP posted a false history, AND tried to equate the transAtlantic slave trade with intracontinental African slavery, and he got busted on both of those boners. PERIOD.

I get that you're all butthurt because you can't refute my history so you want to change the subject. Tough shit.
I accept your history but not your attitude-it sucks. Leave my butt out of this unless your queer-then really stay away. No subject change-I gotta go-reply if you want to keep arguing, or let it go-up to you.
 
I hope we can all agree that slavery is bad, and just because someone else did it first, or more, or any other aspect of it, that doesn't absolve us from participating. We, as a country condoned slavery, and that caused great harm that is still being felt by the descendants of slavery today. We need to acknowledge what our country did and try to remedy that harm as much as we can, and not try to blame it all on what somebody else did. Nobody alive today had anything to do with the slave trade when our country was formed, but we are the ones in charge of our country now, and we are responsible for the debts our country made back then.
No, we are not responsible for past debts, anymore than other countries are.
 
Actually the history exists. But trying to justify what happened here with this false equivalence is pathetic.

America has never been governed by any concept of African law. Africans did not create the apartheid laws that were in effect from the end of slavery until the civil rights act.

Non racist whites understand these things. Only the dumb low IQ racist white INDIVIDUAL keeps trying to revise history in order to deny personal responsibility.
 
Then why are you selling strawmen?

You have no clue in the world what a Composition Fallacy is, do you.
Don't deflect-modern day Americans are not responsible for reparations per
Then why are you selling strawmen?

You have no clue in the world what a Composition Fallacy is, do you.


WSJ: When the Slave Traders Were African- that's the OP
Modern day Americans should not pay reparations for slavery-period- because slave traders were African too-got it? And your foray into logical hocus pocus doesn't impress.

Nobody brought up a damn thing about "reparations", Dickhead. OP claimed African slaves first got here in 1619, I proved him wrong. And there's literally nothing you can do about that.
I'm glad you proved him wrong but you got stuck on a history lesson when I'm just saying since there were AFRICAN slave traders, that lets the US off the hook for reparations-if anything the Spanish should pay them.

Once AGAIN r e a l s l o w n o w ------- nobody suggested there was a "hook" for any "reparations", Gummo.

OP posted a false history, AND tried to equate the transAtlantic slave trade with intracontinental African slavery, and he got busted on both of those boners. PERIOD.

I get that you're all butthurt because you can't refute my history so you want to change the subject. Tough shit.
I accept your history but not your attitude-it sucks. Leave my butt out of this unless your queer-then really stay away. No subject change-I gotta go-reply if you want to keep arguing, or let it go-up to you.

His attitude is justified, it's yours that needs adjusting. I don't know how you whites think you get to tell us how we are to talk about what's been done to us. I am sure if a Muslim came up to you pointing out how whites have terrorized their homeland so why are white not talking about that, you would not respond kindly. But somehow whites such as yourself seem to believe we have no right to be angry. However whites can be mad about anything they want and if need be they can threaten violence. That's the mentality of white privilege.
 
And AGAIN once again AGAIN --- the US did not exist when transAtlantic slaving established. It didn't exist in the 16th century. It didn't exist in the 17th century. It didn't exist until the END of the 18th century. Linear time therefore dictates that the US could not have started the slave trade. Maybe that's why NOBODY CLAIMED IT DID.

JESUS CHRIST ON A BICYCLE :banghead:
Then why are libs demanding the US pay reparations and no one else?

Then why are you selling strawmen?

You have no clue in the world what a Composition Fallacy is, do you.
Don't deflect-modern day Americans are not responsible for reparations per
And AGAIN once again AGAIN --- the US did not exist when transAtlantic slaving established. It didn't exist in the 16th century. It didn't exist in the 17th century. It didn't exist until the END of the 18th century. Linear time therefore dictates that the US could not have started the slave trade. Maybe that's why NOBODY CLAIMED IT DID.

JESUS CHRIST ON A BICYCLE :banghead:
Then why are libs demanding the US pay reparations and no one else?

Then why are you selling strawmen?

You have no clue in the world what a Composition Fallacy is, do you.


WSJ: When the Slave Traders Were African- that's the OP
Modern day Americans should not pay reparations for slavery-period- because slave traders were African too-got it? And your foray into logical hocus pocus doesn't impress.

Nobody brought up a damn thing about "reparations", Dickhead. OP claimed African slaves first got here in 1619, I proved him wrong. And there's literally nothing you can do about that.
I'm glad you proved him wrong but you got stuck on a history lesson when I'm just saying since there were AFRICAN slave traders, that lets the US off the hook for reparations-if anything the Spanish should pay them.
But it doesn't let the US off the hook. This you don't seem to understand. Africans did not sail full ships of slaves here to be sold. And quite a few of the transactions were done deceitfully and fraudulently by whites. Try studying this before you make comments. You seem to be a little more intelligent than Aflac and this OP is full of holes. Pogo has pointed several of them out.
 
Last edited:
Somehow all the Revisionist history has been about how bad us 'White Colonialists' were.
Nothing about untold Milennia of genocide and slavery in Africa.
Sorry but can't post whole artilce. Alas No exception is made for subscription sites either.

When the Slave Traders Were African
Those whose ancestors sold slaves to Europeans now struggle to come to terms with a painful legacy
By Adaobi Tricia Nwaubani
Sept. 20, 2019 - Wall Street Journal
When the Slave Traders Were African

This August marked 400 years since the first documented enslaved Africans arrived in the U.S. In 1619, a ship reached the Jamestown settlement in the colony of Virginia, carrying “some 20 and odd Negroes” who were kidnapped from their villages in present-day Angola. The anniversary coincides with a controversial debate in the U.S. about whether the country owes reparations to the descendants of slaves as compensation for centuries of injustice and inequality. It is a moment for posing questions of historic guilt and responsibility.

...Africans are now also reckoning with their own complicated legacy in the slave trade, and the infamous “Middle Passage” often looks different from across the Atlantic......The organization of the slave trade was structured to have the Europeans stay along the coast lines, relying on African middlemen and merchants to bring the slaves to them,” said Toyin Falola, a Nigerian professor of African studies at the University of Texas at Austin. “The Europeans couldn’t have gone into the interior to get the slaves themselves.”

The anguished debate over slavery in the U.S. is often silent on the role that Africans played. That silence is echoed in many African countries, where there is hardly any national discussion or acknowledgment of the issue. From nursery school through university in Nigeria, I was taught about great African cultures and conquerors of times past but not about African involvement in the slave trade. In an attempt to reclaim some of the dignity that we lost during colonialism, Africans have tended to magnify stories of a glorious past of rich traditions and brave achievement..... But there are other, less discussed chapters of our history. When I was growing up, my father Chukwuma Nwaubani spoke glowingly of my great-grandfather, Nwaubani Ogogo Oriaku, a chief among our Igbo ethnic group who sold slaves in the 19th century. “He was respected by everyone around,” he said. “Even the white people respected him.” From the 16th to the 19th centuries, an estimated 1.4 million Igbo people were transported across the Atlantic as slaves.

Some families have chosen to hide similar histories. “We speak of it in whispers,”....
[.....]
[.....]​

Slave traders --- which existed everywhere --- in Africa, were still not cramming their human commodities into vessels to send them to another continent where the victims would have no connection with the land or the culture. What you're trying to refer to here without saying it, because it's inconvenient, is TransAtlantic slave traders. That --- the bold part --- was what made this particular slavery different from all others. That, and the concept of "slave for life" by simple virtue of one's race. NONE of that was present in previous slavery systems in Africa, Asia, Europe or Native America.

To be transported in chains to a foreign shore that may as well have been another planet, utterly unfamiliar in climate, culture, language, etc, was the ultimate control-freak subjugation of human chattel. Slavery over the millennia of human history derived from the spoils of war, not from cockamamie ideas of "race". That latter idea began with Columbus (who tried to enslave Indians and sent them back to Europe as "specimens") and left the launchpad of reason with the Spanish, French, British and Portuguese merchants dealing in human lives --- in other words, it derives from the greed of profit.

And by the way this part here:

>> This August marked 400 years since the first documented enslaved Africans arrived in the U.S. In 1619, a ship reached the Jamestown settlement in the colony of Virginia, carrying “some 20 and odd Negroes” who were kidnapped from their villages in present-day Angola. <<​

... is off by 93 years. The first enslaved Africans were brought to (what is now) the US, South Carolina specifically, in 1526. The happy ending is that this particular group revolted and escaped to live among the Native Americans. Needless to say, the US did not exist in 1526 or 1619, so it's erroneous on that basis as well.
Are you saying that it was a kinder, gentler, slavery before they came to America? Remarkable.

Feel free to refute anything I posted there. Until then, it stands.
You would have to be open to a real discussion.

I know that you are not. Since you did not refute my observation, enjoy your closed mind.

So you *CAN'T* refute anything I said.

There's a fuckin' surprise.
Well, look at you.

Now, reread what I said before.
 
Slave traders --- which existed everywhere --- in Africa, were still not cramming their human commodities into vessels to send them to another continent where the victims would have no connection with the land or the culture. What you're trying to refer to here without saying it, because it's inconvenient, is TransAtlantic slave traders. That --- the bold part --- was what made this particular slavery different from all others. That, and the concept of "slave for life" by simple virtue of one's race. NONE of that was present in previous slavery systems in Africa, Asia, Europe or Native America.

To be transported in chains to a foreign shore that may as well have been another planet, utterly unfamiliar in climate, culture, language, etc, was the ultimate control-freak subjugation of human chattel. Slavery over the millennia of human history derived from the spoils of war, not from cockamamie ideas of "race". That latter idea began with Columbus (who tried to enslave Indians and sent them back to Europe as "specimens") and left the launchpad of reason with the Spanish, French, British and Portuguese merchants dealing in human lives --- in other words, it derives from the greed of profit.

And by the way this part here:

>> This August marked 400 years since the first documented enslaved Africans arrived in the U.S. In 1619, a ship reached the Jamestown settlement in the colony of Virginia, carrying “some 20 and odd Negroes” who were kidnapped from their villages in present-day Angola. <<​

... is off by 93 years. The first enslaved Africans were brought to (what is now) the US, South Carolina specifically, in 1526. The happy ending is that this particular group revolted and escaped to live among the Native Americans. Needless to say, the US did not exist in 1526 or 1619, so it's erroneous on that basis as well.
Are you saying that it was a kinder, gentler, slavery before they came to America? Remarkable.

Feel free to refute anything I posted there. Until then, it stands.
You would have to be open to a real discussion.

I know that you are not. Since you did not refute my observation, enjoy your closed mind.

So you *CAN'T* refute anything I said.

There's a fuckin' surprise.
Well, look at you.

Now, reread what I said before.
And what exactly constitutes a real discussion? Because whites have not really ever wanted to have one. That is why threads like this exist. Africans did not make slavery legal in America. Africans did not come over to America with shiploads of slaves to sell. And the bottom line here is that whites bought the slaves. Whites did not have to buy slaves from Africa. Under the feudal system at that time, whites had serfs. They decided that serfs could sign agreements to work off their passage if they wanted to go to the so-called new world.

So what exactly constitutes a real discussion?
 
Don't deflect-modern day Americans are not responsible for reparations per
WSJ: When the Slave Traders Were African- that's the OP
Modern day Americans should not pay reparations for slavery-period- because slave traders were African too-got it? And your foray into logical hocus pocus doesn't impress.

Nobody brought up a damn thing about "reparations", Dickhead. OP claimed African slaves first got here in 1619, I proved him wrong. And there's literally nothing you can do about that.
I'm glad you proved him wrong but you got stuck on a history lesson when I'm just saying since there were AFRICAN slave traders, that lets the US off the hook for reparations-if anything the Spanish should pay them.

Once AGAIN r e a l s l o w n o w ------- nobody suggested there was a "hook" for any "reparations", Gummo.

OP posted a false history, AND tried to equate the transAtlantic slave trade with intracontinental African slavery, and he got busted on both of those boners. PERIOD.

I get that you're all butthurt because you can't refute my history so you want to change the subject. Tough shit.
I accept your history but not your attitude-it sucks. Leave my butt out of this unless your queer-then really stay away. No subject change-I gotta go-reply if you want to keep arguing, or let it go-up to you.

His attitude is justified, it's yours that needs adjusting. I don't know how you whites think you get to tell us how we are to talk about what's been done to us. I am sure if a Muslim came up to you pointing out how whites have terrorized their homeland so why are white not talking about that, you would not respond kindly. But somehow whites such as yourself seem to believe we have no right to be angry. However whites can be mad about anything they want and if need be they can threaten violence. That's the mentality of white privilege.
Slow down buckwheat. Its his attitude toward ME that needs adjusting. I don't care if you or anybody else is mad-that's your problem.
 
Then why are libs demanding the US pay reparations and no one else?

Then why are you selling strawmen?

You have no clue in the world what a Composition Fallacy is, do you.
Don't deflect-modern day Americans are not responsible for reparations per
Then why are libs demanding the US pay reparations and no one else?

Then why are you selling strawmen?

You have no clue in the world what a Composition Fallacy is, do you.


WSJ: When the Slave Traders Were African- that's the OP
Modern day Americans should not pay reparations for slavery-period- because slave traders were African too-got it? And your foray into logical hocus pocus doesn't impress.

Nobody brought up a damn thing about "reparations", Dickhead. OP claimed African slaves first got here in 1619, I proved him wrong. And there's literally nothing you can do about that.
I'm glad you proved him wrong but you got stuck on a history lesson when I'm just saying since there were AFRICAN slave traders, that lets the US off the hook for reparations-if anything the Spanish should pay them.
But it doesn't let the US off the hook. This you don't seem to understand. Africans did not sail full ships of slaves here to be sold. And quite a few of the transactions were done deceitfully and fraudulently by whites. Try studying this before you make comments. You seem to be a little more intelligent than Aflac and this OP is full of holes. Pogo has pointed several of them out.
If I am correct (without looking it up) the Dutch brought the slaves first. They need their Karma leveled, but got it when the Nazis ravaged their country. I wonder how THEY would have treated Africans-good thing the US fought them so they never had to find out. Your're welcome.
 
Blacks main problem isn't slavery.
It's evolution of IQ.

Let's look at Asians.
Many coming here as indentured railway labor just as the Blacks were being free from slavery.
Poor, Discriminated against, the Japanese even interned as late as WWII.
Then we Nuked their little resourceLess rock, while killing a good percent of the working age male population...
and YET in 50 years?
The planet's #2 economy (now #2 is China)... with No diversity.
Compare to Resource-rich sub-Saharan Africa, an ungovernable rabble. Many still living as they did 20,000 years ago.

When Marco Polo came upon China 700 years ago he found, Ceramics, Silk, Gunpowder, a Civil Service system, Astronomical Records, etc.
While the vast majority of Africans lived in 1900 the same way they did 30,000 years ago: hunter-gatherers in huts.
And why sub-Sahara is still an ungovernable mess.

Asians are now superior in testing and income to discriminating whites, because of IQ. Not persecution or lack thereof.

That was the short version.

`
 
Slave traders --- which existed everywhere --- in Africa, were still not cramming their human commodities into vessels to send them to another continent where the victims would have no connection with the land or the culture. What you're trying to refer to here without saying it, because it's inconvenient, is TransAtlantic slave traders. That --- the bold part --- was what made this particular slavery different from all others. That, and the concept of "slave for life" by simple virtue of one's race. NONE of that was present in previous slavery systems in Africa, Asia, Europe or Native America.

To be transported in chains to a foreign shore that may as well have been another planet, utterly unfamiliar in climate, culture, language, etc, was the ultimate control-freak subjugation of human chattel. Slavery over the millennia of human history derived from the spoils of war, not from cockamamie ideas of "race". That latter idea began with Columbus (who tried to enslave Indians and sent them back to Europe as "specimens") and left the launchpad of reason with the Spanish, French, British and Portuguese merchants dealing in human lives --- in other words, it derives from the greed of profit.

And by the way this part here:

>> This August marked 400 years since the first documented enslaved Africans arrived in the U.S. In 1619, a ship reached the Jamestown settlement in the colony of Virginia, carrying “some 20 and odd Negroes” who were kidnapped from their villages in present-day Angola. <<​

... is off by 93 years. The first enslaved Africans were brought to (what is now) the US, South Carolina specifically, in 1526. The happy ending is that this particular group revolted and escaped to live among the Native Americans. Needless to say, the US did not exist in 1526 or 1619, so it's erroneous on that basis as well.
Are you saying that it was a kinder, gentler, slavery before they came to America? Remarkable.

Feel free to refute anything I posted there. Until then, it stands.
You would have to be open to a real discussion.

I know that you are not. Since you did not refute my observation, enjoy your closed mind.

So you *CAN'T* refute anything I said.

There's a fuckin' surprise.
Well, look at you.

Now, reread what I said before.

Don't need to. I know desperate deflection when I step in it. Has that squishy sound.
Point stands uncontested. The end.
 
Last edited:
Blacks main problem isn't slavery.
It's evolution of IQ.

Let's look at Asians.
Many coming here as indentured railway labor just as the Blacks were being free from slavery.
Poor, Discriminated against, the Japanese even interned as late as WWII.
Then we Nuked their little resourceLess rock, while killing a good percent of the working age male population...
and YET in 50 years?
The planet's #2 economy (now #2 is China)... with No diversity.
Compare to Resource-rich sub-Saharan Africa, an ungovernable rabble. Many still living as they did 20,000 years ago.

When Marco Polo came upon China 700 years ago he found, Ceramics, Silk, Gunpowder, a Civil Service system, Astronomical Records, etc.
While the vast majority of Africans lived in 1900 the same way they did 30,000 years ago: hunter-gatherers in huts.
And why sub-Sahara is still an ungovernable mess.

Asians are now superior in testing and income to discriminating whites, because of IQ. Not persecution or lack thereof.

That was the short version.

Again, Bullshit.

>> It is hard, after so many bad movies and so many encrusted lies, to think of them as urban, and it is hard for a Western mind to conceive of “tribal” and “urban” together; yet as late as the mid-nineteenth century the Yoruba city of Abeokuta ran six miles along the bank of the Ogun River and had a population estimated at 200,000. Its craft industries thrived – ironwork, carpentry, tailoring, farming, tool-making, textiles. And this urban culture had been thriving for centuries, a city probably older than, say, New York is now.

Here, intact, a little more than a century ago, was a mature culture which had not chosen to go the way of monotheism and the father gods, but had, like India, kept its polytheistic pantheon rooted in the Great Mother religions – or rather, in the religious impulse we now identify with the Great Mother. They shared with the Hopi, with the ancient Irish and Welsh and all Druid peoples, as well as with the Chinese and the Eygptians, the mother symbol of the serpent – as Thompson puts it, “ancient Yoruba image of coolness, peace and power.” And they shared with pre-Christianist Europe – the so-called pagan religions – the conviction that religious worship is a bodily celebration, a dance of the entire community; or, as it would have been called in Euorpe when such belief had been driven underground, a “sabbat.” The mind-body split that governs European thought seems never to have entered African religion, African consciousness – at least not until imported there by missionaries. To meditate was to dance. << -- Michael Ventura, "Hear That Long Snake Moan"
Must be soooooo simple for the simpleminded to draw their history from Hollyweird stereotypes and the bottom-dwelling internet farces of Stürmfront and PragerFuckingU. Saves a lot of brain sweat.

But back up here Twinkles. Number One, "Asians" were never crammed into ships in shackles and sent against their will to a foreign world to be whipped into submission and dehumanized; Number Two, Japanese were not interned for their race, but for their nationality and the suspected loyalties that went with it; Number Three the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima do not constitute "Asia"; Number Four China has been hugely influential for literally millennia -- ask anyone from Mongolia or Thailand or Japan or Vietnam. Ask the Brits, Austro-Hungarians, French, Germans, Italians, Japanese, Russians and Americans who wanted to colonize and/or monopolize it specifically because it WAS big and rich.

Cult of Ignorance sales pitch is about as effective as the Amazing Vegematic from Ronco. If this is your best stuff, you need to find an occupation that doesn't involve "words".
 
Last edited:
Nobody brought up a damn thing about "reparations", Dickhead. OP claimed African slaves first got here in 1619, I proved him wrong. And there's literally nothing you can do about that.
I'm glad you proved him wrong but you got stuck on a history lesson when I'm just saying since there were AFRICAN slave traders, that lets the US off the hook for reparations-if anything the Spanish should pay them.

Once AGAIN r e a l s l o w n o w ------- nobody suggested there was a "hook" for any "reparations", Gummo.

OP posted a false history, AND tried to equate the transAtlantic slave trade with intracontinental African slavery, and he got busted on both of those boners. PERIOD.

I get that you're all butthurt because you can't refute my history so you want to change the subject. Tough shit.
I accept your history but not your attitude-it sucks. Leave my butt out of this unless your queer-then really stay away. No subject change-I gotta go-reply if you want to keep arguing, or let it go-up to you.

His attitude is justified, it's yours that needs adjusting. I don't know how you whites think you get to tell us how we are to talk about what's been done to us. I am sure if a Muslim came up to you pointing out how whites have terrorized their homeland so why are white not talking about that, you would not respond kindly. But somehow whites such as yourself seem to believe we have no right to be angry. However whites can be mad about anything they want and if need be they can threaten violence. That's the mentality of white privilege.
Slow down buckwheat. Its his attitude toward ME that needs adjusting. I don't care if you or anybody else is mad-that's your problem.

I freely admit I have a short fuse for willful stupidity. Don't insult my intelligence and everybody else's by acting like a fucking retard.
 
Are you saying that it was a kinder, gentler, slavery before they came to America? Remarkable.

Feel free to refute anything I posted there. Until then, it stands.
You would have to be open to a real discussion.

I know that you are not. Since you did not refute my observation, enjoy your closed mind.

So you *CAN'T* refute anything I said.

There's a fuckin' surprise.
Well, look at you.

Now, reread what I said before.
And what exactly constitutes a real discussion? Because whites have not really ever wanted to have one. That is why threads like this exist. Africans did not make slavery legal in America. Africans did not come over to America with shiploads of slaves to sell. And the bottom line here is that whites bought the slaves. Whites did not have to buy slaves from Africa. Under the feudal system at that time, whites had serfs. They decided that serfs could sign agreements to work off their passage if they wanted to go to the so-called new world.

So what exactly constitutes a real discussion?

Indeed, the Brits were also shipping captured Irish pagans to work in the West Indies as indentured servants -- not slaves -- meaning that (a) after some finite time period that servitude was "worked off" and they were freed; and (b) that neither they nor their offspring automatically became enslaved as a consequence of their race. Africans enjoyed neither of those conditions.

As we keep pointing out, the concept of racism was invented as a marketing gimmick to sell the idea that it was really OK to traffic in humans. Without that social concept it couldn't have been done. It was imperative to define to the outside world that their victims were really not "human". Once that was done there was gigantic money to be made.

What constitutes a "real discussion" for some of these yahoos is to have a monopoly on rhetoric, where nobody gets to refute their bullshit and they can echo their snowflakey little bubble of ignorance until they come in their sock.
 
Last edited:
Then why are you selling strawmen?

You have no clue in the world what a Composition Fallacy is, do you.
Don't deflect-modern day Americans are not responsible for reparations per
Then why are you selling strawmen?

You have no clue in the world what a Composition Fallacy is, do you.


WSJ: When the Slave Traders Were African- that's the OP
Modern day Americans should not pay reparations for slavery-period- because slave traders were African too-got it? And your foray into logical hocus pocus doesn't impress.

Nobody brought up a damn thing about "reparations", Dickhead. OP claimed African slaves first got here in 1619, I proved him wrong. And there's literally nothing you can do about that.
I'm glad you proved him wrong but you got stuck on a history lesson when I'm just saying since there were AFRICAN slave traders, that lets the US off the hook for reparations-if anything the Spanish should pay them.
But it doesn't let the US off the hook. This you don't seem to understand. Africans did not sail full ships of slaves here to be sold. And quite a few of the transactions were done deceitfully and fraudulently by whites. Try studying this before you make comments. You seem to be a little more intelligent than Aflac and this OP is full of holes. Pogo has pointed several of them out.
If I am correct (without looking it up) the Dutch brought the slaves first. They need their Karma leveled, but got it when the Nazis ravaged their country. I wonder how THEY would have treated Africans-good thing the US fought them so they never had to find out. Your're welcome.

Feel free to essplain to the class not only how a few traders from the 16th century constitute "the entire Dutch" but also how anyone living during the Nazi invasions had anything to do with slave trading.

Linear time: it's not just a good idea... It's the law.
 
I'm glad you proved him wrong but you got stuck on a history lesson when I'm just saying since there were AFRICAN slave traders, that lets the US off the hook for reparations-if anything the Spanish should pay them.

Once AGAIN r e a l s l o w n o w ------- nobody suggested there was a "hook" for any "reparations", Gummo.

OP posted a false history, AND tried to equate the transAtlantic slave trade with intracontinental African slavery, and he got busted on both of those boners. PERIOD.

I get that you're all butthurt because you can't refute my history so you want to change the subject. Tough shit.
I accept your history but not your attitude-it sucks. Leave my butt out of this unless your queer-then really stay away. No subject change-I gotta go-reply if you want to keep arguing, or let it go-up to you.

His attitude is justified, it's yours that needs adjusting. I don't know how you whites think you get to tell us how we are to talk about what's been done to us. I am sure if a Muslim came up to you pointing out how whites have terrorized their homeland so why are white not talking about that, you would not respond kindly. But somehow whites such as yourself seem to believe we have no right to be angry. However whites can be mad about anything they want and if need be they can threaten violence. That's the mentality of white privilege.
Slow down buckwheat. Its his attitude toward ME that needs adjusting. I don't care if you or anybody else is mad-that's your problem.

I freely admit I have a short fuse for willful stupidity. Don't insult my intelligence and everybody else's by acting like a fucking retard.
I KNOW you aren't talking to me-better direct that shit properly
 
Don't deflect-modern day Americans are not responsible for reparations per
WSJ: When the Slave Traders Were African- that's the OP
Modern day Americans should not pay reparations for slavery-period- because slave traders were African too-got it? And your foray into logical hocus pocus doesn't impress.

Nobody brought up a damn thing about "reparations", Dickhead. OP claimed African slaves first got here in 1619, I proved him wrong. And there's literally nothing you can do about that.
I'm glad you proved him wrong but you got stuck on a history lesson when I'm just saying since there were AFRICAN slave traders, that lets the US off the hook for reparations-if anything the Spanish should pay them.
But it doesn't let the US off the hook. This you don't seem to understand. Africans did not sail full ships of slaves here to be sold. And quite a few of the transactions were done deceitfully and fraudulently by whites. Try studying this before you make comments. You seem to be a little more intelligent than Aflac and this OP is full of holes. Pogo has pointed several of them out.
If I am correct (without looking it up) the Dutch brought the slaves first. They need their Karma leveled, but got it when the Nazis ravaged their country. I wonder how THEY would have treated Africans-good thing the US fought them so they never had to find out. Your're welcome.

Feel free to essplain to the class not only how a few traders from the 16th century constitute "the entire Dutch" but also how anyone living during the Nazi invasions had anything to do with slave trading.

Linear time: it's not just a good idea... It's the law.
The Dutch means some Dutch-duh. And the nazis had as much to do with slave trading as modern day Americans-nothing, so, NO REPARATIONS!
 

Forum List

Back
Top