American blacks of the present feel about their African cousins

Status
Not open for further replies.
Are you telling me that you think the average white person has good knowledge and understanding of history? And that Europe in the past was a nice place to live. You're mistaken on both counts. The average white American knows very little about history. And Europe a hundred years ago was a different place than today. Today's western Europeans have an easy life compared to their ancestors. Today's western Europeans in general, are wimps; their ancestors were some tough people. Eastern Europeans are still tough people. If the Russians ever made up their mind to take Western Europe, I don't think anybody can stop them, at least for the next few years.
I know what Europe was and I know that whites understand full well what has gone on in this country.
 
Americans today, the freest people on earth.
Well, I suppose it helps you to feel better about yourselves if you keep telling yourselves that. I think it would be unwise to go around believing that, though.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: IM2
I am curious, and I've been curious about this for a long time. How do American blacks of the present feel about their African cousins who sold their ancestors into slavery? If the Africans had not sold their ancestors into slavery, American blacks wouldn't be in America today. They would be in Africa, and not nearly as well off; life in America is much better than life in Africa. So how do American blacks feel about their African cousins? I know that some blacks claim that their ancestors were kidnapped by whites and transported to the Americas. But that is just crap.

During slave times, Europeans did not have the power to capture large numbers of people in Africa. And the kidnapping of individuals was both counterproductive and uneconomical. It would enrage local chiefs and kings and caused trouble; it wasn't worth it. The slave traders were in a wholesale business, and time was money. True Europeans had the gun, but the matchlock, the gun of the time, was not much of a weapon. The gun's only real advantage over the bow was easy to use; it required much less training. The Africans had the matchlock as well. And Africans were organized into nations with kings and armies; a few whites in a boat had little chance of overcoming a country or even a village. It was the local kings who captured entire armies of blacks and sold them into slavery

You've never been to Africa, have you?
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: IM2
No, they yours that. Because I know the full story. You cling to a half truth and deny the role whites had in coeercing tribes to sell them slaves. Whites had guns, that played a big role. And the real amount of restistance Africans put up, you also deny.
A matchlock, or even a flintlock was lucky to fire four rounds per minute. A bow could fire at least twenty AND was more accurate than the smoothbore muskets the Europeans used. Guns were NOT an advantage in the African jungles or on the Savannahs.
 
No, they yours that. Because I know the full story. You cling to a half truth and deny the role whites had in coeercing tribes to sell them slaves. Whites had guns, that played a big role. And the real amount of restistance Africans put up, you also deny.
Slave ships with crews of twenty to thirty men were not in any position to deal with resistance from African tribes. All the African chiefs and kings had to say was go away and the slave ships would have looked elsewhere for slaves to buy.
 
Incorrect.

And according to the articles you posted it's all illegal and the practitioners are sent to jail when caught.
 
A matchlock, or even a flintlock was lucky to fire four rounds per minute. A bow could fire at least twenty AND was more accurate than the smoothbore muskets the Europeans used. Guns were NOT an advantage in the African jungles or on the Savannahs.
That's incorrect. If guns were so innaccurate there would have been no colonization or slave trade. It's time to stop the denial.
 
Slave ships with crews of twenty to thirty men were not in any position to deal with resistance from African tribes. All the African chiefs and kings had to say was go away and the slave ships would have looked elsewhere for slaves to buy.
Again, you need to stop the denials. If all the African kings had to say was go away and the Europeans would have left, there would have been no slave trade. Things did not happen like you want to try making me believe.
 
That's incorrect. If guns were so innaccurate there would have been no colonization or slave trade. It's time to stop the denial.
You are really ignorant. Smoothbore muskets were so inaccurate that they often didn't even have sights. Formations armed with smoothbore muskets had to close to within thirty yards of each other to even have hopes of getting hits on someone. Why do you think you see paintings and even movies of large formations shooting at each other from short range and surviving? Here's a photo of a Brown Bess Musket, the main British Army weapon from the early seventeen hundreds to the mid eighteen hundreds. Note it has NO sights at all.
1656798523151.png
It wasn't until the wide-spread usage of rifled muskets in the eighteen fifties that soldiers were even taught marksmanship.
 
Last edited:
Again, you need to stop the denials. If all the African kings had to say was go away and the Europeans would have left, there would have been no slave trade. Things did not happen like you want to try making me believe.
So, if an African King or Chief said go away, how did the twenty- or thirty-man crew of a slave ship make him change his mind? He could field over a hundred warriors who knew the territory well and were armed with bows or atlatls (spear throwers) that could fire further and were more accurate than the smoothbore muskets the crew were armed with AND didn't belch a large cloud of grey-white smoke every time they were fired. Give it up you are just making yourself look stupid.
 
Last edited:
Again, you need to stop the denials. If all the African kings had to say was go away and the Europeans would have left, there would have been no slave trade. Things did not happen like you want to try making me believe.
If the African kings and chiefs had told the Europeans to go away, you are correct there would have been no slave trade.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum List

Back
Top