Zone1 Black MAGAs are a clear and present danger

[Seymour Flops]

"Acted white"? You mean they acted like normal human beings, got an education, got a job, and became productive members of society.

Are you claiming that is a "white" thing?

Accusing black people who succeed by hard work and study of "acting white," is by far the idea that most holds black people back. It is no coincidence that the most successful black Americans in politics are not black descendants of the Americans slavery system, but immigrants or children of immigrants, like Barrack Obama, Kamala Harris, and Colin Powel.

Black Republicans like Condaleeza Rice, Ben Carson, Clarence Thomas, and Tim Scott had to overcome accusations of acting white by working hard and reading books, and THEN had to overcome accusations of being "Uncle Toms" for not going barefoot through the new cotton fields run by Massa Democrat.

 

[Coyote]

Northern Democrats strongly opposed the Emancipation Proclaimation, as not needed to end the war. Priot to that, northern Democrats opposed any federal efforts to ban slavery.

In 1860 the Democratic Party split over the issue of slavery. Northern Democrats nominated Stephen Douglas for president. His platform called for residents of each territory to decide whether to permit slavery. Southern Democrats nominated John C. Breckinridge and called for slavery’s expansion into the West. Members of the new Constitutional Party tried to avoid taking any controversial positions, and simply promised to maintain the Constitution, the Union, and the laws. Their nominee was John Bell.

Lincoln, the Republican candidate, won the election by carrying the North, but received less than 40 percent of the national popular vote.

"Yesterday, November the 7th, will long be a memorable day in Charleston. The tea has been thrown overboard—the revolution of 1860 has been initiated."
—Charleston Mercury newspaper, South Carolina, November 8, 1860

- A Fractured Election

Douglas ribbon. Gift of Michael V. DiSalle, 1979Douglas ticket. Gift of Anthony E. Starcevic, 1960Bell ribbon. Gift of Sara L. Lepman, 1978Bell ticket. Gift of Ralph E. Becker, 1959Breckinridge ribbon. Gift of Michael V. DiSalle, 1979Breckinridge ticket. Gift of Ralph E. Becker, 1959 In 1860 the...

americanhistory.si.edu

And now it's the Republicans...supporting white supremacy, largely in the states that were formerly Jim Crowe.

 

[Coyote]

Can anyone name some of the racist things that Republicans say and/or do?

Let’s stick with this century, shall we?

Let's apply it to the Democrats as well.

 

[Coyote]

Accusing black people who succeed by hard work and study of "acting white," is by far the idea that most holds black people back. It is no coincidence that the most successful black Americans in politics are not black descendants of the Americans slavery system, but immigrants or children of immigrants, like Barrack Obama, Kamala Harris, and Colin Powel.

Black Republicans like Condaleeza Rice, Ben Carson, Clarence Thomas, and Tim Scott had to overcome accusations of acting white by working hard and reading books, and THEN had to overcome accusations of being "Uncle Toms" for not going barefoot through the new cotton fields run by Massa Democrat.

And Colin Powell...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Black MAGAs are a clear and present danger

As the American conservative movement has morphed from racist dog whistles and white-grievance politics to full-blown fascism and white nationalism, Black MAGAs have enlisted as soldiers in the war against civil rights, voting rights, liberal democracy and racial justice. Unable to achieve their unpopular and toxic policies through the ballot box, MAGA intends to bring about their goals through white nationalist minority rule. And Black MAGAs are eager to oblige.

Lacking principles, these Black white nationalists say and do anything to please Trump, Trumpism and the white supremacist base. Never speaking ill of white folks, Black MAGAs will blame the Black community for anything and everything, never stand up for Black people, never help us and always throw us under the bus. They lack self-respect and scruples. However, they do collect a paycheck, which they will enjoy until such time as they are rendered useless and their services are no longer needed.

Black MAGAs are a clear and present danger

All skinfolk ain't kinfolk: Black MAGAs have joined the fight against civil rights, voting rights and racial justice.

thegrio.com

All skinfolk ain't kinfolk.

We as blacks are taught this as children. Basically it means just don't take sides with someone only because they are black. This is what makes the right wing claims of my racism laughable. And it is why we can oppose black MAGA sellouts. And it's funny that only a certain type of white individual hails these deplorables as independent thinkers.

MAGAts in general are a clear and present danger, regardless the race.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Let's apply it to the Democrats as well.

Agreed. I withdraw my comments about the original Democrats.

Present day Democrats are race-baiting bigots enough that we don't need to go back in history.

 

[Coyote]

Opposeing Affirmative Action, Black studies, and DEI isn't racism, it is anti-racism.

I disagree. Whether or not it is racist depends on how it's said or applied.

Opposing affirmative action because you feel decisions should based on merit alone isn't racist.

But what about who use that argument to promote the idea that black students can't succeed on merit alone, or they lack intelligence, and even if it is a rare achievement like acceptance into every Ivy League school, it is still discounted because she is black? Or those who the fact that that women benefited the most from it and focus only on race?

Opposing the teaching of black history...unless there is pedagogical reason, it is hard to see it as not being somewhat racist given so little history is taught that includes that view point and I don't see any other history courses being attacked.

Look at the 300 some books being banned. Exclude those that have even a fleeting contact with lgbtq characters or authors, what is left a hell of a lot of books by black authors, from a black point view, or featuring black characters....including award winning authors. It is hard not to see those decisions as suspiciously racist.

Diversity is a whole 'nother arguement, because both private industry and education have found benefits in a diverse workforce/campus...so why the opposition?

 

[Seymour Flops]

And Colin Powell...

I included powel in the list of black descendants of immigrants, rather than slaves. I'm going by memory, but I think his parents were from the Caribbean. He still might have had to put up with "you're acting white," but he would have had parent telling him, "we brought you here for the opportunity, so get into those books!"

 

[Hector12]

Voter suppression. Censoring books by blacks. Cutting black studies from curriculum, opposing Affirmative Action and DEI and enter these threadsc and read your posts and the posts of other whites. You guys suffer either from cognitive dissonance or psychosis. And don't tell me about staying in this century after you post about the Democratic party in the 1800's a lot then declare how blacks should be republicans.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion are the enemies of merit, qualifications, and excellence, which are the only factors that should matter. Affirmative action lowers standards for blacks. It creates no opportunities. It takes them from whites and east Asians who deserve them, and gives them to blacks who do not deserve them, and who cannot perform adequately in the positions to which they are advanced.

 

[Hector12]

An honest teaching of black history will teach that blacks were were not enslaved by whites. They were enslaved by other blacks, and sold to white slave traders during a time when black slavery was widespread in sub Saharan Africa, and when black slaves in sub Saharan Africa were the victims of cannibalism and human sacrifice.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I disagree. Whether or not it is racist depends on how it's said or applied.

Opposing affirmative action because you feel decisions should based on merit alone isn't racist.

But what about who use that argument to promote the idea that black students can't succeed on merit alone, or they lack intelligence, and even if it is a rare achievement like acceptance into every Ivy League school, it is still discounted because she is black?

I would argue that it is race-based Affirmative Action itself which promotes the idea that black students cannot succeed on merit alone, etc. There was a story recently about a young black kid who maxed out on the SATs. He wouldn't need Affirmative Action to succeed anywhere, but the assumption that he benefitted from it will always be there.

Or those who the fact that that women benefited the most from it and focus only on race?

Yes, women benefit from Affirmative Action also. Opposing that part of it it is therefore anti-sexist, not anti-racist.

Opposing the teaching of black history...unless there is pedagogical reason, it is hard to see it as not being somewhat racist given so little history is taught that includes that view point and I don't see any other history courses being attacked.

If all that was being taught was "black history," it is true that only racists would object. Nothing wrong with looking at American history from a black perspective. I would say that lessons like that are necessary because in their absence, it is too easy for American history to be "White History."

That is different from lessons in which students are taught that "one race, color, national origin, or sex are morally superior to members of another race, color, national origin, or sex" and that "a person, by virtue of his or her race, color, national origin, or sex is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously."

That is what the Florida law bans.

Agendized teacher organizations are claiming that teachers will fear to teach any black history because they might be accused of violating that law. That idea is being promoted in the media. I disagree that any reasonably intelligent teacher will fear that, and I believe that such objections are disengineous.

Look at the 300 some books being banned. Exclude those that have even a fleeting contact with lgbtq characters or authors, what is left a hell of a lot of books by black authors, from a black point view, or featuring black characters....including award winning authors. It is hard not to see those decisions as suspiciously racist.

It is not about "banning" books, it is about what books are displayed in tax-funded libraries and used in lessons taught in tax-funed schools. If not allowing a book in a public school lesson is "banning," then surely the Bible is the most banned book of all time.

I've heard more about and been more concerned about books with inappropriate for children sexual content than books with racial themes. When I saw the graphic drawings and read the graphic descriptions of an early teenager explicitely performing oral sex on another early teenager, I sure didn't think, 'well, wait . . . this'd be OK long as the dude who wrote this is white!'

Are there books removed from publicly funded venues due to racial themes? I haven't heard that much about them, but maybe I missed it. Examples, and I'll look them up.

Of course a book about a family that escapes from a slave plantation will have several heroic black characters and several villainous white characters. If someone object to that, I would disagree. But such a book would need to be sensitive to the possiblility that young readers could see it as a condemnation of whites. It should be part of a collection of books that include white abolitionists and of course the thousands of white who died freeing the slaves.

Diversity is a whole 'nother arguement, because both private industry and education have found benefits in a diverse workforce/campus...so why the opposition?

I have less problems with the idea of "diversity," if - IF - it doesn't turn into Affirmative Action with another name. My district has been re-drawn and we now have far more black students than before. But our teacher population is almost all white and Hispanic. We need to recruit more blacks, so that black students don't associate scholarliness with whiteness or Hispanicness.

Should have been recruiting them all along, so white and Hispanic students see successful black intellectuals.

But, that needs to be carefully monitored lest it turn into a merit-exclusionary quota system. "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion," in the corporate world sounds like an invitation to exactly that.

 

[Coyote]

Diversity, equity, and inclusion are the enemies of merit, qualifications, and excellence, which are the only factors that should matter. Affirmative action lowers standards for blacks. It creates no opportunities. It takes them from whites and east Asians who deserve them, and gives them to blacks who do not deserve them, and who cannot perform adequately in the positions to which they are advanced.

Whites have been the biggest recipients of AA.

 

[Hector12]

Whites have been the biggest recipients of AA.

Whites are not discriminated in favor of. We are discriminate against.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

An honest teaching of black history will teach that blacks were were not enslaved by whites. They were enslaved by other blacks, and sold to white slave traders during a time when black slavery was widespread in sub Saharan Africa, and when black slaves in sub Saharan Africa were the victims of cannibalism and human sacrifice.

All races on all continents were engaged in the slave trade. Buy slaves made the buyers enslavers themselves.

 

[Coyote]

I would argue that it is race-based Affirmative Action itself which promotes the idea that black students cannot succeed on merit alone, etc. There was a story recently about a young black kid who maxed out on the SATs. He wouldn't need Affirmative Action to succeed anywhere, but the assumption that he benefitted from it will always be there.


Yes, women benefit from Affirmative Action also. Opposing that part of it it is therefore anti-sexist, not anti-racist.

Yet I don't hear anyone opposing it.

If all that was being taught was "black history," it is true that only racists would object. Nothing wrong with looking at American history from a black perspective. I would say that lessons like that are necessary because in their absence, it is too easy for American history to be "White History."


That is different from lessons in which students are taught that "one race, color, national origin, or sex are morally superior to members of another race, color, national origin, or sex" and that "a person, by virtue of his or her race, color, national origin, or sex is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously."

That is what the Florida law bans.

That doesn't seem to be what is being taught however (for example, that was not part of the advanced placement course that was banned). When people oppose the teaching of Black History or Black Studies specifically, but have no issues with other ethnic studies, then it seems as if it could viewed as racist.

Agendized teacher organizations are claiming that teachers will fear to teach any black history because they might be accused of violating that law. That idea is being promoted in the media. I disagree that any reasonably intelligent teacher will fear that, and I believe that such objections are disengineous.

I don't disagree with that fear at all. The crux of the law is based on HOW a student or parent FEELS about the content. All it takes is one parental complaint. Look at what happened to the poor teacher who shoed a movie and thought she was following the rules. The rules are vague, the penalties harsh and the pay too low to risk it.

It is not about "banning" books, it is about what books are displayed in tax-funded libraries and used in lessons taught in tax-funed schools. If not allowing a book in a public school lesson is "banning," then surely the Bible is the most banned book of all time.

Yes, it is about banning books and it is very disengenius of you to pretend otherwise. Actually, the Bible (and other religious texts) are not banned from school reference shelves though they have gotten pulled for examination when a parent complains.

I've heard more about and been more concerned about books with inappropriate for children sexual content than books with racial themes. When I saw the graphic drawings and read the graphic descriptions of an early teenager explicitely performing oral sex on another early teenager, I sure didn't think, 'well, wait . . . this'd be OK long as the dude who wrote this is white!'

You are referencing one particular book out of 300 some banned books AND being a bit disengineous by conflating the books with inappropriate sexual content with books by black authors. In fact, I don't get why you even said that given I specifically excluded that category of books and pointed out the remaining books were primarily written by or about blacks. So why say that?

Are there books removed from publicly funded venues due to depicting one race as morally inferior oppressors of another group? I haven't heard that much about them, but maybe I missed it. Examples, and I'll look them up.

New Kid by Jerry Craft
Mae Among the Stars by Rhoda Ahmed
Crown: An Ode to a Fresh Cut by Derrick Barnes
Caste by Isabel Wilkinson
The Color Purple by Alice Walker
Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou
Hidden Figures by Margot Lee Shetterly
The 5 O'Clock Band by
Monday's Not Coming by Tiffany Jackson
They Called Themselves the K.K.K.: The Birth of an American Terrorist Group by Susan Bartoletti

Understand, that a book about a family that escapes from a slave plantation will have several heroic black characters and several villainous white characters. If someone object to that, I would disagree. But such a book would need to be sensitive to the possiblility that young readers could see it as a condemnation of whites.

And there is EXACTLY the problem with these laws! They higly subjective based on how someone "feels", so you forbid that book or this bit of history rather than use it as a discussion point. In the process you are also denying other kids THEIR stories because you assume someone will be offended. How is this any better than attempts at banning Huckleberry Finn or Brere Rabbit instead of using them to springboard discussion?

Here is the ultimate irony: after years of accusing leftists of being snowflakes, laughing about having "safe spaces", etc. etc. isn't this exactly what you are turning kids into now?

I have less problems with the idea of "diversity," if - IF - it doesn't turn into Affirmative Action with another name. My district has been re-drawn and we now have far more black students than before. But our teacher population is almost all white and Hispanic. We need to recruit more blacks, so that black students don't associate scholarliness with whiteness or Hispanicness.

Should have been recruiting them all along, so white and Hispanic students see successful black intellectuals.

But, that needs to be carefully monitored lest it turn into a merit-exclusionary quota system. "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion," in the corporate world sounds like an invitation to exactly that.

I agree with you except for the assumption that it is merit-exclusionary in the corporate world.

 

[westwall]

Whites have been the biggest recipients of AA.

How so? Can you give specific examples?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Yet I don't hear anyone opposing it.

Interesting. When I oppose Affirmative Action, I certainly include that part of Affirmative Action that discriminates against men in favor of women. But, the racial aspect of it does seem to be more discussed.

Off the top of my head, just spitballing, I have a theory as to why. It may be that a white male who opposes Affirmative Action is less concerned about AA that benefits women because he really does believe that women have inherent disadvantages in academics and employment. But in the black man he sees a person of equal, of not stronger physical ability, and equal if not better intellectual ability. Just a guess. If I'm right, such a man is guilty of sexism, but not racism.

In a way, the whole idea of girls' sports and women's sports is a form of Affirmative Action. If it were just "sports" open to everyone, few women would be on par with men. Few girls could compete in non-sex specific sports after puberty. The evil white Christian male demographic currently supports female sports far more strongly than feminists and Democrats do.

Not saying that AA for women is right. I get that it is harder for a woman to start as a construction worker and rise to be a contractor with large government contracts. But that doesn't mean she should get extra points when applying to medical school.

That doesn't seem to be what is being taught however (for example, that was not part of the advanced placement course that was banned). When people oppose the teaching of Black History or Black Studies specifically, but have no issues with other ethnic studies, then it seems as if it could viewed as racist.

Oh, yeah. If they oppose Black Studies, but not Latino studies or Native American studies, that would be racist.

I don't disagree with that fear at all. The crux of the law is based on HOW a student or parent FEELS about the content. All it takes is one parental complaint. Look at what happened to the poor teacher who shoed a movie and thought she was following the rules. The rules are vague, the penalties harsh and the pay too low to risk it.

I have a lot to say about that. I'll say it, but it might bore you, so if you want to skim it, I don't blame you.

The district investigation is over:

A first-year teacher at Winding Waters K-8 school, Barbee said she showed the 2022 film because it directly related to class curriculum, not because it portrayed Disney’s first openly gay character. The animated film tells the story of a family of explorers and Barbee said it was relevant to her lesson on ecosystems and the environment.

I doubt that seriously. This teacher decides to show 5th graders this particular movie with Disney's first openly gay character in Florida, which is currently mired in controversy over teaching sexual orientation to school children and controversy over the state government's actions in regard to Disney. But didn't take any of that into account? Just seemed like the perfect movie to further learning about econsystems? Right.

She wanted controversy and she got it. She wanted to be in the news, she's there. Poke the bear, if you like. But don't play the victim card when the bear growls at you.

Barbee was reported to the Florida Department of Education after a student told their mom, a member of the school board, about the film being shown. The school system subsequently opened its own investigation.

The final report from Hernando County says, “The investigation was completed regarding the parent complaint. You had the PG(-rated movies) approval forms for all of the students and had connected the movie to the curriculum being taught.” The school system maintained Barbee violated the staff handbook, saying, “You are reminded … that you must seek and receive administrative approval before showing a film or video.”

The report is signed by Cari O’Rourke, the principal at the school in Brooksville.

This seems to be the best outcome. She broke the rule and the district told her so. I don't know how the state investigation will come out, but she does have due process and can ask for a day in court if they decide to take adverse action.

She said she emailed the Office of Professional Practices Services at the Education Department requesting clarification, saying: “I had permission slips signed for the students but did not obtain approval for the specific film. I was under the impression that the permission slip was sufficient and was unaware of any policy or procedure in place concerning the approval of specific films.

“If there was such a policy or procedure in place, I am unaware of it ever being followed by my fellow teachers. This is not an excuse but I am a first year teacher and learn something new every day.”

Yes, she learned. She could have simply taken the lesson gracefully and had a better second year. She was not fired.

I'll say this about the policy that an administrator has to approve a movie. My district has the same policy, and I've never gotten approval for any movie I have shown (only during Summer School, which I make fun for my behavior kids). But I know the rule is there. My principal has seen me showing them and not said anything.

I would never show a movie that might be controversial in any way, and lead to a parent calling my principal. It would be a betrayal of their trust in pretending not to notice that I don't get pre-approval. My principals don't have time to analyze movies for appropriateness. They rely on college-educated teachers to know what is OK and what is not. The rule exists for teachers who deliberately show movies that they fear their principals would not approve. Like Ms. Barbee.

Ms. Barbee seems not to realize that when she takes a paycheck to stand in front of children, she isn't just Jenna, recent college grad (Kappa Delta, shout out!) showing an awesome movies to some kids she knows. She is an agent of the state entrusted with other people's children and expected to use good judgement. If she doesn't like Florida rules, she is welcome to move somewhere else.

Perhaps a Democrat run school district where she can help with their abyssmal literacy rates.

The law initially applied to kindergarten through third grade, but last month, Florida’s state education board voted to expand the law’s scope to include all grades through high school. Teachers who violate the state policy can be suspended or have their teaching licenses revoked.

Barbee didn’t know the law had been expanded to her grade level, she told CNN.

“I just found out today that they increased it to my level,” the fifth-grade teacher told CNN’s Alisyn Camerota last week. “I had no idea whatsoever that this was such a big deal.”

Really? I guess her union isn't keeping her informed. But, again . . . she wasn't fired. She got a letter that said she violated the policy, which she did. So far that's the extent of her persecution.

Barbee has not retained an attorney and will not return to the district next year. She told CNN she had already submitted her resignation a week before the incident due to “politics and the fear of not being able to be who you are” in the public school system. The last day of school for students is May 31.

Well, there you go. She had already resigned due to politics and not being able to be who you are, whatever she may mean by that. She showed the movie after she resigned as one last in-your-face to the district. Again, don't burn your bridge, toast marshmallows over the fire and then whine about the outcome.

Yes, it is about banning books and it is very disengenius of you to pretend otherwise. Actually, the Bible (and other religious texts) are not banned from school reference shelves though they have gotten pulled for examination when a parent complains.

"Ban" means no one is legally allowed to have it, like bump stocks, and switchblades. Amazon does land office business selling those supposedly "banned" books.

You are referencing one particular book out of 300 some banned books AND being a bit disengineous by conflating the books with inappropriate sexual content with books by black authors. In fact, I don't get why you even said that given I specifically excluded that category of books and pointed out the remaining books were primarily written by or about blacks. So why say that?

You brought up books "banned" due to racial content. I only pointed out that I've never spoken about them. I have spoken about the inappropriate sex books.

I'll talk about the racial books, but I need examples as I said, because I haven't followed that story.

New Kid by Jerry Craft
Mae Among the Stars by Rhoda Ahmed
Crown: An Ode to a Fresh Cut by Derrick Barnes
Caste by Isabel Wilkinson
The Color Purple by Alice Walker
Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou
Hidden Figures by Margot Lee Shetterly
The 5 O'Clock Band by
Monday's Not Coming by Tiffany Jackson
They Called Themselves the K.K.K.: The Birth of an American Terrorist Group by Susan Bartoletti

Thank you, I'll look into those. I know some of them, and if they were excluded from a school library, I would disagree with that exclusion.

Color purple, Caged bird, Hidden Figures, I would have no objection to.

But . . . I would be willing to listen with an open mind if someone had an argument that they don't belong in a library. Open mind is not possible once you play the "you're racist!" card.

Just out of curiousity, what is your take on removing books like Gone With the Wind, and "Adventures of Huckleberry Fynn" due to use of racial slurs?

And there is EXACTLY the problem with these laws! They higly subjective based on how someone "feels", so you forbid that book or this bit of history rather than use it as a discussion point. In the process you are also denying other kids THEIR stories because you assume someone will be offended. How is this any better than attempts at banning Huckleberry Finn or Brere Rabbit instead of using them to springboard discussion?

Oh, well I have my answer to the above question already.

Any objection to any book will be based on how people feel. We don't allow school children the use of the n-word because of how it makes their classmates feel. The syllables that it comprises have no objective harm, but the word evokes feelings. In a space in which a college would allow a bonfire, it would not allow a cross burning because of the way it would make people feel.

If parents fear their child will be made to "feel" attacked due to their race, parents have a duty to speak up.

Here is the ultimate irony: after years of accusing leftists of being snowflakes, laughing about having "safe spaces", etc. etc. isn't this exactly what you are turning kids into now?

I haven't heard of any one on the right demanding that adults stop speaking to adults about the historic wrongs of whites against blacks. The objection is to lessons intended to divide school children by race and to tell them that one race is born into guilt for historic wrongs, and current wrongs.

I agree with you except for the assumption that it is merit-exclusionary in the corporate world.

Fair. I would say that merit consideration often comes after quotas, i.e., they pick the best of the preferred demographic, and DEI could easily be that.

 

[Hector12]

All races on all continents were engaged in the slave trade. Buy slaves made the buyers enslavers themselves.

The white owner of black slaves did not make them slaves. He bought some of them. He inherited some. Others were born on his plantation.

The new woke convention of saying something like, "George Washington enslaved over 100 African Americans" is a way of absolving African Negroes from the essential role they played in the slave trade.

Medicine against African diseases was not invented until the African slave trade had been crushed by whites. Until then whites could not enter the interior of Africa to enslave anyone because they lacked resistances against African diseases. The work of turning free Negroes into Negro slaves was done by other Negroes.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The white owner of black slaves did not make them slaves. He bought some of them. He inherited some. Others were born on his plantation.

The new woke convention of saying something like, "George Washington enslaved over 100 African Americans" is a way of absolving African Negroes from the essential role they played in the slave trade.

Medicine against African diseases was not invented until the African slave trade had been crushed by whites. Until then whites could not enter the interior of Africa to enslave anyone because they lacked resistances against African diseases. The work of turning free Negroes into Negro slaves was done by other Negroes.

I said made the buyers enslavers, which is truth. You cannot hide with your nonsense. Faulkner was, is, and ever will be right in saying that racism/slavery is the cross America carries every day.

 

[Hector12]

I said made the buyers enslavers, which is truth. You cannot hide with your nonsense. Faulkner was, is, and ever will be right in saying that racism/slavery is the cross America carries every day.

The worst mistake European settlers and their descendants made in the New World was the slave trade. We would be better off if blacks had not been brought here.

While white slave traders bought Negro slaves from the Negroes who enslaved them, Arab slave traders were raiding the coasts of Europe all the way north to Iceland to enslave whites. Arab slave traders received no cooperation from whites.