How Far Back In American History Are Blacks Allowed To Go Back?

[MarcATL]

How about yesterday.....and go forward from there........using racism to end racism never makes any sense......which is what the left wing lives on, derives power from, and will use to keep minorities under their control....

Tell me something bub, do you subscribe to using crime to fight crime too?

 

[MarcATL]

Blacks and conservatives should be able to go back to the same time; the civil war.

Do you remember the whitelash that occurred directly after, and as a result of, the Civil Rights Movement?

 

[MarcATL]

What about other people that aren’t black that are poor? Should we then cut them a check because “it takes money to make money”? Yeah historically blacks have been treated badly, however that isn’t the case today. We need to stop with this identity politics. It’s a plague on our society and is getting worse and worse.

Isn't the label "working class voters" a political identity?

How about "Bible Belt voters?" Isn't that an identity too?

 

[2aguy]

How about yesterday.....and go forward from there........using racism to end racism never makes any sense......which is what the left wing lives on, derives power from, and will use to keep minorities under their control....

Tell me something bub, do you subscribe to using crime to fight crime too?

Nope. How does racism defeat racism and not create racism from the people who aren't racists who are now being targeted by racist democrats?

 

[Pogo]

I've seen the sentiment of "stop looking back into the past" , "oh, you're only hampering yourself", "look forward, don't look back", "you're in chains", etc. etc. spewed on USMB by almost exclusively rightwing whites.

All I want to know is, what year is it OK to go back to? What date is the cut off for starting American history will make whites happy?

If you have the exact time as well, that would be a bonus.

Far as I know, 1534. Unless you want to count South America and the Caribbean which would date to slightly earlier.

In 1534 a Spanish fleet arrived in what is now South Carolina with, I think about 150 captured Africans. Happily, those captives rose up and overthrew their captors and escaped to live with the indigenous tribes. Those that followed were not so successful, though they tried.

What about before that.....the Africans who held their own people as slaves....and who currently have a thriving slave trade in several parts of today's Africa? The Europeans didn't capture the slaves, Africans did.....when Black Americans finally turn on their African ancestors it will be the moment they will begin to finally be free of the democrat slave party.

What an ignorant post. "The Africans", really? Are "The Africans" some kind of Borg now?

"The Europeans" were holding their own people as slaves too, long as you don't distinguish between "Greeks" and "Romans" and so on.

Holy shit, "The Africans". Doesn't that speak volumes. Oh by the way "The Americans" did the same thing, and so did "The Asians" Broad Brush-R-Us.

Here's what (else) you don't get.

Slavery, as practiced throughout the world on every continent except Antarctica, had been a consequence of the "spoils of war". When my tribe conquers your tribe we take your land, your cattle, your houses, your women, your youth to do our work for us as slaves. When your tribe conquers mine you do the same. People become part of "territory".

The TransAtlantic slave trade was a whole different thing. This time those captive people were transported thousands of miles to another continent altogether, a place as incomprehensible to them as aliens abducting us to planet Zorg would be to us. There they were barked at in an unfamiliar language and had their own cultures, languages, religions and even their own family ties obliterated. NONE of that would have happened under "traditional" slavery. They would have been in a familiar place around familiar cultures and familiar languages. So they're in no way the same thing.

Besides which, who do you think SET UP that system? Colonial Inuits?

But no, let's reduce all that to "The Africans" as if "they all look alike to me".

 

[MarcATL]

Nope. How does racism defeat racism and not create racism from the people who aren't racists who are now being targeted by racist democrats?

I dunno, you tell me.

I'm not the one who came up w/that logic or term, you did.

What you, and your ilk, are doing, sir, is labeling fighting and/or speaking out against racism, as racism. That's ludicrous.

But put that aside for a moment, do you understand what institutional aka structural racism is?

 

[OldLady]

You still haven't answered my question. Why should they be eligible for reparations? They weren't slaves, they weren't discriminated against (if they lived), didn't have their human rights shit all over.

So they fought and risked their lives to free someone else...but you think their descendants should still be responsible for paying reparations to the descendants of those that they freed? I'm sorry, Old Lady but I don't see the justice in that...just saying...

This is a good example of why I don't think "reparations" for slavery is a good approach to take. There are still serious problems in some black communities and it DOES affect us, whether you and I are personally faced with it every day or not. As concerned Americans, we should WANT to help our neighbors overcome those difficulties. Even if your only reason is that it costs a lot to arrest, convict and incarcerate them, you should want to see those problems addressed, too.

The root of many of those problems is way back in the inhumane way the system treated blacks in general, even after the Civil War. The slaves got freed without a pot to piss in. Some remained on the plantations where they had been enslaved because they didn't have anywhere else to go. Most had been forbidden by law to learn to read and write. Many had had their families sold, many had not grown up with their parents, many black men saw their women raped by their white owners and couldn't do a damned thing about it. Everyone of them had been treated like an animal, the 3/5 of a human being that was defined by our government and that branded you if even a great grandparent had a drop of black blood. And then, overnight, they're "free," which means they can walk, unemployed and homeless, wherever they wish.

Great.

Imagine, if you can, what kind of personality you would develop going through all of that. If you ask me, it is a testament to humanity that so many blacks rose above all that as quickly as they did. But then the white guys reasserted their power and Jim Crow and legal segregation and voter suppression and groups like the KKK brought us all the way to the 1960's and, finally, someone said NO.

I know I'm focusing on the worst side of this--in the south there was a strong patriarchal feeling among many white owners toward their freed black slaves and their relations there were probably better in a lot of ways than what they were up north, where those who had fought to free the slaves did NOT want them moving to their neighborhoods. These freed slaves were illiterate, spoke with a thick accent, had holes in their shoes and had come from a culture where obeisance and servitude were demanded.

How do you think they would be viewed and treated?

I don't think we can make up for all that with a check. I think Affirmative Action, desegregation and a number of other programs to combat poverty and gangs in black communities are a partial payment. Personally, I think it would be better to expand those programs and flood the struggling African American communities with every possible opportunity to break the cycle of poverty and gang/thug violence. It's awful to hear of all the young people shooting each other over nothing. But I'm not black, so what do I know about it.

Breaking the cycles of poverty, violence, and fatherlessness starts and ends with the black community. It’s their responsibility. Government is not the answer. You liberals think government is the answer to everything. It’s not. When you look at other immigrant groups or minorities that have rags to riches stories, that didn’t happen because the government got involved.

We have never had another "immigrant group" treated the way blacks were.

My mother always said, it takes money to make money. That's usually true. I certainly understand the concept IM2 is presenting. It is sound. I just think the implementation will be fraught with .... problems.

What about other people that aren’t black that are poor? Should we then cut them a check because “it takes money to make money”? Yeah historically blacks have been treated badly, however that isn’t the case today. We need to stop with this identity politics. It’s a plague on our society and is getting worse and worse.

Like I've been saying, I'm not sure cutting everyone an individual check is the best answer. However, you are correct that many of the problems in the black community are a POVERTY problem, not a race problem, except that racism is what left so many black people poor to begin with. I work with poor white folks, have for years. A lot of the same problems here with welfare, irresponsible fathers, domestic violence, drug addiction, crime, etc. etc. Kids drop out of school, can't find a decent job, sire a couple of kids, get stuck in a rut. Parents don't teach 'em how to succeed because THEY didn't succeed, and they don't know how to teach it.

 

[2aguy]

I've seen the sentiment of "stop looking back into the past" , "oh, you're only hampering yourself", "look forward, don't look back", "you're in chains", etc. etc. spewed on USMB by almost exclusively rightwing whites.

All I want to know is, what year is it OK to go back to? What date is the cut off for starting American history will make whites happy?

If you have the exact time as well, that would be a bonus.

Far as I know, 1534. Unless you want to count South America and the Caribbean which would date to slightly earlier.

In 1534 a Spanish fleet arrived in what is now South Carolina with, I think about 150 captured Africans. Happily, those captives rose up and overthrew their captors and escaped to live with the indigenous tribes. Those that followed were not so successful, though they tried.

What about before that.....the Africans who held their own people as slaves....and who currently have a thriving slave trade in several parts of today's Africa? The Europeans didn't capture the slaves, Africans did.....when Black Americans finally turn on their African ancestors it will be the moment they will begin to finally be free of the democrat slave party.

What an ignorant post. "The Africans", really? Are "The Africans" some kind of Borg now?

"The Europeans" were holding their own people as slaves too, long as you don't distinguish between "Greeks" and "Romans" and so on.

Holy shit, "The Africans". Doesn't that speak volumes. Oh by the way "The Americans" did the same thing, and so did "The Asians" Broad Brush-R-Us.

Here's what (else) you don't get.

Slavery, as practiced throughout the world on every continent except Antarctica, had been a consequence of the "spoils of war". When my tribe conquers your tribe we take your land, your cattle, your houses, your women, your youth to do our work for us as slaves. When your tribe conquers mine you do the same. People become part of "territory".

The TransAtlantic slave trade was a whole different thing. This time those captive people were transported thousands of miles to another continent altogether, a place as incomprehensible to them as aliens abducting us to planet Zorg would be to us. There they were barked at in an unfamiliar language and had their own cultures, languages, religions and even their own family ties obliterated. NONE of that would have happened under "traditional" slavery. They would have been in a familiar place around familiar cultures and familiar languages. So they're in no way the same thing.

Besides which, who do you think SET UP that system? Colonial Inuits?

But no, let's reduce all that to "The Africans" as if "they all look alike to me".

Yes....moron, slavery was a world wide activity....ended here through a Civil War.....the Trans Atlantic slave trade was based on sales of African Slaves by African tribes......without those African slave takers, there would have been no African slaves in the U.S.....

Africans made the Trans Atlantic Slave trade.........they sold their victims to Europeans....the Americans ended slavery, there is still actual slavery in parts of Africa.....

 

[2aguy]

So they fought and risked their lives to free someone else...but you think their descendants should still be responsible for paying reparations to the descendants of those that they freed? I'm sorry, Old Lady but I don't see the justice in that...just saying...

This is a good example of why I don't think "reparations" for slavery is a good approach to take. There are still serious problems in some black communities and it DOES affect us, whether you and I are personally faced with it every day or not. As concerned Americans, we should WANT to help our neighbors overcome those difficulties. Even if your only reason is that it costs a lot to arrest, convict and incarcerate them, you should want to see those problems addressed, too.

The root of many of those problems is way back in the inhumane way the system treated blacks in general, even after the Civil War. The slaves got freed without a pot to piss in. Some remained on the plantations where they had been enslaved because they didn't have anywhere else to go. Most had been forbidden by law to learn to read and write. Many had had their families sold, many had not grown up with their parents, many black men saw their women raped by their white owners and couldn't do a damned thing about it. Everyone of them had been treated like an animal, the 3/5 of a human being that was defined by our government and that branded you if even a great grandparent had a drop of black blood. And then, overnight, they're "free," which means they can walk, unemployed and homeless, wherever they wish.

Great.

Imagine, if you can, what kind of personality you would develop going through all of that. If you ask me, it is a testament to humanity that so many blacks rose above all that as quickly as they did. But then the white guys reasserted their power and Jim Crow and legal segregation and voter suppression and groups like the KKK brought us all the way to the 1960's and, finally, someone said NO.

I know I'm focusing on the worst side of this--in the south there was a strong patriarchal feeling among many white owners toward their freed black slaves and their relations there were probably better in a lot of ways than what they were up north, where those who had fought to free the slaves did NOT want them moving to their neighborhoods. These freed slaves were illiterate, spoke with a thick accent, had holes in their shoes and had come from a culture where obeisance and servitude were demanded.

How do you think they would be viewed and treated?

I don't think we can make up for all that with a check. I think Affirmative Action, desegregation and a number of other programs to combat poverty and gangs in black communities are a partial payment. Personally, I think it would be better to expand those programs and flood the struggling African American communities with every possible opportunity to break the cycle of poverty and gang/thug violence. It's awful to hear of all the young people shooting each other over nothing. But I'm not black, so what do I know about it.

Breaking the cycles of poverty, violence, and fatherlessness starts and ends with the black community. It’s their responsibility. Government is not the answer. You liberals think government is the answer to everything. It’s not. When you look at other immigrant groups or minorities that have rags to riches stories, that didn’t happen because the government got involved.

We have never had another "immigrant group" treated the way blacks were.

My mother always said, it takes money to make money. That's usually true. I certainly understand the concept IM2 is presenting. It is sound. I just think the implementation will be fraught with .... problems.

What about other people that aren’t black that are poor? Should we then cut them a check because “it takes money to make money”? Yeah historically blacks have been treated badly, however that isn’t the case today. We need to stop with this identity politics. It’s a plague on our society and is getting worse and worse.

Like I've been saying, I'm not sure cutting everyone an individual check is the best answer. However, you are correct that many of the problems in the black community are a POVERTY problem, not a race problem, except that racism is what left so many black people poor to begin with. I work with poor white folks, have for years. A lot of the same problems here with welfare, irresponsible fathers, domestic violence, drug addiction, crime, etc. etc. Kids drop out of school, can't find a decent job, sire a couple of kids, get stuck in a rut. Parents don't teach 'em how to succeed because THEY didn't succeed, and they don't know how to teach it.

No...the problems in the Black community are out of wedlock birth.....single teenage girls with children from multiple males in communities where this is the norm, not the exception..........fatherless, broken homes creates poverty and crime, not the other way around.

 

[2aguy]

Blacks and conservatives should be able to go back to the same time; the civil war.

Do you remember the whitelash that occurred directly after, and as a result of, the Civil Rights Movement?

Yes....the democrats were mad that they couldn't keep Blacks from voting......so they came up with the new strategy...destroy Black families through welfare, get them hooked on the democrat party...

 

[xband]

I've seen the sentiment of "stop looking back into the past" , "oh, you're only hampering yourself", "look forward, don't look back", "you're in chains", etc. etc. spewed on USMB by almost exclusively rightwing whites.

All I want to know is, what year is it OK to go back to? What date is the cut off for starting American history will make whites happy?

If you have the exact time as well, that would be a bonus.

All the way back to Creation which is their right. 13.7 billion years ago and I can only hope that blacks debunk the Big Bang Theory, If blacks support the Steady State Theory then I am on their side. edit: Anyone who does not believe in the Big Bang is a crackpot, Alan Guth.

 

[MarcATL]

Yes....the democrats were mad that they couldn't keep Blacks from voting......so they came up with the new strategy...destroy Black families through welfare, get them hooked on the democrat party...

You can single out that they were Democrats, which is politically convenient for you.

However, I can point out the fact that they were all whites, in the South.

So are you sure you want to continue that pattern of assigning blame to the group that did those things unto the same group today?

 

[OldLady]

I've seen the sentiment of "stop looking back into the past" , "oh, you're only hampering yourself", "look forward, don't look back", "you're in chains", etc. etc. spewed on USMB by almost exclusively rightwing whites.

All I want to know is, what year is it OK to go back to? What date is the cut off for starting American history will make whites happy?

If you have the exact time as well, that would be a bonus.

Far as I know, 1534. Unless you want to count South America and the Caribbean which would date to slightly earlier.

In 1534 a Spanish fleet arrived in what is now South Carolina with, I think about 150 captured Africans. Happily, those captives rose up and overthrew their captors and escaped to live with the indigenous tribes. Those that followed were not so successful, though they tried.

What about before that.....the Africans who held their own people as slaves....and who currently have a thriving slave trade in several parts of today's Africa? The Europeans didn't capture the slaves, Africans did.....when Black Americans finally turn on their African ancestors it will be the moment they will begin to finally be free of the democrat slave party.

What an ignorant post. "The Africans", really? Are "The Africans" some kind of Borg now?

"The Europeans" were holding their own people as slaves too, long as you don't distinguish between "Greeks" and "Romans" and so on.

Holy shit, "The Africans". Doesn't that speak volumes. Oh by the way "The Americans" did the same thing, and so did "The Asians" Broad Brush-R-Us.

Here's what (else) you don't get.

Slavery, as practiced throughout the world on every continent except Antarctica, had been a consequence of the "spoils of war". When my tribe conquers your tribe we take your land, your cattle, your houses, your women, your youth to do our work for us as slaves. When your tribe conquers mine you do the same. People become part of "territory".

The TransAtlantic slave trade was a whole different thing. This time those captive people were transported thousands of miles to another continent altogether, a place as incomprehensible to them as aliens abducting us to planet Zorg would be to us. There they were barked at in an unfamiliar language and had their own cultures, languages, religions and even their own family ties obliterated. NONE of that would have happened under "traditional" slavery. They would have been in a familiar place around familiar cultures and familiar languages. So they're in no way the same thing.

Besides which, who do you think SET UP that system? Colonial Inuits?

But no, let's reduce all that to "The Africans" as if "they all look alike to me".

Yes....moron, slavery was a world wide activity....ended here through a Civil War.....the Trans Atlantic slave trade was based on sales of African Slaves by African tribes......without those African slave takers, there would have been no African slaves in the U.S.....

Africans made the Trans Atlantic Slave trade.........they sold their victims to Europeans....the Americans ended slavery, there is still actual slavery in parts of Africa.....

This is a good example of why I don't think "reparations" for slavery is a good approach to take. There are still serious problems in some black communities and it DOES affect us, whether you and I are personally faced with it every day or not. As concerned Americans, we should WANT to help our neighbors overcome those difficulties. Even if your only reason is that it costs a lot to arrest, convict and incarcerate them, you should want to see those problems addressed, too.

The root of many of those problems is way back in the inhumane way the system treated blacks in general, even after the Civil War. The slaves got freed without a pot to piss in. Some remained on the plantations where they had been enslaved because they didn't have anywhere else to go. Most had been forbidden by law to learn to read and write. Many had had their families sold, many had not grown up with their parents, many black men saw their women raped by their white owners and couldn't do a damned thing about it. Everyone of them had been treated like an animal, the 3/5 of a human being that was defined by our government and that branded you if even a great grandparent had a drop of black blood. And then, overnight, they're "free," which means they can walk, unemployed and homeless, wherever they wish.

Great.

Imagine, if you can, what kind of personality you would develop going through all of that. If you ask me, it is a testament to humanity that so many blacks rose above all that as quickly as they did. But then the white guys reasserted their power and Jim Crow and legal segregation and voter suppression and groups like the KKK brought us all the way to the 1960's and, finally, someone said NO.

I know I'm focusing on the worst side of this--in the south there was a strong patriarchal feeling among many white owners toward their freed black slaves and their relations there were probably better in a lot of ways than what they were up north, where those who had fought to free the slaves did NOT want them moving to their neighborhoods. These freed slaves were illiterate, spoke with a thick accent, had holes in their shoes and had come from a culture where obeisance and servitude were demanded.

How do you think they would be viewed and treated?

I don't think we can make up for all that with a check. I think Affirmative Action, desegregation and a number of other programs to combat poverty and gangs in black communities are a partial payment. Personally, I think it would be better to expand those programs and flood the struggling African American communities with every possible opportunity to break the cycle of poverty and gang/thug violence. It's awful to hear of all the young people shooting each other over nothing. But I'm not black, so what do I know about it.

Breaking the cycles of poverty, violence, and fatherlessness starts and ends with the black community. It’s their responsibility. Government is not the answer. You liberals think government is the answer to everything. It’s not. When you look at other immigrant groups or minorities that have rags to riches stories, that didn’t happen because the government got involved.

We have never had another "immigrant group" treated the way blacks were.

My mother always said, it takes money to make money. That's usually true. I certainly understand the concept IM2 is presenting. It is sound. I just think the implementation will be fraught with .... problems.

What about other people that aren’t black that are poor? Should we then cut them a check because “it takes money to make money”? Yeah historically blacks have been treated badly, however that isn’t the case today. We need to stop with this identity politics. It’s a plague on our society and is getting worse and worse.

Like I've been saying, I'm not sure cutting everyone an individual check is the best answer. However, you are correct that many of the problems in the black community are a POVERTY problem, not a race problem, except that racism is what left so many black people poor to begin with. I work with poor white folks, have for years. A lot of the same problems here with welfare, irresponsible fathers, domestic violence, drug addiction, crime, etc. etc. Kids drop out of school, can't find a decent job, sire a couple of kids, get stuck in a rut. Parents don't teach 'em how to succeed because THEY didn't succeed, and they don't know how to teach it.

No...the problems in the Black community are out of wedlock birth.....single teenage girls with children from multiple males in communities where this is the norm, not the exception..........fatherless, broken homes creates poverty and crime, not the other way around.

I have a feeling you should stick to your gun threads, Guy. You don't have much background on this, obviously.

 

[Pogo]

I've seen the sentiment of "stop looking back into the past" , "oh, you're only hampering yourself", "look forward, don't look back", "you're in chains", etc. etc. spewed on USMB by almost exclusively rightwing whites.

All I want to know is, what year is it OK to go back to? What date is the cut off for starting American history will make whites happy?

If you have the exact time as well, that would be a bonus.

Far as I know, 1534. Unless you want to count South America and the Caribbean which would date to slightly earlier.

In 1534 a Spanish fleet arrived in what is now South Carolina with, I think about 150 captured Africans. Happily, those captives rose up and overthrew their captors and escaped to live with the indigenous tribes. Those that followed were not so successful, though they tried.

What about before that.....the Africans who held their own people as slaves....and who currently have a thriving slave trade in several parts of today's Africa? The Europeans didn't capture the slaves, Africans did.....when Black Americans finally turn on their African ancestors it will be the moment they will begin to finally be free of the democrat slave party.

What an ignorant post. "The Africans", really? Are "The Africans" some kind of Borg now?

"The Europeans" were holding their own people as slaves too, long as you don't distinguish between "Greeks" and "Romans" and so on.

Holy shit, "The Africans". Doesn't that speak volumes. Oh by the way "The Americans" did the same thing, and so did "The Asians" Broad Brush-R-Us.

Here's what (else) you don't get.

Slavery, as practiced throughout the world on every continent except Antarctica, had been a consequence of the "spoils of war". When my tribe conquers your tribe we take your land, your cattle, your houses, your women, your youth to do our work for us as slaves. When your tribe conquers mine you do the same. People become part of "territory".

The TransAtlantic slave trade was a whole different thing. This time those captive people were transported thousands of miles to another continent altogether, a place as incomprehensible to them as aliens abducting us to planet Zorg would be to us. There they were barked at in an unfamiliar language and had their own cultures, languages, religions and even their own family ties obliterated. NONE of that would have happened under "traditional" slavery. They would have been in a familiar place around familiar cultures and familiar languages. So they're in no way the same thing.

Besides which, who do you think SET UP that system? Colonial Inuits?

But no, let's reduce all that to "The Africans" as if "they all look alike to me".

Yes....moron, slavery was a world wide activity....ended here through a Civil War.....the Trans Atlantic slave trade was based on sales of African Slaves by African tribes......without those African slave takers, there would have been no African slaves in the U.S.....

Africans made the Trans Atlantic Slave trade.........they sold their victims to Europeans....the Americans ended slavery, there is still actual slavery in parts of Africa.....

NO STUPID. It was based on merchants, out to make money, who used human cargo to do it by shipping them from their OLD colonial continent to their NEW ones.

But hey, let's blame the victims.

As for your colonialist "the Americans ended slavery" fable, guess what, the French, the Spanish, the Dutch and the Brits had already done so, so that was already inevitable to the latecomers in the CSA. Had they been allowed their slave State it would have collapsed gradually rather than suddenly. Slavery was well on the way out when the indolent plantationists were still clinging to it. They in their time, like you now, were practicing the art of Self-Delusion.

 

[2aguy]

Yes....the democrats were mad that they couldn't keep Blacks from voting......so they came up with the new strategy...destroy Black families through welfare, get them hooked on the democrat party...

You can single out that they were Democrats, which is politically convenient for you.

However, I can point out the fact that they were all whites, in the South.

So are you sure you want to continue that pattern of assigning blame to the group that did those things unto the same group today?

The democrats in the South....yes.... and the democrat party is still the party of racism...they simply expanded their racism to include the racists of all skin colors....

La Raza.....latino racist.
Black Panther Party....black racists.
Congressional Black Caucus...black racists.


Core groups of the democrat party....all racists....

 

[MarcATL]

The democrats in the South....yes.... and the democrat party is still the party of racism...they simply expanded their racism to include the racists of all skin colors....

La Raza.....latino racist.
Black Panther Party....black racists.
Congressional Black Caucus...black racists.


Core groups of the democrat party....all racists....

It was the Southern culture, to have blacks as subsidiary to whites.

They wanted them subjugate, this is stated and backed up by history.

So it wasn't just southern Democrats, but the entire South...aka all whites in the South.

You still want to hold on to that strategy of yours now presented w/the facts?

 

[2aguy]

I've seen the sentiment of "stop looking back into the past" , "oh, you're only hampering yourself", "look forward, don't look back", "you're in chains", etc. etc. spewed on USMB by almost exclusively rightwing whites.

All I want to know is, what year is it OK to go back to? What date is the cut off for starting American history will make whites happy?

If you have the exact time as well, that would be a bonus.

Far as I know, 1534. Unless you want to count South America and the Caribbean which would date to slightly earlier.

In 1534 a Spanish fleet arrived in what is now South Carolina with, I think about 150 captured Africans. Happily, those captives rose up and overthrew their captors and escaped to live with the indigenous tribes. Those that followed were not so successful, though they tried.

What about before that.....the Africans who held their own people as slaves....and who currently have a thriving slave trade in several parts of today's Africa? The Europeans didn't capture the slaves, Africans did.....when Black Americans finally turn on their African ancestors it will be the moment they will begin to finally be free of the democrat slave party.

What an ignorant post. "The Africans", really? Are "The Africans" some kind of Borg now?

"The Europeans" were holding their own people as slaves too, long as you don't distinguish between "Greeks" and "Romans" and so on.

Holy shit, "The Africans". Doesn't that speak volumes. Oh by the way "The Americans" did the same thing, and so did "The Asians" Broad Brush-R-Us.

Here's what (else) you don't get.

Slavery, as practiced throughout the world on every continent except Antarctica, had been a consequence of the "spoils of war". When my tribe conquers your tribe we take your land, your cattle, your houses, your women, your youth to do our work for us as slaves. When your tribe conquers mine you do the same. People become part of "territory".

The TransAtlantic slave trade was a whole different thing. This time those captive people were transported thousands of miles to another continent altogether, a place as incomprehensible to them as aliens abducting us to planet Zorg would be to us. There they were barked at in an unfamiliar language and had their own cultures, languages, religions and even their own family ties obliterated. NONE of that would have happened under "traditional" slavery. They would have been in a familiar place around familiar cultures and familiar languages. So they're in no way the same thing.

Besides which, who do you think SET UP that system? Colonial Inuits?

But no, let's reduce all that to "The Africans" as if "they all look alike to me".

Yes....moron, slavery was a world wide activity....ended here through a Civil War.....the Trans Atlantic slave trade was based on sales of African Slaves by African tribes......without those African slave takers, there would have been no African slaves in the U.S.....

Africans made the Trans Atlantic Slave trade.........they sold their victims to Europeans....the Americans ended slavery, there is still actual slavery in parts of Africa.....

NO STUPID. It was based on merchants, out to make money, who used human cargo to do it by shipping them from their OLD colonial continent to their NEW ones.

But hey, let's blame the victims.

As for your colonialist "the Americans ended slavery" fable, guess what, the French, the Spanish, the Dutch and the Brits had already done so, so that was already inevitable to the latecomers in the CSA. Had they been allowed their slave State it would have collapsed gradually rather than suddenly.

The only way the "merchants" got the slaves is the African slave catchers caught fellow Africans, To make Money.......transported them to the coast and sold them......no African slave sellers, no African slaves.....

Not blaming the victims....blaming the ones who did the work of capturing fellow human beings and selling them for profit....the African and Arab Slave traders....

 

[2aguy]

The democrats in the South....yes.... and the democrat party is still the party of racism...they simply expanded their racism to include the racists of all skin colors....

La Raza.....latino racist.
Black Panther Party....black racists.
Congressional Black Caucus...black racists.


Core groups of the democrat party....all racists....

It was the Southern culture, to have blacks as subsidiary to whites.

They wanted them subjugate, this is stated and backed up by history.

So it wasn't just southern Democrats, but the entire South.

You still want to hold on to that strategy of yours now presented w/the facts?

The South was controlled by democrats.......the democrats created the klan, tried to keep slavery, going to war to keep it, and instituted jim crow, poll taxes and literacy tests.......

Democrat party is the party of racism and misogyny.......

 

[MarcATL]

The South was controlled by democrats.......the democrats created the klan, tried to keep slavery, going to war to keep it, and instituted jim crow, poll taxes and literacy tests.......

Democrat party is the party of racism and misogyny.......

So are you suggesting that the entire South was 100 percent Democrat?

 

[2aguy]

The South was controlled by democrats.......the democrats created the klan, tried to keep slavery, going to war to keep it, and instituted jim crow, poll taxes and literacy tests.......

Democrat party is the party of racism and misogyny.......

So are you suggesting that the entire South was 100 percent Democrat?

The ones fighting to keep jim crow and slavery were democrats...definitely not Republicans...the party of Abolition.