Zone1 my black ancestors sold slaves to white slavers but I blame the white slavers.

Humans are one race.
"The Inequality Taboo," by Charles Murray, Commentary, September 2005

The Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin originated the idea of race as a social construct in 1972, arguing that the genetic differences across races were so trivial that no scientist working exclusively with genetic data would sort people into blacks, whites, or Asians. In his words, "racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance."

Lewontin's position, which quickly became a tenet of political correctness, carried with it a potential means of being falsified. If he was correct, then a statistical analysis of genetic markers would not produce clusters corresponding to common racial labels. In the last few years, that test has become feasible, and now we know that Lewontin was wrong.

Several analyses have confirmed the genetic reality of group identities going under the label of race or ethnicity. In the most recent, published this year, all but five ofthe 3,636 subjects fell into the cluster of genetic markers corresponding to their selfidentified ethnic group. When a statistical procedure, blind to physical characteristics and working exclusively with genetic information, classifies 99.9 percent of the individuals in a large sample in the same way they classify themselves, it is hard to argue that race is imaginary.


---------

I wish Murray had posted the name of this study, and a web address to it, but I trust his integrity. He draws attention to a good experiment because it is repeatable.

Once we acknowledge that race is a legitimate classification, it becomes legitimate to inquire into the average non cosmetic differences between the races, and to speculate on the genetic reasons for these differences.
 
One thing all humans are very proficient at is identifying differences, even when they are miniscule and totally unimportant.
 
In your historical research on the African slave trade, look at trade goods that European slavers used to buy African slaves. Then ask yourself how technological developed were the societies of sub-Saharan Africa. The kind of items that the slave traders used were things like glass beads and window glass, fabrics, especially cotton, and brass goods all kinds like cooking pots. Whiskey and rum were in demand but not beer. I know today they have something known as palm wine, a kind of beer made from the local palm plant, so maybe they had it in the past; that would explains the lack of beer as a trade good.

The Arabs had been in the area for hundreds of years before the Europeans. Why didn't they learn how to make these items from the Arabs? Did Arabs intentionally try to deny these skills to the locals?

I'm not trying to offend anyone, so please try to see this through the eyes of a historian with the desire to better understand the past.
 
I have noticed what seems to be a spreading woke convention of referring to a person’s slaves as the people he enslaved. For example, one will not say “Thomas Jefferson owned over one hundred slaves.” One is now supposed to say, “Thomas Jefferson enslaved one hundred people.” In truth Jefferson enslaved none of his slaves: he inherited some; he bought others; a third group was born to slaves on his plantation.

I do not know who makes up these Rules. For example, I have been criticized for using the word “Oriental,” for Chinese and nations that learned civilization from China, specifically Koreans, Japanese, and Vietnamese. I have a high regard for Orientals. Indeed, I prefer them to white Gentiles, of whom I am one, because Orientals are usually more intelligent, law abiding, and monogamous than white Gentiles.

I have even been criticized for using the word “Negro.” Now Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. used that currently proscribed word fifteen times in his “I Have a Dream” speech, which I consider to be one of the greatest speeches in the English language.

Never mind. The proper term now is “African American.” I have never heard a Negro refer to himself or to other Negroes as “African Americans.” They call themselves “blacks” or they use the other n word, the one ending with r.

The forbidding of the words “Oriental” and “Negro” seem to have no other reason, other than to give the enforcers of woke political correctness the opportunity to criticize anti wokers like me.

The use of the word “enslaved” does seem to have a political motive. That motive is to conceal the complicity of African Negroes in the slave trade. White slave traders did not enslave African Negroes. To assist your memory, I will repeat that sentence: White slave traders did not enslave African Negroes.

This was not because of moral squeamishness about the slave trade. It was because until whites invented cures and vaccines for African diseases – which did not happen until whites outlawed slavery and suppressed the slave trade – it was dangerous for whites to enter the interior of sub Saharan Africa. African Negroes had resistances to those diseases; whites did not.

The French Encyclopedia was published in pre Revolutionary France. Diderot, d’Alembert, Voltaire, and others contributed to it. It includes an essay entitled – if you will pardon my use of that word – “Negroes.”

It was written by Le Romain, and refers to the slave trade as “this loathsome commerce, which is contrary to natural law.”

The essay also includes the following paragraph:

“There are Negroes who ambush each other while the European vessels are lying at anchor; and they bring those whom they have captured to the vessels to sell them and to have them loaded on board against their wills. Thus, one sees sons selling their fathers, fathers their children. Still more frequently one sees Negroes who are not linked by family ties put a price of a few bottles of brandy or bars of iron on each other’s freedom.”

While this was going on, Arabs were raiding the coasts of Europe all the way to Iceland for European slaves. They received no cooperation from Europeans, who eventually crushed the Arab slave in themselves and in Negroes.

Muslim slavery was worse than Christian slavery. The Muslims castrated male slaves, and worked them to death. In addition, they cut off the penises of Negro male slaves. Many Negroes died from this cruel practice. American Negroes who are attracted to Islam should be told that.
 
The article tries to sugarcoat it up a bit but she was a slave owner and had the whipping post and ''breeding stalls''
like all others in the slave trade. I guess you could use the excuse it was considered normal at that time in history but there was a strong anti-slavery faction in society as well. So there was a choice to be made. And she chose hers.
 
Probably not. The Arabs didn't have mega plantations and couldn't feed slaves.
Are you really that ignorant? The entire Arab economy was based upon slaves and had been since before the days of Mohhamad. The Arabs raided as far north as Ireland for slaves and the fortifications and warning towers erected against Arab slave raids still exist all along the shores of Italy.
 
Are you really that ignorant? The entire Arab economy was based upon slaves and had been since before the days of Mohhamad. The Arabs raided as far north as Ireland for slaves and the fortifications and warning towers erected against Arab slave raids still exist all along the shores of Italy.
That particular bed wetter is far beyond "ignorant". It can not tolerate the idea that someone might read something that destroys the collectivist agitprop and anti-American rhetoric from sniveling parasitic traitors. An informed public makes it more difficult for leftist sociopaths to lord over a proletariat. Just as the same leftist worms seek to undermine our 2nd Amendment Rights, they are desperate to keep our people in a mushroom like state of awareness.

That is, kept in the dark and fed bovine shit.
 
When I clicked on your first website I got:

The requested page can't be found.​


I have already proved you wrong with the following quote from the French Encyclopedia:

“There are Negroes who ambush each other while the European vessels are lying at anchor; and they bring those whom they have captured to the vessels to sell them and to have them loaded on board against their wills. Thus, one sees sons selling their fathers, fathers their children. Still more frequently one sees Negroes who are not linked by family ties put a price of a few bottles of brandy or bars of iron on each other’s freedom.”

Slavery was widespread in sub Saharan Africa. When the British Navy began to suppress the slave trade a Negro chief traveled to London to complain. He said that the income of his tribe was being impacted.

I am not in any way justifying the slave trade. I think the United States would be a far better country if it had never been allowed.
 
Last edited:
“There are Negroes who ambush each other while the European vessels are lying at anchor; and they bring those whom they have captured to the vessels to sell them and to have them loaded on board against their wills.
The same thing happened in SF when sailors were "shanghai'd" in the mid 1800s
As for Orientals--The Orient was just another name for Asia and using the term Oriental is no different than using the term Asian, IMHO.
 
HEY BOSS!!! I FOUND THIS ONE IN THE BUSHES!!!! DO I GET A BONUS??

BlackSlaves.jpeg
 

Forum List

Back
Top