Question for Libs/Progressives

[JakeStarkey]

BTW wasn't an "incredibly small number" of blacks that owned slaves. In Louisiana for example, blacks held the largest number of slaves.

I would like to see a link to that claim. I don't know, but I question the veracity of that statement.

I posted links that exploded that nonsense.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The fact is that it is the truth: your hasty generalization of the incredibly small number of black owners proves the general rule as correct.

The fact that an incredibly small number of black slave owners does not prove your point that slavery is somehow "race free."

Hint: it isn't.

Hint: your logic is fallacious.

Let me get this straight, when your liberal friend generalizes, it's ok. But when a conservative engages in generalizations it's bad.

BTW wasn't an "incredibly small number" of blacks that owned slaves. In Louisiana for example, blacks held the largest number of slaves.

Tell us again how you're a conservative.

Your deflection is noted and discarded.

We are talking about "your" generalization. No, blacks as a whole in LA owned a very small number of LA slaves and certainly were not treated as equals of the poorest whites

You are not a conservative, merely a far right reactionary.

Yes we were and I opined about generalizations too.

You say no as if that's supposed to mean something. Provide some evidence.

The fact is large numbers of free Negroes owned black slaves; in fact, in numbers disproportionate to their representation in society at large. In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. According to the U.S. census report for that last year before the Civil War, there were nearly 27 million whites in the country. Some eight million of them lived in the slaveholding states.

The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.

According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans.

To return to the census figures quoted above, this 28 percent is certainly impressive when compared to less than 1.4 percent of all American whites and less than 4.8 percent of southern whites. The statistics show that, when free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters.

Sources:

1. The American Negro: Old World Background and New World Experience, Raymond Logan and Irving Cohen New York: Houghton and Mifflin, 1970), p.72.

2. Black Masters: A Free Family of Color in the Old South, Michael P. Johnson and James L. Roak New York: Norton, 1984), p.64.

3. The Forgotten People: Cane River's Creoles of Color, Gary Mills (Baton Rouge, 1977); Black Masters, p.128.
4. Male inheritance expectations in the United States in 1870, 1850-1870, Lee Soltow (New Haven, 1975), p.85.
5. Black Masters, Appendix, Table 7; p.280.

6. Black Masters, p. 62.

7. Information on the Ellison family was obtained from Black Masters; the number of slaves they owned was gained from U.S. Census Reports.

8. In 1860 South Carolina had only 21 gin makers; Ellison, his three sons and a grandson account for five of the total.

9. Neither Black Nor White: Slavery and Race Relations in Brazil and the United States, Carl N. Degler (New York, Macmillan, 1971), p.39;
Negro Slavery in Louisiana, Joe Gray Taylor (Baton Rouge, 1963), pp. 4041.

10. Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877, Eric Foner (New York; Harper & Row, 1988), p. 47; pp. 353-355.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

BTW wasn't an "incredibly small number" of blacks that owned slaves. In Louisiana for example, blacks held the largest number of slaves.

I would like to see a link to that claim. I don't know, but I question the veracity of that statement.

I posted links that exploded that nonsense.

You posted crap. I specifically said LA, your link doesn't address LA.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Almost one-third of all Southern families owned slaves. In Mississippi and South Carolina it approached one half. The total number of slave owners was 385,000 (including, in Louisiana, some free Negroes). As for the number of slaves owned by each master, 88% held fewer than twenty, and nearly 50% held fewer than five. (A complete table on slave-owning percentages is given at the bottom of this page.) https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080401065931AAu09eS

However, what is interesting is that almost one quarter of free blacks in LA owned slaves, a slightly less % than free whites. Of the 350,000 blacks in LA in 1860, less than 20,000 were free. or about 5,000 black families, of whom maybe 1,000 owned slaves compared to the many more thousands of white families owning slaves.

And LA was the exception that proved the rule. The rest of the South was much more traditional.

Study the map at The African-American population in 1860 - National African American Genealogy | Examiner.com.

All of this is the exception that proves the rule of white privilege.

Where does it differentiate between black and white slave owners?

 

[Nutz]

Obviously, you didn't just read those books so you could cite your claims...so what is the source of your sources?

Sources:

1. The American Negro: Old World Background and New World Experience, Raymond Logan and Irving Cohen New York: Houghton and Mifflin, 1970), p.72.

2. Black Masters: A Free Family of Color in the Old South, Michael P. Johnson and James L. Roak New York: Norton, 1984), p.64.

3. The Forgotten People: Cane River's Creoles of Color, Gary Mills (Baton Rouge, 1977); Black Masters, p.128.
4. Male inheritance expectations in the United States in 1870, 1850-1870, Lee Soltow (New Haven, 1975), p.85.
5. Black Masters, Appendix, Table 7; p.280.

6. Black Masters, p. 62.

7. Information on the Ellison family was obtained from Black Masters; the number of slaves they owned was gained from U.S. Census Reports.

8. In 1860 South Carolina had only 21 gin makers; Ellison, his three sons and a grandson account for five of the total.

9. Neither Black Nor White: Slavery and Race Relations in Brazil and the United States, Carl N. Degler (New York, Macmillan, 1971), p.39;
Negro Slavery in Louisiana, Joe Gray Taylor (Baton Rouge, 1963), pp. 4041.

10. Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877, Eric Foner (New York; Harper & Row, 1988), p. 47; pp. 353-355.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Obviously, you didn't just read those books so you could site your claims....so what is the source of your sources?

Sources:

1. The American Negro: Old World Background and New World Experience, Raymond Logan and Irving Cohen New York: Houghton and Mifflin, 1970), p.72.

2. Black Masters: A Free Family of Color in the Old South, Michael P. Johnson and James L. Roak New York: Norton, 1984), p.64.

3. The Forgotten People: Cane River's Creoles of Color, Gary Mills (Baton Rouge, 1977); Black Masters, p.128.
4. Male inheritance expectations in the United States in 1870, 1850-1870, Lee Soltow (New Haven, 1975), p.85.
5. Black Masters, Appendix, Table 7; p.280.

6. Black Masters, p. 62.

7. Information on the Ellison family was obtained from Black Masters; the number of slaves they owned was gained from U.S. Census Reports.

8. In 1860 South Carolina had only 21 gin makers; Ellison, his three sons and a grandson account for five of the total.

9. Neither Black Nor White: Slavery and Race Relations in Brazil and the United States, Carl N. Degler (New York, Macmillan, 1971), p.39;
Negro Slavery in Louisiana, Joe Gray Taylor (Baton Rouge, 1963), pp. 4041.

10. Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877, Eric Foner (New York; Harper & Row, 1988), p. 47; pp. 353-355.

There are many, google it.

 

[Nutz]

Obviously, you didn't just read those books so you could site your claims....so what is the source of your sources?

Sources:

1. The American Negro: Old World Background and New World Experience, Raymond Logan and Irving Cohen New York: Houghton and Mifflin, 1970), p.72.

2. Black Masters: A Free Family of Color in the Old South, Michael P. Johnson and James L. Roak New York: Norton, 1984), p.64.

3. The Forgotten People: Cane River's Creoles of Color, Gary Mills (Baton Rouge, 1977); Black Masters, p.128.
4. Male inheritance expectations in the United States in 1870, 1850-1870, Lee Soltow (New Haven, 1975), p.85.
5. Black Masters, Appendix, Table 7; p.280.

6. Black Masters, p. 62.

7. Information on the Ellison family was obtained from Black Masters; the number of slaves they owned was gained from U.S. Census Reports.

8. In 1860 South Carolina had only 21 gin makers; Ellison, his three sons and a grandson account for five of the total.

9. Neither Black Nor White: Slavery and Race Relations in Brazil and the United States, Carl N. Degler (New York, Macmillan, 1971), p.39;
Negro Slavery in Louisiana, Joe Gray Taylor (Baton Rouge, 1963), pp. 4041.

10. Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877, Eric Foner (New York; Harper & Row, 1988), p. 47; pp. 353-355.

There are many, google it.

You made the claim, yet you won't provide a link. I gave you the benefit of the doubt because I don't know the answer. I suspected you were disingenuous with your 'fact', but like I said, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Now I know, you are full of shit making claims that you can't back up...and when someone asks you to provide a link, you reply with, 'google it.' LMAO...do people really fall for that child like tactic?

 

[ClosedCaption]

I just googled The American Negro: Old World Background and New World Experience and found no reviews or summaries.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Obviously, you didn't just read those books so you could site your claims....so what is the source of your sources?

There are many, google it.

You made the claim, yet you won't provide a link. I gave you the benefit of the doubt because I don't know the answer. I suspected you were disingenuous with your 'fact', but like I said, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Now I know, you are full of shit making claims that you can't back up...and when someone asks you to provide a link, you reply with, 'google it.' LMAO...do people really fall for that child like tactic?

Damn are you that lazy?

I gave more than enough information needed for you to find the answer.

Here little girl. let me help you.

Antoine Dubuclet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Black Slave Owners - SlaveRebellion.org

America's first slave owner was a black man.

Black Slave Owners Civil War Article by Robert M Grooms

 

[Nutz]

There are many, google it.

You made the claim, yet you won't provide a link. I gave you the benefit of the doubt because I don't know the answer. I suspected you were disingenuous with your 'fact', but like I said, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Now I know, you are full of shit making claims that you can't back up...and when someone asks you to provide a link, you reply with, 'google it.' LMAO...do people really fall for that child like tactic?

Damn are you that lazy?

I gave more than enough information needed for you to find the answer.

Here little girl. let me help you.

Antoine Dubuclet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Black Slave Owners - SlaveRebellion.org

America's first slave owner was a black man.

Black Slave Owners Civil War Article by Robert M Grooms

My bad, I misread your original quote...I wasn't disputing the fact that blacks owned slaves...I just read this: In Louisiana for example, blacks held the largest number of slaves.

I thought you were saying that blacks owned more slaves than whites in LA. That is my mistake! But, since you are being a little ******, I will say that you should have completed your thought and qualified your statement. I also wonder why the idea of blacks owning slaves somehow justifies institutionalized racism. Also, if you actually read some of the articles, you can also note that many of the black slave owners simply bought the freedom of family members and children. That didn't make the blacks 'free' in the eyes of the census.

 

[Mathbud1]

God made different races. Take it up with him and for giving us eyes to see the differences. BTW the Irish experienced discrimination, so did the Jews, So did the Gors in Roman times...all those are white people...no race was involved.

I didn't say race was the only way to divide people into groups. Discrimintation against the jews by the nazis was not based on their similarities. It was based on their differences.

Well you put in parenthesis race. But you werent talking about race? Ok buddy.

Again, discrimination and racism are built on emphasizing the differences instead of focusing on the similarities between people. So let's focus on the differences some more so we can avoid more racism and discrimination... oh wait..

Sarcasm isnt a point. Do you have a point here buddy that you will revise in 2 more posts or not?

I said, "Racism is entirely built on dividing people into groups (called races) and calling them different."

When I said that, yes I was talking about races and racism. I could as easily have said, "Religionism is entirely built on dividing people into groups (called religions) and calling them different." The point is not that racism and only racism is built on a foundation of focusing on differences. The point is that all forms of hatred and discrimination are built on that foundation.

You want to bring people together onto equal ground but you want to do it by dividing them. If you want to unite people, unite them. If you want to divide people, divide them. That seems pretty basic.

So, if you have government programs that divide people into groups based on race can you be surprised when people divide into groups based on race?

 

[ClosedCaption]

I didn't say race was the only way to divide people into groups. Discrimintation against the jews by the nazis was not based on their similarities. It was based on their differences.

Well you put in parenthesis race. But you werent talking about race? Ok buddy.

Again, discrimination and racism are built on emphasizing the differences instead of focusing on the similarities between people. So let's focus on the differences some more so we can avoid more racism and discrimination... oh wait..

Sarcasm isnt a point. Do you have a point here buddy that you will revise in 2 more posts or not?

I said, "Racism is entirely built on dividing people into groups (called races) and calling them different."

So dividing people according to anything other than race is ok? Because you seem really outraged ONLY when people are divided by race only...because then you can continue your crap about blacks only *wink wink*

When I said that, yes I was talking about races and racism. I could as easily have said, "Religionism is entirely built on dividing people into groups (called religions) and calling them different." The point is not that racism and only racism is built on a foundation of focusing on differences. The point is that all forms of hatred and discrimination are built on that foundation.

Thanks, are you done?

You want to bring people together onto equal ground but you want to do it by dividing them. If you want to unite people, unite them. If you want to divide people, divide them. That seems pretty basic.

Stop assuming, it looks bad

So, if you have government programs that divide people into groups based on race can you be surprised when people divide into groups based on race?

Cart before the horse. Before government there was race, before govt there was racism, before govt people disliked people who didnt look like them or wasn't from where they were from.

I guess you are trying to say somethign but you cant bring yourself to do so. What's you point here buddy?

 

[Mathbud1]

Well you put in parenthesis race. But you werent talking about race? Ok buddy.



Sarcasm isnt a point. Do you have a point here buddy that you will revise in 2 more posts or not?

I said, "Racism is entirely built on dividing people into groups (called races) and calling them different."

So dividing people according to anything other than race is ok? Because you seem really outraged ONLY when people are divided by race only...because then you can continue your crap about blacks only *wink wink*



Thanks, are you done?

You want to bring people together onto equal ground but you want to do it by dividing them. If you want to unite people, unite them. If you want to divide people, divide them. That seems pretty basic.

Stop assuming, it looks bad

So, if you have government programs that divide people into groups based on race can you be surprised when people divide into groups based on race?

Cart before the horse. Before government there was race, before govt there was racism, before govt people disliked people who didnt look like them or wasn't from where they were from.

I guess you are trying to say somethign but you cant bring yourself to do so. What's you point here buddy?

My crap about "blacks only?"
Outraged "ONLY when people are divided by race only?"

Are you even reading the posts before you respond to them? What have I ever said anywhere that would imply that I was only outraged by racism and not by other kinds of hate. Since the thread is about a racial issue I used racial examples. If the thread was about religion I would use religious examples. If the thread was about ducks I would use duck examples. I'm trying not to question your intelligence here, but you aren't helping.

 

[Wildman]

I agree with Thomas Sowell in that he feels culture has an effect on lower IQ scores of blacks. As far as liberals I feel a big reason why they always seem to favor blacks is white guilt and they feel whites are superior to blacks.

i noticed you used the word "feel" THREE (3) times, i would like to ask you to change those "feel"(s) to think or believe and see the difference in the meaning of your content.

 

[Wildman]

If I don't know what a word or phrase means, I do some research.

HTH

I see you'd rather be a dumb ass(not a smart ass, since you did not answer the question but gave a snide response with no substance instead)than give me your definition of a word I have seen you and several others use here. Let's see if you can understand and then answer if I put it more simply,

BDBOop, lib/prog, what is YOUR understanding of the meaning behind the phrase "white privilege"? Don't be scared now...

That wasn't a snide response at all. Seek knowledge, since wisdom is apparently off-limits to you.

what'sa matta, can't make up a good sounding lie ??

ANSWER THE ******* QUESTION ~

your dodging the question is what makes us conservative patriots soooooo ******* pissed off at you sniveling, lying, obfuscating, ******* sheeple.

 

[candycorn]

I noticed something out of the blue recently reading some lib/prog posts here, wondering if anyone else noticed- That regardless whether Lib/progs in public dismiss the differences in race & IQ, claiming the various researchers are conservative racists & that is why they came to the conclusions they did..deep down they accept the science, as can be seen by their policies that favor minorities because they view us, particularly blacks..as somewhat mentally challenged. Me myself, I don't buy IQ tests as the end all and be all way to measure intelligence, but I do not dispute our communities shortcomings on these tests..I see it more as a nurture over nature thing for the most part.

Anyway, a Lot of lib/progs have been throwing the phrase "White Privilege" around lately. I'm curious, what exactly that privilege is in their minds? Is it simply being the majority group here or is it Whites have an higher IQ than blacks & mestizos on average? They throw it out there with practically no explanation most of the time. So what's the deal, lib/progs?

I remember back when I lived in Houston, I was pulled over and ticketed in the suburb of Bellaire. Google the city of Bellaire and check it out. Wiki has it as being 90+% white and Asian.

Well, I wanted to fight the ticket so I went to the court which was in the evening. The court room was packed full of people there to fight their tickets as well. The racial make up should be about 90+% white and Asian if, on average, those ticketed reflect the racial make-up of the city...right?

Aside from the Judge, an attorney some Mexican lady brought with her, and another defendant, nearly every defendant in the room was black or Hispanic (very few Hispanics by the way). We're talking about 150 defendants and one of them was white, in Bellaire, where 74% of the town is white.

When I hear about White Priviledge, I think it's an antiquated notion. I think it manifests itself in that whites often get the benefit of the doubt where as cultural minorities may not. This goes for obviously law enforcement which can affect your permanent record to banks lending money to educational opportunities etc... It is far too often used however.

On the flip side of the coin, as many of you may know if you read my posts, I do credentialing for our health system. What that means is that I check to make sure current and prospective future employees have the licenses they say they have, the endorsements they claim, and generally are telling the baseline truth about their qualifications. I get "packets" from HR about each applicant or volunteer. Recently, the packets have started to include the race-based questions we have on the end of our on-line application. The part that wants you to self-identify whether you're white, black, latino, martian or whatever.

I have purposely refused to look at this. It doesn't affect their qualifications at all (alternate languages spoke, written are covered in another part of the application). I'm not in HR but I would bet that the message down there is that they need to have our staff mirror the city of Phoenix meaning hire more Hispanics. BS...I say hire the best person for the job and have your HR staff eliminate race from consideration to the positive or the negative. If the open job has two good candidates, you flip a coin.

 

[Nutz]

I see you'd rather be a dumb ass(not a smart ass, since you did not answer the question but gave a snide response with no substance instead)than give me your definition of a word I have seen you and several others use here. Let's see if you can understand and then answer if I put it more simply,

BDBOop, lib/prog, what is YOUR understanding of the meaning behind the phrase "white privilege"? Don't be scared now...

That wasn't a snide response at all. Seek knowledge, since wisdom is apparently off-limits to you.

what'sa matta, can't make up a good sounding lie ??

ANSWER THE ******* QUESTION ~

your dodging the question is what makes us conservative patriots soooooo ******* pissed off at you sniveling, lying, obfuscating, ******* sheeple.

LOL, I don't think she will be answering your question anytime soon.

 

[Wildman]

Ahhh the classic troll thread!

Instead of finding out the definition of a word or phrase, the troll asks for someone personal definition instead so that the troll can turn the definition into a personal pissing match instead of opting for real information

ahhhhhhh ! typical shield post by a liarberal who also is too stupid to define their "GVEN" words and phrases by their local community organizer.., "GIVEN".., meaning follow the liberal/commie manifesto talking points, makes no mater they know what their meaning is, they just need to throw them out randomly to stir the shit

psssst, closed mind, you are only supposed to stir , not sit inand rub it all over yourself

 

[ClosedCaption]

I said, "Racism is entirely built on dividing people into groups (called races) and calling them different."

So dividing people according to anything other than race is ok? Because you seem really outraged ONLY when people are divided by race only...because then you can continue your crap about blacks only *wink wink*



Thanks, are you done?



Stop assuming, it looks bad

So, if you have government programs that divide people into groups based on race can you be surprised when people divide into groups based on race?

Cart before the horse. Before government there was race, before govt there was racism, before govt people disliked people who didnt look like them or wasn't from where they were from.

I guess you are trying to say somethign but you cant bring yourself to do so. What's you point here buddy?

My crap about "blacks only?"
Outraged "ONLY when people are divided by race only?"

Is there an echo in here or is this your standard non denial?

Are you even reading the posts before you respond to them? What have I ever said anywhere that would imply that I was only outraged by racism and not by other kinds of hate. Since the thread is about a racial issue I used racial examples. If the thread was about religion I would use religious examples. If the thread was about ducks I would use duck examples. I'm trying not to question your intelligence here, but you aren't helping.

Well you broke it down to diving people. When I point out that people have always divided themselves based on a number of factors you move away from "dividing" and go back to the narrowly focused "dividing based on race" again. Like one division is ok (or at least not as bad) as another based on race.

Are you against dividing people or not? If so, why dismiss other examples of division to make it seem that division between blacks and whites is somehow extraordinary?

Here's your response: Who doesnt care about division????????? Are you crazy????????????

 

[bedowin62]

That wasn't a snide response at all. Seek knowledge, since wisdom is apparently off-limits to you.

what'sa matta, can't make up a good sounding lie ??

ANSWER THE ******* QUESTION ~

your dodging the question is what makes us conservative patriots soooooo ******* pissed off at you sniveling, lying, obfuscating, ******* sheeple.

LOL, I don't think she will be answering your question anytime soon.

the idiotic Left cant expalin what "White Privilege" is. all they have are idiotic talking points that fall apart under scrutiny