Teaching Black history is not an attack on White Americans

[BULLDOG]

.

The additional expenses ... Bond (owner was required to pay the state or local authorities) and Freedom Dues (owner was required to give the former slave)
Could be 3-4 times what the slave cost ... It helped keep people from running around buying slaves and setting them free.

.​

I'm pretty sure a lot of the time, the slave was willing to forget the Freedom Dues, especially if a family member had bought them to set them free.

 

[IM2]

12 million blacks were SOLD by other blacks into slavery. No white man captured a single black in Africa they bought them from other blacks. As for your claim that black slave owners in the US owned their family that is NOT actually a fact your source even admits that it is just a theory. You keep excusing blacks for slavery because you are racist.

Incorrect. What I stated was indeed a fact. The reality of this situation is whites did not have to buy slaves and your story is not based on anything more than white racist bullshit. Blacks did not own the shipping companies, the seasonijng camps or 99 percent of the plantations. Africans did not make slavery legal in America. Your entire argument is like a golf course, full of holes. That's because you're a racist.

Now would you like to talk about the 159 years since slavery or did blacks create Jim Crow too?

 

[IM2]

Yes...they were, correct, and the the losers became slaves.

Thus my original statement.




They were doing all of this a very long time before the whites or Arabs showed up.

How do you know they didn't purchase the weapons with the profit from the slave trade?

Either way...it's just a tool.

The rich get richer...and more powerful


I don't understand the point of this statement.

Because white people were so evil to the slaves, beat them and malnourished them...that is how they were able to multiple their numbers ten fold?

I know more about Africa than you. So you can stop repeating what you get taught at stormfront.

You have no knowledge of slave breeding but you want to try debating.

Your white racists are a joke.

 

[Turtlesoup]

You think CRT and discussing slavery are the same thing. You goofy.

True CRT is not real history----it is pure manipulation instead.

 

[IM2]

There's no such thing as Black History.

Yes there is.

 

[IM2]

Time to hear the African side of the story.

Even in this modern world, there are wars and rumors of war almost everywhere you go. There were wars in Europe in those days and there were wars in America. There were wars almost everywhere in the world. There were tribal wars in Africa too. The difference between the tribal wars in Africa and the wars in the outside world was that, in the outside world, the conquered were often butchered (due in part to the highly sophisticated weapons of war used) whereas the conquered in Africa (excluding Arabs/Muslims in the north) became part of the conqueror. In other words, while no enemy was left standing in the outside world, the conquered enemies were left to live and serve in Africa.

So it is true there were some "slaves" in Africa in those days before the white man came. However, those "slaves" were not taken purposely to become "slaves" of another kingdom or empire. They were just victims of tribal wars and it was somehow "better" than what was happening in the outside world where no enemy was allowed to live.

Was Africa one nation? Were Africans one people? Were the Europeans in Africa just to trade? If Africans willingly participated in the "trade" then why would the Europeans bring battle troops and weapons of war all the way from Europe to Africa? Why the so many "Europeans against Natives" wars in African history and what were the Europeans fighting for in Africa? Were the European currencies of any value to Africans? Was there a common currency in Africa? Which currency was used to buy slaves in Africa? Did Africans willingly trade ship-loads of "valuable" slaves for just bottles of wine? Does the Bible permit slavery and slave trade? Why did the church participate in the slave trade?

In continuation, please note that there were 2 types of slave trading in Africa. The one introduced mostly by the coming of Islam through the Arab raiders and traders from the Middle East and North Africa or the Trans-Saharan slave trade and the one introduced by the coming of the Europeans or the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade (the one I am talking about). The Trans-Saharan Slave Trade is deeply rooted in the Islamic cultures of several countries in the North (especially in the Maghreb region or the "Berber world") and still practiced although "silently" by Muslim-dominant countries such as Mauritania and Libya.

According to my grandfather, In those days when there were no Christianity and no modern day government systems in Africa, Kings, Queens, and other traditional rulers ruled their kingdoms as heads of state and judged cases according to the rules and regulations of the land. Those who disobeyed the laws of the land were punished and those who obeyed and sacrificed for the land were rewarded accordingly. Although every land had some "prison" facilities, those prisons weren't meant for large groups of criminals so those who killed were killed. Those who stole paid dearly for it. Those who slept with people's wives were banished from the land. Children who disobeyed elders were punished accordingly. And so on.

Africans did not sell their own people into slavery

www.africaw.com

End of part 1

 

[IM2]

This is the problem with what gets taught here. We only hear the white mans version.

According to my grandfather, In those days when there were no Christianity and no modern day government systems in Africa, Kings, Queens, and other traditional rulers ruled their kingdoms as heads of state and judged cases according to the rules and regulations of the land. Those who disobeyed the laws of the land were punished and those who obeyed and sacrificed for the land were rewarded accordingly. Although every land had some "prison" facilities, those prisons weren't meant for large groups of criminals so those who killed were killed. Those who stole paid dearly for it. Those who slept with people's wives were banished from the land. Children who disobeyed elders were punished accordingly. And so on.

My country Ghana in West Africa was a major Slave Trading Post (Headquarters) where slaves from different parts of Africa were brought and arranged before shipping abroad.

When the white strangers first came to Africa, We (my ancestors) were not sure about their intentions so most communities drove them away from their land. However, the white strangers managed to convince some of our traditional rulers that they had not come to cause any harm but just to preach the good news (the Bible) and also to trade with the local people. It was barter trading where goods were exchanged for goods. My country Ghana was called "Gold Coast" because gold was in abundance. Although my ancestors valued gold as a precious metal, the white strangers valued it more as a precious mineral worth more than blood in some cases. In other words, my ancestors had the gold and the white strangers needed the gold and had to trade things like bottles of wine, clothing and textiles, guns and ammunitions, etc. for pieces of gold. That was how the "trade" started.

Some of the local chiefs along the coast started accepting the white strangers by giving them place to stay. The white strangers started building missionary centers where they stayed and preached the gospel and also traded with the local people. The white strangers later on expanded those missionary centers (including churches and cathedrals) into forts and castles where they packed slaves before shipping them abroad.

The white strangers did not understand the local language and the local people did not understand a word the white strangers were saying so it made communication very difficult. To help break the language barrier, the white strangers went to the local rulers and asked the local rulers to give them some of the local people to train so they could speak the foreign language which would make communication easier but none of those local rulers were ready to give their people out to go stay with strangers.

End of Part 2.

Africans did not sell their own people into slavery

www.africaw.com

 

[IM2]

Later on, some of the local rulers came up with an idea that, instead of killing those criminals, they could actually give those criminals to the white strangers so the white strangers could preach the good news they said they came to preach to those criminals, change them into good people and also train them in the foreign language in order to aid communication which was better than killing those criminals. So the traditional rulers gave those criminals out to the white strangers and to show appreciation, those white strangers gave gifts like textiles, bottles of wine, mirrors, etc. to the traditional rulers. That was how the white strangers got their first "local servers".

Those local people (the criminals) lived and served the white strangers in the castles and forts and learned the foreign language which enabled them to serve as mediators translating the local language for the white strangers and the foreign language to the local people. This helped a lot in communication.

As I mentioned earlier on, those local servers living with the white strangers were the criminals in the society and although they served as mediators and made communication a whole lot easier, they also made life a living hell for the local people (some as a form of revenge). For example, when the white strangers sent them to go collect taxes (lets say 5 pieces of gold), those criminals added their own taxes and made it 8 pieces of gold. At times too, they mis-translated just so they could get more power. Some of those criminals even became more powerful than the traditional rulers. In other words, the white strangers, after preaching the good news to those criminals, turned them into even far more dangerous monsters than they were before. Why? Because only the white man had guns at that time and they shot anyone the criminals considered "criminals".

Those criminals were the few "Africans" who helped the white strangers to get more slaves. However, don't forget the fact that they were criminals condemned to death in their various societies for being "Un-African".

Those local people living with the white strangers served and "worshiped" them so well to the point where the white strangers began asking for more. Because of the benefits they derived from those local servers, some of the white strangers took some local servers with them on their return home. Back home (abroad), they found those local servers (the black men from Africa) very useful and decided to come back for more. They realized they could use them to work on their plantation farms back home to make more money. They also realized they could sell some of those 'local servers' to their friends and countrymen and make more money and that was why most of them (the white strangers but this time around slave traders) returned with the intention of picking more local servers (this time around, slaves).

So they returned for slaves but no local ruler was ready to give their people out except those criminals I mentioned earlier on and prisoners of war (tribal wars). In my country for example, the Ashantis and those living in the interior parts of the country did not want to have anything to do with the white strangers. In fact, the first white stranger that set foot on the Ashanti empire did not return.

However, the white strangers needed slaves and more slaves but there was no easy way of getting slaves in Africa. So what they did was that, they created confusion among the various tribes so that there would be more tribal wars and more war prisoners so they could get more "slaves" and that was exactly what they did.

Africans did not sell their own people into slavery

www.africaw.com

End of pt.3

 

[IM2]

Before the white man came to Africa, tribal wars were mostly fought with swords, spears, bows and arrows. Although these weapons were lethal they were nowhere near as quick and fatal as the gun. The problem here was that, only the white strangers had guns and decided which tribal group to support in times of battle. Any tribal group the white strangers supported with their powerful cannons, guns and ammunitions, easily conquered their enemies. This also created another major problem. The white strangers did not support any tribal group for free. In fact, the white strangers started demanding taxes (which included pieces of gold and prisoners of war) and total submission after victory. Any tribal group or community which failed to submit to the Europeans and pay taxes were wiped out. Sometimes the leaders of those communities were executed publicly as a form of warning to neighboring communities. Most communities in Africa were turned into concentration camps with European authorities in place.

Although not often mentioned in history books, there were well trained and well equiped European troops all across Sub-Saharan Africa and they fought several battles with native tribes who refused to submit to European authority and that explains the several "European against natives" wars in the African history.

In other words, my ancestors were not ready to give their own brothers and sisters out into slavery. In fact, most fought and died in battle just to save their communities from the hands of those white strangers. Rather, the white strangers were the ones who "demonically" manipulated my people by creating so much confusion between the various tribes and creating so many tribal wars all in an effort to get slaves.

Africans did not sell their own people into slavery

www.africaw.com

Things did not happen as you guys claim.

 

[BULLDOG]

True CRT is not real history----it is pure manipulation instead.

No. CRT is a legal theory taught to law students in a few colleges. It's easy for you to list everything you don't like and call it all CRT though.

 

[Turtlesoup]

Like I said, you crazy trump party nutbags use the term as a catchall for anything you don't like.

No, we just aren't buying the shit you and others try to hide CRT under. CRT is about manipulation and distortions in order to control whites better especially in regards in extorting money.

It encourages and supports black criminals to attack others.

Five Florida Middle School Students Face Hate Crime Charges After Attacking Students and Yelling 'Brown Power!'

Five Florida middle school students are charged with hate crimes for allegedly assaulting a group of their peers while shouting "brown power!

www.blackenterprise.com

 

[Turtlesoup]

We teach black history we just don’t teach hate

CRT is black manipulation meant to create self hate in whites, and blacks to hate them.

 

[IamZ]

CRT is black manipulation meant to create self hate in whites, and blacks to hate them.

It works.. as a white person who believes crt should be taught.. if they say yes ask them if Black people are equal to them,, nine out of 10 will say no

 

[Meathead]

It works.. as a white person who believes crt should be taught.. if they say yes ask them if Black people are equal to them,, nine out of 10 will say no

And one in ten would lie.

 

[Stashman]

Shut the fuck up. We have been taught nothing but white history and people like you thinks thats American history.

So were you taught as I was about George Washington Carver. Oh he seemed to have been named after a racist slave owner. Care to explain that?

 

[BULLDOG]

So were you taught as I was about George Washington Carver. Oh he seemed to have been named after a racist slave owner. Care to explain that?

Carver was born into slavery a year before it was outlawed. His owner chose his name.

 

[Turtlesoup]

Time to hear the African side of the story.

Even in this modern world, there are wars and rumors of war almost everywhere you go. There were wars in Europe in those days and there were wars in America. There were wars almost everywhere in the world. There were tribal wars in Africa too. The difference between the tribal wars in Africa and the wars in the outside world was that, in the outside world, the conquered were often butchered (due in part to the highly sophisticated weapons of war used) whereas the conquered in Africa (excluding Arabs/Muslims in the north) became part of the conqueror. In other words, while no enemy was left standing in the outside world, the conquered enemies were left to live and serve in Africa.

So it is true there were some "slaves" in Africa in those days before the white man came. However, those "slaves" were not taken purposely to become "slaves" of another kingdom or empire. They were just victims of tribal wars and it was somehow "better" than what was happening in the outside world where no enemy was allowed to live.

Was Africa one nation? Were Africans one people? Were the Europeans in Africa just to trade? If Africans willingly participated in the "trade" then why would the Europeans bring battle troops and weapons of war all the way from Europe to Africa? Why the so many "Europeans against Natives" wars in African history and what were the Europeans fighting for in Africa? Were the European currencies of any value to Africans? Was there a common currency in Africa? Which currency was used to buy slaves in Africa? Did Africans willingly trade ship-loads of "valuable" slaves for just bottles of wine? Does the Bible permit slavery and slave trade? Why did the church participate in the slave trade?

In continuation, please note that there were 2 types of slave trading in Africa. The one introduced mostly by the coming of Islam through the Arab raiders and traders from the Middle East and North Africa or the Trans-Saharan slave trade and the one introduced by the coming of the Europeans or the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade (the one I am talking about). The Trans-Saharan Slave Trade is deeply rooted in the Islamic cultures of several countries in the North (especially in the Maghreb region or the "Berber world") and still practiced although "silently" by Muslim-dominant countries such as Mauritania and Libya.

According to my grandfather, In those days when there were no Christianity and no modern day government systems in Africa, Kings, Queens, and other traditional rulers ruled their kingdoms as heads of state and judged cases according to the rules and regulations of the land. Those who disobeyed the laws of the land were punished and those who obeyed and sacrificed for the land were rewarded accordingly. Although every land had some "prison" facilities, those prisons weren't meant for large groups of criminals so those who killed were killed. Those who stole paid dearly for it. Those who slept with people's wives were banished from the land. Children who disobeyed elders were punished accordingly. And so on.

Africans did not sell their own people into slavery

www.africaw.com

End of part 1

Oh stop it...slavery in Africa predates both Islam and the Europeans. Centuries before christ to be exact. Ancient Greeks wrote of Africa always being the SLAVE CONTINENT. Africans always raided, stole, enslaved, killed and on many occassions ate their captured people or sacrificed them as well.

 

[Stashman]

Carver was born into slavery a year before it was outlawed. His owner chose his name.

Yes, but he still kept did he not?

 

[LOIE]

CRT is black manipulation meant to create self hate in whites, and blacks to hate them.

As a white person, nothing can manipulate me into self-hatred. Being taught the truth about institutional racism is not threatening in any way to me as an individual.

Here's a good explanation of CRT, from Brookings:

To understand why CRT has become such a flash point in the culture, it is important to understand what it is and what it is not. Opponents fear that CRT admonishes all white people for being oppressors while classifying all Black people as hopelessly oppressed victims. These fears have spurred school boards and state legislatures from Tennessee to Idaho to ban teachings about racism in classrooms. However, there is a fundamental problem: these narratives about CRT are gross exaggerations of the theoretical framework.

CRT does not attribute racism to white people as individuals or even to entire groups of people. Simply put, critical race theory states that U.S. social institutions (e.g., the criminal justice system, education system, labor market, housing market, and healthcare system) are laced with racism embedded in laws, regulations, rules, and procedures that lead to differential outcomes by race. Sociologists and other scholars have long noted that racism can exist without racists.

However, many Americans are not able to separate their individual identity as an American from the social institutions that govern us—these people perceive themselves as the system. Consequently, they interpret calling social institutions racist as calling them racist personally. It speaks to how normative racial ideology is to American identity that some people just cannot separate the two. There are also people who may recognize America’s racist past but have bought into the false narrative that the U.S. is now an equitable democracy. They are simply unwilling to remove the blind spot obscuring the fact that America is still not great for everyone.

Scholars and activists who discuss CRT are not arguing that white people living now are to blame for what people did in the past. They are saying that white people living now have a moral responsibility to do something about how racism still impacts all of our lives today.

 

[Meathead]

Carver was born into slavery a year before it was outlawed. His owner chose his name.

Good thing. Clephonious Carver sounds like a death row inmate.