The Irony of Whites Talking About Fatherless Black Families...

[Blues Man]

I'm not giving a reason. I am doing nothing but stating facts which by the way you have not disproven

I think you had a reason in mind

the one I gave you

otherwise the numbers are as meaningless as an NBA roster

what you think is irrelevant.

I have not stated my conclusions and I don't plan to I am giving you the information

Here's a link to the report read or don't IDGAF

https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2017/20171114_Demographics.pdf

 

[Blues Man]

The descendants of the same people who would break up black families by selling them are today the loudest talking people trying to diss the black community about single parent families.

When people start talking about race, there are just some simple realities that cannot be denied. If you are white and don't like how you are portrayed, start thinking about how unpleasant it really is for us who are not white to be portrayed as weak inferior people who got conquered by a supposedly superior race and culture. It is not a pleasant subject. For this to end we all must face the unpleasantness.

The doctrine of Partus sequitur ventrem comes from European civil law. It means; “That which is brought forth follows the belly.” This principle determined the legal status of children born by slave women in the America as well as other English or European colonies In colonial law, the partus doctrine justified enslavement, the indigenous people of the Americas and of the Africans imported to various European colonies personal property of those who imported them.

During the time American was a colony, this doctrine established de facto and de jure slavery for all children born to female slaves. Partus sequitur ventrem exempted the father from his obligations to children he fathered by slaves thereby creating the ability for slaveowners to have their way with enslaved women. Under this doctrine the biological father had no paternal responsibility to any child born to a slave woman. Because of this the slaver was provided the right to profit from exploiting the labor of children born to slaves. It gave the slaver the ability to sell children by taking them away from their biological parents. Partus sequitur ventrem was the doctrine that created the first family separation policy in what is now America.

Despite the claims of Africans selling each other, the doctrine of Partus sequitur ventrem does not appear to be a part of the system of African slavery.

Partus Sequitur Ventrem — The Rule That Perpetrated Slavery And Legalized Rape

This was the legal doctrine that made any child of an American female slave a slave as well. It meant any white fathers had no financial responsibility for their progeny. They were free to rape their slaves at will as there were no laws against that either. With no concern for any children that might come from the forced union. In fact, there was a market for mulatto and octaroon children who would be purchased to work as domestics. Some owners (Thomas Jefferson) used their half-white slaves as their concubines, finding them more attractive the closer they were to white. Sally Hemings was Jefferson’s wife’s half-sister, the product of her father raping a slave. Then again the master might sell their offspring to keep the peace with their wives who might be annoyed at little slave children running around who favor their husbands.

Not talked about in proper society were the children of free white women and black slaves. White women who weren’t sure what color the child might be could get a legal abortion those days. “Cottonwood” was a remedy known to slaves who sometimes refused to have children after being raped or as often as the masters would like. Some women would be forced to have over a dozen children if they survived as death during childbirth was relatively common. The rare slave would be offered their freedom if they produced enough children. Sometimes the dark child of a white woman was abandoned or given away. Usually just sold off although technically they were legally free.

View attachment 437108

Partus Sequitur Ventrem — The Rule That Perpetrated Slavery And Legalized Rape | by William Spivey | Dialogue & Discourse | Medium

Partus sequitur ventrem legal definition of Partus sequitur ventrem (thefreedictionary.com)

Breaking News!!!!!!


Slavery ended in America ended 157 years ago. So hey.....whew.....you can relax now.....okay.

And yet it took until the late 1960's for the Civil rights act to be passed.

What do you think it was like for Blacks between the end of slavery and the time the Civil Rights Act became law?

And even after the Civil Rights act there was not this instant end to racism and discrimination

You people need to study a little sociology.

Slavery was abolished in the 1860's

The right to vote was established in the 1860's

Citizenship for blacks was established in the 1860's

It was the Democrats who tried hard for the next 100 years to control the blacks into a second class existence.

The laws were long in place but Democrats century long disrespect for Constitutional law was the main reason for blacks rights being denied.

You need to do more reading of history.

I know my history quite well

you don't seen to understand how that history still affects society today.

and really does it matter if slavery ended in 1860 if it was still legal to marginalize Blacks? Still legal to lynch Blacks? Still legal to deny Blacks housing or education?

You are a riot since you can't even admit the main problem were ******* Democrats who screwed the blacks for 100 years, with the lynching, the vote tax, the segregation and other blatantly illegal crap that were mostly done by Democrats.

The lies about preventing blacks education is stupid because even the Democrats have supported and passed laws for children to attend school. but too many times, the inner city schools are underfunded, unsupported and crime ridden places. It is the Democrats and their **** ass Teachers union who oppose school choice and vouchers that would help black families escape bad schools.

Slavery was abolished in 1868, no blacks has been a slave for 152 years, thus that effect no longer applies, your rationalization is bullcrap, it is an anchor to people whose great grandparents never experienced slavery, It is a crutch that needs to be thrown into the trash.

There are NO laws today in existence to marginalize blacks, that is a total lie YOU are promoting, here is what post 138 shows:

The Equal Pay Act of 1963

19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Women's Right to Vote (1920)

All Americans have the following:

Vote

Full Citizenship

Quittable pay

Full housing rights law

and many more.

Stop hanging onto the distant past as an excuse, it is what slows some blacks down, trying to find a way to remain unhappy and angry, which doesn't help anyone.

like I said you need to study some sociology.

A law does not erase the past.

 

[pknopp]

We have been specific many times.

You mean arguing with or resisting the police.

thats not the way most white people act when they are pulled over

but there are exceptions

As you note, you do not have to simply bend over when your rights are going to be violated. Some reason causes you want blacks to do so.

 

[Mac-7]

I have not stated my conclusions and I don't plan to I am giving you the information

There are only two conclusions that would make this report important to you

either black people are being treated fairly or they arent

you dont have to tell us what you think but its pretty obvious

 

[AMart]

It's a fact that a black person is more likely to get arrested and serve time for a crime than whites who commit the same crime.

you are just parroting the idea promoted by obama and his street thugs at Black Lies Matter which claim that cops are racists who just pick on black people

but the rest of America knows thats nonsense

blacks get arrested more because they commit more crimes

its as simple as that

no I am actually stating facts from actual research.

FactCheck: do black criminals get harsher sentences for the same crimes?

Analysis that shows ethnic minority criminals are 240% more likely to be jailed for drug offences cannot exclude the possibility that the BAME offenders were simply convicted of more serious crimes.

www.channel4.com

FactCheck: do black criminals get harsher sentences for the same crimes?

Analysis that shows ethnic minority criminals are 240% more likely to be jailed for drug offences cannot exclude the possibility that the BAME offenders were simply convicted of more serious crimes.

www.channel4.com

Black men get longer prison sentences than white men for the same crime: Study

Black men are 19.1 percent more likely to serve longer sentences.

abcnews.go.com

Sentencing Commission Finds Black Men Receive Longer Sentences Than White Men For Same Crime

eji.org

The original study mentioned in these articles accounts for 1 year 2016, that is it and also from the ABC study link I got this,

Your connection is not private
Attackers might be trying to steal your information from www.ussc.gov (for example, passwords, messages, or credit cards). Learn more
NET::ERR_CERT_AUTHORITY_INVALID

Help improve security on the web for everyone by sending URLs of some pages you visit, limited system information, and some page content to Google. Privacy policy

 

[Mac-7]

As you note, you do not have to simply bend over when your rights are going to be violated. Some reason causes you want blacks to do so.

Black people and the crazy white woman who choose to battle it out with the cops on the street almost always lose

 

[Sunsettommy]

The descendants of the same people who would break up black families by selling them are today the loudest talking people trying to diss the black community about single parent families.

When people start talking about race, there are just some simple realities that cannot be denied. If you are white and don't like how you are portrayed, start thinking about how unpleasant it really is for us who are not white to be portrayed as weak inferior people who got conquered by a supposedly superior race and culture. It is not a pleasant subject. For this to end we all must face the unpleasantness.

The doctrine of Partus sequitur ventrem comes from European civil law. It means; “That which is brought forth follows the belly.” This principle determined the legal status of children born by slave women in the America as well as other English or European colonies In colonial law, the partus doctrine justified enslavement, the indigenous people of the Americas and of the Africans imported to various European colonies personal property of those who imported them.

During the time American was a colony, this doctrine established de facto and de jure slavery for all children born to female slaves. Partus sequitur ventrem exempted the father from his obligations to children he fathered by slaves thereby creating the ability for slaveowners to have their way with enslaved women. Under this doctrine the biological father had no paternal responsibility to any child born to a slave woman. Because of this the slaver was provided the right to profit from exploiting the labor of children born to slaves. It gave the slaver the ability to sell children by taking them away from their biological parents. Partus sequitur ventrem was the doctrine that created the first family separation policy in what is now America.

Despite the claims of Africans selling each other, the doctrine of Partus sequitur ventrem does not appear to be a part of the system of African slavery.

Partus Sequitur Ventrem — The Rule That Perpetrated Slavery And Legalized Rape

This was the legal doctrine that made any child of an American female slave a slave as well. It meant any white fathers had no financial responsibility for their progeny. They were free to rape their slaves at will as there were no laws against that either. With no concern for any children that might come from the forced union. In fact, there was a market for mulatto and octaroon children who would be purchased to work as domestics. Some owners (Thomas Jefferson) used their half-white slaves as their concubines, finding them more attractive the closer they were to white. Sally Hemings was Jefferson’s wife’s half-sister, the product of her father raping a slave. Then again the master might sell their offspring to keep the peace with their wives who might be annoyed at little slave children running around who favor their husbands.

Not talked about in proper society were the children of free white women and black slaves. White women who weren’t sure what color the child might be could get a legal abortion those days. “Cottonwood” was a remedy known to slaves who sometimes refused to have children after being raped or as often as the masters would like. Some women would be forced to have over a dozen children if they survived as death during childbirth was relatively common. The rare slave would be offered their freedom if they produced enough children. Sometimes the dark child of a white woman was abandoned or given away. Usually just sold off although technically they were legally free.

View attachment 437108

Partus Sequitur Ventrem — The Rule That Perpetrated Slavery And Legalized Rape | by William Spivey | Dialogue & Discourse | Medium

Partus sequitur ventrem legal definition of Partus sequitur ventrem (thefreedictionary.com)

Breaking News!!!!!!


Slavery ended in America ended 157 years ago. So hey.....whew.....you can relax now.....okay.

And yet it took until the late 1960's for the Civil rights act to be passed.

What do you think it was like for Blacks between the end of slavery and the time the Civil Rights Act became law?

And even after the Civil Rights act there was not this instant end to racism and discrimination

You people need to study a little sociology.

Slavery was abolished in the 1860's

The right to vote was established in the 1860's

Citizenship for blacks was established in the 1860's

It was the Democrats who tried hard for the next 100 years to control the blacks into a second class existence.

The laws were long in place but Democrats century long disrespect for Constitutional law was the main reason for blacks rights being denied.

You need to do more reading of history.

I know my history quite well

you don't seen to understand how that history still affects society today.

and really does it matter if slavery ended in 1860 if it was still legal to marginalize Blacks? Still legal to lynch Blacks? Still legal to deny Blacks housing or education?

You are a riot since you can't even admit the main problem were ******* Democrats who screwed the blacks for 100 years, with the lynching, the vote tax, the segregation and other blatantly illegal crap that were mostly done by Democrats.

The lies about preventing blacks education is stupid because even the Democrats have supported and passed laws for children to attend school. but too many times, the inner city schools are underfunded, unsupported and crime ridden places. It is the Democrats and their **** ass Teachers union who oppose school choice and vouchers that would help black families escape bad schools.

Slavery was abolished in 1868, no blacks has been a slave for 152 years, thus that effect no longer applies, your rationalization is bullcrap, it is an anchor to people whose great grandparents never experienced slavery, It is a crutch that needs to be thrown into the trash.

There are NO laws today in existence to marginalize blacks, that is a total lie YOU are promoting, here is what post 138 shows:

The Equal Pay Act of 1963

19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Women's Right to Vote (1920)

All Americans have the following:

Vote

Full Citizenship

Quittable pay

Full housing rights law

and many more.

Stop hanging onto the distant past as an excuse, it is what slows some blacks down, trying to find a way to remain unhappy and angry, which doesn't help anyone.

like I said you need to study some sociology.

A law does not erase the past.

Now I know YOU are full of shit, I never said a law erases the past.

How come in the early 1960's the Black family were intact as they had been for many decades prior, now a shambles today in the inner city ghetto's?

Yet the further away from the indignities Slavery and Segregation the worse the black family is.

=======

Here is the report from post 145 you ignored:

American Thinker

March 29, 2014
The Decline of the African-American family
By Dean Kalahar

Excerpt:

Race in America is set against the backdrop of horrible historic realities, minefields few want to cross -- just ask Representative Paul Ryan. But if we are ever to focus on children who, for no fault of their own, are often raised in environments where a stable father is missing, violence is predictable, education is eschewed, drugs are prevalent and dependency threatens freedom; we must stand up and speak facts before another generation of children are lost.

Racism is the normal explanation for the decline of the black family, but that analysis does not hold up. Thomas Sowell has shown that “the black family survived centuries of slavery and generations of Jim Crow where most black children grew up in homes with two parents.” In fact, “when blacks were just one generation out of slavery, the census data of that era showed that slightly higher percentage of black adults had married than had white adults.” One would be hard pressed to believe that race issues in America are bigger today they were in the past.

LINK

======

City Journal

The Black Family: 40 Years of Lies
Rejecting the Moynihan report caused untold, needless misery.
Kay S. Hymowitz

Summer 2005

Excerpt:

Read through the megazillion words on class, income mobility, and poverty in the recent New York Times series “Class Matters” and you still won’t grasp two of the most basic truths on the subject: 1. entrenched, multigenerational poverty is largely black; and 2. it is intricately intertwined with the collapse of the nuclear family in the inner city.

By now, these facts shouldn’t be hard to grasp. Almost 70 percent of black children are born to single mothers. Those mothers are far more likely than married mothers to be poor, even after a post-welfare-reform decline in child poverty. They are also more likely to pass that poverty on to their children. Sophisticates often try to dodge the implications of this bleak reality by shrugging that single motherhood is an inescapable fact of modern life, affecting everyone from the bobo Murphy Browns to the ghetto “baby mamas.” Not so; it is a largely low-income—and disproportionately black—phenomenon. The vast majority of higher-income women wait to have their children until they are married. The truth is that we are now a two-family nation, separate and unequal—one thriving and intact, and the other struggling, broken, and far too often African-American.

LINK

======

Fact: • In 1950, 72 percent of all black men and 81 percent of black women had been married.

Fact: • In 1965, 76.4 percent of black children were born to married women.

Fact: • Every census from 1890 to 1950 showed that black labor force participation rates were higher than those of whites.

Fact: • In 2009, 73% of black children were born to unmarried mothers.

Fact: • In 2005, Black people accounted for 13% of the total U.S. population yet they were the victims of 49% of all the nation's murders; and 93% of black murder victims were killed by other black people.

The inner city black family have been in a downward spiral since the early 1960's.

It is clear YOU are not a sociologist!

You are as anti black as most white democrats are.

 

[pknopp]

As you note, you do not have to simply bend over when your rights are going to be violated. Some reason causes you want blacks to do so.

Black people and the crazy white woman who choose to battle it out with the cops on the street almost always lose

Exhibit A for the argument made here.

 

[irosie91]

No, the most common has been race. Whites who have not faced racism always claim it been more about class, but poor whites still help maintain white racial preference today.

That's what you want to believe- class existed in Europe and Africa long before race was a factor-

Whites in Europe create racial categories and in Amerca class has been primarily determined by race. We are talking about America, not Africa or Europe. So lets not try that one.

wrong again, Im2 Class based on physical characteristic (often skin color) is a "thing"
that goes back thousands of years----even in
the continent of Africa. In fact it infected even southeast Asia thousands of years before the Brits
got there. BRAHMINS tend to be far whiter than
dravidians, The koran describes the head of persons
with african kinky hair as "raisin heads" and
designates them "abed" There is no question that
the color issue is really OLD

 

[AZrailwhale]

The descendants of the same people who would break up black families by selling them are today the loudest talking people trying to diss the black community about single parent families.

When people start talking about race, there are just some simple realities that cannot be denied. If you are white and don't like how you are portrayed, start thinking about how unpleasant it really is for us who are not white to be portrayed as weak inferior people who got conquered by a supposedly superior race and culture. It is not a pleasant subject. For this to end we all must face the unpleasantness.

The doctrine of Partus sequitur ventrem comes from European civil law. It means; “That which is brought forth follows the belly.” This principle determined the legal status of children born by slave women in the America as well as other English or European colonies In colonial law, the partus doctrine justified enslavement, the indigenous people of the Americas and of the Africans imported to various European colonies personal property of those who imported them.

During the time American was a colony, this doctrine established de facto and de jure slavery for all children born to female slaves. Partus sequitur ventrem exempted the father from his obligations to children he fathered by slaves thereby creating the ability for slaveowners to have their way with enslaved women. Under this doctrine the biological father had no paternal responsibility to any child born to a slave woman. Because of this the slaver was provided the right to profit from exploiting the labor of children born to slaves. It gave the slaver the ability to sell children by taking them away from their biological parents. Partus sequitur ventrem was the doctrine that created the first family separation policy in what is now America.

Despite the claims of Africans selling each other, the doctrine of Partus sequitur ventrem does not appear to be a part of the system of African slavery.

Partus Sequitur Ventrem — The Rule That Perpetrated Slavery And Legalized Rape

This was the legal doctrine that made any child of an American female slave a slave as well. It meant any white fathers had no financial responsibility for their progeny. They were free to rape their slaves at will as there were no laws against that either. With no concern for any children that might come from the forced union. In fact, there was a market for mulatto and octaroon children who would be purchased to work as domestics. Some owners (Thomas Jefferson) used their half-white slaves as their concubines, finding them more attractive the closer they were to white. Sally Hemings was Jefferson’s wife’s half-sister, the product of her father raping a slave. Then again the master might sell their offspring to keep the peace with their wives who might be annoyed at little slave children running around who favor their husbands.

Not talked about in proper society were the children of free white women and black slaves. White women who weren’t sure what color the child might be could get a legal abortion those days. “Cottonwood” was a remedy known to slaves who sometimes refused to have children after being raped or as often as the masters would like. Some women would be forced to have over a dozen children if they survived as death during childbirth was relatively common. The rare slave would be offered their freedom if they produced enough children. Sometimes the dark child of a white woman was abandoned or given away. Usually just sold off although technically they were legally free.

View attachment 437108

Partus Sequitur Ventrem — The Rule That Perpetrated Slavery And Legalized Rape | by William Spivey | Dialogue & Discourse | Medium

Partus sequitur ventrem legal definition of Partus sequitur ventrem (thefreedictionary.com)

Slavery existed in the United States for less than ninety years. During that time, how many whites actually owned slaves? Ten thousand, perhaps, twenty thousand? Stop blaming the ninety nine percent of whites who lived then that never owned a slave. Definitely stop blaming the whites today whose grandparents never owned a slave. Grow up and take responsibility for yourself.

 

[Lysistrata]

it is funny to watch conservatives yelling and yapping about planned parenthood and then turning around blaming it all on race...

Their weirdness about sex pairs well with their weirdness about race. If you read between the lines, you realize that these "conservatives" actually want these problems to continue. I don't know what sort of "victory" they seek, but they same to like human suffering a lot, as long as they are not the ones experiencing it.

Hatred and ignorance does you no favors.

Hatred doesn't play a part here. Ignorance does. These idiots don't want to prevent anything bad. They want it to continue. What goes through their minds is a mystery. Everything from seatbelts to antibiotics to monitoring the quality of drinking water makes us safer. These people's lives may be saved by the Covid-19 vaccine. I believe in using technology to prevent and solve problems in all demographic groups. There is no way to begin to count how many unintended pregnancies that PP has prevented. One would think that this would be considered a very desirable outcome. These "conservatives" are strangely silent about their motives, but nonetheless want to set policy for all Americans, regardless of race, sex, religion, or anything else, apparently based on nothing.

Claiming you know the minds of others, makes you God in your mind. Yet, you’re calling others idiots. Do you fail to see the problem with your discourse?

I said that I don't know what goes on in their minds. That is the problem. What do they want and why do they want it? What is their business with people outside of the group that shares whatever ideology they represent? They certainly eschew the idea of prevention.

You claim to know they hate black babies. How do you know this?

WTF??? Who said anything about "hating black babies"? Your comment is irrational. My comment focused on these people's apparent but inexplicable opposition to taking preventive measures, specifically to prevent the occurrence of unwanted pregnancies using available technology.

Your words, no?
The people who insist on talking about "black fatherless families" are just trying to cause racial division in our country for their own ugly and selfish purposes. Frankly, they don't give two shits about a black kid except to wail about abortion and blame.....

It's obvious from their words and actions, which I take it are expressions of their thoughts.

 

[irosie91]

The root cause of the problems blacks face is white racism.

Nonsense

blacks create their own problems

Black welfare moms for instance lead to fatherless hoodlums who create fatherless children of their own when they arent in jail

The root cause of the problems blacks face is white racism. I say that having lived nearhly 60 years as a black man. You have not lived one second black, you are a racist and yet you think you can argue. So when you turn black and live a few ywars come talk to me.

I have lived LONGER than IM-2 as a white woman---and hubby has lived 80 years and is a LOT darker in complexion than lots and lots of the people who
NOW CLAIM to be either "black" or a
"person of color"(for the benefits thereof). IM-2--
my opinion of hubby is very high-----of you?
well ---don't ask

 

[AZrailwhale]

An

The root cause of the problems blacks face is white racism.

Nonsense

blacks create their own problems

Black welfare moms for instance lead to fatherless hoodlums who create fatherless children of their own when they arent in jail

The root cause of the problems blacks face is white racism. I say that having lived nearhly 60 years as a black man. You have not lived one second black, you are a racist and yet you think you can argue. So when you turn black and live a few ywars come talk to me.

And as a White who has lived over sixty years I can say you are full of crap. For every racist white I've met, I've met ten racist blacks or Latinos. All you want to do is to blame your failures on other people.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Therr are no more

Whites control the lawmaking and policymaking bodies in this country.

There are no anti black laws anywhere in America

no there are just laws that are applied more to blacks than to whites.

It's a fact that a black person is more likely to get arrested and serve time for a crime than whites who commit the same crime.

Very true. It's because of the behavior of black defendants. They are far more likely to act out in the courtroom. A white will stand respectfully, apologize and take responsibility. Blacks blame racism. A white cooperates with the attorney. A black treats the attorney as the enemy. They are amused at the lengths attorneys try to go with no client representation at all.

An innocent black can railroad themselves into prison.

not true.

It's the court system and the stats prove it.

The question was not do blacks commit more crimes. The specific question was why do blacks get prison when a white in the same circumstance will walk or get probation? That was the question I answered. It is unfortunately quite true. I have seen it hundreds if not thousands of times.

An innocent black man putting on a street cred show for the jury will go to prison while a quite guilty white man sitting quietly will get enough sympathy to be acquitted. Not because the jury believes in black guilt. Because the jury has been treated so such an exhibition that they just want this black person off the streets I am sorry that this is the case. It is.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The descendants of the same people who would break up black families by selling them are today the loudest talking people trying to diss the black community about single parent families.

When people start talking about race, there are just some simple realities that cannot be denied. If you are white and don't like how you are portrayed, start thinking about how unpleasant it really is for us who are not white to be portrayed as weak inferior people who got conquered by a supposedly superior race and culture. It is not a pleasant subject. For this to end we all must face the unpleasantness.

The doctrine of Partus sequitur ventrem comes from European civil law. It means; “That which is brought forth follows the belly.” This principle determined the legal status of children born by slave women in the America as well as other English or European colonies In colonial law, the partus doctrine justified enslavement, the indigenous people of the Americas and of the Africans imported to various European colonies personal property of those who imported them.

During the time American was a colony, this doctrine established de facto and de jure slavery for all children born to female slaves. Partus sequitur ventrem exempted the father from his obligations to children he fathered by slaves thereby creating the ability for slaveowners to have their way with enslaved women. Under this doctrine the biological father had no paternal responsibility to any child born to a slave woman. Because of this the slaver was provided the right to profit from exploiting the labor of children born to slaves. It gave the slaver the ability to sell children by taking them away from their biological parents. Partus sequitur ventrem was the doctrine that created the first family separation policy in what is now America.

Despite the claims of Africans selling each other, the doctrine of Partus sequitur ventrem does not appear to be a part of the system of African slavery.

Partus Sequitur Ventrem — The Rule That Perpetrated Slavery And Legalized Rape

This was the legal doctrine that made any child of an American female slave a slave as well. It meant any white fathers had no financial responsibility for their progeny. They were free to rape their slaves at will as there were no laws against that either. With no concern for any children that might come from the forced union. In fact, there was a market for mulatto and octaroon children who would be purchased to work as domestics. Some owners (Thomas Jefferson) used their half-white slaves as their concubines, finding them more attractive the closer they were to white. Sally Hemings was Jefferson’s wife’s half-sister, the product of her father raping a slave. Then again the master might sell their offspring to keep the peace with their wives who might be annoyed at little slave children running around who favor their husbands.

Not talked about in proper society were the children of free white women and black slaves. White women who weren’t sure what color the child might be could get a legal abortion those days. “Cottonwood” was a remedy known to slaves who sometimes refused to have children after being raped or as often as the masters would like. Some women would be forced to have over a dozen children if they survived as death during childbirth was relatively common. The rare slave would be offered their freedom if they produced enough children. Sometimes the dark child of a white woman was abandoned or given away. Usually just sold off although technically they were legally free.

View attachment 437108

Partus Sequitur Ventrem — The Rule That Perpetrated Slavery And Legalized Rape | by William Spivey | Dialogue & Discourse | Medium

Partus sequitur ventrem legal definition of Partus sequitur ventrem (thefreedictionary.com)

Blacks aren't responsible for fatherless black families, because......slavery? LOL!

 

[AZrailwhale]

Some of thise things

The descendants of the same people who would break up black families by selling them are today the loudest talking people trying to diss the black community about single parent families.

When people start talking about race, there are just some simple realities that cannot be denied. If you are white and don't like how you are portrayed, start thinking about how unpleasant it really is for us who are not white to be portrayed as weak inferior people who got conquered by a supposedly superior race and culture. It is not a pleasant subject. For this to end we all must face the unpleasantness.

The doctrine of Partus sequitur ventrem comes from European civil law. It means; “That which is brought forth follows the belly.” This principle determined the legal status of children born by slave women in the America as well as other English or European colonies In colonial law, the partus doctrine justified enslavement, the indigenous people of the Americas and of the Africans imported to various European colonies personal property of those who imported them.

During the time American was a colony, this doctrine established de facto and de jure slavery for all children born to female slaves. Partus sequitur ventrem exempted the father from his obligations to children he fathered by slaves thereby creating the ability for slaveowners to have their way with enslaved women. Under this doctrine the biological father had no paternal responsibility to any child born to a slave woman. Because of this the slaver was provided the right to profit from exploiting the labor of children born to slaves. It gave the slaver the ability to sell children by taking them away from their biological parents. Partus sequitur ventrem was the doctrine that created the first family separation policy in what is now America.

Despite the claims of Africans selling each other, the doctrine of Partus sequitur ventrem does not appear to be a part of the system of African slavery.

Partus Sequitur Ventrem — The Rule That Perpetrated Slavery And Legalized Rape

This was the legal doctrine that made any child of an American female slave a slave as well. It meant any white fathers had no financial responsibility for their progeny. They were free to rape their slaves at will as there were no laws against that either. With no concern for any children that might come from the forced union. In fact, there was a market for mulatto and octaroon children who would be purchased to work as domestics. Some owners (Thomas Jefferson) used their half-white slaves as their concubines, finding them more attractive the closer they were to white. Sally Hemings was Jefferson’s wife’s half-sister, the product of her father raping a slave. Then again the master might sell their offspring to keep the peace with their wives who might be annoyed at little slave children running around who favor their husbands.

Not talked about in proper society were the children of free white women and black slaves. White women who weren’t sure what color the child might be could get a legal abortion those days. “Cottonwood” was a remedy known to slaves who sometimes refused to have children after being raped or as often as the masters would like. Some women would be forced to have over a dozen children if they survived as death during childbirth was relatively common. The rare slave would be offered their freedom if they produced enough children. Sometimes the dark child of a white woman was abandoned or given away. Usually just sold off although technically they were legally free.

View attachment 437108

Partus Sequitur Ventrem — The Rule That Perpetrated Slavery And Legalized Rape | by William Spivey | Dialogue & Discourse | Medium

Partus sequitur ventrem legal definition of Partus sequitur ventrem (thefreedictionary.com)

Breaking News!!!!!!


Slavery ended in America ended 157 years ago. So hey.....whew.....you can relax now.....okay.

And yet it took until the late 1960's for the Civil rights act to be passed.

What do you think it was like for Blacks between the end of slavery and the time the Civil Rights Act became law?

And even after the Civil Rights act there was not this instant end to racism and discrimination

You people need to study a little sociology.

Slavery was abolished in the 1860's

The right to vote was established in the 1860's

Citizenship for blacks was established in the 1860's

It was the Democrats who tried hard for the next 100 years to control the blacks into a second class existence.

The laws were long in place but Democrats century long disrespect for Constitutional law was the main reason for blacks rights being denied.

You need to do more reading of history.

I know my history quite well

you don't seen to understand how that history still affects society today.

and really does it matter if slavery ended in 1860 if it was still legal to marginalize Blacks? Still legal to lynch Blacks? Still legal to deny Blacks housing or education?

Some of those things were legal in a handful of states. They were illegal in most states.

 

[pknopp]

An

The root cause of the problems blacks face is white racism.

Nonsense

blacks create their own problems

Black welfare moms for instance lead to fatherless hoodlums who create fatherless children of their own when they arent in jail

The root cause of the problems blacks face is white racism. I say that having lived nearhly 60 years as a black man. You have not lived one second black, you are a racist and yet you think you can argue. So when you turn black and live a few ywars come talk to me.

And as a White who has lived over sixty years I can say you are full of crap. For every racist white I've met, I've met ten racist blacks or Latinos. All you want to do is to blame your failures on other people.

I knew this elderly black man. He admitted he was racist. I told him I found that counter productive and doesn't help anything.

He then told me the story about how it was his daughter that integrated the local schools. She was in elementary school and he would go everyday to eat lunch with her because no one else would. He would hear the names the other kids would call her (you can imagine). He said that was something he would never get over. I told him I understood.

 

[Mac-7]

He then told me the story about how it was his daughter that integrated the local schools. She was in elementary school and he would go everyday to eat lunch with her because no one else would. He would hear the names the other kids would call her (you can imagine). He said that was something he would never get over. I told him I understood.

So to really teach white people a lesson the daughter got pregnant by a drug dealers who is now serving 20 to life for murder

and living on welfare

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

The descendants of the same people who would break up black families by selling them are today the loudest talking people trying to diss the black community about single parent families.

When people start talking about race, there are just some simple realities that cannot be denied. If you are white and don't like how you are portrayed, start thinking about how unpleasant it really is for us who are not white to be portrayed as weak inferior people who got conquered by a supposedly superior race and culture. It is not a pleasant subject. For this to end we all must face the unpleasantness.

The doctrine of Partus sequitur ventrem comes from European civil law. It means; “That which is brought forth follows the belly.” This principle determined the legal status of children born by slave women in the America as well as other English or European colonies In colonial law, the partus doctrine justified enslavement, the indigenous people of the Americas and of the Africans imported to various European colonies personal property of those who imported them.

During the time American was a colony, this doctrine established de facto and de jure slavery for all children born to female slaves. Partus sequitur ventrem exempted the father from his obligations to children he fathered by slaves thereby creating the ability for slaveowners to have their way with enslaved women. Under this doctrine the biological father had no paternal responsibility to any child born to a slave woman. Because of this the slaver was provided the right to profit from exploiting the labor of children born to slaves. It gave the slaver the ability to sell children by taking them away from their biological parents. Partus sequitur ventrem was the doctrine that created the first family separation policy in what is now America.

Despite the claims of Africans selling each other, the doctrine of Partus sequitur ventrem does not appear to be a part of the system of African slavery.

Partus Sequitur Ventrem — The Rule That Perpetrated Slavery And Legalized Rape

This was the legal doctrine that made any child of an American female slave a slave as well. It meant any white fathers had no financial responsibility for their progeny. They were free to rape their slaves at will as there were no laws against that either. With no concern for any children that might come from the forced union. In fact, there was a market for mulatto and octaroon children who would be purchased to work as domestics. Some owners (Thomas Jefferson) used their half-white slaves as their concubines, finding them more attractive the closer they were to white. Sally Hemings was Jefferson’s wife’s half-sister, the product of her father raping a slave. Then again the master might sell their offspring to keep the peace with their wives who might be annoyed at little slave children running around who favor their husbands.

Not talked about in proper society were the children of free white women and black slaves. White women who weren’t sure what color the child might be could get a legal abortion those days. “Cottonwood” was a remedy known to slaves who sometimes refused to have children after being raped or as often as the masters would like. Some women would be forced to have over a dozen children if they survived as death during childbirth was relatively common. The rare slave would be offered their freedom if they produced enough children. Sometimes the dark child of a white woman was abandoned or given away. Usually just sold off although technically they were legally free.

View attachment 437108

Partus Sequitur Ventrem — The Rule That Perpetrated Slavery And Legalized Rape | by William Spivey | Dialogue & Discourse | Medium

Partus sequitur ventrem legal definition of Partus sequitur ventrem (thefreedictionary.com)

You aren't talking about me. None of my ancestors were involved in the slave traffic. Slavery was outlawed in the home of my forebearers in 1347 in Poland. We freed you people 6 1/2 centuries ago, and Poland has always been friendly with the people of Africa.

But there was this one family in Jamaica that owned slaves, and had no problem, keeping them in chains. Problem is that same person whose family owned slaves, then put black people away for smoking pot, while smoking pot herself. Why arent you pissed at that *****, IM2stupidtoknowbetter?

Kamala Harris' Ancestors Were Slave Owners, Her Father Says

The Western Journal has issued a correction on this article.

www.westernjournal.com

 

[pknopp]

He then told me the story about how it was his daughter that integrated the local schools. She was in elementary school and he would go everyday to eat lunch with her because no one else would. He would hear the names the other kids would call her (you can imagine). He said that was something he would never get over. I told him I understood.

So to really teach white people a lesson the daughter got pregnant by a drug dealers who is now serving 20 to life for murder

and living on welfare

She became a nurse.