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

[Markle]

Bobob,

So you disagree but you can't refute a word I posted.

That's okay, I know some other ignorant Democrats.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

No but they did have ancestors telling blacks to get in the back of the bus and dont even think about eating at the same table they do. Many still think that way.

Go to any cafeteria type setting and find a table with all blacks setting there.

Now, as a white person, go and sit dow among them

 

[pknopp]

Go to any cafeteria type setting and find a table with all blacks setting there.

Now, as a white person, go and sit dow among them

It helps if you cover your "The South Will Rise Again" tattoo.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

It helps if you cover your "The South Will Rise Again" tattoo.

I have no idea what that means.

Now go try to sit among a group of blacks you dont know. Point is, blacks discriminate too. So quit with the anti-white hate

 

[pknopp]

I have no idea what that means.

Now go try to sit among a group of blacks you dont know. Point is, blacks discriminate too. So quit with the anti-white hate

I've told this story before......

I worked with an older black man. He told me he had prejudices against white people. I told him that never accomplished anything.

He then told me this story. His daughter in 2nd grade integrated the local school system. He told me how he would go to the school every day to sit with her at lunch because NO student would. He told me how he heard the names they called her.

I understood.

 

[irosie91]

I've told this story before......

I worked with an older black man. He told me he had prejudices against white people. I told him that never accomplished anything.

He then told me this story. His daughter in 2nd grade integrated the local school system. He told me how he would go to the school every day to sit with her at lunch because NO student would. He told me how he heard the names they called her.

I understood.

I understand too------but it really IS history. It is a history that is world wide-----a
"my tribe vs your tribe" thing

 

[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)

Children of slaves were always slaves. Even in the Star Wars universe the children of slaves were slaves.

 

[AZrailwhale]

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.

And that’s because the black person is far more likely to have a record. If you correct for criminal history, sentences pretty much even out.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

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)

If I were black I’d be so pissed at white people I would make a stand and refuse to take a nickel from any of them!
Let me know when that happens ok?

 

[AZrailwhale]

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.

A lot depended on where they lived. In the north and West there was little official or unofficial racial injustice.

 

[AZrailwhale]

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.

When you think your rights are being violated, you let the lawyers deal with it. Arguing with cops is always a losing proposition.

 

[Esdraelon]

No but they did have ancestors telling blacks to get in the back of the bus and dont even think about eating at the same table they do. Many still think that way.

That's probably true those less so than the "call everyone racist" crowd would have us believe. Bottom line is that reparations by way of the "GREAT SOCIETY" have played the largest role in destroying the stability and productivity of the black family. Telling people for decades that they are being held back and that they are owed a living is only destructive to them and only ONE political party does that. The Dems should be hated forever by blacks for the use of schools to keep them in bondage on inner-city plantations.

 

[pknopp]

When you think your rights are being violated, you let the lawyers deal with it. Arguing with cops is always a losing proposition.

Wrong. We are making changes. Police are going to learn or lose their jobs. But thanks for enforcing my point.

 

[Blues Man]

And that’s because the black person is far more likely to have a record. If you correct for criminal history, sentences pretty much even out.

Yes and no.

If a black kid from the hood gets arrested for pot possession but whitey from the suburbs doesn't of course the black kid will have a record.

 

[Blues Man]

A lot depended on where they lived. In the north and West there was little official or unofficial racial injustice.

There was plenty of unofficial and official racism in CA and New England too.

 

[Polishprince]

Yes and no.

If a black kid from the hood gets arrested for pot possession but whitey from the suburbs doesn't of course the black kid will have a record.

Not possessing grass might be a good way for a black kid to avoid getting arrested for the crime.

 

[Blues Man]

Not possessing grass might be a good way for a black kid to avoid getting arrested for the crime.

The point that sailed right over your head is that the white kid from the burbs wouldn't be arrested for possessing the same amount of weed.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Wrong. We are making changes. Police are going to learn or lose their jobs. But thanks for enforcing my point.

You're assuming when a cop has a problem with a black person, the cop is at fault. The evidence NEARLY ALWAYS shows the hostile African African earned what happened and the Africans on this board (and liberal whites) circle the wagons to defend the criminal over the cop. I find that disgusting.

 

[Blues Man]

You're assuming when a cop has a problem with a black person, the cop is at fault. The evidence NEARLY ALWAYS shows the hostile African African earned what happened and the Africans on this board (and liberal whites) circle the wagons to defend the criminal over the cop. I find that disgusting.

Chicken or the egg.

Cops have treated Blacks poorly, Blacks don't like or trust cops

It just one more vicious cycle that no one wants to break

 

[pknopp]

You're assuming when a cop has a problem with a black person, the cop is at fault.

I have no desire to discuss the positions you make up for me.