WSJ: When the Slave Traders Were African

OP
abu afak

abu afak

ALLAH SNACKBAR!
Joined
Mar 3, 2006
Messages
3,011
Reaction score
648
Points
315
Again, Bullshit.

>> It is hard, after so many bad movies and so many encrusted lies, to think of them as urban, and it is hard for a Western mind to conceive of “tribal” and “urban” together; yet as late as the mid-nineteenth century the Yoruba city of Abeokuta ran six miles along the bank of the Ogun River and had a population estimated at 200,000. Its craft industries thrived – ironwork, carpentry, tailoring, farming, tool-making, textiles. And this urban culture had been thriving for centuries, a city probably older than, say, New York is now.

Here, intact, a little more than a century ago, was a mature culture which had not chosen to go the way of monotheism and the father gods, but had, like India, kept its polytheistic pantheon rooted in the Great Mother religions – or rather, in the religious impulse we now identify with the Great Mother. They shared with the Hopi, with the ancient Irish and Welsh and all Druid peoples, as well as with the Chinese and the Eygptians, the mother symbol of the serpent – as Thompson puts it, “ancient Yoruba image of coolness, peace and power.” And they shared with pre-Christianist Europe – the so-called pagan religions – the conviction that religious worship is a bodily celebration, a dance of the entire community; or, as it would have been called in Euorpe when such belief had been driven underground, a “sabbat.” The mind-body split that governs European thought seems never to have entered African religion, African consciousness – at least not until imported there by missionaries. To meditate was to dance. << -- Michael Ventura, "Hear That Long Snake Moan"
Must be soooooo simple for the simpleminded to draw their history from Hollyweird stereotypes and the bottom-dwelling internet farces of Stürmfront and PragerFuckingU. Saves a lot of brain sweat.

But back up here Twinkles. Number One, "Asians" were never crammed into ships in shackles and sent against their will to a foreign world to be whipped into submission and dehumanized; Number Two, Japanese were not interned for their race, but for their nationality and the suspected loyalties that went with it; Number Three the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima do not constitute "Asia"; Number Four China has been hugely influential for literally millennia -- ask anyone from Mongolia or Thailand or Japan or Vietnam. Ask the Brits, Austro-Hungarians, French, Germans, Italians, Japanese, Russians and Americans who wanted to colonize and/or monopolize it specifically because it WAS big and rich.

Cult of Ignorance sales pitch is about as effective as the Amazing Vegematic from Ronco. If this is your best stuff, you need to find an occupation that doesn't involve "words".
Again, Incomplete and 100% BS anecdote.

Nothing like China's independently developed civilization.
There was no Africa civilization comparable to the West or Asia pre-contact with that West (and Arabs) who made it a trading post not just for slaves, but for gold and trinkets.
And I "presume" you forgot "Dr Livingtone"s 19th Century meeting after MONTHS of traveling through the savage tribal jungles of civilization-free Afrique.

Pre-colonial/Pre-contact Africa was zilch. Unlike NE asia.

Not all of sub-Sahara was raided for slaves either, but All of it is still ungovernable because
avg IQ there is 70.
Hybrid American 'Blacks' - 85... (avg 75% sub-Saharan, 25% 'white'/Euro)
'White'/Euro IQ - 100
NE Asian - 106
(Stormfront wouldn't be happy about NE Asians and Ashkenazi Jews/113 having higher IQs. So save the "White Supremacist".. accusation/EXCUSE)

And That (HARK!) is the way the world looks in accomplishment, domestically and globally.
Reality is always a good plug in!
The world makes sense only looking the the IQ lens.


(PS Abeokuta was founded in 1830, and unlikely 200,000 by 1850.
Even by 1911, Britannica had it at "60,000".
The houses/structures mostly "Mud" despite a profusion of "granite" outcrops.

1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Abeokuta - Wikisource, the free online library

1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, Volume 1
Abeokuta

ABEOKUTA, a town of British West Africa in the Egba division of the Yoruba country, S. Nigeria Protectorate. It is situated in 7° 8′ N., 3° 25′ E., on the Ogun river, 64 m. N. of Lagos by railway, or 81 m. by water. Population, approximately 60,000.
[......])​

`
 
Last edited:

CWayne

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
2,649
Reaction score
1,135
Points
190
Are you saying that it was a kinder, gentler, slavery before they came to America? Remarkable.
Feel free to refute anything I posted there. Until then, it stands.
You would have to be open to a real discussion.

I know that you are not. Since you did not refute my observation, enjoy your closed mind.
So you *CAN'T* refute anything I said.

There's a fuckin' surprise.
Well, look at you.

Now, reread what I said before.
And what exactly constitutes a real discussion? Because whites have not really ever wanted to have one. That is why threads like this exist. Africans did not make slavery legal in America. Africans did not come over to America with shiploads of slaves to sell. And the bottom line here is that whites bought the slaves. Whites did not have to buy slaves from Africa. Under the feudal system at that time, whites had serfs. They decided that serfs could sign agreements to work off their passage if they wanted to go to the so-called new world.

So what exactly constitutes a real discussion?
Of course, we want to have one. We will NOT allow the terms of the discussion to be set by you.
A discussion entails agreed upon histories, sources, and most importantly, a proper perspective in time.

You are correct about one thing. Blacks did not make slavery legal, but neither did Americans. Blacks also did not make slavery illegal, American's did that.

The entire start of this thread was based upon the premise (correctly) that slavery is not a 'whites-only' club, nor was it new when America was founded. In fact, every race has held slaves at one time or another.

Yet here you and the others are, incensed at a bit of truth.
 

IM2

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2015
Messages
41,402
Reaction score
8,253
Points
2,070
Nobody brought up a damn thing about "reparations", Dickhead. OP claimed African slaves first got here in 1619, I proved him wrong. And there's literally nothing you can do about that.
I'm glad you proved him wrong but you got stuck on a history lesson when I'm just saying since there were AFRICAN slave traders, that lets the US off the hook for reparations-if anything the Spanish should pay them.
Once AGAIN r e a l s l o w n o w ------- nobody suggested there was a "hook" for any "reparations", Gummo.

OP posted a false history, AND tried to equate the transAtlantic slave trade with intracontinental African slavery, and he got busted on both of those boners. PERIOD.

I get that you're all butthurt because you can't refute my history so you want to change the subject. Tough shit.
I accept your history but not your attitude-it sucks. Leave my butt out of this unless your queer-then really stay away. No subject change-I gotta go-reply if you want to keep arguing, or let it go-up to you.
His attitude is justified, it's yours that needs adjusting. I don't know how you whites think you get to tell us how we are to talk about what's been done to us. I am sure if a Muslim came up to you pointing out how whites have terrorized their homeland so why are white not talking about that, you would not respond kindly. But somehow whites such as yourself seem to believe we have no right to be angry. However whites can be mad about anything they want and if need be they can threaten violence. That's the mentality of white privilege.
Slow down buckwheat. Its his attitude toward ME that needs adjusting. I don't care if you or anybody else is mad-that's your problem.
No wb, it's your attitude that needs to change.
 

IM2

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2015
Messages
41,402
Reaction score
8,253
Points
2,070
Feel free to refute anything I posted there. Until then, it stands.
You would have to be open to a real discussion.

I know that you are not. Since you did not refute my observation, enjoy your closed mind.
So you *CAN'T* refute anything I said.

There's a fuckin' surprise.
Well, look at you.

Now, reread what I said before.
And what exactly constitutes a real discussion? Because whites have not really ever wanted to have one. That is why threads like this exist. Africans did not make slavery legal in America. Africans did not come over to America with shiploads of slaves to sell. And the bottom line here is that whites bought the slaves. Whites did not have to buy slaves from Africa. Under the feudal system at that time, whites had serfs. They decided that serfs could sign agreements to work off their passage if they wanted to go to the so-called new world.

So what exactly constitutes a real discussion?
Of course, we want to have one. We will NOT allow the terms of the discussion to be set by you.
A discussion entails agreed upon histories, sources, and most importantly, a proper perspective in time.

You are correct about one thing. Blacks did not make slavery legal, but neither did Americans. Blacks also did not make slavery illegal, American's did that.

The entire start of this thread was based upon the premise (correctly) that slavery is not a 'whites-only' club, nor was it new when America was founded. In fact, every race has held slaves at one time or another.

Yet here you and the others are, incensed at a bit of truth.
What we will no longer have is this discussion based only on your terms. That's what is happening today and there is nothing you can do about it. You have avoided the truth and this entire thread is about that avoidance . Whites had slaves in the feudal system but went into Africa to purchase slaves in the countries they invaded and illegally occupied. That is the truth son, and you are too much of a chickenshit to face it.
 

Third Party

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2019
Messages
7,636
Reaction score
621
Points
275
I'm glad you proved him wrong but you got stuck on a history lesson when I'm just saying since there were AFRICAN slave traders, that lets the US off the hook for reparations-if anything the Spanish should pay them.
Once AGAIN r e a l s l o w n o w ------- nobody suggested there was a "hook" for any "reparations", Gummo.

OP posted a false history, AND tried to equate the transAtlantic slave trade with intracontinental African slavery, and he got busted on both of those boners. PERIOD.

I get that you're all butthurt because you can't refute my history so you want to change the subject. Tough shit.
I accept your history but not your attitude-it sucks. Leave my butt out of this unless your queer-then really stay away. No subject change-I gotta go-reply if you want to keep arguing, or let it go-up to you.
His attitude is justified, it's yours that needs adjusting. I don't know how you whites think you get to tell us how we are to talk about what's been done to us. I am sure if a Muslim came up to you pointing out how whites have terrorized their homeland so why are white not talking about that, you would not respond kindly. But somehow whites such as yourself seem to believe we have no right to be angry. However whites can be mad about anything they want and if need be they can threaten violence. That's the mentality of white privilege.
Slow down buckwheat. Its his attitude toward ME that needs adjusting. I don't care if you or anybody else is mad-that's your problem.
No wb, it's your attitude that needs to change.
Who is WB?
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
116,532
Reaction score
18,549
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
Feel free to refute anything I posted there. Until then, it stands.
You would have to be open to a real discussion.

I know that you are not. Since you did not refute my observation, enjoy your closed mind.
So you *CAN'T* refute anything I said.

There's a fuckin' surprise.
Well, look at you.

Now, reread what I said before.
And what exactly constitutes a real discussion? Because whites have not really ever wanted to have one. That is why threads like this exist. Africans did not make slavery legal in America. Africans did not come over to America with shiploads of slaves to sell. And the bottom line here is that whites bought the slaves. Whites did not have to buy slaves from Africa. Under the feudal system at that time, whites had serfs. They decided that serfs could sign agreements to work off their passage if they wanted to go to the so-called new world.

So what exactly constitutes a real discussion?
Of course, we want to have one. We will NOT allow the terms of the discussion to be set by you.
A discussion entails agreed upon histories, sources, and most importantly, a proper perspective in time.

You are correct about one thing. Blacks did not make slavery legal, but neither did Americans. Blacks also did not make slavery illegal, American's [sic] did that.
You actually wrote "American is did that". SMH. Literacy is a lost art.

Americans did that, but only after the British did that and the the French did that (twice), as did Spain, Portugal, Holland and Denmark, amazingly without the use of superfluous apostrophes. And none of them needed a war to do so.


The entire start of this thread was based upon the premise (correctly) that slavery is not a 'whites-only' club, nor was it new when America was founded. In fact, every race has held slaves at one time or another.

Yet here you and the others are, incensed at a bit of truth.
That isn't the premise at all and nobody claimed any of your strawman, Peewee. Get the fuck outta here.
 
Last edited:

22lcidw

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2018
Messages
11,528
Reaction score
2,198
Points
275
You would have to be open to a real discussion.

I know that you are not. Since you did not refute my observation, enjoy your closed mind.
So you *CAN'T* refute anything I said.

There's a fuckin' surprise.
Well, look at you.

Now, reread what I said before.
And what exactly constitutes a real discussion? Because whites have not really ever wanted to have one. That is why threads like this exist. Africans did not make slavery legal in America. Africans did not come over to America with shiploads of slaves to sell. And the bottom line here is that whites bought the slaves. Whites did not have to buy slaves from Africa. Under the feudal system at that time, whites had serfs. They decided that serfs could sign agreements to work off their passage if they wanted to go to the so-called new world.

So what exactly constitutes a real discussion?
Of course, we want to have one. We will NOT allow the terms of the discussion to be set by you.
A discussion entails agreed upon histories, sources, and most importantly, a proper perspective in time.

You are correct about one thing. Blacks did not make slavery legal, but neither did Americans. Blacks also did not make slavery illegal, American's did that.

The entire start of this thread was based upon the premise (correctly) that slavery is not a 'whites-only' club, nor was it new when America was founded. In fact, every race has held slaves at one time or another.

Yet here you and the others are, incensed at a bit of truth.
What we will no longer have is this discussion based only on your terms. That's what is happening today and there is nothing you can do about it. You have avoided the truth and this entire thread is about that avoidance . Whites had slaves in the feudal system but went into Africa to purchase slaves in the countries they invaded and illegally occupied. That is the truth son, and you are too much of a chickenshit to face it.
You need to have discussions within your communities. The teenage sex and baby discussions would help all of us a lot. Babies and abortions are terrible when teenagers are involved.
 

CWayne

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
2,649
Reaction score
1,135
Points
190
You would have to be open to a real discussion.

I know that you are not. Since you did not refute my observation, enjoy your closed mind.
So you *CAN'T* refute anything I said.

There's a fuckin' surprise.
Well, look at you.

Now, reread what I said before.
And what exactly constitutes a real discussion? Because whites have not really ever wanted to have one. That is why threads like this exist. Africans did not make slavery legal in America. Africans did not come over to America with shiploads of slaves to sell. And the bottom line here is that whites bought the slaves. Whites did not have to buy slaves from Africa. Under the feudal system at that time, whites had serfs. They decided that serfs could sign agreements to work off their passage if they wanted to go to the so-called new world.

So what exactly constitutes a real discussion?
Of course, we want to have one. We will NOT allow the terms of the discussion to be set by you.
A discussion entails agreed upon histories, sources, and most importantly, a proper perspective in time.

You are correct about one thing. Blacks did not make slavery legal, but neither did Americans. Blacks also did not make slavery illegal, American's did that.

The entire start of this thread was based upon the premise (correctly) that slavery is not a 'whites-only' club, nor was it new when America was founded. In fact, every race has held slaves at one time or another.

Yet here you and the others are, incensed at a bit of truth.
What we will no longer have is this discussion based only on your terms. That's what is happening today and there is nothing you can do about it. You have avoided the truth and this entire thread is about that avoidance . Whites had slaves in the feudal system but went into Africa to purchase slaves in the countries they invaded and illegally occupied. That is the truth son, and you are too much of a chickenshit to face it.
So, you do not want to have a conversation at all. I knew this though.

No one is denying whites have gone into Africa to purchase slaves. The truth is, every race has done so, including the black race.

I fear nothing. I knew your reply would be this. So much for that.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top