[JayMillz]

Interesting thread. People have been discussing these same issues for years.

[bkamurray]

I notice slavery is used to explain most of Black America's plight. That people are still so caught up in past traumas is IMO a cop out. Fyi,the largest number of slaves in pre civil war America were white-mainly Irish.

Quote:

Even in the 1850s Frederic Law Olmsted, the landscape architect who designed New York's Central Park, was in Alabama on a pleasure trip and saw bales of cotton being thrown from a considerable height into a cargo ship's hold. The men tossing the bales somewhat recklessly into the hold were Negroes, the men in the hold were Irish.
Olmsted inquired about this to a shipworker. "Oh," said the worker, "the niggers are worth too much to be risked here; if the Paddies are knocked overboard or get their backs broke, nobody loses anything."

http://karanjazplace.blogspot.com/2012/1...thing.html





With this new info,hopefully we can ALL reconceptualise old issues and apply fresh insights.

[speakeasy]

(01-07-2013 01:54 AM)bkamurray Wrote:  

I notice slavery is used to explain most of Black America's plight. That people are still so caught up in past traumas is IMO a cop out. Fyi,the largest number of slaves in pre civil war America were white-mainly Irish.

I was trying to stay out of this thread, but I'm not going to let you get away with spreading historical revisionism. These white "slaves" you are referring to were not slaves, they were indentured servants. These were people who came here by their own volition and the indentured servitude was a way to pay off the cost of their transport. They were people paying off debts by working. They were not owned for life, they would be released once their contract was up. They were also not viewed the same way blacks were, as subhumans who were forced to drink from different water fountains. Sure, their lives sucked, but it wasn't slavery if it was voluntary.

[Rex]

(01-07-2013 01:54 AM)bkamurray Wrote:  

I notice slavery is used to explain most of Black America's plight. That people are still so caught up in past traumas is IMO a cop out.

Agreed. US blacks need to get over slavery. They need to resist the destructive brainwashing they've been subjected to in recent decades, which is now being expanded to society at large - as Athlone's excellent article shows.

I say 'US blacks' as blacks outside America don't cry-me-a-river over slavery, even if they have slave ancestry. For example, Caribbean blacks and UK blacks aren't obsessed with slavery - despite the best efforts of cultural Marxists to sensitize them to historical injustices.

Reality check for blacks in America:

1. Every sizeable population on Earth has been enslaved at one point - blacks don't have a monopoly on being enslaved.

2. The descendants of black slaves benefited the most from black slavery. Where would you rather live - America or Africa?

3. Indeed, descendants of black slaves wouldn't even exist had not slavery occurred. If your ancestors weren't enslaved and transported thousands of miles away, they would have met and mated with different people. You wouldn't exist. You owe your very existence to slavery.

The media wants contemporary blacks to believe they're victims - victims of historical injustice, echoing through generations to the present moment.

Don't fall for that trap. You're being played by cultural Marxists who have no genuine interest in you, but are using you as pawns, and guinea pigs, in their wider social engineering plans.

Don't play the victim card. Don't adopt victim psychology.

Become kings. Become masters of your destiny.

[Blaster]

Quote:

Agreed. US blacks need to get over slavery.

It's not just slavery, but the legacy of slavery plus cultural and institutional discrimination against blacks. See: Jim Crow laws-- segregation, police abuse, rent discrimination, employment discrimination, political disenfranchisement. Unlike feminist history rewrites, this discrimination was real and documented.

Consider this description on wikipedia from that movie I linked a few posts back:

Quote:

The setting of the movie is South Central Los Angeles. Both gangs of the Crips and the Bloods are only miles away from the richest cities of the richest state in the United States of America. South Central Los Angeles is ten miles away from Pacific Coast Highway and the Santa Monica beaches. It is about five to ten miles from Hollywood. It is about twenty miles from Anaheim, Disneyland, and the Orange County. These gangs are “surrounded by the American Dream”, a dream so far that it cannot even be imagined by the members of these gangs. The documentary states that gang violence between the Crips and Bloods has taken more than 15,000 lives. Five times as many lost in Ireland's sectarian conflict.

The documentary discusses the many, unique circumstances of the 1960s that lead to the creation of these violent gangs. Some of the factors that are discussed in the documentary are listed below:

Lack of Organizational Acceptance, Identity

Blank Bird, now Blank Blank of Blank, discusses his multiple attempts to join youth organizations, such as the Boy Scouts of America or Explorer Scouts of America. He stated that he, like most other young African-American males, was constantly shut out of such predominantly white organized activities or organizations. He felt that it was almost like there was nowhere for young African-American men to turn. Bird accounts a lack of a sense of identity or acceptance and that is when African-American males began forming their own fraternities.

It began with small competition, between neighborhoods and streets, and definitely was not as violent. Groups like the Slausans, Del Vikings, and the Gladiators formed. (http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may/03/...nessmen3). Often, they fought protected against the white gangs of the area terrorizing the African American neighborhoods (http://www.communitywalk.com/location/th...o/944937). In these brotherhoods African Americans found acceptance and a sense of identity.

Regulation by Los Angeles Police Department

First and foremost, the media portrayed and the public perceives African-American males as violent criminals. Therefore, the Los Angeles Police Department, especially under Chief Officer William Parker regulated the Los Angeles area “like a military.” African Americans were to remain in their neighborhoods at all times. Like Kumasi said, you had to be at the “right neighborhood at the right time. You couldn’t go to Alameda, for example.” That was a predominantly white neighborhood, where African Americans were not wanted. Kumasi further discusses the invisible barriers that African Americans were not allowed to cross. If one was found simply walking through the “wrong neighborhood,” he was questioned and investigated almost like a criminal. There was in essence no freedom to walk to streets of a free country.

Kumasi described the experience of an African-American male of Los Angeles as a “walking time bomb.” They were experiencing so much hatred from the police that sooner or later they would erupt. “The only question was upon whom,” said Kumasi.

Watts Riot

The documentary then goes on and demonstrates how these African-American experiences set the stage for the Watts Riot. African-Americans were killed for absolutely trivial crimes. After a police encounter leading to the arrest of an intoxicated male, his brother, and mother, African Americans took to the streets against the Los Angeles Police Department, protesting racial injustices against them. Chief Officer William Parker only fueled the already racialized tension by calling African-Americans “monkeys in a zoo.” The documentary discussed how it was all over the news and media. Let alone the Los Angeles Times, newspapers all over the nations were covering the Watts Riots of Los Angeles.

Institutional changes occurred afterwards. The documentary discussed the changes that were led by Black Panther Organization and then the backlash against these organizations. FBI investigations began, claiming that “Black panthers were the biggest threat to internal stability of USA.” Its leaders were murdered, jailed, etc. After those leaders disappeared, the new generation started – Crips and Bloods (see background, membership, and history below).

Backdrop – California

California was different from the South. There were no prior bus laws or segregation in public schools. However, there were covenants against black housing. There was neighborhood segregation. Even after outlawing it eventually, neighborhoods stayed that way.

Industrialization hit in Los Angeles in the late 1950s in response to the booming industries of the country. The American economy was changing to an economy with either high end or low end jobs. African-Americans found themselves displaced in the job market. They did not have the prior skills, knowledge, or education to perform the high wage technological jobs, due to the historical discrimination and lack of opportunities. They also did not feel like they, as U.S. citizens, should have to do the low labor jobs either. After all, they felt that they were above the immigrant low level jobs. In turn, they found themselves totally displaced from the labor market. Eventually, by the latter half of the 1960s, jobs and factories both disappeared from the Los Angeles region. Consequences were enormous. Businesses are empty and there is nowhere to turn. It simply becomes harder and harder to survive as time goes on.

Drugs

After the introduction of crack cocaine, even the African-American families were torn apart. The family institution became dysfunctional as well. There were no male role models in the family any longer. Seventy percent of black children are born to single mothers. Twenty eight percent of all black men will be jailed in their lifetime. There is a disproportionate number of black males in prison, making the possibility of a male figure in an African-American family even less likely.

Again, slavery is not used to "explain the plight." When people say that, it's code for the entire history of human rights violations and institutional discrimination against blacks (as a whole) in the US; most of which is did not result from "victim mentality." There were legitimate victims.

[bkamurray]

(01-07-2013 06:46 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(01-07-2013 01:54 AM)bkamurray Wrote:  

I notice slavery is used to explain most of Black America's plight. That people are still so caught up in past traumas is IMO a cop out. Fyi,the largest number of slaves in pre civil war America were white-mainly Irish.

I was trying to stay out of this thread, but I'm not going to let you get away with spreading historical revisionism. These white "slaves" you are referring to were not slaves, they were indentured servants. These were people who came here by their own volition and the indentured servitude was a way to pay off the cost of their transport. They were people paying off debts by working. They were not owned for life, they would be released once their contract was up. They were also not viewed the same way blacks were, as subhumans who were forced to drink from different water fountains. Sure, their lives sucked, but it wasn't slavery if it was voluntary.

No. They were slaves in every sense of the word. The establishment today refers them as 'indentured servants' to disguise the fact their plight was often as bad or worse,than that of black slaves. The reason for this isn't too hard to discern;careers and fortunes are to be made from the exclusive suffering of certain people.
Here are some mortality figures:

Quote:

Salinger reports a death rate of ten to twenty percent over the entire 18th century for Black slaves on board ships enroute to America compared with a death rate of 25% for White slaves enroute to America.

The Irish suffered so massively the effects are felt today in underpopulation. Also at least 10% of West Indian slave owners were black. Ponder the implications for a minute.

[brock sampson]

(01-05-2013 06:34 PM)Teedub Wrote:  

....

All in all, I believe the next ten years will be actually a rather wonderful time for race relations in the West, as we men will all come together to fight feminism and the Matrist society that has entrapped young boys as victims, regardless of race, who need 'training' to be more feminine.

I seriously doubt this is the way things will play out. Just look at what's happening on football terraces and on the pitch here in the UK as well as Europe. The head of world football still thinks racially abused players shouldn't 'run' away! Despite years of dishing out paltry fines that have done ZERO to deter- in fact arguably could be seen as a green light. Fact is the UK went through (what I hope) the worst of race relations in the 70s and 80s. There are many countries throughout the continent that appear have no intent on following this upheaval. They're simply 20 years behind at best.

[brock sampson]

Someone asked what can be done to get things on track. Here one thing IMO:

'Thug life' and all of its tacky ornaments have been commodified and normalised. Somehow values need be to re-aligned, and re-weighted.

Quote:

6) Coonery became tolerated. It's weird to read early 20th century black fiction where things like "you need to be on your best behavior in front of white folks" is said, but it is clear that the way a lot of black americans act today would not have been tolerated by their elders 100 years ago. There was a time when being educated and bettering yourself was something to aspire to. Far too many blacks today seem to aspire to little more than acting like caricatures.

As Lupe Fiasco suggested, the way most mainstream hip hop videos portray themselves, their characters and their communities, the ridiculously distorted reflections resemble something akin to the old coon shows. It's a bleak fantasy of smoke and mirrors that children minus corrective role models are looking towards.

http://vimeo.com/48055765

[speakeasy]

(01-07-2013 10:48 AM)bkamurray Wrote:  

(01-07-2013 06:46 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(01-07-2013 01:54 AM)bkamurray Wrote:  

I notice slavery is used to explain most of Black America's plight. That people are still so caught up in past traumas is IMO a cop out. Fyi,the largest number of slaves in pre civil war America were white-mainly Irish.

I was trying to stay out of this thread, but I'm not going to let you get away with spreading historical revisionism. These white "slaves" you are referring to were not slaves, they were indentured servants. These were people who came here by their own volition and the indentured servitude was a way to pay off the cost of their transport. They were people paying off debts by working. They were not owned for life, they would be released once their contract was up. They were also not viewed the same way blacks were, as subhumans who were forced to drink from different water fountains. Sure, their lives sucked, but it wasn't slavery if it was voluntary.

No. They were slaves in every sense of the word. The establishment today refers them as 'indentured servants' to disguise the fact their plight was often as bad or worse,than that of black slaves. The reason for this isn't too hard to discern;careers and fortunes are to be made from the exclusive suffering of certain people.
Here are some mortality figures:

Quote:

Salinger reports a death rate of ten to twenty percent over the entire 18th century for Black slaves on board ships enroute to America compared with a death rate of 25% for White slaves enroute to America.

The Irish suffered so massively the effects are felt today in underpopulation. Also at least 10% of West Indian slave owners were black. Ponder the implications for a minute.

Once again you're missing my point. A slave is not the same as an indentured servant. One ended up there by no choice of their own, one went willingly for a set period of time(about 5 years typically) to pay off debts. Any kids an indentured servant had were born free. After they were done they were free to own property, vote and be normal citizens of society. This was not true for black slaves. The only way indentured servants had it worse is that they were often worked even harder because the their owners knew they could only get 5 years out of them, whereas the black slaves they had for life.

[rudebwoy]

(01-07-2013 10:48 AM)bkamurray Wrote:  

(01-07-2013 06:46 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(01-07-2013 01:54 AM)bkamurray Wrote:  

I notice slavery is used to explain most of Black America's plight. That people are still so caught up in past traumas is IMO a cop out. Fyi,the largest number of slaves in pre civil war America were white-mainly Irish.

I was trying to stay out of this thread, but I'm not going to let you get away with spreading historical revisionism. These white "slaves" you are referring to were not slaves, they were indentured servants. These were people who came here by their own volition and the indentured servitude was a way to pay off the cost of their transport. They were people paying off debts by working. They were not owned for life, they would be released once their contract was up. They were also not viewed the same way blacks were, as subhumans who were forced to drink from different water fountains. Sure, their lives sucked, but it wasn't slavery if it was voluntary.

No. They were slaves in every sense of the word. The establishment today refers them as 'indentured servants' to disguise the fact their plight was often as bad or worse,than that of black slaves. The reason for this isn't too hard to discern;careers and fortunes are to be made from the exclusive suffering of certain people.
Here are some mortality figures:

Quote:

Salinger reports a death rate of ten to twenty percent over the entire 18th century for Black slaves on board ships enroute to America compared with a death rate of 25% for White slaves enroute to America.

The Irish suffered so massively the effects are felt today in underpopulation. [b]Also at least 10% of West Indian slave owners were black. Ponder the implications for a minute.[/b]

This is a complete lie and fabrication on your part.
How have the Irish suffered? Are you referring to the Irish Famine!
What effects are felt today?
Blacks were not considered human, so thereby were not allowed to own anything not even other slaves. Dogs had more rights.

It is estimated over 100 million Africans died during the middle passage during the 400 years of slavery, no other race can even compare to that. Yet you want to talk about a few Irish that supposedly died on journey's that they "chose" to make. Calling them white slaves is pretty rich.

Athlone did not bring up slavery, his focus was more on modern day problems. If you don't like the subject then don't comment on it, especially if you don't know what you are talking about.

[Blaster]

Indentured servant, slave, whatever. That's missing the point. Even ushistory.org agrees that the terms of an indentured servitude contract usually weren't all they were cracked up to be; especially in an isolated location like a plantation. The question is what's the legacy and lasting impact on the culture of the people affected. And it's true that by now, many of the direct consequences of African slavery are minimal. But as Speakeasy, myself, and others have pointed out, history is not that simple. It wasn't JUST slavery.

Yeah there were lots of slaves of all sorts in pre-revolutionary America and pre-Civil War. But slavery was dying out towards the end of the 18th century. By this time it was getting much harder to force or trick Europeans into indentured servant contracts and the balance was shifting towards Africans. But even they were declining and Slavery might have died out on its own but for the invention of the Cotton Gin in 1973. This led to a huge increase in the demand for cheap, unskilled labor in the south, meaning more demand for African slaves. By the Civil War, slaves where overwhelmingly black. A few cherry-picked advertisements or anecdotes changes nothing. (The 'paddies in the cargo hold' suggestive anecdote fails under minimal statistical or economic scrutiny)

Furthermore, as has been covered already, race issues did not end with slavery. There has been discrimination and exploitation of many different communities and ethnic groups throughout US history. If you look around you can find evidence. But few groups have encountered as much prejudice and discrimination across all parts of the country, through all levels of society, through the majority of US History, as blacks.

And still none of that matters to the point of the thread, because laying blame is not the point. If you want to be a retard and deny the history of racial discrimination in the US that's up to you. It's merely being offered for historical perspective.

The facts are that since the 1950s, black families have disintegrated. It wasn't slavery alone that caused that. Like any cultural phenomenon the causes are complex, and specific outcomes are hard to predict. But it's an example of "here's what can happen when you remove fathers from a society."

[DarkTriad]

(01-04-2013 08:32 PM)Ovid Wrote:  

Athlone, this article has really been making me ponder today. Thank you for penning it. A couple of interrelated questions I'd like to hear your thoughts on, if I may:

1. How did the tenets of the feminist ideology come to have such sway in the black community? How did it come to be so matriarchal?

They gave them the money. That's the long and the short of it. I've got black relatives. Grandpa, the guy that works the hardest, doesn't have keys to the home (public housing). Anytime he displeases her, he is homeless. This is HUGE leverage....and believe me, it gets used. This is a guy that commonly get up at 5:00am to do hard manual labor...which is a lot harder in your seventies. He has a lot of genuine handyman type skills and is constantly hustling by repairing TVs and other stuff that get's thrown out and selling it. In another culture he would be a revered patriarch. Here, not so much.

The male children aren't even given keys to the home (single mom can't control them otherwise). If that means dad has to wait outside for hours til mommy get's home to drop them off, that's what it means.


This will severely warp a society.


And they keep giving them the money. The more ways the Kleptocray can find to justify taking from the working people to give to the leeches, the worse it will get.

[Samseau]

Giovanny:

Quote:

How can you have family values if you are a slave? Slaves didn't have any rights or power to keep their families together..?

If the slave owner wants to break up the slave family, what can the slave do to keep his family together? Nothing, he is a slave!

I'm curious why you think black slaves had good family values? Is there any historical mention of this?

How would you even know this? Did you read this somewhere? Got any sources?

To the best of my knowledge, black slaves stayed together when they could. Even if they got separated or sold by their masters, black slaves were intensely religious and had strong family values.

This was in spite of the fact they were oppressed in every way imaginable.

Read more: http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tser...milies.htm

[Samseau]

(01-07-2013 03:09 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(01-07-2013 10:48 AM)bkamurray Wrote:  

(01-07-2013 06:46 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(01-07-2013 01:54 AM)bkamurray Wrote:  

I notice slavery is used to explain most of Black America's plight. That people are still so caught up in past traumas is IMO a cop out. Fyi,the largest number of slaves in pre civil war America were white-mainly Irish.

I was trying to stay out of this thread, but I'm not going to let you get away with spreading historical revisionism. These white "slaves" you are referring to were not slaves, they were indentured servants. These were people who came here by their own volition and the indentured servitude was a way to pay off the cost of their transport. They were people paying off debts by working. They were not owned for life, they would be released once their contract was up. They were also not viewed the same way blacks were, as subhumans who were forced to drink from different water fountains. Sure, their lives sucked, but it wasn't slavery if it was voluntary.

No. They were slaves in every sense of the word. The establishment today refers them as 'indentured servants' to disguise the fact their plight was often as bad or worse,than that of black slaves. The reason for this isn't too hard to discern;careers and fortunes are to be made from the exclusive suffering of certain people.
Here are some mortality figures:

Quote:

Salinger reports a death rate of ten to twenty percent over the entire 18th century for Black slaves on board ships enroute to America compared with a death rate of 25% for White slaves enroute to America.

The Irish suffered so massively the effects are felt today in underpopulation. Also at least 10% of West Indian slave owners were black. Ponder the implications for a minute.

Once again you're missing my point. A slave is not the same as an indentured servant. One ended up there by no choice of their own, one went willingly for a set period of time(about 5 years typically) to pay off debts. Any kids an indentured servant had were born free. After they were done they were free to own property, vote and be normal citizens of society. This was not true for black slaves. The only way indentured servants had it worse is that they were often worked even harder because the their owners knew they could only get 5 years out of them, whereas the black slaves they had for life.

Actually there is evidence that indentured servitude set the model for black slavery:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in..._servitude

[rudebwoy]

(01-07-2013 09:22 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Giovanny:

Quote:

How can you have family values if you are a slave? Slaves didn't have any rights or power to keep their families together..?

If the slave owner wants to break up the slave family, what can the slave do to keep his family together? Nothing, he is a slave!

I'm curious why you think black slaves had good family values? Is there any historical mention of this?

How would you even know this? Did you read this somewhere? Got any sources?

To the best of my knowledge, black slaves stayed together when they could. Even if they got separated or sold by their masters, black slaves were intensely religious and had strong family values.

This was in spite of the fact they were oppressed in every way imaginable.

Read more: http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tser...milies.htm

To the best of your knowledge which means you do not know.
Once again please do not try to sugar coat it, but this is a ugly period in history.
We were viewed like animals, do you know how they use to check males when they sold them?
We were branded like cattle and again I repeat not viewed as human, hence the unhumane treatment we recieved. We did not have families, if they were kept together it was by luck. They would get the big "negro" to procreate with the women to create a strong breed.
If another owner wanted a slave and paid the right amount of money, then the slave was his.
Did you not see Roots? lol
Maybe you should watch a documentary called Eyes on the Prize or the documentary on my favourite athlete Jack Johnson - Unforgiven Blackness.
I could ramble on more if you like, shall we talk about lynchings, Jim Crow laws??

[Captain Ahab]

African Americans need to "get over" slavery.

Jews need to "get over" the Holocaust.

Native Americans need to "get over" colonial genocide.

I find it odd the perpetrator of these horrific crimes, some of the worse in human history, asks the victims to "get over it," like a rapist telling the abused child to stop bitching, I fucked you involuntarily ten years go.

As if we are not living with the vestiges of slavery, the Holocaust, and European conquest of Native American lands to this present day, this very day, here in the United States.

I can't help but laugh at it all.

[Rex]

The perpetrators of black slavery (a number of European capitalists, Arab traders, and African tribal leaders) are long dead. And they were a minority of the population back then.

Obviously the past impacts the present. How can it be otherwise? But the point often missed is that US blacks don't have to be prisoners of the past. They don't need to adopt a victim psychology or a victim identity or obsess over one chapter of history. Caribbean blacks and UK blacks don't play that game. Neither should US blacks.

[Blaster]

Slavery was abolished in the Caribbean territories between 1790 and 1810, right at the beginning of the Cotton boom in the US. US Civil War was 1861-1865.

Additionally I have not found anything in the history of the Caribbean to suggest parallels to the racially prejudiced institutional segregation and disenfranchisement that existed in the US. I have also read that the Spanish-speaking, Latin American cultures were much more open to integration and inter-marriage than the predominantly English, German, and Irish cultures in the North.

[Rex]

(01-08-2013 10:04 AM)Blaster Wrote:  

Slavery was abolished in the Caribbean territories between 1790 and 1810, right at the beginning of the Cotton boom in the US. US Civil War was 1861-1865.

Additionally I have not found anything in the history of the Caribbean to suggest parallels to the racially prejudiced institutional segregation and disenfranchisement that existed in the US. I have also read that the Spanish-speaking, Latin American cultures were much more open to integration and inter-marriage than the predominantly English, German, and Irish cultures in the North.

Good point.

The British Commonwealth experience of slavery was very different to the US experience of slavery. The British abolished slavery much sooner than the Americans, and they never had legal discrimination against non-whites.

In contrast, the American experience was far more brutal and institutionalised.

So I guess its unsurprising why slavery isn't at the forefront of multicultural relations in the UK, as well as why blacks in British Commonwealth countries, such as those in the Caribbean, aren't as focused on slavery as US blacks are.

I can see now why US blacks focus more on slavery than Caribbean and UK blacks do: it's not playing a different game, rather its a reflex of having had very different experiences. I'm happy to stand corrected!

[Samseau]

(01-07-2013 09:42 PM)rudebwoy Wrote:  

(01-07-2013 09:22 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Giovanny:

Quote:

How can you have family values if you are a slave? Slaves didn't have any rights or power to keep their families together..?

If the slave owner wants to break up the slave family, what can the slave do to keep his family together? Nothing, he is a slave!

I'm curious why you think black slaves had good family values? Is there any historical mention of this?

How would you even know this? Did you read this somewhere? Got any sources?

To the best of my knowledge, black slaves stayed together when they could. Even if they got separated or sold by their masters, black slaves were intensely religious and had strong family values.

This was in spite of the fact they were oppressed in every way imaginable.

Read more: http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tser...milies.htm

To the best of your knowledge which means you do not know.
Once again please do not try to sugar coat it, but this is a ugly period in history.
We were viewed like animals, do you know how they use to check males when they sold them?
We were branded like cattle and again I repeat not viewed as human, hence the unhumane treatment we recieved. We did not have families, if they were kept together it was by luck. They would get the big "negro" to procreate with the women to create a strong breed.
If another owner wanted a slave and paid the right amount of money, then the slave was his.
Did you not see Roots? lol
Maybe you should watch a documentary called Eyes on the Prize or the documentary on my favourite athlete Jack Johnson - Unforgiven Blackness.
I could ramble on more if you like, shall we talk about lynchings, Jim Crow laws??

Nothing you said contradicted what I said.

[kosko]

Slavery talk is a herring in my view. This discussion is getting of base from the classic African-American Experience that did little to shape the modern one. Modern Black America today is mostly dude toe mis-haps of the destruction of the family and Religious structure present in ALL African-American Communities from NYC, to Alabama, to California.

I have been wanting to contribute to this thread but I have a draft in the works about a angle that has not been discussed in depth here and mostly about how social economic conditions were ruined due the physical destruction of African-America largely self sufficient communities in Urban America. Redlining is one aspect of it but I hope to go deeper.

The "inclusion" of African-Americans into the legal society was not done honestly it was done in a way to always undermine and limit the population from ever gaining traction to gain a majority block of power whiten the legal society of America. This is indeed the future because the end goal is to limit the power and advancement of all. The African-American people were simply used as a test model to implement this.

[Giovonny]

(01-07-2013 09:22 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

To the best of my knowledge, black slaves stayed together when they could. Even if they got separated or sold by their masters, black slaves were intensely religious and had strong family values.

This was in spite of the fact they were oppressed in every way imaginable.

Read more: http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tser...milies.htm

Thanks for the link.

[rudebwoy]

(01-08-2013 09:34 AM)Rex Wrote:  

The perpetrators of black slavery (a number of European capitalists, Arab traders, and African tribal leaders) are long dead. And they were a minority of the population back then.

Obviously the past impacts the present. How can it be otherwise? But the point often missed is that US blacks don't have to be prisoners of the past. They don't need to adopt a victim psychology or a victim identity or obsess over one chapter of history. Caribbean blacks and UK blacks don't play that game. Neither should US blacks.

No one is adopting a victim psychology, just stating the facts but again non-blacks tend to get funny when these facts are stated. The main perpetrators were also Jews, which is not often mentioned.

As for UK blacks, they cannot really talk directly about slavery but they sure "whine" alot about modern day racism in the UK. For the record I was born there and visit regularly, most of my cousin's and friends complain. Unlike the US, the UK has a political party BNP that mandates all foreigners (coloured) should return to there country.

So it not so easy to forget the past when you are told you don't belong, is it?

[Captain Ahab]

There is no forgetting the past, one can only use it to motivate them or destroy them, and anyone who thinks they have the arrogance to tell a black person what they should and should not do in regards to his or her own history, culture, politics, and overcoming present day social and institutional racism,even though they are not black, is quite simply not worth responding to since they have very little idea of what the black condition is in the post-colonial world.

Honestly, my biggest mistake was responding to a social/political thread. I'm here to seek advice on how to obtain pussy, money, and accomplishment, not to debate the social-political challenges and circumstances of oppressed groups.

I have reddit for that.

Ahab out.

[Rex]

(01-08-2013 07:30 PM)Captain Ahab Wrote:  

There is no forgetting the past, one can only use it to motivate them or destroy them, and anyone who thinks they have the arrogance to tell a black person what they should and should not do in regards to his or her own history, culture, politics, and overcoming present day social and institutional racism,even though they are not black, is quite simply not worth responding to since they have very little idea of what the black condition is in the post-colonial world.

Honestly, my biggest mistake was responding to a social/political thread. I'm here to seek advice on how to obtain pussy, money, and accomplishment, not to debate the social-political challenges and circumstances of oppressed groups.

I have reddit for that.

Ahab out.

[/quote]