- Joined
- Jun 11, 2011
- Messages
- 31,089
- Reaction score
- 4,384
- Location
- The greatest city on Earth
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
LOL, you obviously didn't read my response to apdst's post, so I'll repost it for you:
It's really embarrassing that you continually post without reading the thread.
This is just another example of you asking me a question that I was already asked by someone else and responded to and then accusing me of not responding to because "it shoots holes in my logic". LOL. Apdst and I think Caine also asked me the same/similar question in this same conversation, if I was afraid to answer it then I wouldn't haven't answered it then.
Stop embarrassing yourself.
There have been a lot of posts since I left yesterday, so I'll just answer the general question of the posts directed at me: Why do I think that "racism" was a factor in the decision to enslave Africans even when I also believe that other factors like location and money factored in?
Answer: First, much of the literature during the time, scientific and otherwise, posited the inferiority of Africans because of their skin color, their culture and their non-Christianity. This means that the inferiority of Africans was already in the consciousness of Europeans and Americans at the start of the the transatlantic slave trade. Second, the English and Americans tended to only enslave people from societies that deemed inferior to their own: Native Americans, Slavs, etc.. While some Englishmen were also enslaved, they were not nearly at the levels of Africans and Native Americans. Consequently, it's clear that the "race" played a role in determining who was low enough to be enslaved.
* I put "race" in quotations marks since the divisions weren't articulated as "race" during the times we're talking about.
You are so clueless about slavery.Don't try to sweep this under the rug. Even if racism wasn't the major fuel for what got us into slavery of blacks, it was without question the primary fuel for keeping the South in it.
Yes, there is. However, its not how they thought ONE-HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS AGO. You have to view this in historical perspective. You can't apply modern moral principles to history spanning over a century and a half ago.You just answered my question. If "common sense economics" means enslaving an entire group of people, and that's the sole moral justification required for that slavery, then something is fundamentally wrong with that on a moral level.
OMFG You still don't get it.Calm down. I'm simply critiquing what you said. I do agree that Africans' tribal religions did factor into racism against them, but it wasn't the sole criterion by any stretch.
Dude... It doesn't matter WHO bought them. They were up for sale by the conquering tribe. Which means if they were bought by whites, they surely would have been bought by the Arab nations who were ALSO involved in slave purchases.Even if you meant this as sarcasm, this was very much part of the justification used for enslaving blacks.
Hard to imagine an industrial economy that didn't have the need for MANY hands in hard conditions outlawed slavery while the agricultural economy that DID (and still does) have the need for many hands, working hard conditions, and doing it cheap as to maximize profits (and at the same time keep the costs of their products low) would need to keep slavery around.The scale of slavery as we know it didn't really get rolling until after the Revolution. BTW, the northern states had outlawed slavery within a few decades after the Revolution. What a shame the South didn't come on board.
yes, I have not read the article you posted.
why? .
so African slavery had nothing to do with racism?
that's like arguing the Holocaust had nothing to do with feelings of racial superiority.
Because the historical fact that I posted would somehow distort your preconcieved ideas and burst your bubble... that's why....
yes, I have not read the article you posted.
why? because its now simply historical FACT, that racism and the African slave-trade were connected with glue.
unless it acknowledges that the African slave-trade was fundamentally racist, than it is not factual.
arguing that the enslavement of millions of Africans, had nothing to do with slavery, is historical revisionism.
So if it doesn't fit with your opinion then it isn't factually accurate? :lol:
You're getting into some dangerous territory here.
First of all, the word "race" is a social construct. Always has been, always will be. "Ethnicity" is the term you're looking for in your pseudoscientific analysis.
Second, any tiny differences between typical genetic makeup of people of African descent and European descent is vastly outweighed by what they have in common. That's why we are not classified into various subspecies.
Third, different ethnicities have interbred, blurring the lines between them. This isn't just a recent phenomenon; there's a reason why most African-Americans have lighter skin than West Africans.
So stop responding to me.You think that I take you seriously?
How is it a word game to point out that I already answered a question that you accused me of being afraid to answer?word games
If by "tweaked", you mean "wrote it out in a more detailed and organized fashion", then yes.You tweaked your argument...
while i do believe that our foray with slavery is certainly tied at the hip with racism,... slavery and racism, as institutions, are not inextricably linked.Honestly, arguing that the enslavement of millions of black Africans has nothing to do with white supremacy & racism, is just another example of historical revisionism coming from the mouths of those defending the Confederacy.
Honestly, arguing that the enslavement of millions of black Africans has nothing to do with white supremacy & racism, is just another example of historical revisionism coming from the mouths of those defending the Confederacy.
oh, its not my opinion that the African slave-trade was racist.
its a fact.
People always bring this up, but the "blacks enslaving blacks" thing doesn't have the significance that many claim it does. Africans weren't "enslaving their own" as people like to say. For the most part, African slavery was about doing something with prisoners of war and members of enemy tribes/societies. This practice was common throughout history in almost every civilization to a certain extent.we need not forget that it was blacks who enslaved other blacks who were then sold off.... and i'm quite certain they were not compelled to do so by racism.
.
People always bring this up, but the "blacks enslaving blacks" thing doesn't have the significance that many claim it does. Africans weren't "enslaving their own" as people like to say. For the most part, African slavery was about doing something with prisoners of war and members of enemy tribes/societies. This practice was common throughout history in almost every civilization to a certain extent.
This, however, was not at all the foundation of American slavery nor did the relationship between enemy tribes/societies mirror the relationship of the white slave master and the black slave or the American master and the African slave.
So stop responding to me.
How is it a word game to point out that I already answered a question that you accused me of being afraid to answer?
If by "tweaked", you mean "wrote it out in a more detailed and organized fashion", then yes.
People always bring this up, but the "blacks enslaving blacks" thing doesn't have the significance that many claim it does. Africans weren't "enslaving their own" as people like to say. For the most part, African slavery was about doing something with prisoners of war and members of enemy tribes/societies. This practice was common throughout history in almost every civilization to a certain extent.
This, however, was not at all the foundation of American slavery nor did the relationship between enemy tribes/societies mirror the relationship of the white slave master and the black slave or the American master and the African slave.
Wow.... So why are you still participating in this thread if you are just going to.......
Then prove it. That is what a debate is about. Nobody gives a squirel **** about your opinion...
you are ignoring that black societies did, indeed, enslave other blacks.... not just captured and sold them off.. huge swaths of the populations of various african countries were ,indeed, slavesPeople always bring this up, but the "blacks enslaving blacks" thing doesn't have the significance that many claim it does. Africans weren't "enslaving their own" as people like to say. For the most part, African slavery was about doing something with prisoners of war and members of enemy tribes/societies. This practice was common throughout history in almost every civilization to a certain extent.
the foundation of American slavery was not always rooted in racism either... although it certainly did manifest itself as such with the passage of time.This, however, was not at all the foundation of American slavery nor did the relationship between enemy tribes/societies mirror the relationship of the white slave master and the black slave or the American master and the African slave.
you want me to prove, that the African slave-trade was racist?
that's like asking me to prove that the Holocaust killed millions of Jews.
:lamo
you are ignoring that black societies did, indeed, enslave other blacks.... not just captured and sold them off.. huge swaths of the populations of various african countries were ,indeed, slaves
there's a lot more to the slavery story than racism.
and yes, it does have significance... hell dude, Ethiopia had an estimated 2 million slaves a full 50 years after we had ended slavery here, Nigeria had roughly the same number at the same point in time... don't tell me that doesn't have significance.
the foundation of American slavery was not always rooted in racism either... although it certainly did manifest itself as such with the passage of time.
hell,we had over 100 years of institutional slavery before it was racialized.
Is that Dixon or ToT... hard to tell.
I just explained to you that I responded to the same question you asked me when it was asked by 1-2 other posters. If answer question X when it's posed to me by other posters, but I don't answer question X when it's posed by you, the problem is you. It's not that I'm "afraid" of the question...since I...answered the question, LOL.you don't answer direct question with direct responses.
Meh, I welcome you to read my posts in this part of the thread because every argument I put in the one we're currently talking about was in several individual posts by me yesterday. I essentially just put them altogether. Those are in this thread for you to read so it's pretty clear that you're just living up to your pattern of making comments about people before actually reading what they say.Yes... more detailed and in a fashion that combines arguments such as mine so as to make your "tweaked" newer version sound more reasonable.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?