Thomas Sewell posted a very true statement

[SonOfDaedalus]

How Many Slaves Landed in the U.S.? | The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross | PBS

So it appears that the facts are on Mr. Sowell's side, not yours. At least from what these sources present.

I find it typical that some people find all sorts of ways to denigrate others who they disagree with. Especially those considered "race traitors" because they don't toe the "Politics of Oppression" party line. :coffeepap:

Here is an article the discusses' Sowell's source of these numbers...

The Barbary Pirates, White Slaves, and Racist Agendas

Sowell's numbers are based on a book by Robert C. David. Davis just estimates the number of White slaves based on many assumptions. No other scholars have come to the same conclusions because there is just no data.

But let's use a little common sense. Why aren't there stories and books and folklore about the horror of Whites being enslaved by Muslims if we were talking about millions of Whites? Can you imagine millions of White Christians living in slavery under Black Muslim masters? The stories and folklore regarding this horror would never end.

So, Sowell is quick to believe that millions of Whites were enslaved by Blacks in his effort to make minimize the horrors of slavery in America. If anything, most people don't know just how bad slavery in American really was.

I don't agree with Sowell's libertarian beliefs regarding welfare but they don't bother me. There is nothing wrong with being a Black man who believes in Libertarian economic principles. But a Black man arguing that White slavery was worse is just pathetic. And no, it's not based on real facts.

 

[ultmd]

I find it typical that some people find all sorts of ways to denigrate others who they disagree with. Especially those considered "race traitors" because they don't toe the "Politics of Oppression" party line. :coffeepap:

"Race traitor" like "race baitor"...is a term/phrase used almost exclusively by white bigots and the whole white grievance community.

Other communities have terms and phrases for people like that...but only your crowd says stuff like "race-traitor".

But you didn't know that, until now, did you?

 

[Captain Adverse]

"Race traitor" like "race baitor"...is a term/phrase used almost exclusively by white bigots and the whole white grievance community.

Other communities have terms and phrases for people like that...but only your crowd says stuff like "race-traitor".

But you didn't know that, until now, did you?

I am Black, so I guess "my crowd" would know about racism and many of it's terms. :roll:

We also know about terms like Oreo, House-N*****, Uncle Tom, etc.

But YOU didn't know THAT, until now, did you? :coffeepap:

 

[Captain Adverse]

So, were these White slaves kept for generations? Were their children slaves? Were they bred like cattle? And we have hardly touched upon the slavery in all the other colonies controlled by Europeans. We haven't touched on the horrors in Congo by Leopold II.

Where is the legacy of White slavery by North Africans?

Sowell relies on the research of one guy and then tries to equate Barbary pirate slavery with the generations of horror experienced by Blacks in America and all over the world.

I'm pretty sure the people at Stormfront love Sowell's arguments.

Well I don't know about Sowell's source, but the citations I provided are based on information from this PBS site:

How Many Slaves Landed in the U.S.? | The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross | PBS

Leading to this site:

Page currently under construction

One of the sources in the above link is this list:

Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade - Database

Which was used by the PBS source. The provider is Professor Henry Louis Gates, a Black educator whose information can be found here:

The Scholars and Production Teams of The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross | PBS

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

We also know about terms like Oreo, House-N*****, Uncle Tom, etc.

Those are unfortunate terms but Sowell's claim that White slavery by Barbary pirates was worse than the slavery suffered by African Americans is the same arguments you hear from White Supremacists on Stormfront. Yet there are no facts to support his claim at all.

Moreover, it's absurd on its face. Jews were slaves thousands of years ago but the story is still part of their history. Where is the history of White slavery?

And what is his point? Slavery in America wasn't that bad? Slavery in America wasn't as bad as we were led to believe?

If I argued that Jews weren't the only people to experience genocide and according to the Bible Jews slaughtered the Canaanites, wouldn't you question my motives?

 

[Tigerace117]

Thomas Sewell posted a very true statement. It explains much of what is wrong with society today. He said------------When people are treated to preferential treatment, they call equal treatment discrimination.

Yep. Look at all those people who think “white genocide” is a thing and that society is biased against white people.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Those are unfortunate terms but Sowell's claim that White slavery by Barbary pirates was worse than the slavery suffered by African Americans is the same arguments you hear from White Supremacists on Stormfront. Yet there are no facts to support his claim at all.

Moreover, it's absurd on its face. Jews were slaves thousands of years ago but the story is still part of their history. Where is the history of White slavery?

And what is his point? Slavery in America wasn't that bad? Slavery in America wasn't as bad as we were led to believe?

If I argued that Jews weren't the only people to experience genocide and according to the Bible Jews slaughtered the Canaanites, wouldn't you question my motives?

I don't know what your argument is about. What form of "slavery" wasn't "that bad?"

Slavery is slavery; you are literally OWNED. Your children are OWNED.

Did it matter to Black slaves that one owner was "nicer" than another? They were still property.

You ask an open ended question about how bad could "white slavery" be, as if they actually had "white privileges" as SLAVES.

I am not arguing one is worse or better than the other, that is your red herring.

I am merely pointing out evidence that Sowell's points have more factual basis than your counter positions, which appear to be based on your confirmation biases.

Sowell may or may not be wrong; but your response is only opinion.

 

[Nap]

Ironically, this is not far from the truth.

Thomas Sowell is a respected conservative scholar with a Ph.D. in Economics, while Candace Owens is college dropout who studied journalism, briefly. He has an extensive professional bibliography, while she was an unemployed aimless millennial before striking "gold" as a niche political pundit (i.e. a black "conservative").

But the fact that someone like Candace Owens is considered the modern-day equivalent of Thomas Sowell...says a LOT about degree to which anti-intellectualism has completely overtaken the conservative movement in this country. The Right isn't concerned about truth, honesty or facts. Their search is for affirmation, and very little else.

Lol, Who considers her the modern day equivalent of Thomas Sowell?

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

Well I don't know about Sowell's source, but the citations I provided are based on information from this PBS site:

How Many Slaves Landed in the U.S.? | The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross | PBS

Leading to this site:

Page currently under construction

One of the sources in the above link is this list:

Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade - Database

Which was used by the PBS source. The provider is Professor Henry Louis Gates, a Black educator whose information can be found here:

The Scholars and Production Teams of The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross | PBS

I gave you Sowell's source and his source is just guessing about the numbers of White slaves. Moreover, we don't have any idea how many of the Barbary pirate slaves were White. They captured slaves of all races.

I have no problem with Henry Louis Gates' numbers. I have a problem with Sowell's characterization.

The treatment of white galley slaves was even worse than the treatment of black slaves picking cotton. But there are no movies or television dramas about it comparable to Roots, and our schools and colleges don't pound it into the heads of students.

Thomas Sowell: Poisoning present by distorting slavery'''s past

What is Sowell's point? Sowell's point is that Whites have been unfairly made to seem like villains in this whole slavery thing when they are actually heroes...

If American society and Western civilization are different from other societies and civilization, it is that they eventually turned against slavery, and stamped it out, at a time when non-Western societies around the world were still maintaining slavery and resisting Western pressures to end slavery, including in some cases armed resistance.

Wow, really? I guess maybe Native Americans should thank Western Civilization for wiping them out. I guess the Aztecs and Incas should thank Western Civilization. I guess the Africans in the Congo worked to death in mines by Leopold II should be thankful.

Again, I have no problem with Sowell's libertarian arguments. Some of them (not many) I can agree with. But his slavery apologetics are awful.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

I don't know what your argument is about. What form of "slavery" wasn't "that bad?"

Slavery is slavery; you are literally OWNED. Your children are OWNED.

If you were a slave would you rather work in the master's house as a servant or be out in the hot sun picking cotton and whipped if you don't meet your quota?

The reality is domestic slavery wasn't as inhumane as industrial slavery that Europeans introduced. In some societies, slaves could actually hold high positions.

Again, Sowell has no facts to back up his claim. All he has are made up numbers from one author who is just guessing and speculating.

 

[TomFitz]

Let's look a bit more carefully at the quote, shall we? Like, er, well, you know, logically? [Ed.: Cut him some slack. He just can't resist word play.]

First, it makes a broad assumption. It is that all [implied] people who receive preferential treatment will react in the same way. The word 'they' is the giveaway.

Then, having established a group of people, that group is described in negative terms.

A concept much closer to reality is that in any group of people, some will react in one way, some in another, und so weiter. This, however, makes it impossible to tar and feather a group of people with the same brush.

Regards.

PS: Did you mean Mr. Thomas Sowell?

That’s who I thought it was. I used to read his column for laughs, even when I was a Reagan Republican.

It’s no surprise that he also appeared in the noise machine’s favorite “intellectual” blog, American Thinker.

Crackpots flock together!

 

[TomFitz]

Ironically, this is not far from the truth.

Thomas Sowell is a respected conservative scholar with a Ph.D. in Economics, while Candace Owens is college dropout who studied journalism, briefly. He has an extensive professional bibliography, while she was an unemployed aimless millennial before striking "gold" as a niche political pundit (i.e. a black "conservative").

But the fact that someone like Candace Owens is considered the modern-day equivalent of Thomas Sowell...says a LOT about degree to which anti-intellectualism has completely overtaken the conservative movement in this country. The Right isn't concerned about truth, honesty or facts. Their search is for affirmation, and very little else.

Uh, Tom Sowell is dead.

And he was a pompous blowhard with a penchant for crackpot notions. I read him for laughs.

 

[Crossfire]

Uh, Tom Sowell is dead.

Maybe he did not get the memo. As far as I can tell, he is still alive.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Thomas Sowell is the worst. He's a Black man who uses flawed intellectual arguments to deny racism experienced by Blacks. He even argued that more Whites were enslaved by Blacks than the other way around. Can you imagine a Black man making that argument?

Well, considering that the percentage of "Free Blacks" who (where slavery was legal) owned "White Slaves" was possibly likely to be higher than the percentage of "Free Whites" who (where slavery was legal) owned "Black Slaves" you cannot TOTALLY discount his BRAVO SIERRA claim without recourse to accurate demographic and census data (which simply doesn't exist).

It's kind of like a Jew arguing that more Russians were killed in WWII than Jews in the Holocaust.

That wouldn't be "arguing" it would be stating a fact.

There were two groups in Europe of which the Nazis killed approximately 6,000,000 - one of those groups was "Jews". Can you name the other one?

[HINT - They did NOT get a chunk of non-European land given to them as recompense for what Europeans did to them in Europe.]

One of the figures used to calculate the number of Jews that the Nazis killed was the Jewish population in Europe in 1950. That was five years AFTER the end of WWI and when census data was rather inaccurate. It also doesn't take into account the number of Jews who left Europe between the end of WWI and 1950.

However, to be conservative, the Nazis killed between 40% and 50% of the Jews in Europe. There is, however, another group that the Nazis killed between 25% and 50% of (there are absolutely no accurate statistics for either before or after WWI. Do you know what that group was?

[HINT - They did NOT get a chunk of non-European land given to them as recompense for what Europeans did to them in Europe.]

Why would a Jewish promote push such an argument?

Because they have some respect for the truth?

Why does Sowell try to diminish the horror of slavery?

Because people will pay REALLY good money to hear someone with a high skin melanin content say "Shucks Folks, slavery weren't so darn bad for us darkies."?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Well, apparently there is some basis for his statement.

Recall your quoted citation:



Let's see:

A million Europeans enslaved - Washington Times

and then:

How Many Slaves Landed in the U.S.? | The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross | PBS

So it appears that the facts are on Mr. Sowell's side, not yours. At least from what these sources present.

I find it typical that some people find all sorts of ways to denigrate others who they disagree with. Especially those considered "race traitors" because they don't toe the "Politics of Oppression" party line. :coffeepap:

Could you please tell me how you reached the conclusion that "1 million and 1.25 million Europeans were captured by pirates called “corsairs” and forced to work in North Africa during that period" produces a number that is larger than "12.5 million Africans were shipped to the New World"?.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Could you please tell me how you reached the conclusion that "1 million and 1.25 million Europeans were captured by pirates called “corsairs” and forced to work in North Africa during that period" produces a number that is larger than "12.5 million Africans were shipped to the New World"?.

Because the "New World" contained more than the 13 colonies and the later USA.

The statistics provided indicate most slaves from Africa were shipped to other parts of the New World. The estimates of those shipped to the USA were less than 400,000, according to those citations.

Did you not examine the sources cited?

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

That wouldn't be "arguing" it would be stating a fact.

Yes, it's a fact that more Russians died than Jews but my point was more about the motivation of someone advancing such an argument. Their motive is to minimize the Holocaust. And while it's factually true, it's a bit deceptive because the Jews didn't die because of the war. They were systematically murdered for being Jewish.

Facts can be used in misleading ways.

Could you please tell me how you reached the conclusion that "1 million and 1.25 million Europeans were captured by pirates called “corsairs” and forced to work in North Africa during that period" produces a number that is larger than "12.5 million Africans were shipped to the New World"?.

There is no evidence that there were 1 million Europeans captured by pirates. It was an estimate based on various assumptions.

There are no records of how many men, women and children were enslaved, but it is possible to calculate roughly the number of fresh captives that would have been needed to keep populations steady and replace those slaves who died, escaped, were ransomed, or converted to Islam. On this basis it is thought that around 8,500 new slaves were needed annually to replenish numbers - about 850,000 captives over the century from 1580 to 1680.

BBC - History -
British History in depth: British Slaves on the Barbary Coast

This is Sowell's source. And of course he compares the number of White slaves to the number of African slaves in America. Thus ignoring all the other Black slaves all over the New World.

Notice that all over the world you still see the descendants of African slaves in the Caribbean, Brazil, and the Americas. So, where are the descendants of White slaves?

 

[COTO]

Thomas Sewell posted a very true statement. It explains much of what is wrong with society today. He said------------When people are treated to preferential treatment, they call equal treatment discrimination.

Isn't this the "white privilege" thesis in a nutshell?

I've complained about a lack of courtesy, civility, or justice on a number of occasions, only to be told this is the way of the world (i.e. "equal treatment") and I'm simply becoming aware of it for the first time as I lose my "white privilege" (i.e. "preferential treatment").

Such statements are meaningless as generalities. One needs to include specific examples.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Because the "New World" contained more than the 13 colonies and the later USA.

The statistics provided indicate most slaves from Africa were shipped to other parts of the New World. The estimates of those shipped to the USA were less than 400,000, according to those citations.

Did you not examine the sources cited?

Indeed I did. I also took a look at some factors that the "Yowsuh, tings wuzn't so bad fer us Darkes." crowd doesn't actually want you to take a look at.

The very first thing that a critical reader would have noticed would have been that the estimates were for those "shipped directly to" and did not include the number who were shipped to other destinations whence they were then shipped to the US.

Then, if someone was aware of actual demographic data sources, they would have known that the 1850 US census listed the total population at 17,069,453 persons (which included 3,204,313 slaves).

To get from your source's "Only about 388,000" to the 3,204,313 listed in the 1850 US census WITHOUT the importation of slaves who were "transshipped" would have required a rather massive breeding program, wouldn't it?

Now I'm not saying that it wouldn't have been possible, but you do have to admit that it would have been unlikely.

Well, actually, you do have to admit that it would have been unlikely IF you do NOT belong to the "Yowsuh, tings wuzn't so bad fer us Darkes." crowd. For those people it is optional (but not recommended).

 

[Pound4abrown]

What's the difference between true and very true?

One very.

 

[ataraxia]

Thomas Sewell posted a very true statement. It explains much of what is wrong with society today. He said------------When people are treated to preferential treatment, they call equal treatment discrimination.

So if I just kick someone in the nuts on the street, and the guy ends up doubled over on the side of the street, and someone goes to help them, I will tell them to stop giving him preferential treatment because then if they get treated equally they will call it discrimination. Yeah OK.

The legacy of centuries of systematic slavery and discrimination and civil rights violation for the African-American community is the equivalent of kicking someone in the nuts. It’s OK to give them some preferential treatment for a little while and a hand to help get them back up on their feet.

 

[Pound4abrown]

Probably the bottom line here is the democrat party want to buy votes. If you take away their reason to buy votes, it becomes equality, and they dont like that.

No such party.
You may want to back away from your SN.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Yes, it's a fact that more Russians died than Jews but my point was more about the motivation of someone advancing such an argument.

Always a good place to start.

Their motive is to minimize the Holocaust.

Really? There is absolutely no possibility that their motive is to draw people's attention to the fact that Jews were NOT the ONLY people that the Nazis slaughtered?

And while it's factually true, it's a bit deceptive because the Jews didn't die because of the war. They were systematically murdered for being Jewish.

Many of the Russians were murdered for being Russians, many of the Poles were murdered for being Poles, many of the Romany were murdered for being Romany, many of the homosexuals were murdered for being homosexuals, many of the people with congenital diseases were murdered for being people with congenital diseases, many of the social democrats were murdered for being social democrats, many of the "feeble minded" were murdered for being "feeble minded", many of the mentally ill were murdered for being mentally ill, and ... .

So your point would be? What? That the Jews had a better PR organization than the Russians, Poles, Romany, homosexuals, congenitally diseased, social democrats, "feeble minded', mentally ill, and ... ?

Facts can be used in misleading ways.

No kidding.

Why "everyone knows" that the group that the Nazis killed the most of was "The Jews" and that they hardly killed anyone else at all - right?

There is no evidence that there were 1 million Europeans captured by pirates. It was an estimate based on various assumptions.

That wasn't my point, at least I never said that there were that many.

This is Sowell's source. And of course he compares the number of White slaves to the number of African slaves in America. Thus ignoring all the other Black slaves all over the New World.

He also makes the assumption that NO slaves were ever landed at "A" and then transshipped to "B".

Notice that all over the world you still see the descendants of African slaves in the Caribbean, Brazil, and the Americas. So, where are the descendants of White slaves?

They are all over the world, not only in the Caribbean, Brazil, and the Americas. It's just that you don't "see" them because they don't make a big thing out of having slaves as forebearers.

 

[ultmd]

I am Black, so I guess "my crowd" would know about racism and many of it's terms. :roll:

We also know about terms like Oreo, House-N*****, Uncle Tom, etc.

But YOU didn't know THAT, until now, did you? :coffeepap:

Claiming to be "black", huh?

Good to know.

Well this African-American man understands that there have always been "blacks" like you (assuming you're not also a liar). But there's no need to get into the derogatory terms. They know what they are.

As we say, "All skin-folk ain't kin-folk". Perhaps you haven't heard that before.

My point, here, has nothing to do with your claim of "black" bona fides, however. The simple fact of the matter is that your grasp of the facts (and the history) leaves much to be desired. In this case, your acceptance of Thomas Sowell's controversial (and oft discredited) musings, seems to be another example of confirmation bias that we see in a lot of conservative types.

You know what mean, right? We're talking about the kind of people who use (and think in terms of) phrases like "race-traitor".

...know what I mean?

 

[Somerville]

Funny what one can find on the internets.

Why the man Trump once called ‘my African American’ is leaving the GOP

Gregory Cheadle, the black man President Donald Trump once described at a rally as “my African American,” is fed up.

After two years of frustration with the president’s rhetoric on race and the lack of diversity in the administration, Cheadle told PBS NewsHour he has decided to leave the Republican party and run for a seat in the U.S. House of Representative as an independent in 2020.

Now, the 62-year-old real estate broker, who supported the Republican approach to the economy, said he sees the party as pursuing a “pro-white” agenda and using black people like him as “political pawns.” The final straw for Cheadle came when he watched many Republicans defend Trump’s tweets telling four congresswomen of color, who are all American citizens, to go back to their countries, as well as defend the president’s attacks on Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., and his comments that Cummings’ hometown of Baltimore is “infested.”

“President Trump is a rich guy who is mired in white privilege to the extreme,” said Cheadle, of Redding, Calif., who switched from being an independent to a Republican in 2001. “Republicans are too sheepish to call him out on anything and they are afraid of losing their positions and losing any power themselves.”