And if I said that, how would that make me racist? It's true-the US invasion of Iraq did make it in a hellhole. Saddam kept things in line there. Now religious idiots are fighting sectarian violence and committing war crimes. What Iraqi person now would say they love to live there? Nobody there would say that. It's not racist to admit Iraq is a third world country-its a fact. - - - Updated - - - what was hateful about what i said?
I never said that 100% of it was on Africans. You're putting words in my mouth once again. What I DID say is that the Africans began black slavery. That's supported by everything I have posted. That 80% of these slaves were directly given to Europeans by tribes is actually more than I thought before I looked these sources up. The kidnapping you are referencing happened after the African tribes started selling to the Euros. They didn't just hop off their ships and enslave the first Africans they saw. Nothing I said has been contradicted and if you'd just read the sources I post instead of only the quotes then you'd learn the accurate history. Every question you have asked is in the links I've posted. And are you suggesting that white Americans haven't apologized? Wake up dude The tribes practiced enslaving others for centuries before they ever saw a white man. The supply was only from African kingdoms long before Dutchmen found blacks. READ. It's all there What about those contradict the other? The Crf quote is a breakdown of how Africans whose slavery was ONLY due to other Africans were enslaved. This sentence that corroborates wikipedia is literally a few lines before it: "At first, white slave traders simply went on kidnapping raids, but this proved too dangerous for the Europeans."
It would be symbic racism if you fail to acknowledge to total destruction of civilisation by Europeans when judging current worldly affairs implicated
You have provided no evidence that chattel slavery was existent in Afrika pre-colonial. What you are referencing is feudal systems, pow's and serfs which existed in every society and was common practice that still would not be frowned upon. The fact that you think europeans didnt just hop off ships and enslave ppl is one born of ignorance as in not knowing. Clearly your research is based on wiki sources and a total failure in the use of primary sources. Had you used primary resources (there is only one btw) then you would know. You would know that indeed, europeans did actually hop of ships and enslave ppl in West Afrika. It is you that is unread and unlearned.
imust have missed that. in what post did you acknowledge the devastating impact of colonialism on Afrika?
I see what you did there. Let me clear this up. I said, "Nothing in this source demonstrates how Africans caused the Atlantic Slave Trade." You responded, "Yes it does." I was talking about slaves in AST because it is relevant to a potential reparations case here in America. I am not talking about the other slavic transactions between Africans selling slaves to other African tribes because that would be different cases if bought up. But I digress. Your very own source states at the 4th paragraph of the crf-usa article how an African became a slave. This is YOUR source! Here is what is says, "How did an African become a slave? At first, white slave traders simply went on kidnapping raids, but this proved too dangerous for the Europeans. Instead, they established hundreds of forts and trading stations along Africas West Coast." This proves that white criminals initiated this trade. Yes they jumped right off the boat to get some free people. They couldn't steal them, so they made arrangements to get them through trades. Your wiki source states this, "The Portuguese were the first to engage in the New World slave trade in the 16th century, and others soon followed." No matter how you slice and dice it, Africans did not initiate the AST and that was my point. That said, cases of reparations being paid long after the perpetrators of enslavement are dead have been made and executed. The same arguments that made it happen between Germany-Israel and France-Haiti could be drafted and applied to slave descendants. Note: Notice how the author is stating that 'traders' started off on kidnapping raids instead of just calling them criminals.
Some lawyer you would make! No judgment has been issued by a court anywhere in the US decreeing reparations to African Americans. Indian Tribes were sovereign nations. African Americans never were sovereign. You mean like Head Start, Food Stamps, Welfare, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, and a host of other social welfare programs that disproportionately benefit African Americans in percentage terms? Partition the country. Let African Americans take the eastern seaboard states, and forever go their own way.
I have no interest in punishing whites at all. I'm attempting to help make a reparations case which would include decent arable land designated for slave descendants. I'm actually surprised that making suggestions for a potential case is getting so much push-back. No. Do I detect an incentive to help make the case for reparations?
Yay, we should make these folks "whole" again in the legal sense, as it would apply to restitution. We must restore them to their previous condition, prior to this violation by evil white men.
You're verging on libel at this point. I did not say that Europeans did not EVER capture Africans immediately upon landing. I said that they were given hordes of enslaved blacks via trades with African slavers before kidnapping was even once resorted to. I posted three sources that all concur. Yes, slaves on the whole received slightly better treatment in Africa than America. How does that remove the blame from Africans as the first black slavers, and thus the root cause of the Atlantic Slave Trade? I'm fine with you doubting wiki (though it has a 97.5% accuracy rate) but the other two sources are PBS and the Constitutional Rights Foundation. Those are about as respectable as sources get. In any case, until you post even one source that supports your claims you don't have a leg to stand on. Now this is where the most important part of this post begins. The information below will put you out of your misery and prove, among other things, that slavery was common in Africa long before Europeans got there: "1. African law recognized slavery and the right of owners to alienate slaves. 2. A relatively low population density and an absence of the concept of property in land encouraged the development of slavery in West and Central Africa. 3. Slavery had been important in the medieval empires of Ghana, Mali, and Songhai, and slave exports had supplemented the export of gold. 4. Although African slavery was not a benign institution, slaves in Africa were used in a wider variety of ways than in the New World: they were employed as agricultural workers, soldiers, servants, and officials. 5. The great majority of slaves sold to Europeans were not slaves in Africa; they were usually recent war captives or victims of banditry and judicial proceedings. [Note: I know you likely won't read the preceding sentence post-comma and then you'll say that it supports you. So I'll remind you to read the whole sentence] 6. Even under harsh chattel slavery [wait.....you just said there was none of that in Africa, remember?], manumission was possible for a significant number of slaves and slaves usually had a right to keep any monetary earnings and buy their freedom. 7. Multi-generational slavery was uncommon; in part this reflected the fact that most African slaves were women. (The same page says that 56% of slaves shipped to the New World were adult males) 8. During the early years of enslavement, African slaves usually worked under supervision. Then many became "allotment slaves," who worked five or six days until about 2 p.m. on the master's lands, and in the evenings and on their days off, worked their own plots. In the third stage settled slaves spent most of their time working their land in exchange for a fixed obligation, usually what it took to feed an adult male for a year." http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=11&psid=3807 Fun fact: that little .edu there means it's university affiliated [University of Houston]. The site asks for its home page link to be provided when any online information is referenced, so the next link is the home page and the one following it is a link detailing the credits of Digital History. That way you can't claim it's unreliable without looking like a moron. 1. http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu 2. http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/credits.cfm Now some more facts from Digital History. I have omitted some of the myth-fact pairs that don't apply to our conversation in the interest of brevity. Feel free to examine them all on the link(s) posted above: "Myth: Slavery in the non-western world was a mild, benign, and non-economic institution. Fact: Slaves were always subject to torture, sexual exploitation, and arbitrary death. Myth: Slavery is a product of capitalism. Fact: Slavery is older than the first human records. Myth: Slavery is a product of Western Civilization. Fact: Slavery is virtually a universal institution. Myth: Slavery was always based on race. Fact: Not until the 15th century was slavery associated primarily with people of African descent." "Enslavement and the Slave Trade Myth: Europeans physically enslaved Africans or hired mercenaries who captured people for export or that African rulers were "Holocaust abettors" who were themselves to blame for the slave trade. Fact: Europeans did engage in some slave raiding; the majority of people who were transported to the Americas were enslaved by Africans in Africa. Myth: Kidnapping was the usual means of enslavement. Fact:War was the most important source of enslavement; it would be incorrect to reduce all of these wars to slave raids. Myth:Most slaves were imported into what is now the United States Fact:Well over 90 percent of slaves from Africa were imported into the Caribbean and South America" Tell me why America should give reparations for just 10% of the Slave Trade while Brazil gets off free? "Slavery and World History 1. The most ancient civilizations--ancient Mesopotamia, Old Kingdom Egypt [that's in Africa, right?] and the budding civilization that formed in the Indus and Yangtze river valleys--all had some form of slavery present in their earliest years." "Organization 4. Unlike the rich and powerful of Europe and Asia, those in Africa were not landowners, since African law did not recognize the right to own, sell, or rent land as property. 5. Private wealth usually derived from control of dependents--clients, pawns, wives in polygynous households, and slaves." Don't miss #5 in bold above. Slaves are separate from all the groups you mentioned. How much longer are you going to deny the clear history?
You have provided no evidence or sources to back up your opinion. The fact that you believe that the europeans didnt just hop off ships and enslave as the first point of the so- called trade is ignorance on your part as in not knowing. You can squirm and wiggle around semantics all you like idont care. It is you who is unlearned. perhaps if you step out of your digital american archives compiled by some wrinkly old redneck in houston you would see. the rest of your opinions...irrelevant tbh. evidently, your post represents a position that is entirely based on a false pretext. everything else falls under the myopic lens of self gratification, thats why it was omitted here, failure to use primary resources as your research also relegates the bulk of the post to tl:dr, im sorry if that hurts your feelings.
How about the white family that fought against slavery, was punished because they were caught hiding escaped slaves, lost family members fighting in the Civil War against the South? Their lost wages, lost wealth and lost opportunity was also passed down through generations. Do they get "reparations" as well? How about someone whose ancestors were peasants under a feudal king in the 1500's. They were essentially slaves. Reparations for them? This reparations for ancestral wrongs is ridiculous, once you open that can it will never stop.
I agree, the Reparations Movement people seem incapable of thinking past the strength of their FEEEEELINGS on the subject. My ancestors came to the deep south from Italy AFTER the Civil War and so should I have my money stolen from me to give to people with slightly darker skin tones for something done to them before my people even came here? What about all those Hispanic-American citizens who have been citizens here for generations? Should THEY have their money stolen just to give it to people who may or may not have a slightly darker skin tone? What about our Asian-American and our ever growing middle-eastern ancestry citizens? These Reparation Movement people need to grow the hell up stop thinking with their emotions for once in their lives and begin utilizing their brains for the novelty of it if nothing else.
In the United States and during my youth I knew a man of German ancestry who was a third generation U.S. citizen who had lost a leg fighting FOR the United States against Germany during World War Two. It's fascinating how our leftwingers rail against painting with a broad brush as they swing a very broad brush of their very own.
Welllllll look at it this way . . . by around 2040 it's currently estimated that the nation's Hispanic citizen population will supplant those EVIL White people as the majority population inside the United States and I am absolutely certain that once they thereafter move into positions of essential political control they will study the issue and say, "Wait a minute we are going to make all the people with Hispanic cultural or ethnic ancestry and all those other non-Whites whose ancestors migrated to the United States AFTER the Civil War pay to make Blacks independently wealthy for something that happened to their distant ancestors? Yeah, right! We don't think so!" So the Reparations Movement people had better really get hot on this subject and push if forward for all its worth now while there's a remote chance that some White hating White judge and White hating White legislators will push this forward because once the Hispanics (and personally I will salute our future overlords when it happens) take over then the Reparations Movement people will be promptly given the . . . middle finger.
