I have noticed a convention among the politically correct to refer to a mans slaves as the people he enslaved. One will not say "Thomas Jefferson owned over one hundred slaves." One will say, "Thomas Jefferson enslaved over one hundred African Americans." Actually, Thomas Jefferson did not enslave anyone. He inherited some slaves; he bought others; a third number were born on his plantation. Slaves brought to the United States were enslaved in Africa by other Negroes, and sold to white slave traders. These in turn sold the slaves to people like Thomas Jefferson. When the slave trade existed white slave traders could not enter the interior of Africa to enslave anyone because they lacked resistances to African diseases. Referring to a man's slaves as the people he enslaved is a way to absolve African Negroes of their complicity in the slave trade.
Jefferson owned 600 slaves. Period. And here we go with that African enslaved other Africans and sold them to white traders junk. First thing: WHITES DID NOT HAVE TO BUY THE SLAVES! THERE IS NO SLAVERY IN AMERICA IF WHITES DID NOT BUY ANYONE! You cannot discuss racism without that one white person telling you how Africans enslaved and sold other Africans. This claim is supposed to absolve whites of their role in the slave trade or somehow equally implicate blacks for modern American racism. This is at best, a disingenuous claim. Blacks have not been perfect and African nations had conflicts just like every other nation or tribe on this planet during the history of the world. Most African tribes enslaved prisoners of war. Slavery was used to pay off debt. Slavery was also a punishment for criminal behavior. You are about to read an account from an African about what happened when Europeans showed up in Africa. However, the white strangers needed slaves and more slaves but there was no easy way of getting slaves in Africa. So what they did was that, they created confusion among the various tribes so that there would be more tribal wars and more war prisoners so they could get more ‘slaves’ and that was exactly what they did. Before the white man came to Africa, tribal wars were mostly fought with swords, spears, bows and arrows. Although these weapons were lethal they were nowhere near as quick and fatal as the gun. The problem here was that, only the white strangers had guns and decided which tribal group to support in times of battle. Any tribal group the white strangers supported with their powerful cannons, guns and ammunitions, easily conquered their enemies. This also created another major problem. The white strangers did not support any tribal group for free. In fact, the white strangers started demanding taxes (which included pieces of gold and prisoners of war) and total submission after victory. Any tribal group or community which failed to submit to the Europeans and pay taxes were wiped out. Africans did not sell their own people into slavery (africaw.com)
African Negroes did too sell their people into slavery. I am not in any way justifying slavery in the United States. If blacks were not brought here as slaves the black population would be much lower, and the crime rate and the cost of our criminal justice system and our welfare system would also be much lower.
Again, the situation I presented was prevalent. You make a comment that doesn't cover context. And your second sentence is stupid considering the violence and crime by whites since America began as well as this: The assistance to single women with children part of the Social Security Act\ provided grants to states as Aid To Dependent Children. Eventually the name of the program was changed to Aid to Families with Dependent Children. This was welfare folks. Assistance for single moms with children and no daddy at home. In 1935. Blacks were excluded. Aid to Dependent Children functioned mainly to provide federal grants to help the states with mothers’ aid laws that began in 1910. The ADC plan was written by two ladies who had been former directors of what was at the time called the U.S. Children’s Bureau. The Children’s Bureau’s goal was to provide aid to all children whose mothers had no support from a husband no matter how they got into that position. So welfare has existed for whites in this country since at least 1910 therefore your second sentence is disingenuous and lacking in fact. Social Welfare History Project Aid To Dependent Children: The Legal History (vcu.edu)
The New Deal of the Roosevelt Administration of the 1930's turned millions of unemployed whites into a stable working class of those who obeyed the law and paid taxes. The Great Society of the Johnson Administration of the 1960's turned million of working blacks into an unemployable underclass of people who often supplement their welfare checks with the gains from criminal activities.
This is untrue. The New Deal excluded black law-abiding tax paying workers whose taxes subsidized white economic growth. The Johnson Great society program primarily benefitted whites, but since blacks were included, the section of white America with racial bias created the lie you are speaking.
It was no different than the European slavery that was going on at the same time. Funny how you passed up how whites would start conflict and arm tribes against others in return for captives.
Yes, that was my point as well. What do you want me to say? I know it happened. The British were masters of 'the great game.' But they didn't invent it, they ultimately learned it from the Roman Empire, who probably learned it from someone else.
Prior to and during the Roosevelt administration few blacks made enough money to pay much in the way of taxes.
