All situations different from American Slavery. You're on a basketball site, don't you spend your free time watching videos of people getting dunked on? It's funny because the situations you mentioned above were different. A race enslaving poor (less fortunate) people of the same race is not in any way the same as one race enslaving all people from another race. The one most similar would be the Egyptians and how long ago was that? In that same time, add that to now...how different would the world look from now? We are talking about thousands of years compared to what again? Right. Wake me up when you become a intelligent enough to judge people individually instead of lump everyone in one group. Just because you are foolish enough to do so, don't assume everyone is that way. I'm worried about what you may be teaching your children if you have any. I would sure hate to see young people in America share these same views that if a black person has a nice car then he must have made that money illegally. Do you know every single athlete on every single team? It's funny that you automatically assume that he's either a athlete or a criminal lol... Funnily enough, most criminals that do make large amounts of money (to own a bentley) usually don't go flaunting it around the city.
Well if you say racist things then you deserve the response. Sorry. What if...hear me out here...what if sometimes calling someone racist is warranted? Surely some things guys like Rush have said were pretty close to just being flat out racist.
If only you could sit down with the blacks and explain the benefits they reap from that slavery and maybe you could mix in a well timed Martin Luther King quote. Surely that would be the turning point for the blacks in America.
I know ol'Eddie here gets under everyone's skin, but this is not even remotely true. First of all, the Atlantic slave trade was not "one race enslaving all people from another race." It was many races from many different countries involved in a practice that led to the enslavement of a portion of the African population, albeit a sizable portion. Secondly, there are many historical instances where people have enslaved others not of their own race and you certainly don't have to go back to biblical times to find examples, though admittedly the only slave trade comparable in scope to the Atlantic slave trade was probably the Arab slave trade, which continued well into the 1900s. Finally, there is the issue of modern day slavery, which, sadly, is most severe in Africa. Out of curiosity, why do you differentiate between intra- and interracial slavery? In many instances of the former, it is between different subgroups that don't identify with each other (e.g. the untouchables being used as slaves in India, indigenous peoples used as slaves in Korea, etc.).
I am talking about American slavery which was definitely one race targeting another race. When I meant "all" I meant all the African people that happened to land in America. White slave owners in America certainly weren't enslaving other races were they? They weren't in the market for just slaves in general, they were in the market for black slaves. Because it is different. It is almost proven that people will have more sympathy for those that look similar to them. It is easier to get people into a frenzy and continue stereotypes and in general hate when you can easily identify people by appearance. When Nazi germany (of course not slavery but the same propoganda was used) demonized the Jewish people a lot of it was by appearance. These people look different from you and thus in no way are like you sort of thing. That is much harder to do in those cases. I am not saying one is worse. I am saying though that it is different. It would be harder for a race to break out of that stigma because some people will still see them as being inherently different just by appearance alone. Just look at interracial marriage, it took until 98 for that to be over 50% (according to gallup) look at how blacks voted on such a poll, it was always over 50% for them while it was at 4% for whites. That's because even in the 50s white people still saw black people as inherently different. We are now at the point where the majority of the majority has finally got to this point of "Okay, they just have darker skin and look a little different." and where the whole idea of someone being dumber or more violent because they are black or just plain less of a human is a extreme idea...when in the 50s (not so long ago) it was thought that by many that black people were no where near the equal of whites. It's like people act like the slaves were freed and were immediately getting elected into important offices and receiving equal education. It is a lot about how much can be identified with the slaves...in this case of American slavery it is about as extreme as it can get. Throughout human history, how many examples are there of it being about race as heavily as it was for USA? The Arabic slave trade throughout it's history wasn't focused on just one race.
What a total dodge on your part. I despise racism and racists. I wasn't talking about either in my post. You chose not to respond to my post, but rather to throw out an unrelated comment that everybody would agree with. Logic 101 fail.
Seems the logic fail is on you. I never called you a racist or anything of the sort, you are being rather defensive about that. I wouldn't even touch the rest of your post because it is so silly it really needs no discussion...because clearly black people have benefited and still do from slavery. Any ways half of your post was that it is hard to criticize black people because if you do you will be labeled a racist. Like Obama. My response to that is what if that is actually warranted? Some of the things political commentators have said about Obama WAS and has been racial and therefore being called a racist may have been warranted. You are saying that it is never deserved then? Even if someone says that Obama only gets into Harvard on race, they don't deserve to even be questioned as racist?
You know man..black people get all those freebies...like Affirmative Action! It seems AA is the big target here when it comes to black people (although it affects other minorities too.) it seems some people think AA can take some gangbanger kid who barely passed high-school and put that kid in the Ivy League somehow. If not AA I wonder what are these other racist policies he's speaking of that benefit black people (and black people alone)
Whether other nations and cultures had slavery doesn't matter. That's especially true since only slavery in America was as cruel to those that they took as slaves. The whole process of separating families, what happened when the owner's died, conditions etc. American slavery was a more cruel example than any that came before. Also most (not all) of the world had given up slavery while America fought to hold on to it.
I never said you called me a racist. The double edge sword of AA is that when people see blacks in great schools like Harvard, they sometimes ask the question "AA"? And you're right, AA many times benefits the already well-off blacks.
You're right; it doesn't matter except as a very general theoretical comparison. I was simply pointing out a factual inaccuracy in JG's post. Speaking of which, has the notion that American slavery was particularly cruel in comparison to other historical examples been researched? Personally I doubt it, but I've never done any real research, so I could very well be wrong. Also, your first and last sentences in this post are contradictory.
You couldn't put this thread in the hangout section??? It's a movie for crying out loud!!!! So every movie dealing with history from now on goes in the debate/discussion section???
1. There were significant free black populations in the US slaveholding era. Of course, the exception to the rule, but nevertheless "all" is still a bad term to use. 2. Do you really believe that if, by historical accident, a different part of the world were colonized by European powers and had a surfeit, easily accessible population, that American slave owner's would have declined to participate because the slaves weren't black? Jewish internment camps in WWII involved slavery; they made them work before they killed them. Also, Germans and Jews are of the same race: Caucasian, though obviously different sub-groups. Not a great example. African slavers and tribal warfare are a big part of why the Atlantic slave trade flourished to the extent that it did. I don't buy the argument that simply being the same race as slaveowners would significantly lessen the severity of slavery while it is happening or its aftereffects post-abolition.
They aren't exactly contradictory but going by my first sentence it would make sense not to include the last sentence. I just included since some people seemed to be arguing that because slavery existed in many nations and cultures then African Americans shouldn't still be dealing with the effects of slavery in America. There have been scholarly reports that point out that American slavery was more cruel. I haven't delved deeply into it, though the reasons usually given are some of the things I mentioned about families being intentionally separated, slaves in America initially being kept from people who spoke the same dialect to not enable communication, preventing them from learning to read and write in English etc.
What you are failing to understand is the black race targeted their own race. The African slaves that were "bought" from Africa where "bought" from their own race. Blacks selling Blacks. In particular, Nigerians capturing other tribal men and selling them. There are plenty of historical books (try reading The Slave Trade by Hugh Thomas) as well as personal diaries that clearly depict this issue. This happened in Europe, Middle East and other parts of the world during the 1700s and 1800s. Not just in the "New World". Hell in the early 1800s (When England abolished slavery) Nigerians were protesting! That is absurd. Selling slaves was literally their only source of income at the time. And to reference your "targeting" comment, Africa was selling slaves for literally a schilling depending on their age. You have to understand it was about the price. If there were boat loads of Indians or Asians or even whites from other parts of the world that were that "cheap" they would have been slaves just as well. It all started from their own people.
Yes other Africans sold Africans as slaves, but to say that it started from their own people isn't exactly accurate. They didn't approach the Europeans with the proposition. There was a demand so the blame needs to be shared.
I always wonder what is the point that people try to convey when they make the "they enslaved their own kind first" argument?
big texx i love how blacks act like obama is just another brotha 1.he went to harvard 2.he was raised by a white mom and grandma 3.his BLACK dad abandoned him, typical of the culture....look at US single black mom #'s 4.obama grew up in hawaii pretty well off, hes not from the 5th ward or a similar life experience 5.Obama was for all intensive purposed what jalen rose would call "uncle tom" 6.I dont see obama w/baggy clothes or big jewels or rims on his car So i fail to get the whole argument about him being a representation of the typical black, as far as I can tell he is so so so far from what the typical black male is in america......when the avg black male can graduate from even a decent state school like UH then we can call obama a typical black man but for now he's a well off guy with a black dad, a white mom who raised him basically like any other white kid ie good education, good morals, etc and then sent him to the best college on the planet He isn't black in my book I don't care what people say, the black part of him, his dad bailed on him at a young age, now that's the black half of obama
I do agree both sides need to share the blame, but the perception that the "White Guy" is the bad guy because of slavery isn't exactly accurate either. But the fact they were selling them for pennies on the dollar only created a bigger demand. Really? You made a comment just to say that? It isn't an argument, it is a fact. Apparently what I said went right over your head or you just lack any knowledge about it. They didn't technically enslave their own kind either. They were basically human trafficking other tribal men, women and children in the same country/continent they had captured to the Europeans, Middle East and other parts of the world. They were making money off of other tribes they were taking over/capturing and selling them. They weren't making them do their labor. They don't consider other tribes "their own people" either.
