Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 62
Thanks Tree16Thanks

Thread: with regards to the sometimes offered statement that African Americans were better

  1. #21
    RNG
    RNG is offline
    Senior Member RNG's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    10,664
    Thanks
    6159

    From
    Between everywhere
    There is a huge difference between indentured servitude and slavery. I'm having a hard time finding any corroboration of there being white chattel in America. An Amazon pushed book doesn't do it.

  2. #22
    Veteran Member PACE's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    24,502
    Thanks
    20611

    From
    None of your business
    Quote Originally Posted by cpicturetaker12 View Post
    Pace, you know what the truly SAD PART of your post is? We still have the need to discuss it. AMERICA'S ORIGINAL SIN.

    PATHETIC.
    Sin is based on emotion, I created a post showing why slavery was bad for the slave, and also why the abolishment of slavery was bad for the south economically, NOW, the south is the Afganistan of the United States, and until they come out of the 19th century, as the Afgans should come out of the 6th century, they will continue to suffer economic diress; it's a fact.

  3. #23
    Veteran Member PACE's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    24,502
    Thanks
    20611

    From
    None of your business
    Quote Originally Posted by Barbella View Post
    Google is your friend. Try it sometime.

    There were approximately 319,599 free blacks in the United States in 1830. Approximately 13.7 per cent of the total black population was free. A significant number of these free blacks were the owners of slaves. The census of 1830 lists 3,775 free Negroes who owned a total of 12,760 slaves.

    9 Facts About Slavery They Don't Want You to Know
    I read the book, get it and read it, there were no African American slave owners in the United States, if you were African American, you might understand, but I don't think you do, those people were "purchased" to get them AWAY from the WHITE owners,,, you understand now? they were people who were part of the same tribe, came from the same parts of Africa, those free men BOUGHT them to get their community back, they were FREE.

    Not slaves, they were slaves in the eyes of white folk.

    Read the book, you'll understand better, so my statement still holds;

    Your turn

  4. #24
    RNG
    RNG is offline
    Senior Member RNG's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    10,664
    Thanks
    6159

    From
    Between everywhere
    Quote Originally Posted by Barbella View Post
    Google is your friend. Try it sometime.

    There were approximately 319,599 free blacks in the United States in 1830. Approximately 13.7 per cent of the total black population was free. A significant number of these free blacks were the owners of slaves. The census of 1830 lists 3,775 free Negroes who owned a total of 12,760 slaves.

    9 Facts About Slavery They Don't Want You to Know
    That Snopes analysis is listed as a mixture, both true and false. As your The Root article says, most blacks owned by blacks were bought as acts of mercy to family and friends. Of course there were a few exploiters, just as many slaves were caught and sold in Africa by other Africans. But a small percentage.

  5. #25
    Veteran Member PACE's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    24,502
    Thanks
    20611

    From
    None of your business
    Quote Originally Posted by RNG View Post
    That Snopes analysis is listed as a mixture, both true and false. As your The Root article says, most blacks owned by blacks were bought as acts of mercy to family and friends. Of course there were a few exploiters, just as many slaves were caught and sold in Africa by other Africans. But a small percentage.
    The book I suggested the poster read, explains this, there were freemen who bought tribal members and families from others, and the sole purpose was to consolidate the tribe, Americans don't understand the "tribal mentality", look at the middle east, the way it's carved up you can almost smell Churchill's hand in it.

    BUT! we do act tribal, without even understanding it, it really would help if individuals researched what they assert before asserting it.

  6. #26
    Veteran Member PACE's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    24,502
    Thanks
    20611

    From
    None of your business
    Quote Originally Posted by RNG View Post
    That Snopes analysis is listed as a mixture, both true and false. As your The Root article says, most blacks owned by blacks were bought as acts of mercy to family and friends. Of course there were a few exploiters, just as many slaves were caught and sold in Africa by other Africans. But a small percentage.
    Now, getting back to the REAL subject of the post, I would argue the south has not learned how to evolve from the days of free labor. Your thoughts?

  7. #27
    Veteran Member bmanmcfly's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    19,524
    Thanks
    3051

    From
    C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
    Quote Originally Posted by RNG View Post
    There is a huge difference between indentured servitude and slavery. I'm having a hard time finding any corroboration of there being white chattel in America. An Amazon pushed book doesn't do it.
    Yes, there was a huge difference... Slaves were considered property. If there was a choice to make its the property that would be fed and the chattel allowed to starve.

    Anyway, if you won't accept a book written on the subject, the extent of research you will be required to do, you'll have enough To write your own book.
    Thanks from Barbella

  8. #28
    RNG
    RNG is offline
    Senior Member RNG's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    10,664
    Thanks
    6159

    From
    Between everywhere
    Quote Originally Posted by bmanmcfly View Post
    Yes, there was a huge difference... Slaves were considered property. If there was a choice to make its the property that would be fed and the chattel allowed to starve.

    Anyway, if you won't accept a book written on the subject, the extent of research you will be required to do, you'll have enough To write your own book.
    Chattel are property. Slaves are an example of chattel. Indentured servants were not legally property. As I said, a big difference.

  9. #29
    RNG
    RNG is offline
    Senior Member RNG's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    10,664
    Thanks
    6159

    From
    Between everywhere
    Quote Originally Posted by bmanmcfly View Post
    Yes, there was a huge difference... Slaves were considered property. If there was a choice to make its the property that would be fed and the chattel allowed to starve.

    Anyway, if you won't accept a book written on the subject, the extent of research you will be required to do, you'll have enough To write your own book.
    I guess the machine thinks the post above was worthy of being repeated. There seem to be some interwebz gremlins rampaging today.

  10. #30
    New Member Barbella's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    208
    Thanks
    86

    Quote Originally Posted by RNG View Post
    There is a huge difference between indentured servitude and slavery. I'm having a hard time finding any corroboration of there being white chattel in America. An Amazon pushed book doesn't do it.
    Look harder...

    The Irish slave trade began when 30,000 Irish prisoners were sold as slaves to the New World. The King James I Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.

    Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white.

    From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade. Families were ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish dads to take their wives and children with them across the Atlantic. This led to a helpless population of homeless women and children. Britain’s solution was to auction them off as well.

    During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers.

    Many people today will avoid calling the Irish slaves what they truly were: Slaves. They’ll come up with terms like “Indentured Servants” to describe what occurred to the Irish. However, in most cases from the 17th and 18th centuries, Irish slaves were nothing more than human cattle.

    As an example, the African slave trade was just beginning during this same period. It is well recorded that African slaves, not tainted with the stain of the hated Catholic theology and more expensive to purchase, were often treated far better than their Irish counterparts.

    African slaves were very expensive during the late 1600s (50 Sterling). Irish slaves came cheap (no more than 5 Sterling). If a planter whipped or branded or beat an Irish slave to death, it was never a crime. A death was a monetary setback, but far cheaper than killing a more expensive African. The English masters quickly began breeding the Irish women for both their own personal pleasure and for greater profit. Children of slaves were themselves slaves, which increased the size of the master’s free workforce. Even if an Irish woman somehow obtained her freedom, her kids would remain slaves of her master. Thus, Irish moms, even with this new found emancipation, would seldom abandon their kids and would remain in servitude.

    In time, the English thought of a better way to use these women (in many cases, girls as young as 12) to increase their market share: The settlers began to breed Irish women and girls with African men to produce slaves with a distinct complexion. These new “mulatto” slaves brought a higher price than Irish livestock and, likewise, enabled the settlers to save money rather than purchase new African slaves. This practice of interbreeding Irish females with African men went on for several decades and was so widespread that, in 1681, legislation was passed “forbidding the practice of mating Irish slave women to African slave men for the purpose of producing slaves for sale.” In short, it was stopped only because it interfered with the profits of a large slave transport company.

    England continued to ship tens of thousands of Irish slaves for more than a century. Records state that, after the 1798 Irish Rebellion, thousands of Irish slaves were sold to both America and Australia. There were horrible abuses of both African and Irish captives. One British ship even dumped 1,302 slaves into the Atlantic Ocean so that the crew would have plenty of food to eat.

    There is little question that the Irish experienced the horrors of slavery as much (if not more in the 17th Century) as the Africans did. There is, also, very little question that those brown, tanned faces you witness in your travels to the West Indies are very likely a combination of African and Irish ancestry. In 1839, Britain finally decided on its own to end its participation in Satan’s highway to hell and stopped transporting slaves. While their decision did not stop pirates from doing what they desired, the new law slowly concluded THIS chapter of nightmarish Irish misery.

    But, if anyone, black or white, believes that slavery was only an African experience, then they’ve got it completely wrong.

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-ir...e-slaves/31076

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Why do 7th generation Americans call themselves African Americans?
    By Rob Larrikin in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 304
    Last Post: 16th September 2017, 04:12 AM
  2. African Americans Versus African Immigrants.
    By Two If By Tea in forum Racism
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 3rd October 2014, 08:17 AM
  3. African Americans Versus African Immigrants
    By Two If By Tea in forum Sexuality
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 8th September 2014, 05:05 AM
  4. Replies: 333
    Last Post: 29th January 2012, 01:44 PM
  5. Welfare makes African Americans ‘rut like rabbits’
    By Inkslinger in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 7th April 2011, 03:57 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed