Black militia man shoots a police officer in the head in Florida

[Gospel]

it also doesn't help your dumbass point that the Akkadians enslaved their own people (that's the poverty part) while Europeans did what now?

 

[J842P]

Bollocks. Europeans didn't invent war, they didn't invent slavery, they didn't invent racism, they didn't even invent colonization. But there is no historical evidence that anything similar to the Europeans invention called racial supremacy nor their style of slavery existed prior to the Europeans. And boy did they like to write everything down.


Rap snitches, telling all their business
Sit in the court and be their own star witness
Do you see the perpetrator? Yeah, I'm right here
Fuck around, get the whole label sent up for years


~MF DOOM~

I don't know where you get that idea. I've seen it circulating around a lot in place like twitter. But definitely, the Europeans did not invent chattel slavery, that has probably been around for a very long time, before even the modern Europeans lived in Europe. In any case, you can read the accounts from ancient Mesopotamia where the Akkadians (IIRC) decide that they are justified in going on slaving raids because their civilization is superior, and the surrounding hillsmen might as well be beasts.

The idea that some group is "just the best around" is hardly new, and there is a long history of using that perceived self-specialness as a justification for enslaving, conquering, and exploiting other peoples. The idea that this is unique to Europe is just ridiculous.

The Akkadians treated their slaves better.

Edit: What I meant to say is, Akkadian slaves were slaves mainly because of poverty and/or war. European slaves derived from the stimulation of photoreceptor cells by electromagnetic radiation. It's not that complicated.

What?

 

[J842P]

it also doesn't help your dumbass point that the Akkadians enslaved their own people (that's the poverty part) while Europeans did what now?

No, I'm saying they enslaved other people, and explicitly justified their slaving raids by saying those people were inferior.

(Again, forgive me but I'm not certain it was the Akkadians, but one of the major players in post-Sumerian Mesopotamia).

Also, the Europeans didn't just see black people and decide, "hey, we should enslave these Africans because they are black".

Rather, a whole network of enslaving people existed already in Western Africa, feeding into the Islamic slave trade before it. The Europeans just became the major purchasers.

 

[Gospel]

it also doesn't help your dumbass point that the Akkadians enslaved their own people (that's the poverty part) while Europeans did what now?

No, I'm saying they enslaved other people, and explicitly justified their slaving raids by saying those people were inferior.

(Again, forgive me but I'm not certain it was the Akkadians, but one of the major players in post-Sumerian Mesopotamia).

Also, the Europeans didn't just see black people and decide, "hey, we should enslave these Africans because they are black".

Rather, a whole network of enslaving people existed already in Western Africa, feeding into the Islamic slave trade before it. The Europeans just became the major purchasers.

Sweet! It's the ole Africans enslaved each other defense! A classic. So, the Europeans were just doing what the African's were already doing right? How do you explain the part where Europeans didn't enslave their own people? I'm certain you can find a comparison in history somewhere. I'll wait but I'm not an immortal so don't take forever mmkay?

 

[Bullmoose Too]

Sweet! It's the ole Africans enslaved each other defense! A classic. So, the Europeans were just doing what the African's were already doing right? How do you explain the part where Europeans didn't enslave their own people? I'm certain you can find a comparison in history somewhere. I'll wait but I'm not an immortal so don't take forever mmkay?

Europeans did enslave other Europeans.

“ Slaves were acquired from all the wars Rome fought during the Republic and the imperial era. Each war fetched thousands of slaves. Romans recruited slaves from all regions without any regard for race. Most of these slaves belonged to Thrace, Gallia, Carthage, Britain, Syria, North Africa, and Germanic tribes.”

Romans fathers even had the right to sell their own children into slavery. Or if a child is abandoned they could easily become a slave or die from exposure.

“Abandoned children were also used as slaves. Roman law allowed fathers to sell their adult children as slaves. This right was awarded by the founder of Rome, Romulus.”

Source: https://www.historyforkids.net/roman-slaves.html

Also you keep treating Europeans as a monolithic group. They were not.

And how is J842P pointing out that Africans enslaved other Africans a defense? A defense of what?

 

[Gospel]

Sweet! It's the ole Africans enslaved each other defense! A classic. So, the Europeans were just doing what the African's were already doing right? How do you explain the part where Europeans didn't enslave their own people? I'm certain you can find a comparison in history somewhere. I'll wait but I'm not an immortal so don't take forever mmkay?

Europeans did enslave other Europeans.

“ Slaves were acquired from all the wars Rome fought during the Republic and the imperial era. Each war fetched thousands of slaves. Romans recruited slaves from all regions without any regard for race. Most of these slaves belonged to Thrace, Gallia, Carthage, Britain, Syria, North Africa, and Germanic tribes.”

Romans fathers even had the right to sell their own children into slavery. Or if a child is abandoned they could easily become a slave or die from exposure.

“Abandoned children were also used as slaves. Roman law allowed fathers to sell their adult children as slaves. This right was awarded by the founder of Rome, Romulus.”

Source: https://www.historyforkids.net/roman-slaves.html

Also you keep treating Europeans as a monolithic group. They were not.

And how is J842P pointing out that Africans enslaved other Africans a defense? A defense of what?

Never claimed they were monolithic. Nice try. So the Romans enslaved the Africans. Learn something new every day.

Edit: And we are talking about the slaves of the transatlantic slave trade right? And you're saying the Romans did that?

 

[Gospel]

Oh BTW. The challenge I presented was to find a nation (you have all of history to look) that had slavery where they did not enslave their own people and only enslaved people with a certain skin complexion like the Europeans did. The Romans are not an example because they did enslave their own people. My point is the European form of slavery is unique, in that it targeted a specific group of people (not because of the country they were from because the slaves were from many African Nations) because of the color of their skin.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Oh BTW. The challenge I presented was to find a nation (you have all of history to look) that had slavery where they did not enslave their own people and only enslaved people with a certain skin complexion like the Europeans did. The Romans are not an example because they did enslave their own people. My point is the European form of slavery is unique, in that it targeted a specific group of people (not because of the country they were from because the slaves were from many African Nations) because of the color of their skin.

No other nation has been in a position to be able to do this. Thus this test means nothing.

 

[Bullmoose Too]

Sweet! It's the ole Africans enslaved each other defense! A classic. So, the Europeans were just doing what the African's were already doing right? How do you explain the part where Europeans didn't enslave their own people? I'm certain you can find a comparison in history somewhere. I'll wait but I'm not an immortal so don't take forever mmkay?

Europeans did enslave other Europeans.

“ Slaves were acquired from all the wars Rome fought during the Republic and the imperial era. Each war fetched thousands of slaves. Romans recruited slaves from all regions without any regard for race. Most of these slaves belonged to Thrace, Gallia, Carthage, Britain, Syria, North Africa, and Germanic tribes.”

Romans fathers even had the right to sell their own children into slavery. Or if a child is abandoned they could easily become a slave or die from exposure.

“Abandoned children were also used as slaves. Roman law allowed fathers to sell their adult children as slaves. This right was awarded by the founder of Rome, Romulus.”

Source: https://www.historyforkids.net/roman-slaves.html

Also you keep treating Europeans as a monolithic group. They were not.

And how is J842P pointing out that Africans enslaved other Africans a defense? A defense of what?

Never claimed they were monolithic. Nice try. So the Romans enslaved the Africans. Learn something new every day.

Edit: And we are talking about the slaves of the transatlantic slave trade right? And you're saying the Romans did that?

In that post you asked “Europeans didn’t enslaved there own people.” That’s treating Europeans as a single group.

In that post you asked “How do you explain the part where Europeans don’t enslave there own people? I’m certain you can find a comparison in history somewhere.” You did not specify the Transatlantic Slave Trade in that post. So I found a moment in history where Europeans enslaved other Europeans. Even Europeans belonging to their own in-group, or people if you prefer.

Oh BTW. The challenge I presented was to find a nation (you have all of history to look) that had slavery where they did not enslave their own people and only enslaved people with a certain skin complexion like the Europeans did. The only Romans are not an example because they did enslave their own people. My point is the European form of slavery is unique, in that it targeted a specific group of people (not because of the country they were from because the slaves were from many African Nations) because of the color of their skin.

No other nation has been in a position to be able to do this. Thus this test means nothing.

I think the purpose of the test is to merely vilify Europeans.

 

[Gospel]

Never claimed they were monolithic. Nice try. So the Romans enslaved the Africans. Learn something new every day.

Edit: And we are talking about the slaves of the transatlantic slave trade right? And you're saying the Romans did that?

In that post you asked “Europeans didn’t enslaved there own people.” That’s treating Europeans as a single group.

In that post you asked “How do you explain the part where Europeans don’t enslave there own people? I’m certain you can find a comparison in history somewhere.” You did not specify the Transatlantic Slave Trade in that post. So I found a moment in history where Europeans enslaved other Europeans. Even Europeans belonging to their own in-group, or people if you prefer.

Oh BTW. The challenge I presented was to find a nation (you have all of history to look) that had slavery where they did not enslave their own people and only enslaved people with a certain skin complexion like the Europeans did. The only Romans are not an example because they did enslave their own people. My point is the European form of slavery is unique, in that it targeted a specific group of people (not because of the country they were from because the slaves were from many African Nations) because of the color of their skin.

No other nation has been in a position to be able to do this. Thus this test means nothing.

I think the purpose of the test is to merely vilify Europeans.

Wow, I thought this message board was full of intelligent people and me the idiot. The transatlantic slave Trade denotes modern Europeans (winks at Bullmoose Too). There is such a thing as modern Europeans right? and it was Europeans (yes I know it wasn't only them it's just they are the only ones that didn't enslave their own people like their ancestors (like the Romans) did).

And to Bullmoose, Trust me, the Europeans did a fine job villifying themselves. What an idiotic thing to say.

 

[Gospel]

The point I'm driving home here is for all the folks who like to say things like, America's involvement in slavery is nothing to wink at because slavery has been around for ages. Not their type of slavery. There was something way more evil and deliberate about theirs.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The point I'm driving home here is for all the folks who like to say things like, America's involvement in slavery is nothing to wink at because slavery has been around for ages. Not their type of slavery. There was something way more evil and deliberate about theirs.

Slavery has generally been of defeated outgroups. The Europeans are the only society that has been in a position to take slaves from areas of other races, the fact that they are the only ones to have done so is meaningless.

 

[laughing dog]

The point I'm driving home here is for all the folks who like to say things like, America's involvement in slavery is nothing to wink at because slavery has been around for ages. Not their type of slavery. There was something way more evil and deliberate about theirs.

Slavery has generally been of defeated outgroups. The Europeans are the only society that has been in a position to take slaves from areas of other races, the fact that they are the only ones to have done so is meaningless.

Your reasoning ignores the basic fact that the "Europeans" placed themselves to be the only ones to have done so. Ergo, it is not meaningless.

 

[TomC]

The point I'm driving home here is for all the folks who like to say things like, America's involvement in slavery is nothing to wink at because slavery has been around for ages. Not their type of slavery. There was something way more evil and deliberate about theirs.

Slavery has generally been of defeated outgroups. The Europeans are the only society that has been in a position to take slaves from areas of other races, the fact that they are the only ones to have done so is meaningless.

Your reasoning ignores the basic fact that the "Europeans" placed themselves to be the only ones to have done so. Ergo, it is not meaningless.

I don't think so.
Europeans were the last and most technologically sophisticated culture to do so. They were also the most ethically sophisticated culture, which is why abolitionism became such a thing.

History is messy. There aren't many cultural saints or irredeemable sinners.
Tom

 

[TomC]

The point I'm driving home here is for all the folks who like to say things like, America's involvement in slavery is nothing to wink at because slavery has been around for ages. Not their type of slavery. There was something way more evil and deliberate about theirs.

Slavery has generally been of defeated outgroups. The Europeans are the only society that has been in a position to take slaves from areas of other races, the fact that they are the only ones to have done so is meaningless.

Your reasoning ignores the basic fact that the "Europeans" placed themselves to be the only ones to have done so. Ergo, it is not meaningless.

Exactly who do you mean by "Europeans"?
From Fins to Greeks, from Irish to Swedish, are you putting all of our ancestors in one big pot, calling them white, and blaming us for slavery?

But handwaving away the fact the the Transatlantic Slave Trade was European people buying slaves from African people?
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The point I'm driving home here is for all the folks who like to say things like, America's involvement in slavery is nothing to wink at because slavery has been around for ages. Not their type of slavery. There was something way more evil and deliberate about theirs.

Slavery has generally been of defeated outgroups. The Europeans are the only society that has been in a position to take slaves from areas of other races, the fact that they are the only ones to have done so is meaningless.

Your reasoning ignores the basic fact that the "Europeans" placed themselves to be the only ones to have done so. Ergo, it is not meaningless.

Placed themselves?? No, they were simply in the technological lead in order to have the capability to take slaves from farther away. They were the first power to be able to do this, widespread slave-taking ceased before anyone else was in a position to do so.

 

[Gospel]

Your reasoning ignores the basic fact that the "Europeans" placed themselves to be the only ones to have done so. Ergo, it is not meaningless.

Exactly who do you mean by "Europeans"?
From Fins to Greeks, from Irish to Swedish, are you putting all of our ancestors in one big pot, calling them white, and blaming us for slavery?

But handwaving away the fact the the Transatlantic Slave Trade was European people buying slaves from African people?
Tom

When I said Modern European's I meant it. Name one Modern European nation that did not enslave African's and we can talk.

Swedish - They had the Swedish African company.
Irish - They used the Swedish African company.

Then the more obvious names like the Netherlands, France, Spain, England, Portugal, Denmark & Spain. Germany likes to act like they had nothing to do with it yet directly benefited from the slave trade so they can kick rocks. But it's wrong for me to say modern Eurpeons when so many of them were involved? You set trippin TomC.

 

[Gospel]

Your reasoning ignores the basic fact that the "Europeans" placed themselves to be the only ones to have done so. Ergo, it is not meaningless.

Placed themselves?? No, they were simply in the technological lead in order to have the capability to take slaves from farther away. They were the first power to be able to do this, widespread slave-taking ceased before anyone else was in a position to do so.

Yeah they took the technology lead in doing slavery in the way that their ancestors have not done. Thanks for playing but you've failed the challenge.

Edit: Oh and forgot to mention, they were the first (like you said) but they were also the ONLY.

 

[southernhybrid]

OMG, how terrible that we haven't forgotten that people tried to overthrow the government of the United States at the behest of the then sitting POTUS who didn't like the election results! I mean, it's been five and half months already.

#BLMers have been doing a lot more damage with their rioting and occupations. And not only property damage, but deaths too. Including an 8 year old girl in Atlanta.

We should all be happy to do what your overlord Trump declares we should do and forget about the whole thing. Big nothing burger.

My overlord? I did not even vote for him either time.

As is often the case, this thread is all over the place but I wanted to correct the idea that the BLM protests caused a great amount of damage and deaths. I will trust academic sources that actually studied this instead of the opinion of one poster.

https://www.radcliffe.harvard.edu/news-and-ideas/black-lives-matter-protesters-were-overwhelmingly-peaceful-our-research-finds

Here is what we have found based on the 7,305 events we’ve collected. The overall levels of violence and property destruction were low, and most of the violence that did take place was, in fact, directed against the BLM protesters.
First, police made arrests in 5% of the protest events, with over 8,500 reported arrests (or possibly more). Police used tear gas or related chemical substances in 2.5% of these events.
Protesters or bystanders were reported injured in 1.6 percent of the protests. In total, at least three Black Lives Matter protesters and one other person were killed while protesting in Omaha, Austin and Kenosha, Wis. One anti-fascist protester killed a far-right group member during a confrontation in Portland, Ore.; law enforcement killed the alleged assailant several days later.
Police were reported injured in 1% of the protests. A law enforcement officer killed in California was allegedly shot by supporters of the far-right “boogaloo” movement, not anti-racism protesters.
The killings in the line of duty of other law enforcement officers during this period were not related to the protests.

Read the link. Most of the damage that was done was due to the reaction of the police or counter protesters. Americans have the right to peacefully protest. The police don't have the right to harm peaceful protesters, not even when they may be blocking traffic. Sometimes the anti war protests that happened during my youth turned violent, but the only one that stands out in my mind was when some National Guardsmen shot 3 unarmed students. The protests I attended were completely peaceful. In fact, we had police and veterans marching with us. The BLM protests in my small city were not only peaceful, they were accompanied by members of our local police department. Most protests are peaceful, so your claims aren't based on facts. I trust the information in this academic study because they looked at over 7000 individual protests to determine the truth.

We all know that both Black and White people can be guilty of committing crimes, so what is the point of starting a thread almost every time a Black person does something criminal? Anyone who isn't biased also knows that Black folks, especially Black males are stopped, harassed and/or arrested for minor crimes far more than White people who commit the same minor crimes. It's not even worth arguing over because the evidence overwhelmingly supports that fact.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Your reasoning ignores the basic fact that the "Europeans" placed themselves to be the only ones to have done so. Ergo, it is not meaningless.

Placed themselves?? No, they were simply in the technological lead in order to have the capability to take slaves from farther away. They were the first power to be able to do this, widespread slave-taking ceased before anyone else was in a position to do so.

Yeah they took the technology lead in doing slavery in the way that their ancestors have not done. Thanks for playing but you've failed the challenge.

Edit: Oh and forgot to mention, they were the first (like you said) but they were also the ONLY.

They were the only ones capable of doing it. Thus you can't draw any conclusions.