US Slavery -> Racial Resentment over 150 years later

[Gospel]

I'm saying the people should be judged by the standards of their time, not by current standards.

If they didn't know what they were doing it doesn't explain the deals they made with African countries to exchange slaves for goods. They knew damn well they were dealing with established nations. Ignorant my ass.

Established nations, but technologically way behind.

Now, if you want knowing evil, look at those African nations that were exchanging the slaves.

You're painting a very broad brush on what was an extremely complex reality in colonial Africa.

I restricted it to the nations involved, not all African nations.

I'm not sure which nations you're referring to, but IIRC slave-trading wasn't always an immoral free-for-all on the African side, oftentimes those sold were cultural outcasts (criminals etc). And I'd guess that it was common for tribes to be forced into this type of trade economically for survival. Sans European domination the slave-trade just doesn't exist.

I haven't read extensively on the African slave trade within Africa, but I have read some, and I don't know that broad brushes are particularly helpful in understanding what happened on the ground, across centuries.

Likely the most succinct pro-European argument you can make is that Africans and Europeans have the same nature. If Africans were dominant technically they likely would have been doing the same thing to Europe, and indeed did oppress cultures within their own continent. But as Europe had geographic advantages it was just coincidence that Europe were the oppressors, and Africa was the oppressed.

That doesn't make the slave-trade any better, but I think there is a risk of casting the other as evil, and being a little too apologetic for African culture.

Or we can acknowledge that slavery has been part of the human experience since pre-history. Practiced nearly everywhere and nearly every time.

Not in the way that your Eurobros did it.

 

[ZiprHead]

Antera Duke

Your citation in no way contradicts what Gospel said. Gospel is referring to the prevailing practices related to slavery among and between Africans not connected to the western slave trade or involving any Europeans. There is zero relevance to that from a diary written in the late 1780's about a single Chief trading with Great Britain and who grew up in a context of the Atlantic slave trade that for 200 years before his birth a had already reshaped and redefined the nature and scale of slavery as a massive industry.

But the Africans did not see anything wrong with trading slaves with the Europeans. Without their participation, there'd have been no transatlantic trade. (Though the Muslim trans-Saharan and East-African trade would have gone on as usual.)

I think it’s a modern misconception that black Africans of the past were some homogeneous group rather than rivals.

Apparently you do when it fits your narrative.

 

[atrib]

Interesting, I'll entertain those thoughts and ask

1: After realizing how wrong they were, what have they done to pay the price for their crimes? Keep in mind that this is the American Government I'm talking about since the people at large at that time "didn't know that it was wrong".

2: What exactly did Africans do to elicit being stripped of their freedom, language, names; and then whipped, shackled, hanged, beat to death, burned, mutilated, branded, sold , raped, imprisoned & (insert the rest of the insane shit here)?


If you're answer is nothing for 1 then congrats, you've discovered why there is resentment. If your answer is, we gave them freedom and treated them as equals then I'll gladly steal everything you own & everyone you know, profit off of it/them then declare I was wrong without returning anything to you or holding myself accountable.

If your answer to 2 is they were wearing sexy outfits or something similar you can eat a dick.

Edit: I just realized you may have been using sarcasm, if so my above comment is said with all due respect.

I already explained it--they were resisting our occupation of their land. By the standards of the time that put them in the wrong.

Black people were enslaved because they were resisting occupation of their lands? What land did slaves own in the US? Is this meant to be sarcastic, because it is really hard to tell if anything you have said in this thread is meant to be taken seriously?

 

[Trausti]

But the Africans did not see anything wrong with trading slaves with the Europeans. Without their participation, there'd have been no transatlantic trade. (Though the Muslim trans-Saharan and East-African trade would have gone on as usual.)

I think it’s a modern misconception that black Africans of the past were some homogeneous group rather than rivals.

Apparently you do when it fits your narrative.

So when Antera Duke was chopping off slave heads for entertainment, that’s solidarity to you?

 

[Trausti]

I'm saying the people should be judged by the standards of their time, not by current standards.

If they didn't know what they were doing it doesn't explain the deals they made with African countries to exchange slaves for goods. They knew damn well they were dealing with established nations. Ignorant my ass.

Established nations, but technologically way behind.

Now, if you want knowing evil, look at those African nations that were exchanging the slaves.

You're painting a very broad brush on what was an extremely complex reality in colonial Africa.

I restricted it to the nations involved, not all African nations.

I'm not sure which nations you're referring to, but IIRC slave-trading wasn't always an immoral free-for-all on the African side, oftentimes those sold were cultural outcasts (criminals etc). And I'd guess that it was common for tribes to be forced into this type of trade economically for survival. Sans European domination the slave-trade just doesn't exist.

I haven't read extensively on the African slave trade within Africa, but I have read some, and I don't know that broad brushes are particularly helpful in understanding what happened on the ground, across centuries.

Likely the most succinct pro-European argument you can make is that Africans and Europeans have the same nature. If Africans were dominant technically they likely would have been doing the same thing to Europe, and indeed did oppress cultures within their own continent. But as Europe had geographic advantages it was just coincidence that Europe were the oppressors, and Africa was the oppressed.

That doesn't make the slave-trade any better, but I think there is a risk of casting the other as evil, and being a little too apologetic for African culture.

Or we can acknowledge that slavery has been part of the human experience since pre-history. Practiced nearly everywhere and nearly every time.

Not in the way that your Eurobros did it.

So, what? Slavery is slavery. A person is a piece of property, with no liberty, who can be abused and killed by the owner. This idea of benevolent slavery is just so stupid.

 

[laughing dog]

I'm saying the people should be judged by the standards of their time, not by current standards.

If they didn't know what they were doing it doesn't explain the deals they made with African countries to exchange slaves for goods. They knew damn well they were dealing with established nations. Ignorant my ass.

Established nations, but technologically way behind.

Now, if you want knowing evil, look at those African nations that were exchanging the slaves.

You're painting a very broad brush on what was an extremely complex reality in colonial Africa.

I restricted it to the nations involved, not all African nations.

I'm not sure which nations you're referring to, but IIRC slave-trading wasn't always an immoral free-for-all on the African side, oftentimes those sold were cultural outcasts (criminals etc). And I'd guess that it was common for tribes to be forced into this type of trade economically for survival. Sans European domination the slave-trade just doesn't exist.

I haven't read extensively on the African slave trade within Africa, but I have read some, and I don't know that broad brushes are particularly helpful in understanding what happened on the ground, across centuries.

Likely the most succinct pro-European argument you can make is that Africans and Europeans have the same nature. If Africans were dominant technically they likely would have been doing the same thing to Europe, and indeed did oppress cultures within their own continent. But as Europe had geographic advantages it was just coincidence that Europe were the oppressors, and Africa was the oppressed.

That doesn't make the slave-trade any better, but I think there is a risk of casting the other as evil, and being a little too apologetic for African culture.

Or we can acknowledge that slavery has been part of the human experience since pre-history. Practiced nearly everywhere and nearly every time.

Not in the way that your Eurobros did it.

So, what? Slavery is slavery. A person is a piece of property, with no liberty, who can be abused and killed by the owner. This idea of benevolent slavery is just so stupid.

It is stupid. And the idea that the fact that Africans willingly participated in the slave trade is relevant to the effects of slavery in the US is just as stupid. But for some reason, that does not stop the persistent "whataboutism" to be interjected into any discussion of the long-term and long-lasting effects of slavery in the USA.

 

[Trausti]

I always get a chuckle watching white folk debate the enslavement of black folk.

Again, which non-Western peoples in the 18th-19th centuries were against slavery?

I'm gonna go with ... uh ...

THE SLAVES????

Oh but I forget
They aren't people
They are just things to be discussed.

Well the European slaves held captive in North Africa were also against their enslavement. Indeed, there are other examples of peoples being against the enslavement of their own, like Jang Bogo with Korean slaves in China. But it is only the West that sought abolition for all peoples, Western and non-Western. Like when General Charles Gordon chose to stand and die at Khartum rather than have the black Sudanese enslaved by the Mahdists.

 

[Gospel]

I'm saying the people should be judged by the standards of their time, not by current standards.

If they didn't know what they were doing it doesn't explain the deals they made with African countries to exchange slaves for goods. They knew damn well they were dealing with established nations. Ignorant my ass.

Established nations, but technologically way behind.

Now, if you want knowing evil, look at those African nations that were exchanging the slaves.

You're painting a very broad brush on what was an extremely complex reality in colonial Africa.

I restricted it to the nations involved, not all African nations.

I'm not sure which nations you're referring to, but IIRC slave-trading wasn't always an immoral free-for-all on the African side, oftentimes those sold were cultural outcasts (criminals etc). And I'd guess that it was common for tribes to be forced into this type of trade economically for survival. Sans European domination the slave-trade just doesn't exist.

I haven't read extensively on the African slave trade within Africa, but I have read some, and I don't know that broad brushes are particularly helpful in understanding what happened on the ground, across centuries.

Likely the most succinct pro-European argument you can make is that Africans and Europeans have the same nature. If Africans were dominant technically they likely would have been doing the same thing to Europe, and indeed did oppress cultures within their own continent. But as Europe had geographic advantages it was just coincidence that Europe were the oppressors, and Africa was the oppressed.

That doesn't make the slave-trade any better, but I think there is a risk of casting the other as evil, and being a little too apologetic for African culture.

Or we can acknowledge that slavery has been part of the human experience since pre-history. Practiced nearly everywhere and nearly every time.

Not in the way that your Eurobros did it.

So, what? Slavery is slavery. A person is a piece of property, with no liberty, who can be abused and killed by the owner. This idea of benevolent slavery is just so stupid.

Slavery is bad entirely I agree with that. You made up the rest of that bullshit about "benevolent slavery". Where the flying fuck did I make the statement that any form of slavery is "benevolent"? I was making the distinction that enemy combatants & debt payment slavery is different from just grabbing people for free labor. At least enemy combatants tried to cause harm and had to pay for it (I don't agree with that) and the other is over a debt (I don't agree with that either) but NOBODY DID A MUTHA FUCKING THING TO THE EUROPENISES! So yeah there is a difference. It's all bad, but it's not all the same.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I always get a chuckle watching white folk debate the enslavement of black folk.

Again, which non-Western peoples in the 18th-19th centuries were against slavery?

I'm gonna go with ... uh ...

THE SLAVES????

Oh but I forget
They aren't people
They are just things to be discussed.

Well the European slaves held captive in North Africa were also against their enslavement. Indeed, there are other examples of peoples being against the enslavement of their own, like Jang Bogo with Korean slaves in China. But it is only the West that sought abolition for all peoples, Western and non-Western. Like when General Charles Gordon chose to stand and die at Khartum rather than have the black Sudanese enslaved by the Mahdists.

I answered your question. Point for me.
As for the west seeking the abolition of slavery for all people, this was not a unanimous mission of noble white people wishing freedom and happiness to all.
Right here in the US we had a little tiff about just that thing called the Civil War. You may have heard about it. It was in all the papers.

Then there is all the Slavery-lite, and Slavery By Another Name (A very good book you should read) that continued after slavery was "outlawed."

Now other people here may play this game with you.
I'm not gonna.
I have neither the time nor inclination to teach you a history you intentionally ignore or to try to save your soul.
I will however call bovine excrement.

Thanks for show and have a great day.

 

[ronburgundy]

I'm saying the people should be judged by the standards of their time, not by current standards.

If they didn't know what they were doing it doesn't explain the deals they made with African countries to exchange slaves for goods. They knew damn well they were dealing with established nations. Ignorant my ass.

Established nations, but technologically way behind.

Now, if you want knowing evil, look at those African nations that were exchanging the slaves.

You're painting a very broad brush on what was an extremely complex reality in colonial Africa.

I restricted it to the nations involved, not all African nations.

I'm not sure which nations you're referring to, but IIRC slave-trading wasn't always an immoral free-for-all on the African side, oftentimes those sold were cultural outcasts (criminals etc). And I'd guess that it was common for tribes to be forced into this type of trade economically for survival. Sans European domination the slave-trade just doesn't exist.

I haven't read extensively on the African slave trade within Africa, but I have read some, and I don't know that broad brushes are particularly helpful in understanding what happened on the ground, across centuries.

Likely the most succinct pro-European argument you can make is that Africans and Europeans have the same nature. If Africans were dominant technically they likely would have been doing the same thing to Europe, and indeed did oppress cultures within their own continent. But as Europe had geographic advantages it was just coincidence that Europe were the oppressors, and Africa was the oppressed.

That doesn't make the slave-trade any better, but I think there is a risk of casting the other as evil, and being a little too apologetic for African culture.

Or we can acknowledge that slavery has been part of the human experience since pre-history. Practiced nearly everywhere and nearly every time.

Not in the way that your Eurobros did it.

So, what? Slavery is slavery. A person is a piece of property, with no liberty, who can be abused and killed by the owner. This idea of benevolent slavery is just so stupid.

That is equivalent to saying that "Assault is assault" and therefore pushing a person is the same as slowly peeling the skin from their body.
It's also equivalent to arguing that it makes no difference how criminals who are incarcerated are treated, because "incarceration is incarceration".
The nature of slavery can and did vary wildly regarding the levels of cruelty and physical punishment deemed ethically acceptable, the freedoms slaves had (such as to marry/mate with whom they wanted, having "free time" in which they had the ability to come and go from the masters property, automatic freedom granted after a specified number of years, whether offspring of slaves automatically became slaves, etc.. There were examples of extreme cruel forms of slavery within Africa (though the one's you point to were after centuries of cultural influence from the influence of the Atlantic slave trade), and most analyses suggest that slavery in America was fairly consistently of the most cruel and restrictive forms found across history.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

People should be judged by the standards of their times. That time didn't only belong to the Europeans.

True. Many other peoples were much worse.

Agreed. It's also true that many Africans fought against the Atlantic slave trade and they had every right to and was entirely justified regardless of Lorens blurred view of history. America at that time was actively screwing over the Native Americans and in fact wrote their first set of "just laws" as a result claiming that it was illegal to injure or oppression them. But according to Loren they didn't know better and was just doing to black people what was normal around the time while recognizing what they were doing to the Native Americans was wrong. Yeah right.

I'm talking about degrees of wrong.

Doing something widely acknowledged to be wrong is a much greater wrong than doing a wrong which most people didn't realize was a wrong.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm saying the people should be judged by the standards of their time, not by current standards.

If they didn't know what they were doing it doesn't explain the deals they made with African countries to exchange slaves for goods. They knew damn well they were dealing with established nations. Ignorant my ass.

Established nations, but technologically way behind.

Now, if you want knowing evil, look at those African nations that were exchanging the slaves.

You're painting a very broad brush on what was an extremely complex reality in colonial Africa.

I restricted it to the nations involved, not all African nations.

I'm not sure which nations you're referring to, but IIRC slave-trading wasn't always an immoral free-for-all on the African side, oftentimes those sold were cultural outcasts (criminals etc). And I'd guess that it was common for tribes to be forced into this type of trade economically for survival. Sans European domination the slave-trade just doesn't exist.

I haven't read extensively on the African slave trade within Africa, but I have read some, and I don't know that broad brushes are particularly helpful in understanding what happened on the ground, across centuries.

Slavery existed in Africa before the coming of the Europeans. Many were prisoners of war and the like, not just criminals.

 

[Politesse]

Slavery existed in Africa before the coming of the Europeans. Many were prisoners of war and the like, not just criminals.

And you are arguing that this was a moral good?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is stupid. And the idea that the fact that Africans willingly participated in the slave trade is relevant to the effects of slavery in the US is just as stupid. But for some reason, that does not stop the persistent "whataboutism" to be interjected into any discussion of the long-term and long-lasting effects of slavery in the USA.

Pretending the African nations weren't willing participants is revisionism.

The slave traders bought the slaves, they didn't go capture and enslave people. The capturing was done by the local governments, yet you somehow don't think they should be blamed. Slavery was the norm virtually everywhere.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Slavery existed in Africa before the coming of the Europeans. Many were prisoners of war and the like, not just criminals.

And you are arguing that this was a moral good?

No, I'm arguing that it's not just the white man's fault in which the African nations were basically blameless.

 

[rousseau]

It is stupid. And the idea that the fact that Africans willingly participated in the slave trade is relevant to the effects of slavery in the US is just as stupid. But for some reason, that does not stop the persistent "whataboutism" to be interjected into any discussion of the long-term and long-lasting effects of slavery in the USA.

Pretending the African nations weren't willing participants is revisionism.

The slave traders bought the slaves, they didn't go capture and enslave people. The capturing was done by the local governments, yet you somehow don't think they should be blamed. Slavery was the norm virtually everywhere.

It's fine to include Africa in culpability, but again try to avoid broad brushes like the slave traders bought the slaves, they didn't go capture and enslave people. I would hazard a guess that across a number of centuries, in a highly profitable trade, carried out by unethical people, there was a lot of captured and even murdered slaves.

In some of your posts you've tried to paint Africans as equally culpable by presenting a false generalization. If you want to play the devil's advocate that's fine, but if you don't try to avoid broad generalizations you just come across as disingenuous.

 

[laughing dog]

It is stupid. And the idea that the fact that Africans willingly participated in the slave trade is relevant to the effects of slavery in the US is just as stupid. But for some reason, that does not stop the persistent "whataboutism" to be interjected into any discussion of the long-term and long-lasting effects of slavery in the USA.

Pretending the African nations weren't willing participants is revisionism.

i Ok. Too bad I did not do that.

The slave traders bought the slaves, they didn't go capture and enslave people. The capturing was done by the local governments, yet you somehow don't think they should be blamed.

Please learn to read. I have not written anything about who is or is not to blame.

Slavery was the norm virtually everywhere.

And that claim of fact is relevant in a discussions about the effects of slavery in the USA today because....?

 

[Politesse]

Slavery existed in Africa before the coming of the Europeans. Many were prisoners of war and the like, not just criminals.

And you are arguing that this was a moral good?

No, I'm arguing that it's not just the white man's fault in which the African nations were basically blameless.

So you're arguing against your own strawman. Is this because you know your actual viewpoint is indefensible? Why bring up a hypothetical perspective that no one holds?

 

[Gospel]

Racial resentment which means bitter indignation at having been treated unfairly existing 150 years later should be no surprise to anyone who payed attention to their 9th grade history teacher.