Report: Black Men Mired In Social Crisis

page: 3
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 18 2007 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
It is my honest memory there were 600,000 slaves in the first census, 1790.

The census was different. That's how many slaves there were. I posted how many black people from Africa got sold to America. Mine were sales figures.


If i didn’t like you, F/F, ...

Thanks!



I’d call that a cheap shot.

How are stating facts a cheap shot?
Nevermind. I don't want to get off track here.


it is totally irrelevant to America in 2007.

Okay. If it is totally irrelevant to America in 2007 that only 1.4% of white Americans were slave owners and that a much higher percentage of blacks owned black slaves (and sold slaves from Africa) ... then why is it relevant to your conversations that SOME white Americans (1.4%) owned slaves 250+ years ago? Why is it irrelevant about black slave ownership and black slave sellers - and only relevant about white slave ownership -from 250+ years ago?


Some facts are useless. This must be one of them.

The fact that only 1.4% of White Americans owned slaves isn't useless. Especially since people are bringing up slavery NOW - which was from 250 years ago. Let's get the facts straight on just how many white Americans owned slaves. Let's also get the facts straight on just how many blacks owned slaves and just how many black Africans caused those black people to be put into slavery. These are definately not useless facts. If folks want to discuss slavery ... lets REALLY discuss slavery.


OK, good to know,

The fact that slavery is endemic to Africa .. you're darn toot'n that it's good to know. It's good to know for historical reasons, for social reasons, and for NOW reasons. It's a major problem NOW ... it should be addressed by the world body, but it isn't.



You know as well as I do that despite all the Dems faults, they DO NOT DO RACIST ADS. Is that too hard to admit?


hmmmmm ... okay ... they don't do blatent racist ads. Sure.
But - they place the race card when it suits them and they buy
the minority vote without regard for the long term effects of
what they are doing.

And, IMHO, they take the minority vote for granted.


You're in denial, F/F. Admit your GOP is made up of racists.

You're in denial, Don White. Admit your dem party is made up of jive-talking, race baiting, race-card dealers.

Oh .. and it's not 'my' GOP. Like I said - I'm really thinking about registering Libertarian. It may be, or may not be, a nothing-party as you said. But what I'm seeing with the two major parties right now doesn't impress me at all.

Now ... since you brought up slavery ... and which you just deemed 'irrelevant to 2007' .... what has any of this got to do with 'black men mired in social crisis'???




posted on Apr, 18 2007 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by UM_Gazz
We can't look at someone and see their race, because that is where the conditioned response begins, and so does the judgement.


If you are saying that we should be color blind, then I fully agree. Everyone should be treated equally, no matter what color their skin happens to be. Equal treatment for all. No special favors and no bad treatments based upon skin color.


Edited to add - I fully appreciate what you said - 'conditioned response'.
Excellent observation.

[edit on 4/18/2007 by FlyersFan]



posted on Apr, 18 2007 @ 07:47 PM
link   
FlyersFan

You got my WATS....

And I do not give out WATS very often, maybe once every 3 months or so..

I like facts. Especially, facts that refute emotional claims.

Blacks had it bad in this country... but they don't now. I know you may THINK blacks have it bad, or worse off then anyone else... and that I think is the sign that the stigma of "you can't make it on your own" is truly infecting the black race..

White work harder to accomodate blacks more then any other race. That is a fact.

In the end, it comes down to the only thing that truly holds you back, is the limitations and restrictions to place upon your self.



posted on Apr, 18 2007 @ 08:17 PM
link   


posted by FlyersFan

Gotchya. Since you brought up slavery in America, which ended 250 years ago, [142 years to be a bit more exact] I figured I’d post the facts about destinations of black slaves during the 1600-1800 time period. Compared to other countries, America had much lower numbers of slaves bought from Africa. “U.S.A.: 300,000" [Edited by Don W]



If you would add one zero to the number shown above, I’d have no quarrel with your report. It is my honest memory there were 600,000 slaves in the first census, 1790. Slavery got a big impetus until Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin around 1790. Our Constitution - in one more of many concession to slavery - allowed the importation of slaves to be banned after 1808 but I’m not sure it ever was. I have read that before 1808, in anticipation of such a ban, there were wholesale slave breeding farms set up in the South.

I’m of the opinion there were between 5 and 6 million slaves in the US in 1861. In addition to the 11 Confederate states, this number includes Ky, De, Md and Mo. There were also a few slaves in other states, too. Aside: The Stars and Bars have 13 stars, hoping Ky and Mo would join the CSA. About 1/4th of the members of the State legislature walked out of the state capital, Frankfort, and held a “rump” session in southern city of Bowling Green, home of WKU Hilltoppers. BG is only 35 miles from Tennessee.

The building in which the Southern sympathizers met is now a visitors center. Western Ky is flat with tobacco and cotton favorite crops in the mid-1800s. Eastern Ky is in the foothills of the Appalachians and slaves were used almost exclusively around the horse farms and tobacco fields in the Bluegrass, with Lexington at its center. 2 Civil War battles were fought in Ky.

[edit on 4/18/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Apr, 19 2007 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
It is my honest memory there were 600,000 slaves in the first census, 1790.


Yes. Census . Here are the numbers by state. HOWEVER, as I said, the 300,000 number is the SALES figure. That's how many were sold to America. The sales figure was from the book 'Slave Trade' by Hugh Thomas - published in 1977

BTW .. this is an excellent site.



posted on Apr, 19 2007 @ 07:57 AM
link   


posted by FlyersFan

Here are the numbers by state. HOWEVER, as I said, the 300,000 number is the SALES figure. That's how many were sold to America. The sales figure was from the book 'Slave Trade' by Hugh Thomas - published in 1977 BTW .. this is an excellent site.



1) Your link, Census, failed.
2) I am no demographer, but 300,000 slaves purchased prior to 1865 seems very low. I re-assert the largest importations of slaves came after Eli Whitney’s cotton gin.
3) Mr Thomas looks to have an agenda. Muslims bad, Americans good. 17 million slaves bought by Muslims. How would he get those numbers? Call the Ottomans on the phone? This reminds me more of Bishop Ussher dating the Creation - well received until the late 19th century - than anything lately. Even the Dutch outdid America! Sounds like Thomas may be a Minimalist?
4) America, lacking any central government agency charged with recording importation of slaves, makes the US number highly suspicious. There must have been 30-40 ports along our Atlantic coast and a dozen on the Gulf coast.
5) I question how 300,000 slaves spread unevenly over 2 centuries could have morphed into the 5-6 million slaves I believe were in American in 1865. They were after all people, not rabbits.

[edit on 4/19/2007 by donwhite]





new topics

top topics
 
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join