They were White and They were Slaves

page: 3
136
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by luciddream
 


No one is rationalizing slavery here but you, seeing that you admit blacks owned black slaves and that apparently justifies them but not whites.




posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by MrPlow
 


Maybe true in the later days but initially it was very simple.

"African Slaves" were most of the time captured enemy fighters from rivaling tribes in Africa. There were no established countries in Africa at that time - it was all tribe based and there were wars between the tribes! The British brought guns and technology to Africa and seeded it among the tribes but you might think that this was the reason - but it's not!

Slavery has exists in Africa centuries before the British arrived. Slaves itself were most of the time traded as indentured slaves - meaning that it was a from of debt bondage - the same way they were handled when they initially came to the United States through the Atlantic Slave Trade. They key is that slavery was a part of the economic structure and many uphold many parts of their survival, for example for agricultural work, etc.

We are not here to justify or judge slavery since it's happening around the world every day and has happened for the last 15000 years!

BUT your argument is that Blacks were put in slavery because of their skin colors and that's absolutely a lie! Africans were primarily put in slavery during the Atlantic Slave Trade because there was already a pre-existing network of sophisticated slave trade in Africa and it exploded after African Slave Traders discovered that selling slaves to Europeans Slave Traders can be very profitable.

Do you really think someone went to Africa and said "hey that dude is black - he is only half of a man - let's enslave him"??? It's much more complicated like that but Skin/Race/Origin? Those didn't play a role and if they only very minor role.

Read up on Slavery in your History Book and the Atlantic Slave Trade and you will discover facts that might not be compatible with your ideas of slavery.

Your next argument might be that the "evil white man" changed the history books!

What happened after the slave trade, especially in the early 19s is a complete different story but slavery is another one!

Here is a good starting point: en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 


This is truth and being British with descent from all English nations and the irish I would point out a 2 year old boy hung for stealing an apple, this is a country with a dark history,.
By the way I think the evil rulers are still there but the public gained more power though now they are suffering information overload and seem not to care anymore, cue the new dark ages ushered in by corrupt government and the very descendants still in power of those evil people you mentioned.
People were EXPORTED for the most minor offence and most English are not aware of the darker portions of our history, thank you for bringing this up.

Remember though we had the Christian reformers and it was the British whom initiated the anti slavery patrols from 1808 onward were the royal navy sought to put an end to the slave trade so we have had some truly good rulers as well, overall we have actually been a constructive and good influence though this will never justify the crimes and destroyed lives of the past those people whom were guilty of these atrocity's are now long gone.
The French were at least as bad and the worst were the Belgians in the Congo but slavery is still practiced today among many Islamic country's often behind the scenes and from a study of the north African corsairs whom were Arab raiders they enslaved millions of Europeans whom suffered every bit as much as the African slaves.
edit on 17-7-2013 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by MrPlow
 




Again, petty or not- they were sold into slavery due to their crimes.

I doubt that the Irish children sold as slaves were guilty of any crimes against the king.

Except for being Irish.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Why a large number of us don't know, can be tied to the those of us that have suffered more than everyone else /s; are innocent of all accusations of wrong doing(s) /s; and don't own the media /s.

And, if you know of the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion ( those forgeries
), you will understand that everything wrong in the world is to be blamed on white Christians - and you'd agree that hasn't happened /s.

And since none of the above is true, the following clips won't make a lot of sense




and

edit on 17-7-2013 by SneakyB because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-7-2013 by SneakyB because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-7-2013 by SneakyB because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Unfortunately, they are also pushing a Marxist indoctrination as well. Why would they want to be enslaved to the State?



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Would you be mad if some close to you killed your best friend or some stranger killed your best friend?

Same loss, different animosity.

Another race owning another race is worse then one owning each other... both are crime but different level.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by luciddream
 

I have to respectfully disagree with that.

I don't think the slave feels any better if his master looks similar to him, he is still a slave.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by luciddream
 


I dont think they are on a different level, they are the same crime, just percieved to be different.

It's interesting in the OP, that he mentions the appalacians were popultaed by these white slaves, and that they are a poor area of the US. So does this support the idea that slavery is the cause of the issues the black community in the US deal with, as this seems to be hotly debated on threads purely about black slavery.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Something the history books forgets to mention is that African blacks SOLD poor African Blacks to white plantation owners in the US. Yes Blacks sold "THEIR" own kind to white plantation owners.. If you don't believe it?? Look it up. It was far more about EXTREME poverty why these men and women were "owned" and sold.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by HairlessApe
 





ETA: An old favorite food in Ireland is called "Blood Pudding." It's basically the fermented dark blood of a sheep congealed into a thick wafer. Yummy. But pig guts sound good too.


Heheheh I have Scottish ancestry and thank goodness I have never been forced to eat Haggis! Probably not quite as awful as dog tails though. At least there's no fur involved.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Would you be mad if some close to you killed your best friend or some stranger killed your best friend?

Same loss, different animosity.

Another race owning another race is worse then one owning each other... both are crime but different level.


I was right! You are justifying some types of slavery over others because it is convenient to still be the victim perpetually.
(either that or you have fallen into the white guilt trap set by Democrat Progressives to make you believe that Socialism will set us all free).
edit on 17-7-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrThornhill31
Something the history books forgets to mention is that African blacks SOLD poor African Blacks to white plantation owners in the US. Yes Blacks sold "THEIR" own kind to white plantation owners.. If you don't believe it?? Look it up. It was far more about EXTREME poverty why these men and women were "owned" and sold.

Well there were Portuguese middle-men.
It was a business, and Portuguese slave traders set up there operations near the coast. Local tribes would go on expeditions and capture the neighboring tribespeople, young men and women bringing higher prices. They would often massacre the young and old, as they were not worth taking, and they presented problems during transport to the coast. The expeditions would take the captured people to the traders and trade them for European goods like textiles and metal goods.

At that time, most tribes in West Africa viewed neighboring tribes as we would livestock, to the point of using them as a food source.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyandi
reply to post by MrPlow
 


Maybe true in the later days but initially it was very simple.

"African Slaves" were most of the time captured enemy fighters from rivaling tribes in Africa. There were no established countries in Africa at that time - it was all tribe based and there were wars between the tribes! The British brought guns and technology to Africa and seeded it among the tribes but you might think that this was the reason - but it's not!

Slavery has exists in Africa centuries before the British arrived. Slaves itself were most of the time traded as indentured slaves - meaning that it was a from of debt bondage - the same way they were handled when they initially came to the United States through the Atlantic Slave Trade. They key is that slavery was a part of the economic structure and many uphold many parts of their survival, for example for agricultural work, etc.

We are not here to justify or judge slavery since it's happening around the world every day and has happened for the last 15000 years!

BUT your argument is that Blacks were put in slavery because of their skin colors and that's absolutely a lie! Africans were primarily put in slavery during the Atlantic Slave Trade because there was already a pre-existing network of sophisticated slave trade in Africa and it exploded after African Slave Traders discovered that selling slaves to Europeans Slave Traders can be very profitable.

Do you really think someone went to Africa and said "hey that dude is black - he is only half of a man - let's enslave him"??? It's much more complicated like that but Skin/Race/Origin? Those didn't play a role and if they only very minor role.

Read up on Slavery in your History Book and the Atlantic Slave Trade and you will discover facts that might not be compatible with your ideas of slavery.

Your next argument might be that the "evil white man" changed the history books!

What happened after the slave trade, especially in the early 19s is a complete different story but slavery is another one!

Here is a good starting point: en.wikipedia.org...







I quoted this because it is the truth and everybody should read it.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by SneakyB
Why a large number of us don't know, can be tied to the those of us that have 'suffered more than everyone else' (/s); are 'innocent of all accusations of wrong doing(s)' (/s); and 'don't own the media' (/s).

And, if you know of the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion ( those forgeries
), you will understand that everything wrong in the world is to be blamed on white Christians - and you'd agree that hasn't happened (/s).

And since none of the above is true (/s), the following clips won't make a lot of sense




and

edit on 17-7-2013 by SneakyB because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-7-2013 by SneakyB because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-7-2013 by kimish because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity

Originally posted by MrPlow

Whether or not you, in 2013, believe this to be an actual crime or not is inconsequential. At THAT time, it was a criminal act- so....they were being punished for that act.

Everything else you said above has nothing to do with what I'm pointing out about THAT day and age.
Again, petty or not- they were sold into slavery due to their crimes. Blacks were sold into slavery because they were considered less than human and savages...their offense? The color of their skin.

Try harder


Ok, let's play our little games then and strain some gnats just for fun. In your argument the said Catholics were at war and lost and thus broke some law. I do believe the said blacks sold into slavery by their oppressors who won a war against them and sold them into slavery would fit the same bill. Thus those blacks were not sold because of the color of their skin, but dared to lose a fight against another group they felt was oppressing them.

We can play these mental gymnastics ad nauseum, and it just shows me you think white slavery was not an issue. Again, thank you for participating and exit the ride to your right.


How convenient for you- telling half truths and all. Yes, their were blacks that were sold into slavery as a result of being on the losing side of war. That goes without saying. But the bulk were simply kidnapped from their families and brought to foreign lands to be traded and sold. Only because of their skin color and because they were viewed as uncivilized.
White supremacy was capitalized on in order to perpetuate this commodity.
But go on...your shattered ideas of reality are kind of entertaining.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrPlow

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity

Originally posted by MrPlow

Whether or not you, in 2013, believe this to be an actual crime or not is inconsequential. At THAT time, it was a criminal act- so....they were being punished for that act.

Everything else you said above has nothing to do with what I'm pointing out about THAT day and age.
Again, petty or not- they were sold into slavery due to their crimes. Blacks were sold into slavery because they were considered less than human and savages...their offense? The color of their skin.

Try harder


Ok, let's play our little games then and strain some gnats just for fun. In your argument the said Catholics were at war and lost and thus broke some law. I do believe the said blacks sold into slavery by their oppressors who won a war against them and sold them into slavery would fit the same bill. Thus those blacks were not sold because of the color of their skin, but dared to lose a fight against another group they felt was oppressing them.

We can play these mental gymnastics ad nauseum, and it just shows me you think white slavery was not an issue. Again, thank you for participating and exit the ride to your right.


How convenient for you- telling half truths and all. Yes, their were blacks that were sold into slavery as a result of being on the losing side of war. That goes without saying. But the bulk were simply kidnapped from their families and brought to foreign lands to be traded and sold. Only because of their skin color and because they were viewed as uncivilized.
White supremacy was capitalized on in order to perpetuate this commodity.
But go on...your shattered ideas of reality are kind of entertaining.


Yes they were kidnapped from their families. But who kidnapped them? Who started the whole entire slave trade?
It started with Africa. They sold themselves. Then the Arabs came in for for a piece of the pie and then from there the Europeans.

Remember, we tend to remember the most recent history, hence why the European white man is the devil to some.
edit on 17-7-2013 by kimish because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyandi
reply to post by MrPlow
 


Maybe true in the later days but initially it was very simple.

"African Slaves" were most of the time captured enemy fighters from rivaling tribes in Africa. There were no established countries in Africa at that time - it was all tribe based and there were wars between the tribes! The British brought guns and technology to Africa and seeded it among the tribes but you might think that this was the reason - but it's not!

Slavery has exists in Africa centuries before the British arrived. Slaves itself were most of the time traded as indentured slaves - meaning that it was a from of debt bondage - the same way they were handled when they initially came to the United States through the Atlantic Slave Trade. They key is that slavery was a part of the economic structure and many uphold many parts of their survival, for example for agricultural work, etc.

We are not here to justify or judge slavery since it's happening around the world every day and has happened for the last 15000 years!

BUT your argument is that Blacks were put in slavery because of their skin colors and that's absolutely a lie! Africans were primarily put in slavery during the Atlantic Slave Trade because there was already a pre-existing network of sophisticated slave trade in Africa and it exploded after African Slave Traders discovered that selling slaves to Europeans Slave Traders can be very profitable.

Do you really think someone went to Africa and said "hey that dude is black - he is only half of a man - let's enslave him"??? It's much more complicated like that but Skin/Race/Origin? Those didn't play a role and if they only very minor role.

Read up on Slavery in your History Book and the Atlantic Slave Trade and you will discover facts that might not be compatible with your ideas of slavery.

Your next argument might be that the "evil white man" changed the history books!

What happened after the slave trade, especially in the early 19s is a complete different story but slavery is another one!

Here is a good starting point: en.wikipedia.org...







Are you seriously trying to say that white supremacy played no part? That whites did not view any other colors as animalistic?
As a white man, I think it is disgusting the way we try to rewrite history in order to make it sound "not so bad" and oh hey, me too. Whatever.
Heres a good starting pointing for you: reality



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by kimish

Originally posted by MrPlow

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity

Originally posted by MrPlow

Whether or not you, in 2013, believe this to be an actual crime or not is inconsequential. At THAT time, it was a criminal act- so....they were being punished for that act.

Everything else you said above has nothing to do with what I'm pointing out about THAT day and age.
Again, petty or not- they were sold into slavery due to their crimes. Blacks were sold into slavery because they were considered less than human and savages...their offense? The color of their skin.

Try harder


Ok, let's play our little games then and strain some gnats just for fun. In your argument the said Catholics were at war and lost and thus broke some law. I do believe the said blacks sold into slavery by their oppressors who won a war against them and sold them into slavery would fit the same bill. Thus those blacks were not sold because of the color of their skin, but dared to lose a fight against another group they felt was oppressing them.

We can play these mental gymnastics ad nauseum, and it just shows me you think white slavery was not an issue. Again, thank you for participating and exit the ride to your right.


How convenient for you- telling half truths and all. Yes, their were blacks that were sold into slavery as a result of being on the losing side of war. That goes without saying. But the bulk were simply kidnapped from their families and brought to foreign lands to be traded and sold. Only because of their skin color and because they were viewed as uncivilized.
White supremacy was capitalized on in order to perpetuate this commodity.
But go on...your shattered ideas of reality are kind of entertaining.


Their own families sold them. The Black families sold their own kin. You said it yourself.
So, by your logic, they viewed themselves as uncivilized?


That happened as well....but I never said their families sold them. Those that did, didn't sell them because of their skin color. That's an idiotic idea and you made that one up in your own mind.
They were kidnapped. Yes, some were the captured in war- I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about the ones, who- no thanks to Darwin- were considered not fully evolved....only because the color of their skin.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


No, i was pointing out that you try to say "hey! they are both the same" its just absurd.

They did it for different reason.

The Skin B type owning a Skin type B, knows the slaves is his skin type. Type A owning B is different.

One is worse than other because another race abusing another..less emotions involved when committing atrocities.

Similar to how Muslims are "less" human.
edit on 7/17/2013 by luciddream because: (no reason given)



top topics
 
136
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join