It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

They were White and They were Slaves

page: 4
142
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

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

I think it's disgusting that Africans selling their own to the Europeans is left out of the history books. Is that not telling a half truth? yes or no.

And no one mentions the Arabs play in all of this. They were buying, selling, and trading black slaves before the first European stepped foot on the Continent.




posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by kimish
 


Just cause they are selling its okay to buy? lol the hypocrisy.

Selling is disgusting and buying is glorious?



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by luciddream
 


I think the point is that slavery was not something wrought on the blacks by whites, the blacks sold the slaves to the whites, both were horrific acts to be carried out by people on other people..



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by kimish
 


are his sources verifiable? i don't recognize the names of any of his source documents.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by kimish
reply to post by MrPlow
 

I think it's disgusting that Africans selling their own to the Europeans is left out of the history books. Is that not telling a half truth? yes or no.

And no one mentions the Arabs play in all of this. They were buying, selling, and trading black slaves before the first European stepped foot on the Continent.


They weren't "selling their own" - there was no Africa. They were selling prisoners from other kingdoms.

Regardless, this whole discussion is like a child saying "well, he did it too!" and the only goal is to deflect attention away from the fact that white people did this to blacks in THIS country.

You can keep skirting around it and deflecting all you want. The ONLY way we can ever move away from this admit it and do what we can to ostracize the racists that are left in our society. Period.

At all corners, anyone who implicitly or explicitly seeks to belittle another only because of their race, should be shunned, publically embarrassed and shut up as quickly as possible and without excuse.

And really...this thread REEKS of said implicit supremacy.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by WilsonWilson
 





slavery was not something wrought on the blacks by whites,


Of course not, that absurd to think like that, Slavery existed many many years ago..

My arguement is that saying owning INTERracial slaves are the same level of "crime" as owning INTRAcial slaves.

Do you agree they are the same? if you had a choice, no other choice but these two choice, what would you do?

Hypothetical Question.

If you had to sell your daughter/wife/son as a slave. Would you sell to a Relative of your color(whose culture you know) or a foreign buyer? you know they are not the same.
edit on 7/17/2013 by luciddream because: (no reason given)

edit on 7/17/2013 by luciddream because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by luciddream
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)


Looks like you are going to go on the rest of your life blaming people today for everything in the past and likely you will justify rioting in the streets over the Zimmerman trial and blame "white Hispanic" people for things. Isn't it time for us all to look to higher truths now? Man has enslaved man over the ages. Why won't you give up the victimhood when anyone can get an educational grant for football, or sing their way to fame as people like Beyoncé have?
Or maybe you can stop and realize what many of us have been saying, that the Nephilim are still the slave owners today and that we are all being traded for their pleasure.
The Elites are liars extraordinaire and you have been caught in their web of deceit and you want to stay there.

And now you are throwing in muslims as victims too. Oh the evil white Christian devils.......I see where you are going with this.



Do you agree they are the same?


Yes, they are the same, as one man owning another man is abominable, but again you are not seeing the forest through the trees. And you wouldn't even make a good Socialist with your thinking.
edit on 17-7-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 





you are going to go on the rest of your life blaming people today


Not really about today, nor have i mentioned anything about blaming people today... where are you getting this from?

my discussion was that they are not the same like many here seems to say..different type of slavery.
edit on 7/17/2013 by luciddream because: (no reason given)



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


Ok, if you want to play semantics...

The inhabitants of the land we know now as Africa, lived in tribes. There was constant warring amongst these tribes. The winner took the healthiest prisoners and made them into slaves or indentured servants. Over time, these slaves/servants became a commodity. Kind of like we use money today...

Jeesh... I feel like I'm starting to write a history book for grade school children.

Either you are that dense in the head or you are seriously that naive. That was in no way an attack, I'm serious.
edit on 17-7-2013 by kimish because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 02:02 PM
link   

They weren't "selling their own"…They were selling prisoners from other kingdoms.


Trying to have it both ways much?

Why does pointing out that there has been been slavery of other races than blacks equate to negating that? I never understood this stance.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by buni11687
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 





The Irish seemed to be targeted the most. Cromwell hated the Irish Catholics for their rebellion against the crown, and he decimated the Irish Catholic population and made hundreds of thousands of them slaves which sold for 5 shillings.


I did a quick search and found some more info about the Irish slaves.

www.globalresearch.ca...


The Irish slave trade began when James II sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as slaves to the New World. His 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.



You need to research your history. The Irish slave trade began hundreds of years earlier by The Vikings.

www.ivargault.com...



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by jadedANDcynical
 


It makes it "okay" or slightly justified.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by jadedANDcynical

They weren't "selling their own"…They were selling prisoners from other kingdoms.


Trying to have it both ways much?

Why does pointing out that there has been been slavery of other races than blacks equate to negating that? I never understood this stance.


The difference is, as I've pointed out already, there is a big difference between selling prisoners of war, or criminals and outright kidnapping people to be sold into slavery simply because of the color of their skin.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 





you are going to go on the rest of your life blaming people today


Not really about today, nor have i mentioned anything about blaming people today... where are you getting this from?

my discussion was that they are not the same like many here seems to say..different type of slavery.
edit on 7/17/2013 by luciddream because: (no reason given)


Look, you are trying to say that white slavery wasn't as bad as black slavery and you even justified blacks owning blacks saying that race is what makes the difference. It's preposterous and you are buying right into the whole white guilt thing. It is so transparent but you are seemingly trying to walk it back somehow, as I think you know there is no difference whatever, but you still want it to be an issue. What have you got at stake in this argument? Reparations? Bounties on Zimmerman for racial profiling? More of the Al Sharpton kind of division? Or maybe even an attack on Republicans for supposedly trying to stop minorities from voting? I guess one has to hang on to this stuff for Progressive politics to work.

You are exactly the kind of person who perpetuates something which could be healed if we really try.
Isn't it time?
Isn't it time we see that we all are the Children of the One True God? Or do you want the one who favors one over another?
edit on 17-7-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


there is a possibility that sometimes the one true god of the ot, not always, but sometimes, it was not god at all but pharaoh and in that regard, our pharaoh obama, doesn't particularly care for people with lighter skin. he's cute as a bug in a rug, and has an awesome singing voice and a great smile, but he no like white. in that regard, this particular one true god is not interested in the well being of the entire nation, only in the well being of the black community. it's understandable, to an extent, but it has surpassed that now and has become thoroughly un-american.
edit on 17-7-2013 by undo because: (no reason given)



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


I'm curious to hear your rebuttal.

What say you?



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


You're saying that there's better types of dung to eat.

I'm saying we shouldn't be eating dung in the first place.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


That's like saying Bush was only interested in White community lol

I can't believe these statements lol.. somehow it still comes out.

Obama is bad for the nation just like Bush was.

Stop picking side!



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrPlow

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.


There are zero half truths in what I have shared. It's documented history and I notice you never address my answers directly, but rattle off more straw man and outright bs. Children and teenagers were kid nabbed daily and sold off by the "Spirits". That is what they called themselves. The spirits were gangs who went out to the countryside, nabbed kids and spirited them away to be sold. So, again, there is no issue of color but pure profit. If word got out that the Spirits were in the area the people ran away and tried to avoid being kid nabbed which is where we get the term kidnapping.

Also, the word slave comes from Slav who were white people put into bondage. So, keep on trying to rewrite history, we are seeing the truth in my OP and the many thoughtful replies. Slavery is wrong in every sense no matter your race, sex, religion.

To all those responding:

BTW.... I am a woman and just wanted to let others know who keep referring to me as he, LOL. I am enjoying the many responses and even yours because you illustrate the very reason we cannot heal. Some seem to think one group has more reason to be angry and hate others. The fact is we need to recognize the truth of our history and heal from it, not perpetuate the hatred.

Here are some more facts.. I thought I would add in this edit:

Word History: The derivation of the word slave encapsulates a bit of European history and explains why the two words slaves and Slavs are so similar; they are, in fact, historically identical. The word slave first appears in English around 1290, spelled sclave. The spelling is based on Old French esclave from Medieval Latin sclavus, "Slav, slave," first recorded around 800. Sclavus comes from Byzantine Greek sklabos (pronounced sklävs) "Slav," which appears around 580. Sklavos approximates the Slavs' own name for themselves, the Slovnci, surviving in English Slovene and Slovenian. The spelling of English slave, closer to its original Slavic form, first appears in English in 1538. Slavs became slaves around the beginning of the ninth century when the Holy Roman Empire tried to stabilize a German-Slav frontier. By the 12th century stabilization had given way to wars of expansion and extermination that did not end until the Poles crushed the Teutonic Knights at Grunwald in 1410. · As far as the Slavs' own self-designation goes, its meaning is, understandably, better than "slave"; it comes from the Indo-European root *kleu-, whose basic meaning is "to hear" and occurs in many derivatives meaning "renown, fame." The Slavs are thus "the famous people." Slavic names ending in -slav incorporate the same word, such as Czech Bohu-slav, "God's fame," Russian Msti-slav, "vengeful fame," and Polish Stani-slaw, "famous for withstanding (enemies)." www.thefreedictionary.com...
edit on 17-7-2013 by UnifiedSerenity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by luciddream
 


i had the feeling when pharaoh bush was in charge of the pyramid, that he thought we were all
so inept, scripturally, that we wouldn't recognize that when he said "god" told him to do something, that he was likely trying to pull a fast one. i mean, if he was god pharaoh, he would've been telling himself that. i wonder if they teach our presidents that they are god men who must consult their higher selves for the really hard decisions. i dunno. theoretically, we've had a long chain of god pharaohs, or hadn't you noticed that big pointy thing by the reflecting pool?



new topics

top topics



 
142
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join