Black Slave Owners:

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: Spider879

That's a result of slavery itself and the demeaning effects it had on the enslaved it allowed for a racist mindset to kick in, and in the west slaves became chattel the worst form of that institution.

Do you think racism was the result of slavery? Or was slavery the result of racism?

I forget where I heard it, but apparently most slavery between different races did not occur until travel and transport was relatively easy, and it was often that slaves had little racial difference to their masters, given that they were taken for the most part from neighboring areas.

It depends , societies where slaves have upward mobility and was universal in nature , then slave was just an unfortunate condition, but if a group is singled out through color or something else and no means of upward mobility then patterns of racism may develop.

a reply to: liveandlearn

The Irish weren't slaves...

A great paper entitled “The Myth of ‘Irish Slaves’ in the Colonies" does a great job of debunking that horrific myth.

Direct Link PDF, Liam Hogan

There WERE Indentured servants who were Irish. These were VOLUNTARY servants who agreed to a length of service to pay for their passage to the new world. True, some were sentenced to be indentured servants, but that was the rare occurrence.

Where did the myth of Irish slavery come from? A few places. The term “white slaves” emerged in the 17th and 18th centuries, first as a derogatory term for Irish laborers—equating their social position to that of slaves—later as political rhetoric in Ireland itself, and later still as Southern pro-slavery propaganda against an industrialized North

To think they were treated worse than Black slaves is a gross injustice to history. Badly, yes, but not as bad as actual slaves.

a reply to: raymundoko


I would say you need to do a little more research into the Cromwell Campaigns and leave it at that.

a reply to: liveandlearn

That narrative isn't from the south. The entire country was racist. Just because the north had no slavery does not mean they weren't dispicable people when it came to viewing others as equals. Even Lincoln thought Blacks were not equal to whites.

You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffers very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated - Lincoln

Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man. - Lincoln

I have distant family who have never ever been to the south and they still think that. It's pathetic and I separated myself from them as friends at a very young age due to their horrible attitudes. My mother is 1/2 Irish and 1/2 native american and that side of the family would call her mother (Chippewa) all sorts of vile things. It was disgraceful. They were from Wisconsin.

a reply to: 200Plus

Maybe you need to realize the difference between a war which had war crimes and chattel slavery. Don't be dense.

a reply to: raymundoko


Ah so the "war captives" taken into "indentured servitude" from Ireland = OK


The "war captives" sold by various tribes into "slavery" from Africa = bad


Not twisted at all


Carry on

a reply to: anonentity

Those signs never existed. Sorry. All the images you find on the internet have been doctored.

Source

The only references in history that can be confirmed are the "No Irish Need Apply" in windows and want ads.

Source

Historians have hotly debated the issue of anti-Irish job discrimination in the United States. Some insist that the "No Irish need apply" signs were common, but one professor, Richard J. Jensen, argues that anti-Irish job discrimination was not a significant factor in the United States, these signs and print advertisements being most commonly posted by the limited number of early 19th-century English immigrants to the United States who shared the prejudices of their homeland.

a reply to: 200Plus

You need to learn the difference between indentured servant and chattel slavery. You are just making yourself look ignorant.

a reply to: raymundoko

True

Indentured servitude doesnt mean no one was abused, starved, beaten, raped, given terrible living quarters, rotten food scraps.

Just because the distinction is in our language isnt exclusive to being overworked and underpaid...if at all.

originally posted by: Butterfinger
a reply to: raymundoko

True

Indentured servitude doesnt mean no one was abused, starved, beaten, raped, given terrible living quarters, rotten food scraps.

Just because the distinction is in our language isnt exclusive to being overworked and underpaid...if at all.

You forgot kidnapped and to avoid them completing their contracts would be sold resetting their contract over and over.

a reply to: Spider879

Interesting thread.

The sentence/quote below and the fact the gentleman on the horse, in the first Image you posted. Has a big red cross on his back. Set some alarms off.

Kingdom of the Kongo a flourishing civilization that traded embassies with the Vatican

Slavery isnt a race thing. Its a legal class of society if its legal in a country people will own slaves. Its free labor and workers. Its part of business and thats it really. Most cultures did practice slavery throughout history. Yeah it sucks.

a reply to: Spider879

Thomas Sowell also wrote an essay on the practices of slavery in Africa where he commented on the practices of Arabs in marching large numbers of Africans, mostly women and children, out to market on foot through the Sahara. He mentions that while many talk about the brutal conditions of the slave ships over the Atlantic, the conditions for those marching over the open desert were certainly at least as bad although it's difficult to tell just how many died because of the nature of the desert to conceal the evidence.

a reply to: Urantia1111

This also begs a revisit to the language of the 3/5 clause which is often painted to make it seem that all blacks were being made into less than a human being. People today only think of it that way because that's what they are taught. In reality, it specifies free persons and non-free. The assumption is that all blacks are slaves which is a logical fallacy and anyone who thinks about it carefully should be able to get this, but it's much easier to go with the assumption that blacks as inferiors is enshrined in the COTUS.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: liveandlearn

That narrative isn't from the south. The entire country was racist. Just because the north had no slavery does not mean they weren't dispicable people when it came to viewing others as equals. Even Lincoln thought Blacks were not equal to whites.

You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffers very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated - Lincoln

Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man. - Lincoln

I have distant family who have never ever been to the south and they still think that. It's pathetic and I separated myself from them as friends at a very young age due to their horrible attitudes. My mother is 1/2 Irish and 1/2 native american and that side of the family would call her mother (Chippewa) all sorts of vile things. It was disgraceful. They were from Wisconsin.

The North did have Slaves but it depend on the era, after 1804 they abolished it, but before it was pretty common, as a matter of fact Wall St was set up as a trading port for slaves, years back where the towers once stood was an African burial ground.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Spider879

Thomas Sowell also wrote an essay on the practices of slavery in Africa where he commented on the practices of Arabs in marching large numbers of Africans, mostly women and children, out to market on foot through the Sahara. He mentions that while many talk about the brutal conditions of the slave ships over the Atlantic, the conditions for those marching over the open desert were certainly at least as bad although it's difficult to tell just how many died because of the nature of the desert to conceal the evidence.

Arabs did have an easier time of it because of similar institutions ,but much of the raiding was done by Africans especially the coastal Swahili the difference between an Arab and an African in Africa is wafer thin.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Urantia1111

This also begs a revisit to the language of the 3/5 clause which is often painted to make it seem that all blacks were being made into less than a human being. People today only think of it that way because that's what they are taught. In reality, it specifies free persons and non-free. The assumption is that all blacks are slaves which is a logical fallacy and anyone who thinks about it carefully should be able to get this, but it's much easier to go with the assumption that blacks as inferiors is enshrined in the COTUS.

It is funny how the 3/5 clause is spun when in actuality, it was done so that southern states wouldn't be over represented.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: liveandlearn

The Irish weren't slaves...

A great paper entitled “The Myth of ‘Irish Slaves’ in the Colonies" does a great job of debunking that horrific myth.

Direct Link PDF, Liam Hogan

There WERE Indentured servants who were Irish. These were VOLUNTARY servants who agreed to a length of service to pay for their passage to the new world. True, some were sentenced to be indentured servants, but that was the rare occurrence.

Where did the myth of Irish slavery come from? A few places. The term “white slaves” emerged in the 17th and 18th centuries, first as a derogatory term for Irish laborers—equating their social position to that of slaves—later as political rhetoric in Ireland itself, and later still as Southern pro-slavery propaganda against an industrialized North

To think they were treated worse than Black slaves is a gross injustice to history. Badly, yes, but not as bad as actual slaves.

In the Caribbean things were a little different for reason I pointed out before, ironically it was because of the limited terms of service why the cruelty could exceed that of a slave one wanted to get as much out of them as possible.

This is a subject that needs much light shed upon the historical facts.
I have been beaten for being a "white mother f@cker" in the wrong part of town.
I am descended from Irish and Choctaw ancestors.
I have no connection to the skewed and politicized history of black slavery.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: anonentity

Those signs never existed. Sorry. All the images you find on the internet have been doctored.

My mother has a photo of her father, taken in the 50's when he first moved the family to England, standing next to a "no coloureds, no Irish" sign outside a boarding house somewhere in the south - possibly Berkshire area?

I'll have to break the bad news to her that he faked the photograph, even going to the extremes of getting an actress to play my mother when she was a little girl