Dude, I know this is the internet and there is nothing forcing you to actually take the time to make clear and concise arguments without insulting people or cussing at them, but, seriously, make an attempt to at least sound intelligent. All you are doing is making yourself look like an idiot.
RunUO Community
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Are All Black Colleges Racist?
- Thread starter Arkad
- Start date
Honestly I think race had little to nothing to do with who was exploited as slaves. It had to do with economics, the African tribes traded off mass amounts of captured enemy's for very little in trade.. I mean if Asians had been selling off their own race who's to say they wouldn't have been purchased right along with the Africans?
And I do believe there is a large dose of ignorance with in the black community .And that ignorance is perpetuated by people with in their own race who look to exploit for a dollar and keep the lines drawn. Most do not even know anything other than the propaganda that is tossed out by extremist when it comes to slavery. Walk up to almost any black you know and ask them and they will mention slavery in the south. A lot of them have no clue as to the original slaves being brought into the north to work on coffee plantations. Southern slave plantations were not even viable until the industrial revolution when cotton became in high demand.And even then it was less than 1/3rd the population who could afford to own slaves.
If it was all about race I could go on to point out that a large number of the slave ships transporting slaves were Jewish owned. But I don't believe that one race should be pointed out over the other.
I honestly believe when people accept the fact it was not about race but rather about greed of individuals then maybe healing with in the groups can begin.
And I do believe there is a large dose of ignorance with in the black community .And that ignorance is perpetuated by people with in their own race who look to exploit for a dollar and keep the lines drawn. Most do not even know anything other than the propaganda that is tossed out by extremist when it comes to slavery. Walk up to almost any black you know and ask them and they will mention slavery in the south. A lot of them have no clue as to the original slaves being brought into the north to work on coffee plantations. Southern slave plantations were not even viable until the industrial revolution when cotton became in high demand.And even then it was less than 1/3rd the population who could afford to own slaves.
If it was all about race I could go on to point out that a large number of the slave ships transporting slaves were Jewish owned. But I don't believe that one race should be pointed out over the other.
I honestly believe when people accept the fact it was not about race but rather about greed of individuals then maybe healing with in the groups can begin.
see there you go ... lol.. wtf you think that europeans only traded with africa when the african slave trade started?? jackass.. lol.. when the african slave trade started they had just discovered the america's and by they i mean the europeans.. the vikings and africans had already made the discovery of those lands.. and the native america's well they at the time owed them.. native americans were actually the first slaves in the americas before the africans.. but they died very easily do to they were very clean people and the "white" europeans bathed about once a month.. and there disgusting habits actualy built up immunities to diseases that killed the indians off ..
if by chance there was white people(( using this very board term due to your ignorant use of it.. i mean you talking irish? russian? british??) for sale cheaper then the africans at the time YES there would be white slaves.
actually said my best friend was black.. i have alot of black friends.. and yes we talk about how bloody stupid alot of black people are in this area.. LIKE i stated in the previous post.. you read what you want and ignore the rest to keep your arguements i see..
oiii88;759491 said:
yes.. I do have to agree
HellRazor
Knight
Zaphieon;759483 said:
Wow, I'm really sorry for thinking that you didn't have a problem with blacks. I must have totally misunderstood you. Ok let's review what you said so we can straighten out this misunderstanding.
Zaphieon said:
I forgot that you also made a racist remarks about Jews too. So I guess its not just the blacks, and its also the Jews. And Americans. And maybe gays.
Got it. Sorry if I left out anyone you are bigoted towards.
The fact that you are trying to compare something like that to the legal, fully sanctioned enslavement of an entire race of people as property, based on nothing more than the color of their skin...not in fucking ancient egypt or in the stone age, but in the last 2 centuries...tells me you have no fucking concept as to the issues involved.
Hey, let's look at all these (definately NOT racist) laws in the U.S. that existed concerning the legal definition of a slave.
Virginia, 1650 - “Act XI. All persons except Negroes are to be provided with arms and ammunitions or be fined at the pleasure of the governor and council.”
Virginia, 1662 - “Whereas some doubts have arisen whether children got by any Englishmen upon a Negro shall be slave or Free, Be it therefore enacted and declared by this present Grand assembly, that all children born in this country shall be held bond or free only According to the condition of the mother."
Maryland, 1664 - “That whatsoever free-born [English] woman shall intermarry with any slave [...] shall serve the master of such slave during the life of her husband; and that all the issue of such free-born women, so married shall be slaves as their fathers were.”
Virginia, 1705 - “All servants imported and brought into the Country [...] who were not Christians in their native Country [...] shall be accounted and be slaves. All Negro, mulatto and Indian slaves within this dominion [...] shall be held to be real estate.”
Virginia, 1667 - “Act III. Whereas some doubts have arisen whether children that are slaves by birth [...] should by virtue of their baptism be made free, it is enacted that baptism does not alter the condition to the person as to his bondage or freedom; masters freed from this doubt may more carefully propagate Christianity by permitting slaves to be admitted to that sacrament.”
Virginia, 1682 - “Act I. It is enacted that all servants [...] which shall be imported into this country either by sea or by land, whether Negroes, Moors [Muslim North Africans], mulattoes or Indians who and whose parentage and native countries are not Christian at the time of their first purchase by some Christian [...] and all Indians, which shall be sold by our neighboring Indians, or any other trafficking with us for slaves, are hereby adjudged, deemed and taken to be slaves to all intents and purposes any law, usage, or custom to the contrary notwithstanding.”
Virginia, 1705 (see Slave Codes of 1705) -- "All servants imported and brought into the Country...who were not Christians in their native Country...shall be accounted and be slaves. All Negro, mulatto and Indian slaves within this dominion...shall be held to be real estate."
But racism had nothing to do with that! We would have had white slaves, except that they just cost too much because they were so superior to the black ones.
Hey dipshit. Pay attention. We're not on the topic of economics. We're talking about one person owning another person as physical property that can be bought, sold, or killed at the owner's leisure.
The only thing thats stuck is that big stick crammed up your ass.
Ok "Mr. Generalities", name them.
Then after that, show me the laws that makes their enslavement something that is legal and sanctioned.
And show me how these are NOT exceptions and that this in some way compares to the mass enslavement of blacks.
You're grasping at straws trying to make a point that doesn't stand up.
I think you have a pretty broad definition of "slavery". I further think your broad definition of slavery might work in whatever backwater country you're from, but would likely get your ass kicked by pissed off ignorant people...er, excuse me, I mean black people...over here.
Anyone but the black guy. See, I understand.
Racism doesn't just exist between whites and blacks either. Yeah, that's really hard, I know. But try to wrap your tiny little mind around this.
Whenever one race feels they are superior to another race, and have the right to enslave members of another race - THAT'S RACISM.
When someone makes sweeping generalities about another race. For example, hmmm, I don't know, how about...saying that ignorance is widespread in black communities.... THAT'S RACISM.
And constantly insulting an entire nation of people ISN'T racism. Nah, that's more like BIGOTRY.
And talking up about how superior you are and how ignorant everyone else is? That's not RACISM or BIGOTRY. No, that's just being an arrogant prick.
So let's sum it up. You are a racist, bigoted, arrogant prick.
Where you live, it would be known as "Aryan Asshole Day".
You're great at generalizing entire races and nations. Where are you from, "New Bigotslovokia?"
For such an enlightened bigot you sure don't make much sense. Are you trying to say you want a black chick with a penis to fuck you in the ass?
HellRazor
Knight
Arkad;759495 said:
You're right, it's not just a black/white issue.
But to say slavery is 100% economic with no regard to race - that's an ignorant statement. Race has often been a factor in determining who was a slave and who wasn't.
I never said that economics wasn't a factor. Of course it was.
And I never said that race was a factor in every case of slavery throughout history. It wasn't.
The only guy making broad sweeping statements like "racism wasn't involved" is Zaphieon (usually intertwined with his ignorant comments about blacks, jews, and Americans).
HellRazor
Knight
Zaphieon;759492 said:
No, Mr. DiversionaryTactics, let's talk about your original statements.
To black americans, of course that is their definition of slavery. THEY WERE FUCKING ENSLAVED DURING RECENT HISTORY YOU INSENSITIVE IGNORANT ASSHOLE! THEY WERE BROUGHT OVER HERE BY WHITE PEOPLE TO DO SHIT FOR THEM!
And then there was this gem:
This displays your basic lack of knowledge about parts of the world other than your own. Because here, racism was very very much a factor. Something everyone seems to know except for you, you fucking dumbass.
Not in the United States. Racism was very much a factor in slavery over here. And the fact that you are totally oblivious to that tells me your textbooks are no where as good as you think they are.
And by the way, genius, "white" is a race and "Irish", "British", and "Russian" are nationalities. I learned that back in grade school in my inferior U.S. social studies textbooks.
Your black friends wouldn't be named "Uncle" and "Tom" would they?
HellRazor
Knight
oiii88;759489 said:
The effect of racism on slavery depends on where, when, and who was being enslaved by whom. But when it's one race that is being predominently enslaved by another race, you can't honestly say there was no racism involved. When people feel they have a god given right to own another human being just because they have a different skin color, and/or think another race is inferior based on their skin color, that is racism. Combine racism with power and greed and you get enslavement.
There is ignorance in every community and there are stereotypes in every community. Do you honestly think that most blacks are ignorant? The fact that you make the distinction basically says that you do, but if you look at it rationally, I think you would find that isn't really true.
There are stereotypes in all races, sometimes perpetuated by the media, sometimes even perpetuated by members of that race. But stereotypes are just that. You can't look at an entire race of people and say "most of them are this" or "most of them are that". When you do that, you are largely reflecting your own prejudices.
Thats funny because I work and socialize with lots of black people and I can't ever remember one of them ever mentioning slavery in the south to me.
See, you're generalizing again. I would argue that there are a lot of white people who don't have a clue about it too. Probably a lot of asians, mexicans, american indians, etc. too.
There were probably a lot of people for whom it was purely an economic thing that was done simply because they could. But racism was very much a part of the equation in certain societies. When all the slaves in a society are of the same race, how can anyone say it's not a factor? Of course it was a factor, at least in the U.S. It was racism that provided people the moral and legal justification to own another human being. It was the moral "get out of jail free" card. Blacks were considered to be inferior, in many ways on the same level as animals, based on nothing more than the color of their skin.
Now was it this way throughout the rest of the known world and the rest of history? Probably not. I don't really know. But I think when the slaves are all of the same race being owned by members of other races, then racism is surely a factor.
It was about greed AND race. Greed was the incentive and racism was the blindfold to our own moral compasses that would otherwise tell us this was the wrong thing to do. At least here in the U.S. The racism element persisted long after slavery was abolished, and still persists (to a lesser degree) to this day.
HellRazor;759501 said:
Considering all black people were brought here from the Atlantic slave trade it was probably a safe bet back then when you saw a black person to think he either was a slave or a descendant of one. It's not this way anymore of course.
But if you want to travel all the way over to Africa and say that blacks were enslaved because of the color of their skin, I don't think this is the case. I think there's more factors involved, the color is somewhat arbitrary - in my eyes at least.
Seven
Sorceror
Kiwi;759558 said:
Yes. Politically speaking... we are considered a "Minority".
I was talking to one of my friends not too long ago that is in the military and is really into politics o.0 and shes all for gay rights and went on and on about how we are technically a minority. (That is why she is for Obama) because hes for minority rights, which includes gays. So if he is going to support minority rights, he also has to support LGBT
but, note that I don't really look into these things myself. Might want to do more research. *shrugs* I don't really get into the whole political debates that much. My friends do that for me.
