Is Human Breeding possible? Where African slaves bred during their captivity? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Early modern era & beginning of the modern era. Exploration, enlightenment, industrialisation, colonisation & empire (1492 - 1914 CE).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14789249
The Immortal Goon wrote:What a great example. Frederick Douglas sure felt he was fortunate to have been a slave.



Oh wait, you have done no research, know nothing, and are relying on your precious snowflake feels :lol:

As for Decky, he didn't sound like he was masturbating while writing. That's why he got the exemption.


Do you ever use you head for something other than a hat rack. It makes no sense to damage property.

One of my ancestors was a slave holder in South Carolina on the 1790 census. According to his children, his slaves were treated better than they were. I think he had 8 slaves.
#14789257
suntzu wrote:Oh, yeah, I'm sure Fredrick Douglas, abolishionist superstar, had not reason to embellish his accounts.


suntzu, a few posts ago, wrote:Fredrick Douglass was produced in one generation (half-White)


So last page, Frederick Douglass was a wonderful example of the virtues of slavery.

Now that you know anything about Douglass, he can't possibly be trusted because your grandfather said his parents were nice to his slaves :lol:

Typical rightwinger: your precious snowflake feelings have been hurt, so it's time to try and change reality to accommodate your demand to be a victim.

Do you need a hug? Should we all stop and acknowledge how much you feel like you have suffered?
#14789273
It's too bad a slave didn't leave a narrative about slavery.

Oh wait! He did!

But that's not as important as your own super important personal experiences (or lack thereof) that are more important than reality.

Tell us more about your factless feelings on the issue so you can continue your victim-blubbering.
#14789329
The Immortal Goon wrote:Why do you keep changing the topics with wild uncited unrelated statements?

Is it because your precious feelings about being a little victim have been proven wrong? :lol:


Really, TIG, your last statement makes no sense. Throwing buzzwords around really doesn't help your arguments, it just makes you look like a crybaby yourself.
#14789333
Perhaps suntzu can explain why he thought it was relevant to paint himself as the victim of, "Northern Aggression?"

Or what the press opinion from a century and a half ago has to do with the emotional assertions he keeps making?

Or what, aside from an emotional reaction, pointing out that Washington had slaves was supposed to accomplish?
#14789358
Suntzu wrote:Importation of slaves into the U.S. ended in 1808. It is obvious that slaves were bred. Probably most of the slaves in the U.S. by 1860 were born in the U.S. Slaves of mixed Black and White blood were common.


Alright, now we're getting somewhere. This is, more or less, what I stated and cited on the first page.

SolarCross wrote:As poorly as TIG is carrying on, I am a bit astonished and appalled at where Sun Tzu appears to be going with this conversation.


Rightwingers are inherently emotional. You need to be firm and keep pointing out that their emotional outbursts are not universal to the world and they'll eventually have to reconcile themselves to reality. You'll note that Suntzu's last post was more or less on point. A reiteration of what has already said, but the temper tantrum seems to be over.
#14789513
The Immortal Goon wrote:Rightwingers are inherently emotional. You need to be firm and keep pointing out that their emotional outbursts are not universal to the world and they'll eventually have to reconcile themselves to reality. You'll note that Suntzu's last post was more or less on point. A reiteration of what has already said, but the temper tantrum seems to be over.

I just re-read the thread and don't see anything emotional or tantrum like in anyone's posts except some of yours. You seem to be doing this a lot lately, wildly accusing others of being emotional whilst sounding more that little unhinged yourself in the process. Is it a debating tactic? Does it work?
#14789527
SolarCross wrote:I just re-read the thread and don't see anything emotional or tantrum like in anyone's posts except some of yours. You seem to be doing this a lot lately, wildly accusing others of being emotional whilst sounding more that little unhinged yourself in the process. Is it a debating tactic? Does it work?


Yes and yes.

In the first instance, though it has been true since at least Reagan, the last US election has led to what the media has called, "post truth."

Obfuscation and outright "alternative facts," by means of conspiracy theories and "fake news," and whatnot. The latter is interesting, if nothing else, as the Trump administration has been pretty open about obscuring what "fake news," is, but calling any story it doesn't like fake news, instead of the sites that peddle actual news stories that have no attempt at truth in them.

Part of this isn't necessarily a rightwing thing in origin, which is something that I'm attempting to partially underline--and in this thread you'll note that Suntzu's attempts to change the topic, to obfuscate, to say something outrageous that's not true have all failed.

The entire construction of this kind of fake narrative is a part of postmodern thought, something a lot of rightwingers sense in their attempt to rail against leftists as running society. The issue at heart here is that leftists, in any real non-centralist point, are almost all from the modernist school. Postmodernism rests more firmly on the idea that everybody has a narrative, that these individual narratives are important and equally valid, and that interpretation of facts is more important than a recording of facts.

Initially, for the conservative, this was a tempting target and still can be. It is an ideology embraced by a lot of social sciences in, for instance, examining imperialism from all sides instead of simply the role of the Raj from the perspective of the British. But the logical extension of this goes further. It is no longer simply the imperialism experienced by the Indians as well, but the imperialism experienced by each and every individual. And then the experience experienced by every individual after the Raj. And by every individual as their mood and experience changes. And, as you can see, the narrative breaks down from here and becomes more about the feelings people are having.

But this kind of postmodernism has deep roots in the kind of rightwing thinking that is prominent today as well. It is no coincidence that rightwing figures (this is before fascism proper) like Gabriele D'Annunzio were poets and political activists; or that aesthetics were so important to other interwar developments on the political right in Europe. Keep in mind, that these were in reaction to Marxism, which was well before this postmodern turn.

For Lenin, for Marx, for the left in general, there was a simple correct and incorrect tradition of scholarship based largely upon Enlightenment ideals. This was not necessarily true for the developing right.

So to tie this all into today, the failure of a lot of the assumptions and bulwarks that had initially kept American liberal ideology (in the broadest sense) contained as a series of centrist and modern institutions (the Cold War being the largest) has broken down. Just as an Italy without a Treaty of London had lost a reason for being, so too has a lot of the rhetoric for these liberal institutions--political and intellectual.

The result has been an adoption of the same postmodern rhetoric that many on the right assume they are fighting in centrism. Their experience and feelings regarding a fact become more important than the fact itself. Again, this isn't unique to the right as it's the same liberal discipline that is often used in humanities departments and whatnot; and it's certainly not new in political exchanges as we see this since at least the interwar years in Europe; but it is new in this generation to have the right be so fervent about it.

I suspect that most people on the right don't see that this is what they are doing at all. That they think of themselves as finding a unique voice when it is actually an adoption of same postmodernism that they are attempting to counter.

Now, if I were to write this all down in this detail each time someone made a comment based upon their experience distilled and filtered through a postmodern prism, it would take forever and be immediately dismissed. The quickest and most effective way to distill this is to point out that they are having an individual or emotional reaction that they are attempting to make flesh (to borrow from the Christians) instead of examining the flesh and its place in the world (which was, after all, the root of the Gnostic issue in which the quasi-materialists won).

And the results speak well enough for themselves. The attempts to lash out and get into uncited aqusations of racial intellegence, of the individual's experience with family slaves (like the experience with the legacy of the Raj above), an unfounded assertion that slavery was pleasant for Africans, this entire line of, "obfuscation and outright 'alternative facts,' by means of conspiracy theories and "fake news," and whatnot," was effectively shut down and all that was left was a rather childish, "I know you are...But what am I?"

Which I can live with so long as we are dealing with a modernist grounding of facts instead of the postmodern conception of individual experiences all being equally valid so far as verifiable information is concerned. This is, after all, the entire premise of a debate board--if it is impossible to reconcile our personal experiences and interpretations, why even come here at all?
#14789537
The Immortal Goon wrote:Which I can live with so long as we are dealing with a modernist grounding of facts instead of the postmodern conception of individual experiences all being equally valid so far as verifiable information is concerned. This is, after all, the entire premise of a debate board--if it is impossible to reconcile our personal experiences and interpretations, why even come here at all?


Okay it may be that I am just a little dim but I can't quite connect up what you are saying with what I asked. Perhaps it is paradigm issue; you are trying to bang the square pegs of your concepts into the round holes in my mind.

I do think however almost no one is ever persuaded by other people's interpretations. Some people hang out on debate boards to try to persuade others of their kooky beliefs whilst stubbornly refusing to ever be persuaded themselves but most of us probably come here out of boredom, kill time and just interact with people in a quasi-social way. I don't expect any converts are ever won though. (My guess for what it is worth)
Last edited by SolarCross on 24 Mar 2017 14:03, edited 2 times in total.
#14789543
The Immortal Goon wrote:What do you mean by "bred?"

If you mean were they raped, yes, yes they were.

If you mean were they collectively put into cramped corners and ended up fucking after so long, that typically happens with everybody in every station of life. Surely you've had a job or been in school.

This said, that we also know that slaves would frequently abort their pregnancies, kill themselves, and even poison their own children to spare them the life of a slave.

Part of the reason that the Atlantic slave trade was so expansive was because a lot of them died and it didn't matter how many were lost as it was cheaper to go get more than to keep slaves in safe conditions. In 1833, when the British outlawed slavery and tried to police the slave trade (conveniently after they had been kicked out of most of their slave colonies) there was a forced attempt to create more slaves in the given area. If you look at the US census from that time on, you can see how the categorization of what constitutes a black person continues to exist as American ships came in for a bit—but then rather quickly fall to the, "one drop rule," as slaves become more scarce and then outlawed entirely:



By 1890 there is no slavery, but there is a legal category that all people of African ancestry at all must fall into, reflecting the fact that the human breeding you're speaking of, was almost certainly white master raping black slave and then deciding whether their heirs were "legitimate" or slave. As noted:



This being all said, the OP and the responses, sans Decky, look to have been made with no research or knowledge and typed with one hand.

Image


I do not think of you as an emo responding to everything with teenage angst.....
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8

So, you cannot explain how the evidence fails to […]

And again Big Steve cannot read. He really can't[…]

I always enjoyed Spacey's acting. Hopefully this […]

So, the evidence seems to indicate that he never a[…]