First British slaves in America were Irish - Page 10 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15177367
The Resister wrote:Were you aware that Black slaves were Blacks that were captured by their own race and sold to slavers? Do you realize that if the slavers had not bought those people, they would have become the main ingredient in a soup de jour by their own countrymen? I've never researched to find out what motivated some Blacks to sell their own countrymen into slavery and if you ask that question in Sierra Leone, you only get greeted with skepticism and silence.

Firstly: their "own countrymen"? - Africa was not divided into modern nation-states until the 19th or even 20th century. Secondly: cannibalism was never widespread in Africa at any time in its history. And thirdly: the reason they enslaved their enemies was the same reason why the ancient Romans enslaved their own neighbours and enemies - they were captured prisoners of war. If you fight a civil war or a tribal war in pre-modern times, and you win a battle, then this immediately creates a problem - what do you do with the enemy soldiers whom you have captured? If you release them, they will likely fight against you again, and they might win the next time. If you kill them, then this is a terrible waste of human labour power (not to mention being rather unpleasantly inhumane). No, the most sensible and humane course of action is to enslave them. This is what the ancient Romans did, it's what the ancient Greeks did, it's what the ancient Assyrians did, it's what pretty much everybody did. The Africans of the 16th to the 19th centuries were no different. The losers in any inter-tribal (or even infra-tribal) conflict were literally sold down the river, to those weirdly-dressed pasty-faced guys in the coastal fort who would pay for slaves with gold or ivory. It made perfect sense at the time.
#15177368
Potemkin wrote:Firstly: their "own countrymen"? - Africa was not divided into modern nation-states until the 19th or even 20th century. Secondly: cannibalism was never widespread in Africa at any time in its history. And thirdly: the reason they enslaved their enemies was the same reason why the ancient Romans enslaved their own neighbours and enemies - they were captured prisoners of war. If you fight a civil war or a tribal war in pre-modern times, and you win a battle, then this immediately creates a problem - what do you do with the enemy soldiers whom you have captured? If you release them, they will likely fight against you again, and they might win the next time. If you kill them, then this is a terrible waste of human labour power (not to mention being rather unpleasantly inhumane). No, the most sensible and humane course of action is to enslave them. This is what the ancient Romans did, it's what the ancient Greeks did, it's what the ancient Assyrians did, it's what pretty much everybody did. The Africans of the 16th to the 19th centuries were no different. The losers in any inter-tribal (or even infra-tribal) conflict were literally sold down the river, to those weirdly-dressed pasty-faced guys in the coastal fort who would pay for slaves with gold or ivory. It made perfect sense at the time.


Indeed, at some point slavery was in fact a human rights innovation since it provided an alternative to simply massacring the captured enemies. We've progressed, after all.
#15177370
Potemkin wrote:Firstly: their "own countrymen"? - Africa was not divided into modern nation-states until the 19th or even 20th century. Secondly: cannibalism was never widespread in Africa at any time in its history. And thirdly: the reason they enslaved their enemies was the same reason why the ancient Romans enslaved their own neighbours and enemies - they were captured prisoners of war. If you fight a civil war or a tribal war in pre-modern times, and you win a battle, then this immediately creates a problem - what do you do with the enemy soldiers whom you have captured? If you release them, they will likely fight against you again, and they might win the next time. If you kill them, then this is a terrible waste of human labour power (not to mention being rather unpleasantly inhumane). No, the most sensible and humane course of action is to enslave them. This is what the ancient Romans did, it's what the ancient Greeks did, it's what the ancient Assyrians did, it's what pretty much everybody did. The Africans of the 16th to the 19th centuries were no different. The losers in any inter-tribal (or even infra-tribal) conflict were literally sold down the river, to those weirdly-dressed pasty-faced guys in the coastal fort who would pay for slaves with gold or ivory. It made perfect sense at the time.


Facing a certain death then, slavery was the lesser of two evils. Me personally, I'd be looking to get my pound of flesh from the people that sold me into slavery in the first place. Then I'd go after the slavers. Suing the government for reparations doesn't make a Hell of a lot of sense if you are a citizen and taxpayer - you're essentially suing yourself.
#15177371
The liberals are doing a piss poor job of rationalizing why they hate White people so much. To hear them tell it, Blacks shouldn't go after those who sold them; the Blacks were perfectly innocent - maybe they were on the wrong side of the history books is why they lost and became slaves in the first place. It doesn't matter how it's framed, the White people are evil and I got the message loud and clear. This is just an exercise in watching the left have a melt down. The critics here are the real racists. They won't even acknowledge the history of slavery nor the fact that Whites have been slaves. Or, more importantly, Blacks have owned slaves too. Nooooo... the OP is absent and I'm sick of the pabulum puking political propaganda prostitutes here that try to justify their hatred of all White people. May they rot in Hell.
#15177382
The Resister wrote:nor the fact that Whites have been slaves

Whites have been slaves.

In 1551, in the Maltese archipelago, Gozo's entire population was kidnapped and sold into slavery by Barbary pirates. Fewer than 50, the old and infirm, were left behind.

The problem with that is you might not think us white enough, but I offer it as an example.


:)
#15177408
The Resister wrote:
Facing a certain death then, slavery was the lesser of two evils. Me personally, I'd be looking to get my pound of flesh from the people that sold me into slavery in the first place. Then I'd go after the slavers.



You own the movie rights to this -- ?


= D
#15177444
ingliz wrote:Whites have been slaves.

In 1551, in the Maltese archipelago, Gozo's entire population was kidnapped and sold into slavery by Barbary pirates. Fewer than 50, the old and infirm, were left behind.

The problem with that is you might not think us white enough, but I offer it as an example.


:)


Whites were slaves well before that.
#15177453
The Resister wrote:Why not ask them?

Shorn of religious cant they answered...

"wee goe to possesse it... [for] proffitts."

— John Winthrop, A Modell of Christian Charity (1630).

See Richard S. Dunn, The Barbados Census of 1680: Profile of the Richest Colony in English America. The William and Mary Quarterly. Vol. 26, No. 1 (Jan. 1969): pp. 3-30.


:)
#15177523
ingliz wrote:Shorn of religious cant they answered...

"wee goe to possesse it... [for] proffitts."

— John Winthrop, A Modell of Christian Charity (1630).

See Richard S. Dunn, The Barbados Census of 1680: Profile of the Richest Colony in English America. The William and Mary Quarterly. Vol. 26, No. 1 (Jan. 1969): pp. 3-30.


:)


You missed that part about the "city on a Hill" that has been referenced by Democrats and Republicans alike when discussing the founding of this country. JFK and Ronald Reagan (a Democrat and a Republican) referenced that sermon in their speeches. Guess JFK was pro-slavery and the rest of the paragraphs in that sermon don't mean a damn thing. Damnable idiocy you come up with!
#15177524
ckaihatsu wrote:Take it up with PBS, dude.


No need. All I have to do is keep quoting the founders of this country and the framers of the Constitution. As long as the left wing, liberal, "democratic," socialist, democratic socialist, communist, communist combine keep wailing about their hatred of White people, I only have to refute their arguments with the facts. PBS can spin a tale better than Uncle Remus or Hans Christian Andersen.

But, Hell, PBS downplayed, but admitted, that slavery has been around longer than the round that met its demise on U.S. soil.
#15177527
Pants-of-dog wrote:The weird thing about the city on a hill metaphor is that, in reality, the hill was stolen from Indigenous people and the city was built with black slave labour,

But don’t you remember that famous Bible verse, @Pants-of-dog? “Blessed are the palefaces, for they shall inherit the Earth.” ;)
#15177531
The Resister wrote:
No need. All I have to do is keep quoting the founders of this country and the framers of the Constitution.


The Resister wrote:
As long as the left wing, liberal, "democratic," socialist, democratic socialist, communist, communist combine keep wailing about their hatred of White people, I only have to refute their arguments with the facts.



I think you're overgeneralizing here -- there's been a *faction* of the Democratic Party that broke with the Democrat mainstream, to mobilize around the killing of George Floyd, in particular, and even went so far as to topple a couple of Founding Fathers statues, in the name of racial identity -- but to ascribe a simplistic 'hatred' of white people to everyone on the left is definitely too broad a brush.

I'd agree that 'white supremacy' is a decent summation of the world's power structure, but an even *better* characterization would be the global *ruling class*, since they're really not that prejudiced, internally, on the whole, and are collectively privileged, though of course there are individual racists / misogynists / etc. in both classes.


The Resister wrote:
PBS can spin a tale better than Uncle Remus or Hans Christian Andersen.

But, Hell, PBS downplayed, but admitted, that slavery has been around longer than the round that met its demise on U.S. soil.
  • 1
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 26

If you are confused, this is a coded reference to[…]

Is Marxism old-fashioned?

You miss the point. The question is, does he dese[…]

I don't know what the "foreign affairs es[…]

The fact that you've yet to provide any evidence […]