• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Whites and slavery.[W:344]

Fledermaus said:
Usually when I have seen posts detailing Black on Black slavery it was some Hitler-Hugger or Klucker wanna-be trying to somehow excuse the predominantly white slave owners .
Click to expand...

I've seen that as well, unfortunately.
 
apdst said:
I don't recall too many threads (any actually) discussing operations in Southeast Asia. That may be a big part of the reason.
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly, because it was a minor theater of operation, and not too memorable unless you were in a forced labour camp after the fall of Singapore. Just like how black slave owners were only a minor part of the overall issue of slavery in the US.
 
Hari Seldon said:
Yea but it makes a good talking point so you can ignore the white slave owners. Plenty of white on white slavery throughout history as well.
Click to expand...

What would be the motivation for ignoring it?
 
spud_meister said:
Did you know Thailand was one of the Axis powers in WW2? When I see discussions of WW2, this fact is rarely mentioned. Is this an attempt to rewrite history, is Thailand declaring war on the Allies too politically incorrect to talk about? Most people don't mention it because of ignorance, but imo those who do know history don't mention it because it would conflict with their agenda.

Do you see my point?

Black people owning slaves is such a minor point of history it is not worth mentioning. Slavery in the US was a white institution. White people wrote the laws codifying slavery. They shipped the slaves over. They enforced slavery. They decided who could be a slave and who couldn't. They held all the power. Estimates place the peak number of slaves in the US at around 2 million. Do you really think the 12,000 slaves owned by 3000 black people are historically pertinent? Especially given the fact many of the black slave owners purchased spouses or other family members.

Black slave owners are as relevant to the discussion of slavery as Thailand is to the discussion of the Axis powers in WW2. Interesting, but not overly important.
Click to expand...

Yes, both are just as relevant and should be talked about. :shrug: In fact I remember learning about Thailand's involvement in WW2 in school but don't once remember black slave owners being discussed in school.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Now I fully agree with the bold part however I always see it phrased in that way. Very rarely do I see such discussions admitting that more than whites perpetrated slavery in those days. Even in America there were thousands of black freemen who owned black slaves (think the estimate was over 3 thousand iirc?). So why is it that such circumstances are very rarely discussed?
Click to expand...
Because that was an extremely small portion of the American slave trade.

E.g. it is estimated that in 1830, out of 2 million slaves, only 3800 were owned by blacks. That's 0.19%. Some, though certainly not all, of these were owners protecting family members.


Is it an attempt to rewrite history?
Click to expand...
No.


Is black ownership of slaves too politically incorrect to talk about?
Click to expand...
No.

At the same time, it is a topic that can be easily misused and abused by racists and white supremacists, to set up a false equivalency. Mentioning it as anything other than a footnote is highly problematic.
 
Whites and slavery.

I went to Japan for some training. One of my co-workers was a black guy from Brooklyn. We went down to Rapungi (sp?) for some fun. It seemed like every single club and bar had an African out front trying to get people in. For some reason my co-worker would always steer around them. So I had to ask. He said African Americans and Africans typically don't get on well. He said the Africans say they are superior and sold the African-Americans (more accurately the Africans which African Americans descended from) for a reason. I thought that was kind of ****ed up. Never lived it so have no idea the validity of it.

No one can deny what happened. And regardless of if black people owned slaves, history clearly shows the idea of white supremacy. History also shows that white slavery of Africans is merely a small blip in the history of slavery.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Kal'Stang said:
Yes, both are just as relevant and should be talked about. :shrug: In fact I remember learning about Thailand's involvement in WW2 in school but don't once remember black slave owners being discussed in school.
Click to expand...

You really think Thailand should be bought up in any discussion of the Axis powers?

"Did you hear Hitler killed millions of Jews, and Allies firebombed Dresden and the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour?"

"Yeah, but did you know the Thai helped build a railway to Burma?"

:roll:

For the same reason, bringing up less than 1% of slave owners in any discussion about slavery is stupid, deflective and serves no purpose. As I said, which you ignored, slavery was a white institution that a very small minority of black people participated in. Why is black slave ownership pertinent?
 
spud_meister said:
Did you know Thailand was one of the Axis powers in WW2? When I see discussions of WW2, this fact is rarely mentioned. Is this an attempt to rewrite history, is Thailand declaring war on the Allies too politically incorrect to talk about? Most people don't mention it because of ignorance, but imo those who do know history don't mention it because it would conflict with their agenda.

Do you see my point?

Black people owning slaves is such a minor point of history it is not worth mentioning. Slavery in the US was a white institution. White people wrote the laws codifying slavery. They shipped the slaves over. They enforced slavery. They decided who could be a slave and who couldn't. They held all the power. Estimates place the peak number of slaves in the US at around 2 million. Do you really think the 12,000 slaves owned by 3000 black people are historically pertinent? Especially given the fact many of the black slave owners purchased spouses or other family members.

Black slave owners are as relevant to the discussion of slavery as Thailand is to the discussion of the Axis powers in WW2. Interesting, but not overly important.
Click to expand...

How-To-Score-More-Goals-In-Soccer.jpg
 
spud_meister said:
Out of 400,000 total slave owners. Yes, that's an outlier. It's less than 1% of slave owners, and they held .5% of all slaves.

Unless you want it to be disproportionally taught, it would take up less than 1% of total teaching time on the topic of slavery.
Click to expand...

You want to go the math route? Ok, you say that there were a total of 400,000 slave owners. How many whites didn't own slaves? If we're considering things as "outliers" then that would have to be accounted for also. (for the record the census in 1830 has the total population of the 24 states at around 12 million, 2 million of which were slaves).
 
Fledermaus said:
Usually when I have seen posts detailing Black on Black slavery it was some Hitler-Hugger or Klucker wanna-be trying to somehow excuse the predominantly white slave owners .

They also tend to ignore the fact that some freed blacks were buying their kin folk.
Click to expand...

Good thing that's not happening in this thread huh? In fact my second sentence shows that isn't happening in this thread. ;)
 
Visbek said:
Because that was an extremely small portion of the American slave trade.

E.g. it is estimated that in 1830, out of 2 million slaves, only 3800 were owned by blacks. That's 0.19%. Some, though certainly not all, of these were owners protecting family members.
Click to expand...

Got your numbers mixed up there. That 3 thousand number was the number of black slave owners. The number of slaves owned by those black slave owners is estimated to be around 12 thousand. Which by the by is about the same number of people in the US yearly that is dead because of a gun shot....yet that is highlighted as an outrageous number to have.....
 
spud_meister said:
You really think Thailand should be bought up in any discussion of the Axis powers?
Click to expand...

Yes I do. I learned about it in school. Why shouldn't others? I'm a full and firm believer in teaching the whole history of anything brought up in schools. Not just certain parts. Full knowledge is the only way to make informed decisions.
 
Kal'Stang said:
You want to go the math route? Ok, you say that there were a total of 400,000 slave owners. How many whites didn't own slaves? If we're considering things as "outliers" then that would have to be accounted for also. (for the record the census in 1830 has the total population of the 24 states at around 12 million, 2 million of which were slaves).
Click to expand...

Why would that need to be accounted for? We're discussing slave owners. Even if we include non-slave owners, 3000 out of 12 million is still a lot less than 400,000 out of 12 million. Even proportionally speaking, far more whites held slaves than blacks did.
 
Kal'Stang said:
By always talking about white owned slaves and very rarely talking about the slaves owned by blacks it is a type of denial. Like a lie by omission is still a lie I'd say that this can be applied to denial also. Was slavery in the US dominated by whites? Most definitely. But slaves owned by blacks wasn't such a small thing either. If it were even just a few blacks, or even a few hundred I could probably dismiss this and be on the side of you and Moot. But there wasn't just a few or even a few hundred. There were literally thousands. Such cannot imo be ignored. Particularly when the argument being used is used in such a way as to ignore one side while putting the other side down as much as possible. Look at Moots response for example. Her response centers mainly on whites and how they should feel guilty for the depravity of men long since dead while downplaying the involvements of black slave owners as "being outliers".

If the roles were reversed, its quite possible that you'd be correct. At least by the same type of people. Pretty sure I'd be doing the same as I'm doing here only for whites. ;)
Click to expand...

Why aren't you talking about the eighteen half-asian, half-hawaiins who owned slaves? Are you being PC?
 
I learned that there were some free black slave owners and that there were black slave traders on the African side of the transition back when I was in school. That was the 80s. Not sure what they teach now.
 
Henrin said:
So does anyone want to talk about the Africans that sold the slaves?
Click to expand...

Yeah, sure...

"...Slavery in Africa was not the same as slavery in America. Slavery in Africa meant that you are an enemy of my tribe, i captured you, you will be my servant, and over time you will become my family." In America it meant forced labor, rape and beatings for a lifetime.​
 
Deuce said:
Why aren't you talking about the eighteen half-asian, half-hawaiins who owned slaves? Are you being PC?
Click to expand...

And I bet some of them were gay too. Damn gay agenda and their coverups.
 
It's been a few years from the last time I set in a history class, but we got taught that white merchants stole black slaves from Africa, end of chapter. In collage it was revealed that many of the slaves were sold by other tribes and not just stolen off the beaches. There was no mention of black slave owners. It was years later on My own that I came across that tidbit of information.

Agian not sure how things are taught now but from what I've seen it dosent seem too far off from the watered down version I got.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom