Another lie debunked-Africans did nothing before the white man

[westwall]

Atlantic Slave Trade: Fallacy of Blacks selling Blacks

I really appreciated this video.

I often think about this issue when folks list reasons why the black community should have reparations, lists are made why.

But the only ethnic groups in the U.S. that are guilty of the sins, are in fact, the English, the Jewish families, and maybe the Welsh.

Not the Scots, not the Irish, not the French, not the Germans, not the Italians, not the Chinese, not other Asian groups, not the Hispanics, not the Natives, not the Russians, and not the Eastern Europeans. They were either indentured, mercenaries, or came over at the end of the 19th century. The were not given the benefits of the great social programs. These were reserved, primarily for the WASP's. Stereo typing "whites" into a mass categorization is just as bad as mass stereo typing "blacks" or "Hispanics." I love how he pointed this out.

So why should all of America be penalized, stereo-typed and accused of "white privilege" for the sins of two or three ethnic groups? All ethnic groups have suffered from crimes against the elites. It gets tiresome, and folks react poorly when they are accused of gaining benefit from something they have never gotten benefit from.


I also loved this statement;

"You can't take a 20th century mind set and apply it to 16th, and 17th century people." I SO agree with that statement. WE HAVE TO LET THE PAST GO ALREADY. It applies to everyone, and everything.

Some whites are forever looking for excuses to say how their group is not responsible. All whites benefited from the laws and policies enacted. And this bullshit about how you can't apply a 20th century mindset to the 17th and 18th centuries is another excuse whites reserve for discussing racism. We apply 20th century mindset to those days all the time. No one makes this excuse when defending whatever the so-called founders believed for one thing. This argument is not about holding on to the past. Some of you whites need to stop lying to yourselves. We are talking about a continuing problem that was created by past and present policy. So what needs to happen is that whites need to end the racism instead of pretending it's gone and a thing of the past.

How the Irish Became White
Art McDonald, Ph.D.

Irish and Africans Americans had lots in common and lots of contact during this period; they lived side by side and shared work spaces. In the early years of immigration the poor Irish and blacks were thrown together, very much part of the same class competing for the same jobs. In the census of 1850, the term mulatto appears for the first time due primarily to inter-marriage between Irish and African Americans. The Irish were often referred to as "Negroes turned inside out and Negroes as smoked Irish." A famous quip of the time attributed to a black man went something like this: "My master is a great tyrant, he treats me like a common Irishman." Free blacks and Irish were viewed by the Nativists as related, somehow similar, performing the same tasks in society. It was felt that if amalgamation between the races was to happen, it would happen between Irish and blacks. But, ultimately, the Irish made the decision to embrace whiteness, thus becoming part of the system which dominated and oppressed blacks. Although it contradicted their experience back home, it meant freedom here since blackness meant slavery.

An article by a black writer in an 1860 edition of the Liberator explained how the Irish ultimately attained their objectives: "Fifteen or twenty years ago, a Catholic priest in Philadelphia said to the Irish people in that city, 'You are all poor, and chiefly laborers, the blacks are poor laborers; many of the native whites are laborers; now, if you wish to succeed, you must do everything that they do, no matter how degrading, and do it for less than they can afford to do it for.' The Irish adopted this plan; they lived on less than the Americans could live upon, and worked for less, and the result is, that nearly all the menial employments are monopolized by the Irish, who now get as good prices as anybody. There were other avenues open to American white men, and though they have suffered much, the chief support of the Irish has come from the places from which we have been crowded."

Once the Irish secured themselves in those jobs, they made sure blacks were kept out. They realized that as long as they continued to work alongside blacks, they would be considered no different. Later, as Irish became prominent in the labor movement, African Americans were excluded from participation. In fact, one of the primary themes of How the Irish Became White is the way in which left labor historians, such as the highly acclaimed Herbert Gutman, have not paid sufficient attention to the problem of race in the development of the labor movement.

And so, we have the tragic story of how one oppressed "race," Irish Catholics, learned how to collaborate in the oppression of another "race," Africans in America, in order to secure their place in the white republic.

How the Irish Became White

How do you become “white” in America?
Sarah Kendzior

“Here it is important to understand how, exactly, Americans ‘become white’. The history of Polish-Americans is an illuminating example. Upon arriving in the U.S. en masse in the late 19th and early 20th century, Poles endured discrimination based on their appearance, religion and culture. In 1903, the New England Magazine decried the Poles’ “expressionless Slavic faces” and “stunted figures” as well as their inherent “ignorance” and “propensity to violence”. Working for terrible wages, Polish workers were renamed things like “Thomas Jefferson” by their bigoted Anglo-Saxon bosses who refused to utter Polish names.

The Poles, in other words, were not considered white. Far from it: they were considered a mysterious menace that should be expelled. When Polish-American Leon Czolgosz killed President William McKinley in 1901, all Poles were deemed potential violent anarchists. “All people are mourning, and it is caused by a maniac who is of our nationality,” a Polish-American newspaper wrote, pressured to apologize for their own people. The collective blame of Poles for terrorism bears great similarity to how Muslims (both in the U.S. and Europe) are collectively blamed today.

But then something changed. In 1919, Irish gangs in blackface attacked Polish neighborhoods in Chicago in an attempt to convince Poles, and other Eastern European groups, that they, too, were “white” and should join them in the fight against blacks. As historian David R. Roediger recalls, “Poles argued that the riot was a conflict between blacks and whites, with Poles abstaining because they belonged to neither group.” But the Irish gangs considered whiteness, as is often the case in America, as anti-blackness. And as in the early 20th century Chicago experienced an influx not only of white immigrants from Europe, but blacks from the South, white groups who felt threatened by black arrivals decided that it would be politically advantageous if the Poles were considered white as well.

With that new white identity came the ability to practice the discrimination they had once endured.

Over time, the strategy of positioning Poles as “white” against a dark-skinned “other” was successful. Poles came to consider themselves white, and more importantly, they came to be considered white by their fellow Americans, as did Italians, Greeks, Jews, Russians, and others from Southern and Eastern Europe, all of whom held an ambivalent racial status in U.S. society. Also, intermarriage between white ethnic groups led some to embrace a broader white identity.”

How do you become “white” in America?

You ignore the black slave owners who benefited too. Why?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

900 posts on a thread where white supremacists fight to prove that black folk amount to nothing.
Racism is dead right ?

Racism is as British as a cup of tea
By Kehinde Andrews
Updated 1:52 PM ET, Thu April 19, 2018

(CNN)Britain is meant to be celebrating 70 years since the arrival of the steamship Windrush, which brought with it 500 people from the Caribbean and marked the start of mass migration to the UK from the British Empire.

But the festive mood has been broken by the realization that a number of the Windrush generation -- who migrated as children and have spent decades in Britain -- have been classified as illegal immigrants, and are therefore losing jobs, being detained in immigration centers and even facing deportation to countries of which they have no memory.
[...]
During May's time as home secretary, the UK Home Office instituted some of the most draconian immigration policy in British history, which included sending out vans to tell undocumented immigrants to "go home," making regular deportations and allowing Africans to drown in the Mediterranean as a deterrent to potential migrants.

Racism is as British as a cup of tea (Opinion) - CNN

###

The reality of being black in today’s Britain
Sat 29 Oct 2016 19.03 EDT
David Olusoga

David Olusoga grew up amid racism in Britain in the 70s and 80s. Now, in a groundbreaking new book and TV series, he argues that the story of black Britons, from Afro-Roman times to the present, is key to showing the depth of their Britishness. And, while we exult in black Britons’ success in culture, fashion and sport, discrimination still blights their lives

The reality of being black in today’s Britain | David Olusoga

###

White people may deny it, but racism is back in Britain
Discrimination, prejudice, violence and common bigotry raise no concern these days

• Yasmin Alibhai-Brown
• Sunday 12 July 2015 21:14

White people may deny it, but racism is back in Britain

###

Maybe you need to fix your own house before throwing stones at others.

The caste system is alive and well in Britain. That's okay!!

Conservatism in action.

 

[IM2]

We are owed more than some words written on a piece of paper.

 

[francoHFW]

They didnt enslave within their tribe,no. At least, as far as we know.

The white devils again seriously. Anything for a buck or against non-christians.... White Man's burden LOL. Thanks a lot LOL

And yes the bad whites are always money-grubbing lying thieving conservatives..... LOL

That's human behavior. Whoever has the advancements and power rule. That's the way it's been forever.
Other races are no different

The uncivilized treatment of blacks in supposedly civilized times has been a disgrace and continues for God's sake. Thanks conservative assholes and silly dupes!

 

[Vastator]

We are owed more than some words written on a piece of paper.

You're owed only what you can take. Nothing more.

 

[francoHFW]

900 posts on a thread where white supremacists fight to prove that black folk amount to nothing.
Racism is dead right ?

If you arguing with Republicans you are correct sir. Very polite racists and a few rude ones.

 

[IM2]

Atlantic Slave Trade: Fallacy of Blacks selling Blacks

I really appreciated this video.

I often think about this issue when folks list reasons why the black community should have reparations, lists are made why.

But the only ethnic groups in the U.S. that are guilty of the sins, are in fact, the English, the Jewish families, and maybe the Welsh.

Not the Scots, not the Irish, not the French, not the Germans, not the Italians, not the Chinese, not other Asian groups, not the Hispanics, not the Natives, not the Russians, and not the Eastern Europeans. They were either indentured, mercenaries, or came over at the end of the 19th century. The were not given the benefits of the great social programs. These were reserved, primarily for the WASP's. Stereo typing "whites" into a mass categorization is just as bad as mass stereo typing "blacks" or "Hispanics." I love how he pointed this out.

So why should all of America be penalized, stereo-typed and accused of "white privilege" for the sins of two or three ethnic groups? All ethnic groups have suffered from crimes against the elites. It gets tiresome, and folks react poorly when they are accused of gaining benefit from something they have never gotten benefit from.


I also loved this statement;

"You can't take a 20th century mind set and apply it to 16th, and 17th century people." I SO agree with that statement. WE HAVE TO LET THE PAST GO ALREADY. It applies to everyone, and everything.

Some whites are forever looking for excuses to say how their group is not responsible. All whites benefited from the laws and policies enacted. And this bullshit about how you can't apply a 20th century mindset to the 17th and 18th centuries is another excuse whites reserve for discussing racism. We apply 20th century mindset to those days all the time. No one makes this excuse when defending whatever the so-called founders believed for one thing. This argument is not about holding on to the past. Some of you whites need to stop lying to yourselves. We are talking about a continuing problem that was created by past and present policy. So what needs to happen is that whites need to end the racism instead of pretending it's gone and a thing of the past.

How the Irish Became White
Art McDonald, Ph.D.

Irish and Africans Americans had lots in common and lots of contact during this period; they lived side by side and shared work spaces. In the early years of immigration the poor Irish and blacks were thrown together, very much part of the same class competing for the same jobs. In the census of 1850, the term mulatto appears for the first time due primarily to inter-marriage between Irish and African Americans. The Irish were often referred to as "Negroes turned inside out and Negroes as smoked Irish." A famous quip of the time attributed to a black man went something like this: "My master is a great tyrant, he treats me like a common Irishman." Free blacks and Irish were viewed by the Nativists as related, somehow similar, performing the same tasks in society. It was felt that if amalgamation between the races was to happen, it would happen between Irish and blacks. But, ultimately, the Irish made the decision to embrace whiteness, thus becoming part of the system which dominated and oppressed blacks. Although it contradicted their experience back home, it meant freedom here since blackness meant slavery.

An article by a black writer in an 1860 edition of the Liberator explained how the Irish ultimately attained their objectives: "Fifteen or twenty years ago, a Catholic priest in Philadelphia said to the Irish people in that city, 'You are all poor, and chiefly laborers, the blacks are poor laborers; many of the native whites are laborers; now, if you wish to succeed, you must do everything that they do, no matter how degrading, and do it for less than they can afford to do it for.' The Irish adopted this plan; they lived on less than the Americans could live upon, and worked for less, and the result is, that nearly all the menial employments are monopolized by the Irish, who now get as good prices as anybody. There were other avenues open to American white men, and though they have suffered much, the chief support of the Irish has come from the places from which we have been crowded."

Once the Irish secured themselves in those jobs, they made sure blacks were kept out. They realized that as long as they continued to work alongside blacks, they would be considered no different. Later, as Irish became prominent in the labor movement, African Americans were excluded from participation. In fact, one of the primary themes of How the Irish Became White is the way in which left labor historians, such as the highly acclaimed Herbert Gutman, have not paid sufficient attention to the problem of race in the development of the labor movement.

And so, we have the tragic story of how one oppressed "race," Irish Catholics, learned how to collaborate in the oppression of another "race," Africans in America, in order to secure their place in the white republic.

How the Irish Became White

How do you become “white” in America?
Sarah Kendzior

“Here it is important to understand how, exactly, Americans ‘become white’. The history of Polish-Americans is an illuminating example. Upon arriving in the U.S. en masse in the late 19th and early 20th century, Poles endured discrimination based on their appearance, religion and culture. In 1903, the New England Magazine decried the Poles’ “expressionless Slavic faces” and “stunted figures” as well as their inherent “ignorance” and “propensity to violence”. Working for terrible wages, Polish workers were renamed things like “Thomas Jefferson” by their bigoted Anglo-Saxon bosses who refused to utter Polish names.

The Poles, in other words, were not considered white. Far from it: they were considered a mysterious menace that should be expelled. When Polish-American Leon Czolgosz killed President William McKinley in 1901, all Poles were deemed potential violent anarchists. “All people are mourning, and it is caused by a maniac who is of our nationality,” a Polish-American newspaper wrote, pressured to apologize for their own people. The collective blame of Poles for terrorism bears great similarity to how Muslims (both in the U.S. and Europe) are collectively blamed today.

But then something changed. In 1919, Irish gangs in blackface attacked Polish neighborhoods in Chicago in an attempt to convince Poles, and other Eastern European groups, that they, too, were “white” and should join them in the fight against blacks. As historian David R. Roediger recalls, “Poles argued that the riot was a conflict between blacks and whites, with Poles abstaining because they belonged to neither group.” But the Irish gangs considered whiteness, as is often the case in America, as anti-blackness. And as in the early 20th century Chicago experienced an influx not only of white immigrants from Europe, but blacks from the South, white groups who felt threatened by black arrivals decided that it would be politically advantageous if the Poles were considered white as well.

With that new white identity came the ability to practice the discrimination they had once endured.

Over time, the strategy of positioning Poles as “white” against a dark-skinned “other” was successful. Poles came to consider themselves white, and more importantly, they came to be considered white by their fellow Americans, as did Italians, Greeks, Jews, Russians, and others from Southern and Eastern Europe, all of whom held an ambivalent racial status in U.S. society. Also, intermarriage between white ethnic groups led some to embrace a broader white identity.”

How do you become “white” in America?

You ignore the black slave owners who benefited too. Why?

Because they bought their family members.

Did Black People Own Slaves?
View attachment 289375
Henry Louis Gates Jr.

How Many Slaves Did Blacks Own?

So what do the actual numbers of black slave owners and their slaves tell us? In 1830, the year most carefully studied by Carter G. Woodson, about 13.7 percent (319,599) of the black population was free. Of these, 3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves, out of a total of 2,009,043 slaves owned in the entire United States, so the numbers of slaves owned by black people over all was quite small by comparison with the number owned by white people. In his essay, " 'The Known World' of Free Black Slaveholders," Thomas J. Pressly, using Woodson's statistics, calculated that 54 (or about 1 percent) of these black slave owners in 1830 owned between 20 and 84 slaves; 172 (about 4 percent) owned between 10 to 19 slaves; and 3,550 (about 94 percent) each owned between 1 and 9 slaves. Crucially, 42 percent owned just one slave.

Pressly also shows that the percentage of free black slave owners as the total number of free black heads of families was quite high in several states, namely 43 percent in South Carolina, 40 percent in Louisiana, 26 percent in Mississippi, 25 percent in Alabama and 20 percent in Georgia. So why did these free black people own these slaves?

It is reasonable to assume that the 42 percent of the free black slave owners who owned just one slave probably owned a family member to protect that person, as did many of the other black slave owners who owned only slightly larger numbers of slaves. As Woodson put it in 1924's Free Negro Owners of Slaves in the United States in 1830, "The census records show that the majority of the Negro owners of slaves were such from the point of view of philanthropy. In many instances the husband purchased the wife or vice versa … Slaves of Negroes were in some cases the children of a free father who had purchased his wife. If he did not thereafter emancipate the mother, as so many such husbands failed to do, his own children were born his slaves and were thus reported to the numerators."

Moreover, Woodson explains, "Benevolent Negroes often purchased slaves to make their lot easier by granting them their freedom for a nominal sum, or by permitting them to work it out on liberal terms." In other words, these black slave-owners, the clear majority, cleverly used the system of slavery to protect their loved ones.

Don't make statements when you don't know what you are talking about . Disingenuously running your mouth is what you just did.

 

[westwall]

We are owed more than some words written on a piece of paper.

No, you're not.

 

[IM2]

We are owed more than some words written on a piece of paper.

You're owed only what you can take. Nothing more.

STFU.

 

[MisterBeale]

Atlantic Slave Trade: Fallacy of Blacks selling Blacks

I really appreciated this video.

I often think about this issue when folks list reasons why the black community should have reparations, lists are made why.

But the only ethnic groups in the U.S. that are guilty of the sins, are in fact, the English, the Jewish families, and maybe the Welsh.

Not the Scots, not the Irish, not the French, not the Germans, not the Italians, not the Chinese, not other Asian groups, not the Hispanics, not the Natives, not the Russians, and not the Eastern Europeans. They were either indentured, mercenaries, or came over at the end of the 19th century. The were not given the benefits of the great social programs. These were reserved, primarily for the WASP's. Stereo typing "whites" into a mass categorization is just as bad as mass stereo typing "blacks" or "Hispanics." I love how he pointed this out.

So why should all of America be penalized, stereo-typed and accused of "white privilege" for the sins of two or three ethnic groups? All ethnic groups have suffered from crimes against the elites. It gets tiresome, and folks react poorly when they are accused of gaining benefit from something they have never gotten benefit from.


I also loved this statement;

"You can't take a 20th century mind set and apply it to 16th, and 17th century people." I SO agree with that statement. WE HAVE TO LET THE PAST GO ALREADY. It applies to everyone, and everything.

Some whites are forever looking for excuses to say how their group is not responsible. All whites benefited from the laws and policies enacted. And this bullshit about how you can't apply a 20th century mindset to the 17th and 18th centuries is another excuse whites reserve for discussing racism. We apply 20th century mindset to those days all the time. No one makes this excuse when defending whatever the so-called founders believed for one thing. This argument is not about holding on to the past. Some of you whites need to stop lying to yourselves. We are talking about a continuing problem that was created by past and present policy. So what needs to happen is that whites need to end the racism instead of pretending it's gone and a thing of the past.

How the Irish Became White
Art McDonald, Ph.D.

Irish and Africans Americans had lots in common and lots of contact during this period; they lived side by side and shared work spaces. In the early years of immigration the poor Irish and blacks were thrown together, very much part of the same class competing for the same jobs. In the census of 1850, the term mulatto appears for the first time due primarily to inter-marriage between Irish and African Americans. The Irish were often referred to as "Negroes turned inside out and Negroes as smoked Irish." A famous quip of the time attributed to a black man went something like this: "My master is a great tyrant, he treats me like a common Irishman." Free blacks and Irish were viewed by the Nativists as related, somehow similar, performing the same tasks in society. It was felt that if amalgamation between the races was to happen, it would happen between Irish and blacks. But, ultimately, the Irish made the decision to embrace whiteness, thus becoming part of the system which dominated and oppressed blacks. Although it contradicted their experience back home, it meant freedom here since blackness meant slavery.

An article by a black writer in an 1860 edition of the Liberator explained how the Irish ultimately attained their objectives: "Fifteen or twenty years ago, a Catholic priest in Philadelphia said to the Irish people in that city, 'You are all poor, and chiefly laborers, the blacks are poor laborers; many of the native whites are laborers; now, if you wish to succeed, you must do everything that they do, no matter how degrading, and do it for less than they can afford to do it for.' The Irish adopted this plan; they lived on less than the Americans could live upon, and worked for less, and the result is, that nearly all the menial employments are monopolized by the Irish, who now get as good prices as anybody. There were other avenues open to American white men, and though they have suffered much, the chief support of the Irish has come from the places from which we have been crowded."

Once the Irish secured themselves in those jobs, they made sure blacks were kept out. They realized that as long as they continued to work alongside blacks, they would be considered no different. Later, as Irish became prominent in the labor movement, African Americans were excluded from participation. In fact, one of the primary themes of How the Irish Became White is the way in which left labor historians, such as the highly acclaimed Herbert Gutman, have not paid sufficient attention to the problem of race in the development of the labor movement.

And so, we have the tragic story of how one oppressed "race," Irish Catholics, learned how to collaborate in the oppression of another "race," Africans in America, in order to secure their place in the white republic.

How the Irish Became White

How do you become “white” in America?
Sarah Kendzior

“Here it is important to understand how, exactly, Americans ‘become white’. The history of Polish-Americans is an illuminating example. Upon arriving in the U.S. en masse in the late 19th and early 20th century, Poles endured discrimination based on their appearance, religion and culture. In 1903, the New England Magazine decried the Poles’ “expressionless Slavic faces” and “stunted figures” as well as their inherent “ignorance” and “propensity to violence”. Working for terrible wages, Polish workers were renamed things like “Thomas Jefferson” by their bigoted Anglo-Saxon bosses who refused to utter Polish names.

The Poles, in other words, were not considered white. Far from it: they were considered a mysterious menace that should be expelled. When Polish-American Leon Czolgosz killed President William McKinley in 1901, all Poles were deemed potential violent anarchists. “All people are mourning, and it is caused by a maniac who is of our nationality,” a Polish-American newspaper wrote, pressured to apologize for their own people. The collective blame of Poles for terrorism bears great similarity to how Muslims (both in the U.S. and Europe) are collectively blamed today.

But then something changed. In 1919, Irish gangs in blackface attacked Polish neighborhoods in Chicago in an attempt to convince Poles, and other Eastern European groups, that they, too, were “white” and should join them in the fight against blacks. As historian David R. Roediger recalls, “Poles argued that the riot was a conflict between blacks and whites, with Poles abstaining because they belonged to neither group.” But the Irish gangs considered whiteness, as is often the case in America, as anti-blackness. And as in the early 20th century Chicago experienced an influx not only of white immigrants from Europe, but blacks from the South, white groups who felt threatened by black arrivals decided that it would be politically advantageous if the Poles were considered white as well.

With that new white identity came the ability to practice the discrimination they had once endured.

Over time, the strategy of positioning Poles as “white” against a dark-skinned “other” was successful. Poles came to consider themselves white, and more importantly, they came to be considered white by their fellow Americans, as did Italians, Greeks, Jews, Russians, and others from Southern and Eastern Europe, all of whom held an ambivalent racial status in U.S. society. Also, intermarriage between white ethnic groups led some to embrace a broader white identity.”

How do you become “white” in America?

So. . . let me get this straight.

We can't reserve a 20th century mindset when thinking about Africans, but we can when thinking about Europeans?

Got it. (Your source isn't exactly UN-biased.)

Fallacy of composition - Wikipedia

 

[Vastator]

We are owed more than some words written on a piece of paper.

You're owed only what you can take. Nothing more.

STFU.

Nah. No proto-human negro gives orders to anyone...

 

[IM2]

We are owed more than some words written on a piece of paper.

No, you're not.

We are. And that's tge way it is. Your funky nut racist opinion doesn't change that.

 

[MisterBeale]

We are owed more than some words written on a piece of paper.

You aren't owed shit unless you earn it.

 

[captkaos]

The designation sub Saharan is racist

How is a geographical designation racist? Sub-Saharan literally means below the Sahara Desert.

The UN uses the term to designate the region for statistical purposes. Is the UN racist?

Because South Africa was not considered sub Saharan and countries above the Sahara was. Africans do not like the term and Africans consider it racist. That's the only opinion on this matter that has merit.

Look at a Map dimwit See where the Sahara Desert ends everything below that is Sub- Saharan Africa ! The area above the Desert is Morocco I'm sure they are terribly offended! South Africa is Below the Desert Geographically so Sub Saharan is appropriate. Dimwit !

 

[westwall]

We are owed more than some words written on a piece of paper.

No, you're not.

We are. And that's tge way it is. Your funky nut racist opinion doesn't change that.

No, you aren't. The US has spent 5 trillion plus dollars trying to help you. The poverty rate is worse now than when the attempt started.

You aren't owed squat.

 

[Vastator]

We are owed more than some words written on a piece of paper.

No, you're not.

We are. And that's tge way it is. Your funky nut racist opinion doesn't change that.

Nor do your feelings change what you're gonna get. Whatcha gonna do about what's owed you? You gonna keep getting disrespected, and short changed on your comeuppance? Or are you gonna take what's yours?

 

[captkaos]

The designation sub Saharan is racist

How is a geographical designation racist? Sub-Saharan literally means below the Sahara Desert.

The UN uses the term to designate the region for statistical purposes. Is the UN racist?

Because South Africa was not considered sub Saharan and countries above the Sahara was. Africans do not like the term and Africans consider it racist. That's the only opinion on this matter that has merit.

Do you consider "Black Friday" a racist term! Go whine about that!

 

[AveryJarhman]

And this bullshit about how you can't apply a 20th century mindset to the 17th and 18th centuries is another excuse whites reserve for discussing racism. We apply 20th century mindset to those days all the time.

Hi, IM2. Keeping it 100% REAL and Respectful.

My friend, in the 21st century Is Racism, the concept of White Supremacy or White Privilege, Mental Illness or some other factor(s) responsible for America's large DEMOCRAT-voting, SEGREGATION-minded, FEMALE-dominated, INTRA-RACIAL DISCRIMINATION and HATE practicing PRO BLACK community choosing to Harass, Bully, Threaten, Intimidate and Denigrate as "C^^NS, SELL-OUTS or TRAITORS" our free thinking black or American friends, neighbors & co-workers of African descent CHOOSING to peacefully pursue *THEIR OWN* individual unique vision for L, L, (Love) and Happiness?

IM2, I'm curious to learn your opinion about the concerns this man shares during his four minute tirade. During which he identifies a specific population of fellow citizens who caused him to suffer emotional and economic harm.

Peeved American Patriot Denounces His 24/7 Racist Neighbors



I look fwd to reading your reply, my PRO BLACK practicing friend.



Peace.

 

[MisterBeale]

Atlantic Slave Trade: Fallacy of Blacks selling Blacks

I really appreciated this video.

I often think about this issue when folks list reasons why the black community should have reparations, lists are made why.

But the only ethnic groups in the U.S. that are guilty of the sins, are in fact, the English, the Jewish families, and maybe the Welsh.

Not the Scots, not the Irish, not the French, not the Germans, not the Italians, not the Chinese, not other Asian groups, not the Hispanics, not the Natives, not the Russians, and not the Eastern Europeans. They were either indentured, mercenaries, or came over at the end of the 19th century. The were not given the benefits of the great social programs. These were reserved, primarily for the WASP's. Stereo typing "whites" into a mass categorization is just as bad as mass stereo typing "blacks" or "Hispanics." I love how he pointed this out.

So why should all of America be penalized, stereo-typed and accused of "white privilege" for the sins of two or three ethnic groups? All ethnic groups have suffered from crimes against the elites. It gets tiresome, and folks react poorly when they are accused of gaining benefit from something they have never gotten benefit from.


I also loved this statement;

"You can't take a 20th century mind set and apply it to 16th, and 17th century people." I SO agree with that statement. WE HAVE TO LET THE PAST GO ALREADY. It applies to everyone, and everything.

Some whites are forever looking for excuses to say how their group is not responsible. All whites benefited from the laws and policies enacted. And this bullshit about how you can't apply a 20th century mindset to the 17th and 18th centuries is another excuse whites reserve for discussing racism. We apply 20th century mindset to those days all the time. No one makes this excuse when defending whatever the so-called founders believed for one thing. This argument is not about holding on to the past. Some of you whites need to stop lying to yourselves. We are talking about a continuing problem that was created by past and present policy. So what needs to happen is that whites need to end the racism instead of pretending it's gone and a thing of the past.

How the Irish Became White
Art McDonald, Ph.D.

Irish and Africans Americans had lots in common and lots of contact during this period; they lived side by side and shared work spaces. In the early years of immigration the poor Irish and blacks were thrown together, very much part of the same class competing for the same jobs. In the census of 1850, the term mulatto appears for the first time due primarily to inter-marriage between Irish and African Americans. The Irish were often referred to as "Negroes turned inside out and Negroes as smoked Irish." A famous quip of the time attributed to a black man went something like this: "My master is a great tyrant, he treats me like a common Irishman." Free blacks and Irish were viewed by the Nativists as related, somehow similar, performing the same tasks in society. It was felt that if amalgamation between the races was to happen, it would happen between Irish and blacks. But, ultimately, the Irish made the decision to embrace whiteness, thus becoming part of the system which dominated and oppressed blacks. Although it contradicted their experience back home, it meant freedom here since blackness meant slavery.

An article by a black writer in an 1860 edition of the Liberator explained how the Irish ultimately attained their objectives: "Fifteen or twenty years ago, a Catholic priest in Philadelphia said to the Irish people in that city, 'You are all poor, and chiefly laborers, the blacks are poor laborers; many of the native whites are laborers; now, if you wish to succeed, you must do everything that they do, no matter how degrading, and do it for less than they can afford to do it for.' The Irish adopted this plan; they lived on less than the Americans could live upon, and worked for less, and the result is, that nearly all the menial employments are monopolized by the Irish, who now get as good prices as anybody. There were other avenues open to American white men, and though they have suffered much, the chief support of the Irish has come from the places from which we have been crowded."

Once the Irish secured themselves in those jobs, they made sure blacks were kept out. They realized that as long as they continued to work alongside blacks, they would be considered no different. Later, as Irish became prominent in the labor movement, African Americans were excluded from participation. In fact, one of the primary themes of How the Irish Became White is the way in which left labor historians, such as the highly acclaimed Herbert Gutman, have not paid sufficient attention to the problem of race in the development of the labor movement.

And so, we have the tragic story of how one oppressed "race," Irish Catholics, learned how to collaborate in the oppression of another "race," Africans in America, in order to secure their place in the white republic.

How the Irish Became White

How do you become “white” in America?
Sarah Kendzior

“Here it is important to understand how, exactly, Americans ‘become white’. The history of Polish-Americans is an illuminating example. Upon arriving in the U.S. en masse in the late 19th and early 20th century, Poles endured discrimination based on their appearance, religion and culture. In 1903, the New England Magazine decried the Poles’ “expressionless Slavic faces” and “stunted figures” as well as their inherent “ignorance” and “propensity to violence”. Working for terrible wages, Polish workers were renamed things like “Thomas Jefferson” by their bigoted Anglo-Saxon bosses who refused to utter Polish names.

The Poles, in other words, were not considered white. Far from it: they were considered a mysterious menace that should be expelled. When Polish-American Leon Czolgosz killed President William McKinley in 1901, all Poles were deemed potential violent anarchists. “All people are mourning, and it is caused by a maniac who is of our nationality,” a Polish-American newspaper wrote, pressured to apologize for their own people. The collective blame of Poles for terrorism bears great similarity to how Muslims (both in the U.S. and Europe) are collectively blamed today.

But then something changed. In 1919, Irish gangs in blackface attacked Polish neighborhoods in Chicago in an attempt to convince Poles, and other Eastern European groups, that they, too, were “white” and should join them in the fight against blacks. As historian David R. Roediger recalls, “Poles argued that the riot was a conflict between blacks and whites, with Poles abstaining because they belonged to neither group.” But the Irish gangs considered whiteness, as is often the case in America, as anti-blackness. And as in the early 20th century Chicago experienced an influx not only of white immigrants from Europe, but blacks from the South, white groups who felt threatened by black arrivals decided that it would be politically advantageous if the Poles were considered white as well.

With that new white identity came the ability to practice the discrimination they had once endured.

Over time, the strategy of positioning Poles as “white” against a dark-skinned “other” was successful. Poles came to consider themselves white, and more importantly, they came to be considered white by their fellow Americans, as did Italians, Greeks, Jews, Russians, and others from Southern and Eastern Europe, all of whom held an ambivalent racial status in U.S. society. Also, intermarriage between white ethnic groups led some to embrace a broader white identity.”

How do you become “white” in America?

You ignore the black slave owners who benefited too. Why?

Because they bought their family members.

Did Black People Own Slaves?
View attachment 289375
Henry Louis Gates Jr.

How Many Slaves Did Blacks Own?

So what do the actual numbers of black slave owners and their slaves tell us? In 1830, the year most carefully studied by Carter G. Woodson, about 13.7 percent (319,599) of the black population was free. Of these, 3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves, out of a total of 2,009,043 slaves owned in the entire United States, so the numbers of slaves owned by black people over all was quite small by comparison with the number owned by white people. In his essay, " 'The Known World' of Free Black Slaveholders," Thomas J. Pressly, using Woodson's statistics, calculated that 54 (or about 1 percent) of these black slave owners in 1830 owned between 20 and 84 slaves; 172 (about 4 percent) owned between 10 to 19 slaves; and 3,550 (about 94 percent) each owned between 1 and 9 slaves. Crucially, 42 percent owned just one slave.

Pressly also shows that the percentage of free black slave owners as the total number of free black heads of families was quite high in several states, namely 43 percent in South Carolina, 40 percent in Louisiana, 26 percent in Mississippi, 25 percent in Alabama and 20 percent in Georgia. So why did these free black people own these slaves?

It is reasonable to assume that the 42 percent of the free black slave owners who owned just one slave probably owned a family member to protect that person, as did many of the other black slave owners who owned only slightly larger numbers of slaves. As Woodson put it in 1924's Free Negro Owners of Slaves in the United States in 1830, "The census records show that the majority of the Negro owners of slaves were such from the point of view of philanthropy. In many instances the husband purchased the wife or vice versa … Slaves of Negroes were in some cases the children of a free father who had purchased his wife. If he did not thereafter emancipate the mother, as so many such husbands failed to do, his own children were born his slaves and were thus reported to the numerators."

Moreover, Woodson explains, "Benevolent Negroes often purchased slaves to make their lot easier by granting them their freedom for a nominal sum, or by permitting them to work it out on liberal terms." In other words, these black slave-owners, the clear majority, cleverly used the system of slavery to protect their loved ones.

Don't make statements when you don't know what you are talking about . Disingenuously running your mouth is what you just did.

Well, you can lobby all you want for reparations, but, as my ancestors did not come over till after the civil war, I guess my family doesn't owe shit. The same can be said for a multitude of many Americans. You have no justification for taxing them for such a program.

 

[fncceo]

We are owed more than some words written on a piece of paper.

"Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."

John Fitzgerald Kennedy