Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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
Didn't happen that way white boy.Your great great grandfather probably sold your great great uncle for a bucket of oranges.But they were and you guys have been shown that.No they weren't, hater dupe.Africa was just fine until the whites came and wrecked the place dumbass doop. Whatever you do, don't learn anything LOL. Google sub-Saharan African empires.Thread conclusion : Africa WAS a shithole. Africa IS a shithole. Africa WILL BE a shithole.
Your great great great grandfather probably ate your great great great grandmother for dinner.
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.
Because they bought their family members.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?
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.
The same can't be said for shit. Your family benefitted from a nation built by slaves and given extra opportunity because of segregation. The government made these laws idiot, so the government owes us.
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
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
You're the one making that excuse. And my sources are just fine. Learn to accept the truth about your race if you want everybody to accept the truth about theirs.
Because they bought their family members.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?
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.
The same can't be said for shit. Your family benefitted from a nation built by slaves and given extra opportunity because of segregation. The government made these laws idiot, so the government owes us.
Because they bought their family members.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?
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.
The same can't be said for shit. Your family benefitted from a nation built by slaves and given extra opportunity because of segregation. The government made these laws idiot, so the government owes us.
Didn't happen that way white boy.Your great great grandfather probably sold your great great uncle for a bucket of oranges.But they were and you guys have been shown that.No they weren't, hater dupe.Africa was just fine until the whites came and wrecked the place dumbass doop. Whatever you do, don't learn anything LOL. Google sub-Saharan African empires.
Your great great great grandfather probably ate your great great great grandmother for dinner.
Blacks did not sell other blacks to slave traders? Then who did?
Why are you glad? Why did you want it so much? It obviously meant nothing.I was unaware, but now that i know..I care---sad that is was not publicized more. Or sad that it meant little. Maybe just sad..because words can be empty with out-action..but I'm glad that we did it....."...and no one really cares."I agree with you.Do you not find your post a false equivalency? I do.Has Africa apologized for past slavery? Has Africa apologized for its rampant CURRENT slavery? Why is the US singled out to apologize for shit that every nation did, and some still do?It's easy to let the past go..when it's not riding on your your back. I'm against financial reparations..for a number of reasons.
But an acknowledgment of wrongdoing....a formal apology from our Govt.? Yes.....I...think that would mean a lot. There is precedent..we did for the Japanese-American internees of WWII--why not for our black citizens?
I do someone a wrong...I apologize..are you saying that I should not apologize because other people did the same wrong and did not?
That's a bit wrong-headed, don't you think? You are against an apology...that costs you nothing and could have profound positive effect on the world that you live in.....
Tsk, tsk, tsk.......
. . . but, in this case, it is an irrelevant discussion. The U.S. has already made a formal apology, and I don't think anyone cares.
Five Times the United States Officially Apologized | Smart News | Smithsonian
"An Apology for Slavery and the Jim Crow laws
Few things compromised the core values of the U.S. Constitution and left as lasting a mark on American society as 246 years of institutionalized slavery and the subsequent discrimination of the Jim Crow laws that marked African-Americans as second-class citizens. As such, few people were more deserving of a formal apology than the millions of black Americans whose ancestors were forcibly brought to this country and had their freedoms stolen from them.
The formal apology for slavery and Jim Crow issued by the U.S. House of Representatives in 2008 was unprecedented, even after decades of lawmakers trying to push the government to finally apologize, NPR reported at the time. In introducing the resolution, Representative Steve Cohen (D-Tenn), noted that despite the government issuing an apology for interning Japanese citizens and later pressuring Japan to apologize for forcing Chinese women to work as sex slaves during World War II, the American government had never formally recognized and apologized for slavery. While the apology was primarily symbolic, by officially recognizing its role in perpetuating the horrors of slavery and Jim Crow, the American government took a step forward in addressing and atoning for one of its greatest wrongs.
EXACTLY! Its meaningless nonsense.
Because they bought their family members.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?
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.
The same can't be said for shit. Your family benefitted from a nation built by slaves and given extra opportunity because of segregation. The government made these laws idiot, so the government owes us.
When was your family brought here? Or did your family immigrate after slavery ended and you just want to ride the oppression pony!
Atlantic Slave Trade: Fallacy of Blacks selling Blacks
Why are you glad? Why did you want it so much? It obviously meant nothing.I was unaware, but now that i know..I care---sad that is was not publicized more. Or sad that it meant little. Maybe just sad..because words can be empty with out-action..but I'm glad that we did it....."...and no one really cares."I agree with you.Do you not find your post a false equivalency? I do.Has Africa apologized for past slavery? Has Africa apologized for its rampant CURRENT slavery? Why is the US singled out to apologize for shit that every nation did, and some still do?
I do someone a wrong...I apologize..are you saying that I should not apologize because other people did the same wrong and did not?
That's a bit wrong-headed, don't you think? You are against an apology...that costs you nothing and could have profound positive effect on the world that you live in.....
Tsk, tsk, tsk.......
. . . but, in this case, it is an irrelevant discussion. The U.S. has already made a formal apology, and I don't think anyone cares.
Five Times the United States Officially Apologized | Smart News | Smithsonian
"An Apology for Slavery and the Jim Crow laws
Few things compromised the core values of the U.S. Constitution and left as lasting a mark on American society as 246 years of institutionalized slavery and the subsequent discrimination of the Jim Crow laws that marked African-Americans as second-class citizens. As such, few people were more deserving of a formal apology than the millions of black Americans whose ancestors were forcibly brought to this country and had their freedoms stolen from them.
The formal apology for slavery and Jim Crow issued by the U.S. House of Representatives in 2008 was unprecedented, even after decades of lawmakers trying to push the government to finally apologize, NPR reported at the time. In introducing the resolution, Representative Steve Cohen (D-Tenn), noted that despite the government issuing an apology for interning Japanese citizens and later pressuring Japan to apologize for forcing Chinese women to work as sex slaves during World War II, the American government had never formally recognized and apologized for slavery. While the apology was primarily symbolic, by officially recognizing its role in perpetuating the horrors of slavery and Jim Crow, the American government took a step forward in addressing and atoning for one of its greatest wrongs.
EXACTLY! Its meaningless nonsense.
The reason it meant nothing, in case you were wondering, is because WE DIDNT ENSLAVE ANYONE! How can I apologize for shit some other dude did 150 years ago? It's dumb, and quite frankly shitty for people to put that on anyone alive today, yet we see it thrown in peoples faces constantly.
Wow. Just any excuse. No matter how stupid it sounds.You know who never got an apology?
All those women we burned. If Americans really believed in freedom of religion, shouldn't they have been free to be witches if they wanted to be?
Seems I would have rather have been a slave than burned at the stake.
At least IM2's ancestors had the chance to have children. . . .
Now we get to hear all this divide and conquer grievance for an unnamed amount of free crash handouts. . .
All of these Wicca and Pagan practitioners need reparations. . . . And free prenatal care to insure they can breed a new generations of witches. . . .
Atlantic Slave Trade: Fallacy of Blacks selling Blacks
How is any of this relevant today? Other than as excuses.
STFU.Nah. No proto-human negro gives orders to anyone...STFU.You're owed only what you can take. Nothing more.We are owed more than some words written on a piece of paper.
Atlantic Slave Trade: Fallacy of Blacks selling Blacks
How is any of this relevant today? Other than as excuses.
What's the title of this thread dumbass? And don't say shit about excuses. Because you racists come with ready made excuses.
Atlantic Slave Trade: Fallacy of Blacks selling Blacks
How is any of this relevant today? Other than as excuses.
What's the title of this thread dumbass? And don't say shit about excuses. Because you racists come with ready made excuses.
Says the most racist moron on the Board.
Wow. Just any excuse. No matter how stupid it sounds.You know who never got an apology?
All those women we burned. If Americans really believed in freedom of religion, shouldn't they have been free to be witches if they wanted to be?
Seems I would have rather have been a slave than burned at the stake.
At least IM2's ancestors had the chance to have children. . . .
Now we get to hear all this divide and conquer grievance for an unnamed amount of free crash handouts. . .
All of these Wicca and Pagan practitioners need reparations. . . . And free prenatal care to insure they can breed a new generations of witches. . . .
