04 Jul 2021, 9:33 pm
Jiheisho wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
i don't believe that for a second.
The article states they want to dismantle Capitalism.
And what is wrong with that? I'm a socialist, so meh.
American capitalism helped a lot of families gain financial (happy 4th of July) independence.
Did your family benefit also?
There is a veteran member, on WP, who has done *extremely* well under the capitalistic system, btw.
American capitalism perpetuated slavery. Remind me again, what part of our population suffered under that? American capitalism also came up with the idea of redlining. I seem to remember the same group being targeted.
Slavery is certainly an interesting area of history in the USA:
Quote:
One of the most vexing questions in African-American history is whether free African Americans themselves owned slaves. The short answer to this question, as you might suspect, is yes, of course; some free black people in this country bought and sold other black people, and did so at least since 1654, continuing to do so right through the Civil War.
Quote:
In a fascinating essay reviewing this controversy, R. Halliburton shows that free black people have owned slaves "in each of the thirteen original states and later in every state that countenanced slavery," at least since Anthony Johnson and his wife Mary went to court in Virginia in 1654 to obtain the services of their indentured servant, a black man, John Castor, for life.
And for a time, free black people could even "own" the services of white indentured servants in Virginia as well. Free blacks owned slaves in Boston by 1724 and in Connecticut by 1783; by 1790, 48 black people in Maryland owned 143 slaves. One particularly notorious black Maryland farmer named Nat Butler "regularly purchased and sold Negroes for the Southern trade," Halliburton wrote.
And for a time, free black people could even "own" the services of white indentured servants in Virginia as well. Free blacks owned slaves in Boston by 1724 and in Connecticut by 1783; by 1790, 48 black people in Maryland owned 143 slaves. One particularly notorious black Maryland farmer named Nat Butler "regularly purchased and sold Negroes for the Southern trade," Halliburton wrote.
Quote:
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. That's the good news.
But not all did, and that is the bad news. Halliburton concludes, after examining the evidence, that "it would be a serious mistake to automatically assume that free blacks owned their spouse or children only for benevolent purposes." Woodson himself notes that a "small number of slaves, however, does not always signify benevolence on the part of the owner." And John Hope Franklin notes that in North Carolina, "Without doubt, there were those who possessed slaves for the purpose of advancing their [own] well-being … these Negro slaveholders were more interested in making their farms or carpenter-shops 'pay' than they were in treating their slaves humanely." For these black slaveholders, he concludes, "there was some effort to conform to the pattern established by the dominant slaveholding group within the State in the effort to elevate themselves to a position of respect and privilege." In other words, most black slave owners probably owned family members to protect them, but far too many turned to slavery to exploit the labor of other black people for profit.
But not all did, and that is the bad news. Halliburton concludes, after examining the evidence, that "it would be a serious mistake to automatically assume that free blacks owned their spouse or children only for benevolent purposes." Woodson himself notes that a "small number of slaves, however, does not always signify benevolence on the part of the owner." And John Hope Franklin notes that in North Carolina, "Without doubt, there were those who possessed slaves for the purpose of advancing their [own] well-being … these Negro slaveholders were more interested in making their farms or carpenter-shops 'pay' than they were in treating their slaves humanely." For these black slaveholders, he concludes, "there was some effort to conform to the pattern established by the dominant slaveholding group within the State in the effort to elevate themselves to a position of respect and privilege." In other words, most black slave owners probably owned family members to protect them, but far too many turned to slavery to exploit the labor of other black people for profit.
Quote:
William Ellison's fascinating story is told by Michael Johnson and James L. Roark in their book, Black Masters: A Free Family of Color in the Old South. At his death on the eve of the Civil War, Ellison was wealthier than nine out of 10 white people in South Carolina. He was born in 1790 as a slave on a plantation in the Fairfield District of the state, far up country from Charleston. In 1816, at the age of 26, he bought his own freedom, and soon bought his wife and their child. In 1822, he opened his own cotton gin, and soon became quite wealthy. By his death in 1860, he owned 900 acres of land and 63 slaves. Not one of his slaves was allowed to purchase his or her own freedom.
Source: https://www.africanamerica.org/topic/did-black-people-own-slaves
Quite an interesting article about one (small) facet of slavery in the USA which is commonly overlooked\unknown.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,803
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
04 Jul 2021, 11:17 pm
Brictoria wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
i don't believe that for a second.
The article states they want to dismantle Capitalism.
And what is wrong with that? I'm a socialist, so meh.
American capitalism helped a lot of families gain financial (happy 4th of July) independence.
Did your family benefit also?
There is a veteran member, on WP, who has done *extremely* well under the capitalistic system, btw.
American capitalism perpetuated slavery. Remind me again, what part of our population suffered under that? American capitalism also came up with the idea of redlining. I seem to remember the same group being targeted.
Slavery is certainly an interesting area of history in the USA:
Quote:
One of the most vexing questions in African-American history is whether free African Americans themselves owned slaves. The short answer to this question, as you might suspect, is yes, of course; some free black people in this country bought and sold other black people, and did so at least since 1654, continuing to do so right through the Civil War.
Quote:
In a fascinating essay reviewing this controversy, R. Halliburton shows that free black people have owned slaves "in each of the thirteen original states and later in every state that countenanced slavery," at least since Anthony Johnson and his wife Mary went to court in Virginia in 1654 to obtain the services of their indentured servant, a black man, John Castor, for life.
And for a time, free black people could even "own" the services of white indentured servants in Virginia as well. Free blacks owned slaves in Boston by 1724 and in Connecticut by 1783; by 1790, 48 black people in Maryland owned 143 slaves. One particularly notorious black Maryland farmer named Nat Butler "regularly purchased and sold Negroes for the Southern trade," Halliburton wrote.
And for a time, free black people could even "own" the services of white indentured servants in Virginia as well. Free blacks owned slaves in Boston by 1724 and in Connecticut by 1783; by 1790, 48 black people in Maryland owned 143 slaves. One particularly notorious black Maryland farmer named Nat Butler "regularly purchased and sold Negroes for the Southern trade," Halliburton wrote.
Quote:
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. That's the good news.
But not all did, and that is the bad news. Halliburton concludes, after examining the evidence, that "it would be a serious mistake to automatically assume that free blacks owned their spouse or children only for benevolent purposes." Woodson himself notes that a "small number of slaves, however, does not always signify benevolence on the part of the owner." And John Hope Franklin notes that in North Carolina, "Without doubt, there were those who possessed slaves for the purpose of advancing their [own] well-being … these Negro slaveholders were more interested in making their farms or carpenter-shops 'pay' than they were in treating their slaves humanely." For these black slaveholders, he concludes, "there was some effort to conform to the pattern established by the dominant slaveholding group within the State in the effort to elevate themselves to a position of respect and privilege." In other words, most black slave owners probably owned family members to protect them, but far too many turned to slavery to exploit the labor of other black people for profit.
But not all did, and that is the bad news. Halliburton concludes, after examining the evidence, that "it would be a serious mistake to automatically assume that free blacks owned their spouse or children only for benevolent purposes." Woodson himself notes that a "small number of slaves, however, does not always signify benevolence on the part of the owner." And John Hope Franklin notes that in North Carolina, "Without doubt, there were those who possessed slaves for the purpose of advancing their [own] well-being … these Negro slaveholders were more interested in making their farms or carpenter-shops 'pay' than they were in treating their slaves humanely." For these black slaveholders, he concludes, "there was some effort to conform to the pattern established by the dominant slaveholding group within the State in the effort to elevate themselves to a position of respect and privilege." In other words, most black slave owners probably owned family members to protect them, but far too many turned to slavery to exploit the labor of other black people for profit.
Quote:
William Ellison's fascinating story is told by Michael Johnson and James L. Roark in their book, Black Masters: A Free Family of Color in the Old South. At his death on the eve of the Civil War, Ellison was wealthier than nine out of 10 white people in South Carolina. He was born in 1790 as a slave on a plantation in the Fairfield District of the state, far up country from Charleston. In 1816, at the age of 26, he bought his own freedom, and soon bought his wife and their child. In 1822, he opened his own cotton gin, and soon became quite wealthy. By his death in 1860, he owned 900 acres of land and 63 slaves. Not one of his slaves was allowed to purchase his or her own freedom.
Source: https://www.africanamerica.org/topic/did-black-people-own-slaves
Quite an interesting article about one (small) facet of slavery in the USA which is commonly overlooked\unknown.
All I have to say to all that is: so? Sure, there were some blacks who owned slaves, but the vast majority of them did not. I'm not sure what the point of all that was supposed to be.
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,755
Location: the island of defective toy santas
04 Jul 2021, 11:21 pm
just more "whataboutism." 
04 Jul 2021, 11:47 pm
Brictoria wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
i don't believe that for a second.
The article states they want to dismantle Capitalism.
And what is wrong with that? I'm a socialist, so meh.
American capitalism helped a lot of families gain financial (happy 4th of July) independence.
Did your family benefit also?
There is a veteran member, on WP, who has done *extremely* well under the capitalistic system, btw.
American capitalism perpetuated slavery. Remind me again, what part of our population suffered under that? American capitalism also came up with the idea of redlining. I seem to remember the same group being targeted.
Slavery is certainly an interesting area of history in the USA:
Quote:
One of the most vexing questions in African-American history is whether free African Americans themselves owned slaves. The short answer to this question, as you might suspect, is yes, of course; some free black people in this country bought and sold other black people, and did so at least since 1654, continuing to do so right through the Civil War.
Quote:
In a fascinating essay reviewing this controversy, R. Halliburton shows that free black people have owned slaves "in each of the thirteen original states and later in every state that countenanced slavery," at least since Anthony Johnson and his wife Mary went to court in Virginia in 1654 to obtain the services of their indentured servant, a black man, John Castor, for life.
And for a time, free black people could even "own" the services of white indentured servants in Virginia as well. Free blacks owned slaves in Boston by 1724 and in Connecticut by 1783; by 1790, 48 black people in Maryland owned 143 slaves. One particularly notorious black Maryland farmer named Nat Butler "regularly purchased and sold Negroes for the Southern trade," Halliburton wrote.
And for a time, free black people could even "own" the services of white indentured servants in Virginia as well. Free blacks owned slaves in Boston by 1724 and in Connecticut by 1783; by 1790, 48 black people in Maryland owned 143 slaves. One particularly notorious black Maryland farmer named Nat Butler "regularly purchased and sold Negroes for the Southern trade," Halliburton wrote.
Quote:
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. That's the good news.
But not all did, and that is the bad news. Halliburton concludes, after examining the evidence, that "it would be a serious mistake to automatically assume that free blacks owned their spouse or children only for benevolent purposes." Woodson himself notes that a "small number of slaves, however, does not always signify benevolence on the part of the owner." And John Hope Franklin notes that in North Carolina, "Without doubt, there were those who possessed slaves for the purpose of advancing their [own] well-being … these Negro slaveholders were more interested in making their farms or carpenter-shops 'pay' than they were in treating their slaves humanely." For these black slaveholders, he concludes, "there was some effort to conform to the pattern established by the dominant slaveholding group within the State in the effort to elevate themselves to a position of respect and privilege." In other words, most black slave owners probably owned family members to protect them, but far too many turned to slavery to exploit the labor of other black people for profit.
But not all did, and that is the bad news. Halliburton concludes, after examining the evidence, that "it would be a serious mistake to automatically assume that free blacks owned their spouse or children only for benevolent purposes." Woodson himself notes that a "small number of slaves, however, does not always signify benevolence on the part of the owner." And John Hope Franklin notes that in North Carolina, "Without doubt, there were those who possessed slaves for the purpose of advancing their [own] well-being … these Negro slaveholders were more interested in making their farms or carpenter-shops 'pay' than they were in treating their slaves humanely." For these black slaveholders, he concludes, "there was some effort to conform to the pattern established by the dominant slaveholding group within the State in the effort to elevate themselves to a position of respect and privilege." In other words, most black slave owners probably owned family members to protect them, but far too many turned to slavery to exploit the labor of other black people for profit.
Quote:
William Ellison's fascinating story is told by Michael Johnson and James L. Roark in their book, Black Masters: A Free Family of Color in the Old South. At his death on the eve of the Civil War, Ellison was wealthier than nine out of 10 white people in South Carolina. He was born in 1790 as a slave on a plantation in the Fairfield District of the state, far up country from Charleston. In 1816, at the age of 26, he bought his own freedom, and soon bought his wife and their child. In 1822, he opened his own cotton gin, and soon became quite wealthy. By his death in 1860, he owned 900 acres of land and 63 slaves. Not one of his slaves was allowed to purchase his or her own freedom.
Source: https://www.africanamerica.org/topic/did-black-people-own-slaves
Quite an interesting article about one (small) facet of slavery in the USA which is commonly overlooked\unknown.
You are right, black slave owners did exist as slavery is a capitalist enterprise. Yes, the history of slavery is complex, as most history is. Slavery is written into our Constitution.
Given you are from Australia, I am sure you are unaware of the rewriting of history to marginalize the impact of slavery in this nation. The Confederate "Lost Cause" myth is one such attempt. Another is using stories of blacks owning slaves as some sort of strange equality theory or the fact that blacks fought for the Confederacy (but black troops were most likely to switch sides too). A few at WP have reacted to your post as it is a common theme from US white supremacists and white nationalists to somehow marginalize the impact of slavery on the black community. The inequity of this history continues to have implications for the black community, hence movements like BLM.
05 Jul 2021, 1:35 am
05 Jul 2021, 1:38 am
Pepe wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
What BLM wants to dismantle is the ingrained racism in American society. I think this is the primary reason why so many oppose them.
the right simultaneously denies the existence of racism/classism/ableism, denies that there is anything wrong with racism/classism/ableism, denies that they have anything to do with racism/classism/ableism. it is all a big gaslit mess they have made.
You are engaging in a binary position, once again.
It is/was in the WP rulz not to generalise the way you have done here.
It's also a WP rule not to personally accuse people who are expressing their own opinion which they are entitled to.
05 Jul 2021, 3:15 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
Nades wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Nades wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Nades wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Nades wrote:
I've always considered BLM to be an anarchist organisation first and foremost followed by a money laundering/fraud scheme. They're just feigning interest in improving race relations to gain public support and donation money. Ironic and hypocritical for an anarchist group really.
I'm firmly against BLM and all they stand for.
I'm firmly against BLM and all they stand for.
Even the notion that black lives matter?
Black Lives Matter isn't actually about black lives though is it? And I don't see how somehow going into an Anarchist state with no ability to implement discrimination laws is somehow going to help stop discrimination. In the world that BLM want to create, shooting people for being black will actually be legal.
And just how is that?
Probably because BLM stated again and again they want the removal of police forces and leading figures within the organisation appear to be fond embezzlement.
While it's doubtlessly a bad idea to do away with law enforcement, one has to remember the bad relationship the African American community has had with the police, who have been especially violent and racist toward them. If I were in their shoes, there's a good chance I'd be calling for the same thing.
There might be a culture clash between where I live and the US. I live in an almost entirely white area which has also suffered extreme exploitation bordering on slavery for well over a century.
I have no respect for BLM period. Perhaps it's different to the "new world" like in the US, but where I'm from where white kids used to get blown up in mines and many not even paid actual currency for working 12 hour days, I just don't really care either way.
I'm probably never likely to respect BLM really.
Wait a minute... you live in Wales... What do you really know about my country?
Seeing BLM spread through most of the western world including Wales, it's irrelevant what country I'm from. I live in a poor, predominantly white rural area in the UK and I'm regularly hammered with BLM advocacy.
What goes on in your country is certainly relevant to me in such circumstances.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,803
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
05 Jul 2021, 4:12 am
Nades wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Nades wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Nades wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Nades wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Nades wrote:
I've always considered BLM to be an anarchist organisation first and foremost followed by a money laundering/fraud scheme. They're just feigning interest in improving race relations to gain public support and donation money. Ironic and hypocritical for an anarchist group really.
I'm firmly against BLM and all they stand for.
I'm firmly against BLM and all they stand for.
Even the notion that black lives matter?
Black Lives Matter isn't actually about black lives though is it? And I don't see how somehow going into an Anarchist state with no ability to implement discrimination laws is somehow going to help stop discrimination. In the world that BLM want to create, shooting people for being black will actually be legal.
And just how is that?
Probably because BLM stated again and again they want the removal of police forces and leading figures within the organisation appear to be fond embezzlement.
While it's doubtlessly a bad idea to do away with law enforcement, one has to remember the bad relationship the African American community has had with the police, who have been especially violent and racist toward them. If I were in their shoes, there's a good chance I'd be calling for the same thing.
There might be a culture clash between where I live and the US. I live in an almost entirely white area which has also suffered extreme exploitation bordering on slavery for well over a century.
I have no respect for BLM period. Perhaps it's different to the "new world" like in the US, but where I'm from where white kids used to get blown up in mines and many not even paid actual currency for working 12 hour days, I just don't really care either way.
I'm probably never likely to respect BLM really.
Wait a minute... you live in Wales... What do you really know about my country?
Seeing BLM spread through most of the western world including Wales, it's irrelevant what country I'm from. I live in a poor, predominantly white rural area in the UK and I'm regularly hammered with BLM advocacy.
What goes on in your country is certainly relevant to me in such circumstances.
I don't doubt that living in a poor, rural area is no picnic for anyone, regardless of color. That said, have you considered extending some empathy to black citizens of your country, in order to understand where they're coming from?
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,803
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
05 Jul 2021, 4:13 am
auntblabby wrote:
just more "whataboutism."
Most certainly.
05 Jul 2021, 4:31 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
Nades wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Nades wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Nades wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Nades wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Nades wrote:
I've always considered BLM to be an anarchist organisation first and foremost followed by a money laundering/fraud scheme. They're just feigning interest in improving race relations to gain public support and donation money. Ironic and hypocritical for an anarchist group really.
I'm firmly against BLM and all they stand for.
I'm firmly against BLM and all they stand for.
Even the notion that black lives matter?
Black Lives Matter isn't actually about black lives though is it? And I don't see how somehow going into an Anarchist state with no ability to implement discrimination laws is somehow going to help stop discrimination. In the world that BLM want to create, shooting people for being black will actually be legal.
And just how is that?
Probably because BLM stated again and again they want the removal of police forces and leading figures within the organisation appear to be fond embezzlement.
While it's doubtlessly a bad idea to do away with law enforcement, one has to remember the bad relationship the African American community has had with the police, who have been especially violent and racist toward them. If I were in their shoes, there's a good chance I'd be calling for the same thing.
There might be a culture clash between where I live and the US. I live in an almost entirely white area which has also suffered extreme exploitation bordering on slavery for well over a century.
I have no respect for BLM period. Perhaps it's different to the "new world" like in the US, but where I'm from where white kids used to get blown up in mines and many not even paid actual currency for working 12 hour days, I just don't really care either way.
I'm probably never likely to respect BLM really.
Wait a minute... you live in Wales... What do you really know about my country?
Seeing BLM spread through most of the western world including Wales, it's irrelevant what country I'm from. I live in a poor, predominantly white rural area in the UK and I'm regularly hammered with BLM advocacy.
What goes on in your country is certainly relevant to me in such circumstances.
I don't doubt that living in a poor, rural area is no picnic for anyone, regardless of color. That said, have you considered extending some empathy to black citizens of your country, in order to understand where they're coming from?
There virtually are no black citizens in Wales or have I heard of any race crimes here yet were still under overbearing pressure to show them empathy.
A report was done recently that actually discovered white working class folk have it worse than blacks in the UK.
That alone says it all.
05 Jul 2021, 4:59 am
05 Jul 2021, 5:26 am
05 Jul 2021, 5:34 am
05 Jul 2021, 5:54 am
05 Jul 2021, 5:57 am
05 Jul 2021, 6:00 am
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Does it matter if my car is not a fancy ferrari e.g.? |
11 Mar 2024, 12:08 pm |
| A Physicist Claims the Universe Has No Dark Matter & Is 27B |
29 Mar 2024, 5:13 pm |
| Lawyers for Hunter Biden plan to sue Fox News 'imminently' |
Yesterday, 5:28 am |
| Scientists Propose Plan to Insulate The Doomsday Glacier |
14 Mar 2024, 2:29 pm |
