Refreshing...If There Were Only More Black Leaders Like This One...

[rjs330]

As soo as blacks have owned slave, we can talk about how racist they are.

We can agree that individual choices are the most important factor in the outcome of a person's life. Would you agree that some have it easier than others?

Who in America today was a slave owner?

Of course some have it easier than others. What's that got to do with making good choices? I think we've seen plenty of people who had it very easy make really bad choices. Making good choices is an individual effort. Just cause life is hard it doesn't mean we allow excuses for bad behavior or bad choices. Heck, I've had it pretty good over the last 30 years, but still made some rotten choices at times.

Having it rough is no excuse for being a drug dealer, a murderer, having numerous babies out if wedlock with different fathers, not taking responsibility for the children you fathered, committing robbery, burglary, theft etc etc.

 

[rjs330]

As soo as blacks have owned slave, we can talk about how racist they are.

Blacks owned a lot of white slaves.

Whites Were Slaves In North Africa Before Blacks Were Slaves In The New World - PaulCraigRoberts.org

Research Suggests White Slavery Was Much More Common

 

[rturner76]

Blacks owned a lot of white slaves.
Whites Were Slaves In North Africa Before Blacks Were Slaves In The New World - PaulCraigRoberts.org

Research Suggests White Slavery Was Much More Common

Do you go to this guy for your history? Do you just search for opinions you like and post them?

There was an enormous slave trade perpetrated by Romans that kidnapped people from the Slavic nations. That's where the word "slav" was coined.

The only difference is in those days anybody who couldn't prove Roman citizenship was subject to be enslaved no matter what nation you were born in. American slavery was the first to make a law that said only non-whites could be enslaved. Before that the Church allowed any non-Christian to be enslaved. Since all the black slaves were baptized, they had to make it so only people of color were eligible for slavery.

White slavery goes on today in the form of the international sex trade but its other whites, that are enslaving these women (Russians, Romanians, Ukrainians etc) SE Asia has a lively sex slave trade also.

Blacks (Africans) never controlled t0he slave trade. It went for Arabs to Europeans. I'm sure there have been white slaves but not a trans Atlantic slave trade system based on filling up boats with Europeans and selling them into slavery. That was reserved for Africans.

 

[rturner76]

Blacks owned a lot of white slaves.

Whites Were Slaves In North Africa Before Blacks Were Slaves In The New World - PaulCraigRoberts.org

Research Suggests White Slavery Was Much More Common

Do you also subscribe to those websites that claim Egyptian royalty was actually white? I saw a huge junk website about that and it really had people believing because they found a couple of mummies with red hair.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Do you go to this guy for your history?

Who do you go to for your history? The 1619 "I'll correct some of my mistakes later" Project?

Blacks (Africans) never controlled t0he slave trade. It went for Arabs to Europeans. I'm sure there have been white slaves but not a trans Atlantic slave trade system based on filling up boats with Europeans and selling them into slavery. That was reserved for Africans.

That depends upon what you mean by "controlled". North African pirates enslaved many Europeans, and other Africans, and this is arguably where the first Portuguese slavers encountered African slaves.

If you want to get indignant about it....those north African slavers did land on the shores of Europeans, rape, murder, pillage, and carry off slaves. They didn't buy them from white slavers.

As for African slavers....they still exist today! Slavery has never ceased by Africans on the African continent in recorded history.

 

[rturner76]

Who do you go to for your history? The 1619 "I'll correct some of my mistakes later" Project?



That depends upon what you mean by "controlled". North African pirates enslaved many Europeans, and other Africans, and this is arguably where the first Portuguese slavers encountered African slaves.

If you want to get indignant about it....those north African slavers did land on the shores of Europeans, rape, murder, pillage, and carry off slaves. They didn't buy them from white slavers.

As for African slavers....they still exist today! Slavery has never ceased by Africans on the African continent in recorded history.

So the trans-Atlantic slave trade was started by Ethiopians now? Get your white-washed history out of here. Europeans were never oppressed except by other Europeans. Pirates kidnap people, they still do. Carthage and Cretan also had a pirate society but they didn't create the "Golden Triangle" of Tobacco, spices, and slaves.

I get my history mostly from encyclopedias and textbooks through a lot of that has also been whitewashed so I take it with a grain of salt.

As for "raping and pillaging" besides the Huns and the Khans. Europeans hold the record for the most global raping pillaging, spreading syphilis and smallpox to natives, genocide and all that.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Curiously enough, I'm currently reading White Evangelical Racism: The Politics of Morality in America, which would probably make a fascinating pairing with the book in the OP.

I've finished this one. It's maybe a little too harsh on modern evangelicalism, but there are lots of really excellent historical details and quotes. A real stand-out example is black evangelical Tom Skinner's speech on "The U.S. Racial Crisis and World Evangelism" in 1970 to the Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship’s conference. I'd like to say it's ahead of its time, but perhaps the truth is that nothing has changed in 50 years. [Darn it, he uses the n-word. But video of the whole speech and a transcript is available online.]

Now, during this great upsurge in revolution and rebellion that has been going on, there have been great numbers of evangelical Christians who have joined the hoot and cry for "law and order."

But how do you explain "law and order" to a mother who stands at the foot of her bed watching her baby lie in a blood bath, when she knows that that baby would never have been bitten by the rat in the first place, and the rat would have never been in the building, if the landlord to whom she had been paying high rent had been providing the kind of service she deserved for the kind of rent she was paying?

How do you explain law and order to her when she knows the building code inspector, who represents the city administration, who is supposed to check out violations in buildings, came by that building the day before but was met at the front door by the landlord who palmed a hundred dollars in his hand, and the building code inspector kept going? Now that is lawlessness.

But the point is, we never arrest the landlord. We never lock up the building code inspector.

Make no bones about it: the difficulty in coming to grips with the evangelical message of Jesus Christ in the black community is the fact that most evangelicals in this country who say that Christ is the answer will also go back to their suburban communities and vote for law-and-order candidates who will keep the system the way it is.

So, if you are black and you live in the black community, you soon begin to learn that what they mean by law and order is, "all the order for us and all the law for them." You soon learn that the police in the black community become nothing more than the occupational force present in the black community for the purpose of maintaining the interests of white society.

...But on the opposite extreme was another coward. He was what I called the hyper-Christian. He called himself, and I quote, "a Bible-believing, fundamental, orthodox, conservative, evangelical Christian," whatever that meant. He had half a dozen Bible verses for every social problem that existed. But, if you asked him to get involved, he couldn't do it. If you went to him and told him about the problems of Harlem, he would come back with a typical cliché: "What those people up there need is a good dose of salvation." And while that might have been true, I never saw that cat in Harlem administering that dose.

If you went to him and told him about the social ills of Harlem, he would say, "Christ is the answer." Yes, Christ is the answer, but Christ has always been the answer through somebody.

..

Understand that for those of us who live in the black community, it was not the evangelical who came and taught us our worth and dignity as black men. It was not the Bible-believing fundamentalist who stood up and told us that black was beautiful. It was not the evangelical who preached to us that we should stand on our two feet and be men, be proud that black was beautiful and that God could work his life out through our redeemed blackness. Rather, it took Malcolm X, Stokely Carmichael, Rap Brown and the Brothers to declare to us our dignity.

..

But you see, the problem that we have is that we tend to think that truth can come only from those people we recognize to be anointed by God. That is the reason why when Martin Luther King came along and began to buck the system and began to do some things to help liberate black people, immediately we evangelicals wanted to know, "Is he born again? Does he preach the gospel?" Because you see, if we could just prove that Martin Luther King was not a Christian, if we could prove that he was not born again, if we could prove that he did not believe the Word of God, we could dismiss what he said. We could dismiss the truth.

 

[Ana the Ist]

So the trans-Atlantic slave trade was started by Ethiopians now?

Berbers.

Get your white-washed history out of here.

You can replace "white-washed" with "fact-based" and this sentence would have the same meaning.

Europeans were never oppressed except by other Europeans.

And Moors, Turks, Huns, Mongols, Berbers, Vikings, and so on....

I guess I can always use the old "they didn't see themselves as one people blah blah blah" answer.

I bet that sounds familiar.

Pirates kidnap people, they still do. Carthage and Cretan also had a pirate society but they didn't create the "Golden Triangle" of Tobacco, spices, and slaves.

You know what's funny? People imagine colonialism as significantly different from all other types of empire building because it involves boats and a non-contiguous territory.

I get my history mostly from encyclopedias and textbooks through a lot of that has also been whitewashed so I take it with a grain of salt.

If you have another written history that isn't drenched in Islam, Asiatic isolationism, or the pure fiction of that new brand of Africanism I'm all ears.

As for "raping and pillaging" besides the Huns and the Khans. Europeans hold the record for the most global raping pillaging, spreading syphilis and smallpox to natives, genocide and all that.

Smallpox sure...syphilis went the other way unless I'm mistaken.

As for rape and pillage....do you imagine the multitude of tribes across Africa and the Americas holding to some modern ideal of consensual sex?

 

[BigDaddy4]

You just claimed you applied for a job and was informed by a hiring manager that you were not given the job because you are a white male. You can take that to court..

Ah, I see the problem. What I actually said was "someone involved in the hiring process" and you take that to mean the hiring manager. They are not necessarily the same, and weren't in my case. It is common in my experience to interview with other potential team members, not just the hiring manager. Both times it was one of these other persons, not the hiring manager, who informed me why I wasn't hired.

However, now you seem to be saying something slightly different, which I suspect is the situation you mentioned did not actually happen, you just felt it happened.

How about instead of these false "suspicions", you just respond to what is actually written and quit making false assumptions? Maybe you've never experienced racism, you just felt it happened???

 

[Ana the Ist]

I've finished this one. It's maybe a little too harsh on modern evangelicalism, but there are lots of really excellent historical details and quotes. A real stand-out example is black evangelical Tom Skinner's speech on "The U.S. Racial Crisis and World Evangelism" in 1970 to the Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship’s conference. I'd like to say it's ahead of its time, but perhaps the truth is that nothing has changed in 50 years. [Darn it, he uses the n-word. But video of the whole speech and a transcript is available online.]

Now, during this great upsurge in revolution and rebellion that has been going on, there have been great numbers of evangelical Christians who have joined the hoot and cry for "law and order."

But how do you explain "law and order" to a mother who stands at the foot of her bed watching her baby lie in a blood bath, when she knows that that baby would never have been bitten by the rat in the first place, and the rat would have never been in the building, if the landlord to whom she had been paying high rent had been providing the kind of service she deserved for the kind of rent she was paying?

How do you explain law and order to her when she knows the building code inspector, who represents the city administration, who is supposed to check out violations in buildings, came by that building the day before but was met at the front door by the landlord who palmed a hundred dollars in his hand, and the building code inspector kept going? Now that is lawlessness.

But the point is, we never arrest the landlord. We never lock up the building code inspector.

Make no bones about it: the difficulty in coming to grips with the evangelical message of Jesus Christ in the black community is the fact that most evangelicals in this country who say that Christ is the answer will also go back to their suburban communities and vote for law-and-order candidates who will keep the system the way it is.

So, if you are black and you live in the black community, you soon begin to learn that what they mean by law and order is, "all the order for us and all the law for them." You soon learn that the police in the black community become nothing more than the occupational force present in the black community for the purpose of maintaining the interests of white society.

...But on the opposite extreme was another coward. He was what I called the hyper-Christian. He called himself, and I quote, "a Bible-believing, fundamental, orthodox, conservative, evangelical Christian," whatever that meant. He had half a dozen Bible verses for every social problem that existed. But, if you asked him to get involved, he couldn't do it. If you went to him and told him about the problems of Harlem, he would come back with a typical cliché: "What those people up there need is a good dose of salvation." And while that might have been true, I never saw that cat in Harlem administering that dose.

If you went to him and told him about the social ills of Harlem, he would say, "Christ is the answer." Yes, Christ is the answer, but Christ has always been the answer through somebody.

..

Understand that for those of us who live in the black community, it was not the evangelical who came and taught us our worth and dignity as black men. It was not the Bible-believing fundamentalist who stood up and told us that black was beautiful. It was not the evangelical who preached to us that we should stand on our two feet and be men, be proud that black was beautiful and that God could work his life out through our redeemed blackness. Rather, it took Malcolm X, Stokely Carmichael, Rap Brown and the Brothers to declare to us our dignity.

..

But you see, the problem that we have is that we tend to think that truth can come only from those people we recognize to be anointed by God. That is the reason why when Martin Luther King came along and began to buck the system and began to do some things to help liberate black people, immediately we evangelicals wanted to know, "Is he born again? Does he preach the gospel?" Because you see, if we could just prove that Martin Luther King was not a Christian, if we could prove that he was not born again, if we could prove that he did not believe the Word of God, we could dismiss what he said. We could dismiss the truth.

Imagine a business that lies to its investors...sometimes it lies to some, sometimes it lies to others, but one investor it always lies to. That investor always gets told the same thing...this time we'll make sure the business benefits you. The investor says "you better...or I'll take my money elsewhere"....but they never do.

What is it going to take for that business to listen to that investor?

 

[rturner76]

Berbers.



You can replace "white-washed" with "fact-based" and this sentence would have the same meaning.



And Moors, Turks, Huns, Mongols, Berbers, Vikings, and so on....

I guess I can always use the old "they didn't see themselves as one people blah blah blah" answer.

I bet that sounds familiar.



You know what's funny? People imagine colonialism as significantly different from all other types of empire building because it involves boats and a non-contiguous territory.



If you have another written history that isn't drenched in Islam, Asiatic isolationism, or the pure fiction of that new brand of Africanism I'm all ears.



Smallpox sure...syphilis went the other way unless I'm mistaken.

As for rape and pillage....do you imagine the multitude of tribes across Africa and the Americas holding to some modern ideal of consensual sex?

I can't even.......alrighty then

 

[Ana the Ist]

I can't even.......alrighty then

Well rturner76....I've read a lot of history, and I studied political theory to the point of getting a degree in it. It may be called political science but since it's 48% history, 48% political/legal philosophy and about 4% statistical analysis...there's not much about it that can rightly be called science.

Given that, I can only assure you that I am more than willing to consider any interpretation of historical events in consideration of how they affect the present.

I am however, fully aware of historical revisionism and it's motives and shortcomings. It's not like Neo-Confederalism is the only attempt by a social group to reframe their past to protect their egos in the present. It's not.

There's also a tendency in history to focus on certain events and narratives at the exclusion of others...and while it's often wrong, it's not always wrong. Some events are more important than others in explaining how we got to the present.

So when someone like Hannah-Jones presents a "hot take" on history as she did in the 1619 Project....it's not as if I am unwilling to consider that there's some insights on events that were overlooked by other historians who downplayed their importance on history.

That's not really what the 1619 Project is though. The insights are few, mistakes are many, and certain events are overlooked completely while other events are given an oversized importance in explaining current events. In other aspects, it presents outright falsehoods and lies as truth.

I wasn't surprised then, when professional historians rather kindly pointed out these falsehoods, and they led to certain changes in the publication of the 1619 Project. Depending upon when you bought The 1619 Project will determine what story it tells.

That sort of change requires an explanation, don't you think? If it's just because she's a bad historian and made some mistakes...well fine. I can see such a thing still having some value as it presents it flawed but alternative perspective....but it probably shouldn't be taught.

So what exactly was the explanation? There wasn't one. She made changes and accused any legitimate critics as racist.

You can imagine my surprise then when I learned that she actually had a professional historian review her work before publishing and the historian had suggested that she not publish it because of the mistakes.

So let's be clear about what happened....

1. Hannah-Jones wrote a history that made certain claims that were definitely false.
2. She was made aware they were false before publishing.
3. She has since made corrections, but the explanation of these mistakes aren't very good.

She can't really claim that she didn't know that they were mistakes....she was told they were beforehand. She now claims that she didn't actually say what she said....and that's despite it's provably false....

1619 Project Author Nikole Hannah-Jones Now Says She Never Implied That Year Was America's True Founding

What can we conclude from this? That she's interested in history and has some unique insights that have been overlooked? Or is she more interested in reframing history in a way that she and others want to hear?

She knew she was wrong and she published anyway. She deliberately lied. She got called out....she made changes...and instead of acknowledging why she was wrong, why she lied, she just claimed that she never said the things we can prove she said.

When people who defended her start accusing other historians of "whitewashing history".....and people like yourself make the same accusation....how seriously should I or anyone with an ounce of sense take those claims?

Give me a historian who doesn't knowingly publish lies. Give me one who doesn't defend historians publishing lies. I've got no problem with a historian who can admit mistakes and correct them....but if they correct mistakes and then lie about ever making them....

I feel pretty confident this has little to do with history and more to do with ego.