why do black ppl hate white ppl for slavery?

[KRDreJ]

I don't know if it has been discussed for sure it has but it hasn't been explained to me..


why hate the whiteman for slavery if it was black people that sold black people for slavery?


I hope I don't get hated on for this

[Oaktown_G]

You are seriously askin for it though.

[perongregory]

why mexicans want to take back the southwest when the mexican government encouraged Americans to move into Texas and other parts of the southwest for financial benefits?

Why does America hate Bin laden when he uses the training the CIA gave him and other moujahadeen to combat America?

Why do Indians hate the white man when other Indian tribes help fight against them?

Or better yet...

Why do you just hit your brother back when he hits you, but you wanna kill or kick the shit out of a random guy who hits you?

[TheReal]

I don't know if it has been discussed for sure it has but it hasn't been explained to me..


why hate the whiteman for slavery if it was black people that sold black people for slavery?


I hope I don't get hated on for this

*Just because black people sold other black people into slavery, doesn't mean that white folks had to purchase those slaves, and bring them to the americas, and enslave them, abuse them, as well as sell them!

It's like me saying that I ought not get mad at the drug dealer, and deal with the drug dealer, because ultimately he purchased his supply from some cartel. The logic really doesn't make sense.

Africans are to blame for selling their own people, and white folks who were involved, are to blame for purchasing and enslaving these africans, as well as selling these africans, once they got to the americas, amongst other things.

In other words, black africans dirty hands, don't make white folks hands clean...

[none for you]

HEY NOW...... I never had a slave (although I have had some sexy offers !!!) No one in my family has ever owned a slave ... My family is Euro immigrants that came to America after slavery was made illegal.. (I'd like to add here that many Chinese, Russian, Irish and other assorted Gypsy races who immigrated here were also forced to work for next to nothing, I.E., ENSLAVED....)

Now I dont know what the big deal is because i see people ( of all races) sell themselves in all sorts of manners... from prostitutes to the proletariat whoredom.... it doesnt really matter...

as long as you are making someone else rich and settle for means which force you to live beneath your desired standard.. you are enslaved.

so blackman, put your race card away for now.

[perongregory]

how is that the race card? White people from many of Europe's famous western nations (at least at that time), owned majority black slaves. Not just anglos from England, who treated fellow white indentured servants, and other whites bad in America. Spain, Portugal, France, etc. all had majority black slaves. Now, why is that? Why couldn't it be a mix of different races from everywhere? Or, why couldn't half the slave pop. be white, and the other half black? Why? What about Jim Crow? Why is all that shit was relegated solely to blacks. I know why. Because they are black. Simple. Can't change the truth to anything else. Especially anything that would suit that pathetic, limp wristed political catch phrase: "the race card".

[ManifestTruth]

Arguably the biggest African slave traders/dealers were the Ashanti people of Ghana. Some African kings, warlords, generals, et al got into
the slave market years after it began. Whites werent just casually sailing
the West African coast(that would be Senegal, Sierre Leone, Ghana, Ivory Coast to name 'round 1/2) and some Africans sent smoke signals saying
"Niggers" for sale.

'Round the mid 1400's, European nations(England, France, Spain, Netherlands), spearheaded by Portugal, decided to converge on Africa in the form of a mighty fleet of ships. Africa had been weekend by decades of wars(some civil, some tribal, some inter-nation) and decided it was high time to "bumrush". This resulted in the Transatlantic Slave Trade, my friends. LOOK THIS SHIT THE F*CK UP IF YOU DONT BELIEVE IT.

Author Message
perongregory Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 7:11 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

how is that the race card? White people from many of Europe's famous western nations (at least at that time), owned majority black slaves. Not just anglos from England, who treated fellow white indentured servants, and other whites bad in America. Spain, Portugal, France, etc. all had majority black slaves. Now, why is that? Why couldn't it be a mix of different races from everywhere? Or, why couldn't half the slave pop. be white, and the other half black? Why? What about Jim Crow? Why is all that shit was relegated solely to blacks. I know why. Because they are black. Simple. Can't change the truth to anything else. Especially anything that would suit that pathetic, limp wristed political catch phrase: "the race card".


88reasonswhy said:
"My family is Euro immigrants that came to America after slavery was made illegal."

Be more specific. Which Euro nation(how you fare in this nation has plenty to do with the relationship your native land shares with the US).
Also, they came right after slavery?? So, you're people been here since
the 1870's?? What generation Euro American are you??

88 also said:
"so blackman, put your race card away for now."
HUH?? close to 400 yrs of slavery made this country filthy f*ckin rich! I
would say it's more of an ECONOMIC CARD at this point. Blacks had a huge hand in settling the west, establishing California(4 of the first 12 residents were black(came from Mexico), fighting in every major/minor
war and I'm just scratching the surface. GIVE US SOME MOFOCKIN CREDIT and maybe, just maybe we'll quiet down on some of the more historical matters.

KRDreJ wrote:
I don't know if it has been discussed for sure it has but it hasn't been explained to me..


why hate the whiteman for slavery if it was black people that sold black people for slavery?


I hope I don't get hated on for this

HATED ON?? Nah, that would be a waste of intellectual energy. You need to be enlightened. Where'd you get this info from. The movie "Amistad"?
Pretty much everyone got in on the act once it was realized how lucrative
the slave trade was. FOR THE RECORD, and hopefully I'm speaking for a wide spectrum of black folks, the distrust, perceived hatred is more a result of taking our language, our culture, our history, and our names.
Basically, rendering us bastard children to every nation on earth. You can
understand why some animosity exists, right?? What's more, it's not like
whites' have mad love for us...

[boston312]

I once had a political conversation with a girl from my University who was an African-American History Major. She told me that white people operated and enforced the whole African Slave trade to the New World without the assistance of Africans. I told her that Africans participated in the Slave trade and sold millions of their own people into slavery. She looked at me like a deer in headlights when I told her this. None of her Afrocentric teachers ever informed her of this major element in the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade.

She thought that European Colonial powers actually went into the interior of the Gold and Ivory coasts to capture Africans for Slavery. History shows us, it is very difficult (not impossible) for an outside power to come into indiginious lands and enslave the local people (since the locals are accustomed to the lands). This was the main reason why Anglo-Saxon settlers could not enslave the Native Indians in this country (via Seminols, Apaches, Navajo, etc).

The African Slave Trade would not be possible or not very effective without the help of local Africans who rounded up Prisoners from enemy tribes and sold them into slavery for the European's guns.

This girl also said that the Slave Trade started out as a Racist European ideology. This was not true neither, Slavery was seen as a financial business for most slave owners. Many slaves were treated as a piece of property. Slave Owners invested a lot of money to purchase a slave and had to ensure the slave's safety. If the slave passed away or died, the Slave owner was out of his money and investment. Of course you had the foul treatment and massive rape during this time (definetely a violation of rights) but the main purpose/ideology of the slave trade was based off of money and not racism (although racist acts did occur).

Before African slaves did the field work, you had Irish Indentured Servants who were contracted for 5-7 years to pay off their voyages to the New World. They were enslaved to the owners of the fields untill they payed off their debts. Again, the idea behind this was not racism but financial.

The racism towards African-Americans started around the Reconstruction Era. After Slavery, the northerners tried to give Blacks positions of power (through the Government), their own schools, and other benefits. The Jim Crow laws and the Klu Klux Klan started around this time to counter the Reconstruction programs. You had a lot of racism during this period because many racist whites did not want to segregate.

I think in a lot of ways Afrocentricity can be just as harmful as Eurocentricity because it only focuses on one side. How can you have a Bachelors in African-American History and not even be aware of the fact that Africans sold other Africans into slavery?

Its as bad as the Eurocentric claim that Christopher Colombus discovered America. In order for this to be true you have to classify the Native Indians as subhuman or ignore their existence. Eurocentricity also has other faults such as leaving out huge portions of American history as well. In public schools I was taught in History class that the white man took away lands from the Indians and they established their own settlements. One major part that they left out is that they wiped out 90% off the Indian population (genocide) during their Manifest Destiny crusade.

I think, that in order to be an affective Historian scholar you need to get various sides of a historic event. History is brutal, racist and ugly. Because of these reasons there are a lot of propaganda interests involved.

['X']

I told her that Africans participated in the Slave trade and sold millions of their own people into slavery.

Millions???


Where are some of you getting your so-called facts from? Do some of you REALLY believe this BS information some of you are putting on here pertaining to the slave trade??

[boston312]

I told her that Africans participated in the Slave trade and sold millions of their own people into slavery.

Millions???


Where are some of you getting your so-called facts from? Do some of you REALLY believe this BS information some of you are putting on here pertaining to the slave trade??

Mr X, my stats are as follows:

During the African Slave Trade from 1500-1800

Brazil received 2,100,000 African Slaves

The West Indies (including Central America) received 3,800,000 Slaves which included 400,000 slaves for North America.

If you add up the stats, the total number comes to 5,900,000 slaves imported from Africa to the New World during the 1500-1800 centuries

The book I received these stats from

"The Earth and its People"
A Global History
Volume II: Since 1500
Copyright 1997 by Houghton Mifflin Company

Feel free to post any statistics that would contradict the above statistics

[perongregory]

The single most effective White propaganda assertion that continues to make it very difficult for us to reconstruct the African social systems of mutual trust broken down by U.S. Slavery is the statement, unqualified, that, "We sold each other into slavery." Most of us have accepted this statement as true at its face value. It implies that parents sold their children into slavery to Whites, husbands sold their wives, even brothers and sisters selling each other to the Whites. It continues to perpetuate a particularly sinister effluvium of Black character. But deep down in the Black gut, somewhere beneath all the barbecue ribs, gin and whitewashed religions, we know that we are not like this.

This singular short tart claim, that "We sold each other into slavery", has maintained in a state of continual flux our historical basis for Black-on-Black self love and mutual cooperation at the level of Class. Even if it is true (without further clarification) that we sold each other into slavery, this should not absolve Whites of their responsibility in our subjugation. We will deal with Africa if need be.

The period from the beginning of the TransAtlantic African Slave so-called Trade (1500) to the demarcation of Africa into colonies in the late 1800s is one of the most documented periods in World History. Yet, with the exception of the renegade African slave raider Tippu Tip of the Congo (Muslim name, Hamed bin Muhammad bin Juna al-Marjebi) who was collaborating with the White Arabs (also called Red Arabs) there is little documentation of independent African slave raiding. By independent is meant that there were no credible threats, intoxicants or use of force by Whites to force or deceive the African into slave raiding or slave trading and that the raider himself was not enslaved to Whites at the time of slave raiding or "trading". Trade implies human-to-human mutuality without force. This was certainly not the general scenario for the TransAtlantic so-called Trade in African slaves. Indeed, it was the Portuguese who initiated the European phase of slave raiding in Africa by attacking a sleeping village in 1444 and carting away the survivors to work for free in Europe.

Even the case of Tippu Tip may well fall into a category that we might call the consequences of forced cultural assimilation via White (or Red) Arab Conquest over Africa. Tippu Tip s father was a White (or Red) Arab slave raider, his mother an unmixed African slave. Tip was born out of violence, the rape of an African woman. It is said that Tip, a "mulatto", was merciless to Africans.

The first act against Africa by Whites was an unilateral act of war, announced or unannounced. There were no African Kings or Queens in any of the European countries nor in the U.S. when ships set sail for Africa to capture slaves for profit. Whites had already decided to raid for slaves. They didn't need our agreement on that. Hence, there was no mutuality in the original act. The African so-called slave "trade" was a demand-driven market out of Europe and America, not a supply-driven market out of Africa. We did not seek to sell captives to the Whites as an original act. Hollywood s favorite is showing Blacks capturing Blacks into slavery, as if this was the only way capture occurred. There are a number of ways in which capture occurred. Let s dig a little deeper into this issue.

Chancellor Williams, in his classic work, The Destruction of Black Civilization, explains that after the over land passage of African trade had been cut off at the Nile Delta by the White Arabs in about 1675 B.C. (the Hyksos), the Egyptian/African economy was thrown into a recession. There is even indication of "pre-historic" aggression upon Africa by White nomadic tribes (the Palermo Stone). As recession set in the African Government began selling African prisoners of war and criminals on death row to the White Arabs. This culminated as an unfortunate trade, in that, when the White Arabs attacked, they had the benefit of the knowledge and strength of Africans on their side, as their slaves. This is a significantly different picture than the propaganda that we sold our immediate family members into slavery to the Whites.

In reality, slavery is an human institution. Every ethnic group has sold members of the same ethnic group into slavery. It becomes a kind of racism; that, while all ethnic groups have sold its own ethnic group into slavery, Blacks can't do it. When Eastern Europeans fight each other it is not called tribalism. Ethnic cleansing is intended to make what is happening to sound more sanitary. What it really is, is White Tribalism pure and simple.

The fact of African resistance to European Imperialism and Colonialism is not well known, though it is well documented. Read, for instance, Michael Crowder (ed.), West African Resistance, Africana Publishing Corporation, New York, 1971. Europeans entered Africa in the mid 1400 s and early 1500 s during a time of socio-political transition. Europeans chose a favorite side to win between African nations at a war and supplied that side with guns, a superior war instrument. In its victory, the African side with guns rounded up captives of war who were sold to the Europeans in exchange for more guns or other barter. Whites used these captives in their own slave raids. These captives often held pre-existing grudges against groups they were ordered to raid, having formerly been sold into slavery themselves by these same groups as captives in inter-African territorial wars. In investigating our history and capture, a much more completed picture emerges than simply that we sold each other into slavery.

The Ashanti, who resisted British Imperialism in a Hundred Years War, sold their African captives of war and criminals to other Europeans, the Portuguese, Spanish, French, in order to buy guns to maintain their military resistance against British Imperialism (Michael Crowder, ed., West African Resistance).

Eric A. Walker, in A History of Southern Africa, Longmans, London, 1724, chronicles the manner in which the Dutch entered South Africa at the Cape of Good Hope. Van Riebeeck anchored at the Cape with his ships in 1652 during a time that the indigenous Khoi Khoi or Khoisan (derogatorily called Hottentots) were away hunting. The fact of their absence is the basis of the White "claim" to the land. But there had been a previous encounter with the Khoi Khoi at the Cape in 1510 with the Portuguese Ship Almeida. States Eric A. Walker, "Affonso de Albuquerque was a conscious imperialist whose aim was to found self-sufficing colonies and extend Portuguese authority in the East&He landed in Table Bay, and as it is always the character of the Portuguese to endeavor to rob the poor natives of the country, a quarrel arose with the Hottentots, who slew him and many of his companions as they struggled towards their boats through the heavy sand of Salt River beach." (Ibid. p. 17). Bartholomew Diaz had experienced similar difficulties with the indigenous Xhosa of South Africa in 1487, on his way to "discovering" a "new" trade route to the East. The conflict ensued over a Xhosa disagreement over the price Diaz wanted to pay for their cattle. The Xhosa had initially come out meet the Whites, playing their flutes and performing traditional dance.

In 1652, knowing that the indigenous South Africans were no pushovers, Van Riebeeck didn't waste any time. As soon as the Khoi Khoi returned from hunting, Van Riebeeck accused them of stealing Dutch cattle. Simply over that assertion, war broke out, and the superior arms of the Dutch won. South African Historian J. Congress Mbata best explains this dynamic in his lectures, available at the Cornell University Africana Studies Department. Mbata provides three steps: 1) provocation by the Whites, 2) warfare and, 3) the success of a superior war machinery.

There are several instances in which Cecil Rhodes, towards the end of the 19th Century, simply demonstrated the superiority of the Maxim Machine Gun by mowing down a corn field in a matter of minutes. Upon such demonstrations the King and Queen of the village, after consulting the elders, signed over their land to the Whites. These scenarios are quite different from the Hollywood version, and well documented.

It has been important to present the matters above to dispel the notion of an African slave trade that involved mutuality as a generalized dynamic on the part of Africans. If we can accept the documented facts of our history above and beyond propaganda, we can begin to heal. We can begin to love one another again and go on to regain our liberties on Earth.

[Young Nile]

I don't know if it has been discussed for sure it has but it hasn't been explained to me..


why hate the whiteman for slavery if it was black people that sold black people for slavery?


I hope I don't get hated on for this

OK you have a ligit question. However its one thing to own slaves yet its another thing to treat the slaves as the White slave owners of the United States. Out of all the places around the world that Black African slaves were sent to the Blacks that came to the USA were treated the worse. The Black slaves were Breeded, tortuered, Hung, and the list goes on. And to be a little more exact Blacks dislike white more for the discrimanation after the emancipation by Lincoln. Once the Blacks were set free then a whole new terror campaign against the former slaves begun. Blacks are bitter about being bound into slavery however Blacks are just plain made about the treatment by Whites after slavery.....

Shi*....Homie if we was made about slavery in the content that you speakin on we would be more made at the Portuguese and the Spaniards. They were the biggest profiters from the Atlantic slave route....

[boston312]

Actually, the Island of Hispanola (specifically Haiti) has been recorded for the worst treatment and tormenture of African Slaves. The French were notorious for outdoing other European Slave colonies when it came to the treatment of their slaves.

Another issue I wanted to bring up was the "reputation" of African Americans as a victimized or hostile people. During my travels worldwide I met many blacks in the Caribbean and even some Africans who thought that African Americans were extremely hostile and always portrayed themselves as helpless victims. Many of these blacks were quick to separate themselves from African-Americans when they come to the United States out of fear for negative stereotype labeling.

One thing that needs to be pointed out is that blacks in this country (United States) are only 10% of the population compared to 70% for whites. Im sure it is a lot more difficult to undergo 3 centuries of slavery and then be at the bottom of the barrel as a minority (financially, politically, etc). At the same time, the white race takes up the overwhelming majority of the population and political power.

Blacks in the Caribbean dont have to undergo this process since they dominate the population and politics of their respective countries. Also in Latin America (where blacks might be the minority) you have a lot of Indiginous people who make up the majority of these countries. Again the blacks there dont have to live under the authority of European blood like they do here.

In a way I can see where a lot of the frustration and anger still exists in the African-American community.

[TheReal]

Actually, the Island of Hispanola (specifically Haiti) has been recorded for the worst treatment and tormenture of African Slaves. The French were notorious for outdoing other European Slave colonies when it came to the treatment of their slaves.

Another issue I wanted to bring up was the "reputation" of African Americans as a victimized or hostile people. During my travels worldwide I met many blacks in the Caribbean and even some Africans who thought that African Americans were extremely hostile and always portrayed themselves as helpless victims. Many of these blacks were quick to separate themselves from African-Americans when they come to the United States out of fear for negative stereotype labeling.

One thing that needs to be pointed out is that blacks in this country (United States) are only 10% of the population compared to 70% for whites. Im sure it is a lot more difficult to undergo 3 centuries of slavery and then be at the bottom of the barrel as a minority (financially, politically, etc). At the same time, the white race takes up the overwhelming majority of the population and political power.

Blacks in the Caribbean dont have to undergo this process since they dominate the population and politics of their respective countries. Also in Latin America (where blacks might be the minority) you have a lot of Indiginous people who make up the majority of these countries. Again the blacks there dont have to live under the authority of European blood like they do here.

In a way I can see where a lot of the frustration and anger still exists in the African-American community.

*You're right about caribbean black folks, as well as african blacks from the continent, having different perceptions, for the most part, when it comes to the black/white dynamics, outside of their past colonial experiences, and present neo-colonialist experiences. Blacks from outside of this country, where they are in the majority, have what is called an "immigrant" mindset. Meaning, they view this land, as a land of opportunity, based on where they originated from, whereas black people, since the ending of slavery, probably up until 40 to 35 years ago, was solidly, and overtly blocked, in a collective sense (because let's face it, you will always have those that will sneak through, and beat the odds), from educational, political and economic equality, because of their race!

This stigma and/or perception, in the psyches of black folks, will not just evaporate into thin air, regardless of what other factors you display. Not only that, many of those foreign born black folks, who are new arrivals to this country, post the civil rights movement, didn't have relatives who are still alive-that experienced the days of jim-crow laws and segregation, and other extreme forms of racism and discrimination that the overwhelming majority of african-americans had to face back in the day. As matter of fact, because of black folks struggles, where they shedded their blood, sweat and tears, to gain certain victories, that secured their rights-these new black immigrants to this country, now find this land more opportunity ridden, and less racist, because of the struggles WE as african-americans have put forth.

Remember, black folks and white folks, have a unique history in this country, with one another, that has been greatly adversarial, for much of the history, whereas black folks from other lands, as well as white folks from this land, don't have that same history with one another.

This is why I'm always hearing a foreign born black person tell me, that white folks in this country, are always telling them how they are much better than african-americans, and that african-americans are lazy, criminal minded, and the like, whereas the foreign black folks are "cool" in their eyes. I've actually had foreign born black folks tell me this!

Moreover, many white folks who say this are hypocritical, or should I say that foreign born black folks, especially african born black folks, oughtn't really find any comfort in such statements by these white folks, seeing as how many of these same white folks who pump them up, and place them on a pedestal over their black brothers and sisters in this country, will turn around and call black africans, from africa-savage and uncivilized! Many of them will point to african nations, and their third world conditions, as signs of a people who are genetically incapable of maintaining a stable society, and will link the black africans genetic make-up, to blacks in this country, therefore explaining away why black folks in this country are in such dire straits: BECAUSE OF THEIR SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN GENES!

So the shit is like a vicious cycle and merry go round. Blacks in this country, because of the media, and other reasons, whether it be justified, or unjustified, will say that they have nothing to do with afirican, or african people; whereas black africans will say that they have nothing to do with african-americans, and that african-americans, aren't truly "african" anyway, etc. GET THE PICTURE!

And as far as the slavery issue, let's not forget that europeans may have purchased the sub-saharan african slaves, from other africans, but that still doesn't exonerate those white folks who participated in the slave trade, and those that have benefited from the slave trade, once those slaves arrived in the americas.

Europeans did indeed have slave trading companies, set up in africa, and throughout the americas. Why? BECAUSE SLAVERY WAS BIG BUSINESS! And yes, one can easily say that slavery originally began as strictly an economic thing in this country, HOWEVER, as the years progressed, and certain social orders were codified and established-THE SLAVERY THAT EXISTED INITIALLY AS AN ECONOMIC THING SOLELY, BEGAN TO TAKE UPON ITSELF, RACIAL OVERTONES!

[ManifestTruth]

TheReal, PeronGregory, and Boston312:

Excellent points and highly informative discourse on this topic. Keep it coming!

PEACE

[Tre]

In Thailand today you have parents selling their kids .. young boys being sold as sex slaves to rich European Businessmen for money. You are going to have individuals that are in the business of selling whatever to making money .. even their own race. That's a given 88reasonswhy! But what if your government decides it wants to get into the business of selling young boys in Thailand. Your government has decided there's a market for it, in fact it's thinking about filling that market by bringing little boys here. Are you telling me you wouldn't feel a sense of rage .. anger over that?

Yes, many groups have been exploited to some degree by another. But what made the black slave trade so horrific, wasn't just the concept of slavery. It was the concept of what Europeans introduced, the selling of human beings as an enterprise. Never before in the history of this world, were people of one group captured, chained, sold and forced to a different part of the world to build the prosperity of another race of people. Millions of Africans were systematically striped of their culture, religion, God. An enterprise fully financed and backed by this government. It's like TheReal said there would be no need for africans to sell to Europeans, if Europeans had not made it profitable to steal, buy, and sell us to them. They (the Europeans) institutionalized slavery and made it big business!

Let me put it on a more personal level for you. Lets say your mom was raped and killed. And lets say the perpetrator was caught. As a human being it would be fucked up for me to tell you to just get over it. Trivialize what happened to your mom by downplaying it, or giving you statistics of other family members that was involved in the same crime.. WTF? You would probably tell me to fuck off!! Now magnify this a thousand times .. you have a whole group .. segment of society that's had no closure regarding slavery. This is not just for blacks folks. You have a whole segment of white folks that feel guilty as hell about it too. Otherwise they would not keep jumpin on here defending that shit. What's there to defend??

All black people don't hate all white people for slavery KRDreJ, that would be ignorant! Usually when we talk about white people in regard to slavery we are specifically talking about those in power. Specifically the government that sponsored, financed and backed the exploitation of our people for profit. It's funny, when we seek closure and ask the government for an apology, reparations, whatever. The very same people that say they had nothing to do with slavery will come to the governments defense. It's like you going to the perpetrator, the individual that killed your mother .. but the family keeps jumping in defending his actions even after they've told you that they're not personally responsible. After awhile KRDreJ you start seeing them as part of the problem!

To boston312.. Stop coming on here trying to defend, justify slavery. lol. What's wrong with you?

[perongregory]

great post Tre. It is funny that people who say they and their family were never apart of the institution of slavery, always speak on it. The government has a duty to address the problems it helped create or let happen. Not you, the government. And I don't want to here anything about tax money from you, because innocent blacks have helped to pay for other groups reparations and injuries if tax money is the case.

[boston312]

In Thailand today you have parents selling their kids .. young boys being sold as sex slaves to rich European Businessmen for money. You are going to have individuals that are in the business of selling whatever to making money .. even their own race. That's a given 88reasonswhy! But what if your government decides it wants to get into the business of selling young boys in Thailand. Your government has decided there's a market for it, in fact it's thinking about filling that market by bringing little boys here. Are you telling me you wouldn't feel a sense of rage .. anger over that?

Yes, many groups have been exploited to some degree by another. But what made the black slave trade so horrific, wasn't just the concept of slavery. It was the concept of what Europeans introduced, the selling of human beings as an enterprise. Never before in the history of this world, were people of one group captured, chained, sold and forced to a different part of the world to build the prosperity of another race of people. Millions of Africans were systematically striped of their culture, religion, God. An enterprise fully financed and backed by this government. It's like TheReal said there would be no need for africans to sell to Europeans, if Europeans had not made it profitable to steal, buy, and sell us to them. They (the Europeans) institutionalized slavery and made it big business!

Let me put it on a more personal level for you. Lets say your mom was raped and killed. And lets say the perpetrator was caught. As a human being it would be #%@& up for me to tell you to just get over it. Trivialize what happened to your mom by downplaying it, or giving you statistics of other family members that was involved in the same crime.. WTF? You would probably tell me to fu-- off!! Now magnify this a thousand times .. you have a whole group .. segment of society that's had no closure regarding slavery. This is not just for blacks folks. You have a whole segment of white folks that feel guilty as hell about it too. Otherwise they would not keep jumpin on here defending that shit. What's there to defend??

All black people don't hate all white people for slavery KRDreJ, that would be ignorant! Usually when we talk about white people in regard to slavery we are specifically talking about those in power. Specifically the government that sponsored, financed and backed the exploitation of our people for profit. It's funny, when we seek closure and ask the government for an apology, reparations, whatever. The very same people that say they had nothing to do with slavery will come to the governments defense. It's like you going to the perpetrator, the individual that killed your mother .. but the family keeps jumping in defending his actions even after they've told you that they're not personally responsible. After awhile KRDreJ you start seeing them as part of the problem!

To boston312.. Stop coming on here trying to defend, justify slavery. lol. What's wrong with you?

Exactly where did I defend or justify slavery? All I said is that Afrocentricity spits out the same inaccurate information that Eurocentrcity does. No one in here is justifying or defending slavery.

[bayarearep]

Actually, the Island of Hispanola (specifically Haiti) has been recorded for the worst treatment and tormenture of African Slaves. The French were notorious for outdoing other European Slave colonies when it came to the treatment of their slaves.

Another issue I wanted to bring up was the "reputation" of African Americans as a victimized or hostile people. During my travels worldwide I met many blacks in the Caribbean and even some Africans who thought that African Americans were extremely hostile and always portrayed themselves as helpless victims. Many of these blacks were quick to separate themselves from African-Americans when they come to the United States out of fear for negative stereotype labeling.

One thing that needs to be pointed out is that blacks in this country (United States) are only 10% of the population compared to 70% for whites. Im sure it is a lot more difficult to undergo 3 centuries of slavery and then be at the bottom of the barrel as a minority (financially, politically, etc). At the same time, the white race takes up the overwhelming majority of the population and political power.

Blacks in the Caribbean dont have to undergo this process since they dominate the population and politics of their respective countries. Also in Latin America (where blacks might be the minority) you have a lot of Indiginous people who make up the majority of these countries. Again the blacks there dont have to live under the authority of European blood like they do here.

In a way I can see where a lot of the frustration and anger still exists in the African-American community.

not just to the slaves...to their people as well

the french have been known for torture for a longgggg time

[none for you]

I don't know if it has been discussed for sure it has but it hasn't been explained to me..


why hate the whiteman for slavery if it was black people that sold black people for slavery?


I hope I don't get hated on for this

OK you have a ligit question. However its one thing to own slaves yet its another thing to treat the slaves as the White slave owners of the United States. Out of all the places around the world that Black African slaves were sent to the Blacks that came to the USA were treated the worse. The Black slaves were Breeded, tortuered, Hung, and the list goes on. And to be a little more exact Blacks dislike white more for the discrimanation after the emancipation by Lincoln. Once the Blacks were set free then a whole new terror campaign against the former slaves begun. Blacks are bitter about being bound into slavery however Blacks are just plain made about the treatment by Whites after slavery.....

Shi*....Homie if we was made about slavery in the content that you speakin on we would be more made at the Portuguese and the Spaniards. They were the biggest profiters from the Atlantic slave route....

some of the WHITE slave owners were very good to their slaves.. look at Thomas Jefferson!

[Cold Bear]

This 'good' treatment still included unequal rights and forced servitude. How can you call it good treatment with a straight face, unless you think that a man should have the right to treat another man as a piece of property, that one man has any right to NOT treat another man as anything less than an equal. Many times the laws defending slaves, such as the one that states that no man should beat a slave except for that slave's master, was just an act of defending a piece of property. This 'good treatment' talk, unless it is in sarcasm, has no place in an honest discussion about slavery.

[streetsIswatchin]

Slavery accounted for a large percentage of Americas financial base back in those times. Does anyone know if any american companies were involved in slavery? I know that most slaves were owned by private parties, like just families that owned a cotton field and needed slaves to pick the cotton. That would be interesting to know.

[Anonymous20]

Slavery accounted for a large percentage of Americas financial base back in those times. Does anyone know if any american companies were involved in slavery? I know that most slaves were owned by private parties, like just families that owned a cotton field and needed slaves to pick the cotton. That would be interesting to know.

The five companies are the financials Chase Manhattan and FleetBoston Financial group, and three insurance companies, New York Life, Aetna and AIG. However, an avalanche could follow suit, including foreign companies which have (even unknowingly) bought positions in US companies involved in slavery before the Civil War.

Previous attempts to take the Federal Government to court over the same issue failed but this is the first time that firms have been sued. The evidence being used by the plaintiffs are documents which point towards the actual purchase of slaves, financing slave purchase, insuring ships in which slaves were transported, selling products used by slave labour, and profiting from the slave trade.

Harvard Law Professor Charles Ogletree and author and human rights activist, Randall Robinson, are leading the movement, called Reparations Coordination Committee. They have joined some of America’s most brilliant barristers behind the cause.

However, their cause will be difficult to present: all the people involved are now dead, slavery was not illegal at the time of the acts being brought before the court, and normally, cases of crimes not resolved after 30 years are considered closed.

The position of AIG is typical of a company against which the accusations are extremely tenuous: It was founded in 1948, but is involved in the process because it bought American General in August, 2001, which in turn had bought US Life Insurance in 1997. This company was involved in business which included acts connected with the slave trade.

['X']

Does anyone know if any american companies were involved in slavery?

Alot of americas biggest companies profited off of slavery.

[ManifestTruth]

One of the reasons several Ivy League institutions, notably Yale, Harvard, and Princeton, are offering full scholarships to gifted students from low income families.

Didnt one of the leading financial institutions(JP Morgan) admit to reaping profits from slavery? Trying to research this but have yet to unearth anything..

[perongregory]

Yeah, I read an article about the JP morgan thing.

['X']

One of the reasons several Ivy League institutions, notably Yale, Harvard, and Princeton, are offering full scholarships to gifted students from low income families.

True...

Didnt one of the leading financial institutions(JP Morgan) admit to reaping profits from slavery? Trying to research this but have yet to unearth anything..

JPMorgan Chase & Co. admits link to slavery
By Makebra Anderson


WASHINGTON - A 2003 Slavery Era Disclosure Ordinance that requires companies doing business with the city of Chicago to disclose whether they had profited from slavery forced JPMorgan Chase & Co. to acknowledge that its roots are linked to the 19th century slave trade and it profited from the free labor of more than 13,000 Africans.

“Recently, JPMorgan Chase completed extensive research examining our company’s history for any links to slavery to meet a commitment to the city of Chicago. Today, we are reporting that this research found that, between 1831 and 1865, two of our predecessor banks—Citizens Bank and Canal Bank in Louisiana—accepted approximately 13,000 enslaved individuals as collateral on loans and took ownership of approximately 1,250 of them when the plantation owners defaulted on the loans,” the company wrote in statement.

Public records in Louisiana indicate that Citizens Bank and Canal Bank—which eventually became Bank One—merged with JPMorgan Chase in 2004. It provided credit to plantation owners and accepted mortgages from them. Records also indicate that both banks often initiated foreclosure on mortgages and took over the property, which usually included enslaved Blacks.

Chicago City Alderwoman Dorothy Tillman proposed the ordinance.

“It’s [reparations] much more than businesses acknowledging they received profits from slavery. This is about Black labor and White wealth. Wealth was passed down to Whites and poverty was passed down to Blacks,” said Ald. Tillman. “JPMorgan was ordered to disclose any information regarding their ties to the slave trade and, at first, they lied about it. When we found out they lied, we demanded they do a thorough search of their records and apologize,” she explains.

The ordinance, which was passed by the Chicago City Council Finance and Human Relations committees, requires record searches of banks, agriculture industries, railroads, textile manufactures and others. According to Ms. Tillman, the ordinance wasn’t designed to bar companies that have links to slavery from doing business with the city, but was designed to get information for possible reparations lawsuits in the future.

“We want our community to mobilize and organize so we can hold the government and businesses accountable. Financial institutions wouldn’t be anything without the backs of Black people,” she explains. “We are using all of this information to evaluate the impact on the Black community. We are gathering information so we can make a case for reparations in the future.”

JPMorgan Chase apologized to the American public and especially to African Americans in a letter to its employees. They have also agreed to establish a $5 million college scholarship program called “Smart Start Louisiana,” but reparations activists say that is not enough.

“The scholarship fund is an insult,” says Viola Plummer, national co-chair of Million for Reparations. “If they are trying to repair the educational system as they claim, we’re saying rebuild the system from pre-school through college. They need to rebuild the infrastructure and the curriculum. Every student in Louisiana should be able to attend school for free from pre-school to Ph.D.”

**According to lawsuits filed on behalf of all slave descendants against other companies, such as financial institution FleetBoston, insurance companies Aetna and New York Life, railroads Norfolk Southern, Union Pacific and CSX, tobacco companies R.J. Reynolds and Brown & Williamson, and a textile manufacturer WestPoint Stevens, all have ties to slavery.


Ms. Plummer says the reparations movement will continue to pursue JPMorgan and other companies that have profited from the free labor of enslaved Blacks.

“Reparations are, in fact, owed to those descendants of slaves, but JPMorgan can’t admit to committing a crime against humanity and suggest how they will remedy the crime,” she says. “Ultimately, the federal government must take the responsibility. Corporations absolutely, because they benefited economically, but the government because they benefited form the labor. Reparations are due on our terms.”

The ordinance in Chicago is credited with being the first law that makes companies admit their history in slavery and because of the law’s success, other states, including New York, are considering similar regulations.

“I have legislation in the city calling for disclosure,” explains New York City Council member Bill Perkins (D-N.Y.) “New York has a substantial history of slavery and this legislation will be a giant step to getting the truth out.”

Mr. Perkins says that it’s time for America to hold itself accountable for the wrong they’ve done to the African American community.

“The money will never be enough,” he said. “How do you put a price on the kind of abuse and exploitation that was imposed on slaves and our people?”

[ManifestTruth]

X, good look with the data, fam..

..It's the truth we want 'cause it's the truth we need!

['X']

X, good look with the data, fam..

Yes sir...

..It's the truth we want 'cause it's the truth we need!

That's right!

[se11]

noboody has answered this guys question at all or disagreed with it. it hasnt even been addressed. this thread has just become another history lesson with everybody filling in their 2 cents but no answer.

[Anonymous20]

look again, your question WAS answered

[ManifestTruth]

se11 said:

"noboody has answered this guys question at all or disagreed with it. it hasnt even been addressed. this thread has just become another history lesson with everybody filling in their 2 cents but no answer."

what guys question?? there was several "questions" on here, all of which
were/are being answered. one question was, why do black folk hate white folk for slavery. is that a question really worth answering?? ask yourself,
bruh.. another was, which companies profited from slavery. again, that has been answered. what you sayin', man?