Discussion in 'GatorNana's Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by Trickster, Jul 6, 2020.
Excellent point. Thanks for adding that.
The Europeans fought each other for control of the trade and access to Africa, even the Danes got in on the action. But Portugal, Spain, the English and the Dutch had the most naval power at the time.
They did both. There is a such thing as a “Timeline” where the catchers became the caught and roles changed. As stated repeatedly colonization changed a lot of those roles as footholds were established
you are correct. The vast majority of African slaves were enslaved by other Africans. For some reason some people on this thread want to ignore this. Also, only 5% of the African slaves came to the U.S. Most went to the Caribbean and South America.
I've got no horse in the "who enslaved more people of any color" debate.
What I do know is that is irrelevant to the what took place here starting in 1619 and the follow on effects that continue to this day.
People are ignoring what happened in Africa because it is 100% irrelevant to what we did (and do) in this country. Just as what happened in other slave holding countries is irrelevant to what we did and do in this country.
We are responsible for our behavior, which was unforgivably barbaric for hundreds of years, and to this day has major issues to resolve.
Our own President continues to actively fight in support of racism with his defense of Confederate monuments and the Confederate flag. Truly sick, disgusting shit on his part. But that's who he is.
And he's not the lone ranger. Looks like Ole Miss can't move a Confederate statue from a prime location without raising over a million dollars to build a shrine to it in its new location. Truly sick, disgusting shit on their part.
Mississippi students voted to move a Civil War statue. Now they fear a Confederate shrine
So you’ll change your name to “Willyjack1” ?
I believe the name would be TampaWilly, but I could go with Don'ttampawithmyWilly.
And it’s generally not White folks who own them.
Exactly my point. Europeans did not go inland to get the slaves. They stayed along the coasts. The slaves were brought to them (by non-European people). And it wasn't just the losers of wars that blacks sold into slavery--they would kidnap and sell as many members of a rival tribe as they could, which made it easier to take their lands, and maximized their profits from the transactions at the coast. The Europeans were still responsible for the slave trade, but it could not have happened in large numbers without the cooperation of non-European people in Africa.
During the exploration and colonial period, if you wanted Europeans to go through the jungle to get something, there better be gold out there (see: Cortes, Hernan and the Aztecs) and lots of it.
Ok, that's like saying the drug trade couldn't exist without Colombian peasants growing coca.
If there was no coca to process there wouldn't be anything to sell.....
That is true, but a better metaphor would be that the Colombian coca trade could not exist without the drug lords and the corrupt local governments that enable them. To your point, our demand is the prime mover of the drug trade. To his point, our demand is not the ONLY factor that sustains the drug trade. There is plenty of guilt to go around.
Ok that's all true, but without demand, there aren't drug cartels, and there isn't an Atlantic Slave trade. Without that, its just peasants growing coca and maybe processing coke to make ends meet, or African societies and kingdoms exchanging war captives. Anyways all of this misses the point, addressing justice on the legacy of slavery isn't about finding who to blame, its about making whole the people who were wronged, and no matter how you want to skin the cat, the people who were wronged were enslaved black Africans, and their ancestors in the New World, none of which participated willingly in their own enslavement.
If you don’t understand that the slave trade and the scramble to colonize Africa happened in two different periods of history, then you shouldn’t be so hellbent on emotionally inserting yourself into what should be a dispassionate, academic discussion. The truth about slavery and its history is already ugly enough. There’s no need to amplify some elements and minimize others to make a neater narrative.
The existence of slavery and its ugly history elsewhere does nothing to excuse or in any way justify the hundreds of years of horrific abuse of black Americans in this country.
We are supposed to be the shining light. A country founded on freedom, all men being created equal and having inalienable rights. A country that regularly proclaims its exceptional leadership of the free world.
Why do so many of our citizens take objection to asking that we take a little accountability and act like the leader we claim to be?
Much better to walk the walk than just talk the talk.
Well technically, Africa was colonized in the period of the slave trade. Dutch colonists arrived in South Africa in the 17th century. (And lets not even mention North Africa) But what you are saying is true, Europeans couldn't colonize West Africa until the invention of quinine, and until their military technology was revolutionized in the mid 19th century. The scramble for Africa was however made possible by the exploitation of the New World (quinine was native to Peru) and the economic revolution of capitalism.
Well struck, sir. I concede the field.
You act if I actually engaged other than for the sport of it. ‘TimelineS matter’