Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your lack of understanding doesn't mean my example doesn't hold weight. You were talking about the slave trade in AFRICA. Not to mention, Blacks owning slaves in the South was very different than Whites owning slaves. While there is evidence that a VERY tiny percentage of free Blacks owned slaves, we do not know in which capacity. Evidence suggests that Blacks that owned slaves did not exactly hire them, but merely lodged them. Thus, they were only slaves in name.
In Africa, the term slave was not applied in the sense of property as Europeans only knew it, but also as a caste. Thus there were people integrated into the society that were a part of the slave caste. They technically were free, but due to previous generations of coming from a lower tribe, they were not able to rise socially.
It's very confusing since this depends from location to location.
Again, if the nuances escape you I suggest reading up more before posting.
Your lack of understanding doesn't mean my example doesn't hold weight. You were talking about the slave trade in AFRICA. Not to mention, Blacks owning slaves in the South was very different than Whites owning slaves. While there is evidence that a VERY tiny percentage of free Blacks owned slaves, we do not know in which capacity. Evidence suggests that Blacks that owned slaves did not exactly hire them, but merely lodged them. Thus, they were only slaves in name.
In Africa, the term slave was not applied in the sense of property as Europeans only knew it, but also as a caste. Thus there were people integrated into the society that were a part of the slave caste. They technically were free, but due to previous generations of coming from a lower tribe, they were not able to rise socially.
It's very confusing since this depends from location to location.
Again, if the nuances escape you I suggest reading up more before posting.
Are you aware that the person who brought his case to court to say that HIS Indentured Servant was HIS property and thus started the slavery we all know so well here in the US was a black man?
And the a lot of slaves here in the US were brought into the families as well. Your point? You still haven't shown anything to differentiate between the 2.
No, they weren't. Slaves were never integrated into society in the US. What are you talking about?
Your lack of understanding doesn't mean my example doesn't hold weight. You were talking about the slave trade in AFRICA. Not to mention, Blacks owning slaves in the South was very different than Whites owning slaves. While there is evidence that a VERY tiny percentage of free Blacks owned slaves, we do not know in which capacity. Evidence suggests that Blacks that owned slaves did not exactly hire them, but merely lodged them. Thus, they were only slaves in name.
In Africa, the term slave was not applied in the sense of property as Europeans only knew it, but also as a caste. Thus there were people integrated into the society that were a part of the slave caste. They technically were free, but due to previous generations of coming from a lower tribe, they were not able to rise socially.
It's very confusing since this depends from location to location.
Again, if the nuances escape you I suggest reading up more before posting.
Slavery is Slavery.
Plain & simple. If you own someone and they loose their freedom. They are a slave.
Africans had slaves & Americans had slaves & those slaves lost their freedom as slaves.
They can live together & F*k together but they are still slaves if they don't have their freedom
Are you aware that the person who brought his case to court to say that HIS Indentured Servant was HIS property and thus started the slavery we all know so well here in the US was a black man?
This is actually not true seeing how the first case of slavery was started in the 1600s by European colonists. The model was originally from the Spanish and Portuguese. You did know that right? Slavery in the US was not started by a Black person. Sorry, but it's simply not true.
Slaves were never integrated into society in N. America...however it was possible to obtain great power as a "slave" (defacto free, but labeled a slave). It gets very tricky since each society in Africa was different. Some slaves even ruled their tribes as slaves. Some tribes had the more traditional view of slaves (as property).
If you don't understand that there were fundamental differences in definition of slave, then please stop wasting my time.
This is actually not true seeing how the first case of slavery was started in the 1600s by European colonists. The model was originally from the Spanish and Portuguese. You did know that right? Slavery in the US was not started by a Black person. Sorry, but it's simply not true.
You need to do your homework on who it was that sued to make his Indentured Servant HIS property. You really need to know this.
I'm a Black American (born in the US) and I work around a lot African immigrants and I don't look down on them and they don't do the same to me. In fact we get along just fine along with the other people in my office.
But, but, I thought blacks were incapable of being racist? That's what professional racists like the Black Panthers, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton say.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
