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.
Have you never noticed that "white males" have been the demographic in all the power positions in government until recently? Did you not notice that there were no "Founding Mothers"? No, not every white male is "blamed" for injustices because not every white male is powerful; however, the fact is that until recently, the people who have had the real power in the country have been white males.
Those with knowledge an skills tend to be in power.....shocker
Sorry, but the fact that African slaves were sold by other Africans or they were also enslaved as American Indians doesn't make White males any less culpable. Much of the economic system of the early United States was built on the Trans-African slave trade. White Southern plantation owners benefited, White Northern insurance, companies, ship builders, ship captains and banks profited from it and various European countries benefited from the agricultural products that were exported from America has a result of the slave trade. Those industries were created and controlled by White males.
As for Betsy Ross, while she may have been well admired she had no significant political or economic power. The fact you don't feel woman are oppressed indicates you may be a tad out of touch. Women are still not paid for equal pay for equal work, they still have difficulty getting promotions and in some cases they are still discriminated against simply for being women.
Women don't get paid the same due to having kids, that takes time from skill development and education.
So the way you live your life is based only on what happens to you in the here and now, each day? You have not been influenced at all by the history you must have learned in school? None of what you learned about history, etc., in school has influenced your understanding regarding how people behave?
Can you remember any instances where, as a rule, blacks lynched whites and were not prosecuted?
The majority of nat turner's group were allowed to live. The reason blacks didn't start massacring whites was because we were vastly outnumbered by a group hat has countless guns,skills, etc. it would've been suicide.
But if they were in white people's shoes, and had the guns, germs, and steel in Africa to colonize and dominate Europe ... do you think they would have treated white people any more humanely? Or would they have acted like humans and exploited strangers for the benefit of their own families?
Actually the Moors conquered Spain and parts of Italy. There is no history amongst the Moors of chattel slavery were people were forcibly displaced from their homelands, separated from their families, denied their culture and treated like animals.
The unique aspect of slavery that the Europeans and particularly the English in North America as opposed prior periods of slavery RESPECTED THE NATURAL RIGHTS OF A SLAVE. In other words the humanity of slaves was acknowledged. This meant that slaves had the right to marry and have the marriage recognized as legal unions. They had the right to seek legal redress from excessively cruel behavior and they even had the right to buy their own freedom. Prior versions of slavery treated slavery as a temporary status.
The type of slavery practiced in North American denied African slaves their HUMANITY. Their marriages had no legal standing, their wives and children could be sold or taken from them at any time. A slave could be beaten, killed or otherwise mistreated with no legal recourse. As the system of slavery evolved in North America it was made in a perpetual state of being with no possible escape. They had no legal or political rights whatsoever. In America slaves where not considered human beings they were considered PROPERTY. The fact when the Constitution slaves were considered 3/5 of a person for the allocation of seats to the House of Representatives is a historical acknowledgement that not even the Founding Fathers of the United States of America acknowledged African slaves as human beings.
Sorry but there was no group in the United States treated a bad as black people NONE. I don't recall any laws denying the Irish, Italians, Jews, or Germans the right to vote or hold polticial office simply because they were Irish, Italians, Jews, or Germans. I also challenge you to find a law the forbade any of these ethnic groups to marry one another simply based on their ethnicity of national origin.
And can you explain to me where all those German, Irish, Jewish, and Italian slaves went after the Civil War?
In fact Irish, Italian and other immigrants were brought to this country and in many cases they displaced Black workers. They quickly gained an understanding of the social system and actively discriminated against Black Americans who they saw as a source of labor competition.
Majority of those European groups immigrated o the more advanced north,while the vast majority of blacks were still in the backward south. Blacks were favored for hiring before Irish due to better reputation. Hell, Irish used to do dangerous jobs that slaves were forbidden to do bc the latter was viewed as investment while he order was more expendable.
The funny thing is the average life expectancy of a slave was 40 years old, while an Irishan lived up o heir early 20s......the legacy of oliver cromwells brutal oppression one irish catholic.
Btw, there were laws against asians during the late 1800s to mid 1900s.
Actually the Moors conquered Spain and parts of Italy. There is no history amongst the Moors of chattel slavery were people were forcibly displaced from their homelands, separated from their families, denied their culture and treated like animals.
The unique aspect of slavery that the Europeans and particularly the English in North America as opposed prior periods of slavery RESPECTED THE NATURAL RIGHTS OF A SLAVE. In other words the humanity of slaves was acknowledged. This meant that slaves had the right to marry and have the marriage recognized as legal unions. They had the right to seek legal redress from excessively cruel behavior and they even had the right to buy their own freedom. Prior versions of slavery treated slavery as a temporary status.
The type of slavery practiced in North American denied African slaves their HUMANITY. Their marriages had no legal standing, their wives and children could be sold or taken from them at any time. A slave could be beaten, killed or otherwise mistreated with no legal recourse. As the system of slavery evolved in North America it was made in a perpetual state of being with no possible escape. They had no legal or political rights whatsoever. In America slaves where not considered human beings they were considered PROPERTY. The fact when the Constitution slaves were considered 3/5 of a person for the allocation of seats to the House of Representatives is a historical acknowledgement that not even the Founding Fathers of the United States of America acknowledged African slaves as human beings.
The fact you don't support 3/5s shows you're out of your element. That was intended to reduce the political power of the southern states who wanted slaves to count as 1 person for demographic reasons.
The moors were particularly cruel to their Spanish subjects, hence why Spanish became cruel in return via inquisition and colonization. Arab slave traders enslaved blacks long before Europeans had the sailing power to do so, many black males were castrated bc eunuchs fetch a dollar amount.
Honestly this topic is tiresome and couterproductive bc nobody has a time machine to change it. My advice? Dropself destructive behavior, learn from the best, and pass it on to the next generation.
When Charize Theron marries a Black man you can compare her to President Barack Obama. The reality is that Barack Obama was in the unique position to have the OPTION to identify with the immigrant African community or as a Black American. HE CHOOSE TO IDENTITY WITH BLACK AMERICANS. That is indicated by the fact they HE CHOOSE to be a community organizer in Chicago when as a man with a Harvard law degree he had much more lucrative options available to him. Also the fact HE CHOOSE to marry a Black woman from the South Side of Chicago when I'm sure he had any number of options in terms of the type of woman he wanted to marry.
And as far as his ancestors "not being oppressed as slaves"; I'd suggest you'd acquaint yourself with the history of Kenya, while Kenyans were not slaves they were never the less oppressed.
Majority of those European groups immigrated o the more advanced north,while the vast majority of blacks were still in the backward south.
That may have been true prior to the end of slavery. But after slavery as Blacks moved to the North there was fierce competition for manual labor and factory jobs. Black Americans were often prohibited from joining labor unions and there was deep resentment by working class White Americans of all ethnic groups as Black American moved into Northern industrial cities in the 20th century.
The flip side of it is some White people don't have to try quite as hard to succeed because of the inherent advantages they have bestowed upon them.
Case in point George W. Bush Jr.; there is no way George W. Bush Jr. gets into Yale University based on his academic record. He got in because he grandfather George Prescott Bush and his father George H.W. Bush were Yale alumnus. After he got out of college he used his father's connections and money to set himself up in the oil business.
True enough.
If civil rights in America ever extended to poor white males, I'd be onboard. The idea that a white male born to a single mother and raised in a trailer park is somehow advantaged is outrageous. The situation we have today is white males are legally discriminated against as though poor whites didn't exist. The George Bush Jrs of the world will never be impacted by AA and race/sex-based set asides. That leaves poor white males carrying the entire burden of state sponsored discrimination.
Obama was a community organizer before he went to Harvard. I don't think he chose his skin color.
You missed the point COMPLETELY. He definitely had the option of identifying himself as second generation African. He CHOOSE to identify with Black Americans.
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.