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.
I think it is nice that you would like to see an non-racial world, but this is probably the 3rd or 4th time that I have seen you write the above bolded in regards to an old racial thread, this one is pretty old BTW. Maybe it was revived due to the West Indian/Black American thread going on right now, but any-who
Slavery in America was about race. The system of chattel slavery was not in this country at the very beginnings but by the 1700s, slavery was about race. If someone was black and free, they could easily be re-enslaved just for being black or having noticeable "black blood" so to keep perpetuating the notion that slavery was not about race, in America, is not true.
I agree that around the world, slavery was not a status that one associates with the color of one's skin. There have been plenty of Asian and European and Indigenous people all over the world enslaved by their own or by other kingdoms or ethnic groups. But here in America, the system of slavery, established in the late 17th century in specific colonies was race based.
A couple of posters, from the stormfront crew like to go about the forum stating that a black person instituted slavery in America first in the Virginia Colony, but it was actually instituted via the court system in Virginia. There were 3 indentured servants who tried to escape their indenture. Two were white and one was black. All of them were caught. The two white guys got a lashing and extended servitude term, the black man was lashed and sentenced to a lifetime of enslavement. That established black as slave. They were easier to distinguish from general society. There were many indentured servants who escaped their servitudes in America. White servants were easily able to move somewhere and blend in better due to being white. Indigenous Americans were initially used as forced, unpaid labor as well, but too many of them knew the "lay of the land" so to speak and were easily able to escape, they also didn't have the natural immunity to horrible scourges of Europe that people closer to Europe (Africans and Asians) had more of an immunity to, so the natives died off easier than whites and Africans. The African was left. The African was separate in appearance and did not know the terrain and could not easily escape due to both of these. Slowly but surely, it was written into law that black equaled slave. If a black person was not a slave they could be forced into slavery and their "freeness" in many instances was ignored. I agree that slavery was deemed "matrilineal" in America, as white slave owners wanted to ensure a steady source of black slaves. They also could ensure future slaves by "breeding" with their slave women. The concept of status following the mother was not something unique to slavery. Prior to the colonies deciding to institute this practice in this country, very few societies followed this practice and it was especially not common in England where the status of children followed the father.
So you are spreading lots of misinformation or maybe just your own personal views of black not equaling slave in this country. Though there were few exceptions in regards to "free persons of color" those persons and even black slave owners themselves (and in regards to that, there were no white slaves held by black slave owners - indentured servants were not slaves BTW) could always be enslaved just because they were black. The person who the stormfronter crew likes to pretend owned the first slave - Antonio (Anthony) Johnson had his own land basically stolen from him as racism became dominant in this country and when "slave codes" and other laws went on the books in various colonies in order to ensure enslavement was synonymous with blackness (and also indigenous peoples).
I think it is nice that you would like to see an non-racial world, but this is probably the 3rd or 4th time that I have seen you write the above bolded in regards to an old racial thread, this one is pretty old BTW. Maybe it was revived due to the West Indian/Black American thread going on right now, but any-who
Slavery in America was about race. The system of chattel slavery was not in this country at the very beginnings but by the 1700s, slavery was about race. If someone was black and free, they could easily be re-enslaved just for being black or having noticeable "black blood" so to keep perpetuating the notion that slavery was not about race, in America, is not true.
I agree that around the world, slavery was not a status that one associates with the color of one's skin. There have been plenty of Asian and European and Indigenous people all over the world enslaved by their own or by other kingdoms or ethnic groups. But here in America, the system of slavery, established in the late 17th century in specific colonies was race based.
A couple of posters, from the stormfront crew like to go about the forum stating that a black person instituted slavery in America first in the Virginia Colony, but it was actually instituted via the court system in Virginia. There were 3 indentured servants who tried to escape their indenture. Two were white and one was black. All of them were caught. The two white guys got a lashing and extended servitude term, the black man was lashed and sentenced to a lifetime of enslavement. That established black as slave. They were easier to distinguish from general society. There were many indentured servants who escaped their servitudes in America. White servants were easily able to move somewhere and blend in better due to being white. Indigenous Americans were initially used as forced, unpaid labor as well, but too many of them knew the "lay of the land" so to speak and were easily able to escape, they also didn't have the natural immunity to horrible scourges of Europe that people closer to Europe (Africans and Asians) had more of an immunity to, so the natives died off easier than whites and Africans. The African was left. The African was separate in appearance and did not know the terrain and could not easily escape due to both of these. Slowly but surely, it was written into law that black equaled slave. If a black person was not a slave they could be forced into slavery and their "freeness" in many instances was ignored. I agree that slavery was deemed "matrilineal" in America, as white slave owners wanted to ensure a steady source of black slaves. They also could ensure future slaves by "breeding" with their slave women. The concept of status following the mother was not something unique to slavery. Prior to the colonies deciding to institute this practice in this country, very few societies followed this practice and it was especially not common in England where the status of children followed the father.
So you are spreading lots of misinformation or maybe just your own personal views of black not equaling slave in this country. Though there were few exceptions in regards to "free persons of color" those persons and even black slave owners themselves (and in regards to that, there were no white slaves held by black slave owners - indentured servants were not slaves BTW) could always be enslaved just because they were black. The person who the stormfronter crew likes to pretend owned the first slave - Antonio (Anthony) Johnson had his own land basically stolen from him as racism became dominant in this country and when "slave codes" and other laws went on the books in various colonies in order to ensure enslavement was synonymous with blackness (and also indigenous peoples).
For much and most of USA race relations were fairly good or decent. That took a turn in the 20th century with segregationist one droppism and Jim Crow which splintered and damaged race relations in the USA especially between 1930 and 1960, especially since the one drop rule was implemented from 1931 to 1967. That splintered and damaged race relations. Luckily race relations and mixed race identity and mixed race consciousness and more equal and better race relations was restored in 1967. Society still has a long way to go. We have come a long way though.
Ever heard of slavery and Reconstruction? That, and all accompanying atrocities, occurred long before the 20th century. And the one-drop rule was instituted long before the 1930s; though some states did not codify it until the 1920s and 1930s, it was de facto practice for decades before. Race relations were always horrible in this country until after World War II, a bit better between then and the mid 1960s, and still have room for improvement in 2013.
Personally, I found it to be quite hypocritical of you to complain about the Afro-Latina who won the pageant being undocumented or (in your opinion) is misrepresenting who she is when your wife and her entire family happen to be basically doing the EXACT same thing. Your Dominican wife and her family are not being HONEST about who they are.
ETA: I just find all of this so sad for those who can not accept and love who they are. I had a childhood friend who was a beautiful Panamanian girl with very dark skin and very African features. She got pregnant by her white Cuban boyfriend (who did not marry her). When she had the baby, another friend and I went to her home to visit. She kept repeating over and over things such as "Look, my baby is white", "I'm so happy that she is white" etc. My other friend and I looked at each other like "what is she talking about?" The baby was the complexion of Halle Berry and has gotten darker as she has grown up. It was just such a sad situation. It was as if having a "white" baby meant everything in the world to her.
It is hard for you to understand if you are mixed and light or lightish brown, but having dark skin as a woman, is not valued or looked upon as a good thing. Most men of all races prefer lighter shades. Even the small number of guys who like "dark" women, often prefer brown, but definitely not too dark. This means it is harder for dark women to get married, meaning overall less wealth than lighter women.
Generally darker women also experience more prejudice and have it much harder than women with lighter skin. When you put it into this context it makes sense why she would value lighter skin and want this feature for her daughter.
I know it may not make sense to you, but it would if you were a woman with dark skin.
But what exactly does "struggle with blackness" mean?
To look in the mirror and see that you are dark skinned? I don't know any AA or Dominican, except Sammy Sosa, that would deny this.
Is it denying your African roots? No AA does this...and any Dominican you may stumble across would cede to this as well as long as the logistics of the premise is understood..."you have African in you to.some degree"
Educated Dominicans realize they were oppressed, maimed and raped by Haitians for a long time. They are not in denial of anything.
If the OP means that Dominicans struggle with their blackness because they understand the history. Well...that's fair enough.
But I am inclined to believe that the OP is subscribing to the "You are looked at in America as a n****r just like the rest of us" rhetoric.
And that is just not true. Even for AA's...
Look, not to be rude, but "struggling with blackness" isn't something i can explain to you and frankly, i don't think i should anyway. It's not something that really involves you. If you already understood it, that'd be one thing, but since you don't, i should just leave it at that.
And no, it's NOT about looking in the mirror and realizing that you have African roots. That has nothing to do with it really and to the extent that it might, it's minimal.
As for the Dominican-Haitian thing, i mean...it is what it is. It doesn't concern me; i'm neither. I know enough to know that Haiti ISN'T the source of Dominican's perceived problems about race, blackness, or how they may feel about it. Black Dominicans (or the part of Dominicans that is black) got to Hispaniola the same way that blackness came to Haiti...on slave ships. What happened on Hispaniola after that is a whole 'nother issue.
In any case, i'm not the one making any scathing assertions about Dominicans one way or the other. I simply said that black people in the Americas ALL struggle with blackness because of the way these societies were structured. That is...they were set up to value whiteness above everything else. This simply can't be denied.
As to the intentions of the OP, I can't say. "Looked at as n*ggers?" Meh...who cares. I know i don't.
It is hard for you to understand if you are mixed and light or lightish brown, but having dark skin as a woman, is not valued or looked upon as a good thing, because most men prefer lighter shades. This means it is harder for dark women to get married, meaning overall less wealth than lighter women.
Generally darker women also experience more prejudice and generally have it much harder than women with lighter skin. When you put it into this context it makes sense why she would value lighter skin and wants this feature for her daughter, so that her daughter's life is easier than hers.
I know it may not make sense to you, but it would if you were a woman with dark skin.
Sorry but I do not buy into to the dark skin is less desirable nonsense. I know beautiful dark skinned women who are married to or in relationships with great men.
I think it is nice that you would like to see an non-racial world, but this is probably the 3rd or 4th time that I have seen you write the above bolded in regards to an old racial thread, this one is pretty old BTW. Maybe it was revived due to the West Indian/Black American thread going on right now, but any-who
Slavery in America was about race. The system of chattel slavery was not in this country at the very beginnings but by the 1700s, slavery was about race. If someone was black and free, they could easily be re-enslaved just for being black or having noticeable "black blood" so to keep perpetuating the notion that slavery was not about race, in America, is not true.
I agree that around the world, slavery was not a status that one associates with the color of one's skin. There have been plenty of Asian and European and Indigenous people all over the world enslaved by their own or by other kingdoms or ethnic groups. But here in America, the system of slavery, established in the late 17th century in specific colonies was race based.
A couple of posters, from the stormfront crew like to go about the forum stating that a black person instituted slavery in America first in the Virginia Colony, but it was actually instituted via the court system in Virginia. There were 3 indentured servants who tried to escape their indenture. Two were white and one was black. All of them were caught. The two white guys got a lashing and extended servitude term, the black man was lashed and sentenced to a lifetime of enslavement. That established black as slave. They were easier to distinguish from general society. There were many indentured servants who escaped their servitudes in America. White servants were easily able to move somewhere and blend in better due to being white. Indigenous Americans were initially used as forced, unpaid labor as well, but too many of them knew the "lay of the land" so to speak and were easily able to escape, they also didn't have the natural immunity to horrible scourges of Europe that people closer to Europe (Africans and Asians) had more of an immunity to, so the natives died off easier than whites and Africans. The African was left. The African was separate in appearance and did not know the terrain and could not easily escape due to both of these. Slowly but surely, it was written into law that black equaled slave. If a black person was not a slave they could be forced into slavery and their "freeness" in many instances was ignored. I agree that slavery was deemed "matrilineal" in America, as white slave owners wanted to ensure a steady source of black slaves. They also could ensure future slaves by "breeding" with their slave women. The concept of status following the mother was not something unique to slavery. Prior to the colonies deciding to institute this practice in this country, very few societies followed this practice and it was especially not common in England where the status of children followed the father.
So you are spreading lots of misinformation or maybe just your own personal views of black not equaling slave in this country. Though there were few exceptions in regards to "free persons of color" those persons and even black slave owners themselves (and in regards to that, there were no white slaves held by black slave owners - indentured servants were not slaves BTW) could always be enslaved just because they were black. The person who the stormfronter crew likes to pretend owned the first slave - Antonio (Anthony) Johnson had his own land basically stolen from him as racism became dominant in this country and when "slave codes" and other laws went on the books in various colonies in order to ensure enslavement was synonymous with blackness (and also indigenous peoples).
Some key points and facts to consider and keep in mind:
-The U.S. Chattel-Slavery SYSTEM was 'Mother-Based' (Matrilineal) --NOT 'Color-Based' (RACIAL),*
-Many WHITE people WERE Chattel-SLAVES in the U.S.*
-MOST Chattel-SLAVES in the U.S. WERE NOT BLACK (most were Mulatto or Metis and many were even White)*
-The U.S. received LESS THAN 6% of the West Africans captured*
-The 'Willie Lynch Speech / Letter' is a total HOAX*
-The Color-Based 'Slave-Hierarchy and Color-Based 'Features-Tests' are MYTHS
Sorry but I do not buy into to the dark skin is less desirable nonsense. I know beautiful dark skinned women who are married to or in relationships with great men.
I know there are beautiful dark women, but I am just telling you how it is for most dark girls. In America, and much of the world, when a woman is born with very dark skin, it's not viewed as a good thing, because her marriage prospects will be lower than women with lighter skin. You wrote that your dad is very pale, so I imagine you have either light skin or light brown skin.
Again, I know it's difficult to understand, but trust me life is different for darker girls than lighter girls. It may be a little easier if the dark girl is drop dead gorgeous but most people are average, so for the average dark girl, things will not be easy. In polite company, most guys would never admit this, but a dark woman* is the last woman on earth that most would ever want to be seen with, let alone date.
So if you understood how dark skin is really viewed on women, you would understand your friend and her overall relief that her daughter was not dark in color.
*When I refer to dark skin, I'm not referring to brown skin or almond shades, I'm referring to actual very dark skin.
I know there are beautiful dark women, but I am just telling you how it is for most dark girls. In America, and much of the world, when a woman is born with very dark skin, it's not viewed as a good thing, because her marriage prospects will be lower than women with lighter skin.
So exactly who keeps making all of these dark skinned people? Shouldn't they all be extinct if no one is finding them desirable?
Not proportionally. Colombia is about 25% of African descent. Dominican Republic is 85% of African descent.
The amount of people in Colombia that have African blood or lineage is about double or triple that of the entire population of the DR.
Afrodescendants in Colombia make up more than +33% of Colombia's total population.
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.
