Black Slave Owners in the United States

[JCSR]

Yeah, not false. Look back. “What” could never be the case in “North America?”

 

[Kutnupe14]

You keep on believing that. Go ahead and continue belittling the Irish experience.

Well, I’d be belittling myself then. The comparison to Irish slavery, commonly known as “indentured servitude,” to African slavery in America, isn’t even academically a tough conversation to have and understand; at least so I thought.

 

[AtTheMurph]

This post is completely garbage, starting with the first sentence. There is no comparison to the Irish indentured servitude to the enslavement of Africans in the New World. Yes, the Irish were very akin to slaves, but their treatment was significantly better.
First, if were talking about outside of North America, African slaves in South America and the Caribbean were treated horribly. It was literally cheaper to work a slave to death, and buy a new one, than to give them appropriate care and allow them to reproduce.
Coming back to North America, African slaves could be killed, and it would be a property crime. Kill an indentured servant, and you've committed murder.
If an indentured servant had a child with another indentured servant, that child was born "free." An African slave passed their bondage on to their offspring... and they were perpetually a slave.
And yes, race DID explain why Africans were enslaved (at least in North America). Black skin made it easier to create a social structure of superiors/inferiors, along with the ease of ability to reclaim property, if it ever became "lost." Unlike Native Americans, Africans did not have the ability to slip away, and rejoin their tribes. They were stuck here, and easy to identify. Things like resistance to malaria, and an understand of agriculture were just bonus traits.

Sorry but your ignorance of Irish slaves is showing.

In only one decade - 1641 to 1651 - 300,000 Irish were sold as slaves to the New World by James II. Not indentured servitude but captured, sold and enslaved. Now maybe your definition of indentured servitude is different than mine, so perhaps you will explain - if you can.

The Irish slaves were Catholic, a stain that African slaves did not carry. African slaves also were more expensive (50 sterlings) than the Irish (5 sterlings) as noted in my previous post. If a plantation owner whipped, beat or branded and Irish slave to death it was never a crime. It was also a 10x lower economic loss than killing an African slave. So there is that too.

Children of Irish slaves were slaves. When the plantation owners starting breeding Irish women with African slaves they created the "mulatto" slaves that brought a higher price than White Irish slaves. Presumably because they had a better survival rate from the diseases. In 1681, legislation was passed “forbidding the practice of mating Irish slave women to African slave men for the purpose of producing slaves for sale.” I wonder why they didn't use the term Irish indentured servant women?

Race played no part in who was enslaved. Africans were economically the best solution. African slaves were readily available because the African slave trade had been operating for thousands of years. Africans and Arabs were dealing slaves before the New World was colonized by the Europeans. Obtaining slaves was a matter of opportunity and economics. Natives, Europeans and Africans were all used as slaves in the New World.

Your idea that Africans were enslaved because they were "easier to identify" is funny actually but if true, why were there many free Blacks at the time who were not discriminated against, who ran successful businesses and were respected members of the community? There were many successful Blacks in the Old and New Worlds. If they were looked on as nothing but slaves, how would someone like occur?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Sorry but your ignorance of Irish slaves is showing.

In only one decade - 1641 to 1651 - 300,000 Irish were sold as slaves to the New World by James II. Not indentured servitude but captured, sold and enslaved. Now maybe your definition of indentured servitude is different than mine, so perhaps you will explain - if you can.

The Irish slaves were Catholic, a stain that African slaves did not carry. African slaves also were more expensive (50 sterlings) than the Irish (5 sterlings) as noted in my previous post. If a plantation owner whipped, beat or branded and Irish slave to death it was never a crime. It was also a 10x lower economic loss than killing an African slave. So there is that too.

Children of Irish slaves were slaves. When the plantation owners starting breeding Irish women with African slaves they created the "mulatto" slaves that brought a higher price than White Irish slaves. Presumably because they had a better survival rate from the diseases. In 1681, legislation was passed “forbidding the practice of mating Irish slave women to African slave men for the purpose of producing slaves for sale.” I wonder why they didn't use the term Irish indentured servant women?

Race played no part in who was enslaved. Africans were economically the best solution. African slaves were readily available because the African slave trade had been operating for thousands of years. Africans and Arabs were dealing slaves before the New World was colonized by the Europeans. Obtaining slaves was a matter of opportunity and economics. Natives, Europeans and Africans were all used as slaves in the New World.

Your idea that Africans were enslaved because they were "easier to identify" is funny actually but if true, why were there many free Blacks at the time who were not discriminated against, who ran successful businesses and were respected members of the community? There were many successful Blacks in the Old and New Worlds. If they were looked on as nothing but slaves, how would someone like occur?

Please provide me a cite for this particularly lengthy falsehood. 300,000k ‘eh? In a decade.

 

[Kutnupe14]

So when only 1.8% of Southern whites owned slaves we should blame the 98.2% who did not? Where as 28% of free Blacks owned slaves. Yes it comes into play and a majority of those black slave owners supported the Confederacy.


Let's get to the root of black slavery. Africans sold Africans to white slave traders. That's the root cause.

Simple question. Who abuses the involuntary hooker? The Pimp, the John, or both?

 

[DadSmith]

Simple question. Who abuses the involuntary hooker? The Pimp, the John, or both?

You bypass all those post about how Africans enslaved Africans to jump to this post.

You think white men ran into Africa and went village to village enslaving Africans then taking them and loading them on ships and then sold to white supremacist Republicans in the southern United States. Let's address that crazy belief.

 

[Kutnupe14]

You bypass all those post about how Africans enslaved Africans to jump to this post.

You think white men ran into Africa and went village to village enslaving Africans then taking them and loading them on ships and then sold to white supremacist Republicans in the southern United States. Let's address that crazy belief.

I asked a question. The question you posed was to someone else. Can you answer it or not?

 

[DadSmith]

I asked a question. The question you posed was to someone else. Can you answer it or not?

Until you acknowledge that blacks were and still are the root cause of African slavery you will never heal. You want to blame someone you blame the people that sold millions of their own into slavery. I'm sure you didn't even take time to read about how Africans enslaved Africans.

 

[HoughMade]

No customers, no business.

This discussion is seriously weird, but not entertaining.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Until you acknowledge that blacks were and still are the root cause of African slavery you will never heal. You want to blame someone you blame the people that sold millions of their own into slavery. I'm sure you didn't even take time to read about how Africans enslaved Africans.

I'll ask again. "Who abuses the involuntary hooker?" The John, the pimp or both?

 

[Hatin Since 87]

I'm sure you didn't even take time to read about how Africans enslaved Africans.

 

[Kutnupe14]

No customers, no business.

This discussion is seriously weird, but not entertaining.

He's trying to avoid saying that. I've already said that Africans enslaved other Africans... he's the one having difficulty making an admission.

 

[DadSmith]

No customers, no business.

This discussion is seriously weird, but not entertaining.

Wrong! Without drugs would there be drug users? No there would not be. Without slaves would there be slave owners? No there would not be.

Who produces the drugs for the druggie? Who supplied the slaves for the plantation?

 

[HoughMade]

Wrong! Without drugs would there be drug users? No there would not be. Without slaves would there be slave owners? No there would not be.

People who want to get high will find a way to do it. People who want to make their living exploiting others will find a way to do it.

There's plenty of blame for slavery to go around and every single one of them is dead, black, white or any shade in between.

 

[DadSmith]

He's trying to avoid saying that. I've already said that Africans enslaved other Africans... he's the one having difficulty making an admission.

And you are avoiding the root cause because it doesn't fit your narrative.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Sorry but your ignorance of Irish slaves is showing.

In only one decade - 1641 to 1651 - 300,000 Irish were sold as slaves to the New World by James II. Not indentured servitude but captured, sold and enslaved. Now maybe your definition of indentured servitude is different than mine, so perhaps you will explain - if you can.

The Irish slaves were Catholic, a stain that African slaves did not carry. African slaves also were more expensive (50 sterlings) than the Irish (5 sterlings) as noted in my previous post. If a plantation owner whipped, beat or branded and Irish slave to death it was never a crime. It was also a 10x lower economic loss than killing an African slave. So there is that too.

Children of Irish slaves were slaves. When the plantation owners starting breeding Irish women with African slaves they created the "mulatto" slaves that brought a higher price than White Irish slaves. Presumably because they had a better survival rate from the diseases. In 1681, legislation was passed “forbidding the practice of mating Irish slave women to African slave men for the purpose of producing slaves for sale.” I wonder why they didn't use the term Irish indentured servant women?

Race played no part in who was enslaved. Africans were economically the best solution. African slaves were readily available because the African slave trade had been operating for thousands of years. Africans and Arabs were dealing slaves before the New World was colonized by the Europeans. Obtaining slaves was a matter of opportunity and economics. Natives, Europeans and Africans were all used as slaves in the New World.

Your idea that Africans were enslaved because they were "easier to identify" is funny actually but if true, why were there many free Blacks at the time who were not discriminated against, who ran successful businesses and were respected members of the community? There were many successful Blacks in the Old and New Worlds. If they were looked on as nothing but slaves, how would someone like occur?

Still waiting on that cite.

 

[DadSmith]

People who want to get high will find a way to do it. People who want to make their living exploiting others will find a way to do it.

There's plenty of blame for slavery to go around and every single one of them is dead, black, white or any shade in between.

If there were no slaves to be bought where would they get slaves?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Wrong! Without drugs would there be drug users? No there would not be. Without slaves would there be slave owners? No there would not be.

Who produces the drugs for the druggie? Who supplied the slaves for the plantation?

So the drug user has to exist first, and then the drugs are created? That's one hell of a trick. Lolololololol.

 

[Kutnupe14]

If there were no slaves to be bought where would they get slaves?

This post tells me that you grasp of history is seriously lacking; at least pre-modern. Geez. Are you serious?

 

[DadSmith]

So the drug user has to exist first, and then the drugs are created? That's one hell of a trick. Lolololololol.

Manual labor always existed so the need for labor will always exist. Yet again you avoid the issue of slavery and attach to something else. You lost this you know it but you can't let go.

You want reparations go to Africa and get them off the tribes that sold slaves. Problem solved end of atory.