Who is this clown? Its clearly a backup account. Huge gap in between his posts. This goofy ***** literally has posted in or started nothing but race related threads.
Definite troll alert.
nah, I just think it's pathetic when I see my people go HARD on trying to put guilt on to others when we've done the same things as them. All societies did in world history. But I won't further waste my time with ya'll. Stay stuck on ignorant. I'm good at least. I'm awake.
You're awake in the dark.
The particular thing that differentiates the triangular slave trade from the other forms of slavery is
the institutionalization of a hierarchy of races. There were philosophical debates and papers written about the humanity (or lack thereof) of the Black person. Dubious science was used to justify the colonization and the subjugation of Africans with very little attempt to understand the various civilizations that inhabited the interior of the continent.
Your statement that "Africans sold Africans" exemplifies that since it denotes your belief that all Africans are the same. Nobody has denied the existence of slavery before the 17th century, but
the point you keep missing is that the slave trade was based on the premise that the only thing a Black person can ever be is a servant to his white master(s). That was the difference between slavery driven by economics (which is what African peoples practiced) and the transatlantic trade.
that a sort of semantic argument (the statement africans sold africans is not incorrect), but it is an important detail to note that aside from a technological warfare advantage, a big contributing factor to the western power even been able to establish ports to transport large numbers of slaves was that the many of the big city-states had either fallen or were in decline and the warring was even played upon & facilitated by the slave trade.
[COLOR=#red]fair enough[/COLOR]
granted there was nothing like the transatlantic slave trade and the inhumanities it produced...but it was also very much driven by economics, on both sides...and on the subject on the distinction between the slavery practiced by african peoples and that which was ushered in by the slave trade in the new world, i've always thought that was a bit of a moot point, as if that is the main thing that make the slave trade so grotesque...parsing degrees slavery is a kinda ridiculous; and that isn't to be apologist or deny that new world slavery was unimaginably worse, just to say that really isn't a justification...
Like I said before, the statement in question is only correct if we look at it from a Eurocentric point of view. I don't deny the African kings' agency in the slave trade, and I don't deny the immediate economic benefits they enjoyed. I'm just looking at the trade from their point of view, one that's not usually acknowledged in the discussion.
They weren't selling people from their own tribes/kingdoms, they were selling their enemies.
[COLOR=#red]bro that statement IS correct EVERY way you look at it, as a broad statement of fact; it is a generic statement of truth. what it doesn't do is address the nuance that africans were & are not one people...should/would you view the transatlantic slave trade be viewed differently if african tribes and those captured by europeans were captured enemies???[/COLOR]
parsing degrees slavery is a kinda ridiculous
I disagree. We very much acknowledge the difference between indentured servants and slaves in the case of the USA. In many cultures throughout the world there have been different approaches to slavery, its length (permanent vs temporary) and its scope (yourself vs your whole family and/or property, one generation vs multiple generations). Those differences are not trivial and they are only seen if we take into account the ideological justifications for the application of slavery.
[COLOR=#red]definitely not trivial differences, but isn't the distilled argument is basically african slavery was better...it is still bondage. to me, the combinations scope & magnitude are what really separate the african & european models, the ideological justifications came afterwards (there have always been free person of color, and there is evidence that some of people of color started as indentured servants) as you might expect from basically enslaving a whole people; it wouldn't be too far a leap of thinking to equate person of color = slave= lesser being, and eventually eugenics. even given ALL we know to the contrary, today people STILL make these those of connections, and i don't just assume differently of people in the past...and yes, it is a given that the effects of which are still with us (to your point about institutionalized hierarchies of races, it still persists but it is not nearly the impediment it once was and hopefully it will continue to be less important over time, though definitely not a guaranteed as human have and endless supply of creative ways to separate ourselves); such is history. however, one things is seemingly certain, nothing in the world of human society is fixed; at one point african, arab, asian, european, indigenous american all could lay claim to titles being the, or some combination of the wealthiest, most advanced, largest, most technological, educated, civilizations in existence and due to a myriad of factors each has faded, receded, or grew; so rather than ascribe these things to some peculiarity of a specific ethnicity it seems to me to be that is something innate in us(that is ALL HUMANS)...
the only reason europeans, were able to make the moves they did against africa in particular was they they were better equipped to do so technologically & organizationally, they had every bit of motivation to conquer the asia(s) but couldn't (at least not at that moment in history)...why?
the history of humans on this planet has been primarily one of exercises of power/violence against one another, point blank, period. and whomever has more of it at a given time is usually want to exercise it to their advantage[/COLOR]
I agree with most of Dr. Umar Johnson's points. Especially pointing out our hyper-materialism, self-hatred & lack of ownership. I don't agree with him condemning homosexuality in the black community though. I don't see the homosexual movement as a way of controlling the black population. (If it was intended that way, it hasn't worked so far) But as a way to not dehumanize a large group of people because of their sexual preference. He's a great motivational speaker. Almost like a pastor lol. He makes some great points. Just don't agree with that one.
many of the statistics he was citing to point out those thing may indeed be true, but his conclusions are entirely his own...america is a consumerist, hyper-materialistic country in general. the self-hatred, i can't speak for every black person (neither should he!) but i think that most would be willing to say that every individual (regardless of ethnicity or gender) will have to figure out how to define themselves in a society that is constantly telling you (whoever you are) what you are, could, or should (want to) be (and in fact, has a vested interest in doing so, to sell you things!). lack of entrepreneurship, there are real reasons why many people don't start businesses, not the least of which is access to capital, which he doesn't connect to the wealth gap but he implies is the result conspicuous, flashy consumption to...(i've read that people today are actually spending much less on cars, clothing, food, etc as their counterparts from past generations but much more on housing & education, which definitely frames things a little differently)...
he may have good intentions? but it comes across as a really good setup:
here are the the ways we (but mostly you, because he has it all figured it out) are flawed
here is why (white supremacy)
now give me you money/support
no one has any agency, if you are a success, someone gave it to you or you must be some type of pawn in the game or otherwise manipulated, and if you aren't successful it is entirely the system (if you are a black male, the "you gotta work, twice as hard as a white boy..." speech has to be particularly depressing); on the other side it is free market everything and no responsibility to those who may not be suited, deemed not able to participate, or just priced out of the current or even the future economic structure. between these 2 extremes its no wonder most are angry, apathetic, given to conspiracy theories, or trying to reframe history such that they can resurrect some feeling of nostalgia or superiority that never was...