Americans: racism a big problem

You already failed miserably with your "Africans introduced slavery to Europe" claim and now I see you are at it again. While it is true that Romans cared little about race, that ended with the migrations that took down the Empire. If you read the accounts of the first crusade you can see a lot of racism and a lot of violence against fellow Christians.
Here is an excellent book for you to read about those events.

http://www.amazon.com/Chronicles-First-Crusade-Penguin-Classics/dp/024195522X

Please step up.

 

I'm not the one that is trying to use outliers to make a point. The fact that you have to use outliers shows that your point is none existant and that you are terribly wrong. Outliers exist EVERYWHERE

Anyway. Romans didn't have the notion of race. That is hystory fact. Ask any professor and he will say the same. Europe was reintroduced to slavery by Africa is also a known historic fact. The little instances of slavery were coming from the Automat Empire.

Slavery had mostly died out in western Europe about the year 1000, replaced by serfdom. It lingered longer in England and in peripheral areas linked to the Muslim world, where slavery continued to flourish. Church rules suppressed slavery of Christians. Most historians argue the transition was quite abrupt around 1000, but some see a gradual transition from about 300 to 1000.

Don't you feel embarrassed?

Using outliers....realy? And you though you had a sound argument?

As I said, SLAVERY WAS REINTRODUCED TO EUROPE BY AFRICA.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_medieval_Europe

Slavery in New Jersey began in the early 17th century, when Dutch colonists imported African slaves for labor to develop their colony of New Netherland. After England took control the colony in 1664, its colonists continued the importation of slaves from Africa. They also imported "seasoned" slaves from their colonies in the West Indies and enslaved Native Americans from the Carolinas.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_medieval_Europe

However, confronting the history of the Atlantic slave trade requires more than a sentence acknowledging that the Amistad prisoners “had been captured in Africa by Africans who sold them to European slave traders.” Website readers must understand that this terrible traffic in millions of human beings had been, as affirmed by the PBS Africans in America series, a joint venture: “During this era, Africans and Europeans stood together as equals, companions in commerce and profit. Kings exchanged respectful letters across color lines and addressed each other as colleagues. Natives of the two continents were tied into a common economy.”2

Incomplete depictions of the Atlantic slave trade are, in fact, quite common. My 2003 study of 49 state U.S. history standards revealed that not one of these guides to classroom content even mentioned the key role of Africans in supplying the Atlantic slave trade.3 In Africa itself, however, the slave trade is remembered quite differently. Nigerians, for example, explicitly teach about their own role in the trade:

"The bulk of the supply came from the Nigerians. These Nigerian middlemen moved to the interior where they captured other Nigerians who belonged to other communities. The middlemen also purchased many of the slaves from the people in the interior . . . . Many Nigerian middlemen began to depend totally on the slave trade and neglected every other business and occupation. The result was that when the trade was abolished [by England in 1807] these Nigerians began to protest. As years went by and the trade collapsed such Nigerians lost their sources of income and became impoverished."


http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/41431


Who were these "middlemen"?

Tribe leaders. They sold their own people for guns. So that they can gain more land and power. Countries without European contact would be captured by tribes that did. Then they would sell the captured enemy tribe to europe.

 

This is the second time you use the excuse "outliers". What does that mean? Everyone else in Europe but Anglo-Saxons?

No. Since you repeat the same failed argument I already debunked. The pope gave the Spanish and Portuguese kings permission to take slaves before trading started down the African cost in 1452 in the Dum Diversas. Your "outlier" rebuttal is a fail and you have still to define what it means. I did say that racism didn't really exist during Roman times. So I don't see why you think you need to repeat it.

You still need to define this nebulous self made term. As shown it was not. Maybe it is time to retire? You fail too much to waste time on.

 

now you don't understand english?

Slavery was THRIVING in middle east. Africans practiced it but it wasn't real big because there were so many tribes.

This is historic fact.


Because Europe was predominately christian there were no slaves. FEW INSTANCES OF PAGAN SLAVES BEING USED IS HARDLY A STRONG ARGUMENT. BECAUSE IT EXIST OUSIDE THE NORM.

hence "outlier".

Because you still haven't given 1 solid argument or credible sourse.

1 pope out how many?




Me? I recently took American History. So I learned from a guy who does this for a living. You know, PHD?

And it was only in every history book I've read. Soo...you know more? Haha. Don't get me started. Buy a college text book of American history and you'll find it in there. That is a fact too.

Reintroduced? Isn't that self explanatory?

 

I know what the word outlier means. I don't understand what it means in the context of your rebuttals. Either explain or concede that your knowledge is limited to your ****** agenda

No. It was practised in England until after the Norman conquest and in Iberia.
The papal bull I have linked to twice was exactly given because Europeans NEEDED MORE SLAVES. Please stop embarrassing yourself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_medieval_Europe

Not only did they have slavery they asked for permission to take more from the pope.
Now lets hear this fabulous "outlier" excuse again. You do know it is clear to everyone what you are?

 

Mr. Stern taught African American history at the college level for a decade before becoming historian at the John F. Kennedy Library and Museum (1977–1999)—where he designed the museum’s first civil rights exhibit. He is the author of Averting ‘the Final Failure’: John F. Kennedy and the Secret Cuban Missile Crisis Meetings (2003), and The Week the World Stood Still: Inside the Secret Cuban Missile Crisis (2005).


However, confronting the history of the Atlantic slave trade requires more than a sentence acknowledging that the Amistad prisoners “had been captured in Africa by Africans who sold them to European slave traders.” Website readers must understand that this terrible traffic in millions of human beings had been, as affirmed by the PBS Africans in America series, a joint venture: “During this era, Africans and Europeans stood together as equals, companions in commerce and profit. Kings exchanged respectful letters across color lines and addressed each other as colleagues. Natives of the two continents were tied into a common economy.”

Incomplete depictions of the Atlantic slave trade are, in fact, quite common. My 2003 study of 49 state U.S. history standards revealed that not one of these guides to classroom content even mentioned the key role of Africans in supplying the Atlantic slave trade.3 In Africa itself, however, the slave trade is remembered quite differently. Nigerians, for example, explicitly teach about their own role in the trade:
"Thebulk of the supply came from the Nigerians. These Nigerian middlemen moved to the interior where they captured other Nigerians who belonged to other communities. The middlemen also purchased many of the slaves from the people in the interior . . . . Many Nigerian middlemen began to depend totally on the slave trade and neglected every other business and occupation. The result was that when the trade was abolished [by England in 1807] these Nigerians began to protest. As years went by and the trade collapsed such Nigerians lost their sources of income and became impoverished."


In Ghana, politician and educator Samuel Sulemana Fuseini has acknowledged that his Asante ancestors accumulated their great wealth by abducting, capturing, and kidnapping Africans and selling them as slaves. Likewise, Ghanaian diplomat Kofi Awoonor has written: “I believe there is a great psychic shadow over Africa, and it has much to do with our guilt and denial of our role in the slave trade. We too are blameworthy in what was essentially one of the most heinous crimes in human history.”5

In 2000, at an observance attended by delegates from several European countries and the United States, officials from Benin publicized President Mathieu Kerekou’s apology for his country’s role in “selling fellow Africans by the millions to white slave traders.” “We cry for forgiveness and reconciliation,” said Luc Gnacadja, Benin’s minister of environment and housing. Cyrille Oguin, Benin’s ambassador to the United States, acknowledged, “We share in the responsibility for this terrible human tragedy.” 6

A year later, Senegal’s president Abdoulaye Wade, “himself the descendant of generations of slave-owning [and slave-trading] African kings,” urged Europeans, Americans, and Africans to acknowledge publicly and teach openly about their shared responsibility for the Atlantic slave trade. 7 Wade’s remarks came months after the release of Adanggaman, by Ivory Coast director Roger Gnoan M’bala, “the first African film to look at African involvement in the slave trade with the West.” “It’s up to us,” M’Bala insisted, “to talk about slavery, open the wounds of what we’ve always hidden and stop being puerile when we put responsibility on others . . . . In our own oral tradition, slavery is left out purposefully because Africans are ashamed when we confront slavery. Let’s wake up and look at ourselves through our own image.”8 “It is simply true,” declared Da Bourdia Leon of Burkina Faso’s Ministry of Culture and Art, “We need this kind of film to show our children this part of our history, that it happened among us. Although I feel sad, I think it is good that this kind of thing is being told today.”9

Several television productions of the last decade have acknowledged these facts: Africans in America (PBS, 199, Wonders of the African World (PBS, 1999), and The African Trade (History Channel International, 2000). The latter begins with the visit by a group of African-Americans to the infamous slave castle and Door of No Return on Goree Island off the coast of Senegal. “Appalled by the cruelties of the Europeans,” the narrator relates, “the visitors become curious as to how Africans fell into their hands.” Their African guide admits that “this history is difficult to tell and hard to believe” but pulls no punches about African complicity in kidnapping and selling millions of African people: “All the tribes were involved in the slave trade—no exemptions.” The African-Americans were staggered: “So we really can’t blame the Europeans,” one declares, “We sold our own. It takes two.” Another visitor declares, “That’s right—money and greed.” The program concludes that “white guilt can never be erased”—but cautions that it is also important to remember that “black participation lets no one off the hook.”

The historical record is incontrovertible—as documented in the PBS Africans in America series companion book:
"The white man did not introduce slavery to Africa . . . . And by the fifteenth century, men with dark skin had become quite comfortable with the concept of man as property . . . . Long before the arrival of Europeans on West Africa’s coast, the two continents shared a common acceptance of slavery as an unavoidable and necessary—perhaps even desirable—fact of existence. The commerce between the two continents, as tragic as it would become, developed upon familiar territory. Slavery was not a twisted European manipulation, although Europe capitalized on a mutual understanding and greedily expanded the slave trade into what would become a horrific enterprise . . . . It was a thunder that had no sound. Tribe stalked tribe, and eventually more than 20 million Africans would be kidnapped in their own homeland."


Historians estimate that ten million of these abducted Africans “never even made it to the slave ships. Most died on the march to the sea”—still chained, yoked, and shackled by their African captors—before they ever laid eyes on a white slave trader. 11 The survivors were either purchased by European slave dealers or “instantly beheaded” by the African traders “in sight of the [slave ship] captain” if they could not be sold

"how Africans could have sold other Africans into slavery. The answer is that [African] slaveholders didn't think of themselves or their slaves as 'Africans.' Instead they thought of themselves as Edo or Songhai or members of another group. They thought of their slaves as foreigners or inferiors. In the same way, the Spanish, the French, and the English could massacre each other in bloody wars because they thought of themselves as Spanish, French, or English, rather than Europeans."


Similar candor can also be found in a current college textbook co-authored by three African-American historians. Europeans and eventually Americans—


"did not capture and enslave people themselves. Instead they purchased slaves from African traders [who]…restricted the Europeans to a few points on the coast, while the kingdoms raided the interior to supply the Europeans with slaves. ... The European traders provided the aggressors with firearms, but they did not instigate the wars. Instead they used the wars to enrich themselves. Sometimes African armies enslaved the inhabitants of conquered towns and villages. At other times, raiding parties captured isolated families or kidnapped individuals. As warfare spread to the interior, captives had to march for hundreds of miles to the coast where European traders awaited them. The raiders tied the captives together with rope or secured them with wooden yokes around their necks. It was a shocking experience, and many captives died from hunger, exhaustion, and exposure during the journey. Others killed themselves rather than submit to their fate, and the captors killed those who resisted."

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/41431


So I've got college level professors and college Textbooks as my sourses. What do you have?

I think I smell something here. Must be your bulls$!t

 

1 instance out of how many years? Let's look at Europe from 1000AD to now. How many instances of slavery existing? Not many? THAT'S WHY IT'S AN OUTLIER.



Outlier means unusual and it doesn't happen alot. did I realy have to explain that?

 

I don't have to justify a desire to pay my bills and feed my family each week. It's fascinating to me that I am expected to show empathy towards the plight of others by the same people who care absolutely nothing about my personal struggle to make ends meet. I never said that avoiding certain tables or cab customers wasn't racist. I simply prompted those who think so to consider things from the cab driver's perspective. To be empathetic towards their plight. And you failed. No surprise. You care about yourself and have little need for anyone else unless they benefit you in some way. Welcome to Earth, human being. Now get over it.

 

I never said that avoiding certain tables or cab customers wasn't racist

So you're condoning racism?

 

So you're begging the question?

I don't know if it is racist or not, especially when racism used to mean institutionally denying rights to people based on race, and now it means pretty much any casual observation a person might make that can be construed as having to do with race.

They don't tip and I will avoid them when I can. If I can't avoid, then they will get the best, friendliest service anyone at the restaurant will get because I am the best there is. But if I can avoid the waste of my time, I will. You choose whether or not it is racist, but first tell me how you earn a living, and how you would like doing that same job for nothing.

 

I have empathy for people who are trying to make a living but I don't support prejudice. Often, it's based on irrational beliefs. I believe in giving people the opportunity to show who they are instead of making assumptions that could be incorrect. Having people wait for service is obviously not providing the best service. Not discriminating against people that you know next to nothing about would be the best. I'm curious, what do you consider to be a good tip (based on percentage) and what have you usually received from customers of different races?

 

Is racism a problem in your life? Is it something that you deal with every day? I can answer "no" to both questions.

I'm tired of it being grossly exaggerated to obtain political benefits.

 

I belong to "minority group" and I think that all this controversy over racism is totally over exaggerated. I am a conservative and do not support the liberals and other people who make a big issue over racism. This is in reality a very small issue and should be treated as such, but since it is not there are huge consequences

 

I remember back in the day when I waited tables I had a black family come in - there were at least 20 of them, they basically took up my entire section, anyway they all ordered steak and stayed for about 2 hours, their bill was something like $250 bucks and you know what they tipped me? $5 - $5 flippn' bucks...

Thing is I knew I would get screwed....

I would usually get a $5 tip on a $30 dollar check.... At least $50 on a $250 check...

The truth is that 90% of black people are terrible tippers...

At least most restaurants by me have a mandatory minimum gratuity charge already included in the check (15%)...

 

C'mon, Africans sold slaves to slave traders - don't you get that?

"libs" seem to forget that fact...

White people didn't enslave them - they were enslaved by their own, most were slaves way before they were ever traded..

You don't blame the Africans for slavery, no you want to blame white people..

 

And they are still selling slaves in Mauritania to this very day, yet you don't hear squat about that.

 

I didn't know you were a visible minority.

 

Isn't that amazing. And here all this time we thought the people living in those big South Carolina plantation houses were white, but according to you they were black all along. You learn something new here every day.

 

You're right.

I should have brought that up and do on occasion however it is ignored.. It happens in Mali too...

- - - Updated - - -

Some were actually black Doug, however that doesn't change the fact Africans were/do enslaving and trading their own people....

 

For the last 40 years, being a minority or female (preferably both) has been the ticket for success in corporate America.

People who claim racism in the private sector are generally living in the 1950's.

 

They were not slaves, they were birds... I wonder what Africans who "sold" their own people did with the money they got paid by the whites. Seriously, did they go buy some clothes? maybe food from the market? LoL...

 

Are you a visible minority?

 

No. I'm just a witness to history.

 

If you are white then posting something like this is ridiculous:

It's like a white guy complaining about the humidity at a lynching.

 

i agree