That statue in England that ended up in the bay?

race as in "race based chattel slavery" refers to the designation of the nouns "black" and "white" to individuals in order to segregate them in terms of law. in this case, the laws of the southern states designated that all blacks were to be slaves forever. that was one of hundreds of laws passed in the south pertaining to "race" as in "black" or "white". the "white" designation would nearly always refer to laws passed against "whites" that would prohibit them from having relationships with "blacks". no such laws were passed, as far as ihave seen that would condemn a "white" person to slavery forever on the basis of them being "white"

 

it is a peculiar stance for sure but one of the intriguing aspects of the debate wouldnt you say. to understand the evil within, or rather overstand.

 

Well ... and why did the Nazis talk about a Jewish race and / or a Slavic race in Eastern Europe / Russia? There is no black and white in the skin color.

Sure ... Nazis are evil jerks and morons at the end of the day ... but the term racism is not just a question of skin color.

 

Yes because European society had reached that stage of development which African had not. The principle is the same, the method is irrelevant whether it's the Nazis gassing the Jews with typical German efficiency or the Rwandan Hutus massacring the Tutsis with machetes.

 

Esau is wrong about alot of things, particularly history and especially matters of "race", but his remark that there was no race-based slavery before it was invented by Western and Northern Europeans, is indeed factual. Race-based means the slavery was legitimized by pointing to the supposed inferiority of the African (or "Negroid") race. This form of slavery was indeed a new invention, relatively speaking. White Americans did not keep Slavic slaves, or Jewish slaves, based on the idea of Slavs and Jews being racially inferior. Even when they thought Jews were racially inferior, they did not think slavery suited them.

Generally, the two of you are talking completely past each other. Esau talks about the reality of racism in the US, and you about the reality of racism everywhere else.

 

What I didn't know was that the Colonialists also used Indians as slaves. The British for instant deporting them to work on their colonies.

https://www.thoughtco.com/untold-history-of-american-indian-slavery-2477982

The reality is that this was a very White Supremacist time. Unfortunately it looks like we still have not uncovered all the wrong views we have got from those maintaining the propaganda. The Nazis and their treatment of Jews and others was very much them carrying on as was typical of Europeans abroad - in Africa and it would seem in the Americas. Germany had its first death Camp in Africa though when Germans at home found out they protested against. Really what the Nazis did was take home what was happening abroad by themselves and other Europeans. They had decided Jews were a different race. This was simply because they had to find a reason why they were unacceptable in Europe. Previously this was because they were Jewish but a lot of them were giving up Judaism so now they decided that as their religion came from the ME that is where they too came from.

It was just all White Nationalism and we appear to still be playing it. We have not yet faced the truth. We have not yet looked at what we all did.

 

And this is where Mandelus further up is right. Because the (invented) racist hierachies simply didn't put "Whites" at the top - universally. Anglo-Saxons put themselves at the top along with other "Nordics", but others who adopted "scientific" racist ideas, would put their own ethnicities at the top and pretend it was a special race, a superior breed, of human. To most Europeans the idea of "White Nationalism" is/was completely absurd. Would be like talking about a "Black Nationalism" in Africa.

The "scientific racism", or notion that human races really existed and that they existed in a "natural" hierachy, came about as a result of the belief in social darwinism. The logic among that philosophy can be summarized to: "If you're the most succesful in any society, it's because you're the most advanced, most "fittest" in society. This was applied to race, certainly, but even before that it was applied to the lower classes that these elite academics, politicians, nobles and wealthy company owners looked down on - and who they needed to be as "simple" and/or "helpless" as possible. Because then, who better to guide them and tell them what they "really" need if not those social darwinists?

The social "mechanism", so to speak, is the same whatever we're talking the racism of 19th slave owners in America, or we're talking serfs working on their lord's estate, not being allowed to leave and having lesser rights than him. They were not looked down on because of the color of their skin, but they were looked down on because they had the wrong social station. Racism is the same mechanism, the same picture, painted with a different brush... but we end up with the same outcome.

But...please don't assume that "White" Supremacy was a European goal among racists. Simply having "white" skin color made absolutely no difference to determine whether you were part of the "favored" race, or you got shot through the head and buried in a mass grave... in Europe. Just like having black skin made/makes no difference in Africa.

 

White Nationalism is a new thing trying to be more appealing than White Supremacy and I would say it has been gaining in appeal in recent years in Europe including the UK. What I was talking about in speaking about White Supremacy and it being here now though was something different to that. I am not going to go more into your post right now because it is not dealing with what I was talking about though of course this with eugenics was important and that and the Human Zoos and lies which scientists engaged in were most certainly part of what inspired Hitler and arguably if Germany had not gone the way it did, it is quite possible the US may have - but that is not what I was talking about and is a diversion from it.

Put very simply I was talking about the propaganda which Europeans received to make them believe that African people, black people were inferior human beings when they had sophisticated societies many thousands of years before ourselves. That I would say is one of the ingrained biases which many people have which allow them to racist when it appears they do not know they are being so but it is something which black people most certainly do feel and from the US to Britain to Australia they tell their young if they are going to be able to achieve they have to be, not twice as good as it used to be with women but ten times as good.

 

Sure ... but what is the correct definition at least and who decides what correct is and what not about "racism" ...

You know, for example, that in North Africa the barbaresques for centuries had abducted over a million Europeans and also North Americans as slaves in the Mediterranean Sea and even to Iceland on ships and on coasts, also with the racist justification that they were considered Arabic -African Muslim race are superior to the white Christian race?

No ... not just religiously with Muslims against Christians, but also racially.

 

Of course they did, they must have learned from Hillary.

 

The reason I object to your post, is that not all Europeans were considered all that much more superior than African black people.

Don't confuse European nationalism, even ethnic nationalism, with being "White" nationalism. I know that there are ultra-right nationalists in Europe who are also racist and believe in race theories, but they don't represent all forms, or the majority, of ethnic nationalism in Europe. Not that ethnic nationalism is morally or intellectually better, it's just that "White" is not a nationality/ethnicity or any sort of popular group identity in Europe to the extent it is in America, especially not in the time leading up to WW2. While you're right that even the Europeans considered subhuman themselves by Northern European race standards, would have figured at least higher in the race hierachy than African black people, those Europeans (Slavs, Sami for example) were still subjected to the same sort of racism, and racist beliefs, subjected to forced sterilizations and, under the Nazis, slavery and extermination (Nazis didn't exterminate or forcibly sterilize the Sami, they were forcibly sterilized by the Norwegian government in those days). If a mid 20th century Pole or a Sami emigrates to the US in 1950, he might suddenly be seen as "White", and suddenly find that the racism he had been used to, no longer exists for him because he is considered racially equal to the Americans who dominated and control the country at that time. So, one could go up to him and say: "You're benefiting from white privilege", and they might be right. But if they said: "You're white, you've ALWAYS benefited from white privilege" to the Pole or Sami man, then they wouldn't just be factually wrong, but also deeply, deeply disrespectful, ignorant and arrogant.

So once again, it is a very big mistake to anachronistically talk of White supremacy in pre- and during WW2 Europe, if you don't have a clear understanding of what that "white" means. It wasn't white supremacist in the sense that most Americans are familiar with what "White" means, i.e. simply having white skin and superficially European features. Having white skin was not at all enough to qualify you as an equal human being to British, German or Scandinavian racist theorists at the time. The racist hierachies of the time were more... (I hate to use this word about it, but it fits) sophisticated and complex than just "white skin vs dark skin". That was a major part of it, but it wasn't the whole picture.

 

There are idiotic definitions of racism out there, I agree. For example being critical or "hostile" to other nationalities, cultures or religions is one of the dictionary definitions of racism in Danish dictionaries. I use the original one, the one that refers to a belief in the existence of human races and that those races can be placed in some sort of hierachy of superior and inferior.

I know about the Barbary pirates. I have never heard that they practised race-based slavery. Do you have a source or reference for that? I don't think it's impossible, since the notions of "scientific racism" were eventually adopted even as far away as Japan, but slavery in Muslim lands generally was similar to how slavery had been like in Christian lands before the advent of race slavery. Heathen slaves were fine, enslaving people of the same faith a taboo, and there was no racial component to the slavery. A Greek who converted to Islam, would own Greek slaves who were Christian, a Mandé Muslim would own Mandé slaves who were pagan.

If the Barbary pirates did raid for slaves out of a belief that the Arab and African race was superior to the Europeans, sure that would be race-based slavery. But I am skeptical. If you have a primary source, as in text where one of the barbary pirates or lords himself voice the opinion that he enslaved Europeans based on ideas of his race being superior to Europeans, that would be the most reliable sort of evidence.

 

I must search and deliver later to you ... I read it in an article about the famous US Navy actions against the Barbary states and that it only really ended when the Frech conquered Northern Africa as their colonies

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crispus_Attucks#Early_life_and_ethnic_origins

 

You have a different issue to me and you are insisting orn projecting onto me that I am saying what I am not saying. I come from Europe as does Mandalus. I was not for instance arguing against Mandalus but you claimed Mandalus had it right not me. We were talking about different things. Possibly you don't know how the forum works and think if someone has said something then everything that people say after is in connection to that. That is not how it works.

 

It does appear that this is so. Currently it is believed it was the Australian Aborigines who sailed there. There are pictures of boats on their cave walls which could have got them there. They are believed to be the first pictures of boats in the world.

However there is also claims that African Nations had sent their people there. I have come across this several times. Some particular King. I have also heard that some African Muslim Leader sent his people who were black there. Possibly the same person. Either Aborigines or black people direct from Africa were there. The Aborigines had the boats to get there. Africans did as well. It is possible that the reason that researchers are suggesting it was Australian Aborigines rather than people direct from Africa was because they have eaten the propaganda that blacks in Africa are stupid. That would make sense as the only reason they believed it was the Aborogines was because the skulls they uncovered were what they described as 'negroid'

However you read it, Africans or Blacks were there before Columbus otherwise how did their skulls dating from before Columbus and American Indians get there?.

Here is a British man, Akala, giving a lecture at the Oxford Union on the false conception which has dominated Western Propaganda that Africans had never been able to do anything but build mud huts. Unfortunately unless you have an enormous tv it is not possible to see the pictures. Nonetheless he goes into a lot.

 

My apologies for the assumption, and my assumption was something else. I assumed you were American, based partly on Americans being the majority of posters here, and 25 years of debating with Americans online has generally given me the impression that they don't know that their way of viewing race and the history of racism, is not universal. Americans aren't the only ones capable of being ignorant about history and hold bizarre ideas about race, of course. Turks seem to be pretty good at it, too, for example...

As for the video, yeah, I grew up with - and still see it today - those charity groups' videos where they show a hunger-stricken or crying African child and a sympathetic female voiceover asking for your donations, where the picture then changes to a smiling child... but you never see a city as the backdrop for those scenes. It's always "The African Village". Apparantly hunger, lack of school funding and clean water only strikes people in the countryside of Africa - or rather it's as the guy says, the very idea of African major cities doesn't manifest in many people's heads at all. And it's only natural that if you're African, or of African descent, and grow up only with a historical understanding of Africa gleaned from European history books prior to when European archeologists and historians started caring African history (beyond North Africa), you're also at risk of internalizing that view of your history within yourself.

 

I have been watching a couple of videos of racism in the UK. I need to say that most of this I was not aware of. The first one I have only so far watched the first half



This one below deals with racism almost up to Broadwater Farm and the Brixton Riots and again loads of information I had not heard of.

A couple of things said near the end possibly to think of. Someone says that Britian made, out of one of the Caribean Islands, 4 times the amount of money it made on all its other trade world wide and with that it was able to finance the Industrail Revolution. I had heard before that slavery was what financed the IR so that was interesting. It was sugar.

The second thing was someone suggests that US racism probably came from the UK. Again I did not know this but apparently Britian deported blacks under Elizabeth 1st because they were black. That might need some looking into but it goes along with Blacks being treated hisotrically similar to Jews and the Roma though with them it is not yet sorted. He believes that when Brits moved to the US they brought their racism with him which allowed them to feel fine about slavery and being racist. That would need looking into.

After Broadwater Farm and the Brexton Riots while the Right Wing Tories were shouting for them to 'Go Home' and even offering the a one way air ticket, the inquirty did find that the way they acted was understandable when viewed through the racism with which they were treated with in every area of their lives - jobs, homes, police etc.

 

in the context of the laws written in the southern states, race was determined by skin colour and those laws stated that ALL Blacks are to be slaves forever.

 

yes ive read about that. it was supposedly a king from Mali who ventured across the atlantic. the atlantic cultures from africa up to britian are some of the most advanced cultures of antiquity given its proximity to the water which aided the rapid expansion and trade along the coasts for these atlanteans

the olmecs did have a strong resemblance to contemporary west african populations.

 

it seems that the problem hitler had with jewish folk was their dominance of the banking system. he needed a simple ideology to convince the masses about how jewish folk were the enemy so he invented his race theory [even though jewish germans and germans are practically identical]. he tapped into the existing ethnic division of east and west germany, the easteners were generally darker than the westerners, in order to isolate jewish folk. it was easier for the public to understand that the reality of the financial system that he believed jewish folk had a strangle hold on

 

delete

 

Well if people are needing then they will be needing. It is a continent which has been totally plundered and it is one of the first which is going to suffer from Climate Destruction. I have noticed a lot of people talking about Blacks as if they are an inferior form of human beings well behind 'whites' in ability. They appear to believe Africa gave nothing to the world. This is not true.

They were apparently the first to understand Mathematics - now I had thought that was Arabs.... They were the first people to use Iron, the first to build stone buildings in a specific way - which I think was without Mortar. They were the people who introduced Mummifying people, apparently the first use of agriculture can be found there as well as Astronomy. The first ceaserian apparently happened there. They developed writing which spread to Greece and Rome.

and lets not forget that in the 14th C Mali was the richest country in the world. Akala goes into a lot of that but here is another video easier to see pictures on....and he finishes with the fact that if they had not been adventurous and explorers, the Global world we now have with all the seeming different types of people would not exist.

 

Got a source for England trying to eject blacks? I mean how many were there here in the Elizabethan age? Certainly true about the gypsies but she didn't go through with it. The riots of the 80s were a disgrace and symptomatic of criminal thuggery, Britain is probably the least racist society in the world.
And it's spelt 'Britxton'

 

But that didn't happen, even the South had its' freemen?