The origins of Slavery in North America

[Kritias]

This thread was created by posts from this thread ~ alhoon

1. The claim that racism is limited solely to Aryan supremacy is disinformation. Institutionalized racial supremacism dates back to at least the ethnic enslavement of the Israelites in Egypt in the the 5th century BC. The genocide of the Tutsis, the Hussein's "cleansing" of the Kurds, IS's targeting of Christians and Jews and the CCP's current "re-education" of the Uighur Muslims provide more contemporary examples.

2. The insinuation that intra-minority racism does not exist is demonstrably false. The deliberate targeting of Jewish communities by Islamic radicals with institutional backing in the Middle East/South Asia is the most obvious example, though one might also point to repeated attacks against Orthodox Jews by African Americans in NY and NJ and/or tensions between Indian and Pakistani nationalists.

@Cope,

1 - What has the genocide of the Tutsi, the cleansing of the Kurds, IS's targeting of Christians and Jews and the CCP's re-education of the Uighur Muslims have in common with the ethnic enslavement of the Israelites in Egypt in the 5th century BC and racism, I wonder. The Tutsi were killed as a result of the Rwandan civil war, and were killed because of their different ethnic origin in a region of the world were France and England for a lack of a better word, clustered. If anything, it should show you how the British and the French handled de-colonization, creating the reasons for the civil war to begin with. The Kurds have been persecuted in various Middle Eastern areas, not just Iraq, because they were granted full autonomy and independence since the treaty of Sevres, only to be betrayed, oppressed, and faced genocide. The treaty of Sevres and their promised nation-state paints them as separatists since 1919. The IS' targeting of Christians and Jews is demonstrably based on religion - I don't understand why you'd say it's racism. Lastly, the Uighur Mulsims is, again, based on religion and culture. I won't comment on the contents of the First Testament - it's a predominantly religious document, so there's no hard data there to discuss.

Despite this, I can't but notice that by drawing this (false) narrative that normalizes 'racism' as something done across the world your basic argument is "We are just as as anyone else". First, it's not true; Europeans have the privileged position of elevating bigotry and discrimination to a science with exact measurements and percentages of 'white heritage'. Stop making excuses for it. Second, even if it were true, I believe that the advanced countries of the west should aspire to something better than "being " for minorities. All lives matter, right?

2 - Intra-minority racism. Again, you conflate religious fundamentalism with racism in a 'gotcha!' move. Indian and Pakistani nationalists have been at each other's throats ever since the British left India and carved the land between the Muslim Pakistani and the Hindu Indians - religion. Jewish communities have also been under attack for primarily religious and secondary political reasons by "Islamic radicals" as you name them. As to the relations between Jewish and Black communities, it often entailed 'shopkeeper' and 'landlord' relationships. You see, you try to pass a primarily class warfare issue as racism, because you don't understand history -or you consciously try to misrepresent it to fit your narrative.

W.E.B Dubois wrote:

The Jew is the heir of the slave-baron in Dougherty [County, Georgia]; and as we ride westward, by wide stretching cornfields and stubby orchards of peach and pear, we see on all sides within the circle of dark forest a Land of Canaan. Here and there are tales of projects for money-getting, born in the swift days of Reconstruction,—"improvement" companies, wine companies, mills and factories; nearly all failed, and the Jew fell heir.

James Baldwin:

The first white man I ever saw was the Jewish manager who arrived to collect the rent, and he collected the rent because he did not own the building. I never, in fact, saw any of the people who owned any of the buildings in which we scrubbed and suffered for so long, until I was a grown man and famous. None of them were Jews. And I was not stupid: the grocer and the druggist were Jews, for example, and they were very very nice to me, and to us... I knew a murderer when I saw one, and the people who were trying to kill me were not Jews.

And Martin Luther King:

When we were working in Chicago, we had numerous rent strikes on the West Side, and it was unfortunately true that, in most instances, the persons we had to conduct these strikes against were Jewish landlords... We were living in a slum apartment owned by a Jew and a number of others, and we had to have a rent strike. We were paying $94 for four run-down, shabby rooms, and .... we discovered that whites ... were paying only $78 a month. We were paying 20 percent tax. The Blacks end up paying a color tax, and this has happened in instances where Blacks actually confronted Jews as the landlord or the storekeeper. The irrational statements that have been made are the result of these confrontations.

So, I suggest you do some re-evaluating and spare us the ignorant statements.

[Cope]

@Cope,

1 - What has the genocide of the Tutsi, the cleansing of the Kurds, IS's targeting of Christians and Jews and the CCP's re-education of the Uighur Muslims have in common with the ethnic enslavement of the Israelites in Egypt in the 5th century BC and racism, I wonder. The Tutsi were killed as a result of the Rwandan civil war, and were killed because of their different ethnic origin in a region of the world were France and England for a lack of a better word, clustered. If anything, it should show you how the British and the French handled de-colonization, creating the reasons for the civil war to begin with. The Kurds have been persecuted in various Middle Eastern areas, not just Iraq, because they were granted full autonomy and independence since the treaty of Sevres, only to be betrayed, oppressed, and faced genocide. The treaty of Sevres and their promised nation-state paints them as separatists since 1919. The IS' targeting of Christians and Jews is demonstrably based on religion - I don't understand why you'd say it's racism. Lastly, the Uighur Mulsims is, again, based on religion and culture. I won't comment on the contents of the First Testament - it's a predominantly religious document, so there's no hard data there to discuss.

Despite this, I can't but notice that by drawing this (false) narrative that normalizes 'racism' as something done across the world your basic argument is "We are just as as anyone else". First, it's not true; Europeans have the privileged position of elevating bigotry and discrimination to a science with exact measurements and percentages of 'white heritage'. Stop making excuses for it. Second, even if it were true, I believe that the advanced countries of the west should aspire to something better than "being " for minorities. All lives matter, right?

2 - Intra-minority racism. Again, you conflate religious fundamentalism with racism in a 'gotcha!' move. Indian and Pakistani nationalists have been at each other's throats ever since the British left India and carved the land between the Muslim Pakistani and the Hindu Indians - religion. Jewish communities have also been under attack for primarily religious and secondary political reasons by "Islamic radicals" as you name them. As to the relations between Jewish and Black communities, it often entailed 'shopkeeper' and 'landlord' relationships. You see, you try to pass a primarily class warfare issue as racism, because you don't understand history -or you consciously try to misrepresent it to fit your narrative.

W.E.B Dubois wrote:



James Baldwin:



And Martin Luther King:



So, I suggest you do some re-evaluating and spare us the ignorant statements.

This post is packed with yet more disinformation. It is nauseatingly unoriginal in both in its framing and its content, so I'll be brief.

I have demonstrated that racially/ethnically supremacist attitudes both predate and extend beyond "Aryan" societies (and I could have mentioned other examples such as the Roman slave trade, the Armenian genocide or imperial Japanese chauvinism to illustrate the point). Trying to limit the scope of racism to western manifestations of racial prejudice is politicized duplicitousness in plain sight. The claim that ethnoreligious discrimination exists outside the framework of racism is almost as disingenuous as your efforts to build roads of blame and guilt back to western civilizations in order to absolve non "Aryan" actors of their crimes.

Equally, persistently accusing me (and others) of "ignorance" or "bigotry" is a poor mask for your Marxist radicalism. We can all see that your sole intention is to impugn western societies rather than to initiate a reasonable dialogue.

[Kritias]

This post is packed with yet more disinformation. It is nauseatingly unoriginal in both in its framing and its content, so I'll be brief.

I have demonstrated that racially/ethnically supremacist attitudes both predate and extend beyond "Aryan" societies (and I could have mentioned other examples such as the Roman slave trade, the Armenian genocide or imperial Japanese chauvinism to illustrate the point). Trying to limit the scope of racism to western manifestations of racial prejudice is politicized duplicitousness in plain sight. The claim that ethnoreligious discrimination exists outside the framework of racism is almost as disingenuous as your efforts to build roads of blame and guilt back to western civilizations in order to absolve non "Aryan" actors of their crimes.

Equally, persistently accusing me (and others) of "ignorance" or "bigotry" is a poor mask for your Marxist radicalism. We can all see that your sole intention is to impugn western societies rather than to initiate a reasonable dialogue.

Okay, a few points here:

1 - Durkheim would tell you that crime is a social event and being so, has a social function in society: namely the unification of society to re-affirm social norms and call for justice under the outrage brought on by the criminal behaviour. In the case of George Floyd, the criminal behaviour is manifestly his murder; however, there's a lot of people here who seem to believe that riots/looting/statue vandalism is of equal, if not of greater severity. Durkheim would call this phenomenon anomie, the normlessness brought on by skewed morality where the benefits of society as a whole are gradually done away with in favour of a particular group. In this way, an ethical position is transformed into an unethical one; how else can you explain blaming people for protesting? In the case of the U.S, this normlessness is founded in the unequal treatment of minority citizens - mind you, black Americans have been in the country for many generations and have as much a claim to it as anyone else, even though their civil rights were only given in the '6os. It's hypocritical at least to hold the opinion that when this normlessness is met with normlessness from protesters, only the protesters are to blame, never mind blamed to the same degree. This observation ties well with my second point.

2 - The discussion of slave trade has been brought on as a straw-man argument to rationalize why and how what's been happening in America is in a way 'natural' and 'normal'. You can witness that from the quotation above where, when the first batch of examples were done away with, the argument widened to incorporate the Romans, Armenians and Japanese. I assume if I shot these examples down the argument would widen again, and again, and again until we've gone through the entire list of existing and bygone nations in a frantic attempt to justify their beliefs. What if the Romans were as likely to enslave Gauls as Mauritanians? What if Armenians were persecuted along with Pontics, Assyrians, and Greeks because they were Orthodox Christians during a nationalist movement that dreamed of a land with a single religion, customs and language? Cope here isn't coping with the differences of racism, nationalist movements, and pure religious zealotry. Race as you understand it came to be in the colonial times, under the premises of scientific racism. The greatest example of this is Aristotle's division between those borne to rule and those borne to serve, which was the mondus operandi from the Roman to the late Medieval world and which also doesn't include racial, religious, skin pigmentation but behavioral indicators. The Bible doesn't advocate for the enslavement of people of a particular race either, and the Bible was the most influential force for keeping Feudalism alive until the French Revolution. Where people bigoted and prejudiced towards foreigners throughout history? Yes, of course. Did everyone formulate a scientific theory to justify their massacre and enslavement under the guise of natural selection? Nope, that's Europeans. But you know that. Your deception can be seen clearly when you call it 'racial prejudice' instead of 'racism', conflating the two terms into one that suits your purpose.

3 - Reasonable dialogue requires criticism of what is wrong. You calling me a radical Marxist, though very flattering and thank you for this (+REP), is not an honest approach for debate. What you aim to do is to "shut me up" by calling me dirty names, which shows the validity of your position in its full glory. It's also very telling that you assume to speak for others as well ("We can all see that your sole intention is to impugn western societies rather than to initiate a reasonable dialogue."). Maybe you should read Adorno's The Authoritarian Personality whenever you feel the urge to decipher/express what other people ought to be feeling about a subject. At least I gave reasons for calling an idea ignorant, and historical sources to back my calling them that up. I have yet to see something similar from you. And should you want to, I will debate you in the appropriate threads about this. The issue at hand is that a black man was murdered right in front of our eyes; and instead of condemning the murder, and the indifference of the policemen present for a person dying under their care, there's people here calling black people "racist" and "criminals" and outraged at the riots and looting. There's also people raising the issue of black cops to prove that if the cops in general were racist there wouldn't be black cops, as if employment is as clear cut as you having a job in institutions you believe in. The fact that black people have been dying in the country, or that black people are subjected to unilateral implementation of laws like traffic violations doesn't seem to bother you. Instead you bring up any massacre imaginable to justify... what exactly? Because you raising these issues shows, at least to me, that you understand that there's racism in America, that black people are targeted by it, and you have no issue with it because "others are doing it, too!".

[Cope]

Okay, a few points here:

1 - Durkheim would tell you that crime is a social event and being so, has a social function in society: namely the unification of society to re-affirm social norms and call for justice under the outrage brought on by the criminal behaviour. In the case of George Floyd, the criminal behaviour is manifestly his murder; however, there's a lot of people here who seem to believe that riots/looting/statue vandalism is of equal, if not of greater severity. Durkheim would call this phenomenon anomie, the normlessness brought on by skewed morality where the benefits of society as a whole are gradually done away with in favour of a particular group. In this way, an ethical position is transformed into an unethical one; how else can you explain blaming people for protesting? In the case of the U.S, this normlessness is founded in the unequal treatment of minority citizens - mind you, black Americans have been in the country for many generations and have as much a claim to it as anyone else, even though their civil rights were only given in the '6os. It's hypocritical at least to hold the opinion that when this normlessness is met with normlessness from protesters, only the protesters are to blame, never mind blamed to the same degree. This observation ties well with my second point.

(1) This has nothing to do with the post to which it is a response; (2) I am unimpressed with namedropping or pseudo-academic posturing; (3) the point about systemic racism (or the illusion thereof) in the US was addressed here; (4) one can voice an opposition to looting, vandalism or other acts of violence without equating such behaviour to the death of GF (this false dichotomy was addressed here).

2 - The discussion of slave trade has been brought on as a straw-man argument to rationalize why and how what's been happening in America is in a way 'natural' and 'normal'. You can witness that from the quotation above where, when the first batch of examples were done away with, the argument widened to incorporate the Romans, Armenians and Japanese. I assume if I shot these examples down the argument would widen again, and again, and again until we've gone through the entire list of existing and bygone nations in a frantic attempt to justify their beliefs. What if the Romans were as likely to enslave Gauls as Mauritanians? What if Armenians were persecuted along with Pontics, Assyrians, and Greeks because they were Orthodox Christians during a nationalist movement that dreamed of a land with a single religion, customs and language? Cope here isn't coping with the differences of racism, nationalist movements, and pure religious zealotry. Race as you understand it came to be in the colonial times, under the premises of scientific racism. The greatest example of this is Aristotle's division between those borne to rule and those borne to serve, which was the mondus operandi from the Roman to the late Medieval world and which also doesn't include racial, religious, skin pigmentation but behavioral indicators. The Bible doesn't advocate for the enslavement of people of a particular race either, and the Bible was the most influential force for keeping Feudalism alive until the French Revolution. Where people bigoted and prejudiced towards foreigners throughout history? Yes, of course. Did everyone formulate a scientific theory to justify their massacre and enslavement under the guise of natural selection? Nope, that's Europeans. But you know that. Your deception can be seen clearly when you call it 'racial prejudice' instead of 'racism', conflating the two terms into one that suits your purpose.

(1) Slavery was not introduced to the discussion to "rationalize" events in America; (2) no one claimed the Bible "advocated" racial slavery (although the Israelites were an enslaved racial/ethnic group); (3) I will continue to rebuke your furious, yet disingenuous, attempts to appropriate Floyd's death and monopolize the concept of racism to serve a radical political agenda.

3 - Reasonable dialogue requires criticism of what is wrong. You calling me a radical Marxist, though very flattering and thank you for this (+REP), is not an honest approach for debate. What you aim to do is to "shut me up" by calling me dirty names, which shows the validity of your position in its full glory. It's also very telling that you assume to speak for others as well ("We can all see that your sole intention is to impugn western societies rather than to initiate a reasonable dialogue."). Maybe you should read Adorno's The Authoritarian Personality whenever you feel the urge to decipher/express what other people ought to be feeling about a subject. At least I gave reasons for calling an idea ignorant, and historical sources to back my calling them that up. I have yet to see something similar from you. And should you want to, I will debate you in the appropriate threads about this. The issue at hand is that a black man was murdered right in front of our eyes; and instead of condemning the murder, and the indifference of the policemen present for a person dying under their care, there's people here calling black people "racist" and "criminals" and outraged at the riots and looting. There's also people raising the issue of black cops to prove that if the cops in general were racist there wouldn't be black cops, as if employment is as clear cut as you having a job in institutions you believe in. The fact that black people have been dying in the country, or that black people are subjected to unilateral implementation of laws like traffic violations doesn't seem to bother you. Instead you bring up any massacre imaginable to justify... what exactly? Because you raising these issues shows, at least to me, that you understand that there's racism in America, that black people are targeted by it, and you have no issue with it because "others are doing it, too!".

(1) What is "wrong" is the mistreatment of others on the basis of protected characteristics, not just "Aryan" supremacy; (2) my characterization of your position as "Marxist" is a statement of fact, not a compliment or an attempt to silence you; (3) your namedropping continues to be unimpressive; (4) my references to discriminatory practices outside of the US were designed to rebuke your disinformation about the nature of racism.

[Kritias]

(1) This has nothing to do with the post to which it is a response; (2) I am unimpressed with namedropping or pseudo-academic posturing; (3) the point about systemic racism (or the illusion thereof) in the US was addressed here; (4) one can voice an opposition to looting, vandalism or other acts of violence without equating such behaviour to the death of GF (this false dichotomy was addressed here).

(1) It was obviously meant to bring the discussion back to the case at hand, the murder of George Floyd; (2) Well, it shows - your posts lack any scientific back-up; (3) I have also argued systemic racism in my OP in this thread; (4) You are arguing with a straw-man here - opposition to looting, vandalism and other acts of violence isn't wrong per se; only when posed in juxtaposition with the death of a man, or as a spring board to call all black men ''racists'' and ''criminals'' as some did in this thread. Many are too quick to do away with the catalyst event, the death of George Floyd, and focus the discussion solely on the looting and the rioting as if that were the only crime.

(1) Slavery was not introduced to the discussion to "rationalize" events in America; (2) no one claimed the Bible "advocated" racial slavery (although the Israelites were an enslaved racial/ethnic group); (3) I will continue to rebuke your furious, yet disingenuous, attempts to appropriate Floyd's death and monopolize the concept of racism to serve a radical political agenda.

(1) So, when you guys were citing all other cultures who have at times used slaves, or all the atrocities from around the world you could think of, you did so... just for funsies? Please. The only logical reason to bring up slavery and atrocities at this debate was to point out others who are not "us" have done so, too. If that's not normalizing it, I don't know what it is. (2) Precisely the point. Neither the Bible or Greco-Roman philosophy justified slavery based on ethnos or race. The idea of enslaving a person because of their race/skin color is a uniquely colonial theme. (3) Again, people have been doing horrific things throughout the ages, but only Europeans have the privileged position to form an entire theory to do these things and feel good about themselves because it's 'the law of nature'. Keep rebuking my furious attempts though. You're doing just fine!

(1) What is "wrong" is the mistreatment of others on the basis of protected characteristics, not just "Aryan" supremacy; (2) my characterization of your position as "Marxist" is a statement of fact, not a compliment or an attempt to silence you; (3) your namedropping continues to be unimpressive; (4) my references to discriminatory practices outside of the US were designed to rebuke your disinformation about the nature of racism.

(1) Under what supremacy did the mistreatment of others, the death of George Floyd in this case, happened? Under what supremacy have many black people been mistreated under in the US? Japanese chauvinism? We are talking about an event happening in the US, so bringing up the long history of abuse done to these people under the guise of white supremacy is more than appropriate. You raising all the atrocities you can think of in an attempt to argue "others have done it, too!", on the other hand, isn't appropriate. What's more, it's dubious ethically. (2) Marxism is the critique of the economic policies known as capitalism, as exemplified by the work of Karl Marx (ergo, its name) and those who continued in his train of scientific thought. Critiquing history is not Marxist. Unless your definition of Marxist is anything that goes against your held beliefs. Which, seeing the way you used the term, is the case. So you calling me a Marxist can have no other reasoning but to assign a dirty name. And don't let me start on the 'radical' part. Your fact seems very influenced by your feelings here, Cope. And here I was thinking facts didn't care. (3) It shows you have not read anyone remotely expert with the subject you're discussing, don't worry; (4) My argument exactly. You raised up all the atrocities, genocides, persecutions you could remember which you sum under the modest title "discriminatory practices". If that's not you wanting to normalize these horrific events, I don't know why you'd give it such a empty-of-meaning description in your writing.

[Lord Thesaurian]

So give the african americas their own independent nation state; it should be Georgia or Mississipi. If you don't want blacks to blame your for everything just set them free and give them their own land; that way they can practice extreme ownership and forge their own destiny as the bosnians and Israelites did.

Been there, done that.

The chief reasons that Liberia failed were: the limited resources they had at their disposal, limited cooperation from the freed slaves to leave America, native hostility and external world powers that threatened to invade Liberia. Both organizations mentioned above ultimately had the same goal: to provide transportation of the freed slaves back to Africa and aid them in setting up a new colony where they could escape racial prosecution.

The colony was set up in likeness of American Democracy, controlled by the Whig party with no other competing parties. The first President of Liberia was a white man born and raised in the Unites States and many of the other party members had no actual African descent. Because the political structure was a single party, a kind of aristocracy arose among all of the settlers regardless of race, seeing themselves as superior to the native people.

Liberia was forced to declare its independence out of fear of being invaded by Britain in 1847. Claiming that it ultimately failed may be extreme, as it is still a country today and some of its inhabitants are still of free slave descent. However, the democratic government that was set up is virtually non-existent, as ethnic groups took over shortly after the organizations were unable to provide monetary compensation that was needed.

https://historyengine.richmond.edu/episodes/view/4852

[B. W.]

Lol feel free to provide a source proving it otherwise. I provided two sources. Joshha John Ward was the biggest slave owner in South Carolina. And he was white.

I'm not going to haggle over the numbers, but if you want to go there Ellison was the wealthiest black slave owner in the state and owned more slaves than any other black owner (over 170 black plantation owners). He also bred his slaves which was looked down upon by whites. Ellison was wealthier than 90% of the whites in the state.

Going further, the first person to establish chattel slavery on this continent was a black man, Andrew Johnson. So why are BLM exclusively blaming whites for the past history of slavery in this country? Blacks not only participated in it for profit, but initiated it. I guess that doesn't fit the narrative.

[Kritias]

I'm not going to haggle over the numbers, but if you want to go there Ellison was the wealthiest black slave owner in the state and owned more slaves than any other black owner (over 170 black plantation owners). He also bred his slaves which was looked down upon by whites. Ellison was wealthier than 90% of the whites in the state.

Going further, the first person to establish chattel slavery on this continent was a black man, Andrew Johnson. So why are BLM exclusively blaming whites for the past history of slavery in this country? Blacks not only participated in it for profit, but initiated it. I guess that doesn't fit the narrative.

Sources, please.

After police pull out of the east precinct in Seattle, the area, now "Free Capitol Hill", has been declared an autonomous zone:
https://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2...east-precinct/


Who is heading out to support this new attempt at utopia...

So, aside from the police withdrawing to calm down spirits with the protesters, a cardboard sign proclaiming "You are now entering Free Capitol Hill", and a graffiti over the East Precinct that reads "Seattle People's Department", what revolutionary action has taken place that would justify the "autonomous" zone gig? Where are the joyous cries of liberation etc? I think the author got too excited and ran away with their words here. Much ado over exaggerated news.

[Ludicus]

Neither the Bible or Greco-Roman philosophy justified slavery based on ethnos or race. The idea of enslaving a person because of their race/skin color is a uniquely colonial theme.

Absolutely. Let's say that it all started with the Romanus Pontifex bull, 1455, slowly ( for a time the two kings of Kongo and Portugal addressed each other as "Brother") but gradually. Since then, the crescendo of the dehumanization process of slavery was unstoppable. Fanon writes, "The social constellation, the cultural whole, is deeply modified by the existence of racism... the end of race prejudice begins with a sudden incomprehension".So, I say, the first step is the decolonization of the education.And only then we begin the work of assembling new cultural forms.

[Vanoi]

I'm not going to haggle over the numbers, but if you want to go there Ellison was the wealthiest black slave owner in the state and owned more slaves than any other black owner (over 170 black plantation owners). He also bred his slaves which was looked down upon by whites. Ellison was wealthier than 90% of the whites in the state.

Going further, the first person to establish chattel slavery on this continent was a black man, Andrew Johnson. So why are BLM exclusively blaming whites for the past history of slavery in this country? Blacks not only participated in it for profit, but initiated it. I guess that doesn't fit the narrative.

Ellison was the biggest black slave owner in the state and i am sure he was richer than 90% of whites in the state as most people in South Carolina and the South in general never owned slaves. Owning even one slave made you wealthier than most.

Yes black people participated in slavery. Thats not going to change however that slavery in the US was white dominated institution.

[athanaric]

The Tutsi were killed as a result of the Rwandan civil war, and were killed because of their different ethnic origin in a region of the world were France and England for a lack of a better word, clustered. If anything, it should show you how the British and the French handled de-colonization, creating the reasons for the civil war to begin with. The Kurds have been persecuted in various Middle Eastern areas, not just Iraq, because they were granted full autonomy and independence since the treaty of Sevres, only to be betrayed, oppressed, and faced genocide. The treaty of Sevres and their promised nation-state paints them as separatists since 1919. The IS' targeting of Christians and Jews is demonstrably based on religion - I don't understand why you'd say it's racism. Lastly, the Uighur Mulsims is, again, based on religion and culture.

So you think that ethnicity and/or race play absolutely no role in those conflicts? How can you be so certain, have you checked?

I won't comment on the contents of the First Testament - it's a predominantly religious document, so there's no hard data there to discuss.

A wise move, since it's probably mosty BS anyway.

Despite this, I can't but notice that by drawing this (false) narrative that normalizes 'racism' as something done across the world your basic argument is "We are just as as anyone else".

What else do you think "racism" means?

First, it's not true; Europeans have the privileged position of elevating bigotry and discrimination to a science with exact measurements and percentages of 'white heritage'.

So you're saying Europeans are special?

Stop making excuses for it. Second, even if it were true, I believe that the advanced countries of the west should aspire to something better than "being " for minorities. All lives matter, right?

Why not hold everyone to the same standards?

2 - Intra-minority racism. Again, you conflate religious fundamentalism with racism in a 'gotcha!' move. Indian and Pakistani nationalists have been at each other's throats ever since the British left India and carved the land between the Muslim Pakistani and the Hindu Indians - religion.

So you're saying that Indians and Pakistanis are a minority in India and Pakistan?

Jewish communities have also been under attack for primarily religious and secondary political reasons by "Islamic radicals" as you name them. As to the relations between Jewish and Black communities, it often entailed 'shopkeeper' and 'landlord' relationships. You see, you try to pass a primarily class warfare issue as racism,

Again, what makes you so damn sure that there is no racial component to any of these religious or class-related issues? There are ethnic and/or linguistic and other cultural differences in each case. Have you consulted the people involved how they see the issue, or the scholarly literature?

because you don't understand history -or you consciously try to misrepresent it to fit your narrative.

[...]

So, I suggest you do some re-evaluating and spare us the ignorant statements.

Speaking of not understanding history, have you tried looking into pre-19th century history?

Also, I don't understand the thread title. Why capitalize "slavery" (is it a country?) but not "origins"? And I'm pretty sure slavery in North America originated with the first human settlement there, or soon thereafter.

[Kritias]

Let me reiterate my position, since the discussion had a continuity from the other thread that didn't make the transition to this one.

Racism as we understand it today is the popular manifestation of roughly half an eon of scientific theories spreading in Western Europe known as Scientific Racism since the start of the colonial era. According to these theories the human race was divided to five distinct races with the Anglo-Teutonic being the manifestation of human perfection and the African race at its bottom. The Mediterranean, Semetic and Asiatic races completed the divisions. Scientific racism goes hand in hand with the colonization dogma, known as Mission Civilisatrice - expressed popularly as the White Man's Burden. Common themes (that still persist in popular discourse) is the 'laziness' and 'cunning' of Mediterraneans, the sex-craze abandon, lower intelligence and criminality of the Africans, and the greediness and carelessness of the Asians. It's important to note that Europeans are in juxtaposition referred to as "white, sanguine, browny; with abundant, long hair; blue eyes; gentle, acute, inventive; covered with close vestments; and governed by laws." So, the only race with no negative traits. According to these theories, the extermination of lesser races was "the healthy struggle of life, making way according to the rules of nature, to superior races." The races switched around with time, at one point incorporating the Native Americans and the Slavs as distinct races, according to extermination expediences.

Therefore my point is that scholarly knowledge in Europe for quite a significant amount of time held Europeans as exceptional, elevating pre-existing 'prejudices' and 'bigotry' against foreign peoples to a distilled science complete with biology factors such as cranial measurements and skin & eye tone variations to explain rationally through the laws of nature, the manifestly unchristian things done to these people.

The opposing side upon hearing this argument proceeded to produce a comprehensive list of exterminations, genocides and persecutions done by people who are not "us" in an obvious attempt to conflate the scientific theory known as racism with the results of nationalistic movements (ie ethnic cleansing and cultural/linguistic oppression) and religious persecutions. My point isn't to say that race and ethnicity played no part in these latter events. Perhaps it will be better understood through an example: the reason we as a collective society hold the holocaust as the pinnacle of human monstrosity isn't because it was a genocide. Genocides have been happening throughout time. It was the industrialized nature and ideological organization that places the holocaust to a different plane than other genocides committed in human history. In the same understanding, the scaling and ideological organization of racism makes it unique to European thought. Yes, prejudice has always been around; yes, racial issues have always been around; but the correlation of extermination to laws of nature, meaning the destruction of human lives as a means of progress has been a unique idea to Western Europe.

[Ludicus]

Mission Civilisatrice - expressed popularly as the White Man's Burden.

Kypling. Indeed
... also expressed in the Heart of Darkness (Conrad)-the book clearly shows how the colonizers used the high ideals of the colonial "mission civilisatrize" as a cover to allow them rip the wealth of Africa. (African writers have suggested that it is in many ways just as racist as Kipling- Was Joseph Conrad Really a Racist? - Jstor but I don't agree).

In Africa and everywhere.Tin Tin -Hergé- always come to my mind.Tintin has often been criticised for being racist, but let's take a look. In the Blue Lotus, Hergé tackles racist stereotypes ascribed to Chinese people, and the "White Man's Burden" ( "look what we have done for them, all the benefits...")

[Kritias]

Some further elaboration points:

Situational persecution - Some members here have tried to pass situational persecutions off as evidence of racism, which isn't true even from a technical standpoint. Remember the anti-German sentiment that followed WW1 and WW2, in Europe and in America. Springing off the world wars, Germans were blamed for atrocities and savagery, and people of Germanic descent were often assaulted, abused, their patriotism questioned, discriminated against, incarcerated. Of course, the Germans of today have not the same stigma associated with them. The stigma of the Africans however has remained consistently the same throughout several centuries. The same arguments of mindless criminality due to single-parent families, or culture were supported in the days W.E.B Dubois wrote (1897) as they are today, as is evident in conversation in these forums.

The "lesser" races - At some point in the debate of slavery, someone will chime in and remind everyone of the Irish. However, according to H. Strickland Constable the Irish were truly an African sub-category of peoples, making his point complete with this hideous drawing of exaggerated cranial features between Irish and Africans to ram his racism home. So, when someone brings the Irish as an example of white men also facing discrimination in America and Europe, they are in fact proving the point that scientific racism created sub-categories of humans no matter their skin pigmentation. Yes, but that would also mean that black men were not targeted more, right? Wrong. The link between the Irish and the Africans is telling of how hated the later category was for these writers, as well as the political expediency that made Irish sub-humans during the mid-to-late 19th century. It took the Irish until roughly the 1960s to overcome the stigma.

Indentured servitude - In tandem with point #2, the existence of indentured servitude is often brought up as evidence than slavery in America was never racial based. But the legal differences between indentured servitude and chattel slavery are profound. Unlike slaves, indentured servants were considered legally human. Their servitude was based on a contract that limited their service to a finite period of time, usually about seven years, in exchange for passage to the colonies. They did not pass their slave status on to descendants. It was a system of brutal exploitation of new workforce, sure, especially workforce coming from "undesirable" countries (ie the lesser races) but nothing as horrific as black slavery.

[Ludicus]

They did not pass their slave status on to descendants. It was a system of brutal exploitation of new workforce, sure, especially workforce coming from "undesirable" countries...

...at the same time trying to domesticate them, by turning them in "white people".In fact, racism was invented and codified by law. Racism is not part of the human nature. Harvard Professor of African and African American Studies Walter Johnson writes in his new book,

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"There was no such thing as capitalism without slavery: the history of Manchester never happened without the history of Mississippi. The history of capitalism it must be emphasized, is a history of wages as well as whips, of factories as well as plantations, of whiteness as well as blackness, of freedom as well as slavery"

As Luther King put it, "The segregation of the races was really a political stratagem employed by the emerging Bourbon interests in the South to keep the southern masses divided and southern labor the cheapest in the land".
On a side note, I can't help but notice that the Democratic establishment loves to cite some carefully chosen citations from King's speeches, while at the same time excluding, avoiding, omitting his approach to social justice.

[athanaric]

Racism as we understand it today is the popular manifestation of roughly half an eon of scientific theories spreading in Western Europe known as Scientific Racism since the start of the colonial era.

Who is "we"? You and Ludicus and about five other people?

[Hanny]

1 - Durkheim would tell you that crime is a social event and being so, has a social function in society: namely the unification of society to re-affirm social norms and call for justice under the outrage brought on by the criminal behaviour.

Nope, being dead an all, kinda makes that impractical.

Crimes are anti social actions, the purpose/function of a criminal/crime is to break the law, the function of law is to protect society from anti social actions, and if it is committed punish for that doing so. You clearly dont know wtf you on about.

Durkheim would call this phenomenon anomie, the normlessness brought on by skewed morality where the benefits of society as a whole are gradually done away with in favour of a particular group.

Expect in his works thats not how he defines the term, which was "the lack of social cohesion and solidarity that often accompanies rapid social change" There is no rapid social change in the USA policing of minorities, its been that way since records have been kept.

The Bible doesn't advocate for the enslavement of people of a particular race either, and the Bible was the most influential force for keeping Feudalism alive until the French Revolution.

Except for the fact that it does.Cursed be Canaan; lowest of slaves shall he be to his brothers (Genesis 9:25) Ham and his descendedts, cananites, were burnt black, so all would know they as a race were fit for slavery. Its the biblical explanation for black skin colour and why it was a ok with God to make them into slaves in America.



I'm not going to haggle over the numbers, but if you want to go there Ellison was the wealthiest black slave owner in the state and owned more slaves than any other black owner (over 170 black plantation owners). He also bred his slaves which was looked down upon by whites. Ellison was wealthier than 90% of the whites in the state.

Going further, the first person to establish chattel slavery on this continent was a black man, Andrew Johnson. So why are BLM exclusively blaming whites for the past history of slavery in this country? Blacks not only participated in it for profit, but initiated it. I guess that doesn't fit the narrative.

Sources, please.

https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~arihua...y/history.html


Having to ask for a source, shows you dont know what you or anyone else is posting about. I will add slavery existed among the Native American Indians before the whites arrived.

Racism as we understand it today is the popular manifestation of roughly half an eon of scientific theories spreading in Western Europe known as Scientific Racism since the start of the colonial era. According to these theories the human race was divided to five distinct races with the Anglo-Teutonic being the manifestation of human perfection and the African race at its bottom

Oh dear lord, it (Scientific Racism) not based on science, its from the Bible explanation of races of men based on skin pigmentation, it been discarded as unscientific since the end of WW2 as there is only one human race, not several. You appear unique in your uninformed views, an eon is billion years, Scientific Racism was a pseudo theory for 350 years at best, exactly which scientific thinkers from half an eon ago do you refer? or do you refer, as implied to those of those of the future?

But the legal differences between indentured servitude and chattel slavery are profound. Unlike slaves, indentured servants were considered legally human.

Oh dear lord. Both under Uk and USA legal codes, which thus cover it for N America slaves and indentured servents were human persons, they are also both listed as such in the US Constitution and AoC for voting representation. US and Uk legal codes transfered their legal rights to their owners as slaves and as indentured servants. Both were bound to labour contract for time periods of years or life time but remained human with limited legal rights.

Their servitude was based on a contract that limited their service to a finite period of time, usually about seven years, in exchange for passage to the colonies.

Not really, the term of indenture was also awarded from criminal convictions, that carried the death penalty, but were commutted to transportation, to a colony to serve that sentence, plus further time added for other actions, like getting pregnant added 9m months to your indenture. The difference between vol indentures and involuntary slavery, to which you refer to does not exist.

So, I suggest you do some re-evaluating and spare us the ignorant statements

Take your own advice, because your unaware how your ignorant of how ignorant your own statements are, but then thats the problem with being ignorant.

[Frostwulf]

]

Therefore my point is that scholarly knowledge in Europe for quite a significant amount of time held Europeans as exceptional, elevating pre-existing 'prejudices' and 'bigotry' against foreign peoples to a distilled science complete with biology factors such as cranial measurements and skin & eye tone variations to explain rationally through the laws of nature, the manifestly unchristian things done to these people.

The bold part I most certainly agree with you. For those who call themselves Christians should avoid such beliefs. The rest of what your writing seems full of caveats, special pleading and special circumstances to show only those of Europe and European (white people) to be racists. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you are trying to convey, but it would be utterly irresponsible and naive to have such beliefs as European only racism. Racism has been around since writing, with the Egyptians, Greek, Romans, Chinese and others referring to the "others" in derogatory fashion and denigrating them as lesser beings. Again if I'm misunderstanding you please enlighten me to what you are claiming.

Except for the fact that it does.Cursed be Canaan; lowest of slaves shall he be to his brothers (Genesis 9:25) Ham and his descendedts, cananites, were burnt black, so all would know they as a race were fit for slavery. Its the biblical explanation for black skin colour and why it was a ok with God to make them into slaves in America.

None of the bold part is in the bible.

[Hanny]

None of the bold part is in the bible..

It was according the centuries of christian preachers, because thats what it says.

"These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood"


Each is a different colour and one of them is fit to be a slave of the others.


https://www.mtholyoke.edu/projects/lrc/arabic/women_deceit/texts/Ham.html#:~:text=In%20the%20Biblical%20view%2C%20the,%2C%20and%20Afro%2DAsian%20Ha
m.


Same story ( curse of Ham and becoming blacks and fit for slavery) appears in islamic sources, who also justified the slavery of blacks.http://realhistoryww.com/world_histo...ab_texts_7.htm


"May god change your complexion, and may your face turn black.and at that instant his face did turn black, may he make bondwomen and slaves of hams progeny till the day of resurection"

[Frostwulf]

Same story ( curse of Ham and becoming blacks and fit for slavery) appears in islamic sources, who also justified the slavery of blacks.http://realhistoryww.com/world_histo...ab_texts_7.htm


"May god change your complexion, and may your face turn black.and at that instant his face did turn black, may he make bondwomen and slaves of hams progeny till the day of resurection"

This isn't biblical, it's Muslim. I don't think this is even in the Koran, so there is no point in addressing this.

It was according the centuries of christian preachers, because thats what it says.

"These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood"


Each is a different colour and one of them is fit to be a slave of the others.


https://www.mtholyoke.edu/projects/lrc/arabic/women_deceit/texts/Ham.html#:~:text=In%20the%20Biblical%20view%2C%20the,%2C%20and%20Afro%2DAsian%20Ha
m.

I have heard/read of this theory before, and there are many others like/similar to it. Problem is that Ham is often considered the father of the African/Black peoples, but it was Canaan who was cursed. Canaan was the father of the Canaanites, who are a Semitic people, hence not "black".
Therefore it is not" the biblical explanation for black skin colour and why it was a ok with God to make them into slaves in America.".