Of course, you all realize that MOST slaves were not hunted down in the jungle by armed evil white men, but were purchased by them as they were ALREADY SLAVES. African tribal leaders made fortunes. But, shhhh! We're not supposed to talk about that part.
share[deleted]
You're right; whites didn't go to Africa, hide behind trees and jump out to grab unsuspecting Africans. That would have been way too much work for the white man. Plus, that would have been too dangerous and likely not very successful, anyway but if you pay attention to the scene in which Kunta was captured, you will see that it was black people that caught him. However, those blacks weren't working for themselves. They were working for white men and most likely they were also slaves, themselves. Most of the slaves that were captured were taken to Bance island, which was owned by a British slave trading company.
I woke up this way...
Quite so.
Except that the blacks were "working for the whites." Not at all likely. They were working for the local war lord or tribal king who was making huge profits from the slave trade.
This was covered in the mini-series "The Book of Negroes".
"12 years a Slave" also refrenced the enslavement of Irish males.
~Keep on Trucking!~
The Irish were indentured servants not slaves in America. Whites won't let blacks have anything. Always have to be better or included. "But we were slaves too." No, you weren't. Irish in America certainly weren't born into servitude.
Where are the Asian characters DC CW? #MoreAsians
Now THAT's revisionist history. King George was going to kill Irish prisoners of war and was convinced, instead, to send them to the colonies as slaves. This was documented history until revisionists on the internet began claiming it wasn't true.
We all realize it by your estimation but you're going to "enlighten" us anyway. For what reason? To show off how much you think you know? Trying to be edgy or something?
shareOf course, you all realize that MOST slaves were not hunted down in the jungle by armed evil white men, but were purchased by them as they were ALREADY SLAVES. African tribal leaders made fortunes. But, shhhh! We're not supposed to talk about that part.
Is very bad to steal Jobu's rum. Is very bad.share
That's a very strange reply.
shareRight. And a very odd misuse of the word logic.
shareI think it's a fair analogy. BTW, this was originally posted on IMDB, so when MovieChat grabbed these threads, the original quotes weren't taken. This is the way it originally was posted. The first part is the quoted part, the part that follows in italics was my response:
Of course, you all realize that MOST slaves were not hunted down in the jungle by armed evil white men, but were purchased by them as they were ALREADY SLAVES. African tribal leaders made fortunes. But, shhhh! We're not supposed to talk about that part.
The African Slave industry was well established to serve Arab needs and continued to serve their need after US abolition. Slavery in the Americans started in French and Spanish colonies long before the US existed. Why are there no movies about Arab slavery in the 20th century?
The American left's obsession with slavery is pathological, but then Marxism is a pathological cult!
So your point is it was ok for whites to own slaves because they didnt invent the concept?
DUH. The slave traders were too cheap to send an army to get the slaves. Plus it would take at least twice as many boats. There is no way the slave traders hunted and captured slaves. NOT IN BIG NUMBERS. Maybe a few. Hollyweird always changes the facts. Not to worry.
share“MOST” OP? To the best of my knowledge, no slave from Africa was captured and enslaved by any save another black African.
Haley’s book was long ago revealed to be a novel, a work of fiction, not fact. Slavery is despicable, but so is falsifying history. White people, including Thomas Jefferson, probably the most beneficial President the
USA has ever had (wrote the US Constitution, for example), bought slaves. He did not catch slaves. Morally questionable, with the benefit of 20/20 historical hindsight? Yes, of course. Categorically imperatively damnable? Not even close. We are, all of us, people of our eras. Do you not think that Jesus, a carpenter, was glad for the work of building crosses?
I seriously doubt Jesus built crosses. Building a cross is something anybody could easily do. It is not work for a skilled carpenter. Besides, Jesus, knowing what the crosses were to be used for, never would have participated in their construction.
share[deleted]