POS President Chump blames DEI for plane crash

[BNIBoiler]

So, you agree that the enslavement of black Africans was a function of an economic engine, not racism? The supply of African slaves provided by their fellow black Africans filled a need in the supply chain which was labor.

Dude. No. I told you US slavery was the result of white supremacy sparked by pseudo-science. US slavery was raced based slavery called chattel slavery. The black Africans selling the other Africans was just part of the 3 headed snake of the slave trade. We've been through too many times. It it was pure economics, when slavery was over in 1865, blacks would have been on their merry way free to live and thrive. By the late 1870s that came to an end as the white supremacists enacted Jim Crow. Plus all of the racial hatred til to this day. Hence the topic of this thread. Getting rid of and blaming DEI.

You are the last person to be talking about this as you have absolutely no concept of history. You need to stay in your lane. Next thing you going to tell us that the slaves didn't have it as bad. I've had that argument here already.

 

[Riveting]

Why? Does every living creature have to procreate for evolution to work?

Not every living creature, but over thousands of years I wonder how a trait that does not contribute to continuation of the species has survived. I don't understand it. Do you? Does anybody?

 

[BB62]

Not every living creature, but over thousands of years I wonder how a trait that does not contribute to continuation of the species has survived. I don't understand it. Do you? Does anybody?

I'm certainly going to get into a conversation with you about genetics, something neither of us know much about.

I will believe the scientists. You can believe TJ.

 

[Riveting]

I'm certainly going to get into a conversation with you about genetics, something neither of us know much about.

I will believe the scientists. You can believe TJ.

Which scientists will you believe?

 

[Riveting]

Dude. No. I told you US slavery was the result of white supremacy sparked by pseudo-science.

Slavery within Africa existed long before the US existed. What was African slavery the result of?

 

[BB62]

Which scientists will you believe?

Lol. Not simply the ones I agree with.

 

[Riveting]

Lol. Not simply the ones I agree with.

Ducking the question.

 

[tjreese]

Every time y'all post y'all prove your racist ways. Then have the nerve to try an educate a black man about slavery in the US is unreal. We've been through this several times.

I focus on slavery in the US perhaps is because I'm a black person living in the US with ancestors that were actually slaves in the US and ancestors that went through Jim Crow. And I never said that US slavery was worse. All forms of enslaving other humans is wrong. Like I said the other instances of slavery in ancient times were not race based because there were no concept of human races during those times. During those times, slavery was based on the loser of a particular war like the ancient Romans did. So by the time that the transatlantic slave trade was active, European white supremacy was in full swing and due to pseudo-science the black Africans were the target.

Should I take this to mean that you believe had it been Asians or any other group, their slavery back then would be different than the black slavery back then?

 

[tjreese]

I'm certainly going to get into a conversation with you about genetics, something neither of us know much about.

I will believe the scientists. You can believe TJ.

Those were not my comments, but someone whose specific work with Bio statistics inside DNA said. Still, you are correct that neither of us know much about DNA. I just happen to be able to ask a small group inside that area a direct question that nobody is able to publish out of context. Still, I understood you believed in the Russian collusion, the violent insurrection, and the great work Biden did. THAT is not a very good track record Bob on your beliefs. Ever consider getting your intel from more reliable sources?

 

[BNIBoiler]

Slavery within Africa existed long before the US existed. What was African slavery the result of?

In Northern Africa, the Arabs/Muslims enslaved Europeans. As far as the Sub-Saharan Africa after tribal conquests, they would enslave the captives.

 

[BNIBoiler]

Should I take this to mean that you believe had it been Asians or any other group, their slavery back then would be different than the black slavery back then?

Since it never happened I cannot answer for certain. I would guestimate it would be similar. Racist FDR sure enough put Japanese AMERICANS into internment camps after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. The number of German Americans interned during WW2 was relatively small compared to the Japanese Americans.

 

[BB62]

Ducking the question.

It's a vague question. You going to give me a list of scientists to choose from? Maybe check to see their political affiliation.

This is just another one of your setups for some conclusion you've already drawn. So damn transparent

 

[bonefish1]

Dude. No. I told you US slavery was the result of white supremacy sparked by pseudo-science. US slavery was raced based slavery called chattel slavery. The black Africans selling the other Africans was just part of the 3 headed snake of the slave trade. We've been through too many times. It it was pure economics, when slavery was over in 1865, blacks would have been on their merry way free to live and thrive. By the late 1870s that came to an end as the white supremacists enacted Jim Crow. Plus all of the racial hatred til to this day. Hence the topic of this thread. Getting rid of and blaming DEI.

You are the last person to be talking about this as you have absolutely no concept of history. You need to stay in your lane. Next thing you going to tell us that the slaves didn't have it as bad. I've had that argument here already.

And i told you, slavery was more of an economic issue than a race issue. Black Africans just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time when cheap labor was needed. The conquering African tribes who sold their fellow black Africans into slavery didn't do it because they were black. They did it because it was a source of money.
And as far as blacks suddenly being free to go their marry way in 1865, be realistic. You really think slave owners running huge plantations were just going to give up their livelihood without a fight?

Your being black has to do as about knowing slavery as me being white has to do with owning slaves. You didn't know any slaves. No one you knew or anyone they knew were slaves.

 

[BNIBoiler]

Slavery within Africa existed long before the US existed. What was African slavery the result of?

Also, I'm not concerned with slavery prior to US existence. I said earlier, I live here in America with ancestors that were enslaved and went through the Jim Crow era. We have the so-called founding fathers like Washington, Jefferson and others that owned hundreds of human beings each relatively recent history. I don't put them on a high pedestal like y'all do. Slave owners in the state of Maryland even got reparations for losing their "property" after the Civil War.

 

[bonefish1]

Also, I'm not concerned with slavery prior to US existence. I said earlier, I live here in America with ancestors that were enslaved and went through the Jim Crow era. We have the so-called founding fathers like Washington, Jefferson and others that owned hundreds of human beings each relatively recent history. I don't put them on a high pedestal like y'all do. Slave owners in the state of Maryland even got reparations for losing their "property" after the Civil War.

And Kamala Harris' family in Jamaica where very prominent slave owners there. Why does that not concern you?

 

[BNIBoiler]

And i told you, slavery was more of an economic issue than a race issue. Black Africans just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time when cheap labor was needed. The conquering African tribes who sold their fellow black Africans into slavery didn't do it because they were black. They did it because it was a source of money.
And as far as blacks suddenly being free to go their marry way in 1865, be realistic. You really think slave owners running huge plantations were just going to give up their livelihood without a fight?

Your being black has to do as about knowing slavery as me being white has to do with owning slaves. You didn't know any slaves. No one you knew or anyone they knew were slaves.

Like I said earlier, stay in your lane. You keep harping on the Africans that sold the other African captives. You have very little to say about the Americans that sailed to Africa, bought and picked them up in order to be sold in the US like grain. The Africans sold their war captives to the Europeans for money. You are correct about that. However, the American bought the slaves for chattel slavery, which is race based for labor.

 

[tjreese]

Since it never happened I cannot answer for certain. I would guestimate it would be similar. Racist FDR sure enough put Japanese AMERICANS into internment camps after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. The number of German Americans interned during WW2 was relatively small compared to the Japanese Americans.

and I believe there would be no difference

 

[BNIBoiler]

And Kamala Harris' family in Jamaica where very prominent slave owners there. Why does that not concern you?

Again, you keep bringing that up. For one thing that was in Jamaica where I do not live. Harris' ancestors in Jamaica were white and Irish. That's what was done in Jamaica in the 1700s and 1800s. I have no concern about Harris' ancestors owning slaves in Jamaica no more than anyone else here in the US that had ancestors owning slaves. Someone today that had ancestors that owned slaves is no big deal. I may have some if I do some research. A large portion of black Americans have white ancestry that may owned slaves. Or, the much smaller percentage that have black ancestors that owned slaves. Take a history class at a local community college. It'll do you some good.

 

[BNIBoiler]

and I believe there would be no difference

Perhaps it won't. Who knows. If enslaving Asians was based on chattel slavery, then no question it would be very similar.

 

[Riveting]

Also, I'm not concerned with slavery prior to US existence. I said earlier, I live here in America with ancestors that were enslaved and went through the Jim Crow era. We have the so-called founding fathers like Washington, Jefferson and others that owned hundreds of human beings each relatively recent history. I don't put them on a high pedestal like y'all do. Slave owners in the state of Maryland even got reparations for losing their "property" after the Civil War.

You are not concerned that your ancestors may have been slaveowners and/or slaves in Africa?

I wanted you to see that economics really was a major factor in slavery as opposed to just "white supremacy", as bone said.

US slavery was heading toward extinction until the cotton gin made it much more profitable to own slaves. As a student of history, you know that, right?

 

[BNIBoiler]

You are not concerned that your ancestors may have been slaveowners and/or slaves in Africa?

I wanted you to see that economics really was a major factor in slavery as opposed to just "white supremacy", as bone said.

US slavery was heading toward extinction until the cotton gin made it much more profitable to own slaves. As a student of history, you know that, right?

Oh yeah, I do know that the invention of the cotton gin increased the demand for slaves. And? There were slaves in the US prior to the invention of the cotton gin. Of course economics was a factor, slavery was cheap labor, duh. It's white supremacy and pseudo-science that they chose the Africans for this cheap labor. Then continued the racial hatred with Jim Crow when slavery ended for another 100 years. Now this anti-DEI bs is a slap in the face of all of the hard work that the civil rights folks died for.

 

[Katscratch]

Again, you keep bringing that up. For one thing that was in Jamaica where I do not live. Harris' ancestors in Jamaica were white and Irish. That's what was done in Jamaica in the 1700s and 1800s. I have no concern about Harris' ancestors owning slaves in Jamaica no more than anyone else here in the US that had ancestors owning slaves. Someone today that had ancestors that owned slaves is no big deal. I may have some if I do some research. A large portion of black Americans have white ancestry that may owned slaves. Or, the much smaller percentage that have black ancestors that owned slaves. Take a history class at a local community college. It'll do you some good.

Well here's a loaded "Riveting-style" question for you:

Forget about some Irish guy in Jamaica in the 1700's, what would be your reaction if a top Deputy appointee in the State Department said in 2024 that "Competent white men must be in charge if you want things to work. Unfortunately, our entire national ideology is predicated on coddling the feelings of women and minorities, and demoralizing competent white men."

And what do you think of someone that appointed him - with a long history of statements by this appointee that are congruent with the 2024 statement?

 

[Riveting]

It's a vague question. You going to give me a list of scientists to choose from? Maybe check to see their political affiliation.

This is just another one of your setups for some conclusion you've already drawn. So damn transparent

I already stated a "conclusion", to which you said you would follow the science. There is no scientific consensus on this question that I know of, which is why I asked you 'which scientists" since you are following the science.

 

[tjreese]

Oh yeah, I do know that the invention of the cotton gin increased the demand for slaves. And? There were slaves in the US prior to the invention of the cotton gin. Of course economics was a factor, slavery was cheap labor, duh. It's white supremacy and pseudo-science that they chose the Africans for this cheap labor. Then continued the racial hatred with Jim Crow when slavery ended for another 100 years. Now this anti-DEI bs is a slap in the face of all of the hard work that the civil rights folks died for.

you get a bit confusing. Earlier you guesstimated that Asians would be treated as slaves similar to blacks. I agree, and also believe that the Irish as another example would also be treated the same should the opportunity have been there. But then you say, "It's white supremacy and pseudo-science that they chose the Africans for this cheap labor." contradictory to your similar treatment of slaves of multiple races treatment had the opportunity existed.

Historically there were many occasions that whites were slaves not only to "people of color", but of the whites as well...."IF" they were vulnerable. There was no white supremacy other than they apparently were not as vulnerable or pseudo-science that led to Africans being slaves. Africans were captured and sold to slave marketers that took them to the northern ports of the USA to sell to the southern states for slave labor. Nobody is declaring it wasn't horrible and nobody is saying it wasn't a blight on humanity for thousands of years across the globe. The southern states would buy any slave sold with all things being equal other than color of skin. Now your Jim Crow and such is a different topic

 

[Boilermaker03]

Nope, I told y’all several times the transatlantic slave trade was based on chattel slavery. Which was race based and hatred towards the blacks. When slavery was over in 1865, if it wasn’t about race then why after reconstruction all hell breaks loose with the birth of Jim Crow, the KKK and other white supremacy groups? Compared to other forms of slavery in history. US slavery was based purely on white supremacy.

We all know about chattel slavery. It was not race based however. Africans were being enslaved by other Africans and sold off to other countries.

The racism that ensued after slavery ended had nothing to do with how the African slave trade began. This leap of logic you're trying to make is ridiculous.

 

[BB62]

I already stated a "conclusion", to which you said you would follow the science. There is no scientific consensus on this question that I know of, which is why I asked you 'which scientists" since you are following the science.

I said I would believe the scientists. I didn't say I follow the science. That's twice you've lied about what I said.

What is wrong with you..........that you thrive on this meaningless drivel.

 

[Riveting]

I said I would believe the scientists. I didn't say I follow the science. That's twice you've lied about what I said.

What is wrong with you..........that you thrive on this meaningless drivel.

Confusing 'follow the science" with "I would believe the scientists" is not a lie, just a slight, meaningless difference.

Saying repeatedly you will not pardon your corrupt son and then pardoning him is a lie as told by your hero.

 

[Riveting]

Well here's a loaded "Riveting-style" question for you:

Forget about some Irish guy in Jamaica in the 1700's, what would be your reaction if a top Deputy appointee in the State Department said in 2024 that "Competent white men must be in charge if you want things to work. Unfortunately, our entire national ideology is predicated on coddling the feelings of women and minorities, and demoralizing competent white men."

And what do you think of someone that appointed him - with a long history of statements by this appointee that are congruent with the 2024 statement?

Did that appointee advocate for slavery, or just an end to absurd DEI policies?

 

[Boilermaker03]

How about if the white Europeans didn't have a demand for black Africans the transatlantic slave trade would not exist. The black Africans that were sold to the Europeans were basically prisoners of war of the winning African tribe during war. So naturally they are either going to kill them or sell them to the Europeans for money, weapons, supplies what ever. Some of these tribal losers in battle were tortured to death.

The black Africans don't own any slave ships and never forced the Europeans to sail the ships to pick up the black Africans.

For fukks sake!!! They didn't have a demand for black slaves. They had a demand for slaves. The Africans supplied them with what they wanted/needed.

 

[Katscratch]

Did that appointee advocate for slavery, or just an end to absurd DEI policies?

Neither. He advocated for competent white men to solely be in charge.

 

[BNIBoiler]

For fukks sake!!! They didn't have a demand for black slaves. They had a demand for slaves. The Africans supplied them with what they wanted/needed.

So white Europeans and white Americans absolutely no culpability in the transatlantic slave trade to the US. Is that what you are trying to tell me?

 

[Riveting]

Neither. He advocated for competent white men to solely be in charge.

He was advocating for competence in government?

 

[bonefish1]

Again, you keep bringing that up. For one thing that was in Jamaica where I do not live. Harris' ancestors in Jamaica were white and Irish. That's what was done in Jamaica in the 1700s and 1800s. I have no concern about Harris' ancestors owning slaves in Jamaica no more than anyone else here in the US that had ancestors owning slaves. Someone today that had ancestors that owned slaves is no big deal. I may have some if I do some research. A large portion of black Americans have white ancestry that may owned slaves. Or, the much smaller percentage that have black ancestors that owned slaves. Take a history class at a local community college. It'll do you some good.

Just so I'm clear: As long as the direct slave owner him/herself doesn't have a statue or school or base or town named after them, then that's OK?

 

[Katscratch]

He was advocating for competence in government?

Not what he said. He said need white men in charge = things working in govt. (I already supplied the exact quote).

 

[bonefish1]

Like I said earlier, stay in your lane. You keep harping on the Africans that sold the other African captives. You have very little to say about the Americans that sailed to Africa, bought and picked them up in order to be sold in the US like grain. The Africans sold their war captives to the Europeans for money. You are correct about that. However, the American bought the slaves for chattel slavery, which is race based for labor.

You keep acting like white Europeans invented slavery. They did not.
If the white Europeans were so hell bent in enslaving black people, why did they even buy the black captives? Why didn't they just save the money and enslave them all?

 

[Riveting]

Not what he said. He said need white men in charge = things working in govt. (I already supplied the exact quote).

Whose quote is it?

 

[bonefish1]

Oh yeah, I do know that the invention of the cotton gin increased the demand for slaves. And? There were slaves in the US prior to the invention of the cotton gin. Of course economics was a factor, slavery was cheap labor, duh. It's white supremacy and pseudo-science that they chose the Africans for this cheap labor. Then continued the racial hatred with Jim Crow when slavery ended for another 100 years. Now this anti-DEI bs is a slap in the face of all of the hard work that the civil rights folks died for.

Actually, I think getting rid of DEI is more in line with what the civil rights leaders wanted. They didn't want special treatment, they wanted the same rights as everyone else. DEI is racist because it designates someone be treated differently based on skin color.

 

[bonefish1]

Well here's a loaded "Riveting-style" question for you:

Forget about some Irish guy in Jamaica in the 1700's, what would be your reaction if a top Deputy appointee in the State Department said in 2024 that "Competent white men must be in charge if you want things to work. Unfortunately, our entire national ideology is predicated on coddling the feelings of women and minorities, and demoralizing competent white men."

And what do you think of someone that appointed him - with a long history of statements by this appointee that are congruent with the 2024 statement?

I'd probably feel the same as when Biden said "I'm only going to consider black women for the VP role".

 

[Riveting]

Not what he said. He said need white men in charge = things working in govt. (I already supplied the exact quote).

Never mind, I found it. Not the first racist to work in government, but his job is minor.

In contrast, I recall a racist who served not in a minor job, but as president until Jan. 20 this year. I would wager that you voted for that racist.

 

[bonefish1]

So white Europeans and white Americans absolutely no culpability in the transatlantic slave trade to the US. Is that what you are trying to tell me?

No, they're culpable, but had the labor been in the form of Chinese or Indians or (insert continent here), it wouldn't have made any difference. As 03 said, this was driven much more by economics than racism. Black Africans just happened to be the supply that met the demand at the time (mostly because it's a lot easier to sail from Europe to Africa than it is to Eastern Asia or India.) Look at a map....