4 ms·

Because it lets white Americans say 'see! other people owned slaves too!' and feel more comfortable about the legacy of slavery in this country. Same principle

Because it lets white Americans say 'see! other people owned slaves too!' and feel more comfortable about the legacy of slavery in this country. Same principle with 'well, African kingdoms sold us the slaves in the first place', it shifts the focus away from them and their ancestors.

300bps 13y ago
Because it lets white Americans say 'see! other people owned slaves too!' My ancestors first set foot in America in 1930. I do happen to be white though, so I'm curious as to whether you think I'm included in the people responsible for slavery. Or do you think it's only white people whose ancestors were in America more than 149 years ago? I'm just curious if you truly believe people are guilty by racial association or only by ancestral association.
- pessimizer 13y ago
  If your ancestors had owned every slave and had been in the US since 1650, you still wouldn't be personally responsible for slavery. What you are is a beneficiary of it, even if you came over on a boat last year. Just as if you had migrated to apartheid South Africa from Ireland in the 80s.
  - 300bps 13y ago
    What you are is a beneficiary of it, even if you came over on a boat last year. How am I a beneficiary of something that was outlawed in this country 149 years ago when I have only been alive a small fraction of that time and my ancestors have only been in this country for 84 years?
    - pessimizer 13y ago
      If your ancestors had only been here for five minutes, during those five minutes you would enjoy advantages based on your race that black people would not.
      - 300bps 13y ago
        If your ancestors had only been here for five minutes, during those five minutes you would enjoy advantages based on your race that black people would not You make this extraordinary claim without providing extraordinary evidence - or in fact, any evidence. How is what you say true possible? The only way I can imagine is that your logical argument is: 1. Slave owners had an advantage over slaves 2. Descendants of slave owners had an advantage of descendants of slaves 3. An additional 5-6 generations of descendants of slave owners continued to have an advantage over 5-6 generations of descendants of slaves 4. All descendants of slave owners (regardless of how many generations removed they are) are racists that give advantages to whites 5. Therefore, any new immigrants to America instantly inherit these advantages Is that it? If not, explain how your extraordinary claim is possible.
  - kingmanaz 13y ago
    The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “These are the regulations for the Passover meal: No foreigner may eat it. Any slave you have bought may eat it after you have circumcised him" -Exodus 12:43-44 Jews held slaves and are thus the beneficiaries of slavery. Using your mindset, Jews must be maligned as an entire people for all eternity for the past sins of slavery. Isn't that mindset just another name for defamation, though? If antisemitism is a danger to the Jewish people - requiring the countervailing of an "Anti Defamation League" - why wouldn't tarring all American Anglos as the beneficiaries of slavery be a similar danger to America's founding stock? Why is defamation bad for some and good for others?
Crake 13y ago
Interesting how you define millions of the global population entirely by their race. >Because it lets white Americans...[shift] the focus away from them and their ancestors. Not every white American had ancestors that owned slaves. In fact, most white Americans had nothing to do with slavery--much like today, only the top 1.5% (1) or so of Americans enjoyed any of the benefits stereotypically ascribed to "white people." Poor white people were left to scrounge for low income jobs and educational funds, much as they are today. Blaming all whites for slavery is much like blaming all Muslims for 9/11. From the past to the present, only the rich have benefited from slaves--as can be seen by the fact that the first slave owner in America was actually a rich black man. (2) 1. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_Unite...] 2. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_%28colonist%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_%28colonist%29]
- pessimizer 13y ago
  >white Americans had nothing to do with slavery If they lived in America, they did. It affected the the prices of the goods they purchased and affected the price their labor could bring. It affected who they voted for, and years later where they would live. The fact that simply by virtue of the state of being white, they were immune to being enslaved within a culture of slavery affected their relationships to each other and to free black men. >only the top 1.5% (1) or so of Americans enjoyed any of the benefits stereotypically ascribed to "white people." Bullshit. If you can get a cab and a black man can't, you're enjoying "benefits stereotypically ascribed to 'white people.'" If a job application is turned down because a name sounds black, you're enjoying "benefits stereotypically ascribed to 'white people.'" Not recognizing that is just a sense of entitlement. >Blaming all whites for slavery is much like blaming all Muslims for 9/11. Muslims didn't get to vote (and take up arms against each other) to support 9/11, thousands of times in thousands of contexts over hundreds of years, and they didn't get the economic boost that comes from a large proportion of the population existing to serve.
  - Crito 13y ago
    > If they lived in America, they did. I think that is the point. Many (maybe most? I don't know) did not. Only a quarter of my family tree has people living in America before ~1930. Did they, being white people in a still racist society, benefit from not being black in the 1930s? Sure, of course they did. They didn't have anything to do with American slavery though.

300bps 13y ago

Because it lets white Americans say 'see! other people owned slaves too!' My ancestors first set foot in America in 1930. I do happen to be white though, so I'm curious as to whether you think I'm included in the people responsible for slavery. Or do you think it's only white people whose ancestors were in America more than 149 years ago? I'm just curious if you truly believe people are guilty by racial association or only by ancestral association.

pessimizer 13y ago
If your ancestors had owned every slave and had been in the US since 1650, you still wouldn't be personally responsible for slavery. What you are is a beneficiary of it, even if you came over on a boat last year. Just as if you had migrated to apartheid South Africa from Ireland in the 80s.
- 300bps 13y ago
  What you are is a beneficiary of it, even if you came over on a boat last year. How am I a beneficiary of something that was outlawed in this country 149 years ago when I have only been alive a small fraction of that time and my ancestors have only been in this country for 84 years?
  - pessimizer 13y ago
    If your ancestors had only been here for five minutes, during those five minutes you would enjoy advantages based on your race that black people would not.
    - 300bps 13y ago
      If your ancestors had only been here for five minutes, during those five minutes you would enjoy advantages based on your race that black people would not You make this extraordinary claim without providing extraordinary evidence - or in fact, any evidence. How is what you say true possible? The only way I can imagine is that your logical argument is: 1. Slave owners had an advantage over slaves 2. Descendants of slave owners had an advantage of descendants of slaves 3. An additional 5-6 generations of descendants of slave owners continued to have an advantage over 5-6 generations of descendants of slaves 4. All descendants of slave owners (regardless of how many generations removed they are) are racists that give advantages to whites 5. Therefore, any new immigrants to America instantly inherit these advantages Is that it? If not, explain how your extraordinary claim is possible.
- kingmanaz 13y ago
  The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “These are the regulations for the Passover meal: No foreigner may eat it. Any slave you have bought may eat it after you have circumcised him" -Exodus 12:43-44 Jews held slaves and are thus the beneficiaries of slavery. Using your mindset, Jews must be maligned as an entire people for all eternity for the past sins of slavery. Isn't that mindset just another name for defamation, though? If antisemitism is a danger to the Jewish people - requiring the countervailing of an "Anti Defamation League" - why wouldn't tarring all American Anglos as the beneficiaries of slavery be a similar danger to America's founding stock? Why is defamation bad for some and good for others?

Crake 13y ago

Interesting how you define millions of the global population entirely by their race. >Because it lets white Americans...[shift] the focus away from them and their ancestors. Not every white American had ancestors that owned slaves. In fact, most white Americans had nothing to do with slavery--much like today, only the top 1.5% (1) or so of Americans enjoyed any of the benefits stereotypically ascribed to "white people." Poor white people were left to scrounge for low income jobs and educational funds, much as they are today. Blaming all whites for slavery is much like blaming all Muslims for 9/11. From the past to the present, only the rich have benefited from slaves--as can be seen by the fact that the first slave owner in America was actually a rich black man. (2) 1. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_Unite...] 2. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_%28colonist%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_%28colonist%29]

pessimizer 13y ago
>white Americans had nothing to do with slavery If they lived in America, they did. It affected the the prices of the goods they purchased and affected the price their labor could bring. It affected who they voted for, and years later where they would live. The fact that simply by virtue of the state of being white, they were immune to being enslaved within a culture of slavery affected their relationships to each other and to free black men. >only the top 1.5% (1) or so of Americans enjoyed any of the benefits stereotypically ascribed to "white people." Bullshit. If you can get a cab and a black man can't, you're enjoying "benefits stereotypically ascribed to 'white people.'" If a job application is turned down because a name sounds black, you're enjoying "benefits stereotypically ascribed to 'white people.'" Not recognizing that is just a sense of entitlement. >Blaming all whites for slavery is much like blaming all Muslims for 9/11. Muslims didn't get to vote (and take up arms against each other) to support 9/11, thousands of times in thousands of contexts over hundreds of years, and they didn't get the economic boost that comes from a large proportion of the population existing to serve.
- Crito 13y ago
  > If they lived in America, they did. I think that is the point. Many (maybe most? I don't know) did not. Only a quarter of my family tree has people living in America before ~1930. Did they, being white people in a still racist society, benefit from not being black in the 1930s? Sure, of course they did. They didn't have anything to do with American slavery though.