who's owed more? natives for stolen land or blacks for forced free labor?

[LUClEN]

A lot of slaves in America were purchased from Africans, too. Which adds to my point: both groups were dominated and oppressed as a consequence of some kind of conquest. So how does his view really change anything?

Cause that's not what the topic is about. The question is about what group America owes more. The European colonization, African infighting, and none of that other shit you're talking about is relevant. I don't understand what's hard to understand about that. The conquest of Natives was done by America. That's why its relevant to this discussion.

So you're agreeing with me, but don't have an answer. America is solely responsible for the oppression of indigenous peoples, whereas a lot of Africans were traded to the Americans after already falling victim to conquest. His view makes even less sense in light of this.

No, but you got it man.

You just said said "The conquest of Natives was done by America". Yet, history tells us that many of the slaves in America are there as a consequence of the conquest of Africa, by America and other groups, which you agree happened. So if one has 1 main contributor, and the other has many, for which are they more responsible? The one where they are the sole contributor makes the most sense to me.

So, instead of trying to hand wave this problem away with misleading accusations about it being unrelated, clarify the damn point. You've only obscured it

The bold does not matter. For like the third time, the discussion is not "Who had it worse?" It's "Which group is owed more?" The fact that Africans got here because other Africans conquered them and sold them has nothing to do with what America owes current day African Americans.

If what is owed is measured by how they were wronged and to what extent, then it matters. How else would we make those kinds of calculations?

Again, if you read the OP, the TC is clearly talking about what America owes those groups. Africans conquering Africans has nothing to do with that.

I responded to a specific line of inference, and you stuck your nose in it. The OP is not what I responded to. In the context of the posts you decided to address, how do we make these calculations without judging the causal factors behind them?

Nigga, I know what you were initially referencing. My comment was to bring the discussion back on topic. And you calculate based on the interactions between the two parties in question. Say someone totals your car and you're forced to ride the bus until you get another one. Then say some nigga robs you while you're waiting at the bus stop one night. The nigga that robbed you may owe you the money he stole from you, but he doesn't owe you the cost of your totaled car too just because the loss of your car is what put you in a position to be robbed in the first place. That's basically the argument you're making.

If the reason you got robbed is because your car was totalled you could absolutely argue that the person who put you in that situation has some blame for you getting robbed. That could be a kind of consequential damage awarded to a plaintiff. Idk enough about civil law to know how well that would fly, but there have been cases where someone being slandered has sued for lossed wages for jobs they never got because they argued that the slander made them unhireable.

I was on topic: the topic was what the hell was he trying to draw a distinction from when the two situations bare so many similarities. You even agree these causal similarities exist, so I don't know why you couldn't just let him defend his own argument.

 

[semi-auto-mato]

simple answer...blacks deserve more.

my reasoning is native americans lost a lot of their land "legally". some signed paperwork and voluntarily left. some were removed by force in some areas but not all. the government here always recognized them as people and often engaged in negotiations over land. blacks folks were never given an opportunity to cut any type of deal. its really not a comparison.

 

[LUClEN]

simple answer...blacks deserve more.

my reasoning is native americans lost a lot of their land "legally". some signed paperwork and voluntarily left. some were removed by force in some areas but not all. the government here always recognized them as people and often engaged in negotiations over land. blacks folks were never given an opportunity to cut any type of deal. its really not a comparison.

It wasn't all as upfront and legal as that but you're right that it did take a much more humane and diplomatic shape when it came to the dealings with indigenous groups. Gotta keep in mind white people did a lot of shitty things too, like use germs to kill off their populations and hurting them financially by only permitting subsistence farming

 

[LUClEN]

about damn time someone gets it.

100 people...lets say 50 men and 50 women....so, 50 couples. they reproduce, they each have 2-3 kids.

that 100 just jumped to like 250..

repeat in like 15 years....sell off a few here and there.

that is nothing but profit

Natives were enslaved longer than anyone in the Americas. Far longer than Africans that were brought here. And like the African, millions of natives from the Americas were shipped from their native landsto Europe and undoubtedly African colonies BEFORE the first African stepped foot off a slave ship in this country.

The mere fact that this is documented, yet the vast majority of the people in this country have no clue that it even happened, is a testament to just how fucked up Natives have had it here.

Huh? The Transatlantic Slave Trade preceded European colonization of Africa by almost 400 years, so the bold isn't even close to true. I don't think the Natives being enslaved longer is true either.

Right, but the transatlantic slave trade also included shipping slaves from the new world back to Spain, Portugal, etc. In Canada, they used to ship native slaves to the west indies because they could get more money and trade them for African slaves, who tended to be worth more because they lived longer.

 

[Madame_CJSkywalker]

Its really hard to call it. Just economically speaking, free labor for 400 years probably compounded more than what the land would have cost.

this

the enslavement of african americans was far more pervasive as well

 

[LUClEN]

Its really hard to call it. Just economically speaking, free labor for 400 years probably compounded more than what the land would have cost.

What are you basing that calculation on?

 

[NoCompetition]

I think to turn this into anything useful, first what is the definition of "owed" in this context. Second what are the reasons. It really needs to connect and make sense in the presentation I think. Just saying back then this happened and now someone is owed isnt going to cut it. Its not something where you can necessarily directly link your events today with some one who lived hundreds of years ago. Or at least to do this it would need to be pretty convincing...but if the dots could be connected that could mean something.

But if it just devolves into side discussions and gets off track and goes nowhere...honestly I feel like I have tools to prosper regardless and do my thing to do that, and dont even really think about this concept. but for the ones who are more interested in this...

 

[semi-auto-mato]

simple answer...blacks deserve more.

my reasoning is native americans lost a lot of their land "legally". some signed paperwork and voluntarily left. some were removed by force in some areas but not all. the government here always recognized them as people and often engaged in negotiations over land. blacks folks were never given an opportunity to cut any type of deal. its really not a comparison.

It wasn't all as upfront and legal as that but you're right that it did take a much more humane and diplomatic shape when it came to the dealings with indigenous groups. Gotta keep in mind white people did a lot of shitty things too, like use germs to kill off their populations and hurting them financially by only permitting subsistence farming

im saying legally to be funny and trust me in no way shape or form am now or will I ever try to make it seem like white folks aint the shittiest of shitty. im just saying with this...it aint no comparison.. imo.

 

[konceptjones]

about damn time someone gets it.

100 people...lets say 50 men and 50 women....so, 50 couples. they reproduce, they each have 2-3 kids.

that 100 just jumped to like 250..

repeat in like 15 years....sell off a few here and there.

that is nothing but profit

Natives were enslaved longer than anyone in the Americas. Far longer than Africans that were brought here. And like the African, millions of natives from the Americas were shipped from their native landsto Europe and undoubtedly African colonies BEFORE the first African stepped foot off a slave ship in this country.

The mere fact that this is documented, yet the vast majority of the people in this country have no clue that it even happened, is a testament to just how fucked up Natives have had it here.

Huh? The Transatlantic Slave Trade preceded European colonization of Africa by almost 400 years, so the bold isn't even close to true. I don't think the Natives being enslaved longer is true either.

Right, but the transatlantic slave trade also included shipping slaves from the new world back to Spain, Portugal, etc. In Canada, they used to ship native slaves to the west indies because they could get more money and trade them for African slaves, who tended to be worth more because they lived longer.

This is my point here: We often talk about Christopher Columbus' atrocities, however the one that is most often ignored was that he single-handedly initiated the Transatlantic Slave Trade when he began shipping Natives back to Spain as slaves in 1493, long before Africans had been brought here.

 

[2stepz_ahead]

Its really hard to call it. Just economically speaking, free labor for 400 years probably compounded more than what the land would have cost.

What are you basing that calculation on?

think about how much you make a year.....

now imagine your boss keeping all that money an you doing it for free.

now imagine you next 8 generations doing the same shit for free.....and the company keeps all the profit

 

[5th Letter]

Y'all need to stop saying these half truths about blacks selling other blacks into slavery. Is that technically true? Yes. But, it was a situation where the Europeans came in and bought slaves from captured Africans of rival tribes, or they said either you help us round up Africans or we're gonna get you.

 

[The Lonious Monk]

Y'all need to stop saying these half truths about blacks selling other blacks into slavery. Is that technically true? Yes. But, it was a situation where the Europeans came in and bought slaves from captured Africans of rival tribes, or they said either you help us round up Africans or we're gonna get you.

lol There is not half truth there. The truth is truth. It doesn't matter that most of the slaves sold by Africans were already slaves or prisoners of war. That doesn't change the fact that a large number of the slaves that came to America were sold by other Africans. As for the ultimatum you mentioned, that's true, but the slave trade was in full effect before that came to be. It was only after the Transatlantic Slave Trade became a big business that Euros started leaning on Africans to meet those slave quotas. By that time, they had footholds on the ground in Africa and everything. Let's be real, Africans were selling Africans for a couple hundred years before Euros were even in a position to put that kinda pressure on them. Again, sometimes people inadvertently give Europeans too much credit. When they slave trade started, none of those Euro countries were even powerful enough to go into Africa and make demands. It was only after they got rich from the slave trade and colonization and developed deadlier gun technology that they were able to do that.

 

[Kwan Dai]

Y'all need to stop saying these half truths about blacks selling other blacks into slavery. Is that technically true? Yes. But, it was a situation where the Europeans came in and bought slaves from captured Africans of rival tribes, or they said either you help us round up Africans or we're gonna get you.

lol There is not half truth there. The truth is truth. It doesn't matter that most of the slaves sold by Africans were already slaves or prisoners of war. That doesn't change the fact that a large number of the slaves that came to America were sold by other Africans. As for the ultimatum you mentioned, that's true, but the slave trade was in full effect before that came to be. It was only after the Transatlantic Slave Trade became a big business that Euros started leaning on Africans to meet those slave quotas. By that time, they had footholds on the ground in Africa and everything. Let's be real, Africans were selling Africans for a couple hundred years before Euros were even in a position to put that kinda pressure on them. Again, sometimes people inadvertently give Europeans too much credit. When they slave trade started, none of those Euro countries were even powerful enough to go into Africa and make demands. It was only after they got rich from the slave trade and colonization and developed deadlier gun technology that they were able to do that.

Africans involved in the slave trade didn't sell other Africans to be beaten to death, starved, raped, worked to death, etc.

Europeans who purchased blacks made decisions with evil intentions, and the idea of racial supremacy which, granted them the right to treat other Humans beings however they liked. They didn't have to do what they did and continue to do. Slavery has been outlawed for a century plus some. However, the same ideology of supremacy persists with these people. So, with or without Africans selling other Africans Europeans would have found a way to treat other Humans as poorly as possible for their own profit and evil twisted ideas.

 

[2stepz_ahead]

Y'all need to stop saying these half truths about blacks selling other blacks into slavery. Is that technically true? Yes. But, it was a situation where the Europeans came in and bought slaves from captured Africans of rival tribes, or they said either you help us round up Africans or we're gonna get you.

lol There is not half truth there. The truth is truth. It doesn't matter that most of the slaves sold by Africans were already slaves or prisoners of war. That doesn't change the fact that a large number of the slaves that came to America were sold by other Africans. As for the ultimatum you mentioned, that's true, but the slave trade was in full effect before that came to be. It was only after the Transatlantic Slave Trade became a big business that Euros started leaning on Africans to meet those slave quotas. By that time, they had footholds on the ground in Africa and everything. Let's be real, Africans were selling Africans for a couple hundred years before Euros were even in a position to put that kinda pressure on them. Again, sometimes people inadvertently give Europeans too much credit. When they slave trade started, none of those Euro countries were even powerful enough to go into Africa and make demands. It was only after they got rich from the slave trade and colonization and developed deadlier gun technology that they were able to do that.

Africans involved in the slave trade didn't sell other Africans to be beaten to death, starved, raped, worked to death, etc.

Europeans who purchased blacks made decisions with evil intentions, and the idea of racial supremacy which, granted them the right to treat other Humans beings however they liked. They didn't have to do what they did and continue to do. Slavery has been outlawed for a century plus some. However, the same ideology of supremacy persists with these people. So, with or without Africans selling other Africans Europeans would have found a way to treat other Humans as poorly as possible for their own profit and evil twisted ideas.

does it matter what i do with my purchase after i purchase it?

 

[Kwan Dai]

Y'all need to stop saying these half truths about blacks selling other blacks into slavery. Is that technically true? Yes. But, it was a situation where the Europeans came in and bought slaves from captured Africans of rival tribes, or they said either you help us round up Africans or we're gonna get you.

lol There is not half truth there. The truth is truth. It doesn't matter that most of the slaves sold by Africans were already slaves or prisoners of war. That doesn't change the fact that a large number of the slaves that came to America were sold by other Africans. As for the ultimatum you mentioned, that's true, but the slave trade was in full effect before that came to be. It was only after the Transatlantic Slave Trade became a big business that Euros started leaning on Africans to meet those slave quotas. By that time, they had footholds on the ground in Africa and everything. Let's be real, Africans were selling Africans for a couple hundred years before Euros were even in a position to put that kinda pressure on them. Again, sometimes people inadvertently give Europeans too much credit. When they slave trade started, none of those Euro countries were even powerful enough to go into Africa and make demands. It was only after they got rich from the slave trade and colonization and developed deadlier gun technology that they were able to do that.

Africans involved in the slave trade didn't sell other Africans to be beaten to death, starved, raped, worked to death, etc.

Europeans who purchased blacks made decisions with evil intentions, and the idea of racial supremacy which, granted them the right to treat other Humans beings however they liked. They didn't have to do what they did and continue to do. Slavery has been outlawed for a century plus some. However, the same ideology of supremacy persists with these people. So, with or without Africans selling other Africans Europeans would have found a way to treat other Humans as poorly as possible for their own profit and evil twisted ideas.

does it matter what i do with my purchase after i purchase it?

Absolutely!!

 

[2stepz_ahead]

Y'all need to stop saying these half truths about blacks selling other blacks into slavery. Is that technically true? Yes. But, it was a situation where the Europeans came in and bought slaves from captured Africans of rival tribes, or they said either you help us round up Africans or we're gonna get you.

lol There is not half truth there. The truth is truth. It doesn't matter that most of the slaves sold by Africans were already slaves or prisoners of war. That doesn't change the fact that a large number of the slaves that came to America were sold by other Africans. As for the ultimatum you mentioned, that's true, but the slave trade was in full effect before that came to be. It was only after the Transatlantic Slave Trade became a big business that Euros started leaning on Africans to meet those slave quotas. By that time, they had footholds on the ground in Africa and everything. Let's be real, Africans were selling Africans for a couple hundred years before Euros were even in a position to put that kinda pressure on them. Again, sometimes people inadvertently give Europeans too much credit. When they slave trade started, none of those Euro countries were even powerful enough to go into Africa and make demands. It was only after they got rich from the slave trade and colonization and developed deadlier gun technology that they were able to do that.

Africans involved in the slave trade didn't sell other Africans to be beaten to death, starved, raped, worked to death, etc.

Europeans who purchased blacks made decisions with evil intentions, and the idea of racial supremacy which, granted them the right to treat other Humans beings however they liked. They didn't have to do what they did and continue to do. Slavery has been outlawed for a century plus some. However, the same ideology of supremacy persists with these people. So, with or without Africans selling other Africans Europeans would have found a way to treat other Humans as poorly as possible for their own profit and evil twisted ideas.

does it matter what i do with my purchase after i purchase it?

Absolutely!!

care to help me understand?

if they sold slaves......they was purchased to be slaves.....they got whipped there and got whipped with their new trade off. most likely got raped in either place. i dont think slaves were treated nicely anywhere....

 

[Kwan Dai]

Y'all need to stop saying these half truths about blacks selling other blacks into slavery. Is that technically true? Yes. But, it was a situation where the Europeans came in and bought slaves from captured Africans of rival tribes, or they said either you help us round up Africans or we're gonna get you.

lol There is not half truth there. The truth is truth. It doesn't matter that most of the slaves sold by Africans were already slaves or prisoners of war. That doesn't change the fact that a large number of the slaves that came to America were sold by other Africans. As for the ultimatum you mentioned, that's true, but the slave trade was in full effect before that came to be. It was only after the Transatlantic Slave Trade became a big business that Euros started leaning on Africans to meet those slave quotas. By that time, they had footholds on the ground in Africa and everything. Let's be real, Africans were selling Africans for a couple hundred years before Euros were even in a position to put that kinda pressure on them. Again, sometimes people inadvertently give Europeans too much credit. When they slave trade started, none of those Euro countries were even powerful enough to go into Africa and make demands. It was only after they got rich from the slave trade and colonization and developed deadlier gun technology that they were able to do that.

Africans involved in the slave trade didn't sell other Africans to be beaten to death, starved, raped, worked to death, etc.

Europeans who purchased blacks made decisions with evil intentions, and the idea of racial supremacy which, granted them the right to treat other Humans beings however they liked. They didn't have to do what they did and continue to do. Slavery has been outlawed for a century plus some. However, the same ideology of supremacy persists with these people. So, with or without Africans selling other Africans Europeans would have found a way to treat other Humans as poorly as possible for their own profit and evil twisted ideas.

does it matter what i do with my purchase after i purchase it?

Absolutely!!

care to help me understand?

if they sold slaves......they was purchased to be slaves.....they got whipped there and got whipped with their new trade off. most likely got raped in either place. i dont think slaves were treated nicely anywhere....

That's not quite accurate. As was stated, many were prisoners of war, orphaned or refugees of war. There wasn't a system in Africa of slave hunters randomly gathering up Africans to enslave for the purpose of selling. We only see this practice come into existence when the Europeans got involved.

Being in bondage or enslaved doesn't give a person the right to rape, and torture. That isn't the definition of enslavement. The treatment of those enslaved by Europeans was justified by Religion and an individuals sick idea of supremacy..

 

[5th Letter]

Y'all need to stop saying these half truths about blacks selling other blacks into slavery. Is that technically true? Yes. But, it was a situation where the Europeans came in and bought slaves from captured Africans of rival tribes, or they said either you help us round up Africans or we're gonna get you.

lol There is not half truth there. The truth is truth. It doesn't matter that most of the slaves sold by Africans were already slaves or prisoners of war. That doesn't change the fact that a large number of the slaves that came to America were sold by other Africans. As for the ultimatum you mentioned, that's true, but the slave trade was in full effect before that came to be. It was only after the Transatlantic Slave Trade became a big business that Euros started leaning on Africans to meet those slave quotas. By that time, they had footholds on the ground in Africa and everything. Let's be real, Africans were selling Africans for a couple hundred years before Euros were even in a position to put that kinda pressure on them. Again, sometimes people inadvertently give Europeans too much credit. When they slave trade started, none of those Euro countries were even powerful enough to go into Africa and make demands. It was only after they got rich from the slave trade and colonization and developed deadlier gun technology that they were able to do that.

The bold is false. It's the same way Europeans came over to the US and quickly took over. The slave trade didn't need to be in full effect for them to give the ultimatum they gave.

 

[The Lonious Monk]

Y'all need to stop saying these half truths about blacks selling other blacks into slavery. Is that technically true? Yes. But, it was a situation where the Europeans came in and bought slaves from captured Africans of rival tribes, or they said either you help us round up Africans or we're gonna get you.

lol There is not half truth there. The truth is truth. It doesn't matter that most of the slaves sold by Africans were already slaves or prisoners of war. That doesn't change the fact that a large number of the slaves that came to America were sold by other Africans. As for the ultimatum you mentioned, that's true, but the slave trade was in full effect before that came to be. It was only after the Transatlantic Slave Trade became a big business that Euros started leaning on Africans to meet those slave quotas. By that time, they had footholds on the ground in Africa and everything. Let's be real, Africans were selling Africans for a couple hundred years before Euros were even in a position to put that kinda pressure on them. Again, sometimes people inadvertently give Europeans too much credit. When they slave trade started, none of those Euro countries were even powerful enough to go into Africa and make demands. It was only after they got rich from the slave trade and colonization and developed deadlier gun technology that they were able to do that.

Africans involved in the slave trade didn't sell other Africans to be beaten to death, starved, raped, worked to death, etc.

Europeans who purchased blacks made decisions with evil intentions, and the idea of racial supremacy which, granted them the right to treat other Humans beings however they liked. They didn't have to do what they did and continue to do. Slavery has been outlawed for a century plus some. However, the same ideology of supremacy persists with these people. So, with or without Africans selling other Africans Europeans would have found a way to treat other Humans as poorly as possible for their own profit and evil twisted ideas.

Oh most def. Don't get me wrong the white "Oh, but what we did wasn't bad because Africans had slaves too" excuse is bullshit. For one, Africans didn't practice the same chattel slavery that Euros did, so to some extent, they didn't really know what they were selling people into, but more importantly, two, it doesn't matter because someone else doing wrong doesn't excuse your wrong. So even if Africans were practicing chattel slavery, what whites did to blacks in America was still vile.

Y'all need to stop saying these half truths about blacks selling other blacks into slavery. Is that technically true? Yes. But, it was a situation where the Europeans came in and bought slaves from captured Africans of rival tribes, or they said either you help us round up Africans or we're gonna get you.

lol There is not half truth there. The truth is truth. It doesn't matter that most of the slaves sold by Africans were already slaves or prisoners of war. That doesn't change the fact that a large number of the slaves that came to America were sold by other Africans. As for the ultimatum you mentioned, that's true, but the slave trade was in full effect before that came to be. It was only after the Transatlantic Slave Trade became a big business that Euros started leaning on Africans to meet those slave quotas. By that time, they had footholds on the ground in Africa and everything. Let's be real, Africans were selling Africans for a couple hundred years before Euros were even in a position to put that kinda pressure on them. Again, sometimes people inadvertently give Europeans too much credit. When they slave trade started, none of those Euro countries were even powerful enough to go into Africa and make demands. It was only after they got rich from the slave trade and colonization and developed deadlier gun technology that they were able to do that.

The bold is false. It's the same way Europeans came over to the US and quickly took over. The slave trade didn't need to be in full effect for them to give the ultimatum they gave.

No, man, it's not. You're perpetuating a false history. It's weird. Pro-black people love tearing down white lies, and they should, but they always want to accept the white version of shit when it comes to this matter. The slave trade started in the 1400s. At that time there were empires in West Africa as powerful as many of the nations in Europe. The Europeans absolutely COULD NOT HAVE gone to those nations making ultimatums. In the early part of the slave trade, slaves were obtained almost exclusively through trade between the Euros and Africans. It probably took a couple hundred years of that before Euros were in a position to make ultimatums and demands and another couple hundred years before they could start colonizing. This idea that Europe was so powerful that it bullied African nations into giving up slaves and sovereignty instantly is the bullshit whites conditioned us to believe. It didn't happen like that.

The same thing is true for the Americas. You say the Euros came over and quickly took over. That's not true. It took white people hundreds of years to beat back the Natives. The only reason they got a foothold in the first place is because a) the Natives didn't have the same concept of land ownership that Euros did, so they didn't really stop the Euros and in many cases welcomed them, and b) the Native populations were crippled by Smallpox. If even one of those things didn't occur, the Europeans probably would have never came to prominence in the Americas.

 

[LUClEN]

Its really hard to call it. Just economically speaking, free labor for 400 years probably compounded more than what the land would have cost.

What are you basing that calculation on?

think about how much you make a year.....

now imagine your boss keeping all that money an you doing it for free.

now imagine you next 8 generations doing the same shit for free.....and the company keeps all the profit

Definitely leads us to a huge number, that math makes sense. But how do you assess the value of all the land? That seems like a lot of guess work