Quantcast

Colorado Republican Makes Lynching Joke Before Declaring That the Three-Fifths Compromise Wasn't Racist

Freja

Team Owner
Joined
Feb 27, 2015
Messages
111,715
Solutions
3
Reaction score
Reactions
658,959 274,452 8,222
767,250
Alleybux
589,300
bl6yrleglrosbdrlecqh.jpg


Colorado Republican Makes Lynching Joke Before Declaring That the Three-Fifths Compromise Wasn't Racist

Republicans are so desperate to whitewash America’s racist history that they are willing to reach far and wide for white-splanations that rewrite history to make a nation that sanctioned mass human trafficking, torture and the oppression of an entire race for multiple centuries look like a noble country. In fact, one GOPropaganda member representing Colorado even went as far as to pretend that the “compromise” that ended in only three-fifths of Black humanity being recognized wasn’t racist. (Read that again.)

The Huffington Post reports that Colorado state Rep. Ron Hanks (R), a newly elected legislator who was reportedly involved in the Jan. 6 whiny-wypipo rebellion at the U.S. Capitol, took his Klanny-fanny to the state House floor during a debate on a bill aimed at strengthening civics education in the state’s public schools and basically proved that he has no fµck!ng business debating on anything education-related.

Hanks began his a-whitey-historical diatribe with a joke that really wasn’t a joke. According to the Post, discount David Duke was mistakingly introduced as Colorado lawmaker Rep. Mike Lynch. Instead of ignoring the mistake, Party City Rush Limbaugh decided to use it as a jumping-off point for the racist AF rant that should have stayed in the drafts of his book on whitesplaining white supremacy.


LINK

“Being called Mr. Lynch might be a good thing for what I’m about to say,” Dollar Store Richard Spencer said. “No, just kidding.” (He said while not at all kidding.)

Somehow his totally self-aware lynching joke was the least offensive thing he was about to say.

“Going back to the founding, and going back to the three-fifths, and I heard the comments and I appreciate them, and I respect them,” Boomer Ben Shapiro continued. “But the Three-Fifths Compromise, of course, was an effort by non-slave states to try to reduce the amount of representation that the slave states had. It was not impugning anybody’s humanity.”

For the record: The three-fifths compromise was an agreement between both slave-owning and non-slave-owning states to keep America running smoothly at the expense of Black people—there’s nothing about that that can be construed as not racist.

Anyway, Great Value Bill O’Reilly could tell he was losing the room so when he heard the more reasonable members on the House floor audibly cringe at his display of flagrant caucasity, he tried to defend his neo-Nazi nonsense.

“Is this really racist to be talking about what the Three-Fifths Compromise was?” he asked. “I don’t think so, and I think it’s important. It’s part of the civics lesson here. It was brought up, and it merits discussion.”

Whew chile, the Republican ghetto.

The fact is that conservatives view American history through a very white lens. If U.S. history was told from the perspective of the oppressed—which was generally the point of the 1619 Project that conservatives got all butthurt over—it would be a completely different story.

But white conservatives aren’t ready for that conversation—they will always prefer comfortable lies over uncomfortable reality. And that’s why many politicians just need to stay the hell out of education. They aren’t interested in teaching, they’re agenda is to brainwash people into patriotism.

 

Andre1984

moaning in potato raisin ecstasy
Joined
Oct 8, 2017
Messages
30,626
Reaction score
Reactions
340,869 37,806 8,927
397,213
Alleybux
164,500
the Three-Fifths Compromise, of course, was an effort by non-slave states to try to reduce the amount of representation that the slave states had. It was not impugning anybody’s humanity

This sounds like part of the education platform from the recently unveiled America First Caucus

 

jackieup

trying not to comment
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
11,516
Reaction score
Reactions
51,554 2,116 1,290
52,267
Alleybux
13,910
Not sure why he even brought this fµck sh!t up and how it was relevant to the topic at hand
But I will say
The old north seems to be tantamount to current liberals.
Just as racist but trying to come off as the good guy.
The way history is currently taught, the north hides its own slavery and discrimination.
Abolishing slavery earlier just meant they implemented their version of Jim Crow earlier.
And they still used Africans as forced labor, the government just did little to stop them.

But make it clear, that the three fifths compromise meant that southern states wanted to count their slaves as full people for apportioning representatives but didn’t want their slaves to have actual representation, or the right to choose their representation; didn’t want them to participate in government in any way.
The south was Just using them as usual. and now ignorant revisionists want to paint the south as the good guys in this situation.
But that does not absolve the north of its, at most cowardice, and most likely indifference to the rights of slaves because they didn’t want slaves counted at all. They surely weren’t going to stick to a fight to free slaves and give them rights as full citizens.

Just Throw the whole country away. It’s too diseased.
This dude went to the capitol on the 6th and he still has a seat.
 

CoolWhipBish

"Gotta always top everything"-Emotivist
Joined
May 23, 2011
Messages
47,497
Reaction score
Reactions
200,157 4,014 169
245,755
Alleybux
1,330,674
But make it clear, that the three fifths compromise meant that southern states wanted to count their slaves as full people for apportioning representatives but didn’t want their slaves to have actual representation, or the right to choose their representation; didn’t want them to participate in government in any way.
Thank you!
 

LeggoMyAfro

☆•°◇□▪︎Hippity, hoppity, don't be a floppity.•°◇☆
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
5,915
Reaction score
Reactions
81,663 2,558 908
82,186
Alleybux
59,785
Someone should have retorted by suggesting to him that his fat honkee ass is 1/5 of a person due to being 1) deficient in melanin 2) lacking in looks 3) void of healthy genes 4) and most importantly his nonexistent hygiene, then strip him of his rights and tell him to shut up and take it and see if his unwashed mayotastic blimp of a being would be laughing then...
 
Last edited:

Rhett

LSA's full-raised well-raised bastid is TransLion
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
39,410
Reaction score
Reactions
89,576 6,201 5,146
91,016
Alleybux
4,400
It was about politics, just like today, our politicians are about politics. This is why we used to dub it politricks, because of the tricks politicians played in the name of politics.

3-5s1.JPG

3-5s2.JPG


For anyone who can't see the text in the first attachment, here you go:

The Three-fifths Compromise was a compromise reached among state delegates during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention due to disputes over how slaves would be counted when determining a state's total population. This number would determine a state's number of seats in the House of Representatives and how much it would pay in taxes. The compromise counted three-fifths of each state's slave population toward that state's total population for the purpose of apportioning the House of Representatives, giving the Southern states a third more seats in Congress and a third more electoral votes than if slaves had been ignored, but fewer than if slaves had been counted equally with free citizens. Free blacks were not subject to the compromise and counted as one full citizen for representation.[1]

In the United States Constitution, the Three-fifths Compromise is part of Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3. Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) later superseded this clause and explicitly repealed the compromise.

************

It was not about a slave being regarded as 3/5ths of a human, before fonts, particular foreign fonts, start thinking that.
 

diamondjubilee

Team Owner
Joined
Jul 8, 2016
Messages
19,448
Reaction score
Reactions
101,468 9,581 9,799
98,357
Alleybux
336,629
It was about politics, just like today, our politicians are about politics. This is why we used to dub it politricks, because of the tricks politicians played in the name of politics.

View attachment 2480924
View attachment 2480926

For anyone who can't see the text in the first attachment, here you go:

The Three-fifths Compromise was a compromise reached among state delegates during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention due to disputes over how slaves would be counted when determining a state's total population. This number would determine a state's number of seats in the House of Representatives and how much it would pay in taxes. The compromise counted three-fifths of each state's slave population toward that state's total population for the purpose of apportioning the House of Representatives, giving the Southern states a third more seats in Congress and a third more electoral votes than if slaves had been ignored, but fewer than if slaves had been counted equally with free citizens. Free blacks were not subject to the compromise and counted as one full citizen for representation.[1]

In the United States Constitution, the Three-fifths Compromise is part of Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3. Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) later superseded this clause and explicitly repealed the compromise.

************

It was not about a slave being regarded as 3/5ths of a human, before fonts, particular foreign fonts, start thinking that.
This needs to go viral because I've never seen it this way before.
 

Rhett

LSA's full-raised well-raised bastid is TransLion
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
39,410
Reaction score
Reactions
89,576 6,201 5,146
91,016
Alleybux
4,400

Magnolia45

General Manager
Joined
Jun 30, 2019
Messages
4,084
Reaction score
Reactions
30,519 1,769 1,362
29,044
Alleybux
717,615
It was about politics, just like today, our politicians are about politics. This is why we used to dub it politricks, because of the tricks politicians played in the name of politics.

View attachment 2480924
View attachment 2480926

For anyone who can't see the text in the first attachment, here you go:

The Three-fifths Compromise was a compromise reached among state delegates during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention due to disputes over how slaves would be counted when determining a state's total population. This number would determine a state's number of seats in the House of Representatives and how much it would pay in taxes. The compromise counted three-fifths of each state's slave population toward that state's total population for the purpose of apportioning the House of Representatives, giving the Southern states a third more seats in Congress and a third more electoral votes than if slaves had been ignored, but fewer than if slaves had been counted equally with free citizens. Free blacks were not subject to the compromise and counted as one full citizen for representation.[1]

In the United States Constitution, the Three-fifths Compromise is part of Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3. Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) later superseded this clause and explicitly repealed the compromise.

************

It was not about a slave being regarded as 3/5ths of a human, before fonts, particular foreign fonts, start thinking that.

I was coming in here to say this. I always took "3/5th" to mean "3/5th of a human," but it had nothing to do with that. It was simply about representation.

EDITED to fix minor mistakes
 

inacloud

In memory of Cheverly - gone but not forgotten
Joined
May 8, 2017
Messages
2,014
Reaction score
Reactions
12,120 162 30
13,173
Alleybux
227,119
But make it clear, that the three fifths compromise meant that southern states wanted to count their slaves as full people for apportioning representatives but didn’t want their slaves to have actual representation, or the right to choose their representation; didn’t want them to participate in government in any way.
The south was Just using them as usual. and now ignorant revisionists want to paint the south as the good guys in this situation.
Seems like this is still the desire for southern states, they are just trying to find more "creative" ways to make this happen.
 

Pray Tell

B*tch, Spell Evangelista!
Joined
Sep 24, 2009
Messages
6,287
Reaction score
Reactions
63,304 2,139 2,404
62,161
Alleybux
591,650
It was about politics, just like today, our politicians are about politics. This is why we used to dub it politricks, because of the tricks politicians played in the name of politics.

View attachment 2480924
View attachment 2480926

For anyone who can't see the text in the first attachment, here you go:

The Three-fifths Compromise was a compromise reached among state delegates during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention due to disputes over how slaves would be counted when determining a state's total population. This number would determine a state's number of seats in the House of Representatives and how much it would pay in taxes. The compromise counted three-fifths of each state's slave population toward that state's total population for the purpose of apportioning the House of Representatives, giving the Southern states a third more seats in Congress and a third more electoral votes than if slaves had been ignored, but fewer than if slaves had been counted equally with free citizens. Free blacks were not subject to the compromise and counted as one full citizen for representation.[1]

In the United States Constitution, the Three-fifths Compromise is part of Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3. Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) later superseded this clause and explicitly repealed the compromise.

************

It was not about a slave being regarded as 3/5ths of a human, before fonts, particular foreign fonts, start thinking that.

I think you misunderstood what's being said just as I did. They counted 3/5ths of the slave population. They didn't refer to the slaves as 3/5ths of a human being. I HATE SLAVERY period.
I fail to see the point you two are trying to make. The facts are a population of human beings were counted as only three-fifths, simply because they were black slaves. Either way you slice it, they weren't seen as full human-beings whether it be individually or the population as a whole. Plus, the slave population gave the South more political power, but they weren't even allowed to vote. This is just another example of white people using black bodies to further their own agenda while denying blacks access to the power whites gain from their exploitation.
 

Cafe au lait

Team Owner
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
19,204
Reaction score
Reactions
118,430 4,537 6,628
120,979
Alleybux
193,624
I fail to see the point you two are trying to make. The facts are a population of human beings were counted as only three-fifths, simply because they were black slaves. Either way you slice it, they weren't seen as full human-beings whether it be individually or the population as a whole. Plus, the slave population gave the South more political power, but they weren't even allowed to vote. This is just another example of white people using black bodies to further their own agenda while denying blacks access to the power whites gain from their exploitation.
I agree. They regarded slaves as much less than 3/5s so why they want to even attempt to go along with the this wasn’t about race or racism argument is ridiculous.
 

Rhett

LSA's full-raised well-raised bastid is TransLion
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
39,410
Reaction score
Reactions
89,576 6,201 5,146
91,016
Alleybux
4,400
I fail to see the point you two are trying to make. The facts are a population of human beings were counted as only three-fifths, simply because they were black slaves. Either way you slice it, they weren't seen as full human-beings whether it be individually or the population as a whole. Plus, the slave population gave the South more political power, but they weren't even allowed to vote. This is just another example of white people using black bodies to further their own agenda while denying blacks access to the power whites gain from their exploitation.

I disagreed (thumbs down because I don't groan) your post because I disagree with what you posted.

A lot of fonts who don't know any better put it out there that white masters regarded the slaves as 3/5ths of a human being, which is not true at all.

The point I made, not to be confused with *trying to make*, in my post *that you fail to see* is to put the facts out there on what the three-fifths agreement was, because if the facts are not put out there then people will believe the wrong information that you and the likes would like for them to believe.

Africans were sold into slavery by way of TransAtlantic Slave Trade, which was an agreement made between the Africans and whites that wound some of them here in the U.S. to be bought as slaves. Bought, they were considered property, and because *property* cannot vote, the three-fifths agreement had nothing at all to do with *property* voting. It had everything to do with politics (seats on Congress in the South) and taxes, so by way of the three-fifths agreement what whites did was fudge the slave count numbers to fit that political and taxes agenda.

The slaves were very much seen as full human beings by masters because them whites having kept an eye on them the way they did, were able to see with their own eyes based on how the slaves carried themselves and perfected their tasks, a greatness in them that made those whites feel intimidated by them. This is why they would not allow the slaves to hold onto any of their African language and traditions, or learn how to read and how to write. They knew power comes with that and with them already feeling intimidated by the greatness they saw in the slaves, in no way did they want to allow them to do anything that would give them some power, fearing the slaves would then use that power against them when the masters did not want that.

Whites were actually intimidated by the slaves which is why they worked so hard to keep them in an inferior position. With all of that in their mind, there was no room to consider the slaves as dumb asses to the extent they'd regard them as three-fifths of a human, less than a human -- that was a consideration that never crossed their minds because they were too busy staying focused on keeping the slaves under their control in efforts of preventing them from making any power moves, and still they did because they were running the Underground Railroad.

That said, believe as you wish, my post is not intended to penetrate any minds closed to the truth because you prefer to keep your mind stuck on some trash.
 

Rhett

LSA's full-raised well-raised bastid is TransLion
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
39,410
Reaction score
Reactions
89,576 6,201 5,146
91,016
Alleybux
4,400
p.s. In the event you're one of those who believe Africans were stolen from Africa and brought here, here's a 40 minute fast moving, history laden video that will tell you the Europeans did some stealing, but by the time America got involved, there was no Americans stealing Africans from Africa, but instead through the TransAtlantic Slave Trade, there was an agreement between the Africans and whites to trade and buy Africans to then be sold into slavery in America. Because of that move, Africa has been financially and otherwise fµcked, not really getting on their feet and still not there, until some time in the year 2000's.

 

jackieup

trying not to comment
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
11,516
Reaction score
Reactions
51,554 2,116 1,290
52,267
Alleybux
13,910
p.s. In the event you're one of those who believe Africans were stolen from Africa and brought here, here's a 40 minute fast moving, history laden video that will tell you the Europeans did some stealing, but by the time America got involved, there was no Americans stealing Africans from Africa, but instead through the TransAtlantic Slave Trade, there was an agreement between the Africans and whites to trade and buy Africans to then be sold into slavery in America. Because of that move, Africa has been financially and otherwise fµcked, not really getting on their feet and still not there, until some time in the year 2000's.


So “Africans” being involved in the slave trade were the reason that Africa is a third world continent?
Not the fact that Europe colonized Africa and is still involved in economic imperialism through debt to this day?
To note, Europe tried to colonize Africa several times before, including during the slave trade.

To be clear, tribes in what is now called Africa made deals with Europeans to fight opposing tribes. The prisoners of war were given to Europeans as slaves.

Africa is not the EU or the United States. There is no continental unity and before Africa was known as Africa, there sure wasn’t any tribal unity across the continent.

and given the track record of Europeans and their ultimate goal of world colonization, I’m sure the agreements made between Europeans and tribes on the African continent were not mutually beneficial
 

jackieup

trying not to comment
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
11,516
Reaction score
Reactions
51,554 2,116 1,290
52,267
Alleybux
13,910
I think the Dred Scott decision does a good job of describing the European view of African humanity...


It becomes necessary, therefore, to determine who were citizens of the several States when the Constitution was adopted....

... [T]he legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show, that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument.


They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery. . . . He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it.

But it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration (
of independence); for if the language, as understood in that day, would embrace them, the conduct of the distinguished men who framed the Declaration of Independence would have been utterly and flagrantly inconsistent with the principles they asserted; and instead of the sympathy of mankind, to which they so confidently appeared, they would have deserved and received universal rebuke and reprobation.

The unhappy black race ...were never thought of or spoken of except as property,...



Jefferson’s deleted section of the Declaration of Independence is also noteworthy, as is his Notes on the State of Virginia
To the fact that Jefferson, the opportunistic hypocrite he was, never intended Africans to be citizens of the U.S. He wanted them shipped back to Africa like most European abolitionists of the time.


 

Cafe au lait

Team Owner
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
19,204
Reaction score
Reactions
118,430 4,537 6,628
120,979
Alleybux
193,624
I disagreed (thumbs down because I don't groan) your post because I disagree with what you posted.

A lot of fonts who don't know any better put it out there that white masters regarded the slaves as 3/5ths of a human being, which is not true at all.

The point I made, not to be confused with *trying to make*, in my post *that you fail to see* is to put the facts out there on what the three-fifths agreement was, because if the facts are not put out there then people will believe the wrong information that you and the likes would like for them to believe.

Africans were sold into slavery by way of TransAtlantic Slave Trade, which was an agreement made between the Africans and whites that wound some of them here in the U.S. to be bought as slaves. Bought, they were considered property, and because *property* cannot vote, the three-fifths agreement had nothing at all to do with *property* voting. It had everything to do with politics (seats on Congress in the South) and taxes, so by way of the three-fifths agreement what whites did was fudge the slave count numbers to fit that political and taxes agenda.

The slaves were very much seen as full human beings by masters because them whites having kept an eye on them the way they did, were able to see with their own eyes based on how the slaves carried themselves and perfected their tasks, a greatness in them that made those whites feel intimidated by them. This is why they would not allow the slaves to hold onto any of their African language and traditions, or learn how to read and how to write. They knew power comes with that and with them already feeling intimidated by the greatness they saw in the slaves, in no way did they want to allow them to do anything that would give them some power, fearing the slaves would then use that power against them when the masters did not want that.

Whites were actually intimidated by the slaves which is why they worked so hard to keep them in an inferior position. With all of that in their mind, there was no room to consider the slaves as dumb asses to the extent they'd regard them as three-fifths of a human, less than a human -- that was a consideration that never crossed their minds because they were too busy staying focused on keeping the slaves under their control in efforts of preventing them from making any power moves, and still they did because they were running the Underground Railroad.

That said, believe as you wish, my post is not intended to penetrate any minds closed to the truth because you prefer to keep your mind stuck on some trash.



About the turn of the 19th century, some scholars advanced the idea that the Negro (and perhaps the Indian) was a separate species from “normal” men (white and Christian), an idea that had been introduced and occasionally expressed in the 18th century but that had drawn little attention. This revived notion held that the “inferior races” had been created at a different time than Adam and Eve, who were the progenitors of the white race. Although multiple creations contradicted both the well-known definition of species in terms of reproductively isolated populations and the biblical description of creation, it is clear that in the public mind the transformation from race to species-level difference had already evolved. In the courts, statehouses, assemblies, and churches and throughout American institutions, race became institutionalized as the premier source, and the causal agent, of all human differences.

Transforming “race” into “species”​

One of those whose direct experience of African slaves and assessment of them was given great weight was Edward Long (1734–1813), a former plantation owner and jurist in Jamaica. In a book titled The History of Jamaica (1774), Long asserted that “the Negro” was “void of genius” and “incapable” of civilization; indeed, he was so far inferior as to constitute a separate species of mankind. Long’s work was published as a defense of slavery during a period of rising antislavery sentiment. Its greatest influence came during and after the American Revolutionary War (1775–83), when some southern Americans started freeing their slaves and moving north. Long’s writings, published in popular magazines, were widely read in the United States during the last decade of the 18th century . . .

 

Rhett

LSA's full-raised well-raised bastid is TransLion
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
39,410
Reaction score
Reactions
89,576 6,201 5,146
91,016
Alleybux
4,400
So “Africans” being involved in the slave trade were the reason that Africa is a third world continent?
Not the fact that Europe colonized Africa and is still involved in economic imperialism through debt to this day? . . .
Asking the question you did in bold, and with the attitude that you asked it with, I can tell you did not watch the video because Africa's history cannot be told without the inclusion of what you mentioned in bold, for that, like the TAST agreement was another agreement that Africa had made with Europe as a result of Africa being left in a near destitute state after slavery in America had ended.

This is because for a few hundred years Africa's primary source of income was made off the backs of it selling Africans into slavery particularly after it entered into the TransAtlantic Slave Trade agreement with America. Long before that, at a point Europe had been stealing Africans from Africa, Africa ultimately having made a deal with Europe to sell Africans to them to be used into slavery. That went on for a few hundred years.

After America caught wind Africa had been selling Africans to Europe to be used as slaves, America wanted in on that and because Africa saw that as an additional way to make more money and trinkets, it then started selling Africans to America to be used as slaves there, birthing TASTrade agreement that Africa had made with America. That lasted for a few hundreds of years until slavery ended in America, resulting for African out the window Africa's primary source of income went, leaving it in a near destitute state because while the Africans it sold to America and to Europe during that time had built up both of those countries, it left Africa near destitute because with no skills, no trades, no nothing, even no knowledge of how to work the land causing the land to be fµcked, Africa was left poor, was left fµcked, which is where what you said in bold came into the picture.

Having had a long standing relationship with Europe, Africa made an agreement with Europe that Europe *would save Africa* and through another agreement Africa had made with Europe to do that, this is what saved Africa.

Granted, the truth is painful but if you want to know more from there, a bit of it is covered in the 40 minute video, for there are other important parts that didn't make it into the video.

What I covered in this response I got from the video. The truth, and then the hardcore truth, is ugly -- that's a fact in life. This is not about ego so there is nothing to be defensive about, this is about history and history is not always pretty.
 
Last edited:

jackieup

trying not to comment
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
11,516
Reaction score
Reactions
51,554 2,116 1,290
52,267
Alleybux
13,910
Asking the question you did in bold, and with the attitude that you asked it with, I can tell you did not watch the video because Africa's history cannot be told without the inclusion of what you mentioned in bold, for that, like the TAST agreement was another agreement that Africa had made with Europe as a result of Africa being left in a near destitute state after slavery in America had ended.

This is because for a few hundred years Africa's primary source of income was made off the backs of it selling Africans into slavery particularly after it entered into the TransAtlantic Slave Trade agreement with America. Long before that, at a point Europe had been stealing Africans from Africa, Africa ultimately having made a deal with Europe to sell Africans to them to be used into slavery. That went on for a few hundred years.

After America caught wind Africa had been selling Africans to Europe to be used as slaves, America wanted in on that and because Africa saw that as an additional way to make more money and trinkets, it then started selling Africans to America to be used as slaves there, birthing TASTrade agreement that Africa had made with America. That lasted for a few hundreds of years until slavery ended in America, resulting for African out the window Africa's primary source of income went, leaving it in a near destitute state because while the Africans it sold to America and to Europe during that time had built up both of those countries, it left Africa near destitute because with no skills, no trades, no nothing, even no knowledge of how to work the land causing the land to be fµcked, Africa was left poor, was left fµcked, which is where what you said in bold came into the picture.

Having had a long standing relationship with Europe, Africa made an agreement with Europe that Europe *would save Africa* and through another agreement Africa had made with Europe to do that, this is what saved Africa.

Granted, the truth is painful but if you want to know more from there, a bit of it is covered in the 40 minute video, for there are other important parts that didn't make it into the video.

What I covered in this response I got from the video. The truth, and then the hardcore truth, is ugly -- that's a fact in life. This is not about ego so there is nothing to be defensive about, this is about history and history is not always pretty.
My problem with the premise is the idea that there was an “Africa” to participate in these things.
“Africa” did not sell prisoners to Europe. It was a small group of tribes.

“Africa” didn’t make any agreement with Europe. How do you make an agreement as a continent when the majority of the people living on the continent did not consent and weren’t even aware or said agreement?
The actions of these groups do not lead to the colonization of the entire continent.
it may have led to the defeat of their own people, but not the continent.
That’s like saying an agreement that Europeans made with the Wampanoag makes the them partly culpable to the conquering of Yakama.
 

Similar Threads

The Lounge

General Alley

Top Bottom