who's owed more? natives for stolen land or blacks for forced free labor?
Options
Comments
-
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? -
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 wrote: »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 ? things too, like use germs to ? 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 ? of ? . im just saying with this...it aint no comparison.. imo. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »konceptjones wrote: »
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 ? 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. -
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 ? for free.....and the company keeps all the profit -
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.
-
5th Letter wrote: »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 Lonious Monk wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »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, ? , 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.
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »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, ? , 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? -
2stepz_ahead wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »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, ? , 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 wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »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, ? , 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 ? in either place. i dont think slaves were treated nicely anywhere.... -
2stepz_ahead wrote: »2stepz_ahead wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »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, ? , 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 ? 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 ? or enslaved doesn't give a person the right to ? , 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..
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »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 wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »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, ? , 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 ? . 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.5th Letter wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »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 ? 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 ? 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. -
2stepz_ahead wrote: »
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 ? 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 -
Africans, for unpaid free labor that built the foundations of wealth in a lot of places, and because we lost our identity and culture in the process over all of those years.
-
Africans, for unpaid free labor that built the foundations of wealth in a lot of places, and because we lost our identity and culture in the process over all of those years.
You don't think a similar alienation was experienced by indigenous groups? -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »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, ? , 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 ? . 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.5th Letter wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »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 ? 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 ? 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.
I'm not accepting the white version of anything. They came to Africa saw tribes at war and used it to their advantage, it didn't take 100's of years to do any of this. Nor did it take 100's of years to take control from the native Americans. -
2stepz_ahead wrote: »
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 ? 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
and thats how this thread started....
from this very type of conversation.
when you think about the companies and family wealth that was built off of free labor vs the cost of land....i think it pales in comparison.
that free labor could buy more land...or you could stay on what you got and create a business. and profit endlessly. -
But weren't there some black natives living in the US though?
-
5th Letter wrote: »
I'm not accepting the white version of anything. They came to Africa saw tribes at war and used it to their advantage, it didn't take 100's of years to do any of this. Nor did it take 100's of years to take control from the native Americans.
You're changing your claims now. You said the Euros went to Africa nations and gave them the ultimatum that they either give them slaves or be taken themselves. They absolutely did not do that right away, and yes, it took them ~200 years after the slave trade began before they were in a position to bully those African nations in that manner.
And honestly, if you're sticking with your comments about the Native Americans you frankly don't know what the ? you're talking about. The Euros arrived in the Americas at the end of the 1400s. The Native American tribes really weren't beaten until the mid 1800s and the American Indian Wars didn't officially come to an end until into the 20th century. Before that the U.S. was constantly in a back and forth struggle trying to take the land away from the Native Americans. And again, the only reason that was even possible was largely because of how bad Smallpox hurt the Natives to begin with. They didn't just effortlessly bully the Natives out of their land like you're claiming.
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »
I'm not accepting the white version of anything. They came to Africa saw tribes at war and used it to their advantage, it didn't take 100's of years to do any of this. Nor did it take 100's of years to take control from the native Americans.
You're changing your claims now. You said the Euros went to Africa nations and gave them the ultimatum that they either give them slaves or be taken themselves. They absolutely did not do that right away, and yes, it took them ~200 years after the slave trade began before they were in a position to bully those African nations in that manner.
And honestly, if you're sticking with your comments about the Native Americans you frankly don't know what the ? you're talking about. The Euros arrived in the Americas at the end of the 1400s. The Native American tribes really weren't beaten until the mid 1800s and the American Indian Wars didn't officially come to an end until into the 20th century. Before that the U.S. was constantly in a back and forth struggle trying to take the land away from the Native Americans. And again, the only reason that was even possible was largely because of how bad Smallpox hurt the Natives to begin with. They didn't just effortlessly bully the Natives out of their land like you're claiming.
I did not change my views. And for the bold I'm saying it did not take 200+ years, it didn't take them long to come in divide and conquer and then put ultimatums to them.
Okay and what was going on from the time the Europeans arrived till the war was over? You're saying the Europeans didn't already took land and had immigrants colonizing those lands? So if all that was going on how weren't the Europeans winning the war? -
5th Letter wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »
I'm not accepting the white version of anything. They came to Africa saw tribes at war and used it to their advantage, it didn't take 100's of years to do any of this. Nor did it take 100's of years to take control from the native Americans.
You're changing your claims now. You said the Euros went to Africa nations and gave them the ultimatum that they either give them slaves or be taken themselves. They absolutely did not do that right away, and yes, it took them ~200 years after the slave trade began before they were in a position to bully those African nations in that manner.
And honestly, if you're sticking with your comments about the Native Americans you frankly don't know what the ? you're talking about. The Euros arrived in the Americas at the end of the 1400s. The Native American tribes really weren't beaten until the mid 1800s and the American Indian Wars didn't officially come to an end until into the 20th century. Before that the U.S. was constantly in a back and forth struggle trying to take the land away from the Native Americans. And again, the only reason that was even possible was largely because of how bad Smallpox hurt the Natives to begin with. They didn't just effortlessly bully the Natives out of their land like you're claiming.
I did not change my views. And for the bold I'm saying it did not take 200+ years, it didn't take them long to come in divide and conquer and then put ultimatums to them.
Okay and what was going on from the time the Europeans arrived till the war was over? You're saying the Europeans didn't already took land and had immigrants colonizing those lands? So if all that was going on how weren't the Europeans winning the war?
It did. You saying it didn't doesn't make your statement true. The Euros didn't divide and conquer anything. Tribes were already going at each other. All the Euros did was introduce more guns into the equation and take people away. It took some time before the manpower was depleted enough that Europeans could drop ultimatums. It didn't happen nearly as quickly as you're implying.
In the Americas the Europeans slowly expanded outward and they had to fight the whole way. No one said they didn't win the war. You claimed that Europeans quickly took control of land from the Natives. Again, that's not true. Just looking at the U.S. itself. We declared independence in 1776. The US didn't have a decisive edge over the Natives for the Contiguous 48 until about 1850. That's almost 100 years just for the U.S. Now keep in mind that the settlers had been having skirmishes with various groups of Natives since well before the U.S. came to be. So it's just flat out wrong to say that white people came here and took control of the land right away. It was a long process. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »
I'm not accepting the white version of anything. They came to Africa saw tribes at war and used it to their advantage, it didn't take 100's of years to do any of this. Nor did it take 100's of years to take control from the native Americans.
You're changing your claims now. You said the Euros went to Africa nations and gave them the ultimatum that they either give them slaves or be taken themselves. They absolutely did not do that right away, and yes, it took them ~200 years after the slave trade began before they were in a position to bully those African nations in that manner.
And honestly, if you're sticking with your comments about the Native Americans you frankly don't know what the ? you're talking about. The Euros arrived in the Americas at the end of the 1400s. The Native American tribes really weren't beaten until the mid 1800s and the American Indian Wars didn't officially come to an end until into the 20th century. Before that the U.S. was constantly in a back and forth struggle trying to take the land away from the Native Americans. And again, the only reason that was even possible was largely because of how bad Smallpox hurt the Natives to begin with. They didn't just effortlessly bully the Natives out of their land like you're claiming.
I did not change my views. And for the bold I'm saying it did not take 200+ years, it didn't take them long to come in divide and conquer and then put ultimatums to them.
Okay and what was going on from the time the Europeans arrived till the war was over? You're saying the Europeans didn't already took land and had immigrants colonizing those lands? So if all that was going on how weren't the Europeans winning the war?
It did. You saying it didn't doesn't make your statement true. The Euros didn't divide and conquer anything. Tribes were already going at each other. All the Euros did was introduce more guns into the equation and take people away. It took some time before the manpower was depleted enough that Europeans could drop ultimatums. It didn't happen nearly as quickly as you're implying.
In the Americas the Europeans slowly expanded outward and they had to fight the whole way. No one said they didn't win the war. You claimed that Europeans quickly took control of land from the Natives. Again, that's not true. Just looking at the U.S. itself. We declared independence in 1776. The US didn't have a decisive edge over the Natives for the Contiguous 48 until about 1850. That's almost 100 years just for the U.S. Now keep in mind that the settlers had been having skirmishes with various groups of Natives since well before the U.S. came to be. So it's just flat out wrong to say that white people came here and took control of the land right away. It was a long process.
They came over got in between tribes whether they were warring or not. It did not take long but agree to disagree.
I never said the Native Americans didn't fight I said that the Europeans were able to come in and takeover relatively easy hence why they set up colonies while the Indians were fighting a losing battle. It was only a long process because the Indians never gave up and kept fighting. -
5th Letter wrote: »
They came over got in between tribes whether they were warring or not. It did not take long but agree to disagree.
I never said the Native Americans didn't fight I said that the Europeans were able to come in and takeover relatively easy hence why they set up colonies while the Indians were fighting a losing battle. It was only a long process because the Indians never gave up and kept fighting.
Dog, I don't even see how the ? you're saying makes sense to you. You're saying it took the US a long time to take control of the land because the Natives kept fighting. That directly contradicts you claiming that they took over the land easily. It's irrelevant that the Natives were fighting a losing battle. The point is Europe/U.S. didn't and couldn't just steamroll the Natives. As you yourself admit, it was a slow process, and really it didn't even swing to the U.S.'s favor heavily until the gatling gun was invented. That was basically the same thing that helped them conquer much of Africa. This isn't even anything to argue about. You stated that the Europeans were able to give Africans ultimatums early on in the Slave Trade and you state that whites took control of the Americas quick and easily. Both of those statements are factually incorrect. That's why you're not providing any real dates to go with your statements because the dates don't actually support what you're saying.
