Apology

[Iron bubble]

I think during pride month we should change the "yell is only for buying and selling" to "yell is only for discussing LGBTQIA+ issues"

Oh wait, October is black history month isn't it...

so saying the n word is allowed in october

[Fungamer]

I think during pride month we should change the "yell is only for buying and selling" to "yell is only for discussing LGBTQIA+ issues"

Oh wait, October is black history month isn't it...

so saying the n word is allowed in october

Noob

[Rapsey]

so saying the n word is allowed in october

Absolutely not. You must stay respectful at all times, even when discussing the lengthy history of black people raiding villages to abduct and enslave people.

[Patel]

so saying the n word is allowed in october

Absolutely not. You must stay respectful at all times, even when discussing the lengthy history of black people raiding villages to abduct and enslave people.

Tbh this was pretty well covered by our high school curriculum, atleast if you took AP World in the US.

Since I couldn't phrase it any better myself, "The idea of “Black people selling Black people” into slavery is a distortive shorthand used to minimize and deflect culpability – and to shame people into silence against demands for justice and reparation."

TL,DR: Yes, black folks in Africa owned slaves for centuries prior to European arrival. Then the europeans came along and it became a much bigger issue, you could say they subsidized it with their vastly greater amounts of wealth and resources. White people had guns, black people bought guns; black people, like all people, fought each other, and needed guns to fight other black people who had bought guns. So they obtained and sold slaves to afford those guns and make profit in general. White people profit.

When in doubt, chase the trail of wealth. Nothing more consistently has revealed the truth than people's attempts to maximize personal gain

[Fungamer]

Then the europeans came along and it became a much bigger issue, you could say they subsidized it with their vastly greater amounts of wealth and resources.
White people profit.

... But the warlords didn't? It was still a good deal for both parties, as unethical as slavery may be.

The guilt we assign to the party buying during an unethical transaction like this is disproportionate to the guilt we assign to the party selling. In other transactions that may be considered unethical (such as the drug trade), it's the other way around, which is surprising to me. In this specific scenario however, it's safe to say that both the suppliers and those who had the demand are both extremely fucked up people.

The fact that a fucked up system got scaled up due to the arrival of more demand does not somehow absolve those who supplied, especially since the supply has gone up without requiring much convincing to... meet that demand.

Although the idea of “Black people selling Black people” might be used to deflect culpability by certain extremists, I have mainly seen it used to paint a more realistic picture of history, where we can agree that these were fucked up times, with fucked up parties on both ends, rather than presenting "The white man" as the boogeyman of history.

And yeah, affirmative action and "positive discrimination" are downright racist, so I don't really care about "shaming people into silence against demands for justice and reparation". Shame/Call out the racists and all that, y'know.

When in doubt, chase the trail of wealth. Nothing more consistently has revealed the truth than people's attempts to maximize personal gain

[ᴛʜɪs ᴍᴇssᴀɢᴇ ʜᴀs ʙᴇᴇɴ ᴄᴇɴsᴏʀᴇᴅ ʙʏ ᴛʜᴇ ADL]
It might be worth more looking into Ali Weka's ancestors than mine

[Patel]

... But the warlords didn't? It was still a good deal for both parties, as unethical as slavery may be.

So they obtained and sold slaves to afford those guns and make profit in general

^
It was good money*, not a good deal. There were 3 parties, not two.

The fact that a fucked up system got scaled up due to the arrival of more demand does not somehow absolve those who supplied, especially since the supply has gone up without requiring much convincing to... meet that demand.

More fundamentally, the very concept of allowing people to freely maximize personal gain is the reason any of this happened.

That said, it's objectively true that once the Europeans were in the picture, they were the ones who called the shots. To me, it always has and always be the case that the onus to be 'good' falls into the hands of those who have the power to make it so. The warlords should've done it before the Europeans arrived, and the Europeans should've done it after they did.

And yeah, affirmative action and "positive discrimination" are downright racist, so I don't really care about "shaming people into silence against demands for justice and reparation". Shame/Call out the racists and all that, y'know.

But this level of nuance is NEVER achieved in public discourse. So I call out the overly reductive shaming as well

[Fungamer]

That said, it's objectively true that once the Europeans were in the picture, they were the ones who called the shots. To me, it always has and always be the case that the onus to be 'good' falls into the hands of those who have the power to make it so. The warlords should've done it before the Europeans arrived, and the Europeans should've done it after they did.

I don't see anyone calling out the governments of African countries for reparations for not stopping it before the Europeans arrived though. Nor do I see those of Slavic heritage calling for any reparations (Look into the etymology of that ethnicity), nor do I see Mediterraneans calling out Arabs to get reparations (the Barbary slave trade was extremely brutal). Why's that?

[Rapsey]

Since I couldn't phrase it any better myself, "The idea of “Black people selling Black people” into slavery is a distortive shorthand used to minimize and deflect culpability – and to shame people into silence against demands for justice and reparation."

I think what you've just demonstrated there is the distortive bias of the US education system that "we mustn't let the facts of history get in the way of our narrative that white people above all others were the guilty ones". Which is precisely why I brought it up. It's so sad to see a whole generation buying into this warped view of history because they truly believe that their teachers are providing them with an accurate unbiased account.

The mere fact that your AP classes felt the need to frame this in terms of culpability illustrates this quite nicely. Actual unbiased history courses simply stick to teaching the facts of history and don't concern themselves with steering the students' judgement on who bears guilt to align with what they think it should be. It's quite revealing that your classes deemed it necessary to defend against information that could threaten the picture they wanted to portray.

[Iron bubble]

N i

[Iron adam]

C E