This post may contain Adult content.
I Am Against Slavery Of All Kinds
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join Similar Worlds today »

U.S. History has certainly placed slavery in a more seeable context, for me. That said, anti-white rhetoric is fucked up.

I feel like with all the slave movies and the consistently anti-white rhetoric being thrown around, it's easy to feel lost in the moment or feel antagonized. The idea of "white fragility," essentially states this: If you respond negatively to anything involving minorities, then this is simply a result of your innate racism as a white person. This is sort of damned if you do and damned if you don't. The claim essentially makes it impossible to form any sort of complaint involving anything regarding race.

That said, there's no denying how fucked up slavery was in Colonial America. And that the effects persisted through to the 1960s. It wasn't until then that "white America" actually began thinking, "Oh, Slavery was pretty fucked up, huh?" In tandem with the Civil Rights movement.

However, this also betrays the fundamental premise of humanity, if it's viewed in a vacuum. Africans sold Africans into European, Middle Eastern, and American slavery. Romans had slaves. Japanese internment camps with human experimentation on U.S. soldiers. Viking enslavement of Europeans. Mongolian enslaving. etc. etc. North African Moors stealing 1 million whites off the coast of Europe.

This is all to say, this was not a unique thing that whites specifically did to blacks. It was a human thing to enslave throughout most of history. That only changed very recently. And the reason for slavery changed very recently, too. It was never racially based, or even economically based, but more as a result of war. This was very true in Africa, where war chiefs would enslave the survivors of wars--granted, the level of depravity and shittiness didn't really meet the level of Colonial America.

In fact, this idea of "whiteness" didn't even exist until the 1800s. If you were to ask an Irishman--my ancestors--who had been the recipients of thousands of years of brutality at the hands of the English--whether they were "white", well, you'd be served with, "Um, no, I'm not white. Englishmen are white, and we are NOT them." Before then, this idea of "whiteness" was separated into groups: There were Germans, French, English, etc, etc. They were not combined into one singular race.

White racism and white superiority was a fundamentally systematic viewpoint that developed from the top down--rich, wealthy planters: plantation owners, this was like 1% of the white population--successfully developed to dissuade white indentured servants from fighting together with black slaves, as happened in several rebellions. In other words, the ideas of white supremacy were injected artificially into the white populace then blew out of proportion--even when only 1% of whites actually had huge plantations. And say 2% of whites actually owned slaves, because they were so expensive. $30,000 for one slave.

When America was first formed in the 16th century, it was even legally allowable for blacks to own their own slaves or marry white women. That was shocking, to me, because we're always fed this, "Slavery was always this horrible thing." It became horrid beyond words, but it didn't start out that way. Slaves could even buy out their contracts if they worked hard.

Anyway, I still feel a lot of rage towards the prevailing anti-white rhetoric revolved around "Critical Race Theory" which seems to be the dominant thinking pattern in academia, at the moment. But, I'm glad I took this history class, because it has certainly put things a bit more in perspective. Seeing an objective measure and seeing from both sides makes it a lot more tempered.

For those of you wondering what "Critical Race Theory" is: A shorthand is that you are not you, you are your race. In other words, if you are black, you are oppressed, even if you're a rich lawyer who grew up with doctor parents who went to Harvard. And if you are white, you are part of the problem and need to understand that it's your job to balance the equation of racial inequities--even if you were born in a trailer park and ate out of trash cans and begged to survive, like my mom.

The scary thing is that this is, legitimately, what is being taught in higher education--especially in Ivy League schools.

[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhRPlsa-Y-0]
Oldest First | Newest First | Top
Allelse · 31-35, M
So you're saying you want to own slaves?
Allelse · 31-35, M
[@437744,Tatsumi] And a century of non-racial slavery would do the trick?
Tatsumi · 26-30, M
[@415694,Allelse] Read better.
SirWilliam · 36-40, M
[@437744,Tatsumi] They simply can't,, or rather, refuse to read better.
Picklebobble2 · 56-60, M
That’s because Ivy League schools were created by the wealthy white descendants of those with wealth who rejected any sort of proposed change from those that created the mess in the first place !

The sad thing is that for all of America’s ‘We’re the greatest ! Look what we’ve done ! nonsense that they constantly peddle politically, you STILL have slaves !
Only these days they extend to what ?, 16 generations of working poor of ALL colours !
Tatsumi · 26-30, M
[@448576,Picklebobble2] Indubitably.

Apparently, that was one of the arguments the pro-slavers made in Colonial times. And it was a legitimate point. Wage earners were--at least in some ways--treated worse than slaves, back then. And the same thing exists today, on some level, if much softer.

That said, apparently the top 1% owned 90% of the wealth back then; and, as Bernie Sanders stated it, the top 1% own around 50% of all the wealth now, so hey, at least things are getting better. At least, as far as I see it.

But yeah, I agree that it's absolutely more of a socio-economic difference now than a racial one--even if people really want to make everything a race issue.
SirWilliam · 36-40, M
[@448576,Picklebobble2] Those "that created the mess" were your fellow countrymen-- Not enough credit is considered to the VERY first generation of U.S. citizens, born as U.S. Citizens ended slavery. Too much credit is given to the cause of ending slavery were for civil rights and equality. Ending "slaveocracy" was not a civil rights issue
whowasthatmaskedman · 61-69, M
Slavery was the way to get things done back in Ancient times. Captives from the losing side in a battle, the children of an occupied city or state were taken as slaves, worked and traded, literally like cattle. At the time of the settlement of America Indentured servants, or Bondsmen were brought over as owned labour until their term was served and debt paid and in Australia the convicts were similarly treated to labour for the colony.
The relatively new development seems to be the idea that the skin colour denoted an inferiority that qualifies someone to be treated as less than human.
Tatsumi · 26-30, M
[@621893,whowasthatmaskedman] Agree with most of that; however, at least in my current history class, we're being taught that white supremacism was in fact systematic and that blacks were fundamentally and consistently stated to be less than human and also to not have any rights or citizenship claims. Dred Scott case, for instance. Or the 3/5ths law.
whowasthatmaskedman · 61-69, M
[@437744,Tatsumi] I accept that and consider it possible that Religion had a part to play, with Missionaries going with the conquerors and exploreres to enlighten the savages, reinforcing the idea of the "Christian" Conquerors.
JP1119 · 31-35, M
It's hard to tell if you're one of those that is trying to understand and genuinely doesn't get it, or if you're one that gets it and is in denial or actively resisting it. I'll start out by giving you the benefit of the doubt.

That's not the premise of critical race theory at all. Critical race theory holds that race is not biological, that rather it is a social construct that has historically been used to exploit black people; furthermore, United States law and legal institutions are racist because they were designed to create a social, economic, and political hierarchy with whites at the top and non-whites, especially blacks, at the bottom i.e. the law is [i]systemically[/i] racist. When we say that the law is systemically racist, that doesn't mean "the system is full of racists!" It means the system was designed to give whites an unfair advantage and to make blacks have to work way harder to participate.
Tatsumi · 26-30, M
[@337057,JP1119] I always aim to understand.

That said, the fundamental issue with these types of movements is that everyone has a different idea of what they really mean. And, you can make "Save The Puppies" law, but it can actually mean "Slaughter all the puppies." So, if you and I want to reach a mutual truth on this, we have to understand from each other's perspective, right.

That said, given that you're starting from the premise of, "I see, you are either actively an idiot/racist; or, you simply do not understand my dignified and correct position." That makes mutual truth rather difficult, would you not agree? So, you have a definition. I have an allegory.

My girlfriend goes to an Ivy League University, and I have overheard her classes over the past year talking about Critical Race Theory and how she is responsible and can never relate to her minority students. (She teaches minority children in the ghetto, literally getting shot at to give them a quality education)

Perhaps they [the Ivy League] are mistaken as well in regards to Critical Race Theory as per your delineation--regardless, that is what she is being taught in her Ivy League Masters courses: white is wrong, Coca Cola needs to teach you how to be less white; you can't relate to non-white students, because you are naturally an oppressor and need to find ways to bring minorities up over you, etc, etc.

As for those laws, which laws are you referring to? Affirmative Action, where someone is hired specifically because they are black, even if they aren't qualified?

Were you aware that Harvard is actively rejecting Asian students, simply on the basis of their skin color? Because they want more black and Hispanic students, and Asians flood the applications due to hard work and cultural drive?

To that same end, given that Asians dominate economically and basically everything in America, how does this tie into Critical Race Theory? Does the system simply push down Asians to uplift whites, but Asians are so much more gifted that they overthrow the system? In that case, can we claim Asian superiority? Or is the system not actually fundamentally and systematically racist and hard work, effort, and competence actually win?

I'm an open-minded guy. And my intentions--at least, my conscious intentions--are nothing more than to obtain truth, whatever that may be.
curiosi · 56-60, F
Plenty of sheep are buying this garbage.
jackj · 56-60, M
Baffling and completely false. What does who hope to get out of this bogus agenda?
Northwest · M
The real scary thing, is the "Heritage Foundation" convinced another soul of its misinterpretation of Critical Race Theory.

[quote]I feel like with all the slave movies[/quote]

What are the "slave movies"? Can you be a little more specific?

[quote]and the consistently anti-white rhetoric being thrown around[/quote]

So then, "slave movies" are anti-white rhetoric? or is the latter something else? If so, what would that be?

[quote]it's easy to feel lost in the moment or feel antagonized. The idea of "white fragility," essentially states this: If you respond negatively to anything involving minorities, then this is simply a result of your innate racism as a white person. This is sort of damned if you do and damned if you don't. The claim essentially makes it impossible to form any sort of complaint involving anything regarding race.
[/quote]

Are there any examples?

[quote]That said, there's no denying how fucked up slavery was in Colonial America. And that the effects persisted through to the 1960s. It wasn't until then that "white America" actually began thinking, "Oh, Slavery was pretty fucked up, huh?" In tandem with the Civil Rights movement.[/quote]

You did not mean colonial America, did you? Because we were not a colony between 1976 and 1865. We were the United States or America. In fact, racism was cooked into our Constitution, from day one. A black man in a free State is worth just two-fifths more than a black man in a slave State, as a basis of political power under the Constitution.

[quote]
However, this also betrays the fundamental premise of humanity, if it's viewed in a vacuum. Africans sold Africans into European, Middle Eastern, and American slavery. Romans had slaves. Japanese internment camps with human experimentation on U.S. soldiers. Viking enslavement of Europeans. Mongolian enslaving. etc. etc. North African Moors stealing 1 million whites off the coast of Europe.

This is all to say, this was not a unique thing that whites specifically did to blacks. It was a human thing to enslave throughout most of history. That only changed very recently. And the reason for slavery changed very recently, too. It was never racially based, or even economically based, but more as a result of war. This was very true in Africa, where war chiefs would enslave the survivors of wars--granted, the level of depravity and shittiness didn't really meet the level of Colonial America.[/quote]

Slaves in the ancient world, were treated as free labor, not as inferior human beings. Slavery in the United States was based on the premise that an African person was inferior in every way, in addition to being free labor.

But it's so Heritage Foundation to attempt to "white" wash it, as 'gee, what do you want from me? everyone did it, so stop picking on the poor white slave owners'.


[quote]
In fact, this idea of "whiteness" didn't even exist until the 1800s. If you were to ask an Irishman--my ancestors--who had been the recipients of thousands of years of brutality at the hands of the English--whether they were "white", well, you'd be served with, "Um, no, I'm not white. Englishmen are white, and we are NOT them." Before then, this idea of "whiteness" was separated into groups: There were Germans, French, English, etc, etc. They were not combined into one singular race.[/quote]

Now you're just making stuff up. Starting with the fact that England has not existed for thousands of years. Not to mention that this is another distraction. It has NOTHING to do with the USA.

[quote]
White racism and white superiority was a fundamentally systematic viewpoint that developed from the top down--rich, wealthy planters: plantation owners, this was like 1% of the white population--successfully developed to dissuade white indentured servants from fighting together with black slaves, as happened in several rebellions. In other words, the ideas of white supremacy were injected artificially into the white populace then blew out of proportion--even when only 1% of whites actually had huge plantations. And say 2% of whites actually owned slaves, because they were so expensive. $30,000 for one slave.[/quote]

More white washing. How does this change our history?

[quote]
When America was first formed in the 16th century, it was even legally allowable for blacks to own their own slaves or marry white women. That was shocking, to me, [b][i]because we're always fed this, "Slavery was always this horrible thing."[/i][/b] It became horrid beyond words, but it didn't start out that way. Slaves could even buy out their contracts if they worked hard.[/quote]

IKR? What was so horrible about being a slave? You did not have to worry about having a place to live, you got a couple of meals a day, you were trim and fit thanks to all that exercise and you did not have to pay anything, just like we do today for gyms.

[quote]
Anyway, [b][i]I still feel a lot of rage[/i][/b] towards the prevailing anti-white rhetoric revolved around "Critical Race Theory" which seems to be the dominant thinking pattern in academia, at the moment. But, I'm glad I took this history class, because it has certainly put things a bit more in perspective. Seeing an objective measure and seeing from both sides makes it a lot more tempered.
[/quote]

IKR? The struggle is real. As a white man, I am sick and tired of all the discrimination. In the good ole days, I could own a slave, and blame it on the guy who sold it to me.

[quote]
For those of you wondering what "Critical Race Theory" is: A shorthand is that you are not you, you are your race. In other words, if you are black, you are oppressed, even if you're a rich lawyer who grew up with doctor parents who went to Harvard. And if you are white, you are part of the problem and need to understand that it's your job to balance the equation of racial inequities--even if you were born in a trailer park and ate out of trash cans and begged to survive, like my mom.

The scary thing is that this is, legitimately, what is being taught in higher education--especially in Ivy League schools.[/quote]

The scary thing, is how illeterates can so easily believe the likes of the "Heritage Foundation", whose existence is dependent on useful idiots.
Northwest · M
[@437744,Tatsumi] [quote]You're not a particularly adaptable or philosophical personality type, are you?[/quote]

Here you go again with the psychological analysis. You're clearly not a professional in this space, and most importantly, I did not submit to an analysis.

[quote]Your argument style is sheer venom and spite.[/quote]

That's what people like you call facts.

[quote]You SEEM to care nothing of truth or debate[/quote]

Yet, I provided a complete, point by point, dispassionate response to every single claim you made., backed with sources.

[quote]nly of victory and domination. Or perhaps you simply enjoy attacking others? Either way, I would strongly recommend you seek therapy.[/quote]

Yet, it seems that in this discussion, you're the only using personal attacks.

[quote]Is that the only kind of human connection you know?[/quote]

Accusing others of what you're doing. Perfect.

[quote]Are you incapable of civilized conversation?
[/quote]

I responded with facts, not attacks, I did not convey rage, you did, and I did not ask you to seek therapy, you did. Clearly, you're not capable of responding to the facts I posted. If you are, you would have done so, instead of resorting to personal attacks. Good luck to you. I am done with this conversation.
Tatsumi · 26-30, M
[@9416,Northwest] Good. You should have been done a long time ago, obviously.

Finally agreeing with me on one thing.
Tatsumi · 26-30, M
[@9416,Northwest] P.S. You spelled "illeterates" incorrectly, which I find endlessly amusing, for one so arrogant. I'm sure, however, you meant 100% to do that out of irony. Of course.
wildbill83 · 36-40, M
Slavery still exists. The only difference...

then they picked cotton and knew they were slaves

now they vote democrat and don't know they're [i]still[/i] slaves...
Northwest · M
[@597698,wildbill83] [quote]Slavery still exists. The only difference...

then they picked cotton and knew they were slaves

now they vote democrat and don't know they're still slaves...[/quote]

🤦‍♂️
BelovedTed · 51-55, M
Sorry, mate. You’re not going to get very far by saying slavery didn’t start out “horrid.” I think there is a legitimate issue with cancel culture and political correctness, but not interested in how you talk about it.
Tatsumi · 26-30, M
[@903658,BelovedTed] Good. Maybe you'll learn something.
BelovedTed · 51-55, M
[@437744,Tatsumi] Nailed it. ✌️
Tatsumi · 26-30, M
[@903658,BelovedTed] You did. Congrats, I hope you enjoy your prize.
MarkS · 46-50, M
Some men’s sins are forgiven and other men’s sins aren’t .
Some sinners are celebrated as saints . And some saintly men are only remembered for their sin.

 
Post Comment  
 
78 people following
I Am Against Slavery Of All Kinds
Personal Stories, Advice, and Support
New Post
Group Members