The False Notion That All Racism is Alike

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
District of Columbia
Selling warriors of the losing tribe off to somebody far away was as good a way as any to keep them from rising up against your rule! The problem with American slavery was the uniquely racial element that adhered to it - European indentured servants were as good as slaves but if they looked like everybody else it was kind of hard to find them if they ran away to another colony. Africans stuck out! I really think the American colonies were unique in color-coding their enslaved people.

In fact, the practice of slavery varied over time and space. African slavery in the various African nations was not the same as slavery practiced in North America. That might be a nice topic for a new thread.

- Alan
 

MattL

Guest
Joined
Aug 20, 2015
Location
SF Bay Area
If that's the context you want to use, my answer would be its unknown, as theres little need to exert racism as there hardly anyone to exert it on.....

I'm sorry, I can't believe it's unknown. There were Black people in the North, in fact there were more free Blacks in the North. Not nearly the amount including slaves as in the South though still plenty of situations for comparison and plenty of cases of racism expressed in ways usually of far less impact than the South. Plenty on this forum are eager to jump on how racist the North was with various cases, I'm sure you're aware of plenty of them.

Either slavery and lynching at high levels is worse than running people out of your neighborhoods and fewer incidents of violence or it's not.

The fact there were fewer Blacks in the North doesn't change the fact that the expressions of racism was in fact different, if anything it stands as proof it was. All you seem to be arguing is that theoretically Northerners would be as brutal and violent given the opportunity, though this argument requires that opportunity not existing and it not existing in the same way in the first place.

Why be so afraid to just point out the obvious, racism was expressed far more violently and brutally and objective worse in the South than in the North. Maybe it's purely due to the lack of opportunity, geography, the weather maybe, it doesn't matter. No need to be afraid of making a clearly obvious conclusion.

Of course it does go even further. When the South exited Congress the rest of the Nation managed to pass the 13th-15th amendments both making slavery illegal in the entire Nation and protecting various rights, including suffrage.

So we literally have a nation split, one side corrected the US Constitution by explicitly protecting slavery in it's Constitution, the other (eventually and painfully, but still nonetheless) freed all the slaves and passed an amendment to protect their rights. They went beyond just not abusing them because they weren't around, they actually pursued their freedom and rights, sure not all of them but enough to pass multiple amendments and force the South to accept them for readmission on Congress. Pretty significant.

For some reason some people are just afraid to face the obvious. By modern standards it just makes the South look really bad, but we don't have to apply modern standards, we can make the obvious conclusions and reserve any modern moral judgement and understand things for what they were. We can do this while recognizing there were far more Blacks in the South and most of the rest of the US had far fewer opportunities to abuse Blacks even if enough of them did support freedom them and giving them rights to get it to pass.

We can play the what if game all day long, but we know what was and I don't see why people would argue that slavery is no the same as other less damaging expressions of racism. I mean driving someone out of your neighborhood vs lynching seems pretty objectively different.... certainly lynching and theoretically probably lynching given the chance is completely different.

You could say I'm one of the least racist people you know to his neighbors, and it would be completely true.. I like to think it would remain true no matter the situation, but the fact is I have zero minority neighbors currently or really ever...… so its a somewhat default accomplishment.

No offense, I have no reason to have any opinion on your racial views though I genuinely don't trust anyone in saying they are not racist.

As to your point, I totally get it, though what if you then backed your Congress to pass an amendment granting freedom to Blacks, protecting their rights as citizens and to vote. Even if you didn't have any neighbors certainly that's different than someone lynching the Blacks they live around or enslaving them.

Again the title "the false notion that all racism is alike"

Clearly if you were racist and expressed it in no actual way due to no Blacks being around you is in fact not alike enslaving them to work your plantation. I can't see how that's unknown.

Midwestern agriculture is overwhelmingly white, I actually went to a public school K-senior that had zero minority students...... the whole time..... So does lack of exposure to minorities mean an area is less violent in its form of racism.. That answer to that is yes, as no inter racial violence is a default when there is no minorities present....... Don't know that any conclusion its somehow less racist would be an accurate assessment, there's certainly less visible signs....

Again OP didn't say "less racist", Old Glory and you are using that term. The OP said not all racism is alike. Did you miss that point I made?
 
Last edited:

MattL

Guest
Joined
Aug 20, 2015
Location
SF Bay Area
Selling warriors of the losing tribe off to somebody far away was as good a way as any to keep them from rising up against your rule! The problem with American slavery was the uniquely racial element that adhered to it - European indentured servants were as good as slaves but if they looked like everybody else it was kind of hard to find them if they ran away to another colony. Africans stuck out! I really think the American colonies were unique in color-coding their enslaved people.

True. From a cold detached perspective it was quite ingenious and effective. Probably why it lasted so long in such an official and organized fashion and took so much to end. Not only that they looked different but were also of a completely different culture and had a homeland an Ocean away.

I remember a lecturer in an audio lecture pointing that out. A key way African slaves worked far superior to Native slaves, they couldn't easily run away to their home land. Plus it's a lot easier to subordinate people in a foreign environment, rather than a general region their people had been far longer and far more familiar with.

Again quite ingenious in a cruel way.
 

DanSBHawk

1st Lieutenant
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
...latent Northern racism against blacks might have been even more virulent than in the South.

Actually, no. The North never attempted to break up the country for the sake of its racist ideology.

In the history of the USA, the magnitude of Southern racism against blacks has no equivalent. No other racist extremism in this country has resulted in so many lives lost and so much money and property wasted in violence.
 

diane

Retired User
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Location
State of Jefferson
In fact, the practice of slavery varied over time and space. African slavery in the various African nations was not the same as slavery practiced in North America. That might be a nice topic for a new thread.

- Alan

Yes, that would make a good thread on its own. Tribal people have a very different concept of slavery. That difference is very seldom noted when addressing the fact that Africans sold Africans.
 

Lusty Murfax

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 18, 2017
Location
Northwest Missouri
v
Actually, no. The North never attempted to break up the country for the sake of its racist ideology.

In the history of the USA, the magnitude of Southern racism against blacks has no equivalent. No other racist extremism in this country has resulted in so many lives lost and so much money and property wasted in violence.
Really? You might want to think this one through again.
 

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
District of Columbia
I'm sorry, I can't believe it's unknown. There were Black people in the North, in fact there were more free Blacks in the North. Not nearly the amount as in the South though still plenty of situations for comparison and plenty of cases of racism expressed in ways usually of far less impact than the South. Plenty on this forum are eager to jump on how racist the North was with various cases, I'm sure you're aware of plenty of them.

Either slavery and lynching at high levels is worse than running people out of your neighborhoods and fewer incidents of violence or it's not.

The fact there were fewer Blacks in the North doesn't change the fact that the expressions of racism was in fact different, if anything it stands as proof it was. All you seem to be arguing is that theoretically Northerners would be as brutal and violent given the opportunity, though this argument requires that opportunity not existing and it not existing in the same way in the first place.

Why be so afraid to just point out the obvious, racism was expressed far more violently and brutally and objective worse in the South than in the North. Maybe it's purely due to the lack of opportunity, geography, the weather maybe, it doesn't matter. No need to be afraid of making a clearly obvious conclusion.

Of course it does go even further. When the South exited Congress the rest of the Nation managed to pass the 13th-15th amendments both making slavery illegal in the entire Nation and protecting various rights, including suffrage.

So we literally have a nation split, one side corrected the US Constitution by explicitly protecting slavery in it's Constitution, the other (eventually and painfully, but still nonetheless) freed all the slaves and passed an amendment to protect their rights. They went beyond just not abusing them because they weren't around, they actually pursued their freedom and rights, sure not all of them but enough to pass multiple amendments and force the South to accept them for readmission on Congress. Pretty significant.

For some reason some people are just afraid to face the obvious. By modern standards it just makes the South look really bad, but we don't have to apply modern standards, we can make the obvious conclusions and reserve any modern moral judgement and understand things for what they were. We can do this while recognizing there were far more Blacks in the South and most of the rest of the US had far fewer opportunities to abuse Blacks even if enough of them did support freedom them and giving them rights to get it to pass.

We can play the what if game all day long, but we know what was and I don't see why people would argue that slavery is no the same as other less damaging expressions of racism. I mean driving someone out of your neighborhood vs lynching seems pretty objectively different.... certainly lynching and theoretically probably lynching given the chance is completely different.



No offense, I have no reason to have any opinion on your racial views though I genuinely don't trust anyone in saying they are not racist.

As to your point, I totally get it, though what if you then backed your Congress to pass an amendment granting freedom to Blacks, protecting their rights as citizens and to vote. Even if you didn't have any neighbors certainly that's different than someone lynching the Blacks they live around or enslaving them.

Again the title "the false notion that all racism is alike"

Clearly if you were racist and expressed it in no actual way due to no Blacks being around you is in fact not alike enslaving them to work your plantation. I can't see how that's unknown.



Again OP didn't say "less racist", Old Glory and you are using that term. The OP said not all racism is alike. Did you miss that point I made?

I think that for some people, any discussion of racism in the North and the South by a perceived "Union sympathizer" is, and must be, an attempt to denigrate the South, or, to apologize for Northern racism. Even if that is not the purpose of the discussion, there will be that perception.

I think racism is a difficult topic, but the US was awash in racism when the war began, and it affected the discourse and decision making of the day; I think that's a topic worth exploring. The comments on this thread are showing how hard that is.

- Alan
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
I'm going to agree with this, but you've lost me with most of the rest of your post. The historian you're quoting is omitting key behaviors that existed in the North, not least of which is the fact that the Atlantic slave trade was run out of that section and perpetuated even after it was outlawed.

There's no getting around this fact. So, Northerners were somehow benevolent racists?

Violence against African Americans was commonplace in the North and we need only look at Civil War-era draft riots to understand this. Honestly, this issue begs an examination of modern politics which we are forbidden here, but wouldn't that be fun?
Let me get this straight. Are you asserting tbat ever single Northerner was complicit in the Atlantic slave trade before and after it was outlawed?
Isn't that the same logic that all Southern white males were members of the KKK?
Yes there was smuggling of slaves after 1803. In reality what percentage of the Northern adult population was actually engaged in or complicit with smuggling slaves? Any peer reviewed literature on that subject?
Edited.
Leftyhunter
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Sep 28, 2013
Location
Southwest Mississippi
African slavery in the various African nations was not the same as slavery practiced in North America.
Tribal people have a very different concept of slavery. That difference is very seldom noted when addressing the fact that Africans sold Africans.

So . . . correct me if I'm wrong.

Enslavement was not that big of a deal as long as the White Man wasn't involved ?

I may be wrong, but that's what these two comments sound like.
Honestly, I'm not trying to argue.

Please enlighten us on how this form of 'slavery' was somehow better than the chattel slavery that had existed within the United States of America for hundreds of years prior to our Civil War ?

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
I'm sorry, I can't believe it's unknown. There were Black people in the North, in fact there were more free Blacks in the North. Not nearly the amount including slaves as in the South though still plenty of situations for comparison and plenty of cases of racism expressed in ways usually of far less impact than the South. Plenty on this forum are eager to jump on how racist the North was with various cases, I'm sure you're aware of plenty of them.

Either slavery and lynching at high levels is worse than running people out of your neighborhoods and fewer incidents of violence or it's not.

The fact there were fewer Blacks in the North doesn't change the fact that the expressions of racism was in fact different, if anything it stands as proof it was. All you seem to be arguing is that theoretically Northerners would be as brutal and violent given the opportunity, though this argument requires that opportunity not existing and it not existing in the same way in the first place.

Why be so afraid to just point out the obvious, racism was expressed far more violently and brutally and objective worse in the South than in the North. Maybe it's purely due to the lack of opportunity, geography, the weather maybe, it doesn't matter. No need to be afraid of making a clearly obvious conclusion.

Of course it does go even further. When the South exited Congress the rest of the Nation managed to pass the 13th-15th amendments both making slavery illegal in the entire Nation and protecting various rights, including suffrage.

So we literally have a nation split, one side corrected the US Constitution by explicitly protecting slavery in it's Constitution, the other (eventually and painfully, but still nonetheless) freed all the slaves and passed an amendment to protect their rights. They went beyond just not abusing them because they weren't around, they actually pursued their freedom and rights, sure not all of them but enough to pass multiple amendments and force the South to accept them for readmission on Congress. Pretty significant.

For some reason some people are just afraid to face the obvious. By modern standards it just makes the South look really bad, but we don't have to apply modern standards, we can make the obvious conclusions and reserve any modern moral judgement and understand things for what they were. We can do this while recognizing there were far more Blacks in the South and most of the rest of the US had far fewer opportunities to abuse Blacks even if enough of them did support freedom them and giving them rights to get it to pass.

We can play the what if game all day long, but we know what was and I don't see why people would argue that slavery is no the same as other less damaging expressions of racism. I mean driving someone out of your neighborhood vs lynching seems pretty objectively different.... certainly lynching and theoretically probably lynching given the chance is completely different.



No offense, I have no reason to have any opinion on your racial views though I genuinely don't trust anyone in saying they are not racist.

As to your point, I totally get it, though what if you then backed your Congress to pass an amendment granting freedom to Blacks, protecting their rights as citizens and to vote. Even if you didn't have any neighbors certainly that's different than someone lynching the Blacks they live around or enslaving them.

Again the title "the false notion that all racism is alike"

Clearly if you were racist and expressed it in no actual way due to no Blacks being around you is in fact not alike enslaving them to work your plantation. I can't see how that's unknown.



Again OP didn't say "less racist", Old Glory and you are using that term. The OP said not all racism is alike. Did you miss that point I made?

I''ll note we disagree, as I've pointed out Missouri today has far more then a 1% black population (around 11% overall today) and there is still large rural areas that have few to none. With a a far lower percentage in northern states back then, it would be even far larger areas with few to none. If by going by differences, such as racial violence, or really any other firsthand form, it does actually require there to be someone to act upon. That would seem one of those obvious things some seem afraid to acknowledge as you say..... To say how someone would act upon someone who isnt there is an unknown. I did give an opinion on differences, and that is its obviously going to be influenced by demographics.....or lack of a specific demographic

I haven't ever said specific people have said more or less, but it has been said by some both in this thread and others, I'm just noting it's something that's hard to quantify, especially in areas that are all one. I also haven't claimed its more or less in one area either...….

And I haven't ever said that violence wasn't expressed more frequently in the south, thats a straw man arguement. But am noting obviously if their was far less opportunity to do so in another area, it's going to be less in another area. is just common sense. We do know it still existed though, despite the far less opportunity to do so.
 
Last edited:

MattL

Guest
Joined
Aug 20, 2015
Location
SF Bay Area
I''ll note we disagree

I'm always good to agree to disagree :smile: As I often tell my co-workers, they have every right to be wrong (just kidding of course lol, my view is just one in a million and all of our views are completely valid to ourselves).

as I've pointed out Missouri today has far more then a 1% black population (around 11% overall today) and there is still large rural areas that have few to none. With a a far lower percentage in northern states back then it would be even far larger areas with few to none. If by going by differences, such as racial violence, or really any other firsthand form, it does actually require there to be someone to act upon.

Fairly close, but not quite, there weren't a lot of Black people in the North but it was higher than 1%. In 1860 3.5% of the population of the States that would remain Union was Black. Of note Missouri had about 10% Black population in 1860 in fact.

We should also keep in mind the North had a far higher population, so though Blacks were a far smaller portion of their population that may deceive people into thinking there wasn't a significant population of Black people in the States that stayed in the Union. In 1860 17.72% of the Black population resided in the North, a total of 787,000 Black people. There were indeed plenty of Black people and many on this forum love to point out every incident of racism you can find, which were plenty. They just typically didn't involve the same brutality.

So though I completely agree we should see less occurrences of racist expression, there were plenty of Black people for them to occur against and they did. Maybe the smaller amount suggests we should see less extreme acts of violence, though that's something that would take a lot more thinking about before I personally would suggest this.

Again it's a fact that there were less Blacks in the North. It's also a fact that when the North and the South split ways the North ended up freeing all the slaves and protecting various rights in Constitutional Amendments while the South permanently protected the system of slavery in it's own. It's not that the North just didn't have less brutal and violent expressions of racism over all (which is part of it), but they even positively pushed ahead in the other direction, pushing to gain on Black rights and freedoms. Some might argue the Radicals were a small portion and not reflective of all, certainly no group is reflective of all of a region though pushing 3 new amendments is not an easy task and proves the level of support that did exist.

If we accept the facts in one direction we must accept them in the other. History doesn't have to fit to our ideas of false equivalence. Pointing out Black racism was expressed unequally doesn't fit an agenda, just the facts. The goal isn't to crucify a region, there's more than enough to crucify all regions if that's the goal, which is pointless. Though racism and how it effected different groups is a key part of US history and an unavoidable part of the Black experience in US history.

Another fact is that despite most of the Black being in the South there were more Free Blacks in the North.

screen-shot-2018-09-20-at-4-11-51-pm-jpg.jpg


You can notice very clearly the growth trend of Free Blacks slowing quite a bi tin the South but growing fairly consistently in the North that was while the North trended away from slavery. That probably suggests something.


That would seem one of those obvious things some seem afraid to acknowledge as you say..... To say how someone would act upon someone who isnt there is an unknown. I did give an opinion on differences, and that is its obviously going to be influenced by demographics.....or lack of a specific demographic

I haven't ever said specific people have said more or less, but it has been said by some both in this thread and others, I'm just noting it's something that's hard to quantify, especially in areas that are all one. I also haven't claimed its more or less in one area either...….

I was pointing out that Old Glory incorrectly referenced the OP as saying it was less, when the words used were quite different. You seemingly responded to his response. I think it's important to remember the OP and how it was put forth.

I'm not sure it's hard to quantify. I would agree it's hard to identify the causes and motivations. I mean slavery is objectively worse than most of what happened in the North, it was objectively more widespread (including among a higher percentage of the Black population that was there no matter the size). These things shouldn't be hard to agree on. The why, sure, I get how that gets far more complex.

And I haven't ever said that violence wasn't expressed more frequently in the south, thats a straw man arguement.

You haven't, but you've seemingly avoided agreeing this was the case at all costs. Once or twice I get, but it's an easy thing to agree on. Maybe I missed it, but I seemingly kept getting a deflection from the topic of the OP rather than agree on the common aspects of that and then going into how you think it's different.

Seemingly that's how many respond to such topics involving slavery in the South. Avoid admitting it was brutal, violent, and unequaled with anything in the North. As if the historic South needs their defense from themselves.

But am noting obviously if their was far less opportunity to do so in another area, it's going to be less in another area. is just common sense. We do know it still existed though, despite the far less opportunity to do so.

Absolutely agreed, nothing in the OP contradicts this. Keep in mind the title

"the false notion that all racism is alike"

Whether it was due to the greater amount of blacks, the agricultural motivation for or against slavery, etc, that doesn't change the fact Blacks were brutalized with racism to a greater extent in the South. People who challenge that with "the North was racist too" to avoid talking about it at all is what I believe Alan is at least partially responding to (I won't put words in his mouth though, just a guess) and that's a false equivalence. We can in fact face both sides of that within their own contexts but avoiding it because it's uncomfortable for some is pointless.

My own ancestors owned many slaves. I've found two that owned at around 70+ each, possibly a third that is that or close. Many others who owned one, a few, or somewhere in between. I can point out that their region brutalized Blacks in a form of racism that wasn't the same as in the North.
 

MattL

Guest
Joined
Aug 20, 2015
Location
SF Bay Area
So . . . correct me if I'm wrong.

Enslavement was not that big of a deal as long as the White Man wasn't involved ?

I may be wrong, but that's what these two comments sound like.
Honestly, I'm not trying to argue.

Please enlighten us on how this form of 'slavery' was somehow better than the chattel slavery that had existed within the United States of America for hundreds of years prior to our Civil War ?

Thanks.

They simply said that the form of slavery was in fact different. I'm not sure how you got out of if what you did.

If you are unaware of African slavery I highly recommend researching the subject plenty of good material on it (I'm sure Alan has some great recommendations). From my own studies it varied widely based on region, tribe, and time. Sometimes it was an all imposing system like US chattel slavery, though often it wasn't assumed to be generational or nearly as restrictive. It started as simply capturing other tribes and peoples and then putting them to work (a practice quite common in European history). It certainly wasn't systematic and structured, it wasn't typically codified, and often the slaves would become free members of the tribes they were captured with and blend in with them (there being no racial line and far similar cultures this sort of thing was pretty natural).

It's important to remember that just because two systems are described using the same word it doesn't mean they are the same. This is true in anything, such as a Democracy for example can mean quite different things despite using the same word.

The wiki actually summarized it pretty well


"Chattel" slavery is just one type of slavery and likely the least common type in Africa.

The forms of slavery in Africa were closely related to kinship structures. In many African communities, where land could not be owned, enslavement of individuals was used as a means to increase the influence a person had and expand connections.[7]This made slaves a permanent part of a master's lineage and the children of slaves could become closely connected with the larger family ties.[1] Children of slaves born into families could be integrated into the master's kinship group and rise to prominent positions within society, even to the level of chief in some instances.[6] However, stigma often remained attached and there could be strict separations between slave members of a kinship group and those related to the master.[7]

Honestly much of African slavery was pretty similar to European caste systems. Highly repressed rights though they weren't actually "property." Like Europe it differs greatly from time and place. In some places in Europe some castes couldn't own property for example while in others they could, likewise some "African" slaves could own property while still being a slave. Again far more like castes.
 
Last edited:

Philip Leigh

formerly Harvey Johnson
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Actually, no. The North never attempted to break up the country for the sake of its racist ideology.

Judging from their conduct against Chinese residents in the second half of the nineteenth century, California may well have seceded if the federal government had not passed laws that forced a decline in number of Chinese living in America.
Blacks were particularly rare in the "free" states, representing only 1.1% of the population of the nineteen such states prior to the war. In contrast, blacks represented about 40% of the population in the eleven-state Confederacy.

Based upon the treatment of the Chinese workers in California, latent Northern racism against blacks might have been even more virulent than in the South. Chinese never represented more than 10% of California's population in the nineteenth century and could almost never vote. Nonetheless, they accounted for two-thirds of the state's lynch victims from 1849-1902. America's biggest lynching was during Grant's presidency when nineteen Chinese were lynched in Los Angeles in 1873. One can only shudder to think of how contemporary blacks might have been treated in the "free" states if they represented as much as 40% of the population and were abruptly given suffrage.
 

MattL

Guest
Joined
Aug 20, 2015
Location
SF Bay Area
Judging from their conduct against Chinese residents in the second half of the nineteenth century, California may well have seceded if the federal government had not passed laws that forced a decline in number of Chinese living in America.

What did the Chinese have anything to do with chattel slavery. I've seen stretches, but this might take the cake. I mean so many what if's on this thread. All of a sudden people don't want to deal with what actually happened.
 

Philip Leigh

formerly Harvey Johnson
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
What did the Chinese have anything to do with chattel slavery.
The OP title, "The False Notion That All Racism is Alike," does not mention slavery.
I've seen stretches, but this might take the cake. I mean so many what if's on this thread. All of a sudden people don't want to deal with what actually happened.

You are denying that Asian residents of California suffered racism? You don't believe that such racism actually happened? You only consider racism to have been isolated against blacks?

Is that why you said:
. . . I genuinely don't trust anyone in saying they are not racist.
?
 
Last edited:

MattL

Guest
Joined
Aug 20, 2015
Location
SF Bay Area
The OP title, "The False Notion That All Racism is Alike," does not mention slavery.


Fair enough, though you mentioned California seceding due to Chinese racism and the only States that have ever tried to secede were slaveholding States, hence I have no clue what this has to do with chattel slavery. I don't think I've ever heard a single person suggest California was ever on the bring of secession, so are you positing something new? If so you really need to back your claims up, something like that probably something like a peer reviewed book or something lol, at least reference thorough works that suggest as much.


You are denying that Asian residents of California suffered racism? You don't believe that such racism actually happened? You only consider racism to have been isolated against blacks?

Umm no. I literally said nothing even close to that. What are you talking about?

Is that why you said:
I genuinely don't trust anyone in saying they are not racist.
?

Yet something else that has nothing to do with anything I've said. Who is saying they aren't racist that you're referring to?
 

MattL

Guest
Joined
Aug 20, 2015
Location
SF Bay Area
The OP title, "The False Notion That All Racism is Alike," does not mention slavery.

I'll also refer you to the OP, it's more than just a title. The OP gives a context, specifically taking about free vs slave states. I understand deviating from it to a certain extent but California and Chinese racism... I mean, maybe just start another thread.
 

Joshism

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Location
Jupiter, FL
However, I do disagree with your third point.
Our American Civil War. . . was about economics.
As most wars have been throughout human history.

Southern slavery was an an economic and social system. But for the centry after emanicaption the white-on-black violence was about the social system far more than anything economic.

But then again your thoughts take me back to the history of African slavery within the 'New World'.
One African tribe selling another African tribe to the white man.

That's like saying US treatment of Native American tribes was okay because they foughr with each other and some of them even helped whites against other tribes.

It's almost like tribal societies place tribe ahead of race, and often place little to no value on race.

We all understand 'racism' is alive and well

On the contrary, some people deny this, or claim that the only 21st century racists are those who claim racism still exists.

Why is there a problem when someone brings up Northern Racism toward enslaved/freed Americans of African descent?

Because it's usually whataboutism.

African slavery in the various African nations was not the same as slavery practiced in North America

Slavery practiced in the US and English colonies also wasn't the same as slavery in Spanish Florida or Mexico.

Enslavement was not that big of a deal as long as the White Man wasn't involved ?

Black man enslaved black men from other tribes.
White men come from another continent, buy enslaved black men, transport them in horrific conditions to another continent, sell them to other white men, white men split up black families, white men work them without pay or freedom for the rest of their lives possibly including beatings and rape.

Practically the same thing!
 
Similar threads
Thread starter Title Forum Replies Date
Stars in Their Courses False Eagle Pattern Cavalry Spur Uniforms & Relics 8

Similar threads

Top