So, almost 13,000 black slaves were owned by black slave owners!
- Thread starter cooncreek
- Start date
Dang did you pick an apropos name. Let me ask you something. Do you think it's an important fact that some blacks owned slaves??? Does that make the institution any more right in your opinion??? If not, why mention it at all? It's that same type of completely ignorant thinking that causes folks to ignore whether those with the power to use deadly force, may have murdered someone by saying, "Why don't you focus on black on black crime". What does that have to do with whether a cop murdered Walter Scott???
You also bastardized the article and essentially lied by saying/implying that all black slave owners did so for economic gain. It was commonplace for blacks to buy their freedom from their masters, (i.e. buy themselves, and therefore own themselves), and once they were free, to work for years so that they could go back and buy some other relatives freedom, (though you probably didn't think that they'd be listed as a "slave owner" too). If Harriet Tubman bought a slave's freedom, she'd be listed as a slave owner too.
Nah, you have to ask why he thought it was important to trumpet this fact, and then basically to lie and state that all of them did it for the same reason as white slave owners...., economic gain. That's not true, and he leaves out the other important reasons that Gates mentions.
Also, we're talking about 13,000, out of 2,000,000 - 4,000,000 slaves, so it's a minuscule percentage. 0.3% - 0.6% of the total slave population, yet he's embraced it and trumpeting it as if it means that slavery is A-okay, or not that bad because a very few blacks were able to purchase family members, purchase freedom, and for a very few, use them for profit. @cooncreek, doesn't get credit for trying to expand his view of the world, but let's see if he'll answer why he posted about such an infinitesimally small pattern.
You are not thinking at a high level. We're talking about a VERY small percentage situation, and the even fewer who weren't purchasing freedom, or purchasing a relative's freedom, but was listed as the black owner of a slave. Yet you state that "they did" "treat their own race just as badly". Good grief you've got to be missing a lot to draw such an erroneous conclusion.
You are right that every race on the planet has repeated the same atrocities on others during their time on the top. Every race has had a time on top, with the greatest civilization, greatest technology, and were running things, and in every instance, they enslaved other races, re-wrote the history books and told history from the perspective of the "victor", and downplayed accomplishments of other races to make themselves appear to be superior etc.. So, it's clearly not a racial thing..., it's a human deficit that causes these things. I point this out to blacks all the time so that they understand that no particular race is more "evil" than the other. We're all equally flawed/fatally flawed. As the bible puts it, we are inherently flawed, and "all fall short of the glory of God", (i.e. we are imperfect, fatally flawed beings).
Please recognize that you're talking about an EXTREMELY small percentage, (possibly less than 0.5%), and even with that small percentage, the majority were likely purchased by other slaves for the purpose of buying their freedom, not to exploit them.
Good points. yes, the percentages are very small and I alluded to that (just didn't quote the numbers. I thought the article did that just fine.) And I agree with you, we as humans are the flaw. Maybe some day we will be the "human race" rather than, Caucasian, or Black, Hispanic, etc... That will be interesting.
What? I never even implied that slavery was "A-Okay". My basic point was that after hearing on a daily basis how evil white people are and how badly blacks are treated by whites, and the slavery days of old are the point of the spear, I did find it interesting that it wasn't only whites that owned slaves. Yes, a very small percentage of blacks were owned by a smaller percentage of blacks, but it did happen. as stated earlier, the flaw is in humanity, not "whites" or "blacks" or any other described group.
I too desperately hope that we can get as close as possible to the point where we all see each other as just the human race, but alas, our inherent flaws make that pretty much impossible. Any small difference in geography, appearance, culture, language, socio-economic class etc., are enough for humans to start singling others out. The only way we'll come close is if everyone is striving to live by God's rules and to fulfill his purposes.
Here's an example. If you had 99 out of 100 Arab brothers own Chinese slaves, and 1 out of 100 Chinese own a slave, would it even be worth mentioning if 99 out of every 100 cases of slavery involved Arabs owning Chinese??? I mean, who would even bother to rush out and say "Aha. There is a Chinese guy who owns a Chinese slave too". It would be seen as justifying slavery, and as silly since 99 out of every 100 involve Arabs owning Chinese.
Well, the percentages of Blacks owning black slaves is only about half of 1%, so even far less than the example I just gave. Then, I'd imagine the overwhelming majority of that EXTREMELY small percentage were cases where blacks purchased their own freedom or the freedom of their relatives, and it's just ridiculous to take such a minuscule percentage and try to hold it up as if it were a significant pattern. Especially if it's been misrepresented to say, "They mis-treated blacks the same as the white owners did", when the overwhelming majority were blacks buying other's freedom for the purpose of setting them free. It's just wrong and dishonest all the way around.
It's not wrong and dishonest to point out a fact. It would be wrong and dishonest if I said that whites never owned blacks. Then you can call me a liar. Until then, you may not. I am not a liar or dishonest. I may die poor, but I'll die honest. I never said, nor did the article say that the numbers were equal. I was simply pointing out something that I was ignorant about. Sweeping knowledge under the rug is never good. Pretending that blacks did not own other blacks is sweeping facts under the rug. It shouldn't be glorified or revered, nor should it be a basis for saying that blacks are bad. It was simply a fact.
Sorry. No disrespect, but you clearly painted an incomplete and inaccurate picture. You indicated that blacks owned slaves and just left it there as if it were fairly common and said explicitly that they "did so for the same reason the white owners did... to line their pockets with profits." Is that an accurate picture???
To tell a partial truth, is to tell a whole lie. If you knew the percentage of black owned slaves was minuscule, but didn't convey that in your post, you're not conveying an honest picture, correct? Did the information that I've discussed add to the context and paint a more complete and accurate picture, (regarding the extremely, extremely small percentage, and the fact that most of that almost non-existent percentage was likely relatives purchasing other relatives, and others purchasing other blacks for the purpose of freeing them)???
Please answer the two questions that I asked you honestly.
