Black Culture Discussion Thread

[trynafeelmink]

Dude aint even read the last three paragraphs of his own deflationary post.

Literally references the exact same census from 1860.

Also, as we have just proven - "Slave Holding Families" ≠ "White families" and "Eligible to own slaves" ≠ "Owning slaves".

If were going to take tangents then at least make the trip worth it.

there's certain cats on NT who claim they want intelligent conversation, but in reality it's never that. They treat everything like a debate & their only goal is to be "right". so they're going to post some article or statistic & treat it as if it's the end all be all & there's no such thing as variance. They're going to then harp on that piece of information in order to deflect from the larger conversation at hand, And then they're gonna split up a topic no matter how nuanced it is to Side A vs Side B EVERYTIME.

somehow what you posted is going to be taken as some as you trying to take blame off of white people, instead of you simply highlighting the truth about some of our ancestors own involvement in the ****ery. Hence why the post is responding to "confederate apologists" as if your post gave any indication of trying to be that.

 

[gry60]

Dude aint even read the last three paragraphs of his own deflationary post.

Literally references the exact same census from 1860.

My quoted post clearly shows how creatively reading of the 1860 census results in your statement:

According to the U.S. Census report in 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves.

Which is not accurate.

In addition, nowhere in your post are all the technicalities of slave-owning black folks addressed (such as free blacks "purchasing" their relatives from bonafide slavers).

The point of that man's post

The point is moot if it is supported by innacuracies.

 

[trynafeelmink]

My quoted post clearly shows how creatively reading of the 1860 census results in your statement:


Which is not accurate.

In addition, nowhere in your post are all the technicalities of slave-owning black folks addressed (such as free blacks "purchasing" their relatives from bonafide slavers).

The point is moot if it is supported by innacuracies.

The piece of information you posted said the statistics aren't wrong they just don't expound on the true nature & can be misleading (welcome to statistics). and even with this new set of information, none of it refutes his point that well off black people owned slaves at a much higher percentage than the average person would think..... Which was his main focus when posting that

 

[Present]

there's certain cats on NT who claim they want intelligent conversation, but in reality it's never that. They treat everything like a debate & their only goal is to be "right". so they're going to post some article or statistic & treat it as if it's the end all be all & there's no such thing as variance. They're going to then harp on that piece of information in order to deflect from the larger conversation at hand, And then they're gonna split up a topic no matter how nuanced it is to Side A vs Side B EVERYTIME.

somehow what you posted is going to be taken as some as you trying to take blame off of white people, instead of you simply highlighting the truth about some of our ancestors own involvement in the ****ery. Hence why the post is responding to "confederate apologists" as if your post gave any indication of trying to be that.

Agreed.

If the objective is to be right, then I will mind my business.

If the objective is to be truthful, then I'm all for learning something new that contributes to the discussion.

I can still remember all the emotional changes I went through when first hearing that Black people owned slaves.

It was a really difficult reality to face...so I get it. I wanted to kill the messenger too.

"Right" is a matter of perspective but none of us can outsmart the truth.

Went to Hampton University and saw the Black bourgeoisie up close and personal when I was younger but didnt know what I was witnessing.

When I saw these folks are more dangerous than any gang or hood - I knew I didn't belong in that group (and they weren't having me anyway )

Fast forward to 2022-3 and folks like Ed Reed and Deion Sanders are pulling the covers off these HBCU's in real time, yet Black folks like Umar Johnson say Reed and Sanders are the problem.

 

[gry60]

The piece of information you posted said the statistics aren't wrong they just don't expound on the true nature & can be misleading (welcome to statistics). and even with this new set of information, none of it refutes his point that well off black people owned slaves at a much higher percentage than the average person would think..... Which was his main focus when posting that

He used a misleading interpretation of statistics (counting white people who couldn't own property - e.g children) and an omission of the legal context of the antebellum South as it relates to slavery and getting out of it to push the point that the Black "elite" was an active and willing participant in slavery and white supremacy.

Absent from all his posts was the fact that most black slave owners in the South used the system to free their relatives from the plantations they were living on, and as a percentage, less than 1% of American slaves were owned by Black folks. That's the nuance you're missing.

For starters, even if the number is accurate, it would still account for just a tiny percentage of all slaves held in the United States in 1860 -- specifically, one half of 1 percent. That runs contrary to the post’s framing.


"That’s a very small number compared to Latin American or Caribbean societies," said Stephanie McCurry, a Columbia University historian and author of Confederate Reckoning: Power and Politics in the Civil War South.


In addition, the figure is almost certainly inflated by a legal quirk in most antebellum southern states.


It includes "many ‘owned’ family members whom they had purchased to become free," said Eric Foner, a Columbia University historian and the author of such books as The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery. "You could not free a slave in most southern states without sending them out of the state."


Gates, writing in the Root, noted that the late historian Thomas J. Pressly used Woodson's statistics for 1830 to determine that about 42 percent of these black slaveholders owned just one slave. To Gates, this suggests that many -- though hardly all -- black "slaveholders" legally needed to "own" a family member such as a wife or child.


As Woodson wrote in his 1924 book Free Negro Owners of Slaves in the United States in 1830, "In many instances the husband purchased the wife or vice versa. … Slaves of Negroes were in some cases the children of a free father who had purchased his wife. If he did not thereafter emancipate the mother, as so many such husbands failed to do, his own children were born his slaves and were thus reported to the numerators."

And let's not even talk about the sources of funding that sustained the movements you guys are ****ting on today.

Funding the Civil Rights Movement

Like many social movements, the Civil Rights Movement required money to sustain the long fight for racial and economic justice in the U.S.

www.newamerica.org

A few years ago, I read Harry Belafonte’s memoir, My Song. He tells an intriguing story about a phone call he received from a leader of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), saying they needed the present-day equivalent of $500,000 to keep their Mississippi-based voter registration drive afloat. Belafonte and his wife Julie set about hosting in-home fundraisers attended by their wealthy friends to raise the cash. He collects $700,000. Belafonte enlists his best friend Sidney Poitier to board a small Cessna with him, to sneak a suitcase with the cash into Greenwood, Mississippi. The clandestine trip was successful, and SNCC can continue its work. My jaw dropped. I realized I knew nothing about how money was raised or by whom.

 

[finessence]

I love me some Harry Belafonte and Sidney Poitier! Real Gangstas

Got to see Harry Belafonte at the Palm Beach Amphitheater in 3rd grade in 1997
Always admired them dudes

 

[trynafeelmink]

Who done tipped off the authorities , yea I ain’t gonna hold you I’m just blocking them people from now on…. I see the play

 

[Present]

He used a misleading interpretation of statistics (counting white people who couldn't own property - e.g children) and an omission of the legal context of the antebellum South as it relates to slavery and getting out of it to push the point that the Black "elite" was an active and willing participant in slavery and white supremacy.

Absent from all his posts was the fact that most black slave owners in the South used the system to free their relatives from the plantations they were living on, and as a percentage, less than 1% of American slaves were owned by Black folks. That's the nuance you're missing.



And let's not even talk about the sources of funding that sustained the movements you guys are ****ting on today.

Funding the Civil Rights Movement

Like many social movements, the Civil Rights Movement required money to sustain the long fight for racial and economic justice in the U.S.

www.newamerica.org

We not even having the same conversation Fam.

Also -

Fact: Black people owned slaves.

The claim that Black slave owners bought and sold thousands of slaves out of benevolence / emancipation is wild.

The following chart shows the free Black slave owners and their slaves in Charleston, 1790-1860.In 1860 there were at least six African Americans in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves. The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation. Another Black slave magnate in Louisiana with over 100 slaves was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at $264, 000. In North Carolina 69 free Blacks were slave owners.

The Black Slave Owners - SlaveRebellion.org

The majority of urban black slave owners were women. In 1820, free black women represented 68 percent of heads of households in the North and 70 percent of slaveholding heads of colored
households in the South. The large percentage of black women slave owners is explained by manumission by their white fathers, or inheritance from their white fathers or husbands. Black women were the majority of slaves emancipated by white slave owning men with whom they had sexual relations. Thirty-three percent of all the recorded colonial manumissions were mulatto children and 75 percent of all adult manumissions were females.

Also,

The majority of the colored masters were mulattoes and their slaves were overwhelmingly of black skin. There was strong division between the two classes based on color, class, status and a culture of whiteness. There was a color and cultural clash between the two groups. The mulatto community in Charleston separated themselves from the dark skinned people, and they banned dark skinned people from their social clubs and seldom married unmixed blacks.

And the movements of yesterday are not the movements of today.

Matter of fact those same movements turned their back on Rev Dr. MLK Jr as soon as he turned against the Vietnam war.

I don't know what you're on but claiming humans owned other humas in order to "free their relatives" is crazy and dont even malke sense...at all.

If they bought their relatives in order to free them then how they still count as slaves in the census?

Misleading interpretations huh?

 

[trynafeelmink]

Ayo Methodical Management shouts to you for being an ally, I ain’t know you cared bout black issues this much

 

[gry60]

The claim that Black slave owners bought and sold thousands of slaves out of benevolence / emancipation is wild.

I said "bought," not sold. And it only sounds wild to you because you choose to ignore the context of the time and place.

None of the exceptions you posted surprise me. You'll find many examples of non-white slave owners in Louisiana: the social structure of the state was very different from the rest of Southern states because of their French influence (they didn't exactly operate with the one-drop rule, hence me using non-white instead of black).

Still, these cases don't add up to a significant number of Black people who were profiting from chattel slavery, and that's where the jump from "black slave owners existed" to "the black elite is also part of white supremacy" doesn't make sense. The irony is, you tossing nuance out of the window to make the point you want is making you sound like those anti-reparation right-wingers...

 

[Present]

I said "bought," not sold. And it only sounds wild to you because you choose to ignore the context of the time and place.

None of the exceptions you posted surprise me. You'll find many examples of non-white slave owners in Louisiana: the social structure of the state was very different from the rest of Southern states because of their French influence (they didn't exactly operate with the one-drop rule, hence me using non-white instead of black).

Still, these cases don't add up to a significant number of Black people who were profiting from chattel slavery, and that's where the jump from "black slave owners existed" to "the black elite is also part of white supremacy" doesn't make sense. The irony is, you tossing nuance out of the window to make the point you want is making you sound like those anti-reparation right-wingers...

Still, these cases don't add up to a significant number of Black people who were profiting from chattel slavery, and that's where the jump from "black slave owners existed" to "the black elite is also part of white supremacy" doesn't make sense.

+

The majority of black slave owners were members of the mulatto class, and in some cases were the sons and daughters of white slave masters. Many of the mulatto slave owners separated themselves from the masses of black people and attempted to establish a caste system based on color, wealth, and free status. According to Martin Delany, the colored community of Charleston City clung to the assumptions of the superiority of white blood and brown skin complexion.

=

Who said "a significant number of Black people were profiting from chattel slavery"? Strawman foolishness.

I'm talking about the black folks who did and if that makes you feel a way then so be it.

We aren't having the same conversation.




"I said "bought," not sold. And it only sounds wild to you because you choose to ignore the context of the time and place."

+

"Absent from all his posts was the fact that most black slave owners in the South used the system to free their relatives from the plantations"

=

So the census says black folks owned plantations/slaves and you dismiss this fact by claiming "black slave owners in the South used the system to free their relatives from the plantations"

If the objective is to free your relatives then what you need a plantation for?

What "context of the time and place" makes that make sense?

We aren't having the same conversation.




Trying to paint the picture that Black people owning slaves wasn't Black people owning slaves is enough to make me sick.

"The irony is, you ignoring facts to make the point you want is making you sound like" those white moderates MLK was writing about from jail.

"In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churches stand on the sideline and merely mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities."

 

[gry60]

We aren't having the same conversation

Because you're picking and choosing what you want to read.

You misused stats to make a point about the Black elite, and now you're backtracking. It isn't new knowledge that black people owned black people.

That still doesn't help your argument about the Black elite of yesterday and today. For every Black plantation owner who did own slaves in the US, you can find many more who invested in the education and emancipation of Black people then and now. To paint Black politicians with that wide a brush is simply wrong.

Trying to paint the picture that Black people owning slaves wasn't Black people owning slaves is enough to make me sick

I knew this was coming...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadroon#Racial_classifications

The more you learn about blackness, the more you realize that it is just as fluid as whiteness (in time and space). Looking at colonial societies all over the Americas, it's not difficult to realize that not everyone of them adopted the one-drop rule to separate their demographic groups. I spoke of Louisiana specifically, and I did so because they observed a racial caste system closer to what was practiced in South America and the Caribbean.

Would mixed people of 1800s Louisiana see themselves as Black? Not necessarily. The term "Mulatto" was NOT synonymous with "Black" at the time. Both classifications had their privileges and restrictions in that particular context.

Do we see them as Black today? Yes.

 

[Present]

 

[DCAllAfrican]

 

[tokes99]

slightly off topic but on the topic of what constitutes being ‘black’ this is an interesting aside:

 

[tr1ll]

Imma call my 60% rule into play on that one…

 

[HankHill]

slightly off topic but on the topic of what constitutes being ‘black’ this is an interesting aside:

I remember seeing an article about him some years back. Didn't know he took a ancestry test; one of his grandparents is Black based on those results.

 

[tokes99]

I remember seeing an article about him some years back. Didn't know he took a ancestry test; one of his grandparents is Black based on those results.

well, as far his mom & pop said they were all basically irish back in their recallable recent lineage, as far as they know but assuming that the scientific explanation of atavistic traits appearing is the appropriate one, it does illustrate how social race actually is

 

[fluid hips]

"Race" mixing has been happening since ancient times.

Arabs are basically Latinos before Latinos existed after Columbus

 

[Present]

slightly off topic but on the topic of what constitutes being ‘black’ this is an interesting aside:

Had to block that dude Fam. Its sickness (especially in this thread).

Only a fool tries to outsmart the truth in order to be "right".

This is all you need to know:

 

[trynafeelmink]

As i get older & realize more things about society my scope on what being black is has changed a lot, there's just so many varying levels.

Like their are plenty of people who are black by skin color, & will even say they're proud of their blackness.... but everything about their upbringing is soaked in a white experience, and the longer you let them talk you recognize they only have admiration for black people who have been stamped by white society

 

[finessence]

As i get older & realize more things about society my scope on what being black is has changed a lot, there's just so many varying levels.

Like their are plenty of people who are black by skin color, & will even say they're proud of their blackness.... but everything about their upbringing is soaked in a white experience, and the longer you let them talk you recognize they only have admiration for black people who have been stamped by white society

Yeah. You’ll drive yourself crazy trying to please or understand these code switchers.

It’s best to just let people be them. Unless they do something egregious to you or your family. You’ll save energy

 

[tokes99]

"Race" mixing has been happening since ancient times.

Arabs are basically Latinos before Latinos existed after Columbus

sure, but that may not be what’s at play here, rather it’s kinda like a mutation that either replicates traits or it can be ‘reverting’ back to a distant ancestor’s genes, or something like that

Had to block that dude Fam. Its sickness (especially in this thread).

Only a fool tries to outsmart the truth in order to be "right".

This is all you need to know:

if that’s how you feel, learned some new things from the discourse tho; even with y’all kinda talking past each other…he added some nuance that didn’t/doesn’t necessarily refute you’re general point

As i get older & realize more things about society my scope on what being black is has changed a lot, there's just so many varying levels.

Like their are plenty of people who are black by skin color, & will even say they're proud of their blackness.... but everything about their upbringing is soaked in a white experience, and the longer you let them talk you recognize they only have admiration for black people who have been stamped by white society

how so?

 

[Raji Lowenthal]

As i get older & realize more things about society my scope on what being black is has changed a lot, there's just so many varying levels.

I definitely agree. The black experience used to be sort of common or in common. Now, not as singular.

 

[Present]

As i get older & realize more things about society my scope on what being black is has changed a lot, there's just so many varying levels.

Like their are plenty of people who are black by skin color, & will even say they're proud of their blackness.... but everything about their upbringing is soaked in a white experience, and the longer you let them talk you recognize they only have admiration for black people who have been stamped by white society

"Everyone who shares your color is not your kind" as the older folks say.

if that’s how you feel, learned some new things from the discourse tho; even with y’all kinda talking past each other…he added some nuance that didn’t/doesn’t necessarily refute you’re general point

Pretty sure whatever "nuance" he was going for would be lost on my ancestors.

Chattel Slavery is chattel slavery regardless of the plantations owners cognitive dissonance, willful ignorance, or conscientious stupidity.

Classifying black/mulatto plantation owners as benevolent actors who freed relatives = Classifying Vital Hasson as a Jewish hero of WWII.

He could have made whatever point he was trying to make without including me at all because what he was talking about had nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Fam literally attempted to categorize my posts as confederate apologist and expects to have a productive dialogue? Word?

Also,

Aint no need to include me on a deep dive into colorism/classism. I've seen it up close and personal many times throughout my life.

The reality of a "black elite" that benefits from institutionalized racism / white superiority isn't new or radical.