So I will enlighten you with some black history.


Quote:

"While we are all familiar with the role played by the United States and the European colonial powers like Britain, France, Holland, Portugal and Spain, there is very little discussion of the role Africans themselves played. And that role, it turns out, was a considerable one, especially for the slave-trading kingdoms of western and central Africa. These included the Akan of the kingdom of Asante in what is now Ghana, the Fon of Dahomey (now Benin), the Mbundu of Ndongo in modern Angola and the Kongo of today’s Congo, among several others." "The historians John Thornton and Linda Heywood of Boston University estimate that 90 percent of those shipped to the New World were enslaved by Africans and then sold to European traders. The sad truth is that without complex business partnerships between African elites and European traders and commercial agents, the slave trade to the New World would have been impossible, at least on the scale it occurred." [Emphasis added] The notion of White European raiding parties descending on unsuspecting African villages is a gross distortion of reality. Not only does the historical record argue against White raiding parties, but such parties would have been costly and inefficient compared to purchasing Africans already held in slavery. White slave traders would not endure the risk related to such incursions. Furthermore, Africans already held as slaves would be less willing to resist, particularly among those whose African owners were brutal enemies.

Thanks, Honky. It's nice to get back to Amerika again. Afrikan-Amerika, at any rate.

Agreed. You should read the Blue Nile by Alan Morehead. Many of the British explorers were horrified by what they saw - but they did see white raiding parties.

And the middle-men in the trade were often Arabs.

Africans also made slaves of each other - common in a region where people were often captured in war.

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Feb 6^th, 2012 at 5:49pm:

Thanks, Honky. It's nice to get back to Amerika again. Afrikan-Amerika, at any rate. Agreed. You should read the Blue Nile by Alan Morehead. Many of the British explorers were horrified by what they saw - but they did see white raiding parties. And the middle-men in the trade were often Arabs. Africans also made slaves of each other - common in a region where people were often captured in war.

Ahhh so you're saying that people of all races, colours, shapes and sizes were involved in the slave trade? Fascinating....that's why I love book learnin.

That's right, Honky. You could be forgiven for thinking that slavery is the natural state of humanity, that whitey was really doing the inferior black man a favour by giving him the opportunity to learn new skills and become civilized.

You can't say that though. You'll only get howled down by the hysterical PC brigade.

At least we know though.

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Feb 6^th, 2012 at 6:26pm:

That's right, Honky. You could be forgiven for thinking that slavery is the natural state of humanity, that whitey was really doing the inferior black man a favour by giving him the opportunity to learn new skills and become civilized. You can't say that though. You'll only get howled down by the hysterical PC brigade. At least we know though.

Nar, I can't say I'm a fan of slavery.  Terrible business that. 

Us enlightened honkies abolished it centuries ago. What more can ya do?

Why not? It's a part of nature - the strong overcoming the weak, survival of the fittest.

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Feb 6^th, 2012 at 7:12pm:

Why not? It's a part of nature - the strong overcoming the weak, survival of the fittest.

Hmm...you make a compelling case.  It's hard to argue with that...and yet I just know I don't like the idea of one man owning another.  I......I...I guess I'm just a bright eyed idealist.  :'(

Quote:

Logic, alone, should be sufficient to dissuade thinking people from the perennial myth that black slaves were brutalized by their White owners. Slaves were expensive property. As such, slave owners were careful to protect their investments. Beating a slave was simply not in the owner's best interest. There were exceptions. In 1838 Harriet Martineau visited New Orleans where she heard tales of a particularly abusive slave owner. At issue was slave owner Delphine LaLaurie who resided in a mansion at 1140 Royal Street. "Martineau reported that public rumors about LaLaurie's mistreatment of her slaves were sufficiently widespread that a local lawyer was dispatched to Royal Street to remind LaLaurie of the laws relevant to the upkeep of slaves." The attorney found no evidence of wrong doing. Nonetheless, LaLaurie was forced to forfeit nine slaves after a subsequent investigation found her guilty of slave abuse. It was later rumored that one of LaLaurie slaves intentionally set fire to the mansion to draw attention to ongoing abuse. Bystanders forced entry to squelch the fire and discovered "seven slaves, more or less horribly mutilated ... suspended by the neck, with their limbs apparently stretched and torn from one extremity to the other." Tale of the abuse quickly spread throughout New Orleans. An angry mob of White residents descended on the mansion and "demolished and destroyed everything upon which they could lay their hands." LaLaurie fled the mob violence, escaping to Mobile, Alabama and then to Paris. What we learn from the historical LaLaurie episode is that: 1. Laws protecting slaves from abuse were enforced. 2. White residents did not tolerate owners who abused their slaves.

Oh well, at least they were well treated for the most part.

Still......

Have we made Feb black history because it is the shortest month?

... wrote on Feb 6^th, 2012 at 7:18pm:

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Feb 6th, 2012 at 7:12pm: Why not? It's a part of nature - the strong overcoming the weak, survival of the fittest. Hmm...you make a compelling case.  It's hard to argue with that...and yet I just know I don't like the idea of one man owning another.  I......I...I guess I'm just a bright eyed idealist.  :'(

You know what you are? You're a humanitarian. A true liberal. All men are created equal, to each according to his needs, a true believer in human rights and the universal declaration of man.

Don't tell your friends, Honky. They might think you've gone soft and become a black person lover.

... wrote on Feb 6^th, 2012 at 7:08pm:

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Feb 6th, 2012 at 6:26pm: That's right, Honky. You could be forgiven for thinking that slavery is the natural state of humanity, that whitey was really doing the inferior black man a favour by giving him the opportunity to learn new skills and become civilized. You can't say that though. You'll only get howled down by the hysterical PC brigade. At least we know though. Nar, I can't say I'm a fan of slavery.  Terrible business that.  Us enlightened honkies abolished it centuries ago. What more can ya do?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-namyfv53D-s/Ty-T2fHbpdI/AAAAAAABWXc/ZrMWTe89r0g/s1600/Don%2527t-Fire-Until-You-See-The-Whites.jpg

In todays instalment of black history month, we find that thousands of blacks actually enslaved their own bruddas!


Quote:

There were thousands of black slave owners. "In 1830 there were 3,775 such slaveholders in the South, with 80% of them located in Louisiana, South Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland. There were economic differences between free blacks of the Upper South and Deep South, with the latter fewer in number, but wealthier and typically of mixed race. Half of the black slaveholders lived in cities rather than the countryside, with most in New Orleans and Charleston." Historians John Hope Franklin and Loren Schweninger wrote: "A large majority of profit-oriented free black slaveholders resided in the Lower South. For the most part, they were persons of mixed racial origin, often women who cohabited or were mistresses of white men, or mulatto men ... . Provided land and slaves by whites, they owned farms and plantations, worked their hands in the rice, cotton, and sugar fields, and like their white contemporaries were troubled with runaways." Historian Ira Berlin wrote: "In slave societies, nearly everyone – free and slave – aspired to enter the slaveholding class, and upon occasion some former slaves rose into slaveholders’ ranks. Their acceptance was grudging, as they carried the stigma of bondage in their lineage and, in the case of American slavery, color in their skin."[1] To write extensively about blacks who owned slaves in the antebellum South would require a full volume. Black slaveowners: free Black slave masters in South Carolina, 1790-1860 By Larry Koger is one such volume. Koger tells of Richard Holloway, Sr., a black carpenter who purchased his African cousins as slave labor. [2]Cato was the name of one of his slaves. Cato remained in Holloway's possession throughout the 1830s and '40s, according to Koger, until he was sold to his son, Richard Holloway, Jr., in 1845. Cato died in 1851 and the younger Holloway replaced him with the purchase of a 16-year-old black male. Koger says there were ten black slave owners in Charleston City, SC in 1830. Nor was black-on-black slavery unique to Southern states. Koger informs us that in 1830 New York City recorded eight black slave holders who owned a total of 17 black slaves. The total number of slaves owned by blacks in 1830 was more than 10,000 according to the federal census of 1830; and that includes only four states: Louisiana, Maryland, South Carolina and Virginia. In addition there were "black master in every state where slavery existed," Koger says.

Hey Honky

What about Cyrus the Great?

He was a white man who abolished slavery in Persia around 530BC.

I will let you cover the Arab slave trade nice topic..lol.

Thank you baron, but this is about Black history in general, not slavery.  So todays  lesson will be about African legend Shaka.


Quote:

Shaka came from a humble and harsh childhood to become the founder of the Zulu nation. Much like Genghis Khan he won his place and power through his own prowess and ability rather than any birth right. At the end of the 18th century the Zulus were a small tribe of no more than 1,500 ruled by a king called Senzangakona who met and got pregnant a woman from another clan. When she became pregnant he refused to take responsibility and said that she must have a iShaka a parasite that affects the menstrual cycle. when she gave birth the her tribe demanded that he collect her and her iShaka and hence Shaka (which is the Anglicised version) received his name in the shame of his child birth a name which he would make famous and bring great honour to. Although the Zulu chief did marry Shaka's mother it did not last and he and his mother wandered between tribes exiled until in 1803 they found haven with the Mtetwa tribe who were expanding rapidly under a skilled king. This king noticed that the young Shaka who had grown up to be skilled warrior of great strength had natural ability and he was groomed to be the future chief of the Zulus who were by now part of the Mtetwa tribe's hegemony. Shaka was given his own regiment the iziCwe Shaka reformed his regiment discarding the light thrown spear for a short broad bladed stabbing spear (assagai) and a larger cow hide shield which gave his troops the fighting style of a Roman legion. He trained his troops well and toughened them to jog over hills for up to 50 miles in a day without shoes. On the march young boys would carry gear for the warriors with one of these porters for every three warriors. He developed the classic 'Buffalo' formation which the Zulus would make their trade mark and use many years later against the British during the Zulu War. Shaka took the Zulu throne in 1816 when his father died and raised many more regiments according to age group and ability and made them live in celibacy (although he was unable to father children and possibly a homosexual). Discipline was rigid and often brutal, even lethal. Due to his childhood Shaka had tremendous aggression and bordered on being a psychopath, even after he had killed all those who had tormented him as a child. By 1817 he had 2,000 men and struck out with tremendous ruthlessness, rival tribes submitted or were massacred. When his king died Shaka was going to his aid and rallied the demoralised Mtetwa tribe at the battle of Gqokli Hill with a brilliant defensive battle. As the Mtetwa Empire crumbled Shaka stepped into the vacuum. Shaka continued his campaign of conquest now on a larger scale but with his trade mark brutality. By 1824 Shaka had an Army of 20,000 and had destroyed an area of land 100 miles wide south of Tugela. By the time of his death in 1828 he ruled 250,000 people and could put 40,000 warriors into the field having killed an estimated 2,000,000 people during his reign. He had such wealth that he bred cattle herds of the same colour and his cruelty and mass executions keep him in power until he started to overstrain his army and the unrest caused by the enforced celibacy became too much. On 23rd September 1828 his half brothers assassinated him and he died screaming for mercy. His body was quickly buried but the location is unknown but is believed to be somewhere under the Natal village of Stanger. A tremendous war leader haunted by the demons of his childhood Shaka remains one of great villains of military history although often overlooked by Eurocentric Historians.

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/people_shaka_zulu.html


Shaka was bad ass.