Fri 23 Apr, 2010
Reparations and African complicity in the slave trade
Comments (11) Filed under: RemediesTags: Barack Obama, Harvard University, Henry Louis Gates Jr., Reparations for slavery, transatlantic slave trade
Professor Henry Louis (“Skip”) Gates, Jr. has an op-ed in this morning’s New York Times in which he takes on the issue of reparations for slavery.
Gates will, no doubt, attract enough controversy for his general approach to the issue. He is convinced that our society must address the issue of reparations, and that we must reach a “just and lasting agreement,” which he believes will have to be “a judicious (if symbolic) gesture to match such a sustained, heinous crime.”
Remarks like these will land any public intellectual in the U.S. in hot water these days. Just consider the case of Goodwin Liu, whose mild remarks related to reparations at one of our events in 2008 became a central issue in his nomination by President Obama for a seat on the Ninth Circuit.
However, this essay is most notable for telling difficult truths about the central role of Africans in the transatlantic slave trade, and thus about the shared culpability of people of different races in the resulting history of slavery.
What is unusual about this essay is not the historical facts which Gates relates about Africa’s role in the slave trade, or even the interpretation which he gives them. These are commonplace observations in the study of the slave trade, and are necessary to the most basic understanding of that historical phenomenon and its legacy today.
This essay is noteworthy because someone of Gates’ stature is telling these hard truths, and insisting that they are necessary to assessing responsibility for the past and for healing these historical wounds today.
Slavery was not about race
When I address audiences on the history and legacy of slavery, I will often say that slavery and the slave trade were never about race. Having offered that hopefully surprising statement, I will explain that while the concept of race gradually became important in justifying and perpetuating slavery in the United States, race played essentially no part in establishing the transatlantic slave trade or in bringing millions of Africans to the Americas.
This argument has two parts: first, that Europeans (and Americans) did not engage in the slave trade out of any sense that it was particularly appropriate to enslave black people, and second, that Africans were full partners in the slave trade, without any sense on their part, either, that race was relevant to what they were doing.
Gates addresses the second part of this argument, summing up by saying that “white people and black people, on both sides of the Atlantic, [were] complicit alike in one of the greatest evils in the history of civilization.”
The historical truth about Africa and the slave trade
When we visited slave forts along the African coast in modern-day Ghana to film Traces of the Trade, we were walking in the footsteps of my ancestor, James DeWolf, and the other members of the DeWolf family who purchased more than 12,000 Africans in such slave forts.
As Gates asks, “How did slaves make it to these coastal forts?”
The reality is that nearly all who were sent across the Atlantic in chains were enslaved by Africans.
Gates cites two leading historians of the slave trade, John Thornton and Linda Heywood of Boston University, for the proposition that roughly 90% of the slaves sent across the Middle Passage were enslaved by African traders and then sold to Europeans along the coast. Other leading scholars believe that the percentage is actually much higher, that only at the margins were any Africans enslaved directly by Europeans.
The leading role of Africans in the slave trade was a necessary one. The slave trade took place before Europeans colonized the continent of Africa, and white traders exercised little influence beyond their coastal trading posts. Only African societies could extract slaves from the interior of the continent, primarily by taking captives in wars or kidnapping in raids.
The vital role of Africans in the slave trade made for a highly profitable business for many African societies, lining the pockets of local rulers and of the many ordinary people who became involved in the trade. As Professor Gates notes, slaves were the primary export of many kingdoms in western and central Africa, including the Asante in Ghana, Dahomey in Benin, Ndongo in Angola, and Kongo in the modern Congo.
These facts dispel the myths that Africans were only tangentially involved in the slave trade, or that African societies were coerced into participation, or that the slave trade left a legacy of demographic or economic harm to those societies which participated in it.
Another myth which I often hear is that Africans participating in the slave trade had no idea what slavery meant in the Americas. The implication is that they were less culpable because they assumed slavery would be far more benign for the victims than it actually was. Gates outlines the historical evidence against this myth, too, noting that many African elites, including ambassadors and the children of African royalty, actually visited the Americas, and even did so on slave ships. Meanwhile, enslaved Africans would occasionally be freed and return to their homes in Africa, while later on, thousands of freed slaves returned to settle in Liberia and Sierra Leone.
As Gates puts it, “under these circumstances, it is difficult to claim that Africans were ignorant or innocent.”
Why this truth is so hard to talk about
I said above that what is noteworthy about this essay isn’t the history that Gates recounts, but that someone of his stature is telling this truth, and putting it front-and-center in the discussion about reparations for slavery.
Those of us who are descended from the DeWolf slave traders, and who speak out in Traces of the Trade about the dominant role of the northern United States in slavery and the slave trade, are generally quite well-received by those who want to push forward the dialogue about reparations, or the legacy of slavery generally. In other words, those who care about this issue tend to embrace the message that the complicity of (white) Americans in slavery and the slave trade was broader and deeper than has been generally acknowledged, that this complicity extended to the northern states and to most ordinary citizens.
Most people who are in conversation about the legacy of slavery in the United States are, however, deeply reluctant to acknowledge the role of Africans in the slave trade. As Gates describes it,
Excuses run the gamut, from “Africans didn’t know how harsh slavery in America was” and “Slavery in Africa was, by comparison, humane” or, in a bizarre version of “The devil made me do it,” “Africans were driven to this only by the unprecedented profits offered by greedy European countries.”
Why is this? One problem for many African Americans, in particular, is that it is always difficult to acknowledge that one’s own people were complicit in wrongdoing. We see this again and again in our work, as people freely acknowledge the horrors of the DeWolf slave trade, but are reluctant to embrace the truth that their own northern ancestors were probably involved in the slave trade, as well. Or people will embrace this truth, but reject that their own ancestors were complicit in slavery, as well, whether because they had settled in the midwest or the west during slavery, or came to this country as immigrants following the end of slavery in 1865.
Another reason why many black activists, and their white and non-white allies, are often reluctant to acknowledge the African role in the slave trade is that this reality explodes the myth that the enslavement of Africans occurred because of racism. While history amply demonstrates that this belief is false, the myth lives on because it is a convenient way of understanding the past and of explaining the truth that the burden of these historical events and their legacy has fallen to black people to bear.
Likewise, it is convenient to believe that the blame for slavery can be allotted on the basis of race. This mythology not only allows for the demonization of white people historically, but it provides ammunition for claims of reparations for slavery.
The argument for reparations is generally framed as a claim that black people continue to bear considerable disadvantages as a result of slavery, and that white people are responsible for correcting that situation. The first part of the argument is hard to refute, but the second part is much more problematic. Why should those who played no part in the history of slavery be held accountable for it? The easy answer, but one which is historically false, is to claim that it was white people perpetrated slavery and must now be held accountable for it.
(There are other ways to make the case for reparations, which is how Gates can emphasize this history and still suggest that reparations is an issue that cannot simply be dismissed. One approach, for instance, is to point out that white people today still disproportionately enjoy the benefits of the history of slavery. Another response would be that society as a whole, and not white people per se, are responsible for correcting an historic injustice perpetrated by this society.)
How conservatives misuse this history to silence the conversation
A final reason why many people are profoundly reluctant to talk about the African role in slavery is that this history is commonly abused by those who would shut off all discussion of the history and legacy of slavery in our society. I will refer to these people here as conservatives for simplicity, although I’m talking specifically about those who, regardless of their politics in other respects, argue that the history of slavery no longer has any effect on our society and that we should simply stop talking about it.
Their reasoning is simple: if African societies participated in the slave trade, then there is no reason to hold our society accountable for its own role. If black people participated in the slave trade, then there is no reason for white people to pay attention to this history today.
This is, of course, a misuse of history. The fact that various societies, and people of various races, participated in the slave trade says nothing about who must grapple with this history, and its legacy, today. Indeed, most people would reject out of hand the notion that one person, group, or nation may avoid dealing with an historical legacy because others have inherited that legacy, as well, or have not yet owned up to their own inheritance. In fact, however, many African leaders and nations have been addressing their historical responsibility for the slave trade in recent years, acknowledging responsibility and asking for forgiveness.
The importance of telling this history
Why must we openly acknowledge and engage this history, despite the risk that doing so will be difficult and that others may seize on these facts for their own purposes?
On one level, this is a strategic issue. As long as we do not include the complicity of Africans in how we tell the story of slavery and the slave trade, those who would silence this conversation can continue to play “gotcha” by unveiling that aspect of the story, as if it were a dramatic surprise and an unexpected argument which undermines the entire discussion.
More broadly, I believe firmly that the starting point for addressing an historical legacy must be to tell the truth, and the entire truth, at that.
In the case of slavery in particular, we have long suffered in the U.S. from a collective national amnesia about certain key aspects of this history. The path to a comprehensive national dialogue, to healing in whatever form, and to moving forward together must lie in encouraging the telling of the whole truth. Deliberately obscuring inconvenient aspects of this truth will only hinder this effort and aid those who would keep other other important facts buried forever.
We also need to learn important truths about human nature from the long, terrible history of Atlantic slavery. In particular, why have we chosen to enslave others so often in our history? How is it that we are able to do so, and to justify what we do to ourselves? We can’t explore these questions if we aren’t open and honest about who participated in slavery, as well as how and why they did so.
I’ve also suggested that we have dramatically overstated the role of race in the history of slavery, as well as in our response to this history today. In the end, race did play a vital role in this history: circumstances conspired to bring about a situation in which the free citizens of our society were primarily of one race, while those who were enslaved were primarily of another race. This fact, in turn, led to profound racial inequalities in contemporary society, and to the development of ideas about race which retain a tight grip on our thinking even today. It is this last aspect, however, which explains why we have in some ways overstated the role of race in slavery and in our response to it today.
I am convinced that in order to move forward together, we need to both acknowledge the role which race has played, and continues to play, in our society, and also to confront the limitations of race as a way to think about ourselves and our society.
Alison Farrar says:
Hello James: Thanks for this excellent essay. How I wixh I had been on the Trip. Allie (a William DeW's three greats g'daughter)
James says:
Thanks, Allie, and I wish you had been on the trip, as well–we could have used your perspective. I'll be in touch through Facebook, and I'd be interested in following up on your descent through William DeWolf.
Tiffany says:
The Gates article contains no startling revelations. It is common knowledge among both scholars and the general population that Africans played a key role in the slave trade. I believe the NYT article has more to do with generating publicity for Gates' career than anything else. He got a taste of fame during the Beer Summit spectacle and he wants more.
I say the piece is disingenuous because he ignores two basic facts that any serious discussion of reparations would include:
1) The overwhelming majority of wealth generated by the slave trade was consolidated in Europe and among European Americans, not among Africans; and, 2) The economic and social privilege associated with whiteness that persists today emerged from the experience of chattel slavery, which is unique from all other historical episodes of slavery for it's distinctly racial character.
These statements are not obscure, highly contested theories. They are facts. Not surprisingly, people don't like to deal with them because they highlight the continuing and sustained impact of racial inequality. Gates' article is unpopular among the African American community not because we love feeling like victims, or because it frustrates our attempts at "demonizing" white people, or any other ridiculous claim. It is unpopular because it is written like a college freshman's essay. We would like to expect more from the so-called leaders of the Black intellectual tradition.
James says:
Tiffany, you're quite right that the Gates essay contains no starting revelations for scholars of the slave trade.
However, Gates is right that this is not common knowledge among the general population. Many people either haven't heard it at all, or understand a watered-down version, or have come to believe one of the historical myths that are used to excuse it.
The result is that when I mention the African role in the slave trade to audiences, when discussing the broader history of slavery and the slave trade, I am frequently met with disbelief, anger, or denials.
This needs to stop if we are to engage in a serious discussion in the U.S. about our nation's complicity in slavery and the slave trade, and about the consequences of that history (including, as you rightly say, "the continuing and sustained impact of racial inequality").
Gates himself has said that his goal was to help people to acknowledge African complicity, to seek symbolic recognition of that complicity, and to use that recognition to obtain substantive concessions from the U.S. government.
I say the piece is disingenuous because he ignores two basic facts that any serious discussion of reparations would include ….
This was not an essay which attempted to compute the wealth generated from slavery and the slave trade, much less to parcel it out among the various players in Europe, Africa, and the New World. Professor Gates is well aware that the slave trade brought substantial wealth to Africa, but far more to Europe and the Americas. He also knows that the same African societies which profited from the slave trade then suffered the ravages of colonialism.
The essay also didn't attempt to discuss the history of chattel slavery beyond the slave trade itself, much less to evaluate the role of economic and social privilege arising out of this history. There is no hint, however, that Professor Gates was either unaware of this history, or believes it shouldn't be put front and center in any discussion of reparations.
These statements are not obscure, highly contested theories. They are facts. Not surprisingly, people don’t like to deal with them ….
We could say the same about African complicity in the slave trade, and the response to any mention of that history, couldn't we?
It shocks me, quite frankly, that so many people have responded to this essay with precisely the two suggestions you make: that this is established history, and that there are other aspects to the reparations question, and so the essay should never have seen the light of day.
There are many essays out there which address well-known history, or which address just one or another aspect of the reparations debate. No one criticizes those essays, at least not on those grounds.
Is there any reason why so many people are upset at Gates for doing the same thing in his essay, unless out of a desire not to have the African role in the slave trade mentioned, or taken into account in weighing the history of slavery and the slave trade? Can you, for instance, back up your claim that this is a sophomoric (or freshmanic, I suppose) essay, rather than a serious and well-reasoned argument about a difficult issue?
It seems to me that this is the heart of the matter.
Tiffany says:
Thanks very much for your response, James.
From my vantage point as an African American, it appears that Gates' essay glosses over some basic lessons about slavery. He fails to acknowledge that there is a difference between chattel slavery and other episodes of human bondage throughout history, which is a common fallacy perpetrated by apologists for white supremacy.
You write:
"There are many essays out there which address well-known history, or which address just one or another aspect of the reparations debate. No one criticizes those essays, at least not on those grounds."
It is fine to address one aspect of a debate, but to do so without adequate historical context is, in my opinion, a serious oversight; especially on an issue as contentious as this. So, I stand by my statement that the essay was overly simplistic. Furthermore, I see no connection between Barack Obama's genetic makeup and the debate over reparations.
I think most people who have a problem with the essay would agree that a well-rounded discussion about the role of Africans in the history of slavery is a good thing. In fact, I have read John Thornton's book and thought it was interesting. But as I mentioned in my earlier comment, the debate over reparations is fundamentally a debate about access to resources.
The fact that Gates skipped over the role of whiteness in the consolidation of the wealth generated by chattel slavery makes him appear out of touch, confused, and perhaps disingenuous.
James says:
Tiffany, I agree that Gates glosses over many basic lessons about slavery. This is a short op-ed, and it isn't intended to cover everything. I believe, however, that nothing he leaves out undermines the points that he's trying to make.
He fails to acknowledge that there is a difference between chattel slavery and other episodes of human bondage throughout history
He doesn't talk at all about the nature of slavery, or about the differences between various forms of slavery. He can't get into every issue in a few paragraphs, and this isn't relevant to the points he's making.
Yes, chattel slavery is particularly bad, and that fact has to be incorporated into reparations discussions in a variety of ways. But what is the connection here? Are you referring to the fact that many forms of slavery practiced by African societies were less odious than chattel slavery? The same is true of European and American societies, but how does that affect his argument?
The only way I can see this issue being relevant is if you believe it somehow lessens African complicity in the slave trade. It seems to me, though, that this would require several additional steps. You'd have to ask about the types of slavery familiar to the wide range of African societies participating in the slave trade. You'd then have to argue that at least some of them weren't familiar with chattel slavery. You'd then have to address the history Gates covers regarding the sources of information these societies had over the centuries about slavery in the New World. Finally, you'd have to address the moral question: what is the complicity of African societies, if it turns out they weren't aware of chattel slavery and didn't imagine it was taking place in the New World–but still knew they were selling large numbers of people into slavery in distant lands, into the hands of foreigners whose customs and institutions on slavery you're convinced they could only wonder about. I doubt these African traders had many illusions about the fate of those they sent across the Middle Passage.
I don't mean to suggest that fine-grained differences in complicity need to be teased out for the various actors involved in slavery and the slave trade. Just the opposite: I think the only relevant issue here is to be honest about the history, and to note that complicity was shared broadly among many actors. That much, alone, tells us what we need to know to think through the nature of that part of the history and how to think through the issue of complicity in the slave trade.
It is fine to address one aspect of a debate, but to do so without adequate historical context is, in my opinion, a serious oversight
I agree. I simply think Gates provided ample historical context for the arguments he was making and the lessons he was drawing. I respect that you would feel otherwise, if you believe, for instance, that the diversity of types of slavery in human history is an essential issue in determining whether or not African societies were complicit in the slave trade.
I see no connection between Barack Obama’s genetic makeup and the debate over reparations.
I don't believe that there ought to be a connection there, either. I do agree with Gates, though, that the public sees such a connection, and so Obama may be in a unique position to guide the reparations debate.
After all, many people–rightly or wrongly–speak about this history as if white people today need to atone or take responsibility for what the perpetrators of this history did, and as if black people are on the side of the victims, or at least the innocent, even aside from the ways in which this legacy actually touches on black Americans to this day. To take another example, many people speak as if it matters whether the president of the United States, were he or she to issue an apology for slavery, happened to be black or white. If so, then it stands to reason that many of the same people may care whether a figure in the debate is white, or black, or of mixed heritage.
The fact that Gates skipped over the role of whiteness in the consolidation of the wealth generated by chattel slavery makes him appear out of touch, confused, and perhaps disingenuous.
I don't see how. After all, he's made quite clear that the U.S. needs to reckon with this history and its legacy as part of the reparations debate.
This particular essay was simply focused on the history of Africa in the slave trade, since the identity of the perpetrators of the slave trade is often raised as a salient point in reparations discussions.
My concern remains that if this essay had focused on, say, the role of Europeans in the slave trade, and argued that the reparations question would need to account for European complicity as well as U.S. responsibility, it wouldn't have generated such anger and frustration.
The same is true, for that matter, if the focus had been on U.S. slave traders, and the subject of what happened with the wealth generated by slavery had been left for another essay or another time.
I would know, since I'm on the "hot seat" all the time as a scion of the most successful slave-trading family in U.S. history.
So it seems to me that there's something else going on here, and I'd be interested to see if anyone can articulate it in a way that distinguishes it from the example of white slave traders, and isn't what I've been arguing is really going on.
Tiffany says:
Thanks again for your reply James.
You write:
"This particular essay was simply focused on the history of Africa in the slave trade, since the identity of the perpetrators of the slave trade is often raised as a salient point in reparations discussions."
Many African Americans have abandoned the discussion over reparations because it has become little more than a stage for the theatre of white guilt. Reducing the debate to subjective claims about moral culpability and identity undermines what is at stake: Access to wealth, social mobility, and economic privilege. It boils down to this: White Europeans and Americans have inherited privilege and black Africans and the descendents of African slaves have inherited powerlessness. That inequality persists today, and the goal of reparations is to address this discrepancy. An apology would not be a totally irrelevant gesture, but apologies do nothing to rectify the social and economic inequality that has resulted from chattel slavery.
You write:
"So it seems to me that there’s something else going on here, and I’d be interested to see if anyone can articulate it in a way that distinguishes it from the example of white slave traders, and isn’t what I’ve been arguing is really going on."
When I first read Gates’ piece, I said to myself what kind of reparations does he expect us to get from Africa? Some damn cheetah pelts? Obviously Africans sold slaves to Europeans—I disagree with you that this is not common knowledge. That history is taught in every high school classroom, as well it should be. However, African complicity in the slave trade is irrelevant to the debate over reparations because the money/power trail leads back to Europe and Anglo-America, NOT the Congo, Nigeria, or any other African state.
Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that you believe the backlash to Gates' reparations essay reveals some kind of pathological impulse on the part of blacks (and our white allies) to demonize white people, perpetuate our role as victims, and force whites to carry an unjust sense of guilt by selectively editing the historical record. This is not the case. As I said before, reparations is about addressing economic and social inequality. It is not, as Professor Gates cavalierly asserts, a so-called "blame game."
You are right that something else is going on here: Gates is deliberately trying to be provocative. It's too bad, because that kind of thing doesn't push the debate further. It creates confusion and bad blood. As a scholar, he should know better, but it seems he is more of a TV show host these days.
This will be my last comment on this thread, because you probably would like to hear from some of your other readers. Thank you for the thoughtful dialogue.
James says:
Tiffany, I agree that it is essential not to allow efforts to analyze responsibility for the past, or feelings like guilt or anger, to distract us from addressing concrete issues of privilege and inequality. (Hence the name of this blog, taken from a line I have in our documentary, Traces of the Trade, making this very point.)
I hope you can also understand that the question of which groups were involved with slavery and the slave trade is a recurrent issue brought up by many people, of all races and ideological persuasions, who are grappling with today's realities. As long as people try to base their arguments about privilege and inequality today on claims about historic complicity in the slave trade, I think it's important that we look at that history and debunk any myths about it that often derail the discussion.
When I first read Gates’ piece, I said to myself what kind of reparations does he expect us to get from Africa?
Gates hasn't called for reparations from African nations. I think this may be an example of why the issue of African complicity is toxic for so many people.
There are, to be sure, many who argue against reparations for slavery on the grounds that Africans played an essential role in the slave trade. For them, this either means that the U.S. doesn't need to pay reparations, or that reparations must come from developing nations in Africa if they are also to come from the U.S.
Gates, however, doesn't suggest this, and in fact, there are obvious arguments against reparations from African countries for the slave trade. For instance, even if African nations should, in principle, be accountable with European and American nations (and I'm not trying to suggest this), it would be perfectly reasonable to excuse them immediately on the grounds that they are not wealthy nations that can afford to pay. Another, related, basis for claiming reparations only from certain nations is to ask where the benefits from slavery and the slave trade exist today. Even if we grant that African societies profited substantially from the Atlantic slave trade, those benefits were surely lost during the subsequent period of European colonization.
Obviously Africans sold slaves to Europeans—I disagree with you that this is not common knowledge. That history is taught in every high school classroom, as well it should be.
It's possible that you are familiar, Tiffany, with different high schools than I am. I work frequently with high school educators and students on slavery and the slave trade, and I have not found many instances where students learned about the African role in the slave trade. Certainly few adults in our programs on slavery are familiar with this fact; far more seem to have absorbed images from the television program Roots, which I understand shows white traders kidnapping black Africans into slavery.
African complicity in the slave trade is irrelevant to the debate over reparations because the money/power trail leads back to Europe and Anglo-America, NOT the Congo, Nigeria, or any other African state.
In a sense, I agree with you, Tiffany, as I've indicated above. It isn't as if much, if any, of the money and power generated by the transatlantic slave trade still resides in Africa. However, that doesn't mean it's right to discuss historical complicity in the slave trade without acknowledging the African role, and as long as opponents use that fact to argue against reparations, the conversation will be distorted until complicity is acknowledged and addressed (much as you are, in fact, doing here).
As I said before, reparations is about addressing economic and social inequality. It is not, as Professor Gates cavalierly asserts, a so-called “blame game.”
I agree with you that this should not be a "blame game," and that many of us do not see it as such.
However, there are certainly those who treat this issue as an opportunity to lay blame, and others who react against what they perceive as blame. To that extent, I think it's necessary to continue debunking myths about the nature of historical complicity and about what blame, if any, should be passed down from that history.
So you and I will have to continue to disagree, Tiffany, about whether Gates is unnecessarily stirring up trouble or insisting on speaking truth that is necessary in order to advance work on structural issues of power, privilege, and inequality. But I very much appreciate your participation in the conversation here, and your commitment to seeing this historical legacy addressed today.
Damani says:
Well, James……..
You have my email, so you can let me know what is going on.
Damani
Anon says:
Wow Tiffany, you are such a typical white-hating racist, desperate to find some way to heap blame on white people because you enjoy punishing us with guilt. James has been more than generous in entertaining your ridiculous arguments and not calling them for what they are – rantings of a racist.
Believe me, I know people like you and I know it only takes a little prodding to get you out of your intellectual facade and launch you into a white-bashing rant. Don't deny you've done this a lot. You know it and I know it. Your type are being seen for what they are more and more by white people and we are becoming less and less affected by your guilt tactics. You want us and our children either dead or as slaves. That is your end game. Believe me, no one can wage war like whites. We will NEVER let you accomplish your sick and evil goal.
To address your racial score card (which is what this boils down to): Like a typical racist, you deliberately leave out some important FACTS. 1) your people were selling your people into slavery (much of it brutal chattel slavery -over 11 million known) to the muslim north. If you think it didn't have a racial component you're on crack. See http://www.brandeis.edu/projects/fse/Pages/chatte… as just one example of the evidence. AND IT'S STILL GOING ON. We didn't teach ARABS to HATE BLACKS. Give me an f-ing break. 2)if you respond "well, blacks were part of the muslim north, so there wasn't a racial component", then your people are responsible for the forcible enslavement of over a million whites (not purchased – CAPTURED). See: http://elliotlakenews.wordpress.com/2007/09/10/un…. 3) Jim Crow? – yeah I'll put my well over 100K whites murdered by blacks since we even started recording this data up against whatever # you can come up with (remember only ~3500 blacks were lynched over the entire period since the civil war and only 25% were innocent of any crime. See http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/shi…. 4) your standard of living as a direct result of our technology (remember, don't claim Ancient Egypt unless you want to claim the Moorish slave trade). And on and on…..
If you want to get intellectually tooled some more you RACIST PUNK, please respond. Ding Ding, school's out —ch.
James says:
Anon, I try very hard not to censor anyone who comments on this blog (aside from certain obvious words, which I always indicate have been censored). However, I find the tone of your comments to Tiffany to be very troubling, so instead of censoring remarks like these, I simply want to speak to them.
I don't believe that Tiffany is speaking in a racist manner at all. For instance, you suggest that she's heaping blame and guilt on white people for the transatlantic slave trade, yet she specifically says that this shouldn't be about blame, but about addressing how privilege and disadvantage play out today as a result of this history.
I can't imagine you have any basis at all for most of the other things you say about Tiffany, since I can't see how they come out of what she's said, and you seem to admit that you're reading between the lines on the basis of thinking you know Tiffany's "type."
As to your facts:
Tiffany says she believes high school students routinely learn that Africans played a key role in the transatlantic slave trade. So you have no reason to suspect that she would deny the African role in the trans-Saharan slave trade or that it had a racial component, either.
There was certainly a white trade in Muslim lands, but it did not particularly involve black Africans. And far more white people were traded as slaves by European Christians than by Muslim traders.
Your figure about blacks murdering whites are utter nonsense, and do nothing to address the long, terrible history of Jim Crow and related brutality and discrimination, which have powerful echoes to this day.