Ignorant or Unwilling To Accept The Truth?

H

Hero

Scooby
Joined
Oct 18, 2003
Messages
2,880
Yes, I know you people are probably bursting with joy right now because I'm posting something again. Alas, I'm just dropping in to hear some opinions from, hopefully, the more adult members on the board. After the conversation is over with, I'll disappear once again. Tho, I do have to say it's nice to see all of you are still posting.

Here's my problem...

I was talking to an African American friend of mine over the computer. We were talking about random topics and somehow we got onto the subject of religion. I said I don't believe in anything really to which he responded that he once believed in something, but not anymore. When I asked him to explain he gave me, "because during slavery, the white man imposed Christianity on the slaves and I refuse to believe in something that was forced upon me without question." I politely asked him to rephrase what he was saying because I feel when you group "the white man" into one category you're talking about EVERYONE. Personally, I love everyone until given a reason not too as does my family.

Well, he was not happy that I would deny such a statement and we got into a full blown arguement over the issue. He said that every American or European white person is to blame for slavery. I was very angry saying that my family didn't come to America until the late 1800s and had nothing to do with slavery. In the present, I have a few African family members so that made no sense to me what so ever.

I started debate whether or not it's right to group all people into one category. I used the example that in certain areas African people are usually associated with violence because of the few that ruin it for everyone else. Do I group all African people into a violent category? Of course not, because I know not everyone acts that way. I didn't understand how someone claiming to be persecuted by white people can group all people into one stereotype because isn't that in fact being prejudice?

I did try to look at the subject from his point of view. It's this new thing I'm doing a lot more as I grow up and enter college. I kind of realize what he means and I can best describe it with the example of the Holocaust. Millions of people knew exactly what was happening there, but did nothing to stop it. Everyone in the world during the time of slavery knew about it, but not many spoke up and said it was wrong until much later on. At the same time, it's not right to blame only white people when in reality it was the WORLD doing nothing about slavery. Although, back then world issues weren't easily talked about as they are today.

So, I want your opinion. Who do you think was right in the arguement. Was I being unwilling to accept the truth, or was he just being ignorant and trying to blame others for his 'problems.'
 
Just like a big part of the world was nationalist at the time of the Holocaust – that doesn't imo mean they all participated. Even though, I agree that the way the world looked at that point had a lot to do with it.

Anyways, I don't know if you want my opinion, since I'm just a kid.

To me, society and the world are nearly always somewhat behind these things – just like you can't blame [only] Hitler for the Holocaust. If I voted for Hitler I'd feel kinda guilty – but how could I possibly be responsible for something that happened before I was born? You say that your family didn't come to America until the late 1800s, what's that got to do with it? Would you be responsible for something you father or grandmother did?

I know a lot of people think like that, but to me that's pretty much insane troll logic.

I have had this discussion with people who make the argument that I am hypocritical because I will group together "Sverigedemokrater" and dislike them all – without personally knowing them – just 'cause some of them do stupid things. Now, Sverigedemokraterna is a nationalist and racist political party, which sort of means by default they all share the racist views – which imo gives me a reason to assume they're all racists, which gives me a pretty big reason to dislike them, based on their opinions. Which I think makes sense – and is not the same thing as grouping people together 'cause of ethnicity. (But then again, if I was here saying I hate all people who believe homosexuality is wrong 'cause religion tells them so, that'd way more wrong of me, according to most people..)
 
Actually, he is incorrect in lumping all white people into the category as 'evil slave people'.

In truth, if you understand history, you'll see that African Americans were selling their own people into slavery. The higher class was controlling the slave class, and selling them to the 'white folk'.

If someone doesn't want to believe in something because they feel it was forced upon them, that's fine. Everyone has a right to their own beliefs. But those who go around accusing entire groups of people for acts is just plain ridiculous. With his theory, I could accuse the black race of drug use/violence/sexual assualt because of their music. But then I think about it and realize that now all of those performers create such awful pieces, and the statement does not stand.

Or I could accuse all Germans of being Nazi, even though they were not.

I believe that in these types of arguments, there is fault on both sides. Each side is willing to attack each other forcefully without gaining the full information required to debate such a topic.

And dealing with the commets about the world not stopping those things that are considered 'bad': take a look around. That's how the world works. That's history, and how we learn from it. There are still things going on currently that are bad, that we have no control over. The world doesn't care that in certain areas there is poverty so bad that it can probably never be fixed. The world doesn't care that gang violence takes innocent lives. The world doesn't care that there are countries where women are degraded and treated like animals. The world is too busy caring about what is happening in their own backyards to care about other countries.
 
Hero said:
Everyone in the world during the time of slavery knew about it...
Click to expand...

Wrong.

----------

I, on a general level, agree with you. Someone shouldn't group an entire race into a "you did this, you did that" type of debate. You can't blame every white person for slavery, you can't blame every german for the Holocaust, you can't blame every catholic priest for hurting children, and you can't blame every jew for the crucifixion of Jesus.

I think in today's American society, middle income white men are discriminated against the most. They are not poor enough, they are not rich enough, they are white, and they're male. They have nothing society feels sorry for. They tend to have to work the hardest to get anywhere because they have to do it entirely on their own.
 
Yes he was blaming everyone, and he had no right.

I want to bring this to everyone...if you want to know more about slavery and what America did to change it, I suggest everyone watch:

NORTH & SOUTH.

It is a brilliant miniseries. It's all about slavery and the war. You really don't want to miss it. If you are with netflix or bb online you can rent it thru them. It is about 24 hours long but if you pace yourself you will do just fine. It is very very much worth the watching. It will clear up a lot for everyone.
If and when you get finished with it, you can watch Love and War, which is kind of like a sequal. I have not gotten to it just yet because I am still on 'book' 2 of North and South. They are not books, just devided into 'books' because it is telling a story. It is all dvd.
Ok, hope that helps with some things.
 
North and South was an excellent series!

I also think your friend is wrong, you can't blame white people for what a minority did and anyway what N&S also dipictied was that you were bought up in an inviroment that thought it ok to have black slaves so it was part of how society thought,that was one reason why part of the world did nothing, but you forget people did do something the North fought the south over the issue and a white person fought to free Blacks from slavery see the film based on it, i think he was called William Wilberforce, and yes it is true that the African Chiefs sold off their people as slaves just that some people are not willing to admit it.
 
One time I tried explaining to a couple of black kids at school that white people did not go into Africa killing people and kidnapping others to use for slaves, rather, that their own people were selling them to white traders. Of course, they didn't believe me, despite the fact that you can find that information in a lot of history books.

I feared for my life that day. 🙂
 
People believe pretty much what they want to believe, and there is no topic that that's more true of than slavery. Unless, of course, it's the American Civil War in general...

It doesn't help that all those "inconvenient truths" are being purged from classrooms and documentaries, because a large number of people see them as "making excuses for slavery." Funny, I always thought it was just "looking at history from all sides in order to learn what actually happened."
 
R
Randy Giles
[No message]
It wouldn't be considered history of the United States. It would be from the Eurpoean counties where the slaves were coming from.

It is true though, that a lot of truths about our history is not correctly taught in schools in America. As a teacher, part of our curriculum in college is studying some of the truths that are stripped from the public school system's curriculum. It's kinda sad, that we have to do that. Eventually everyone is going to be so naive and dumb that our lives will be meaningless.
 
Lol, ya really eh!

Slaves were sold/bought. That's how it worked. Some slaves were born into it. And not just because slaves coupled with slaves, but because white men would have s** with a slave and she would get pregnant. Of course they wouldn't admit to it, and that child would be born into slavery. Something very interesting also from that series north and south, one of the women had an african american grandmother. And if anyone found out, she would probably be killed, or even forced into slavery herself. Who knows.
It's all very informative. I am learning so much more than I knew before.

I also have to say...that the South did a hell of a job fighting off the North. I don't really know if the North would have won if they didn't stop sending food/goods to the south. The south was starving, they just couldn't win. Amazing to think what would have happened if the South didn't need the North like they did. well, the South would have become a seperate Country. Jee, so much what if's ya know?!!
 
Randy Giles said:
On Wikipedia's page regarding slavery, I couldn't find any mention about how slaves were being sold into slavery by their own people:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_United_States

What's the point of hiding this information? What cause does it serve? What's done is done. That was in the past.
Click to expand...

Yeah I just checked out a few articles about slavery at Wikipedia, and you're right. They really aren't what you'd call an objective reporting of history are they? Even that guy though has to eventually let the words slip out off his keyboard -

Europeans usually bought slaves who were captured in wars between African kingdoms and chiefdoms, or from Africans who had made a business out of capturing Africans and selling them.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade#_note-0

He then goes on to try to excuse the statement away, but ultimately it's an undeniable truth. Wikipedia quotes should come with a disclaimer like, "this is just wikipedia but..."
 
Regarding the North vs. South, does anyone think slavery would have ended up dying out naturally even if a war hadn't broken out over it? I certainly think it would have.

As horrible as I believe slavery to be, I wonder if there could have been a better way for the country to end it in the South. I don't read up a lot about economics and regional history and stuff but wasn't the Civil War the blow that brought down the South so badly? Back in the 1800s the South was very rich, wasn't it? If it hadn't been for the war would this area be wealthy today? I wonder.
 
Well yes it would. The north burned the South to the ground. That caused the south to rebuild. They had to start from scratch. Lost a lot of money. And there are no real landmarks either. Not like you see in other states to the north, west etc.
So, yes 🙂 they would have been doing very super well.
 
From what I understand all muslim people are responsible for all the violence and terror in the world.

We cant be judged by what our ancestors did. And of course no one spoke out about slavery during that time. It was a perfectly acceptable thing, albeit being very wrong. Times change and so do people. How about lets focus on making the world a better place, instead of arguing over whats already happened.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom