So @sccit is an open zionist on a black hip hop forum?

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

So first there was race based slavery and then there was white supremacy? Is that what you are claiming here?

There was no 'White race' prior to the 17th Century.......​

Can't have 'White Supremacy' without it.​

So Cotton Mather a white supremacist because he hate hated Catholics and the Pope as well. And most colonists did?

And yet another strawman. Bad one, too.​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

So the folk who controlled the WIC and VOC weren't investors? The C stands for Company.

Can't 'control' a company when the amount of stock you own in it is 12% or less. You'd need at least 50%.​

 

[Ish Gibor]

There was no 'White race' prior to the 17th Century.......​

Can't have 'White Supremacy' without it.​

And yet another strawman. Bad one, too.​

The concept of the "white race" as a biological concept started there, but the ideology already existed. You have difficulty comprehending things.

Debunk part 1.

"This letter illustrates how Elizabeth I attempted to divert attention from social problems by blaming Black people. It was sent to the lord mayor and aldermen of London and to mayors and sheriffs throughout the country.

The queen asserts that England has a growing population of its own and does not need the 'divers blackmoores brought into this realme'. This was followed by a declaration that 10 Black people would be deported. This was only the opening salvo in Elizabeth's campaign to remove 'blackmoores' from England."

PC 2/21, f 304 (11 July 1596)

Black Scapegoats

"But while Elizabeth may have enjoyed being entertained by Black people, in the 1590s she also issued proclamations against them. In 1596 she wrote to the lord mayors of major cities noting that there were 'of late divers blackmoores brought into this realm, of which kind of people there are already here to manie...'. She ordered that 'those kinde of people should be sente forth of the land'.

Elizabeth made an arrangement for a merchant, Casper van Senden, to deport Black people from England in 1596. The aim seems to have been to exchange them for (or perhaps to sell them to obtain funds to buy) English prisoners held by England’s Catholic enemies Spain and Portugal."

[…]

'Those kinde of people may be well spared'

"A week after authorising the deportation of 10 Blackmoores, Elizabeth sent an open letter to various public officials, including the lord mayor of London, requiring their co-operation in the deportation of sufficient numbers of Blackamoores to defray the costs incurred by the merchant, Casper van Senden, in returning English prisoners from Spain and Portugal.

No one could be taken without the consent of his or her master. Elizabeth did not offer any compensation, expecting they would 'like Christians rather to be served by their owne countrymen then with those kynde of people'."

PC 2/21, f. 306 (18 July 1596)

No doubt van Senden intended to sell these people. But this was not to be, because masters of Black workers - who had not been offered compensation - refused to let them go. In 1601, Elizabeth issued a further proclamation expressing her 'discontentment by the numbers of blackamores which are crept into this realm...' and again licensing van Senden to deport Black people. It is doubtful whether this second proclamation was any more successful than the first.

Why this sudden, urgent desire to expel members of England's Black population? It was more than a commercial transaction pursued by the queen. In the 16th century, the ruling classes became increasingly concerned about poverty and vagrancy, as the feudal system - which, in theory, had kept everyone in their place - finally broke down. They feared disorder and social breakdown and, blaming the poor, brought in poor laws to try to deal with the problem.

In the 1590s the harvests repeatedly failed, bringing hunger, disease and a rapid increase in poverty and vagrancy. Elizabeth's orders against Black people were an attempt to blame them for wider social problems. Her proclamation of 1601 claimed that Black people were 'fostered and relieved here to the great annoyance of [the queen's] own liege people, that want the relief, which those people consume'. The proclamation also stated that 'most of them are infidels, having no understanding of Christ or his Gospel'.

It may be the case that many (although by no means all) Black people were Muslims (of North African origin). If so, it seems that the queen was playing on their difference from Protestant England to assert that they were not welcome. Whether they were actually more likely to be in poverty than Whites is much more doubtful. What is clear is that they were being used as a convenient scapegoat at a time of crisis.
Nationalarchives.gov.uk| Black presence | Early times

There were hundreds of Africans in Tudor England – and none of them slaves: Black Tudors, Miranda Kaufmann, review


Günther Zainer, Augsburg, 1472), illustrating the first page of chapter XIV of the Etymologiae of Isidore of Seville

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Is one jewish by fait or by genetic gene pool?

Practice.​

 

[Ish Gibor]

There was no 'White race' prior to the 17th Century.......​

Can't have 'White Supremacy' without it.​

And yet another strawman. Bad one, too.​

Debunk part 2.

Whether or not the rabbinic tradition of Canaanite emigration was misunder- stood, there is good reason to think that the Zanj and Kushytes were believed to be descended from the Canaanites. In Islamic sources Canaan is commonly named as the ancestor of various black African peoples. Wahb ibn Munabbih (d. 730) says that the black African Nubians, Zanj, and Zaghawa descend from Canaan, and that “the descendants of Kush and Canaan are the races of the Sūdaˉn: the Nūba, the Zanj, the Qazaˉn, the Zaghaˉwa, the Habasha, the Qibţ and the Barbar.” . Ibn ʿAbd al-Hakam (9th century) states that Canaan is the father of the Blacks . (sūdaˉn) and the Abyssinians. Yaʿqūbī (d. 897): “The posterity of Kush ben Ham and Canaan ben Ham are the Nuba, the Zanj, and the Habasha.” Maqdisī (10th . century) says that Canaan is the father of, among several African peoples, “the Sūdaˉn [and] the Nūba.” The Akhbaˉr al-zamaˉn (10th or 11th century):

“Among the children of Canaan are the Nabīt, Nabīt signifies ‘black’.... Among the children .. of Sūdaˉn, son of Canaan, are ... the Zanj.” The Book of the Zanj states that the Nūba, the Habash, and the Zanj are the descendants of Canaan.

Other Muslim sources relate Canaan specifically to Kush either as father and son or son and father. So Maqrīzī (d. 1442): “The Nubians are descended from Nuba son of Kush son of Canaan son of Ham.” Tabarī quotes Ibn Masʿūd (10th century) and “some of the companions of the Prophet” to say that Canaan was the son of Kush. Tabarī himself says several times that Kush was the son of Canaan as . does Ibn Saʿd (d. 845) and Qazwīnī (d. 1283). Masʿūdī (d. 956) refers to Kush as the son of Canaan, or as the great-grandfather of Canaan. Kaʿb al-Ahbar (a Jewish . convert to Islam, d. ca. 652) has Canaan as the son of Kush, as also Dimashqī (d. 1327). Ibn Hawqal (10th century) makes Nimrod, the biblical son of Kush, a son of Canaan.
[…]
The tradition, then, that black Africans were directly related to, and more specifically descendants of, Canaan was very well established in the Muslim world.
[...]
Canaan was very well established in the Muslim world. It is not, therefore, surprising that Halakhot Pesukot and Halakhot Gedolot, authored within that world, reflect this view by listing the Zanj with the Canaanite peoples. Their grouping together of the Zanj with the Canaanites is not due merely to a taxonomic classification of prohibited marriages but reflects a perceived genealogical relationship. Maimonides did not group Kushytes with Canaanites but his reason for permitting marriage with the Kushytes—because “Sennacherib had commingled all peoples”—implies a belief that the Kushytes descended from peoples who were biblically prohibited. Since there was such a belief in the surrounding Muslim world, i.e. that the Kushytes descended from the prohibited Canaanites, Maimonides’ reference to the Kushytes apparently reflects, and counters, that belief. But, as opposed to the Halakhot, by grouping the Kushytes with other peoples (Edomites, Egyptians, Ammonites, and Moabites) Maimonides did not mean to imply a genealogical relationship with them any more than he wished to imply a genealogical relationship between them and “any other nation,” who are also grouped with these four peoples. The placement of the law regarding the Kushytes within the organization of chapter 12 of Mishneh Torah, ‘Issure biʾah is based on other than genealogical principles.
[…]
While these h . adiths are spuriously attributed to Muh . ammad, they do reflect the attitudes of the time they were written, as does Masʿūdī’s (10th century) stricture “Do not intermarry with the sons of Ham.” Particularly relevant, because of the time and place of its author, is Jah . iz . of Basra’s (d. 868/9) argument against the prevailing custom ˉ of not marrying Black women. 66 No doubt, racist sentiment existed among the Jews just as among the Muslims. It is true that there are a number of references, some certain and some speculative, to the acceptance of black African converts to Judaism (not necessarily from slave manumissions) before, during, and after this period.
[…]
To return then to the question posed at the beginning of this article, the rejected prohibition of marriage with the black African Zanj, as reflected in Halakhot Gedolot and Halakhot Pesukot and the similar rejected prohibition of marriage with Kushytes in Mishneh Torah, may be the result of both the belief that black Africans descended from the Canaanites, and the suspicion that the Black may be, or may be descended from, an unemancipated slave.

(David M. Goldenberg - It Is Permitted to Marry a Kushyte)

 

[Ish Gibor]

Can't 'control' a company when the amount of stock you own in it is 12% or less. You'd need at least 50%.​

Indeed, so give the names of those who controlled the WIC and VOC.

 

[Ish Gibor]

Practice.​

Isn't that anti-Semitic rhetoric?

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

The concept of the "white race" as a biological concept started there

100 years AFTER the slave trade started.​

 

[Ish Gibor]

100 years AFTER the slave trade started.​

But white supremacy as a concept already existed. And the ideology came from the Hamitic ideology. Also known as anti-Blackness.

The debunk part 3.

"In 1454, another bull titled Romanus Pontifex furthered that thinking, sanctifying the seizure of non-Christian lands in parts of Africa and restating the legitimacy of enslaving non-Christian people."
Papal Bull Dum Diversas 18 June, 1452

Pope Nicolas V and the Portuguese Slave Trade · African Laborers for a New Empire: Iberia, Slavery, and the Atlantic World


You are being schooled, nonstop. It's almost like mental child abuse.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

But white supremacy as a concept already existed. And the ideology came from the Hamitic ideology.

Nah. The idea of 'Whitemess' was around, but the actual philosophy/practice of a 'White Race' and 'White Supremacy' was a result of the unique conditions during the Enlightenment and slavery in colonial America, had nothing to do with Hamitic Doctrine.....​

​

 

[Ish Gibor]

Nah. The idea was around, but the actual philosophy/practice was a result of the unique conditions during the Enlightenment and slavery in colonial America, had nothing to do with Hamitic Doctrine.....​

​

You are telling things we already know.

The idea didn't arise in England. England was the resurgence of what was going on in the Iberia where they started to call these people negro, And prior to that in it was in Islam, centuries before, as I have shown.

The awareness of the biological affinities emerged in the 13 colonies when Black (Africans) breeded with whites (Europeans), that is where they noticed the dominant vs recessive traits (in colonial Virginia). And that is how Blumenbach, Mendel etc. started to observe these inheritance. That is how the enslavement of Africans started in the 13 colonies. The book "The Invention of the White Race" explains this. The observation had everything to do with the Hamitic doctrine. That is why they enslaved a certain group of people that they categorized as the cursed people of Ham, negroe. This justified the enslavement, dehumanization and racist mistreatment like the Jim Crow laws. It all comes from that thinking. This bring us to todays racism such as racial wealth gap, the school funding wealth gap between Black and White schools, mass incarceration of Black males, false accusations, arrest and imprisonments etc..

See, you want to be right so badly, but don't know half of the story. You're just throwing shyt against the wall and hoping it will stick, that's all.

I have posted Prof. Dr. Nell Irvin earlier on. You obviously ignored it, because that is what you do.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

You are telling things we already know

'Hamitic Doctrine' played no part in the creation of the 'White Race' and 'racism' is the result of slavery in colonial/antebellum America.

Also, the Hamitic Doctrine was totally discredited by science.​

 

[Ish Gibor]

'Hamitic Doctrine' played no part in the creation of the 'White Race' and 'racism' is the result of slavery in colonial/antebellum America.​

Yes it did, otherwise they would not have enslaved one group of people solely (known as the Black African, negro). It's not that complicated to understand. Whites like the Irish became overseers. White received benefits like the Homestead Act, Headright system etc.

Although they clash with modern perceptions of civil and human rights, proponents of nineteenth-century Catholic views on race and slavery grounded racist arguments in Biblical passages, pronouncements of various Church councils, the writings of various Church fathers, including Ignatius of Antioch, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and a number of Papal statements, including Pope Paul III's Sublimis Deus (1537) and Gregrogy XVI's In Supremo (1839).

Whites and Blacks in the Antebellum Catholic Church · African-American Catholics · American Catholic History Classroom

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Yes it did, otherwise they would not have enslaved one group of people solely.

They enslaved many groups, not just Africans and they did it because they weren't protected by European laws......

NPR Choice page
​

.......from the time Christopher Columbus arrived in the New World until the year 1900, there were as many as five million Native people enslaved in America.

 

[Ish Gibor]

They enslaved many groups, not just Africans and they did it because they weren't protected by European laws......

NPR Choice page
​

​

LOL ad the adherence above. You don't even understand the timing of these events.

For example, Sir John Hawkins, the first slave-ship captain to bring African slaves to the Americas, was a religious man who insisted that his crew “serve God daily” and “love one another.” His ship, ironically called “The Good Ship Jesus,” left the shores of his native England for Africa in October 1562.
[...]
Many European ‘Christian’ slavers perceived the Africans they encountered as irreligious and uncivilized persons. They justified slavery by rationalizing that they were Christianizing and civilizing their African captors. They were driven by missionary motives and impulses,” Chism said.

Further, many Anglo-Christians defended slavery using the Bible. For example, white Christian apologists for slavery argued that the curse of Ham in Genesis Chapter 9 and verses 20 to 25 provided a biblical rationale for the enslavement of Blacks, Chism said.

The Major Role The Catholic Church Played in Slavery

How old is prejudice against black people? Were the racist attitudes that fueled the Atlantic slave trade firmly in place 700 years before the European discovery of sub-Saharan Africa? In this groundbreaking book, David Goldenberg seeks to discover how dark-skinned peoples, especially black Africans, were portrayed in the Bible and by those who interpreted the Bible — Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Unprecedented in rigor and breadth, his investigation covers a 1,500-year period, from ancient Israel (around 800 B.C.E.) to the eighth century C.E., after the birth of Islam. By tracing the development of anti-Black sentiment during this time, Goldenberg uncovers views about race, color, and slavery that took shape over the centuries — most centrally, the belief that the biblical Ham and his descendants, the black Africans, had been cursed by God with eternal slavery.

Goldenberg begins by examining a host of references to black Africans in biblical and postbiblical Jewish literature. From there he moves the inquiry from Black as an ethnic group to black as color, and early Jewish attitudes toward dark skin color. He goes on to ask when the black African first became identified as slave in the Near East, and, in a powerful culmination, discusses the resounding influence of this identification on Jewish, Christian, and Islamic thinking, noting each tradition’s exegetical treatment of pertinent biblical passages.

(David Goldenberg, The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam)