Been preaching the exact same thing out here,
CACS hated eachother and unified under the flag of “whiteness”.
They haven’t looked back since
I guess the next question is, if we see how they moving what is going to be are reaction
This circles back to what I initially said
anyone who read european history should be able to see this.
That depends on us. Either we unify or we die.
They were the most important factor the shyt wouldn't have worked without them.Wtf does that have to do with my point? I never denied that slavery was bad. My point was about the main actors, and when it comes to that, mixed people weren't really a big factor.
I know about this. I love throwing these facts at a bedwench's/die-vestor's face when tey say that it was only black men that were selling slaves.I'm posting this because I breh wanted to know who were the Black people involved in the Altlantic Slave trade if was a combination of cacs and their Black wives and their children.
the enslavers made a buffer class of confused negroes.
They were called different names by different europeans but they all did the same thing>
The french called them Signare
The portuguese called the Nhara
I call them sellouts
Signares were black and mulatto Senegalease women who have an influence via their marriage with European men and their patrimony. These women of color managed to gain some individual assets, status, and power in the hierarchies of the Atlantic slave trade.[1]
There was a Portuguese equivalent, referred to as Nhara, a name for Luso-African businesswomen who played an important part as business agents through their connections with both Portuguese and African populations.[2] There was also an English language equivalent of women of mixed African and British or American descent with the same position, such as Betsy Heard, Mary Faber, and Elizabeth Frazer Skelton.
Signare - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Just making this thread to highlight the complicity of all people in the slave trade but I still can't find that traitoress bedwench who came to america to observe Black people in chains while she keekkee/ed with the crackers.
At the bolded part - They never do that. They can't seem to grasp that Pan-Continentalism/Racial ideology is BS that can never hold up.This makes zero sense, unless you tend to romanticize/or try to turn everything into an epic story due to Hollywood influence.
Do some of you struggle with looking at the bigger picture when analyzing history? It seems like you tend to focus on outcasts and try to portray them as the norm, in order to avoid dealing with reality. These mixed people lived under native rule and laws. And they weren't the biggest traders. You guys just want to focus on them because they were mixed. There weren't enough mixed people. There weren't enough non-black people. The ratio difference was disproportionately high.
The wealthier states(the ones that depended on slavery and the ones that didn't depend on slavery) were ruled by native rulers, with native commanders, governors, administrators etc. Until late 19th century and early 20th century, the control was in the hands of former African states ruled by native leaders.
I would just like to see if you apply the same logic as far as everything and every other group...
1 - So, around 10 million enslaved people were sold to the Americas by some former African states, and this happened over more than 400 years(4 centuries). And around the same number of Chinese were killed by Japanese in 10 years, in mid-20th century alone. Do you see this as Japanese killing their own Asian brothers and sisters or you see Japanese as an individual ethnic group, with their own interests and Han Chinese also as an individual ethnic group? Like, do you see the massacres, raping and killings the Japanese committed against Koreans, Thai, Filipinos, Indonesians, Vietnamese as them killing their fellow brothers and sisters or to you, the brothers and sisters of Japanese are only other Japanese?
"When Japan was finally defeated in 1945, China was on the winning side, but lay devastated, having suffered some 15 million deaths, massive destruction of industrial infrastructure and agricultural production, and the shattering of the tentative modernization begun by the Nationalist government."
China's War with Japan
www.history.ox.ac.uk
PS1: This study puts the numbers at 15 million but, from what I have seen, most studies put the numbers at 10 million. And this is only Japan against China, it doesn't include Japan's massacres against other Asian countries.
2 - Around 80 million Europeans were killed in 30 years, during world wars 1 and 2...And in many cases, Europeans were assembling soldiers of non-European background(from India, Africa, Middle East etc) to help them kill, rape and massacre their opposition in these wars. The opposition were just Europeans. So, do you also see world wars as Europeans killing, raping and massacring their fellow European brothers and sisters, or you properly separate by ethnic groups, ideologies etc?
PS2: I'm not attacking you, I just want to know if you apply the same simplification of events to everything and every other group. Or, if this is only applied to specific regions while for other regions you use a more complex analysis of historical events.
Let it be known, History is History and we have to be careful to not repeat it.
Which poster? What is the sister site?How was this posted on our sister site today as well…lol
This makes zero sense, unless you tend to romanticize/or try to turn everything into an epic story due to Hollywood influence.
Do some of you struggle with looking at the bigger picture when analyzing history? It seems like you tend to focus on outcasts and try to portray them as the norm, in order to avoid dealing with reality. These mixed people lived under native rule and laws. And they weren't the biggest traders. You guys just want to focus on them because they were mixed. There weren't enough mixed people. There weren't enough non-black people. The ratio difference was disproportionately high.
The wealthier states(the ones that depended on slavery and the ones that didn't depend on slavery) were ruled by native rulers, with native commanders, governors, administrators etc. Until late 19th century and early 20th century, the control was in the hands of former African states ruled by native leaders.
I would just like to see if you apply the same logic as far as everything and every other group...
1 - So, around 10 million enslaved people were sold to the Americas by some former African states, and this happened over more than 400 years(4 centuries). And around the same number of Chinese were killed by Japanese in 10 years, in mid-20th century alone. Do you see this as Japanese killing their own Asian brothers and sisters or you see Japanese as an individual ethnic group, with their own interests and Han Chinese also as an individual ethnic group? Like, do you see the massacres, raping and killings the Japanese committed against Koreans, Thai, Filipinos, Indonesians, Vietnamese as them killing their fellow brothers and sisters or to you, the brothers and sisters of Japanese are only other Japanese?
"When Japan was finally defeated in 1945, China was on the winning side, but lay devastated, having suffered some 15 million deaths, massive destruction of industrial infrastructure and agricultural production, and the shattering of the tentative modernization begun by the Nationalist government."
China's War with Japan
PS1: This study puts the numbers at 15 million but, from what I have seen, most studies put the numbers at 10 million. And this is only Japan against China, it doesn't include Japan's massacres against other Asian countries.
2 - Around 80 million Europeans were killed in 30 years, during world wars 1 and 2...And in many cases, Europeans were assembling soldiers of non-European background(from India, Africa, Middle East etc) to help them kill, rape and massacre their opposition in these wars. The opposition were just Europeans. So, do you also see world wars as Europeans killing, raping and massacring their fellow European brothers and sisters, or you properly separate by ethnic groups, ideologies etc?
PS2: I'm not attacking you, I just want to know if you apply the same simplification of events to everything and every other group. Or, if this is only applied to specific regions while for other regions you use a more complex analysis of historical events.
