Whites freed Blacks from slavery
>Blacks enslave Blacks (in Africa)
>Whites free Blacks (both in America and in Africa)
>Whites have to feel guilty about slavery
Plenty of whites fought to keep slavery going in the usa
shareCompared to What. Name me an ethnic group that did not have slavery.
shareBesides the point, your OP tries to generalize as if all whites decided to free blacks from slavery when there were whites who fought to keep slavery going and there were also blacks who fought alongside whites against these people.
shareThat does not change the fact that there were whites that did in fact want to keep slavery going.
shareAnd that does not change the fact that
>Blacks enslave Blacks (in Africa)
>Whites free Blacks (both in America and in Africa)
>Whites have to feel guilty about slavery
Nope therefore deflecting to those things is useless and irrelevant. Owning slaves is wrong period. No amount of deflecting to any of that will downplay that.
shareIt's quite simple, Britain (99% white at the time) led the way in ending slavery worldwide. The fact some blacks assisted in that monumental and noble task is the only thing that is irrelevant here. If it wasn't for white people slavery would likely still exist all over the globe. You're welcome!
shareBlacks assisting in that task is anything but irrelevant. Had Emitt Till's mom not showcased her sons body for the world to see the civil rights movement would not have happened. Had Rosa Parks not done her actions change would not have occurred. Not everything positive for blacks was done by whites. No one is saying whites did not have a huge hand in ending slavery. However to credit them and deny the black people's actions is dishonest and you know it. That would be like me denying whites did anything good for blacks which you do not see me doing.
shareWithout white people ending slavery the civil rights movement would've been non existent and Emitt Till's family and Rosa Parks would've still been in chains and unable to partake in the civil rights movement in the first place. You're welcome!
shareSo then his mom deserves no credit then just because of this? She is black and had an impact on American society. You going to give credit where it is due or do only white people deserve credit for things? Plenty of blacks who were slaves invented things people still utilize to this day. You going to give credit for that? Or was that only because of white people also?
shareAre we talking about slavery or are we talking about the civil rights movement? They are not interchangeable.
shareWe are talking about giving credit where it is due. Blacks did have a hand in ending slavery. You do not get to omit that. You just downplayed the civil rights movement also. First you downplayed blacks playing a hand in helping end slavery then you undercut the civil rights movement. You credited all of it including the civil rights movement to white people.
shareI credit white people with starting the worldwide movement to end slavery. Do you think if slavery was still legal in the US that the civil rights movement would have been a thing?
The only downplaying here is people like you downplaying white peoples involvement in ending slavery worldwide. You are happy to browbeat like I said. You only use slavery to browbeat white people.
Irrelevant to the point. So because of this does that downplay what Emmit Till's mom did? Yes or no? You did credit whites for doing that but you then downplayed Emmit Till's mom's accomplishment because of this fact. Don't you think that is a little disingenuous?
shareIrrelevant to the overall conversation which is NOT about the civil rights movement. GTFO
shareNope it is completely relevant to the discussion. Where did I deny white people having a hand in ending slavery? Show where I said that. I will wait.
shareAnd still not a single mention of those who captured and sold slaves, very even handed condemnation there.
Take your concern trolling elsewhere, maybe comeback after you've told some black people off for selling slaves.
Without people of any color working their asses off to keep slavery legal, no one would have had to work to free the slaves.
Which side would you have been on in the 1800's? Keeping slavery legal or freeing the slaves? What options, did a black woman like you, have back then when working for emancipation?
Without people of colour selling slaves there would be no slaves to purchase sweety :)
shareYou actually believe that if black people did not capture and sell slaves then no one of any other color would step in to fill the void?
Go be stupid somewhere else.
Right?! What a dumb ass. Trying to make it seem like the reason that white people have slaves is because they were forced to buy them by blacks lol.
shareYeah. It's like they think everyone reading their posts are complete idiots. :)
shareOr going to agree with their dumb racist asses. . .
shareRight?! What a dumb ass. Trying to make it seem like the reason that white people have slaves is because they were forced to buy them by blacks lol.
I declare RockAway victorious in his battle against the strawman!
Strawman 0 - 1 RockAway share
That's a heaping helping of hyperbole.
shareRubbish. Civil rights had nothing to do with Rosa Parks nor MLK. These people are just figure heads. Civil rights happened because Whites were altruistic enough to give them to Blacks even though they did not owe them. Had it not been for liberal Whites in the media and universities, who wanted social change Rosa Parks and MLK would have been nobodies.
shareWrong they were huge contributors to that movement. You denying that is blatant deceit and bigotry. Get educated you foolish bigot.
shareThey were activists who got chosen to be martyrs by the institutions who wanted change. You could say activists contribute to the movement, but they're not the ones who ultimately foster change. This is up to institutions like the media. FBI had files on King which could have ruined him, but the media chose not to attack him because they agreed with his message and wanted social change.Civil rights is at the end of the day something Whites gave to Blacks. Had Whites not wanted them, it would not have happened.
shareLol no. Keep deluding yourself though bud. Get back to 4chan where you belong.
shareOf course some blacks assisted. It's like saying "the slaves wanted to be free and stop being slave".
NO SHIT HOSE!!!
Yeah, so why don't you fly to Africa and tell this to those blacks that still enslave blacks???
shareYour deflection is dismissed.
shareThere is no deflection here.
This is the reality: there is still slavery in the world and the slave masters are NOT the whites in the west.
Let me repeat for the deaf people in the back: BLACKS STILL ENSLAVE PEOPLE. WHITES DON'T.
Gasps.
Might be a hard nut to swallow but I have faith in you.
The argument isn't in the context of weather or not Whites are perfect. Today Whites are the only group who are held responsible for slavery. The argument is weather or not Whites should have unique guilt for slavery whilst nobody else has. In this context, the fact Whites were the first to voluntarily end free another ethnic group from slavery and the first that came up with abolitionism is perfectly enough for them to not have unique guilt over slavery. Even if they weren't the first to free another people from slavery, the fact that almost everyone else had slavery is sufficient to absolve Whites from unique guilt.
shareOther blacks also sold them into slavery. It’s not just a white person problem.
shareThe rich owned slaves back in the 1800s. That was a very small percentage of the population, so to think a vast majority were fighting to keep slaves for a tiny minority is retarded. There were plenty of other things going on in the civil war, it wasn't just about freeing slaves if it was at all. Getting rid of slave labor would be in the interest of every single person who worked for a living, it's kind of hard to compete with free labor. Also, do you think a lot of the people who owned slaves were actually fighting in the war?
share