White Man: Why Are You Giving Away Your Country?

[TenEightyOne]

I didn't blame them, but surely if you're discriminated on the basis of race it might be a good idea to head to where you are more accepted. Jews have done this for millenia, and continue to do so to this day

You're comparing apples and oranges. The Jewish diaspora were largely overland (or across very short voyages) and were helped by communication and financial links with other "settlements". When you say

Why did so many African American former slaves choose to stay in America and not go to Liberia, or other African countries after being freed?

you seem to be ignoring that the slaves were often only nominally free, that they were unresourced, still required some kind of subsistence employment and had in many cases been completely deprived of any knowledge of their ancestors' history. Their situation in persecution differed completely and utterly from the situation in which Jewish communities normally found themselves on mainland Europe.

 

[Hun200kmh]

I can't believe I actually got suckered into arguing with a "go back to Africa" guy.

You got suckered into a thread based about white men giving up their countries, you should expect this.


I would suggest, just for the sake of leveled arguing, that you accept that the USA are a "de facto" conquest of the white people over the red skinned one. First blood (literally) for the whites.


Then you should argue that the same territory is now facing a demographic turn, where it seems unavoidable that black people and the people from central America (not sure what race is that, it's apparently the result of a curious mix betwwen natives and europeans, and the "white men from america" call them "hispanic") will become predominant over a given period of time (sooner or later, decades or centuries, whatever, but the outcome isn't to be doubted).

And here comes the inevitable conclusion. In this ongoing demographic race war, the white man will lose. Inevitably.

So, I suggest you come down of your righteous high horse of sensible debating and level down here with your debaters.

And suggest the white man should start thinking about a return to Europe, and start preparing to leave the overseas territory they took a couple hundred years ago. Because sooner or later the white man will feel "more accepted" over here. As the jews have done and still do, or some other interesting comparison.


Of course you could also debate with intelligence. But that's probably in another thread.

 

[KSaiyu]

You're comparing apples and oranges. The Jewish diaspora were largely overland (or across very short voyages) and were helped by communication and financial links with other "settlements".

you seem to be ignoring that the slaves were often only nominally free, that they were unresourced, still required some kind of subsistence employment and had in many cases been completely deprived of any knowledge of their ancestors' history. Their situation in persecution differed completely and utterly from the situation in which Jewish communities normally found themselves on mainland Europe.

You are suggesting that resources wouldn't have been made available if African-Americans expressed a overwhelming communal desire to return to Africa. I call bullocks.

Should there have been this racism centuries ago, no, but assuming African-Americans are a special case is insulting to the intelligence of Africans and people of their descent. You continue to treat them as if they are babies.

- South Asians were driven out of Africa the last century.
- Ditto white Zimbabweans in the latter half of the 20th century.

As it stands they were right to stay, as we saw the results of the efforts for change (civil rights movement). But these changes, like it or not were permanent because of white people.

A lot of this is (again) linked to political correctness, and how we can and can't talk about certain things. I remember a great eugenics documentary a few years ago on Channel 4 that claimed a certain race was more dominant than the others. It's title:

"Is it better to be mixed race?"

 

[Joel]

So by pointing out people who were literal slaves for decades didn't have the resources to return to Africa...he's treating them like babies?

Oh. Eugenics. Here we go.

 

[KSaiyu]

No, but the implication that the whites of America wouldn't have provided those resources is hopelessly flawed.

As for the eugenics part of the post - imagine if that title was anything other than my race. It would never make it close to a TV channel. Why can I say that I'm better, genetically than you but you can't say it back?

 

[Joel]

Sigh.

 

[KSaiyu]

Surely that's unfair. What did I do to deserve such privelige?

 

[Danoff]

Holy high-school-history-textbook Batman.

The civil war was about business, just like every other war throughout history. The 13th amendment and the subsequent changes to the conditions for acceptable slavery was a bi-product of the war, not its cause. That's right, you heard correct. The civil war did not abolish slavery, it simply changed the conditions under which it was acceptable. Go read the 13th amendment, find out for yourself what it says.

Then ask yourself, is there even the slightest possibility, that it might have something to do with the Prison Industrial Complex which we are now beginning to see.

That's awesome. Yup, the 13th amendment is definitely written to create slavery through the prison system. No question. That's not at all crazy to suggest.

You come across as being extremely entitled, claiming that you (you said "we", so that includes you) "freed slaves" and "elected a black presedent" is somehow doing favours for people of colour which they now owe you for.

Citation required.

You were the ones who enslaved them in the first place.

Citation required.

After the civil war, slavery was replaced with Jim Crow and share-cropping, which many historians agree envolved conditions worse than slavery.

Citation required.

Also, I love the notion that things must be fixed overnight.

The civil war also did nothing to abolish the institutionalized racism which still exists today.

Oh really? Citation required.

The slaughter of Native Americans continued well after the Civil war.

As did the slaughter of the white man, black man, and asians.

The mass exploitation of Asian immigrant workers happened long after the civil war (hell, you even screwed over "your own kind" when the Irish immigrated to North America).

Yea, the Asians are constantly clogging our homeless shelters and ghettos. It's a shame how our "exploitation" of them has resulted in their impoverishment.

Stop turning to government mandated history books as your only source of information.

You're talking to a libertarian.

 

[20832]

Guys, I think @Danoff requires citations

Yea, the Asians are constantly clogging our homeless shelters and ghettos. It's a shame how our "exploitation" of them has resulted in their impoverishment.

Yeah, but haven't the europeans done this for centuries during the colonialisation?

 

[TenEightyOne]

You are suggesting that resources wouldn't have been made available if African-Americans expressed a overwhelming communal desire to return to Africa. I call bullocks.

Should there have been this racism centuries ago, no, but assuming African-Americans are a special case is insulting to the intelligence of Africans and people of their descent. You continue to treat them as if they are babies.

Okay, so let's say that 50% of the slaves wish to return to Africa. Let's say that the voyage was a quarter of the price of the 1860 rate for a steerage-class voyage from New York to London. That voyage was 8 pounds, or £504 in today's money. So that's £125 per person for the voyage. 1.5 million slaves (edit: 2 million actually) are returning so that's about a billion pounds'-worth of travel. You really think that much transit occured even amongst the monied classes? How many slaves do you think had access to £125, or 12% of the American average middle-class annual income in 1860?

You also have to presume that the slaves knew where they were going to go, that landing in Africa automatically puts you near home if you're of African heritage, that the "former" owners would allow their cheap "free" labour to leave, that enough merchants would agree to carry them (some would probably kill them at sea and return for another load), and that the free-men could establish strong enough communication links to actually organise a new exodus.

The most worrying part is when you say "back to Africa" as if that's where they were from. That's like the racist idiots who see a fourth-generation British Pakistani and say "go back to your own country"... many of these slaves were American as defined by the Constitution.

The only reason that Back To Africa worked in any part was because of the strong efforts of white Christians and, arguably, their own motive was a missionary-and-cultural one rather than a simple altruistic wish to see the slaves resettled in Africa on their own terms. Moving 19,000 of them was utterly remarkable, no mistake... but if you think much more than that was possible (regardless of the will of the newly-free cohort) then you're in fantasy-land.

 

[phillgt2002]

I think the Natives would have something to say.

It's either this man took American history classes and didn't understand, or he hasn't taken any at all.

 

[Tornado]

return to Africa.

Since the external slave trade was illegal and actively fought against by the United States and Great Britain after 1807 (with the implicit acknowledgment that the US would be perfectly allowed to continue its own internal slave trade), what percentage of the four million African Americans living in the United States in 1860 do you think actually came from Africa?

No, but the implication that the whites of America wouldn't have provided those resources is hopelessly flawed.

If by "hopelessly flawed" you mean "what actually happened for the hundred years or so that the ACS actively tried to send black people to Africa," sure. The only time they were able to get anything remotely resembling public support was in the run up to, and the immediate aftermath of, the Civil War.


In fact, this right here:

but surely if you're discriminated on the basis of race it might be a good idea to head to where you are more accepted.

Is such a laughable whitewashing of the motives behind the movement that it makes me think you should look it up. How many people in the movement, especially as the 1800s wore on and slavery became more and more of an obvious boiling point than it already was, do you really think were that altruistic in their goals? How many of the (largely slave owning) members of the Back to Africa movement simply didn't care what happened to freed men, so long as it happened somewhere else? How many of them wanted freed men gone to keep from rocking the boat for those who weren't? How many of them, even among abolitionists, wanted freedmen gone so they wouldn't have to worry about dealing with giving them full emancipation (something even Lincoln himself wasn't a vocal supporter of until it was absolutely sure that the North would win the Civil War)?

 

[KSaiyu]

Okay, so let's say that 50% of the slaves wish to return to Africa. Let's say that the voyage was a quarter of the price of the 1860 rate for a steerage-class voyage from New York to London. That voyage was 8 pounds, or £504 in today's money. So that's £125 per person for the voyage. 1.5 million slaves (edit: 2 million actually) are returning so that's about a billion pounds'-worth of travel. You really think that much transit occured even amongst the monied classes? How many slaves do you think had access to £125, or 12% of the American average middle-class annual income in 1860?

If the drive was there, adequate provision would have been likely from the people with the money.

The most worrying part is when you say "back to Africa" as if that's where they were from. That's like the racist idiots who see a fourth-generation British Pakistani and say "go back to your own country"... many of these slaves were American as defined by the Constitution.

It's not worrying, you're looking at it through a PC lens. By your reckoning, the state of Israel is a racist creation since Jews wanted a return to their homeland.

The only reason that Back To Africa worked in any part was because of the strong efforts of white Christians and, arguably, their own motive was a missionary-and-cultural one rather than a simple altruistic wish to see the slaves resettled in Africa on their own terms. Moving 19,000 of them was utterly remarkable, no mistake... but if you think much more than that was possible (regardless of the will of the newly-free cohort) then you're in fantasy-land.

I'm saying it would have taken off if a larger number of African Americans called for it.

Since the external slave trade was illegal and actively fought against by the United States and Great Britain after 1807 (with the implicit acknowledgment that the US would be perfectly allowed to continue its own internal slave trade), what percentage of the four million African Americans living in the United States in 1860 do you think actually came from Africa?

Descended from. See the above for Jews and Israel.

If by "hopelessly flawed" you mean "what actually happened for the hundred years or so that the ACS actively tried to send black people to Africa," sure. The only time they were able to get anything remotely resembling public support was in the run up to, and the immediate aftermath of, the Civil War.

We are talking about the hypothetical situation where African Americans wholly embraced the idea.

Is such a laughable whitewashing of the motives behind the movement that it makes me think you should look it up. How many people in the movement, especially as the 1800s wore on and slavery became more and more of an obvious boiling point than it already was, do you really think were that altruistic in their goals? How many of the (largely slave owning) members of the Back to Africa movement simply didn't care what happened to freed men, so long as it happened somewhere else? How many of them wanted freed men gone to keep from rocking the boat for those who weren't? How many of them, even among abolitionists, wanted freedmen gone so they wouldn't have to worry about dealing with giving them full emancipation (something even Lincoln himself wasn't a vocal supporter of until it was absolutely sure that the North would win the Civil War)?

You're talking about the white attitudes towards it. I'm talking about African American attitudes.

 

[TenEightyOne]

If the drive was there, adequate provision would have been likely from the people with the money.

Absolute rubbish. You think that on the day of Abolition there was a sea-change in the mentality of the slave owners and their contacts?

It's not worrying, you're looking at it through a PC lens.

No, I'm looking at the realistic facts. Possibly alien to you, that idea.

By your reckoning, the state of Israel is a racist creation since Jews wanted a return to their homeland.

Citation required, you're making things up.

I'm saying it would have taken off if a larger number of African Americans called for it.

Wow, it seems like you might really think that that's a realistic possibility.

Descended from. See the above for Jews and Israel.

But, as explained to you already, Jews had a strong sense of history and identity that was in many cases denied to the offspring of kidnapped Africans. The "homeland" was removed to the stuff of legends rather than any geographical sense or knowledge.

We are talking about the hypothetical situation where African Americans wholly embraced the idea.

If my Aunty had balls then she'd be my Uncle. In your hypothesis you need to change a much larger number of variables than simply the wishes (or understanding) of the newly-free Americans.

You're talking about the white attitudes towards it. I'm talking about African American attitudes.

Who do you think ran the place? If the attitudes of enslaved Americans actually had any power then how do you think slavery was able to continue up-to-and-after Abolition?

 

[KSaiyu]

ok, ok, ok. I'll ask simply:

If there was an overwhelming desire expressed by the African American community to set up a program to facilitate a return to Africa, do you believe the people with the money and resources to set this up (whites) would have denied them this opportunity?

 

[TenEightyOne]

ok, ok, ok. I'll ask simply:

If there was an overwhelming desire expressed by the African American community to set up a program to facilitate a return to Africa, do you believe the people with the money and resources to set this up (whites) would have denied them this opportunity?

Yes.

 

[KSaiyu]

Why

 

[TenEightyOne]

Why

For reasons that I've already explained. More than anything it would have been a hugely expensive process. Why do you think it didn't happen? There was no reason that the "free" people couldn't have been rounded up and dumped in the Liberian ACS colony if there was indeed such a will from the "ruling classes".

 

[20832]

I think this would fit fairly well into the ongoing discussion here

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/stewart-...ck****/#ooid=IzbW1xdTrRHbHcA8v-nPQfL7Q341nuq5

 

[Peasantslayer]

It really frustrates me that just 0.77% of all murders in America are of white people killing black people and yet I can't click on a single news site without reading b******* propaganda as headline news at least once a week.

 

[MothChuckle]

The "White Man" is doing the damage here - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ers-racist-manifesto.html#worldnews|Sabremesh

Spitting on the US flag and burning the flag. His message? - "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children."
I think the title of the thread (no offense to anybody here) it's a very bad joke.

 

[KSaiyu]

For reasons that I've already explained. More than anything it would have been a hugely expensive process. Why do you think it didn't happen? There was no reason that the "free" people couldn't have been rounded up and dumped in the Liberian ACS colony if there was indeed such a will from the "ruling classes".

That's the "ruling classes". We were talking about the African Americans.

 

[TenEightyOne]

That's the "ruling classes". We were talking about the African Americans.

And where were their funds, their ships, their maps, their historical knowledge, their lines of communication? Do you think landing them "in Africa" would have any relevance to location of the homes of their heritage? What makes you think that the ruling classes would enable an exodus of cheap, trained labour? History tells you that something very different happened.

It seems that you continue to blame the newly-freed slaves for their remaining in America.

 

[KSaiyu]

No, what I'm saying is if the wish was expressed by the freed slaves the logistics would have been taken up by the ruling classes. Your idea that the ruling classes would have denied them this opportunity is something I disagree with.

 

[TenEightyOne]

No, what I'm saying is if the wish was expressed by the freed slaves the logistics would have been taken up by the ruling classes. Your idea that the ruling classes would have denied them this opportunity is something I disagree with.

Then I'd say you don't understand either the economics or the politics of the situation.

 

[Tornado]

No, what I'm saying is if the wish was expressed by the freed slaves the logistics would have been taken up by the ruling classes.

Based on what? The hundred years prior where those where those freed slaves were cared so much about by "the ruling classes" that they were actual slaves? Or the hundred years following of legalized segregation and other forms of institutional racism that at best "the ruling classes" treated as out of sight out of mind?


You're saying that a country that just lost a million people, had half of its economic base gutted and a good portion of its settled land destroyed in a devastating Civil War was going to band together to purposely depopulate itself even further, and damned the financial cost; when it took another hundred years for "the ruling classes" to even pass a law that said the Bill of Rights didn't have an asterisk on it for black people?

 

[Scaff]

No, what I'm saying is if the wish was expressed by the freed slaves the logistics would have been taken up by the ruling classes. Your idea that the ruling classes would have denied them this opportunity is something I disagree with.

Sorry but I just have to clarify this. You are saying that following the end of the American Civil War that had the former slaves simply asked for transportation back to Africa then the former slave owners would have taken this up and arranged for it to occur?

That is what you claiming isn't it?

Did the history of racial segregation and abuse in the Southern United States up until the Civil Right movement of the '50s and '60s not happen?

I've got family in the Southern states (Alabama to be specific) and know what the attitudes still can be to this day, quite frankly I'm utterly gobsmacked that someone could make such an asinine claim with a straight face!

 

[Liquid]

@KSaiyu Why are you suggesting/inclinating* a Back To Africa programme but not a Back To Europe one for colonists? Why, in your opinion, is there a greater distinction?

*Correct me on an incorrect verb usage

 

[LeMansAid]

You are saying that following the end of the American Civil War that had the former slaves simply asked for transportation back to Africa then the former slave owners would have taken this up and arranged for it to occur?

I know I always put a little something in their back pocket when a burglar comes and steals my tv.

 

[KSaiyu]

Sorry but I just have to clarify this. You are saying that following the end of the American Civil War that had the former slaves simply asked for transportation back to Africa then the former slave owners would have taken this up and arranged for it to occur?

That is what you claiming isn't it?

Did the history of racial segregation and abuse in the Southern United States up until the Civil Right movement of the '50s and '60s not happen?

I've got family in the Southern states (Alabama to be specific) and know what the attitudes still can be to this day, quite frankly I'm utterly gobsmacked that someone could make such an asinine claim with a straight face!

Transport back and you remove the need for segregation.

Weirdly all your posts are proving my point. The ruling classes didn't like sharing "their" country. You are all telling me, with straight faces, that should the people they couldn't stand living in "their" country, who they couldn't tolerate drinking from the same water fountains until the 1960s decide they wanted to return to their ancestral home, the ruling classes would say "nope, we plan on sharing America and living with you begrudgingly instead".

You all are saying this....?

Think about what you all are saying, then answer:

Why would the ruling classes refuse a request for the former slaves to return to Africa?

Let's look at the main reason the actual movement failed:

But the major reason the movement did not enjoy more
success was quite simple. It blithely ignored one cardinal
point: the vast majority of those who were meant to
colonize did not wish to leave. Most free blacks simply did
not want to go "home" to a
place from which they were
generations removed. America, not Africa, was their home
and they had little desire migrate to a strange and
forbidding land not their own.
http://learning.hccs.edu/faculty/ju...ca-the-colonization-movement-in-early-america

If you are still confused, may I suggest you read up on what white nationalists in America want today.

In fact, let's ask TenEightyOne:

That's like the racist idiots who see a fourth-generation British Pakistani and say "go back to your own country"

So I ask again. If the "racist idiots" today want people to go "back to their countries", you guys honestly want to say the ruling classes in 19th Century America would have denied African-Americans the chance to restore America to a more white state should the freed slaves have protested for it en masse?

Seriously?!