Bay Area most racially segregated in recent history

[Quixote]

Diversity!


https://imagesvc.timeincapp.com/v3/m...I0&w=1000&q=70

[dc_denizen]

There have been plenty of instances of religious-based slavery that are equally descpicable as race based slavery

The yazidis under isis rule, most recently

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Would you prefer the term "slavery apologist" instead? I didn't actually call you alt-right. If you're familiar with the subject, then you know damn well that "slavery wasn't so bad, everyone else was doing it" and "white people actually ended slavery once and for all" ARE well known alt-right talking points. I'm sorry if that makes you uncomfortable. Maybe it should give you pause to find yourself parroting the same lines as those you so vehemently disagree with.



What's cheap and lame is answering a question with a question when you have no answer. Nevertheless, the fact remains, the world did not see any significant race-based chattel slavery until the transatlantic slave trade.

You missed a vital part of your little narrative. The man was chilling, or in a war, with his FELLOW African, who then enslaved him and sold him to Europeans. The Arabs did the same thing, but you don't care about that, right? Then the Arabs are racists too. I mean, I know its 2019 and being a racists is worse than death itself, but I would rather be friends with a racist than a slaveholder. Slavery is worse than racism. Sorry.



YES! In the ancient world slaves were the spoils of war. If your city got sacked you were actually one of the lucky ones if you were taken captive. You became a slave if the conquerers decided to show mercy. It might be harsh but there is a sort of Law of the Jungle sense of justice to it. War isn't without risk and you may one day reap the whirlwind, as the Carthagenians and countless others found out.

Now contrast that to an innocent man who is just chilling in his hut, who is specifically targeted for abduction, imprisonment and torture, solely because of the color of his skin, because someone somewhere decided that he was less than fully human. Yes, race-based slavery is uniquely evil because it is inherently racist. Maliciously racist. I don't see how you're not getting this?



The traditional colonial powers had profitable colonies with or without slavery. The same people will still work the same fields and the money will keep flowing to the same imperial coffers. They also had very few slaves in their homeland. They actually had very little skin in the game in maintaining the institution of slavery at that point. Same with the industrialized northern US. On the other hand the plantation economy of the South was 100% dependent on slavery. Was it just a coincidence that they were the last holdouts? Your contention that "the people that had the most(at the time) invested in slavery, ended it" is demonstrably false, globally. The people who had the most invested in slavery desperately and bitterly resisted its abolition to the very end.



You obviously have no clue what you're talking about. All you're doing is regurgitating easily debunked talking points that are ahistorical at best, purely political at worst. And it's not like I'm some bleeding heart liberal either. I don't believe in reparations, affirmative action, or the concept of collective guilt. It's just that I don't stand for distorting or whitewashing of history, or drawing false moral equivalencies. If an honest and unblinking look at our sometimes ugly history makes you uncomfortable, that's your problem not mine.

I would prefer to stay intellectually honest when discussing topics that obviously spur emotion. Slave apologist? By merely pointing out everyone practiced it? Thats more like "Historically Accurate" I am sorry if that hurts your feelings. I never said "slavery wasn't so bad, everyone else was doing it!" Please do not try to put words in my mouth. Alt-Right talking points? Sorry, I am not familiar with their talking points, I am familiar with history. Europeans were the ones to finally stamp out slavery. Again, I am sorry if this hurts your feelings.

No, when someone says I am wrong, I think I have the right to ask them to name a nation that ended slavery on a mass-scale. I see what you are doing though, you are moving the bar from slavery to race-based chattel slavery. Does it matter which type of slavery it was? I am sure it didn't matter to a slave.

Again, you keep bringing up the South, this shows me you don't have a very wide view. Brazil had many more slaves and ended slavery about 20 years after the US did. Are they more evil? And not only did Britain end slavery, they actively combatted slavery from Africa in the years after their abolition. This may seem like a 'no-brainer' today, but that act was monumental in human history.

No, you can only see American/European centric history. I have a wider view of history and why certain events made sense historically or were groundbreaking.

You have a lot of emotion in this for some reason. Thats the issue. Its 2019, time to end emotion about things that didn't impact you. You're not looking at history in the correct way, you're looking at it from your modern perspective. That won't get you far.

Also, if I qualify as Alt-Right, this nation is fucked lol

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Slave apologist? By merely pointing out everyone practiced it? Thats more like "Historically Accurate"

False. Why repeat this lie? As much as you would like to pretend (for some strange reason) that everyone practiced slavery, this is simply. not. true.

Originally Posted by jtown,man

I am familiar with history. Europeans were the ones to finally stamp out slavery.

False. Europeans introduced an entirely new form of slavery into the world.

Originally Posted by jtown,man

I see what you are doing though, you are moving the bar from slavery to race-based chattel slavery.

False. It is necessary to make these important distinctions for a full historical understanding. Many people mistakenly conflate different forms of slavery and draw false equivalencies. You do so intentionally and dishonestly. You put your hypocrisy on full display with your bleating about "looking at history in the correct way" while you fail to even acknowledge basic historical facts. Race-based chattel slavery did not exist on Earth in a systematic and institutionalized way before the transatlantic slave trade. It was an entirely new form of slavery on a massive scale, based on explicitly racist and exploitative official policies. It was especially brutal and inhumane as the victims were not even regarded as real human beings. Just think - actual human beings getting abducted from their homes accounts for one of the largest mass migrations in history. Let that sink in. FYI, the above are what are commonly referred to as "facts." Of course you'll ignore all of this and just blithely go back to your tried and true "everybody did it, we ended it" low IQ talking points. It's about all I expect from you.

Originally Posted by jtown,man

I have a wider view of history and why certain events made sense historically or were groundbreaking.

This is laughable coming from you. Your view of history is quite simply ignorant and backwards. Drop the pretense. Your biases are transparent. Aren't you the guy who tried to claim that the WSJ was some kind of leftist rag just because you didn't like what it said about the economy of the South? Aren't you the same guy who said that you refuse to use the term "African American?" What a strange thing to say to people...

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by badrunner

False. Why repeat this lie? As much as you would like to pretend (for some strange reason) that everyone practiced slavery, this is simply. not. true.


False. Europeans introduced an entirely new form of slavery into the world.


False. It is necessary to make these important distinctions for a full historical understanding. Many people mistakenly conflate different forms of slavery and draw false equivalencies. You do so intentionally and dishonestly. You put your hypocrisy on full display with your bleating about "looking at history in the correct way" while you fail to even acknowledge basic historical facts. Race-based chattel slavery did not exist on Earth in a systematic and institutionalized way before the transatlantic slave trade. It was an entirely new form of slavery on a massive scale, based on explicitly racist and exploitative official policies. It was especially brutal and inhumane as the victims were not even regarded as real human beings. Just think - actual human beings getting abducted from their homes accounts for one of the largest mass migrations in history. Let that sink in. FYI, the above are what are commonly referred to as "facts." Of course you'll ignore all of this and just blithely go back to your tried and true "everybody did it, we ended it" low IQ talking points. It's about all I expect from you.


This is laughable coming from you. Your view of history is quite simply ignorant and backwards. Drop the pretense. Your biases are transparent. Aren't you the guy who tried to claim that the WSJ was some kind of leftist rag just because you didn't like what it said about the economy of the South? Aren't you the same guy who said that you refuse to use the term "African American?" What a strange thing to say to people...

1. Continuing saying that something is false doesn't make it so. I asked you to present a country/nation whatever that didn't practice slavery and you haven't given me one. The burden is on you, I've already said what I know, show me I am wrong.

2. Again, saying FALSE doesn't make it so. Also, you are making two points(you're all over the place). Europeans were the ones to finally stamp out slavery. That is true. Second, the "new" form of slavery was practiced in Iraq back in the 1000s. But to be intellectually honest, the reason why racial-based slavery took off in the Americas(remember that word, the US only took in about 4% of African slaves shipped west) is that the supply of potential slaves dried up in the world where they could easily be transported. In any case, yes, the eventual race-based slavery was not unique, yet in the Americas it took on a new scale and importance.

3. You seem unhinged. Who do you think sold slaves to Europeans? It was Africans. Also, do you think slave owners in China or India or Sudan thought that their slaves were equal to them or something along those lines? I don't know why you think the different types of slavery were so different. Being a slave meant a lifetime of work, unpaid. There was no difference in that respect. You seem to be focusing on the racial issue, which is popular in 2019 but it doesn't mean one form was 100% bad and the other types were less so.

4. Yeah, its so weird not to want to "other" black Americans by referring to Africa when you address them. You are fishing so hard to find this racist alt'right/nazi/kkk member, its so obvious. Just admit it, you are so blinded by YOUR politics that if anyone challenges anything you *think* you know, they are automatically the "enemy."

The fact remains you have pretty much just tried to offend me and say FALSE over and over, you have provided very little in the form of substance. I don't make large statements without having the facts to back it up. You seem to be focused only on your emotion, race, and 2019 values.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

I asked you to present a country/nation whatever that didn't practice slavery and you haven't given me one. The burden is on you

False. I'm not sure if you know how burden of proof is supposed to work. You made a historical claim that everyone practiced slavery. You back it up. If it turns out you made a categorical statement that is impossible to prove and easily falsifiable, that is your problem not mine. The burden of proof is still on you. Put up or shut up.

Originally Posted by jtown,man

You seem to be focusing on the racial issue, which is popular in 2019

This is hilarious and sad. This has nothing to do with racial sensitivities in 2019 and everything to do with history.

If you look at it purely academically, detached from modern politics, it's impossible not to look at the racial component because the slavers themselves were laser focused on race. There was a whole (pseudo)science of racial categorization that was used to justify what they were doing. Anyone with a functioning moral compass would know, even back then, that it was wrong. Unless... they were able to convince themselves that their victims were not really human beings. All this might make you uncomfortable but they're just historical facts. These facts will not go away just because it offends your oh-so-delicate 2019 sensitivities.

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Yeah, its so weird not to want to "other" black Americans by referring to Africa when you address them.

Yeah, that is a weird justification for emphatically refusing to use the term that is actually preferred by them. I rarely use that term in normal conversation myself so this isn't some PC critique either. I just thought it was a weird stance to take. Very telling.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by badrunner

False. I'm not sure if you know how burden of proof is supposed to work. You made a historical claim that everyone practiced slavery. You back it up. If it turns out you made a categorical statement that is impossible to prove and easily falsifiable, that is your problem not mine. The burden of proof is still on you. Put up or shut up.



This is hilarious and sad. This has nothing to do with racial sensitivities in 2019 and everything to do with history.

If you look at it purely academically, detached from modern politics, it's impossible not to look at the racial component because the slavers themselves were laser focused on race. There was a whole (pseudo)science of racial categorization that was used to justify what they were doing. Anyone with a functioning moral compass would know, even back then, that it was wrong. Unless... they were able to convince themselves that their victims were not really human beings. All this might make you uncomfortable but they're just historical facts. These facts will not go away just because it offends your oh-so-delicate 2019 sensitivities.



Yeah, that is a weird justification for emphatically refusing to use the term that is actually preferred by them. I rarely use that term in normal conversation myself so this isn't some PC critique either. I just thought it was a weird stance to take. Very telling.

All you have to do is state ONE nation that didn't practice slavery in history and you "win." That is much simpler than me stating every single nation in human history lol

Why are you only focused on slavery in the Americas? Also, racial categorization happened after the fact that Africa became the dominant source of slaves. Thats an important note to make.

Preferred by them? Really? I am sure most black Americans either don't care either way or don't mind being called black. I am certain the portion of black people who prefer African American is in the minority. Very telling in what way? What are you inferring here?

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

All you have to do is state ONE nation that didn't practice slavery in history and you "win." That is much simpler than me stating every single nation in human history lol

Yes, that was what was meant by "a categorical statement that is impossible to prove and easily falsifiable." It seems you still don't understand the rules of burden of proof, even after having it spelled out for you. It's readily apparent that your education has failed you. I mean, your main takeaway from learning about the history of slavery is how the "real crazy thing, historically speaking" was when white people finally stopped enslaving Africans. Truly a "monumental" and "groundbreaking" moment in human history. Seriously? Is that what they're teaching kids in the South these days?

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Preferred by them? Really? I am sure most black Americans either don't care either way or don't mind being called black. I am certain the portion of black people who prefer African American is in the minority.

Why does it matter? You've already made clear you don't care what they think. You've taken a principled stand to refuse to use the term African American. How very noble of you.

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Very telling in what way? What are you inferring here?

*sigh* I inferred nothing. I certainly implied something, from which you can infer whatever the hell you want.

Ask for a refund.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Yes, that was what was meant by "a categorical statement that is impossible to prove and easily falsifiable." It seems you still don't understand the rules of burden of proof, even after having it spelled out for you. It's readily apparent that your education has failed you. I mean, your main takeaway from learning about the history of slavery is how the "real crazy thing, historically speaking" was when white people finally stopped enslaving Africans. Truly a "monumental" and "groundbreaking" moment in human history. Seriously? Is that what they're teaching kids in the South these days?



Why does it matter? You've already made clear you don't care what they think. You've taken a principled stand to refuse to use the term African American. How very noble of you.



*sigh* I inferred nothing. I certainly implied something, from which you can infer whatever the hell you want.

Ask for a refund.

You don't seem capable of a normal conversation. You take my words either out of context or outright put quotation marks around things I never said. You don't think the ending of slavery was a big deal? I don't know what to say to that. You either know very little about slavery(which seems to be the case, you are only familiar with slavery in the southern part of the United States) or you don't have a grasp on the monumental task it took to end a practice that has been with humans since the beginning of civilization. It feels like you think something along these lines:

peace in the world>RACISTS WHITES ENSLAVE AFRICANS FROM THEIR HOMES>slavery starts>slavery ends(no thanks to evil whites)

No black person has ever given a damn about how I speak, sorry it offends you though.

Listen, I really am wondering how old you are? This is the internet. It's a forum. All you have done is be rude and combative. I think everyone seeing this can see that you have stated nothing of substance. All you do is throw insults at strangers and say things are FALSE. But yeah, I am terrible at writing and English overall(insert joke: OBVIOUSLY), but nothing I am stating has anything to do with that, we are talking about slavery and history. I do know what I am talking about(but will accept anything that actually counters what I am saying, even if it is only in degrees), you haven't shown the same.

Face it, you don't know what you are talking about. Move on bud.

[dc_denizen]

Badrunner, do you have as big of a beef with extremist islamists for enslaving religious minorities and Muslim ‘heretics’, all the way up to the present day?

[badrunner]

Damn jtown, you respond with nothing but crying and complaining and absolutely nothing of substance. This is getting embarrassing for you. Quit your whining. It's over. You've been dismissed.

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Badrunner, do you have as big of a beef with extremist islamists for enslaving religious minorities and Muslim ‘heretics’, all the way up to the present day?

How can that be when jtown, "I do know what I am talking about" man tells us that Europeans "crack[ed] down on Arab and African slave traders" and put an end to slavery once and for all?

To answer your question, yes of course I would have a problem with anyone still practicing slavery. What kind of question is that? But what do you want me to do, debate imaginary "extremist islamists" on here? Not sure what your point is.

[jtown,man]

Please Delete.

Too tired to keep on with this guy.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

You have a weird sense of superiority that isn't earned. I've stated:
1. Slavery was a universal practice.
2. It wasn't until Europeans in the 19th century that slavery began to be abolished worldwide.
3. This was a damn big deal.

You have said FALSE.

There are many ways to tell a lie. Yours is a lie of omission. You seek to whitewash and erase history. Your opinions are not worthy of respect or consideration. Here's a more accurate version of your timeline (my comments in italics).

1. Slavery was a universal practice. (not really but whatever)
2. Europeans introduced an entirely new form of race-based chattel slavery.
3. Slavery expanded MASSIVELY under European Imperialism.
4. It wasn't until industrialization in the 19th century that slavery began to be abolished worldwide.
5. This was a damn big deal. Here's a cookie, try not to hurt yourself while patting yourself on the back

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Please Delete.

Too tired to keep on with this guy.

Too late. Caught you lying your ass off once again

[jtown,man]

1. Yes, really.
2. Nope. The Omani's did this first. But in any case, this is just one type of slavery, I don't know why you don't mind other types of slavery lol
3. Yes, slavery was expanded during the 18th century. First thing you said that is actually true.
4. So industrialization ended slavery in India and Kenya?
5. Why would I pat myself on the back for some historical event I have zero connection to? You have a weird obsession with finding some racist alt-right hiding in the shadows on Skyscraperpage.com lol You're trying to create this boogieman that doesn't exist. Giving a group of people credit for doing something good is now a bad thing? Is it because they were European that you don't like? I don't get why you have an issue who started to end slavery, why this bothers you in 2019, I will never know. I don't think you understand the universality of slavery or how it was just accepted as a part of almost all societies. And that's important because that creates blinders for you, where all you can see is slavery in the Americas while ignoring the rest of the world. Its Euro/American-centric and it's being intellectually dishonest.

In the end, you have said nothing. I stated some important historical facts and you tried to be rude as possible towards me while adding nothing to the conversation. Just face it, you don't know what you are talking about. Of course, there are nuances in what I am saying, and in a normal conversation with a normal person, I would absolutely state those nuances alongside my overall point. But you aren't a rational person. You are treating this as some local news facebook post comment section, trying to be right by any means possible and insulting anyone who says anything you don't like.

And your response to my deleted post was just FALSE again and then some emoticons lol You really don't see how little you are adding to this "conversation" do you?

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

I stated some important historical facts

It's not what you include in your historical narrative that makes you a liar. It's what you omit in your historical narrative that makes you a liar. Just look at your 3 point summary of the history of slavery in your deleted post. It is an embarrassment - historical revisionism at its worst. You should be ashamed of yourself. That must be why you tried to delete it.

I mean, when you have such a ridiculous take on history combined with statements like "In the USA, we could only tolerate so many blacks" and "I refuse to use the term African-American," people are gonna draw their own conclusions.

[dc_denizen]

Originally Posted by badrunner

This is obviously untrue. There are many places in the world untouched by slavery. No need to smear the entire world.

Slavery in Africa:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery#Africa

French historian Fernand Braudel noted that slavery was endemic in Africa and part of the structure of everyday life. "Slavery came in different guises in different societies: there were court slaves, slaves incorporated into princely armies, domestic and household slaves, slaves working on the land, in industry, as couriers and intermediaries, even as traders".[22] During the 16th century, Europe began to outpace the Arab world in the export traffic, with its slave traffic from Africa to the Americas.

In Senegambia, between 1300 and 1900, close to one-third of the population was enslaved. In early Islamic states of the Western Sudan, including Ghana (750–1076), Mali (1235–1645), Segou (1712–1861), and Songhai (1275–1591), about a third of the population was enslaved.

The Anti-Slavery Society estimated that there were 2,000,000 slaves in the early 1930s Ethiopia, out of an estimated population of between 8 and 16 million.[29] Slavery continued in Ethiopia until the brief Second Italo-Abyssinian War in October 1935, when it was abolished by order of the Italian occupying forces.[30] In response to pressure by Western Allies of World War II Ethiopia officially abolished slavery and serfdom after regaining its independence in 1942. On 26 August 1942 Haile Selassie issued a proclamation outlawing slavery.[31][32]

When British rule was first imposed on the Sokoto Caliphate and the surrounding areas in northern Nigeria at the turn of the 20th century, approximately 2 million to 2.5 million people there were slaves.[33] Slavery in northern Nigeria was finally outlawed in 1936.[34]

In Algiers during the time of the Regency of Algiers in North Africa in the 19th century, 1.5 million Christians and Europeans were captured and forced into slavery.[60] This eventually led to the Bombardment of Algiers in 1816 by the British and Dutch, forcing the Dey of Algiers to free many slaves.[61]

Elikia M'bokolo, April 1998, Le Monde diplomatique. Quote: "The African continent was bled of its human resources via all possible routes. Across the Sahara, through the Red Sea, from the Indian Ocean ports and across the Atlantic. At least ten centuries of slavery for the benefit of the Muslim countries (from the ninth to the nineteenth)." He continues: "Four million slaves exported via the Red Sea, another four million through the Swahili ports of the Indian Ocean, perhaps as many as nine million along the trans-Saharan caravan route, and eleven to twenty million (depending on the author) across the Atlantic Ocean"[35]

[dc_denizen]

Originally Posted by badrunner

This is obviously untrue. There are many places in the world untouched by slavery. No need to smear the entire world.

Slavery in pre-columbian America:

In Pre-Columbian Mesoamerica the most common forms of slavery were those of prisoners of war and debtors. People unable to pay back debts could be sentenced to work as slaves to the persons owed until the debts were worked off. Warfare was important to Maya society, because raids on surrounding areas provided the victims required for human sacrifice, as well as slaves for the construction of temples.[102] Most victims of human sacrifice were prisoners of war or slaves.[103] According to Aztec writings, as many as 84,000 people were sacrificed at a temple inauguration in 1487.[104] Slavery was not usually hereditary; children of slaves were born free. In the Inca Empire, workers were subject to a mita in lieu of taxes which they paid by working for the government. Each ayllu, or extended family, would decide which family member to send to do the work. It is unclear if this labor draft or corvée counts as slavery. The Spanish adopted this system, particularly for their silver mines in Bolivia.[105]

Other slave-owning societies and tribes of the New World were, for example, the Tehuelche of Patagonia, the Comanche of Texas, the Caribs of Dominica, the Tupinambá of Brazil, the fishing societies, such as the Yurok, that lived along the coast from what is now Alaska to California, the Pawnee and Klamath.[106] Many of the indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast, such as the Haida and Tlingit, were traditionally known as fierce warriors and slave-traders, raiding as far as California. Slavery was hereditary, the slaves being prisoners of war. Among some Pacific Northwest tribes about a quarter of the population were slaves.[

[badrunner]

You do realize that I could falsify his claim with a single example of a society that didn't practice slavery right? In any case, what is your point? I never claimed that slavery did not exist before the transatlantic slave trade. In fact I actually pointed out that most slaves at the time were the spoils of war, which appears to be the case in most of your examples.

[dc_denizen]

Slavery in the Islamic world:

Bernard Lewis writes: "In one of the sad paradoxes of human history, it was the humanitarian reforms brought by Islam that resulted in a vast development of the slave trade inside, and still more outside, the Islamic empire." He notes that the Islamic injunctions against the enslavement of Muslims led to massive importation of slaves from the outside.[178] According to Patrick Manning, Islam by recognizing and codifying the slavery seems to have done more to protect and expand slavery than the reverse.[179]

Slavery was a legal and important part of the economy of the Ottoman Empire and Ottoman society[180] until the slavery of Caucasians was banned in the early 19th century, although slaves from other groups were allowed.[181] In Constantinople (present-day Istanbul), the administrative and political center of the Empire, about a fifth of the population consisted of slaves in 1609.[182] Even after several measures to ban slavery in the late 19th century, the practice continued largely unfazed into the early 20th century. As late as 1908, female slaves were still sold in the Ottoman Empire. Sexual slavery was a central part of the Ottoman slave system throughout the history of the institution.[183][184]

During the various 18th and 19th century persecution campaigns against Christians as well as during the culminating Assyrian, Armenian and Greek genocides of World War I, many indigenous Armenian, Assyrian and Greek Christian women and children were carried off as slaves by the Ottoman Turks and their Kurdish allies. Henry Morgenthau, Sr., U.S. Ambassador in Constantinople from 1913 to 1916, reports in his Ambassador Morgenthau's Story that there were gangs trading white slaves during his term in Constantinople.[187] He also reports that Armenian girls were sold as slaves during the Armenian Genocide.[188][189]