Ralph Northam yearbook page shows men in blackface and KKK robe

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/429335-gayle-king-corrects-northam-for-referring-to-slaves-as-indentured

Holy crap, this guy is worse than I thought. I hope that if I am ever in a situation like this, I can remain as classy and diplomatic as Gayle King. My goodness.

He's actually not wrong. The first slaves were treated as indentured servants. Looks like he's been doing his reading, though that's probably too fine of a distinction to make to quell the outrage machine.

Exactly.

Virginia is a purple state, not a blue one. If the far-left Dems signal that nothing Northam can do to make amends will suffice because they are hell-bent on treating his blackface incident as on par with two alleged incidents of criminal sexual assault by Fairfax, the Democratic centrists will switch to the Republican Party, because at least they’ll feel momentarily that they may have some influence pushing the state GOP to the center.

Virginia is Red at heart and dead. Stuck in the past.
Former Virginian, born there, college there, married and kid there than hightailed it to DC/Md

[Anonymous]

NP again. I found the historical information to be fascinating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Jeff: “I’ll leave to the actual black people to share their feelings on this.”
Also Jeff: *is not black* *proceeds to post paragraph after paragraph about his feelings on this.*

Whitesplaining AND mansplaining all in one! Bravo!


That was in reference to the white poster trying to speak on behalf of black people. Can you please tell me why a white person cannot discuss history? I'm not discussing people's feelings. Anyone, black, white, or otherwise, has the right to feel anyway they want to feel. What I'm discussing is colonial history. Are you telling me that a white male can't talk about such a thing.

Just for the record, I now firmly believe that anyone accusing anyone of "splaining" anything is an idiot. It's a farce when a white person -- probably two white people for that matter -- accuse me of "Whitesplaining". What the hell do you think you are doing?

No one is saying you cannot discuss things like slavery and history. Just that in this case, when you are white and it was not YOUR race that was kidnapped, raped, shipped across the ocean, etc. that *listening* to the people who were actually affected by this is probably the better approach. Just sit down and listen. Learn from their thoughts, opinions, and ideas.

NP here. Discussing historical facts should never be an issue of race.

well, people like to reinterpret history to suit themselves. Remember the furor when Texas issued history books describing african slaves as "workers from Africa"? This is in the same vein https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/us/publisher-promises-revisions-after-textbook-refers-to-african-slaves-as-workers.html

[Anonymous]

Has no one been to Jamestown? Most Virginia 4th graders go, was no one paying attention? The tour covers how the first African slaves arrived in Virginia and what happened to them. They were sold, most multiple times, and treated as property, aka slaves, despite there being no formal slave economy, yet. But it had to have a beginning....and that was it. whoever is calling it “indentured servitude” is whitewashing.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff: “I’ll leave to the actual black people to share their feelings on this.”
Also Jeff: *is not black* *proceeds to post paragraph after paragraph about his feelings on this.*

Whitesplaining AND mansplaining all in one! Bravo!

That was in reference to the white poster trying to speak on behalf of black people. Can you please tell me why a white person cannot discuss history? I'm not discussing people's feelings. Anyone, black, white, or otherwise, has the right to feel anyway they want to feel. What I'm discussing is colonial history. Are you telling me that a white male can't talk about such a thing.

Just for the record, I now firmly believe that anyone accusing anyone of "splaining" anything is an idiot. It's a farce when a white person -- probably two white people for that matter -- accuse me of "Whitesplaining". What the hell do you think you are doing?

No one is saying you cannot discuss things like slavery and history. Just that in this case, when you are white and it was not YOUR race that was kidnapped, raped, shipped across the ocean, etc. that *listening* to the people who were actually affected by this is probably the better approach. Just sit down and listen. Learn from their thoughts, opinions, and ideas.

Exactly. And btw, I don't care for the use of "splaining" either. I guess you could say I appropriated it from another group, lol. That was my first and last time using it.

But your take on this issue, Jeff, sounds more like what I'd expect to hear from some old, white, Republican geezer.

That's what it sounds like because old, white, Republican geezers have used such language to downplay slavery. In those cases, it is historically inaccurate. However, in the specific case to which Northam was referring -- the Africans brought to Virginia in 1621 -- it is close to accurate, if not completely accurate, to refer to them as indentured servants.

Think of it this way. Two pirate ships capture a Dutch ship. They are hoping to find something valuable aboard, but what they find is human cargo -- we can call them slaves. In a perfect world, those individuals would be returned to their homeland, but the world is not perfect. Instead, one of the ships delivers them to Virginia. At this point, you could say that the pirates "sold" the Africans to colonists. Or, you could say that the colonists paid the costs of the pirates delivering the Africans to Virginia rather than abandoning them at sea. Either way, the Africans didn't become property. They were beholden to the those who paid the pirates, but were eventually able to earn their freedom. Most of us don't know this history, but tend to think as all Africans brought to the colonies as slaves. People of any color are welcome to their perspective that being forced to work to repay a colonist who paid a pirate who captured a ship you were on as a result of your being placed into slavery is slavery and not indentured servitude. Fine. But that type of slavery from which the Africans were able to win freedom and become property owners has little in common with what came later -- what we now think of as "slavery".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Jeff: “I’ll leave to the actual black people to share their feelings on this.”
Also Jeff: *is not black* *proceeds to post paragraph after paragraph about his feelings on this.*

Whitesplaining AND mansplaining all in one! Bravo!


That was in reference to the white poster trying to speak on behalf of black people. Can you please tell me why a white person cannot discuss history? I'm not discussing people's feelings. Anyone, black, white, or otherwise, has the right to feel anyway they want to feel. What I'm discussing is colonial history. Are you telling me that a white male can't talk about such a thing.

Just for the record, I now firmly believe that anyone accusing anyone of "splaining" anything is an idiot. It's a farce when a white person -- probably two white people for that matter -- accuse me of "Whitesplaining". What the hell do you think you are doing?

No one is saying you cannot discuss things like slavery and history. Just that in this case, when you are white and it was not YOUR race that was kidnapped, raped, shipped across the ocean, etc. that *listening* to the people who were actually affected by this is probably the better approach. Just sit down and listen. Learn from their thoughts, opinions, and ideas.

NP here. Discussing historical facts should never be an issue of race.

But that’s literally the definition of whitesplaining. “It’s not racism, it’s history!” “I’m not going to listen to you, a person of color, and hear your concerns about XYz language, because it’s history” and assuming the person of color who you are lecturing doesn’t know what’s going on. Again, instead of assuming you know everything or “HISTORY!!!”...why not approach the situation with some humility? Ask questions. Find out why actual people of color don’t like the language Northam used.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff: “I’ll leave to the actual black people to share their feelings on this.”
Also Jeff: *is not black* *proceeds to post paragraph after paragraph about his feelings on this.*

Whitesplaining AND mansplaining all in one! Bravo!

That was in reference to the white poster trying to speak on behalf of black people. Can you please tell me why a white person cannot discuss history? I'm not discussing people's feelings. Anyone, black, white, or otherwise, has the right to feel anyway they want to feel. What I'm discussing is colonial history. Are you telling me that a white male can't talk about such a thing.

Just for the record, I now firmly believe that anyone accusing anyone of "splaining" anything is an idiot. It's a farce when a white person -- probably two white people for that matter -- accuse me of "Whitesplaining". What the hell do you think you are doing?

No one is saying you cannot discuss things like slavery and history. Just that in this case, when you are white and it was not YOUR race that was kidnapped, raped, shipped across the ocean, etc. that *listening* to the people who were actually affected by this is probably the better approach. Just sit down and listen. Learn from their thoughts, opinions, and ideas.

Exactly. And btw, I don't care for the use of "splaining" either. I guess you could say I appropriated it from another group, lol. That was my first and last time using it.

But your take on this issue, Jeff, sounds more like what I'd expect to hear from some old, white, Republican geezer.

That's what it sounds like because old, white, Republican geezers have used such language to downplay slavery. In those cases, it is historically inaccurate. However, in the specific case to which Northam was referring -- the Africans brought to Virginia in 1621 -- it is close to accurate, if not completely accurate, to refer to them as indentured servants.

Think of it this way. Two pirate ships capture a Dutch ship. They are hoping to find something valuable aboard, but what they find is human cargo -- we can call them slaves. In a perfect world, those individuals would be returned to their homeland, but the world is not perfect. Instead, one of the ships delivers them to Virginia. At this point, you could say that the pirates "sold" the Africans to colonists. Or, you could say that the colonists paid the costs of the pirates delivering the Africans to Virginia rather than abandoning them at sea. Either way, the Africans didn't become property. They were beholden to the those who paid the pirates, but were eventually able to earn their freedom. Most of us don't know this history, but tend to think as all Africans brought to the colonies as slaves. People of any color are welcome to their perspective that being forced to work to repay a colonist who paid a pirate who captured a ship you were on as a result of your being placed into slavery is slavery and not indentured servitude. Fine. But that type of slavery from which the Africans were able to win freedom and become property owners has little in common with what came later -- what we now think of as "slavery".

There you go again! Talking over people of color. Giving them these long winded explanations of why they’re wrong, that they’re being too sensitive, that they’re being too sensitive, trying to explain THEIR OWN HISTORY to them in a condescending way...it’s so, so disgustingly racist.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff: “I’ll leave to the actual black people to share their feelings on this.”
Also Jeff: *is not black* *proceeds to post paragraph after paragraph about his feelings on this.*

Whitesplaining AND mansplaining all in one! Bravo!

That was in reference to the white poster trying to speak on behalf of black people. Can you please tell me why a white person cannot discuss history? I'm not discussing people's feelings. Anyone, black, white, or otherwise, has the right to feel anyway they want to feel. What I'm discussing is colonial history. Are you telling me that a white male can't talk about such a thing.

Just for the record, I now firmly believe that anyone accusing anyone of "splaining" anything is an idiot. It's a farce when a white person -- probably two white people for that matter -- accuse me of "Whitesplaining". What the hell do you think you are doing?

No one is saying you cannot discuss things like slavery and history. Just that in this case, when you are white and it was not YOUR race that was kidnapped, raped, shipped across the ocean, etc. that *listening* to the people who were actually affected by this is probably the better approach. Just sit down and listen. Learn from their thoughts, opinions, and ideas.

Exactly. And btw, I don't care for the use of "splaining" either. I guess you could say I appropriated it from another group, lol. That was my first and last time using it.

But your take on this issue, Jeff, sounds more like what I'd expect to hear from some old, white, Republican geezer.

That's what it sounds like because old, white, Republican geezers have used such language to downplay slavery. In those cases, it is historically inaccurate. However, in the specific case to which Northam was referring -- the Africans brought to Virginia in 1621 -- it is close to accurate, if not completely accurate, to refer to them as indentured servants.

Think of it this way. Two pirate ships capture a Dutch ship. They are hoping to find something valuable aboard, but what they find is human cargo -- we can call them slaves. In a perfect world, those individuals would be returned to their homeland, but the world is not perfect. Instead, one of the ships delivers them to Virginia. At this point, you could say that the pirates "sold" the Africans to colonists. Or, you could say that the colonists paid the costs of the pirates delivering the Africans to Virginia rather than abandoning them at sea. Either way, the Africans didn't become property. They were beholden to the those who paid the pirates, but were eventually able to earn their freedom. Most of us don't know this history, but tend to think as all Africans brought to the colonies as slaves. People of any color are welcome to their perspective that being forced to work to repay a colonist who paid a pirate who captured a ship you were on as a result of your being placed into slavery is slavery and not indentured servitude. Fine. But that type of slavery from which the Africans were able to win freedom and become property owners has little in common with what came later -- what we now think of as "slavery".

So if the pirates had found rum or flour on the boat, and taken it to Virginia to exchange for money, you'd say that the colonists paid the costs of the pirates delivering the rum/flour instead of abandoning it at sea? The word "sold" would not be accurate? smh

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff: “I’ll leave to the actual black people to share their feelings on this.”
Also Jeff: *is not black* *proceeds to post paragraph after paragraph about his feelings on this.*

Whitesplaining AND mansplaining all in one! Bravo!

That was in reference to the white poster trying to speak on behalf of black people. Can you please tell me why a white person cannot discuss history? I'm not discussing people's feelings. Anyone, black, white, or otherwise, has the right to feel anyway they want to feel. What I'm discussing is colonial history. Are you telling me that a white male can't talk about such a thing.

Just for the record, I now firmly believe that anyone accusing anyone of "splaining" anything is an idiot. It's a farce when a white person -- probably two white people for that matter -- accuse me of "Whitesplaining". What the hell do you think you are doing?

No one is saying you cannot discuss things like slavery and history. Just that in this case, when you are white and it was not YOUR race that was kidnapped, raped, shipped across the ocean, etc. that *listening* to the people who were actually affected by this is probably the better approach. Just sit down and listen. Learn from their thoughts, opinions, and ideas.

Exactly. And btw, I don't care for the use of "splaining" either. I guess you could say I appropriated it from another group, lol. That was my first and last time using it.

But your take on this issue, Jeff, sounds more like what I'd expect to hear from some old, white, Republican geezer.

That's what it sounds like because old, white, Republican geezers have used such language to downplay slavery. In those cases, it is historically inaccurate. However, in the specific case to which Northam was referring -- the Africans brought to Virginia in 1621 -- it is close to accurate, if not completely accurate, to refer to them as indentured servants.

Think of it this way. Two pirate ships capture a Dutch ship. They are hoping to find something valuable aboard, but what they find is human cargo -- we can call them slaves. In a perfect world, those individuals would be returned to their homeland, but the world is not perfect. Instead, one of the ships delivers them to Virginia. At this point, you could say that the pirates "sold" the Africans to colonists. Or, you could say that the colonists paid the costs of the pirates delivering the Africans to Virginia rather than abandoning them at sea. Either way, the Africans didn't become property. They were beholden to the those who paid the pirates, but were eventually able to earn their freedom. Most of us don't know this history, but tend to think as all Africans brought to the colonies as slaves. People of any color are welcome to their perspective that being forced to work to repay a colonist who paid a pirate who captured a ship you were on as a result of your being placed into slavery is slavery and not indentured servitude. Fine. But that type of slavery from which the Africans were able to win freedom and become property owners has little in common with what came later -- what we now think of as "slavery".

There you go again! Talking over people of color. Giving them these long winded explanations of why they’re wrong, that they’re being too sensitive, that they’re being too sensitive, trying to explain THEIR OWN HISTORY to them in a condescending way...it’s so, so disgustingly racist.

I'm doing no such thing. You should calm down a bit and read more carefully. I haven't done any of the things you suggest. Where did I even use the word "sensitive", let alone accuse someone of being too sensitive? To the contrary, I said that others are welcome to a different perspective.

As far as I know, none of the posters who are getting upset about this have identified themselves as a person of color. At least one of those accusing me of "whitesplaining" was white themselves. If you want to offer the black perspective, might you do us the favor of clarifying whether you are actually black or not?

Is there any reason that you can't engage in back and forth discussion about history? Earlier you claimed that I should listen, yet you have nothing to say beyond name-calling. Can you provide your version of the history of those Africans who arrived in 1619?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:]So if the pirates had found rum or flour on the boat, and taken it to Virginia to exchange for money, you'd say that the colonists paid the costs of the pirates delivering the rum/flour instead of abandoning it at sea? The word "sold" would not be accurate? smh

Had the colonists bought rum or flour, the rum or flour would have been theirs, end of story. However, the Africans were not held as property, but were instead able to earn their freedom and become landowners. Obviously, things changed later and eventually the institution of slavery as we know came to exist. It's just that in this specific case -- the Africans of 1619 -- things hadn't gotten that far.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff: “I’ll leave to the actual black people to share their feelings on this.”
Also Jeff: *is not black* *proceeds to post paragraph after paragraph about his feelings on this.*

Whitesplaining AND mansplaining all in one! Bravo!

That was in reference to the white poster trying to speak on behalf of black people. Can you please tell me why a white person cannot discuss history? I'm not discussing people's feelings. Anyone, black, white, or otherwise, has the right to feel anyway they want to feel. What I'm discussing is colonial history. Are you telling me that a white male can't talk about such a thing.

Just for the record, I now firmly believe that anyone accusing anyone of "splaining" anything is an idiot. It's a farce when a white person -- probably two white people for that matter -- accuse me of "Whitesplaining". What the hell do you think you are doing?

No one is saying you cannot discuss things like slavery and history. Just that in this case, when you are white and it was not YOUR race that was kidnapped, raped, shipped across the ocean, etc. that *listening* to the people who were actually affected by this is probably the better approach. Just sit down and listen. Learn from their thoughts, opinions, and ideas.

Exactly. And btw, I don't care for the use of "splaining" either. I guess you could say I appropriated it from another group, lol. That was my first and last time using it.

But your take on this issue, Jeff, sounds more like what I'd expect to hear from some old, white, Republican geezer.

That's what it sounds like because old, white, Republican geezers have used such language to downplay slavery. In those cases, it is historically inaccurate. However, in the specific case to which Northam was referring -- the Africans brought to Virginia in 1621 -- it is close to accurate, if not completely accurate, to refer to them as indentured servants.

Think of it this way. Two pirate ships capture a Dutch ship. They are hoping to find something valuable aboard, but what they find is human cargo -- we can call them slaves. In a perfect world, those individuals would be returned to their homeland, but the world is not perfect. Instead, one of the ships delivers them to Virginia. At this point, you could say that the pirates "sold" the Africans to colonists. Or, you could say that the colonists paid the costs of the pirates delivering the Africans to Virginia rather than abandoning them at sea. Either way, the Africans didn't become property. They were beholden to the those who paid the pirates, but were eventually able to earn their freedom. Most of us don't know this history, but tend to think as all Africans brought to the colonies as slaves. People of any color are welcome to their perspective that being forced to work to repay a colonist who paid a pirate who captured a ship you were on as a result of your being placed into slavery is slavery and not indentured servitude. Fine. But that type of slavery from which the Africans were able to win freedom and become property owners has little in common with what came later -- what we now think of as "slavery".

There you go again! Talking over people of color. Giving them these long winded explanations of why they’re wrong, that they’re being too sensitive, that they’re being too sensitive, trying to explain THEIR OWN HISTORY to them in a condescending way...it’s so, so disgustingly racist.

I'm doing no such thing. You should calm down a bit and read more carefully. I haven't done any of the things you suggest. Where did I even use the word "sensitive", let alone accuse someone of being too sensitive? To the contrary, I said that others are welcome to a different perspective.

As far as I know, none of the posters who are getting upset about this have identified themselves as a person of color. At least one of those accusing me of "whitesplaining" was white themselves. If you want to offer the black perspective, might you do us the favor of clarifying whether you are actually black or not?

Is there any reason that you can't engage in back and forth discussion about history? Earlier you claimed that I should listen, yet you have nothing to say beyond name-calling. Can you provide your version of the history of those Africans who arrived in 1619?

Because I’m white, and it’s not my place. My ancestors weren’t the ones kidnapped, raped, sold like property, forced from their homelands, etc. Instead of thinking I need to lecture others, I choose to learn from the perspectives of those who WERE affected by this. To each his own, though!

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Because I’m white, and it’s not my place. My ancestors weren’t the ones kidnapped, raped, sold like property, forced from their homelands, etc. Instead of thinking I need to lecture others, I choose to learn from the perspectives of those who WERE affected by this. To each his own, though!

Well, isn't this special? Two out two of the posters accusing me of "whitesplaining" are themselves white. You are welcome to your position that white people can't discuss history, but I'll have to disagree with you. By the way, for someone who doesn't like to lecture others, you are sure doing a lot of lecturing, along with name-calling.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:]So if the pirates had found rum or flour on the boat, and taken it to Virginia to exchange for money, you'd say that the colonists paid the costs of the pirates delivering the rum/flour instead of abandoning it at sea? The word "sold" would not be accurate? smh

Had the colonists bought rum or flour, the rum or flour would have been theirs, end of story. However, the Africans were not held as property, but were instead able to earn their freedom and become landowners. Obviously, things changed later and eventually the institution of slavery as we know came to exist. It's just that in this specific case -- the Africans of 1619 -- things hadn't gotten that far.

When the pirates brought those africans off the ship to hand over to white colonists, in exchange for money, I'd argue that the africans WERE definitely property, and logged in the plantation ledgers as such

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because I’m white, and it’s not my place. My ancestors weren’t the ones kidnapped, raped, sold like property, forced from their homelands, etc. Instead of thinking I need to lecture others, I choose to learn from the perspectives of those who WERE affected by this. To each his own, though!

Well, isn't this special? Two out two of the posters accusing me of "whitesplaining" are themselves white. You are welcome to your position that white people can't discuss history, but I'll have to disagree with you. By the way, for someone who doesn't like to lecture others, you are sure doing a lot of lecturing, along with name-calling.

Aww, did I hurt your feelings?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:]So if the pirates had found rum or flour on the boat, and taken it to Virginia to exchange for money, you'd say that the colonists paid the costs of the pirates delivering the rum/flour instead of abandoning it at sea? The word "sold" would not be accurate? smh

Had the colonists bought rum or flour, the rum or flour would have been theirs, end of story. However, the Africans were not held as property, but were instead able to earn their freedom and become landowners. Obviously, things changed later and eventually the institution of slavery as we know came to exist. It's just that in this specific case -- the Africans of 1619 -- things hadn't gotten that far.

When the pirates brought those africans off the ship to hand over to white colonists, in exchange for money, I'd argue that the africans WERE definitely property, and logged in the plantation ledgers as such

Do you have a source of information for this, or is it just your opinion?